"Stangio" illustrates a lot of what we are up against - a bunch of chronically dissatisfied people who just want to watch the world burn. They want to destroy, with no desire to rebuild.
Great two parter, Dusty. I share Jerome’s concern about emotionalism; when it comes to some issues, parliament turns into an X Factor-like performance of sad life stories with little debate of substance. I think you make an important point, though, that we don’t want to be emotionless automatons either! In fact, I’m just as concerned about a lot of laws being the result of utilitarian calculations and cold academic theories behind the scenes, even if it’s played out with emotional theatrics once it gets to the public stage.
It was odd. With her widely stated views, I expected fireworks (which wouldn't have worked), but instead she completely caved in and made the state's case. The NYT analysis is really good - essentially, wrong claimant, wrong time, wrong legal team.
"Stangio" illustrates a lot of what we are up against - a bunch of chronically dissatisfied people who just want to watch the world burn. They want to destroy, with no desire to rebuild.
Hi Jeremy, I agree. Her modus operandi didn't go down very well with the Supreme Court 😂
Dusty
Scottish Police seem to have opened the door to a fetishists heaven.
Hi TT
You couldn't make it up could you!!??
Dusty
Great two parter, Dusty. I share Jerome’s concern about emotionalism; when it comes to some issues, parliament turns into an X Factor-like performance of sad life stories with little debate of substance. I think you make an important point, though, that we don’t want to be emotionless automatons either! In fact, I’m just as concerned about a lot of laws being the result of utilitarian calculations and cold academic theories behind the scenes, even if it’s played out with emotional theatrics once it gets to the public stage.
You're welcome, Becca and, yes, very well put.
Dusty
Well put Becca
It was odd. With her widely stated views, I expected fireworks (which wouldn't have worked), but instead she completely caved in and made the state's case. The NYT analysis is really good - essentially, wrong claimant, wrong time, wrong legal team.
Yes her concession on the suicide argument was amazing!
Dusty
I think that, once they are forced out of their no debate fortress, everything starts dramatically unravelling!!