Nevermind that the rum industry was only made possible by the most brutal and horrific form of slavery to ever exist on the face of the earth, while whiskey was distilled by noble, free frontiersmen.
Go ahead, drink your rum. Scumbag slaver.
Ugh. This is such a white dude's list.
@Niko Bellic Good shoehorning!
@Niko Bellic Sure, if you want to pull a Massad and shoehorn in whatever interpretations you need to prove that unfounded point while ignoring the much greater evidence that the show's point is how stupid that worldview is.
I mean, Homeland has it's issues but hot damn it doesn't deserve this.
@major disaster What's even more frustrating about that is that many people in AQ and other terrorist organizations go by psuedonyms, see e.g. Abu Mansoor Al-Amriki of Al Shabaab, taken on for the purpose of identification inside the organization and not their actual name. That's pretty clearly what they're doing with Abu Nazir.
I've read the links provided; I have no clue why Sicha thinks this guy is brilliant. Perhaps useful in that he's against the dominant paradigm, but his work as represented here is derivative and hacktastic and not founded in any understanding of history as it occurred. Others are doing what he does, and better.
Moreover, if his review of Homeland is even the slightest indication of his actual work he's got so many virulent unacknowledged biases that his work negates itself.
You got paid to write this? Man. The Awl must be flush.
Yeah, like the kid reading Camus at 16 is a real fucking rebel. Jesus, how blinkered.
@ericdeamer Yeah, but in the counterfactual world all the fire would be aimed at Hillary. And instead of "Scary Black Man" we have "Scary Feminazi Lady"- which may not have been as bad in some ways but would probably have been just as frustrating in others.
@boyofdestiny Eh, it's partly tony, but it's not all tony. I've definitely slept in apartments in Brookline where I rolled down the floor in a stupor because the whole building was crooked. Memories!
@skahammer Lopez, IIRC was more the distance from actual commerce and the intrusion of that particular part of VAWA on the state police powers than anything having to do with the 2nd amendment, and that Congress making a finding about the nexus of commerce to the legislation wasn't enough. But I don't recall it perfectly.
My big gripe is one that might not end up in the final decision, that there's anything meaningful about the activity/inactivity distinction. There simply isn't, in this case, any avoiding the health care market in some form, given that being fully absent from using it still impacts the health insurance market. Inactivity still has an impact upon the market, which under Wickard and Raich matters even if there's limited to no immediate contact to interstate markets. It's not complicated, and is far more grounded in both past decisions and the text of the constitution than the challenging argument about personal liberty- an argument that falls apart given that we have at least one 18th century law created by the founders with a mandate, which voids the "Founders would never have accepted a mandate" argument. Even for Thomas that should be a strong argument for constitutionality.