Completely disagree on Paul's girlfriend. "I guess I love you too" is about as unemotional a response as anyone could ever give. She doesn't love him, but since she's about to go through her pregnancy, she figures it'll go better with him around. It felt very real to me.

I believe the land deal is the conspiracy. The guys in Vinci deliberately polluted the land through which the rail line would go in order to force the owners to sell to them, which then allows them to make a huge profit from selling the land to the government when the rail line goes in. Semyon was only a source of…

So clearly the Vinci old guard decided to take in toxic waste, then the new guard of Vinci channeled that toxic waste to pollute specific areas in order to force the residents out, thus allowing them to buy up the land at a reduced price and sell it to the government when the rail line goes in through that land, right?

Didn't he have a bulletproof vest? I wonder if maybe the fact that it was rubber bullets combined with shooting into a bulletproof vest would explain it.

I watched the first 3 episodes again. Thoughts on the mystery element of this season:

I figured it was loaded with bean bags. I believe shotguns with bean bags are used for riot/crowd control. Velcoro was clearly hurt, so they weren't blanks, but unless they're planning on killing him off it couldn't have been loaded with buckshot because he'd surely be dead. That would also make sense if the hooded…

Sort of, but not exactly. The second amendment has a problem with a state's complete denial of that right (see Heller and McDonald), but the extent to which it can limit it based on its balancing of that right with other factors is in flux.

True, but I think that if you look at the more left-leaning areas of the country, you'll see they're not eager to honor Heller's precedent. I think we can all agree San Francisco would rightly be called one of the more left-leaning cities. They passed a law that handguns in the home must be rendered inactive unless…

Well yes, the *outcome* is, but not the route taken to get there - and even if there is a majority, part of what's great about the US is that the states get to work within the broad parameters set forth by the Court. Take gun control. I live in the DC area. Virginia has pretty loose gun laws. Maryland and DC are…

It seems odd to say that something that's been the case for virtually the whole of human existence - the man/woman marriage - is wholly irrational. I guess the best argument to be made is that the SSM bans are a relatively new concept, but weren't they just codifying historical precedent? If you're saying something…

I think you're right, but legally speaking, it's an embarrassment that was the majority's rationale. No one has to advance a compelling argument for gay marriage for the law to stand. The burden of proof lies with the majority to make a clear and convincing case that the law is unconstitutional. The majority turns…

I think you're missing the point. The onus isn't on the dissenting justices to come up with reasons why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed - in fact, reading between the lines, they're clearly either neutral or for gay marriage. The onus is on the majority to clearly explain how the law at issue is unconstitutional. …

He wasn't saying it's OK. His point was that it's not for the judiciary to make any judgement on whether or not it's OK. That's for you and I and everyone else to decide via our elected representatives, not for five judges in DC to decide. I thought his dissent was great. Yes, it goes into outright mockery, scorn,…

Thrilled gay folk will be allowed to marry, but the dissenting justices were absolutely right IMHO. Inventing fundamental rights under the fiction of substantive due process because five justices think it makes sense is incredibly dangerous business. Thomas gets a bad rap because he follows the constitution and the…

I think it's funny that one can describe being progressive as fighting against oppression when one of the most sacred tenants almost all progressives seem to hold dear is gun control. It's a magical thing to say it's oppression when gays can't marry but perfectly fine when it's denying a right that's actually in the…

I'm 100% for gay marriage, but legally speaking, this was a terrible, terrible majority decision. Read the Chief Justice's dissent - it mercilessly (but correctly) shreds the "legal basis" (quotes because it's tenuous to grant it even that much) for the majority's decision. And Justice Scalia's dissent is even more…

It's just a terrible mashup of bad decisions. The jackets would be OK with dressier shoes and if they chose the right size. They look terrible with those shoes and the jackets are way too big. The shoes are just bad. If you want to go for the tech CEO look, it's chucks and a more interesting jacket choice, as you…

The only Sony guy who looks OK is the leftmost one. The others have jackets that are way too large/long, bad shoes, and just plain look like a kid wearing Dad's clothes. Chucks or similar are the only sneakers that look OK with a blazer. At least the EA guys have clothes that fit properly.

I wouldn't mind a tiered system where it's $2 a month more for no ads, which would allow users to determine whether or not it's worth it to pay more for no ads.

Not sure that's the case. Netflix, like any other company, is about making money. Not having ads is a differentiator between them and their competition - Hulu, cable TV, etc. If they start running ads, they're abandoning something that's basically an integral part of their brand.