Frontier(s) (no, I don't know what's up with the name) is a pretty ridiculously violent French horror film. If gore doesn't bother you too much and you liked High Tension, it probably delivers. It's pretty gross but doesn't focus on people being tortured so much, which is the thing I really can't stomach. I could never watch a movie like Martyrs, which apparently devotes a solid (like over 10 minutes) chunk of screen time to a person being tortured and/or killed. Thanks but no thanks.

If you thought the Dawn of the Dead remake was a great horror film I would suggest that perhaps you're not really that jaded by genre conventions yet. Go check on the other guy's (O'Hehir) list of decent horror movies from the last few years. IMHO it's hit and miss, but there's at least a couple movies on there that are better than Dawn of the Dead.

Actually Mr. Chili King, there's a well-known legal doctrine called "political question," where a judge decides if a particular question should be answered by an Article III court or left to the other brances of government. Essentially, a legal analysis of whether it's best to make a legal statement on the issue. The judge would have been well within his rights to not ask a single question about the standing doctrine, which this case was ultimately dismissed pursuant to. But, out of some amazing level of deference to Ms. Taitz and her plaintiffs, the judge decided to address the standing issue.

The current standing test was given to us courtesy of ultra-liberal Federalist Society member Antonin Scalia, and requires an injury to the plaintiff, fairly traceable to some challenged action of the defendant, and likely to be redressed by a favorable ruling by the court. Since the president can not be removed from office due to some alleged fraud once he has been voted for and sworn in, and may only be removed by impeachment, the judge in this case determined that even if Ms. Taitz and her plaintiffs could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Obama injured the plaintiffs personally by fraudulently asserting U.S. citizenship and sneaking his way into the Whitehouse, the court could provide to relief to the plaintiffs, and as such the plaintiffs lacked standing.

So, to sum up: The judge in this case did not need to conduct any legal analysis aside from whether it would be prudent for him to hear the case, since dismissal pursuant to political question is an act of discretion. Out of some misguided sense of deference to Ms. Taitz and her plaintiffs, however, the judge did engage in legal analysis and correctly applied the precedent of one of the most conservative supreme court justices of modern times to kick this case out of court. All of which you would know if you cared to educate yourself about the legal issues involved or the facts of this case. But you don't, because you're a moron.

Interesting stuff and pretty disappointing. Thanks to sysprog for those two posts, which were somewhat encouraging. Like most addictions, this won't get better until the U.S. and Israel are sufficiently motivated to fix it.

It's pretty much an established strategy, and it's pretty smart. The Obama administration will go after any public figure with high negatives that they can associate with the Republican party at large. Palin is extremely popular with a decently large group of people, but she is despised by an even-larger group of people. The people who like Palin are not persuadable, and the White House doesn't care about trying to persuade them. On the other hand, the group of people who despise Palin might contain a number of moderates or undecided voters. By associating all Republicans with Palin, the White House encourages moderates and undecided voters to side with Democrats instead of Republicans. They did the same thing with Rush Limbaugh, and they're doing the same thing with Fox News.

And if you're not at least on your way there, why are you getting naked? Shoot, people need to get better at taking care of themselves. If you just need to get off you can do that without screwing up somebody else's life. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned.

And yes, baldness creeps me out a little as well.

It was the Supreme Court that royally fucked the pleading standard in Iqbal, which is at least partially how the Second Circuit was able to dump this case on the pleadings. Oh, and just "coincidentally," who was the defendant in Iqbal that the Supreme Court had to basically destroy notice pleading to protect? It was John Ashcroft.

The body of law being created specifically to protect the lawless executive branch is going to hurt this country for the remainder of its short miserable life.

I had a response, but why would I bother? Clearly you're not the type to let facts or statistics get in your way. Keep up the good work.

I'm a big Amy Poehler fan, but this show was sorta meh until recently. This season they've really put together some good funny episodes. Which is crazy because now there's a pretty good 2.5 hour block of comedy on every Thursday night, starting with Community and ending with It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

I got 99 problems but a bitch ain't one?

Yes I know sometimes my rhymes can be sexist, but you lovely bitches and hos should know I'm trying to correct this?

Personally, I think of the one thing that I know I could say to him that would make him want to strangle me. And then I would never say it, but laugh to myself knowing that I had that type of hypothetical power over him.