It's relatively tame. After I watched it I had to do some research online to make sure I wasn't seeing the edited version because it was not nearly as severe as I had been lead to believe.

I can see someone having problems with Imprint though.

Not a movie you see mentioned very often.

This review kind of disturbs me. Apparently the movie kind of sucks (big surprise I know) but cartoons also suck, so if you combine them they somehow cancel out?

I would suggest that there are plenty of good animated movies and that bad dialogue in an animated movie doesn't magically become better because "kartoonz is for kidz lulz."

An honest review would read:

"Another shitty Star Wars."

Further words are extraneous.

I'm not, that letter was signed on to by an organization that I was then working for. I am not prepared to defend the text of that letter - I did not understand that that was the purpose of this interview. The letter speaks for itself, and my op-ed speaks for itself. And I am not prepared to get into the specifics...

He's not prepared to defend the text of the letter he signed. What?

While playing against the US Venezuela dropped two routine fly balls, one of which the left-fielder had a half-hour to settle under before having it bounce off her glove.

It's not competitive.

I mean, I love reading sentences too -- but I have high enough standards that I ask them to make logical sense AS WELL AS emotional sense, and I also ask them to be in service to a plot!

When I was taking a creative writing class in college our prof shared a story with us in which he described the scene of a lynching. He characterized the noose as something like "a teardrop squeezed by a clenched fist" which has always stuck with me. It makes perfect emotional sense and physical sense as well. That sort of fitting analogy is hard to come by. For every one of those that works there are a hundred voluptuous angels. (Brendan Donnelly?)

"A Reader's Manifesto" took on this and other issues quite well.

Why more people don't see this absolutely mystifies me.

Literary fiction has as many rules and affectations as police procedurals or ghost stories. People who don't get this writing books on how to read properly crack me up.

Flaubert's sentences are "laid as slowly and agonizingly as a fuse." A character in Michelangelo Antonioni's film "L'Eclisse" "slips through our changing perceptions, like a boat moving through canal locks."

This is great writing? The first sentence plain doesn't make sense, a fuse is not slow or agonizing. And boats don't "slip" through canal locks, not even close. That's a terribly clunky analogy.

This is the type of ostentatious writing that critics seem to love - sounds impressive if you don't think about it.

Was quite touching. Most political emails I get go instantly into the trash as they are full of fake outrage, breathless prose, pandering and begging.

Dodd's email actually felt like a real human being wrote it.

Last night I was writing a blog entry (click my name) on this and something very funny happened that I'll relate here. I was looking for a clip of "Kneel before Zod" from Superman 2, to make the point that unlike Superman Congress would do as commanded and kneel.

I googled for a clip and the second link was to RedState, to a post titled "Kneel Before Zod", gloating about the Democratic FISA capitulation.

is the same one who wrote the awful "Do Americans Care about Big Brother?" piece that both Glenn and I took to the woodshed earlier.

http://margalis.blogspot.com/2008/03/time-do-americans-care-when-we-tell.html

TIME's coverage of FISA issues is just monstrous.

Is that the justification for support, that FISA is restored as the exclusive means to perform surveillance, is just insulting to our intelligence.

One thing Obama has not done much of so far is treat the American people like rubes. That's what he's doing here.

FISA laws were explicitly exclusive. The President chose to ignore that. "Reaffirming" does nothing.

It's like reminding a serial killer that yes, murder is illegal -- in case they forgot.

When someone is unwilling to follow the law passing more laws, or simply re-reading the law in a stern voice, is pointless.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/06-1195.pdf

And here is the money quote:

The important point for me, however, is that the Court should have resolved these cases on other grounds. Habeas is most fundamentally a procedural right, a mechanism for contesting the legality of executive detention. The critical threshold question in these cases, prior to any inquiry about the writ’s scope, is whether the system the political branches designed protects whatever rights the detainees may possess. If so, there is no need for any additional process, whether called “habeas” or something else.

...

I believe the system the political branches constructed adequately protects any constitutional rights aliens captured abroad and detained as enemy combatants may enjoy.

Protects any rights -- except the right to Habeas, which I guess isn't a right...

this seems a little odd:

One of them is that the sperm are smaller than the egg and for most male animals that translates into not having to invest as much energy or work into the babies.

Eggs weigh more? I have trouble believing the relative size of eggs and sperm are relevant.

Instead of arguing that habeas rights don't extend to Gitmo, his argument is that habeas rights don't exist at all, for anyone.