Saturday, November 23, 2013
Dog Pound
Dog Pound (2010)
91 min - Drama - 23 June 2010 (France)
Reviews: 29 user | 42 critic | 8 from Metacritic.com
Three juvenile delinquents arrive at a correctional center and are put under the care of an experienced guard.
I watched this a couple of days ago and it is still a bit disturbing to me. Not only because it brings back terrible memories for me, but because the normal evolution (developement)? necessary in the main character to make a good movie is thwarted. What is treated superficially in the movie is how these boys came to be where they are and just how few good role models they have had in their lives.
I was never in juvenile hall, but I certainly was stuck in a few places where kids who had been were. None of the places I was were same sex and I imagine the violence level with a bunch of teenaged male offenders was much higher than what I experienced. I was threatened a few times and I suppose I threatened the staff a couple times as I was restrained and isolated. What did come across is how few staff or offenders will understand or take responsibility for their own actions. The Bleakness might have been a better title for this example of how truly fucked up the "justice system" is in this country.
The Hunger Games Catching Fire
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)
146 min - Action | Adventure | Sci-Fi - 22 November 2013 (USA)
Since I read the books I knew exactly what was going to happen, but I enjoyed the movie. I normally refuse to plunk down 9 bucks for a matinee, but I loved it. The series is quite timely.
146 min - Action | Adventure | Sci-Fi - 22 November 2013 (USA)
Since I read the books I knew exactly what was going to happen, but I enjoyed the movie. I normally refuse to plunk down 9 bucks for a matinee, but I loved it. The series is quite timely.
Saturday, November 16, 2013
Saturday, November 09, 2013
Don't blog much any more
I'm usually dinking around here
I play the games I kind of quit caring about the whore politicians and how much richer the rich are getting and how much more poor the poor are getting. I have a short window to enjoy being out of abject poverty and I'm going to enjoy it. I'll be there again soon enough. I'll never own a home or a new car, but right now I don't have to worry about having enough food, we can pay the rent, we can fix the cars if the ancient beasts break down and I'm stocking up on footwear since my feet are such a bitch to fit.
So no, I'm not getting outraged because frankly, I'm fucking sick of it, I need a break from being outraged, and I deserve a little bit of peace and happiness.
I play the games I kind of quit caring about the whore politicians and how much richer the rich are getting and how much more poor the poor are getting. I have a short window to enjoy being out of abject poverty and I'm going to enjoy it. I'll be there again soon enough. I'll never own a home or a new car, but right now I don't have to worry about having enough food, we can pay the rent, we can fix the cars if the ancient beasts break down and I'm stocking up on footwear since my feet are such a bitch to fit.
So no, I'm not getting outraged because frankly, I'm fucking sick of it, I need a break from being outraged, and I deserve a little bit of peace and happiness.
Monday, November 04, 2013
We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality — And the Internet as We Know It
(copied from Wired magazine word for word for future reference)
We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality — And the Internet as We Know It
BY MARVIN AMMORI11.04.139:30 AM
Net neutrality is a dead man walking. The execution date isn’t set, but it could be days, or months (at best). And since net neutrality is the principle forbidding huge telecommunications companies from treating users, websites, or apps differently — say, by letting some work better than others over their pipes — the dead man walking isn’t some abstract or far-removed principle just for wonks: It affects the internet as we all know it.
Once upon a time, companies like AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and others declared a war on the internet’s foundational principle: that its networks should be “neutral” and users don’t need anyone’s permission to invent, create, communicate, broadcast, or share online. The neutral and level playing field provided by permissionless innovation has empowered all of us with the freedom to express ourselves and innovate online without having to seek the permission of a remote telecom executive.
But today, that freedom won’t survive much longer if a federal court — the second most powerful court in the nation behind the Supreme Court, the DC Circuit — is set to strike down the nation’s net neutrality law, a rule adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in 2010. Some will claim the new solution “splits the baby” in a way that somehow doesn’t kill net neutrality and so we should be grateful. But make no mistake: Despite eight years of public and political activism by multitudes fighting for freedom on the internet, a court decision may soon take it away.
Marvin Ammori
Marvin Ammori is a Future Tense Fellow at the New America Foundation and a lawyer who represents technology companies on internet policy issues. He is also the cofounder of a startup, Wearab.ly, which enables content to be distributed to wearable devices. A graduate of Harvard Law School, Ammori serves on the boards of Demand Progress, Fight for the Future, and Engine Advocacy. Fast Company named him one of the 100 Most Creative People in Business in 2012 for being Silicon Valley’s “go-to First Amendment guy” and one of the leaders of the campaign against SOPA and PIPA.
Game of Loopholes and Rules
How did we get here?
The CEO of AT&T told an interviewer back in 2005 that he wanted to introduce a new business model to the internet: charging companies like Google and Yahoo! to reliably reach internet users on the AT&T network. Keep in mind that users already pay to access the internet and that Google and Yahoo! already pay other telecom companies — often called backbone providers — to connect to these internet users. [Disclosure: I have done legal work for several companies supporting network neutrality, including Google.]
But AT&T wanted to add an additional toll, beyond what it already made from the internet. Shortly after that, a Verizon executive voiced agreement, hoping to end what he called tech companies’ “free lunch”. It turns out that around the same time, Comcast had begun secretly trialing services to block some of the web’s most popular applications that could pose a competitive threat to Comcast, such as BitTorrent.
Yet the phone and cable companies tried to dress up their plans as a false compromise. Counterintuitively, they supported telecommunications legislation in 2006 that would authorize the FCC to stop phone and cable companies from blocking websites.
There was a catch, however. The bills included an exception that swallowed the rule: the FCC would be unable to stop cable and phone companies from taxing innovators or providing worse service to some sites and better service to others. Since we know internet users tend to quit using a website or application if it loads even just a few seconds slower than a competitor’s version, this no-blocking rule would essentially have enabled the phone and cable companies to discriminate by picking website/app/platform winners and losers. (Congress would merely enact the loophole. Think of it as a safe harbor for discriminating online.)
Luckily, consumer groups, technology companies, political leaders, and American citizens saw through the nonsense and rallied around a principle to preserve the internet’s openness. They advocated for one simple, necessary rule — a nondiscrimination principle that became known as “network neutrality”. This principle would forbid phone and cable companies not only from blocking — but also from discriminating between or entering in special business deals to the benefit of — some sites over others.
Unfortunately, the FCC decision that included the nondiscrimination rule still had major loopholes — especially when it came to mobile networks.
Both sides battled out the issues before Congress, federal agencies, and in several senate and presidential campaigns over the next five years. These fights culminated in the 2010 FCC decision that included the nondiscrimination rule.
Unfortunately, the rule still had major loopholes — especially when it came to mobile networks. It also was built, to some extent, on a shaky political foundation because the then-FCC chairman repeatedly folded when facing pressure. Still, the adopted rule was better than nothing, and it was a major advance over AT&T’s opening bid in 2005 of a no-blocking rule.
As a result, Verizon took the FCC to court to void the 2010 FCC rule. Verizon went to court to attack the part of the rule forbidding them from discriminating among websites and applications; from setting up — on what we once called the information superhighway — the equivalents of tollbooths, fast lanes, and dirt roads.
There and Back Again
So that’s where we are today — waiting for the most powerful court in the nation, the DC Circuit, to rule in Verizon’s case. During the case’s oral argument, back in early September, corporate lobbyists, lawyers, financial analysts, and consumer advocates packed into the courtroom: some sitting, some standing, some relegated to an overflow room.
Since then, everyone interested in internet freedom has been waiting for an opinion — including everyday folks who search the web or share their thoughts in 140 characters; and including me, who argued the first (losing) network neutrality case before the DC Circuit in 2010.
Web and mobile companies will live or die not on the merits of their technology, but on the deals they can strike with AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and others.
But, in their questions and statements during oral argument, the judges have made clear how they planned to rule — for the phone and cable companies, not for those who use the internet. While the FCC has the power to impose the toothless “no-blocking” rule (originally proposed by AT&T above), it does not (the court will say) have the power to impose the essential “nondiscrimination” rule.
It looks like we’ll end up where AT&T initially began: a false compromise.
The implications of such a decision would be profound. Web and mobile companies will live or die not on the merits of their technology and design, but on the deals they can strike with AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and others. This means large phone and cable companies will be able to “shakedown” startups and established companies in every sector, requiring payment for reliable service. In fact, during the oral argument in the current case, Verizon’s lawyer said, “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these [FCC] rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.”
Wait, it gets even worse. Pricing isn’t even a necessary forcing factor. Once the court voids the nondiscrimination rule, AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast will be able to deliver some sites and services more quickly and reliably than others for any reason. Whim. Envy. Ignorance. Competition. Vengeance. Whatever. Or, no reason at all.
So what if you’ve got a great new company, an amazing group of founders, a seat in a reputable accelerator program, great investors and mentors. With the permission-based innovation over “our pipes” desired from the likes of Comcast, Verizon and AT&T… there’s no meritocracy here.
Of course, despite everything the judges suggested during the two-hour argument, it’s possible that they offer net neutrality a reprieve. Given how sticky this morass is, there’s one simple way for you to judge the opinion: If the court throws out the non-discrimination rule, permission-less innovation on the internet as we know it is done. If the nondiscrimination rule miraculously survives, then, for now at least, so too will freedom on the internet.
fuck.
FUCK.
FUUUUUUUUCK.
We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality — And the Internet as We Know It
BY MARVIN AMMORI11.04.139:30 AM
Net neutrality is a dead man walking. The execution date isn’t set, but it could be days, or months (at best). And since net neutrality is the principle forbidding huge telecommunications companies from treating users, websites, or apps differently — say, by letting some work better than others over their pipes — the dead man walking isn’t some abstract or far-removed principle just for wonks: It affects the internet as we all know it.
Once upon a time, companies like AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and others declared a war on the internet’s foundational principle: that its networks should be “neutral” and users don’t need anyone’s permission to invent, create, communicate, broadcast, or share online. The neutral and level playing field provided by permissionless innovation has empowered all of us with the freedom to express ourselves and innovate online without having to seek the permission of a remote telecom executive.
But today, that freedom won’t survive much longer if a federal court — the second most powerful court in the nation behind the Supreme Court, the DC Circuit — is set to strike down the nation’s net neutrality law, a rule adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in 2010. Some will claim the new solution “splits the baby” in a way that somehow doesn’t kill net neutrality and so we should be grateful. But make no mistake: Despite eight years of public and political activism by multitudes fighting for freedom on the internet, a court decision may soon take it away.
Marvin Ammori
Marvin Ammori is a Future Tense Fellow at the New America Foundation and a lawyer who represents technology companies on internet policy issues. He is also the cofounder of a startup, Wearab.ly, which enables content to be distributed to wearable devices. A graduate of Harvard Law School, Ammori serves on the boards of Demand Progress, Fight for the Future, and Engine Advocacy. Fast Company named him one of the 100 Most Creative People in Business in 2012 for being Silicon Valley’s “go-to First Amendment guy” and one of the leaders of the campaign against SOPA and PIPA.
Game of Loopholes and Rules
How did we get here?
The CEO of AT&T told an interviewer back in 2005 that he wanted to introduce a new business model to the internet: charging companies like Google and Yahoo! to reliably reach internet users on the AT&T network. Keep in mind that users already pay to access the internet and that Google and Yahoo! already pay other telecom companies — often called backbone providers — to connect to these internet users. [Disclosure: I have done legal work for several companies supporting network neutrality, including Google.]
But AT&T wanted to add an additional toll, beyond what it already made from the internet. Shortly after that, a Verizon executive voiced agreement, hoping to end what he called tech companies’ “free lunch”. It turns out that around the same time, Comcast had begun secretly trialing services to block some of the web’s most popular applications that could pose a competitive threat to Comcast, such as BitTorrent.
Yet the phone and cable companies tried to dress up their plans as a false compromise. Counterintuitively, they supported telecommunications legislation in 2006 that would authorize the FCC to stop phone and cable companies from blocking websites.
There was a catch, however. The bills included an exception that swallowed the rule: the FCC would be unable to stop cable and phone companies from taxing innovators or providing worse service to some sites and better service to others. Since we know internet users tend to quit using a website or application if it loads even just a few seconds slower than a competitor’s version, this no-blocking rule would essentially have enabled the phone and cable companies to discriminate by picking website/app/platform winners and losers. (Congress would merely enact the loophole. Think of it as a safe harbor for discriminating online.)
Luckily, consumer groups, technology companies, political leaders, and American citizens saw through the nonsense and rallied around a principle to preserve the internet’s openness. They advocated for one simple, necessary rule — a nondiscrimination principle that became known as “network neutrality”. This principle would forbid phone and cable companies not only from blocking — but also from discriminating between or entering in special business deals to the benefit of — some sites over others.
Unfortunately, the FCC decision that included the nondiscrimination rule still had major loopholes — especially when it came to mobile networks.
Both sides battled out the issues before Congress, federal agencies, and in several senate and presidential campaigns over the next five years. These fights culminated in the 2010 FCC decision that included the nondiscrimination rule.
Unfortunately, the rule still had major loopholes — especially when it came to mobile networks. It also was built, to some extent, on a shaky political foundation because the then-FCC chairman repeatedly folded when facing pressure. Still, the adopted rule was better than nothing, and it was a major advance over AT&T’s opening bid in 2005 of a no-blocking rule.
As a result, Verizon took the FCC to court to void the 2010 FCC rule. Verizon went to court to attack the part of the rule forbidding them from discriminating among websites and applications; from setting up — on what we once called the information superhighway — the equivalents of tollbooths, fast lanes, and dirt roads.
There and Back Again
So that’s where we are today — waiting for the most powerful court in the nation, the DC Circuit, to rule in Verizon’s case. During the case’s oral argument, back in early September, corporate lobbyists, lawyers, financial analysts, and consumer advocates packed into the courtroom: some sitting, some standing, some relegated to an overflow room.
Since then, everyone interested in internet freedom has been waiting for an opinion — including everyday folks who search the web or share their thoughts in 140 characters; and including me, who argued the first (losing) network neutrality case before the DC Circuit in 2010.
Web and mobile companies will live or die not on the merits of their technology, but on the deals they can strike with AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and others.
But, in their questions and statements during oral argument, the judges have made clear how they planned to rule — for the phone and cable companies, not for those who use the internet. While the FCC has the power to impose the toothless “no-blocking” rule (originally proposed by AT&T above), it does not (the court will say) have the power to impose the essential “nondiscrimination” rule.
It looks like we’ll end up where AT&T initially began: a false compromise.
The implications of such a decision would be profound. Web and mobile companies will live or die not on the merits of their technology and design, but on the deals they can strike with AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and others. This means large phone and cable companies will be able to “shakedown” startups and established companies in every sector, requiring payment for reliable service. In fact, during the oral argument in the current case, Verizon’s lawyer said, “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these [FCC] rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.”
Wait, it gets even worse. Pricing isn’t even a necessary forcing factor. Once the court voids the nondiscrimination rule, AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast will be able to deliver some sites and services more quickly and reliably than others for any reason. Whim. Envy. Ignorance. Competition. Vengeance. Whatever. Or, no reason at all.
So what if you’ve got a great new company, an amazing group of founders, a seat in a reputable accelerator program, great investors and mentors. With the permission-based innovation over “our pipes” desired from the likes of Comcast, Verizon and AT&T… there’s no meritocracy here.
Of course, despite everything the judges suggested during the two-hour argument, it’s possible that they offer net neutrality a reprieve. Given how sticky this morass is, there’s one simple way for you to judge the opinion: If the court throws out the non-discrimination rule, permission-less innovation on the internet as we know it is done. If the nondiscrimination rule miraculously survives, then, for now at least, so too will freedom on the internet.
fuck.
FUCK.
FUUUUUUUUCK.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Silly Things People Have Said to Me When I Tell Them I'm Not Having Kids
There are already 8 billion human beings on the planet. Good on you.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Saturday, October 12, 2013
Wednesday, October 09, 2013
Hard drugs found on Greenpeace ship seized by Russia
Hard drugs found' on Greenpeace ship seized by Russia
9 October 2013 Last updated at 11:28 ET
Huh. The other day I was just wondering why no matter where a TV show or movie is produced (uh yuh, this here Murikan kin read them subtitles) that Russians are universally portrayed as vicious, cruel, violent, corrupt criminals.
9 October 2013 Last updated at 11:28 ET
Huh. The other day I was just wondering why no matter where a TV show or movie is produced (uh yuh, this here Murikan kin read them subtitles) that Russians are universally portrayed as vicious, cruel, violent, corrupt criminals.
Government Shutdown Blamed On Republicans: Poll
GOP shenanigans. If they weren't messing around with people's very survival they would be laughable.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Wednesday, October 02, 2013
Dinner tonight
I had a nice little break from cooking, but the husband is home and it's not bugging me yet. I found ribeye on sale and the tiny bok choy was cheap.
The recipe called for rice vinegar but I substituted apple cider and I don't like white rice. It took 20 minutes including prep and rice cook time since brown rice is faster in a rice cooker.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Watch: Joblessness Is Killing Us
Thank you Mr. Moyers. Your essays are always so eloquent.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Nairobi Mall Shooting: Gunmen Throw Grenades, Open Fire At Upscale Shopping Center
Hmmmm. Didn't I read something about AFRICOM growing last year?
A Retort to US Military Expansion in Africa: 'Dismantle AFRICOM'
As US makes plans to blanket continent with soldiers and drones, an alternative: Don't
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/12/24-2
and yeah, last week?
AFRICOM’s Gigantic ‘Small Footprint’
http://original.antiwar.com/engelhardt/2013/09/05/africoms-gigantic-small-footprint/
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Hunger Games Trilogy
I can see why they call this a "young adult" set. I like it even though the vocabulary is not very advanced. . I'm getting weird in my old age. I see the movies and then read the books. Hopefully I'll be finished with the second book before the second movie comes out.
update 9/24/13
I finished the series. I liked it. The vocabulary is not advanced, but some of the philosophical concepts are not elementary at all. It was exciting to read, and not written like women (in general) write. There were not 16 pages to describe how things looked and the romance crapola was an integral part of the story but by no means an overwhelming part of the story. Typically American in that it has waaaaay more violence than anything remotley sexual, but being that that is ok for what passes for an educational system here...
Thursday, September 12, 2013
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
I am reading the "Millenium" series by Stieg Larssson. The books are excellent.
I am also watching the 6 part extended Swedish tv mini series and this version is soooooo much better than the American version of the film. It's streaming on Netflix and this is the 3rd time I've watched it.
I am also watching the 6 part extended Swedish tv mini series and this version is soooooo much better than the American version of the film. It's streaming on Netflix and this is the 3rd time I've watched it.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
The Leveraged Buyout of America
"Feudal." Perfect description for the big 'banksters. How stupid do they think we are?'
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Bob Filner Resignation Expected, Mayor Seen Leaving Office With Boxes: Reports (UPDATED)
As a life long resident of San Diego I am not surprised that it didn't take long to dig up dirt on the Democratic mayor and get rid of him. I wondered "Why now? Oh yeah, stuff that never mattered before he was a threat to the Rethugs matters now."
"For several decades, ending in 2013, all five supervisors were Republican, white, graduates of San Diego State University, and had been in office since 1995 or earlier. The Board was criticized for this homogeneity, which was made possible because supervisors draw their own district lines and are not subject to term limits.[35] (In 2010 voters put term limits in place, but they only apply going forward, so that each incumbent supervisor can serve an additional two terms before being termed out.[36]) That pattern was broken in 2013 when Slater-Price retired; she was replaced by Democrat Dave Roberts, who won election to the seat in November 2012 and was inaugurated in January 2013.[37]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_County,_California#Law.2C_government_and_politics
g'head g'head, all you people who don't have a clue about how this county works, bash away at me...
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
JPMorgan Chase's Culture as Economic Parasite
Thank you Mr. Learsy for your (once again) sane assesment of the insanity of the banksters in action.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Jebus computers are frustrating
I am not a computer geek. I don't want to spend all day dicking around with the computers. I. Really. Don't.
Friday, July 26, 2013
Tools of War Come Home to America
"Those D.C.-based aerostats will certainly not have deployed the Gorgon Stare system, now in use in Afghanistan to rave reviews. "
Makes me wonder if the "men" who name these things invaded my city last weekend....ComicCon.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Makes me wonder if the "men" who name these things invaded my city last weekend....ComicCon.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Shocking Things Wall Street Financiers Say Off the Record About Their Bloated, Corrupt Industry A new survey shows how brazenly immoral Wall Street is.
Shocking Things Wall Street Financiers Say Off the Record About Their Bloated, Corrupt Industry
A new survey shows how brazenly immoral Wall Street is.
A new survey shows how brazenly immoral Wall Street is.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
The Psychology of Neo-McCarthyism
Thank you for this sane analysis.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Thursday, July 04, 2013
Happy 4th of July 2013
Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. --Ben Franklin
This is for you NSA -- Me
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. --Ben Franklin
This is for you NSA -- Me
Monday, July 01, 2013
Friday, June 28, 2013
Big Lie: America Doesn't Have #1 Richest Middle-Class in the World... We're Ranked 27th!
"...Our tax structures favor the rich and their corporations who no longer pay their fair share. They move money to foreign tax havens, they create and use tax loopholes, and they fight to make sure the source of most of their wealth -- capital gains -- is taxed at low rates. Meanwhile the rest of us are pressed to make up the difference or suffer deteriorating public services..."
I wonder how many times I've tried to explain this to a financially struggling Republican who considerers themselves "middle class" all the while spouting the GOP rehetoric about taxes being too high for everyone. It's like trying to explain colors to someone blind from birth.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
I wonder how many times I've tried to explain this to a financially struggling Republican who considerers themselves "middle class" all the while spouting the GOP rehetoric about taxes being too high for everyone. It's like trying to explain colors to someone blind from birth.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Jeff Olson, California Man, Faces 13 Years In Jail For Writing Anti-Big Bank Messages In Chalk
Why does it not surprise me that this is a San Diego case? Oh yeah, could be that I was born and raised here and the business community is supposed to be blindly worshipped. Banksters. Gah.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Prop. 8: Supreme Court clears way for gay marriage in California Comments 1
Prop. 8: Supreme Court clears way for gay marriage in California
LA Times
By David G. Savage
June 26, 2013, 7:32 a.m.
" WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court cleared the way Wednesday for same-sex marriages to resume in California as the justices, in a procedural ruling, turned away the defenders of Proposition 8.
Chief Justice John Roberts, speaking for the 5-4 majority, said the private sponsors of Prop. 8 did not have legal standing to appeal after the ballot measure was struck down by a federal judge in San Francisco.
"We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to," he said. "We decline to do so for the first time here."
The court’s action, while not a sweeping ruling, sends the case back to California, where state and federal judges and the state’s top officials have said same-sex marriage is a matter of equal rights.
Last fall, the high court agreed to hear a last-chance appeal from the sponsors of the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to the union of a man and a woman.
Federal courts in San Francisco had struck down the measure on the grounds that it unfairly discriminated against gays and lesbians who wished to marry.
Usually, the governor and state’s lawyers defend state laws in federal court, but both Gov. Jerry Brown and Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris refused to defend Prop. 8.
Several sponsors of the ballot measure stepped in to defend the law, but there were questions about whether they had legal standing to represent the state in court.
Eeeeeeeeeeep! It's about fucking time!
LA Times
By David G. Savage
June 26, 2013, 7:32 a.m.
" WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court cleared the way Wednesday for same-sex marriages to resume in California as the justices, in a procedural ruling, turned away the defenders of Proposition 8.
Chief Justice John Roberts, speaking for the 5-4 majority, said the private sponsors of Prop. 8 did not have legal standing to appeal after the ballot measure was struck down by a federal judge in San Francisco.
"We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to," he said. "We decline to do so for the first time here."
The court’s action, while not a sweeping ruling, sends the case back to California, where state and federal judges and the state’s top officials have said same-sex marriage is a matter of equal rights.
Last fall, the high court agreed to hear a last-chance appeal from the sponsors of the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to the union of a man and a woman.
Federal courts in San Francisco had struck down the measure on the grounds that it unfairly discriminated against gays and lesbians who wished to marry.
Usually, the governor and state’s lawyers defend state laws in federal court, but both Gov. Jerry Brown and Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris refused to defend Prop. 8.
Several sponsors of the ballot measure stepped in to defend the law, but there were questions about whether they had legal standing to represent the state in court.
Eeeeeeeeeeep! It's about fucking time!
Saturday, June 08, 2013
The Great Gatsby
The movie. The old one. Meh. I never liked Mia Farrow and I thought Redford trying to look enthralled with her was just painful to watch. Bruce Dern does creepy well, so he was ok. Overall, I gave it a big fat meh.
Will I see the new version? Probably not. Why should I make Punky Doodle DiCaprio richer by plunking down 13 bucks? Watching it today made me glad I didn't have to trudge through the damn book in high school. Why is this country so fascinated with the wealthy anyway? Buncha arrogant neurotic assholes, who cares?
Will I see the new version? Probably not. Why should I make Punky Doodle DiCaprio richer by plunking down 13 bucks? Watching it today made me glad I didn't have to trudge through the damn book in high school. Why is this country so fascinated with the wealthy anyway? Buncha arrogant neurotic assholes, who cares?
Monday, June 03, 2013
‘We Steal Secrets’: State Agitprop
‘We Steal Secrets’: State Agitprop
Posted on Jun 2, 2013
By Chris Hedges
...“We Steal Secrets” is agitprop for the security and surveillance state...."
Well, that's kind of disappointing coming from Alex Gibney, but understandable considering the state of the state in the US today. It's why I rarely bother to complain about the spineless Dems and ridiculous RepugnanThuglicans any more. I don't think it's even worth the effort to complain about a political system so rife with corruption that it feels hopeless a lot of times.
Posted on Jun 2, 2013
By Chris Hedges
...“We Steal Secrets” is agitprop for the security and surveillance state...."
Well, that's kind of disappointing coming from Alex Gibney, but understandable considering the state of the state in the US today. It's why I rarely bother to complain about the spineless Dems and ridiculous RepugnanThuglicans any more. I don't think it's even worth the effort to complain about a political system so rife with corruption that it feels hopeless a lot of times.
Saturday, June 01, 2013
The Accused
The Accused (1988)
111 min - Crime | Drama - 14 October 1988 (USA)
I just finished watching it after many years and it is still a great movie. It was loosely based on the gang rape of Cheryl Araujo.
It saddens me that even 25 years after the film brought to light how poorly the rape victims are treated in the "justice system" the fight continues.
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
True Blood Season 5
Yes, I am a year behind on True Blood. Don't have cable, never have, hate the advertising. I even play rounds of Song Pop during the ads when I watch shows online. tee hee.
I suppose this bitch is tired of bitching about politics for the moment. Life is short, I'd like to have some fun before I die. I've just recently lost some people, so fuggit, I'm gonna enjoy.
I suppose this bitch is tired of bitching about politics for the moment. Life is short, I'd like to have some fun before I die. I've just recently lost some people, so fuggit, I'm gonna enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)