I've given this lecture to anyone who would listen for the last 30 years and in the internet age it's even more to the point.  And I include it in several of my current classes. 

Voter screen and weighting is EVERYTHING.

Go read it to be prepared

So here are my top dozen of the last dozen year.  Why not?  Besides, I needed a reason to post.  A little surprised that ALL of these are in my top 100, barely.

 12.  2081.  A nice short retelling of Harrison Bergeron.  I use this one often in my Intro to Ethics class.

11.   Unthinkable.  Another film I occasionally use in my Ethics class, but this treatment of a black-ops interrogator and an FBI agent who press a suspect terrorist into divulging the location of three nuclear weapons set to detonate in the U.S.

10.   Toy Story 3.  Written about this one before.  I wept.  And probably will again.

9.   Pan's Labrynth.  This one is most likely to drop in the coming years.

8.   Last Mimsey.  I need to rewatch this one.  The ligering feeling is a good one, but I wonder if it's a false positive?

7.  Gladiator. 

6.  Stardust.  IMHO better than Princess Bride.

5.  Signs

4.  Cars.  I've driven part of old 66 and it looks JUST LIKE THIS.  Do not, under any circumstances, watch the sequal.

3.  LOTR take as a whole.

2.  Brothers Bloom.  A wonderful underwatched gem from Rian Johnson (although I really don't care for "Brick")

Everyone must buy health insurance, regardless of whether he wants it.

The FAA streamlines rules for the domestic use of drones.

The president redefines marriage. 

Armed Environmental Police shut down — and stand guard over – an ice cream stand in Lowell, Mass., for not having a permit.

A Harvard law professor is referred to as a ”woman of  color” because she imagines herself 1/32 Cherokee.

Thousands are put out of work because the state values a tiny fish more than its citizens.

Americans may not buy incandescent 100-watt light bulbs.

Welcome to Oceania

Common Cause has brought suit against the US Congress claiming that the filibuster is illegal.  They site, among other things, Fed 22 and Fed 58.  No issue there.  Wonder how they found it?  More on the lack of Federalist understandig in the next week.

Are they wrong?  Yes, mainly for two reasons, one of them good and one just "cute".

First the main reason:  I'll type slowly so my Donk readers don't get lost.  Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings ....  that's it.  Constitution approved.  The Constituion does REQUIRE a supermajority in five instances and I would agree that an attempt to ignore that would be unConstitutional.

Secod reason:  The Senate of which the Founders were writing is NOT the Senate as currently constituted.   Seventeenth Amendmet and all. 

So here's me reachig across the isle:  Elphs will agree to do away with the filibuster if the Donks will agree to do away with the 17th Amendment.  Don't see EITHER side doig either thing soon.

or a FoxNews talker, heads would be exploding:

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews to Black Pastor: ‘I Hope You Evolve.’ I’d hoped America had moved past such vicious racial stereotypes. . . .

hope this works, been having problems with images

MAtthew Franck asked some great questions last week after the POTUS "evolved" right there in front of God and everyone.

You said yesterday, Mr. President, that you “helped to prompt” the Justice Department to take its current position (adopted in late February 2011) on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (which you mistakenly, but somehow tellingly, called the “Defense Against Marriage Act”).  In the Attorney General’s statement on this matter, he gives you more credit than you humbly took yesterday.  He tells us that “the President has concluded” that “classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny.” 

Can you tell us now whether this is still your view?  If Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional, what about Section 2, on the interstate validity of same-sex marriages contracted in some states, which other states do not wish to recognize?  Is that unconstitutional as well, on similar grounds?  You seemed to say so to Robin Roberts yesterday when she asked whether your Justice Department would “join in the litigation in fighting states that are banning same-sex marriage.”  Your reply was that the act–you didn’t say just one part–is now considered by the executive branch to be “a violation of [the] equal protection clause.”

If that is so as respects Section 2 of DOMA, what becomes of your stated position yesterday in the same interview that “this is an issue that is gonna be worked out at the local level,” and that it seemed all right with you “that different states are coming to different conclusions”?

go read it all if this kinda thing trips your trigger

at least as far as reguation goes.

1.  They know the Elphs won't give 'em 10 out of 10 so the request 3.

2.  Elphs agree to a 3.

3.  No actual regulation takes place.

4.  Disaster strikes.

5.  Donk's claim we need more regulation, know they won't get 10 so argue for 6, settle for 5.

6.  No actual reguating takes place.

7.  Disaster strikes.

Lather.  Rinse. Repeat.

My source?  The response to JP Morgan debacle

Added fun: QOTD:  Obama: JPMorgan Is ‘One of the Best-Managed Banks.’

1,000 words AND hate from the left!

Just hurry up and die, y'all.