Tags for this video have been changed from 'Brain, Brain, Stroke, Right, Left, Process, Information, Jill Bolte Taylor' to 'Brain, Brain, Stroke, Right, Left, Process, Information, Jill Bolte Taylor, TED Talks' - edited by messenger

A deep constitutional scholar such as yourself probably already knows this:

"For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup d’état at the group’s annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power—as part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore recounted this history in a recent piece for The New Yorker.) The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”"

source: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html

The whole review is worth watching: http://videosift.com/video/Half-In-The-Bag-Jack-and-Jill-Part-1-of-2

>> ^radx:

That story is getting stranger by the minute.


And even stranger yet. I may actually go buy a legit popcorn maker for this one.

That story is getting stranger by the minute.

OMG! A vote for Jill Stein was a vote for Obama! It was a mis-calibrated touch screen. This was not nefarious.

I can't believe that Romney not only got the party nomination, but that it is still even considered that he may win.

It just goes to show that all you have to be is white, mid 50's, semi-attractive (with a dash of salt and pepper hair), be anti-gay rights, anti-Obama and anti-abortion and most Republicans will blindly support you no matter your name, stance on issues (other than the three above), economic plan (or even a vague one), and a consistent, verified, proven history of lies, flip-flopping and deception.

It is pathetic. It is like those Calvin peeing on Ford/Chevy stickers that everyone had on the car a few years back. Blind loyalty and devotion to anything is such a bad thing.

Next election, I sure hope that the third party candidates get the time in the spotlight. If the media actually showed more on Gary Johnson or Jill Stein Or Virgil Goode and the like, I promise you that there would be a lot more people willing to support them over Romney/Obama.

After completing an online questionnaire and answering a ton of detailed questions, it appears that Jill Stein represents 98% of my preferred choices.

Democracy Now hosted a 3rd party debate, and Jill had some great ideas. Check it out. I'm not in a swing state, so, my vote is still up for grabs.

>> ^lantern53:

Well...Chomsky is a free-thinker, that's for sure. But he endorsed Jill Stein, the green party candidate. Jill Stein is one of the goofier candidates around, but check her out on youtube yourself.


I just read through the position that Jill Stein takes on the issues. Not only is it the most sane and democratic approach I've seen, it's also the most comprehensive list explaining what to do. If Obama or Romney were honest and tried to put out a list this good, they'd never get elected because we'd know what they were actually going to do.

Jill will never get elected either, but if you gave her half a billion dollars I'll bet she'd get elected because she addresses a lot of issues the way most americans would support, if they were educated on the subjects.

Well...Chomsky is a free-thinker, that's for sure. But he endorsed Jill Stein, the green party candidate. Jill Stein is one of the goofier candidates around, but check her out on youtube yourself.

>> ^DuoJet:

I don't get it. Did her open arm gesture somehow suggest penis size to the crowd? Seems like kind of a stretch.


If anyone's hung like that, it's Biden.

>> ^artician:

Huh. Dunno if I'd even be interested in the film, but these guys are kind of picking low-hanging fruit, all but declaring they hate it before the review even starts, and then base their reactions of the film by how far it deviates from their expectations.
At least Plinkett can put together well-thought out arguments presented with some some semblance of thought toward the media and its history and aesthetics. Boo.
EDIT: okay, I watched the entire thing (because if you're going to criticize something, you should know what you're talking about, right?)
This video seems more like a demo-reel for a couple of guys who wanted to make films for a living but missed the boat. Nearly all their criticism is inapplicable to the general viewer, or even most film critics, as it's so subjective to their own expectations, and devoid of any real critical appraisal.
I'm not even arguing that the film isn't bad. I wouldn't know, as it looked like shit and I never saw it, but this video is an embarrassment for any film critic, let alone these shit, failed, beer-mongering authors. These guys really piss me off, because there is 0% talent here, and 100% "let's leverage the internet popularity for our own gain" (Like: "Pick a shit movie and tell everyone how shit it is! We're genius!")
Fuck these guys.


Overreact much? Me thinks you missed the point. Also, the guy on the left IS Plinkett

>> ^longde:

I guess if I was an artist or a film aficionado, I would highly resent Sandler.
But noone makes people shell out money to see that drek. Maybe Sandler loyalists are paid for Jack and Jill tickets, but actually went to see a different movie?


If it's as cynical as they say I'd imagine many people would feel a bit let down. It's rated at 3.2 out of 10 on imdb so maybe that's something.

I guess if I were an artist or a film aficionado, I would highly resent Sandler.

But noone makes people shell out money to see that drek. Maybe Sandler loyalists are paid for Jack and Jill tickets, but actually went to see a different movie?