Month: January 2014

The whole hairless body thing

Leaves me completely cold. I hate the alleged trend going on now.

Plus I’m hairy enough that it would very expensive/painful to remove mine and I have no intention of ever doing so.

But I see numerous online posting on hairy bodies are icky, from both male and female posters. It’s ludicrous – look we have it for a reason that science has yet to figure out. It’s probably an evolutionary trait left over from the Neanderthal or early human populations.

 

Tell the FCC to reclassify both wired and wireless broadband into Common Carrier status

Go sign the petition here.

And let me explain what the lack of net neutrality could do to us. Cable and phone companies could for example block or degrade traffic to sites like Netflix, Hulu, et al should they wish to extract more revenue. As it is already they extract a magnitude 20 price for broadband service on the wired side, probably even more on the wireless side.

In essence another part of not having net neutrality is that they want to charge content providers for the privilege of delivering content. That’s not the internet we want.

And the court the struck down the FCC ruling – they cited Google Fiber. You know, the same Google Fiber that’s only in about 3 cities so far. And don’t for a moment think that Google will utilize net neutrality, they’ll simply pile on.

Instead all ISP’s  have to be fully regulated a the NATIONAL level by moving them into Common Carrier status. This is what Ma Bell operated under back in the days when phone service was $12  a month. And she made a tidy profit under that regulation.

The profit being made by ISP’s and wireless carriers is OBSCENE. So click on the petition link above – tell the FCC to reclassify all the ISP’s and wireless carriers under Common Carrier rules.

So Brian Brown is still bitching about 10th Amendment stuff

In case you haven’t heard, the latest state to gain full marriage equality is Oklahoma! And of course once again Brian Brown, head Spokesbigot of the National Organization for Marriage (The oxymoron group!) is once again trying to make a 10th Amendment argument for the right of states to discriminate against the gay community vis a vis marriage rights.

This one is pretty brief compared to the angst he displayed on Utah or New Mexico.

Today, the National Organization for Marriage renews its call for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The decision by U.S District Court Judge Terence Kern in Oklahoma is the latest in a string of examples of the dangers posed to state marriage laws when the avenue of debate is the federal court system. We need firm legislative action to protect the rights of the states and their citizens to make their own determinations regarding the definition of marriage without interference from federal appointees either in the courts or within the executive branch.
 
Now the asshole wants a federal amendment, well he’s ALWAYS wanted that but it has a snowballs chance in hell of ever coming to fruition.
 
The decision by U.S District Court Judge Terence Kern in Oklahoma is the latest in a string of examples of the dangers posed to state marriage laws when the avenue of debate is the federal court system.
Old Pumpkin Face Brown really doesn’t like the Federal Judiciary. The reason Brown doesn’t like it is because he sees it as illegitimate when in nearly every instance when NOM and the other bigots have been dragged into court they’ve lost and lost badly!
 
We need firm legislative action to protect the rights of the states and their citizens to make their own determinations regarding the definition of marriage without interference from federal appointees either in the courts or within the executive branch.

So now the truth comes out – he doesn’t like the judiciary or the executive branches. Maybe it’s because there’s a lot more logic and thought in those two branches than in the rabble of the U.S. House and Senate.

And calling it interference is telling. Let me rephrase it for him: Brian Brown wants the will of the religiously bigoted to be the rule of law in the land. And all I can say to that is, over my dead fucking body.

 

Brian Brown isn’t a happy camper

Here’s his latest screed. I’m going to take it apart so get ready:

“It is outrageous that the Justice Department would move so brazenly and publicly to undermine Utah’s standing constitutional provision regulating marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It is the right of states to determine marriage, and the voters and legislature of Utah have done just that. Their right to do so is encoded in the U.S. Constitution, and was explicitly upheld by the Supreme Court this summer in the Windsor decision. But with this move, the Department of Justice under this Administration signals that it simply has no regard for the Constitution and the rule of law. On Wednesday, the State of Utah had issued its own determination that it would not recognize the same-sex marriages which had taken place there between the decision by a federal judge to strike down Utah’s marriage amendment and the Supreme Court’s order to stay that decision. The Governor of Utah announced this in a letter from his Chief of Staff to cabinet officials which explained that “state recognition of same-sex marital status is ON HOLD until further notice.” The Justice Department’s edict today expressly contradicts the determination of Utah’s Governor and Attorney General, and represents one of the most significant overreaches of federal authority imaginable. Furthermore, Attorney General Eric Holder is now doing the very thing that the Supreme Court in Windsor v. United States held the federal government could not do – use a definition of marriage for federal law purposes that did not respect the policy choices made by the individual states. This determination should be reversed if the State of Utah’s sovereignty-or really any state’s-is to be upheld and respected.”

When Brown says “It is outrageous that the Justice Department would move so brazenly and publicly to undermine Utah’s standing constitutional provision…”

What he’s really saying is “I don’t recognize the legal framework of the court that constantly finds against bigoted arguments that we’ve put forth.”

“It is the right of states to determine marriage, and the voters and legislature of Utah have done just that.”
AND “…their right to do so is encoded in the U.S. Constitution, and was explicitly upheld by the Supreme Court this summer in the Windsor decision.”

Umm – here’s the thing. This is the old 10th Amendment argument and that got settled in the mid 19th century, a thing called the Civil War. Supremacy belongs to the Federal Government, not the states. That was the primary motivator for President Lincoln back then. And it still applies today. We’ll come back to this as he bleats about it later in the quote.And while the U.S. v. Windsor case is used by Brown, all that did was allow the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to recognize same sex marriages. We’ve seen evidence of this in the military and even in civil society where we can now claim the Federal benefits available to those who marry. The states meanwhile are still free to discriminate but that’s going the way of the do-do sooner than later.

That last part is a direct swipe at Attorney General Eric Holder. But all Holder did was say that every FEDERAL government office has to abide by the ruling in U.S. v. Windsor. I’ve discussed that above.

So Brian Brown – we all know you’re on the losing side of the arc of justice – so go at it with some dignity and stop whining.