Movie: Bourne Ultimatum

Not necessarily following on the previous, and apparently unnecessary, installment of the Bourne series, this episode sees David go home to where "Jason Bourne" began. Frenetic filming & action drills home the skill, strength, and relentlessness of this super-agent while seeking what created him. Good solid pop action.

I just wish they'd stop with the sound of cocking guns every single time one gets pointed at someone - especially with the guns that cannot be cocked. Glocks just don't make that sound.

Movie: True Lies

Schwarzenegger as James Bond ... married ... working for the USA ... and she finds out ... while falling for a James Bond wannabe ... when terrorists kidnap both as part of a plot to nuke several US cities. Whee! Great date movie: she gets romantic intrigue, he gets a shoot-em-up. One of the few easy-watching movies worth seeing again.

Movie: Beowulf

Finally, a fairly faithful cinematic take on the ancient English poem. ...yet even this version should have been titled "Beowulf: Wiglaf's Secret", for the scriptwriter & director could not restrain from adding to the classic tale a non-classic subplot, which with a few overt tweaks changes much. Fans of the old tale will be thrilled at the detailed depiction, and dismayed at the added twist - at least until the end, where the "Wiglaf's Secret" comment makes sense.

3D. You gotta see this in 3D. Oh ... you do realize that the classic story of Beowulf is mostly about three very graphically violent fights, right? Not for the squeamish.

Politics: The Farce of Demanding Free Health Care

Much is being made, and has been for years now, of demands for a government-run free health care system. You're familiar with it: among others, Hillary Clinton tried to get it enacted some years ago, and is trying for it again. News outlets and left-leaning politicians frequently offer up sob stories about the un- and under-insured not getting treatment they need.

It's a farce.

I mean, ignorance run amok, inmates running the asylum.

WE ALREADY HAVE IT.

Enter the ER doors of any hospital in this country, and you'll see a little plaque on the wall stating that nobody will be turned away for any reason, including inability to pay. Anyone who walks thru those doors will get the basic treatment they need, on demand. Payment, if a problem, will be worked out according to the individual's circumstances and ability. At any hospital, at anytime, anywhere.

Oh, it might not be free. Few people are truly destitute. Most people can pay something, even if it's just, say, $5 per month for life for, say, emergency quadruple-bypass surgery. If the patient will just take a little time to talk with the billing department, something can be worked out which is fair and favorable to both.

Oh, it's not widely known - at least to those who do have some ability to pay. The welfare class does seem to know about this, as emergency personnel are inundated with requests for what is really routine medical care ... and thing is, the treatment is given at little or no cost.

Free health care? Government health care? Universal health insurance? Calls demanding it are a farce, as we already have it.

Movie: Miami Vice

Perfect.

I'd like to stop there, but that's not particularly helpful to you.
Grand sweeping vistas. Powerful, subliminally elegant vehicles. A story that cuts deep, with just enough anesthesia to know what's happening. A game played well, won at great price.

This isn't the TV series, it's the distilled liqueur thereof.

Movie: The Christmas Shoes

One of the biggest tear-jerkers I've seen in a while. Based on the recent Christmas song that you'll be hearing again a lot more often than you'll like.

Surprising that a whole movie could be created, and that with a good well-timed plot, out of what amounts to two minutes of song lyrics.

Legal: Heller's Response to DC's Petition to SCOTUS

Washington DC has petitioned the Supreme Court to take the DC vs. Heller case; today, Heller et al has responded to that petition. Upshot is that they agree that the Supreme Court should take the case, but that DC's petition is grossly flawed.

Here's a quick shot at the Cliff's Notes version (quotations from the brief italicized):

QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether the Second Amendment guarantees lawabiding, adult individuals a right to keep ordinary, functional firearms, including handguns, in their homes.

Mr. Heller officially responds to DC's petition (re-joined by the other 5 original Parker petitioners on the grounds that they were a party to the case in lower courts), stating "The Court should grant certiorari on the question as presented by Respondents." ('Certiorari' = 'take the case')

Summary of Argument: "the people" means "individuals in our country". High courts are divided on the issue, and SCOTUS must resolve the split. The case, properly presented, will be very simple: does the 2ndA protect an individual right, and do the two DC laws in question absolutely negate that right? (Expected answer: yes.) BTW: DC is way outta line in how they presented the issue, so the question they presented should be replaced with Heller's (above).

I. The Court Should Provide Essential Guidance to Courts That Misconstrue the Second Amendment: it's an individual right, not collective. The people are all individuals, not a select government-chosen body. The militia is members of the public capable of bearing arms in defense of the government if called upon to do so. Miller was very simple and clear on this - but somehow courts have twisted that into the opposite. The whole issue has gotten scrambled, and SCOTUS should explain how the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted.

II. The Question Presented by Petitioners Misrepresents the Court of Appeals’ Holding and the Central Issue in This Case: DC says X may be banned because Y is allowed - but fails to explain that, for all practical purposes, Y is not allowed either. SCOTUS needs to clarify what the question actually is, and what the answer to it means. (While well done, the wording of this section makes me nervous, as SCOTUS could say "fine...DC, try again" or worse "crappy question, next case" - ctd.)

III. Whether the Second Amendment Forbids Handgun Prohibition Is a Discrete Constitutional Question That Must Be Answered on Its Own Terms: Miller addressed the question of whether Z was "militia suitable"; handguns are plainly "militia suitable", and DC's notion that they are not is flatly unsupportable, social commentary notwithstanding. The two bans together form such a comprehensive total prohibition that bickering over the division between the bans is pointless until both bans have been firmly overturned.

IV. The City’s Policy and Social Science Arguments Are Irrelevant and Factually Baseless: DC claimed the ban is effective, when facts easily and plainly show it is not - and that is, nonetheless, irrelevant because this is a court of LAW, not of policy or sociology.

V. Citizens Under Criminal Attack Are Not Required to Stand By and Die Awaiting Police Protection: In claiming the city is not required " to stand by while its citizens die", the city perversely requires its citizens to do so despite numerous court cases where the city fought for the right " to stand by while its citizens die" (to wit: DC is not obligated to protect citizens, both by the laws of this land and the laws of physics).

-----

Overall the brief is good, systematically demolishing everything DC presented to justify its side.
My one concern is whether it is too good: SCOTUS could say "this is a mess, we'll let the lower court ruling stand until someone else presents a better challenge."
I think SCOTUS will take the case, precisely because there is a legal mess that only they can clear up, SCOTUS justices rarely get a case this profound & fundamental & wideranging (i.e.: they can't pass up a case this good), and it really can be resolved with a simple, narrow, yet profoundly impacting verdict.