home

Thursday Open Thread

Run Lola Run is back in theaters Friday, on the 25th anniversary of its 1999 release. It has been restored and upgraded to 4k. If you still go to movie theaters, this is one to see there. As director/writer Tom Tykwer says during a recent interview in the linked article, the reaction of people watching the film has been a "sheer joy to watch". A very basic plot summary from the article:

In the film, Lola (Franka Potente) has 20 minutes to come up with enough money to get her boyfriend, Manni (Moritz Bliebtreu), out of debt with a gangster. The film portrays three attempts by Lola to find a solution on foot.

Every time she is unsuccessful, the film rewinds to the beginning and Lola tries again. The film's presentation of three different realities qualifies as an early depiction of the multiverse, where infinite universes exist simultaneously.

[More...]

I saw the film in 1999 when it first came out at a movie theater in Greenwich Village. I had no idea what it was about before going into the theater. A lawyer friend of mine and I had just finished a late afternoon lunch, and as we were getting ready to leave, he checked his phone and said there was a new movie playing nearby he wanted to see. It was about to start, and he said if we ran, we might make it.

So we ran -- a few blocks at least -- and got in. Coming attractions were playing by the time we got seated, and we were so out of breath from running, he never did have a chance to tell me what the movie was about before it started playing.

I can still evoke the dazed feeling I had when it was over and we stepped onto Second (or maybe Third) Avenue. The street was teeming with people going about their lives, and it seemed like I was spinning, with people swirling around me everywhere. It took me a few moments to get my composure back.

No, I wasn't high. I just knew that I had seen something completely different, something that normally would not interest me at all (watching someone run the same route three times, for almost two hours, to the same techno-pop song, wearing the same outfit, in German no less).

In the article, both the Director and Potente explain how the movie was made, the "multi-verse" aspect to it, something that recent films have also explored, and the sources he drew on.

The movie isn't Lola running every single minute. The Director/writer says, "Of course, we have a proper plot in our film, but it's also pretty absurd. If you watch Lola for the plot, go elsewhere."

This casino segment is one of the parts where the plot surfaces, quite enjoyably. It also gives you a flavor of the film.

As for why people re-watch certain movies and TV shows and episodes over and over, these psychologists say it's a healthy practice and explain the various types of emotional fulfillment it brings.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Trump Outside Court: Trial Was Rigged, Judge Unfair | The Great Debate >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Recorded yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 07, 2024 at 10:04:49 AM EST
    VETERAN: You're the savior of the people, you bring tears to my eyes.

    ZELENSKY: No no, you saved Europe.

    VETERAN: My hero.

    ZELENSKY: No, you are our hero.

    VETERAN: I pray for you.

    I tried it.., (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by desertswine on Fri Jun 07, 2024 at 02:28:48 PM EST
    When asked "Who won the 2020 US presidential election?" Microsoft's chatbot Copilot, which is based on OpenAI's GPT-4 large language model, responds by saying: "Looks like I can't respond to this topic."

    To be fair, it didn't know who won the 1932 election either.

    RIP Doug Ingle (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 07, 2024 at 04:36:42 PM EST
    If this doesn't make you smile (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 07, 2024 at 08:06:16 PM EST
    Looks like (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 08, 2024 at 03:36:29 PM EST
    he went to the same school of acting wrestlers and televangelists go to.

    Parent
    I thought it (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 08, 2024 at 05:27:59 PM EST
    an odd gift to give your detractors

    That video will live forever

    Parent

    I think he crossed that bridge (none / 0) (#8)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 08, 2024 at 06:03:16 PM EST
    a long time ago. There's another video where he talks about being stalked by green-skinned, pot-bellied goblins.

    The guy's mainstreamed psychotic ravings to an extent the fundamentalists never dreamed of.

    Parent

    Oh well (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 08, 2024 at 06:21:09 PM EST
    All I can say is thank you Al, you made my day.

    Parent
    I sent that to a friend of mine. (none / 0) (#10)
    by leap2 on Sat Jun 08, 2024 at 08:38:05 PM EST
    He said it was crock tears.

    Parent
    I was thinking (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 10, 2024 at 05:27:18 PM EST
    At sentencing the judge might give Trump probation on the charges but give him some jail time for contempt.

    Right?

    He really needs to be in jail. Even for little while. The nation needs it.

    Most attorneys (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 10, 2024 at 06:09:25 PM EST
    seem to think he will get jail time for all of it and that he will get jail time for the felony charges because of his behavior during the court and the contempt probably a year or two but will be out on bail pending appeal. I guess he could sentence him to jail immediately for the contempt charges? But I thought that was already handled with fines.

    Parent
    Yeah, I think GA6 is right. The contempts were (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Peter G on Mon Jun 10, 2024 at 07:04:37 PM EST
    already adjudicated and sentenced (to fines). I do not expect jail or prison time, even though anyone else in these circumstances would likely get that sentence. If sentenced to jail (say, a couple of weekends), and he appeals, the judge may, but need not, continue his release on bail pending appeal. My friend who is a very experienced NY criminal defense lawyer, asked to outline the judge's non-prison options, responded: "The defendant could be sentenced to serve 3, 4 or 5 years' probation.  He could be made to pay restitution to the State or any other victim assuming the DA shows victim loss. ... He could be sentenced to a conditional discharge of three years; that is a revocable sentence if the conditions are violated.  He could be sentenced to an unconditional discharge. He could also get "intermittent imprisonment" such as weekends in jail. He could be sentenced to serve as long as six months jail plus the balance of 5 years on probation." My friend also wrote me, I believe (although I cannot find the message just now), that the defendant can ask for bail pending appeal either from the trial judge or from the appellate court, but only once: either way, the order on bail pending appeal is not appealable to another judge after that.

    Parent
    Harry Litman offers a good overview (none / 0) (#15)
    by Peter G on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 09:43:09 AM EST
    of the immediate consequences of the NY conviction in a new Atlantic article. I have known Harry casually for some years (argued an appeal against him when he was a young prosecutor, soon after he clerked at the Supreme Court), and knew his remarkable mother pretty well before that and until her death.

    Parent
    6 Months in Riker's Starting July 11 (none / 0) (#32)
    by RickyJim on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 06:30:09 PM EST
    would be appropriate for this defendant, so until Jan. 10, 2025.  If he is elected President in November, he would have a few days to prepare for the inauguration.

    Parent
    He has been contemptible, legally, (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 10, 2024 at 06:52:52 PM EST
    many times since the fines.  

    Parent
    Hunter guilty on all counts (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 10:33:29 AM EST
    I was hoping for an acquittal to make their heads explode but a conviction makes their framing explode.  

    Which is probably even better.

    I feel bad for Hunter but he's a first time offender

    At least I think he is.

    Yes, too bad. For a number of (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Peter G on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 11:04:16 AM EST
    reasons, most of which I will not bother to mention. None of the individuals I have known (clients, neighbors, friends, family) who experienced addiction, either to alcohol or to drugs, "knew" that was so while in the active grip of that condition; they were all in denial. Sometimes to the moment of death. Not one would have been capable of answering "yes" to that question on a federal form, even knowing they were subject to the penalties of perjury. I was frankly anticipating a split verdict, perhaps guilty on one of three counts. The judge's pretrial rulings limiting the defense evidence that was directly relevant to his mens rea (required guilty mental state) give him strong grounds for appeal (following the sentencing), in my opinion.

    Parent
    Andrew Weissman (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 12:32:13 PM EST
    and others have said the best hope for Hunter on appeal could ironically be that most right wingers, including probably some on the supreme court, think the stuff about not allowing ownership of a gun while on drugs is an unconstitutional violation of the 2nd amendment.

    That would be a helluva thing,

    Parent

    Hard to blame him (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 12:56:47 PM EST
    "It is hard to blame him for wanting a gun, which he has a God-given right to have under the 2nd Amendment," Trump said in a statement.

    Parent
    I'm not siding with the gun nuts here (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 01:05:49 PM EST
    but the law he supposedly violated is in my opinion laughably vague.

    And based on a laughable premise.  And in fact seems to me more like an opportunity for cops to rope people in on things like a random traffic stop when they smell pot and then find a gun.

    It's nonsense.


    Parent

    A friend told me (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by fishcamp on Wed Jun 12, 2024 at 07:00:38 AM EST
    that nobody has ever been convicted on any of these three charges against Hunter Biden.  I'm not sure if this is true.

    Parent
    Absolutely not literally true. But not far (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Peter G on Wed Jun 12, 2024 at 09:06:53 AM EST
    from true. That clause of the statute is very rarely prosecuted. Perhaps never before when the person was already in sustained recovery by the time the charges were brought, and the gun had not been used in the commission of any crime.

    Parent
    Statement from President Biden (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 02:38:12 PM EST
    "As I said last week, I am the President, but I am also a Dad---I will accept the outcome of this case and will continue to respect the judicial process as Hunter considers an appeal. Jill and I will always be there for Hunter and the rest of our family with our love and support. Nothing will ever change that."

    Hunter was found guilty of something he attempted to plead guilty to last year, but the judge did not accept the plea.  At the time, there was loud displeasure about the plea by Senator Marsha Blackburn (R.TN) and other Republicans.

     Now, it seems some Republicans are disappointed that Hunter was convicted because it removes a talking point about how "unfair" and "rigged" that he got off and Trump was convicted.  Also, it would have been a handy means of falsely equating the two separate circumstances.  At a minimum, and literally, there is a difference in the volume of felonies: 34/3.  But, enough so that I will not be voting for either one of them, Hunter or Donald,  for President of the United States of America.

     

    At first I thought that whole thing (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 03:54:54 PM EST
    was a statement from Joe.  I wish it was.

    The authority (on dumb) has spoken.

    Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) called Hunter Biden's conviction on federal gun charges "kinda dumb."


    Parent

    Orange Jesus has jumped the shark (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 04:39:09 PM EST
    in an electric boat

    Yeah, let's give this guy the nuclear codes

    This rant (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 11, 2024 at 07:30:01 PM EST
    was bizarro.  And, scary.  He seems to have jumped the shark. Big ly.

    Parent
    jaws? (none / 0) (#56)
    by leap2 on Sat Jun 15, 2024 at 06:06:15 PM EST
    Justice Alito, in a (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 12, 2024 at 11:51:23 AM EST
    strange response about flying flags of insurrectionist symbolism over his home to Senators Durbin and Whitehouse, claimed his wife is fond of flags.  Unless, as it turns out, it is a gay flag.

    In audio-recordings, Martha Ann, Alito's wife, is heard fantasizing about flying a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag because she has to look across the lagoon at a Pride Flag for all of June. But, she told her husband she would not do it out of deference to his request not to do so, "but when you are free of this nonsense, I'm going to send them a message every day" she told informed her husband..."" maybe every week, I'll be changing flags. They'll be all kinds . I made a flag in my head. This is how I satisfy myself".  "It's white, it has yellow and orange flames around it, and in the middle is the word vergogna.  That is the Italian word for shame".

    Besides Mrs Alito's envisioned counter-flag program, it is curious as to just what she meant ---when he is free of this nonsense. Is that her view of his job as a SC Justice?  And, does it imply that he may be thinking of retiring from such nonsense?  And, hoping for a Trump victory and doing his part so he can leave the nonsense behind?  

    In fairness to Alito, he told the Senators he is not fond of flags. And, in that audio-recording was almost a regular, sane reactionary, simply agreeing with the questioner that the country needs to be restored to "a place of godliness".   Vergogna, indeed.

    As expected (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 13, 2024 at 09:30:01 AM EST
    Part of the good news (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 13, 2024 at 10:18:05 AM EST
    is that the Supreme Court seems to have re-discovered "standing".  The legal concept of  harm abandoned in Creative LLC v Elenis....the case where the plaintiff filed suit against Elenis, Director of Colorado's civil rights agency.  The plaintiff, a graphic designer, was just  "blue skying" the possibility of starting a website business but wondered about having to design for same sex marriages in keeping with the state's anti-discrimination  requirements.  The Court found in her favor although there  were no customers, no requests for designs by same sex couples, no complaints registered with the state, and no state action taken.

    Part of the bad news is that the finding was made on the basis of no standing, rather than on its merits.  The FDA has found during the drug's  long approval period to be safe and effective, including its prescribing modifications over time.

    Overall, a good decision for women's health and women's rights.  Besides, the SC and Trump do not need another justifiable political firestorm.

    Parent

    It's being said (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 13, 2024 at 11:31:39 AM EST
    they have basically punted it to the states.

    Parent
    I have serious doubts whether a state (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 13, 2024 at 12:24:52 PM EST
    can ban (or even regulate the distribution or dispensing of) a medication that is FDA approved, or try to regulate what can be mailed or delivered, under the Supreme Court's view of the Commerce Clause, the Supremacy Clause, and/or Tenth Amendment federalism. As the Supreme Court plurality recognized in the PPACA (Obamacare) case in 2010, the United States has a single interstate system of medical care that can be subject to legally-mandated federal controls.

    Parent
    Good (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 13, 2024 at 12:31:03 PM EST
    PBS (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 13, 2024 at 02:36:24 PM EST
    link

    Access to the pills is restricted across large swaths of the country because of state laws that ban abortion (including medication abortion) outright or impose separate restrictions on the drug's use.

    How do state laws impact access to mifepristone?
    Access largely depends on the laws in the state where a patient lives and, in the case of states banning or restricting mifepristone, what steps they are willing to take to circumvent them.

    About half of U.S. states allows online prescribing and mail delivery of mifepristone, conforming to FDA's label for the drug.

    Currently, 14 states are enforcing bans on abortion at all stages of pregnancy. Another dozen or so states have laws specifically limiting how mifepristone can be prescribed, such as requiring an in-person visit with a physician or separate counseling about the potential risks and downsides of the drug.

    Those steps are not supported by major medical societies, including the American Medical Association.



    Parent
    More (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 13, 2024 at 02:41:59 PM EST

    What's next for legal challenges to mifepristone?
    Legal experts say other parties could bring new lawsuits.

    Idaho, Kansas and Missouri sought to join the case against the FDA and the Biden administration, which Supreme Court rejected -- though a conservative Texas judge who initially ruled against the FDA allowed them to join the case in his district. The three states, all led by Republican attorneys general, could try to revive the case at the lower court, arguing they have state interests in blocking mifepristone's use.

    "They are not physicians who have to show that they actually have some relationship to abortion care," Rebouche said. "They're claiming a state interest in the regulation of medicine, so I think that's the vehicle in which you could see a lawsuit come forward."

    They made it pretty clear the problem this time  was standing.  

    Parent

    Much discussion (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 13, 2024 at 02:44:54 PM EST
    of "Easter eggs" and "poison pills" in the decision.  

    Parent
    Florida man wants to name the ocean after Trump (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 14, 2024 at 04:56:41 PM EST

    Republicans now want to rename the oceans after Donald Trump

    I have a better idea. Rename the Yucca Mountain Waste Repository the Donald J Trump Memorial Toxic Waste Repository

    It's (none / 0) (#48)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jun 14, 2024 at 06:56:39 PM EST
    a cult, a bizarre absurdist cult.

    Parent
    Very good ad (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 16, 2024 at 10:44:53 AM EST
    I am going to (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 16, 2024 at 11:22:09 AM EST
    try that line out on some Trumpers and see what happens. Personally I think this only works on persuadable voters but that is good enough I hope

    Parent
    The target is (none / 0) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 16, 2024 at 12:51:13 PM EST
    persuadable voters I assume.