Wednesday, June 29, 2011

The Supreme Court pisses me off


Video games have become increasingly graphic & violent,  some with sexual content.
The Supreme Court just granted First Amendment protection for kids to access video games rated "M Mature 17+" & above.

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled States cannot ban the sale or rental of ultraviolent video games to children.

They ruled that such limits are a violation fo young people;s First Amendment rightd & are leaving it up to parents & the multi billion dollar gaming industry to decide what kids can buy.
By so ruling, it thre out the 2005 California law covering games sold or rented to those under 18, caling it an unconstitutional violation of free-speech rights.

Scalia compared it to violence in Fairy Tales. OK the 3 little pigs did trick the big bad wolf to jump down the chimney into a boiling pot of water.

Humpty Dumpty did fall & crack up. (Some say he was pushed!)

But even with Eeny Meeny Miny Moe, if he hollered, he was let go.

Fairy Tales are not blood soaked violence feasts, that the video games are.



Justice Breyer was the voice of reason:

"What sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13 year old, to buy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting the sale to that 13 year old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds & gags the woman, then tortures and kills her?"
It makes no sense to legally block children's access to pornography, yet allow them to buy or rent brutally violent video games."

Something to think about.....

• The Jonesboro, Arkansas school shooting in 1998, where 2 kids , 11 & 13 gunned down 15 people & killed 5.
The parents of one of the shooters, was at a video arcade a week after the shootings, their younger child playing a game that involved shooting a gun.

• Kip Kinkel ,the Springfield Oregon student shooter. Shot 23 students, 2 died & killed both his parents.
Later said he liked to play violent video games. Was also diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic.

• The Columbine High School student shooters- 34 casualties, 15 dead. Not only did these kids play violent video games, they were able to amass & alter weapons. They were "spurred by images of violence, to act out their anger in a violent way. The two Colorado teenagers who killed 12 students and a teacher, then themselves, at Columbine High School in 1999 spent endless hours blasting opponents in violent video games. Millions of children and adolescents who will never touch an actual firearm continue to do the same.


My point is that kids absorb this stuff. Regular network broadcasting hosts nightly "entertainment" that involves killing, cop stories & crime solving stories. CSI Miami, New York
NCIS  LA undercover Ops, Criminal Minds, COPS, Law & Order,  The Mentalist,  Rookie Blue, to name a few.

If we watch shows that show blood death & violence, news that covers war stories, then have "games" that involve serious violence, we create a saturation level where violence becomes casual, accepted, entertainment & a game.

I guess the Supreme court stopped short of advising that the violent games can be purchased at
Wal Mart, where last week, they ruled it is OK for women to make lower wages & are not entitled to a Class Action Lawsuit against gender pay discrimination.

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

TSA Now Groping Grannies

In an absolute lack of basic common sense, the TSA decided it had to crack down on a 95 year old cancer patient in a wheelchair. Don't know who does their reasoning for profiling, but a retired Nurse, wearing depends, in a wheelchair as a frail 95 year old, is not a likely candidate for terrorism.
In fact quite the opposite-- she was making a journey to see remaining family members in Michigan &  checks into a care facility, in that state.

On Monday, after the story became public, the TSA is now denying they required her to remove the Depends (adult diaper). What they did was say she's not getting on the plane as long as there is an unidentified hard spot between her legs (the Depends has a gel that absorbs).
So by saying she was not getting on the plane w the Depends on pretty much meant, she had to take them off, or she could not fly.


"While going through security, the 95-year-old was taken by a TSA officer into a glassed-in area, where a pat-down was performed, Weber said. An agent told Weber "they felt something suspicious on (her mother's) leg and they couldn't determine what it was" -- leading them to take her into a private, closed room.
Soon after, Weber said, a TSA agent came out and told her that her mother's Depend undergarment was "wet and it was firm, and they couldn't check it thoroughly." The mother and daughter left to find a bathroom, at the TSA officer's request, to take off the adult diaper.
"My mother is very ill, she has a form of leukemia," Weber said. "She had a blood transfusion the week before, just to bolster up her strength for this travel."
Weber said she burst into tears during the ordeal, forcing her own pat-down and other measures in accordance with TSA protocol.
Did you catch that? Her being upset & tearful about the ordeal caused the TSA to scrutinize her escort daughter, who had planned on, and had received special permission to take her elderly Mother to the entrance of the plane!
Eventually, Weber said she asked for her mother to be whisked away to the boarding gate without her, because their plane was scheduled to leave in two minutes and Weber was still going through security.
By this weekend, the 95-year-old woman -- who was not identified by name -- was doing "fine" in Michigan, where her niece and her family "was treating her like royalty because they love her so much."
"My mother is a trouper," Weber said.

The TSA released a statement Sunday defending its agents' actions at the Northwest Florida Regional Airport.
"While every person and item must be screened before entering the secure boarding area, TSA works with passengers to resolve security alarms in a respectful and sensitive manner," the federal agency said. "We have reviewed the circumstances involving this screening and determined that our officers acted professionally and according to proper procedure." *

So this is what it's come to? Frail elders have to be "troopers" to make it through misguided TSA searches that results in not being able to wear underwear/ adult diaper for her flight? Kind of wish that Grandma would have peed on the TSA handler when she went for her additional security pat down without Depends. Secure this!

* Quoting CNN


Monday, June 27, 2011

Equality for some

If you are gay in America, this is the current patchwork of what marital law looks like. 
You might be able to lawfully wed in one state, but not have it legally recognized in another state. 
Actually, it is even more complicated then that....




Laws regarding same-sex partnerships in the United States
  Same-sex marriage1
  Unions granting rights similar to marriage1,2
  Legislation granting limited/enumerated rights1
  Same-sex marriages performed elsewhere recognized1
  No specific prohibition or recognition of same-sex marriages or unions
  Statute bans same-sex marriage
  Constitution bans same-sex marriage
  Constitution bans same-sex marriage and some or all other kinds of same-sex unions

1May include recent laws or court decisions which have created legal recognition of same-sex relationships, but which have not entered into effect yet.
2Same-sex marriage laws in California are complicated; please see the article on same-sex marriage in California.



If that's confusing, simply refer to this State by State chart:





StateMarriageSame-sex unionsNotes
DefinedResultCivil UnionsDomestic
Partnership
ConstitutionStatuteLicensesRecogn.Def.StatusDef.Status
Flag of Alabama.svg AlabamaYesYesBannedBannedNoNone
Flag of Alaska.svg AlaskaYesYesBannedNoNoneNoNonePetitions are made to start a ban ballot on civil unions too.
Flag of Arizona.svg ArizonaYesYesBannedNoNoneNoNone
Flag of Arkansas.svg ArkansasYesYesBannedBannedNoNone
Flag of California.svg CaliforniaYesYes (°)Banned
Ban upheld by California Supreme Court.[3]
Ban overturned by theDistrict Court for Northern California, ruling stayed pending appeal.
Yes; ConditionalNoNoneNoYesMain article:Same-sex marriage in California
Originally granting only hospital visitation rights, the scope of domestic partnerships was gradually expanded over a three-year period. Taking effect on January 1, 2005, A.B. 205 extended to domestic partnerships virtually all the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage in California. Thus, domestic partnership in California has been effectively transformed into a civil union status.
Flag of Colorado.svg ColoradoYesYesBannedNoFailed (Still Proposed)YesOn November 2006 ballot, Colorado banned marriage but rejected areferendum to allow a "civil union"-likedomestic partnership, sustained by aconstitutional amendment. See also this table
Flag of Connecticut.svg ConnecticutNoNoLegal* by
Supreme
Court
decision, then by legislation.
YesExpires on 1 October 2010Expires on 1 October 2010NoneNoneMain article:
Same-sex marriage in Connecticut

Connecticut allows full civil marriage licences to same-sex couples. Civil unions expire from 1 October 2010.
Flag of Delaware.svg DelawareNoYesNot legalNot legalAs Civil Unions Effective 6/1/11Yes (Effective 1/1/2012)NoNone
Flag of Washington, D.C..svg District of ColumbiaNoNoLegalYesNoNoneNoLegal*Main article: Same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia
Domestic partnerships were enacted in 1992; implemented from 2002 and then expanded from 2003 to 2009. Same-sex marriages were legalized on December 18, 2009 and marriages began on March 9, 2010.
Flag of Florida.svg FloridaYesYesBannedBannedNoNone
Flag of Georgia (U.S. state).svg GeorgiaYesYesBannedBannedNoNone
Flag of Hawaii.svg HawaiiYesYesBan
permitted
Not legal.
As Civil Union Effective 1/1/12YesNone
(Effective 1/1/12)
NoLegal*Minimal benefits, available to all adults, including relatives; official terminology isreciprocal beneficiary relationship*.[2]
Civil Union Bill 2010 has been approved in the 2010 Senate, vote pending in the Hawaii House Committee.
Flag of Idaho.svg IdahoYesYesBannedBannedNoNone
Flag of Illinois.svg IllinoisNoYesNot legalAs Civil Unions Effective 6/1/11NoYesEffective 6/1/11NoNonePetitions are made to start a ban ballot. Marriage or civil union proposition, heading rather to civil unions.
Flag of Indiana.svg IndianaNoYesNot legalNot legalNoNoneNoNoneLegislative initiative to start a ban ballot.
Flag of Iowa.svg IowaNoNoLegal* by
Supreme
Court
decision
YesNoNoneNoNoneMain article:
Same-sex marriage in Iowa

In August 2007, Polk County judge ruled Iowa's statutory ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, but ruling was quickly stayed and appealed. On appeal, the Iowa Supreme Court upheld the Polk County ruling in the case of Varnum v. Brien.
Legislative initiative to begin constitutionalban ballot process was unsuccessful in 2009. Republicans in opposition vow to push the issue in 2010 legislative session.
Flag of Kansas.svg KansasYesYesBannedBannedUncertain
Flag of Kentucky.svg KentuckyYesYesBannedBannedNoNone
Flag of Louisiana.svg LouisianaYesYesBannedBannedNoNone
Flag of Maine.svg MaineNo (but proposed byRepublicans)Banned by statute since 1997 and was rejected by "the people's veto" in 2009.No (rejected by "the people's veto" in 2009)No (rejected by "the people's veto"in 2009)NoNoneYes (both opposite sex and same sex)Legal*Main article:
Domestic partnership in Maine

The Maine Domestic Partnership Act came into effect on July 30, 2004.[1]
Same-sex couple who married elsewhere may register their marriage as a domestic partnership. The "people's veto" won by 52.9 percent in November 2009.
Flag of Maryland.svg MarylandNoYesNot legal* Same-Sex Marriage Postponed until 2012Not legalNoNoneFew rights, unregistered domestic partnerships provide certain limited legal rights - just like Wisconsin, Hawaii and Colorado.Legal*Main article:
Same-sex marriage in Maryland

"The first state law defining marriage as a union between a man and woman was adopted by Maryland in 1973."[1]
Flag of Massachusetts.svg MassachusettsNoNoLegal* by
Supreme
Court
decision
Yes.NoNoneNoNoneMain article:
Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts
Flag of Michigan.svg MichiganYesYesBannedBannedBanned* by
Supreme
Court
decision
Flag of Minnesota.svg MinnesotaNoYesNot legalNot legalNoNoneNoNoneLegislative initiative and petitions are made to start a ban ballot.
Flag of Mississippi.svg MississippiYesYesBannedNoNoneNoNone
Flag of Missouri.svg MissouriYesYesBannedNoNoneNoNone
Flag of Montana.svg MontanaYesYesBannedNoNoneNoNone
Flag of Nebraska.svg NebraskaYesYesBannedBannedBanned
Flag of Nevada.svg NevadaYesYesBannedNoNoYesYesDomestic partnership legislation in Nevada is similar to the Californian/Oregon models.
Flag of New Hampshire.svg New HampshireNoNoLegalYesNoLegal - Expires on midnight 1/1/2011.NoNoneNew Hampshire allows full civil marriage licences to same-sex couples, civil unions to expire and convert into marriage from 1 January 2011.
Flag of New Jersey.svg New JerseyProposal
rejected
No*NoneAs civil
unions
NoLegalNoNo more
but
present
valid
ones
allowed.
Main article:
Same-sex marriage in New Jersey

The state of New Jersey has neither allowed nor recognized marriages between couples of the same-sex. However, the New Jersey Supreme Court, in Lewis v. Harris, required the New Jersey Legislature to change state law by April 24, 2007 to afford same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples.[4] A bill now allows civil unions that will supersede domestic partnerships. These are no more applied but may remain for the present ones.
Flag of New Mexico.svg New MexicoNoNoNoneNoneNoNoneNoNoneDoes not contain any public policy explicitly banning same-sex marriage nor defining marriage as between a man and a woman (effectively making the state neutral).
Flag of New York.svg New YorkYesYesLegal* Approved June 24, 2011Yes, by governmental entities; seeSame sex marriage in New York.YesNoneNoNoneMain article:
Same-sex marriage in New York
Flag of North Carolina.svg North CarolinaNoYesNot legalNot legalNoNoneNoNoneLegislative initiative to start a ban ballot.
Flag of North Dakota.svg North DakotaYesYesBannedBannedNoNone
Flag of Ohio.svg OhioYesYesBannedBannedNoNone
Flag of Oklahoma.svg OklahomaYesYesBannedBannedNoNone
Flag of Oregon.svg OregonYesNoBanned*NoLegalNoYesMain article:
Same-sex marriage in Oregon

Domestic partnership legislation in Oregon is very similar to the California and Nevada model.
Flag of Pennsylvania.svg PennsylvaniaNoYesNot legalNot legalNoNoneNoNonePetitions are made to start a ban ballot.
Flag of Rhode Island.svg Rhode IslandNoNoProposedYesNoProposedNoNoneDoes not contain any public policy explicitly banning same-sex marriage nor defining marriage as between a man and a woman (effectively making the state neutral). Does not award marriage licenses, but does extend limited rights to same-sex couples.[2]Now this is the basis on which RI will recognize the same-sex couples married in Massachusetts according to the Attorney General.
Flag of South Carolina.svg South CarolinaYesYesBannedBannedYesNone
Flag of South Dakota.svg South DakotaYesYesBannedBannedBanned
Flag of Tennessee.svg TennesseeYesYesBannedNoNoneNoNone
Flag of Texas.svg TexasYesYesBannedBannedNoNone
Flag of Utah.svg UtahYesYesBannedBannedNoNone
Flag of Vermont.svg VermontNoNoLegal[5]YesNoNo more
but
present
valid
ones
allowed.
NoNoneVermont allows full civil marriage licences to same-sex couples. Civil unions still recognised before 31 August 2009, but can not be performed after that date - also there is no "conversion into civil marriage" (as CT and NH have done).
Flag of Virginia.svg VirginiaYesYesBannedBannedBanned
Flag of Washington.svg WashingtonNoYesNot legal
*
As domestic partnersNoNoneYes (same-sex only)LegalMain article:
Same-sex marriage in Washington

Same-sex couple who married elsewhere may register their marriage as a domestic partnership. The 2009 reforms called the"all-but-marriage" law will come into effect from December 3, 2009, since it wasapproved by voters by 53 percent.
Flag of West Virginia.svg West VirginiaNoYesNot legalNot legalNoNoneNoNonePetitions are made to start a ban ballot.
Flag of Wisconsin.svg WisconsinYesYesBannedBannedYesYesDomestic partnerships provide certain limited legal rights - just like Hawaii, Maryland and Colorado.
Flag of Wyoming.svg WyomingNoYesNot legalNot legalNoNoneNoNoneState law pre-dates DOMA.[1]
StateMarriageSame-sex unionsNotes
DefinedResultCivil UnionsDomestic
Partnership
ConstitutionStatuteLicenses



Clear now?
As much as it is a small victory for "States Rights" to one by one, individually fight in each state for the equal right of marriage for some, because it is not Federal, the laws do not follow over state lines. 
How would you like it if you got married in one state, but the marriage was not legally binding in another?
How about Oregon, passed a law making gay marriage legal, then having it overturned & the marriages reversed?
Can you imagine getting the you are now "unmarried"  due to political changes, notice in the mail??
Yes, No, Banned, Pending, Conditional, Postponed,  Civil Unions, Domestic Partnership.... what a mess. 




Speaking of messes, that State by State spreadsheet spilled over. 


The "Notes" section will make your head spin:
California: 
Same-sex marriage in California


Originally granting only hospital visitation rights, the scope of domestic partnerships was gradually expanded over a three-year period. Taking effect on January 1, 2005, A.B. 205 extended to domestic partnerships virtually all the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage in California. Thus, domestic partnership in California has been effectively transformed into a civil union status.

Iowa: 
Same-sex marriage in Iowa
In August 2007, Polk County judge ruled Iowa's statutory ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, but ruling was quickly stayed and appealed. On appeal, the Iowa Supreme Court upheld the Polk County ruling in the case of Varnum v. Brien.
Legislative initiative to begin constitutionalban ballot process was unsuccessful in 2009. Republicans in opposition vow to push the issue in 2010 legislative session.

Washington: Same-sex couple who married elsewhere may register their marriage as a domestic partnership. The 2009 reforms called the"all-but-marriage" law will come into effect from December 3, 2009, since it wasapproved by voters by 53 percent.

Click here to go to the Wikipedia page site source.