(Leave a comment)

Tags: civil liberties, news, politics

(Leave a comment)

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1662

(Leave a comment)

http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/nation-building/~3/291089968/hillary-for-veep.html

In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, 55% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents also would like Illinois Sen. Barack Obama to choose Clinton as his running mate, although there's notable resistance among his backers. [...]

Three of four Clinton supporters would like to see her on Obama's ticket. But 52% of Obama supporters would rather he "choose someone else."

(Leave a comment)

http://fleshbot.com/390707/erica-campbell-from-nude-model-to-model-christian

Pulling together our thrice-weekly Best of Babelogs feature will be slightly more difficult (and much less fun) since word came over the wire that busty glamour model Erica Campbell is putting her faith in the Lord and getting out of the nude modeling business. For the last couple of years, she's been one of the most familiar and ubiquitous faces on the babelog circuit, with shoots for Playboy, Penthouse, and other top online photo houses like Danni.com and Digital Desires under her belt. Unfortunately, as she explains on what used to be her membership website, she felt "lost" and "lonely" and "broken". But she's now filled that void inside her with Jesus Christ! From now on she will devote her days to rescuing animals—and rescuing other girls that she believes are trapped in the web of porn.

Of course, we would never criticize anyone for choosing to do whatever will make them happy, even if we tend to have a few issues with the whole skin-star-finding-religion thing. But we will say that we're sorry to see her go: Erica was one of our favorites, combining supervixen sexiness with cute girl-next-door looks, and she will be missed. On the other hand, since pictures of fellow former glamour model Crissy Moran are almost as popular now as they were two years ago when she found God and dropped out of the business, we're guessing that we'll still be running into Erica for a little while longer. Here's another look back at the works she left behind.

. . .

(Leave a comment)

The Fiction Circus

Stain Bar

fictioncircus

(Leave a comment)

Tags: humor

(Leave a comment)

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1642

(Leave a comment)

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1638

(Leave a comment)

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1637

(Leave a comment)

http://support.apple.com/kb/TS1402

(Leave a comment)

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1662

(Leave a comment)

http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/bluejersey/~3/291083736/showDiary.do

http://www.bluejersey.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7807

Updated below the fold with quotes from the decision, available at the LA Times link above as a PDF file.  Basically, the court is saying that the state has already allowed legal same sex relationships, but the "civil unions" are a form of second-class citizenship.
From the decision.  Italics are their emphasis, Bold is mine.

the legal issue we must resolve is not whether it would be constitutionally permissible under the California Constitution for the state to limit marriage only to opposite-sex couples while denying same-sex couples any opportunity to enter into an official relationship with all or virtually all of the same substantive attributes, but rather whether our state Constitution prohibits the state from establishing a statutory scheme in which both opposite-sex and same-sex couples are granted the right to enter into an officially recognized family relationship that affords all of the significant legal rights and obligations traditionally associated under state law with the institution of marriage, but under which the union of an opposite-sex couple is officially designated a 'marriage' whereas the union of a same-sex couple is officially designated a 'domestic partnership.' The question we must address is whether, under these circumstances, the failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution

It also is important to understand at the outset that our task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated a marriage rather thana domestic partnership (or some other term), but instead only to determine whether the difference in the official names of the relationships violates the California Constitution.

As discussed below, upon review of the numerous California decisions that have examined the underlying bases and significance of the constitutional right to marry (and that illuminate why this right has been recognized as one of the basic, inalienable civil rights guaranteed to an individual by the California Constitution), we conclude that, under this state's Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process. These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish - with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life - an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage. As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own - and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family - constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society.

Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation - like a person's race or gender - does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.

A number of factors lead us to this conclusion. First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples. Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples. Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex
couples. Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for oppositesex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise - now emphatically rejected by this state - that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects 'second-class citizens' who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.

(Leave a comment)

http://news.perlfoundation.org/2008/05/mediawiki_syntax_parser_grant.html

In July 2007, TPF granted Shlomi Fish for a Perl-Based Mediawiki Syntax Parser.

Both parties have agreed to terminate this grant agreement. This will free up
Shlomi to work on other projects, and allow the Perl Foundation to use the
money to fund future grants.

(Leave a comment)

(7 comments | Leave a comment)

(Leave a comment)

Tags: gender

(10 comments | Leave a comment)

http://www.baristanet.com/2008/05/post_31.php

(Leave a comment)

http://www.baristanet.com/2008/05/free_today_1.php

(Leave a comment)

http://www.baristanet.com/2008/05/evening_gallery_walk.php

(Leave a comment)

(Leave a comment)

Tags: activism

(Leave a comment)

(Leave a comment)

(Leave a comment)

Current Mood: rejuvenated

(1 comment | Leave a comment)

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1642

(Leave a comment)

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1637

(Leave a comment)

http://support.apple.com/kb/TS1402

(Leave a comment)

http://fleshbot.com/390716/sexploitation-clip-of-the-week-prostitutes-protective-society

Do you remember that part in "Sin City" where the prostitutes took over an entire section of town, kicked out the pimps and the cops and the mafia, and started dispensing their own brand of justice to anyone foolish enough to mess with their sisters? That's a true story! Here's the documentary proof to show that no organized crime syndicate is a match for a fiesty band of hookers who know how to talk tough and shoot a gun. (It's also Chapter 5 of this book.) By the way, people love to complain that there is too much nudity and violence in the movies—but have you noticed that no one ever complains about "nude violence"? The more, the better as far as we're concerned.

· P.P.S. - Prostitutes Protective Society (1966) (imdb.com)
· Clip courtesy of Bedazzled Blue (bedazzledblue.com)

Previously: Sexploitation Clip Archive

(Leave a comment)

http://fleshbot.com/390609/chitty-chitty-gang-bang-chuck-palahniuk-goes-deeper-into-cassie-wright

With the imminent release of "Fight Club" author Chuck Palahniuk's book "Snuff" it's never been more clear to us that (a) his marketeers have some really excellent drug connections, and (b) Palahniuk's obsession with fictional aging porn star Cassie Wright is as surreal as his novels. After the awesome fake retro "Wizard Of Ass" trailer comes "Chitty Chitty Gang Bang", another wacky sendup of classic porn tropes complete with bad dialogue, scary sound effects and ridiculous scenarios. Which is nothing like real porn, of course. (Maybe it's better?)

Still, to get the full effect of the Palahniuk's book (whose title may or may not give away the ending), one only need look at the author's bizarre "interviews" with present-day Cassie Wright to realize that being in a Palahniuk novel might just be like being inside his actual brain. Watch the faux "Chitty Chitty Gang Bang" trailer below, plus a video where Palahniuk himself interviews a Divine-inspired Cassie Wright as she reveals how "Chitty Chitty" was her "chance to do real acting". (Ed note: So why hasn't anyone made a real porn movie called "World Whore 3: The Whore To End All Whores" anyway?)

. . .

Fake trailer: "Chitty Chitty Gang Bang"

. . .

Chuck Palahniuk Interviews Cassie Wright, part 1:

· Cassie Wright (myspace.com)
· Chuck Palahniuk (chuckpalahniuk.net)
· "Snuff" by Chuck Palahniuk (Amazon)

(Leave a comment)

http://fleshbot.com/390800/chinese-surveillance-cameras-serve-up-hot-voyeur-action

In a story ripped from our hottest secret fantasies an Orwellian nightmare, surveillance cameras in China were apparently used to spy on young women as they disrobed and walked around their homes naked. We've included the clip as a friendly reminder to our readers: if you live in a big city that has these kinds of cameras scattered about, this could happen to you. Though depending on how much of an exhibitionist you are, maybe that's not such a bad thing after all.

· "Smile! You're on CCTV!" - naked (observers.france24.com)

(Leave a comment)

(Leave a comment)

Tags: gay rights, law

(Leave a comment)

http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/bluejersey/~3/291063041/showDiary.do

http://www.bluejersey.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7806

With that framework in mind, I think Senator Lautenberg is failing the moment.  His health care webpage emphasizes his fine record and a number of important new initiatives, but is silent on the matter of universal health care.  In 1994, he was late to the health-care fight, but came on board with a great statement :

"We have left a segment of society behind without health security," Mr. Lautenberg said. "They are in the same situation my mother was in over 50 years ago. For the most part, they work, pay taxes, raise their families and play by the rules. But they lack health care coverage through no fault of their own. They deserve better than our current system provides."

I ask Senator Lautenberg to make universal health care a campaign issue, because qualified support and a senate speech after the legislation is in trouble won't be enough.  
I would also like to see Rob Andrews do more on this issue. His issues page says he will "Help get everyone insured" and specifically mentions expanding Medicare eligibility, expanding SCHIP, subsidies for small businesses to purchase health care, and mandating "huge employers" ("the Wal-Marts of the world") to pay for insurance.  He also promises to "force insurers to compete for your business."   While he is missing the individual mandates in Hillary Clinton's health care plan, many of the other elements are in common with her plan and Barack Obama's health care plan.

So while Andrews is better in realizing the current importance of advancing this issue, he could do more with press releases.  Also, since I looked for 1994 New York Times articles for Lautenberg, this is what I found for Andrews on Gephardt's bill to mandate employers purchase insurance:

Congressman Andrews of New Jersey, explaining his opposition to the Gephardt bill, said: "We don't want a plan that disrupts the coverage or raises the taxes of people who have coverage. People see it as social engineering with 15 percent of the economy."

So Andrews has apparently changed his views. I don't blame him -- I have too -- but what we need is a strong campaign advocating for universal health care to counteract decades of statements about socialism.  

I believe that both Lautenberg and Andrews would cast a positive vote in the end, but without strong statements during the campaign, major health care reform will die in Congress.  

(Leave a comment)

http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/bluejersey/~3/291063042/showDiary.do

http://www.bluejersey.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7805

(Leave a comment)

(2 comments | Leave a comment)

(1 comment | Leave a comment)

http://blog.plover.com/2008/05/15#luminous-bandaids

The band-aid itself is circular, about 1.5 cm in diameter. It is sealed between two pieces of paper, each about an inch square, that have been glued together along the four pairs of edges. There is a flap at one edge that you pull, and then you can peel the two glued-together pieces of paper apart to get the band-aid out.

As I peeled apart the two pieces of paper in the dark, there was a thin luminous greenish line running along the inside of the wrapper at the place the papers were being pulled away from each other. The line moved downward following the topmost point of contact between the papers as I pulled the papers apart. It was clearly visible in the dark.

I've never heard of anything like this; the closest I can think of is the thing about how wintergreen Life Savers glow in the dark when you crush them.

My best guess is that it's a static discharge, but I don't know. I don't have pictures of the phenomenon itself, and I'm not likely to be able to get any. But the band-aids look like this:

Have any of my Gentle Readers seen anything like this before? A cursory Internet search has revealed nothing of value.

(Leave a comment)

(4 comments | Leave a comment)

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- The California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on gay marriage, paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

The justices released the 4-3 decision Thursday, saying that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

(1 comment | Leave a comment)