“While Ms. McKenna “did not ‘abduct’ the child,” the court said, “her appropriation of the child while in utero was irresponsible, reprehensible.”—Sara McKenna, a former Marine, became pregnant during a brief relationship with Bode Miller, an Olympic skier. While seven months pregnant, she moved from California to New York to go to school, leading a judge to scold her for “virtually absconding with her fetus.” Now, the fight for custody of their son has become “a closely watched legal battle over the rights of pregnant women to travel and make life choices.” (via bebinn)
“I’m not a Marxist in the sense that I don’t think Marxism has a very specific clinical answer to what ails us economically. I think Marx was a much better diagnostician than he was a clinician. He was good at figuring out what was wrong or what could be wrong with capitalism if it wasn’t attended to and much less credible when it comes to how you might solve that. You know if you’ve read Capital or if you’ve got the Cliff Notes, you know that his imaginings of how classical Marxism – of how his logic would work when applied – kind of devolve into such nonsense as the withering away of the state and platitudes like that. But he was really sharp about what goes wrong when capital wins unequivocally, when it gets everything it asks for.”—David Simon (via azspot)
“No, the next Nelson Mandela of the world is rotting in a jail cell tonight, just like Mandela nearly withered for 27 years on Robben Island. Or he is on someone’s terrorist watch list, or she is segregated and searched every time she travels through an international airport. Somewhere, government spies are reading the emails of the next Nelson Mandela. They are tracking his cell phone and listening to his calls, or monitoring her meetings with their undercover cops.”—Philly.com writer Will Bunch nails it on the head, discussing who could be the next Mandela for America or across the world. (via shortformblog)
Scarpa is the defense attorney for Queens resident Rasheen Everett. Yesterday, Everett was handed a hefty prison sentence for the murder of Amanda Gonzalez-Andujar, a transgender New York prostitute. Everett strangled Andujar to death after discovering that she had male genitalia. But before Everett’s 29-year prison sentence was finalized, Scarpa tried to argue that the punishment was too harsh since Andujar wasso low class.
“A sentence of 25 years to life is an incredibly long period of time judge,” Scarpa said. “Shouldn’t that be reserved for people who are guilty of killing certain classes of individuals?”
this guy made the mistake of just going ahead and saying what the justice system is basically built around
“But in fully implementing Obamacare, Sandoval faces a double-edged sword: He’s helping bring health care coverage to a state with the second highest uninsured rate in the country, while he may be hurting his national ambitions because he’s not actively blocking the president’s law.”—
I love that Politico writes this sort of thing without any apparent self awareness. The good news is that he’s vastly expanded medical coverage in a state that really needs it. It’s going to save a lot of lives. BUT of if he ever wants to run for President, there might be some angry Republicans. So, on one hand, competent governance and thousands of lives saved. On the other hand, maybe an awkward explanation to some angry people. It’s tough to balance this sort of thing.
“What is most extraordinary about Proust is his ability to capture the subtlest nuances of human emotions, the slightest variations of the mind and the soul. To me, Proust is the Shakespeare of the inner world.”—
“The FBI has been able to covertly activate a computer’s camera — without triggering the light that lets users know it is recording — for several years, and has used that technique mainly in terrorism cases or the most serious criminal investigations, said Marcus Thomas, former assistant director of the FBI’s Operational Technology Division in Quantico, now on the advisory board of Subsentio, a firm that helps telecommunications carriers comply with federal wiretap statutes.”—
Help me understand which part of this I’m supposed to be enraged about—and upon whom the hammer of my rage should descend. According to the article:
The FBI has some extraordinary technological capabilities. I would be pretty enraged if a run-of-the-mill hacker had these capabilities but the FBI didn’t. I mean, if we’re going to have an FBI, it should be good at this kind of thing.
I’m not sure if I should be enraged at software or hardware companies for allowing this sort of exploit. I mean, it sounds like this was a phishing/malware thing. If you’re a terrorist and you thought the “download this program you’ll love it” sent by somebody with an @a1qaeda.biz looked legit … you have only yourself to blame.
I’m not enraged that the FBI sought a warrant for this sort of thing or that a judge rejected the warrant.
I’m not enraged that this type of snooping was done in a terrorism investigation, provided it was done with a warrant.
I’m concerned by the lack of public debate over acceptable snooping in a digital age. But I’m not sure how to translate that into rage.
Every law enforcement agency ever has been capable of extraordinarily invasive searches. The question is when these capabilities are used.
i was arguing with my (antigay) dad about gay rights and at the end i was like “i totally crushed u tbh i countered every argument you had” and he was like “but did you change my viewpoint tho” and i was like “i can lead a horse to water but i cant make it stare its reflection in the face and realize its an ass”