pudge's Journal: Scalia on "24"

Justice Scalia used the TV show "24" as a vehicle to discuss why we need to consider how our legal framework might deal with the, unlikely as it may be, possible doomsday scenario of knowing about an imminent nuclear attack in a U.S. city, and having someone who has intel that will allow us to prevent that attack, and how we might get that information.

Some have been ridiculing and attacking Scalia for mentioning "24." "It's only a TV show, you idiot!," they say. Of course it's only a TV show. But that doesn't mean that it's not a valid point: "24" is only an example that many people are familiar with, and while many people just say "it's so unlikely it's not worth talking about," that doesn't mean we actually shouldn't talk about it.

Indeed, this concept is perhaps the major dividing line on the issue of torture. Some, like John McCain, think torture should remain illegal, but that in such a doomsday scenario, we should break the law and let the people (or their duly elected representatives) decide what to do about it. Others think the law should contain an exception for such a scenario.

I agree with McCain on this: the law cannot conceive of every possible situation, and we need to elect and appoint people capable of making such decisions. This can work so long as they are accountable.

Wil Wheaton made a silly comment: "When I turn on CNN, I wish our world leaders would watch a little more Star Trek and a little less 24." Well, as improbable as "24" is, it is far more realistic than Star Trek. Yeah, we don't need money, everyone has everything they need! Scarcity is no longer a problem because we have matter conversion! Let me know when you get teleportation and replicators actually working, along with the ability to easily find and colonize other planets, along with easily finding and mining resources from other planets ... then we can talk about how we could possibly have a society where everyone is loving and peaceful and has everything they need.

And, of course, it totally ignored Scalia's point, which is not that we should be like "24," but that the show displays examples of things that could happen, and we as a society have not yet come to terms with how to deal with those things in our legal framework.

But it got me thinking: what TV shows should we be patterning our country after? And no cheating by saying news, sports, reality shows, or other "nonfiction" TV.

My offering: the Smurfs. Slightly more realistic than Star Trek, and in addition, you get to create your own females!

Hogan's Heroes?

[johndiii]

We all have tunnels under our houses, and at night we sneak out and blow things up! And make fools of the authorities!

Er, maybe not. Maybe Gilligan's Island would be better. Hmmm, Ginger or Mary Anne?

Family Ties

[nandorman]

Clearly it's family ties. The liberals (everyone but Alex, and perhaps Jennifer) all turn conservative when things get bad. But all of them (conservative or liberal) are fairly reasonable and listen to everyone's opinions before making up their own minds. It takes place in Ohio (where everywhere should be, except for Massachusetts). And it's over in 30 minutes (I'll let you make up your own mind as to how that applies to real life).

Thundercats.

[rholliday]

Dibs on the samoflange.

Jericho!

[jdavidb]

Oh, wait...

BTW, Smurfs may be more realistic than Star Trek, but it seems to have the same anti-capitalistic message at times. And I say this as an extreme fan who bought bootleg DVDs off of ebay so I could watch it with my kids. :)

Re:

[pudge]

BTW, Smurfs may be more realistic than Star Trek, but it seems to have the same anti-capitalistic message at times.

Heh, and Star Trek doesn't? OK, maybe it was softened a bit in DS9, but TOS and TNG were very anti-capitalist.

Re:

[jdavidb]

BTW, Smurfs may be more realistic than Star Trek, but it seems to have the same anti-capitalistic message at times.

Heh, and Star Trek doesn't?

I said it has seems to have the same anti-capitalistic message as Star Trek. :) Yes, Trek was definitely very anti-capitalistic. And I've been telling people I know in various contexts for months that yes, believe it or not, there really are some people out there who think Trek's message of "if we'd just stop fighting and agree to provide for everybody we could eliminate scarcity" is real, and I cite your talk show as proof. :)

Of course, Smurfs is nowhere near as overtly anti-capitalistic as Star Trek

Re:

[Miguelito]

there really are some people out there who think Trek's message of "if we'd just stop fighting and agree to provide for everybody we could eliminate scarcity" is real,

Easy comeback to that thinking... you agree and will go along with that only once we have nearly unlimited power (fusion and matter anti-matter based) as well as replicator technology to create all the food and things we could need.

Well

[buffer-overflowed]

The executive already has the end all be all around individual legality issues in the form of the presidential pardon. I don't think any reasonable individual would begrudge a presidential pardon for torture if it was a 24-esque situation.

Also, only the evil guys can make girls in the Smurfs.

Re:

[pudge]

The executive already has the end all be all around individual legality issues in the form of the presidential pardon. I don't think any reasonable individual would begrudge a presidential pardon for torture if it was a 24-esque situation.

Probably. However, he cannot prevent himself from being impeached for making the decision to torture.

Also, only the evil guys can make girls in the Smurfs.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Re:

[buffer-overflowed]

Nope, he can't. We're talking TV-esque clear-cut situation here though. Checks and balances, checks and balances.

Also, not enough HAs on the evil laugh.

Seinfeld.

[dexterpexter]

Sometimes, I wonder if my life already isn't...

Correction...

[cascadefx]

You get to create a SINGLE female.

Good luck in that world, Pudge.

Re:

[pudge]

You get to create a SINGLE female.

Good luck in that world, Pudge.

I have three responses, not sure which is best, so I'll give all three, in the order I thought of them.

1. YOU? Correct ME?!
2. Well, sure, she's single ... when she's created.
3. That's right, man, I don't want to get tied down!

Re:

[cascadefx]

Ha ha!

I love them all.