"Moreover, there is a growing perception that Obama's decisions are causing harm — that businesses are being hurt by the Administration's legislation and that economic recovery is stalling because of the uncertainty surrounding energy policy, health care, deficits, housing, immigration and spending."
Now, where have I written that before?
The summary of the summary is:
"As it turns out, incompetence and arrogance produce really bad results."
Are we left in the dark as to what the ACLU chick did to him when alone that night? Am I forced to assume that she brainwashed or chemically-attacked his mind?
I suppose it's useless to point out that a Supreme Court justice can do a lot more for the untrodden masses than can yet another private-practice lawyer.
Idiot screenwriters. Waste of a perfectly good premise, I'd love to see a well-written show about the Supreme Court.
Outlaw must've been written by women, because (sorry to be vulgar) the premise is the "magic p----y" fallacy and I can't imagine a man using it for anything other than satire. The MP fallacy is a woman's fantasy that goes like this: Sure, he's had loveless sex with hundreds of women, but sex with me is such a powerful and transforming event that one roll in the hay will change this man into anything I want. The fantasy is usually that a womanizer will transform into marriage material overnight. But magically transforming a boozing, womanizing, ultra-right-wing judge into a lefty Mush-R-Us lawyer? Wow. If the writers want to know where they failed, they ought to do some homework and watch the first Iron Man for how that sex-with-your-nemesis thing usually plays out.
Nope. According to IMDB, Outlaw was written by two men. I assume all the episodes that aired were written by John Eisendrath, who penned for other TV classics such as Models Inc., Malibu Shores, and Beverly Hills 90210.
"I wanted to do this show because I do not have much faith in the legal system and I have seen innocent people be hurt by it. And I longed for [change] particularly by judges who knew they were doing something that would hurt innocent people but felt that they were bound by the law to hurt them because that was their job, to uphold the law.
I wanted to write a story about a judge who couldn't do that anymore, who felt like he had a higher calling that went beyond (h)is obligation to following the law as a judge. But as a conservative, he knew that he couldn't just make it up as he went along, so he left to do something in pursuit of that higher calling."
Upholding the law is not a higher calling? Interesting world these liberals inhabit. Anyway, I'm stunned that male writers would employ that particular fallacy. The concept of an emotionally-driven liberal attorney-crusader isn't unusual, but sex with an ACLU lawyer was the best they could do for the main character's conversion moment? I thought TV/movie writers were required by some unwritten law to have a character see/experience the consequences of his heartlessness and then make a conversion.
Of course he thinks its because judges want to help but can't. Usually its that they won't, that they WANT to uphold the system. They want to help the government and screw over people. It happens all the time- especially with eminent domain type cases.
Having watched the premere, it was the death of his liberal father that 'flipped the switch'. When he then retired, he said that with his new views, he wasn't the man he was nominated to the court to be. It'd be wild if anyone did that.
(sorry, I'm an old LA Law fan, and enjoyed West Wing, so I wanted to see this.)
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/10/hopenchange-fails-again.html (12 comments)
"Apparently they showed three episodes an then put it on hiatus."
It's looking more and more as if Obamateur how own self will get only one episode:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2024718,00.html
Or, for a summary:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/11/halperin-consensus-is-obamas-in-way-over-his-head/
The gumdrop:
"Moreover, there is a growing perception that Obama's decisions are causing harm — that businesses are being hurt by the Administration's legislation and that economic recovery is stalling because of the uncertainty surrounding energy policy, health care, deficits, housing, immigration and spending."
Now, where have I written that before?
The summary of the summary is:
"As it turns out, incompetence and arrogance produce really bad results."
Golly. Who knew?
Racist!
Uh, dude, there are FIVE a's in RAAAAACIST!!!!111!!!!11!!
Are we left in the dark as to what the ACLU chick did to him when alone that night? Am I forced to assume that she brainwashed or chemically-attacked his mind?
I suppose it's useless to point out that a Supreme Court justice can do a lot more for the untrodden masses than can yet another private-practice lawyer.
Idiot screenwriters. Waste of a perfectly good premise, I'd love to see a well-written show about the Supreme Court.
Is the ACLU lawyer named Anna Chapman?
... in the morning he becomes a new man!
Outlaw must've been written by women, because (sorry to be vulgar) the premise is the "magic p----y" fallacy and I can't imagine a man using it for anything other than satire. The MP fallacy is a woman's fantasy that goes like this: Sure, he's had loveless sex with hundreds of women, but sex with me is such a powerful and transforming event that one roll in the hay will change this man into anything I want. The fantasy is usually that a womanizer will transform into marriage material overnight. But magically transforming a boozing, womanizing, ultra-right-wing judge into a lefty Mush-R-Us lawyer? Wow. If the writers want to know where they failed, they ought to do some homework and watch the first Iron Man for how that sex-with-your-nemesis thing usually plays out.
Nope. According to IMDB, Outlaw was written by two men. I assume all the episodes that aired were written by John Eisendrath, who penned for other TV classics such as Models Inc., Malibu Shores, and Beverly Hills 90210.
Eisendrath is also the show creator. Here's his explanation of the concept:
"I wanted to do this show because I do not have much faith in the legal system and I have seen innocent people be hurt by it. And I longed for [change] particularly by judges who knew they were doing something that would hurt innocent people but felt that they were bound by the law to hurt them because that was their job, to uphold the law.
I wanted to write a story about a judge who couldn't do that anymore, who felt like he had a higher calling that went beyond (h)is obligation to following the law as a judge. But as a conservative, he knew that he couldn't just make it up as he went along, so he left to do something in pursuit of that higher calling."
(Emphasis mine.)
Upholding the law is not a higher calling? Interesting world these liberals inhabit. Anyway, I'm stunned that male writers would employ that particular fallacy. The concept of an emotionally-driven liberal attorney-crusader isn't unusual, but sex with an ACLU lawyer was the best they could do for the main character's conversion moment? I thought TV/movie writers were required by some unwritten law to have a character see/experience the consequences of his heartlessness and then make a conversion.
Written by men with women's MP fallacy in mind, perhaps.
Of course he thinks its because judges want to help but can't. Usually its that they won't, that they WANT to uphold the system. They want to help the government and screw over people. It happens all the time- especially with eminent domain type cases.
Having watched the premere, it was the death of his liberal father that 'flipped the switch'. When he then retired, he said that with his new views, he wasn't the man he was nominated to the court to be. It'd be wild if anyone did that.
(sorry, I'm an old LA Law fan, and enjoyed West Wing, so I wanted to see this.)
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>