(no subject)

[rm]

Patty and I had dinner with people last night. It was good and funny. It also tired us out. Tonight it's work, then laundry and packing and stuff for Chicago. All focus all the time. Also, yes, White Collar and Covert Affairs. More Buffy and Angel soon!

Oh hey, I made it to the final three in WIAD. Eeek. I feel like I'm on Project Runway, no challenge wins and going to Bryant Park.

Significant updates coming to my Dragon*Con schedule soon.

One-fifth of Pakistan is currently underwater.

Everyone should check out this piece on Tiger Beatdown that's actually several months old but I just got linked to today. It starts as a review of a book I have no desire to read because it sounds annoying. But the piece isn't really a book review, it's more about how we do discourse on the Internet. Note, I am not offering this to you in the spirit of "Oh, I have been wrong!" but in the spirit of "this sort of shit weighs on me all the time; there are no right answers more often than I'd like to think; sometimes I really hate myself; I try to do good; Good works -- very much including mine -- can be motivated by all sorts of things including spite and insecurity; God, there really is a lot of crap out there that needs to be called out; sometimes, this isn't fun anymore; please, tell me this is all hard for you too."

That said, check out Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on the Muslim Community Center slated for lower Manhattan. This is a long one, complex, and goes to a lot of places. In some ways its far from Olbermann's best rhetoric, because it's so all over place, but I respect its meanderings because he says a lot of things in it that are right to say, that another writer might have left out because it makes for a less efficient argument. It is also, among other things, in places a difficult listen, especially if you lost someone at the WTC. But it's worth listening to, all the way through.

Same-sex marriages on hold in CA -- the Ninth Circuit is in this now. I have no sense of the timeline on this. Anyone? (ETA: see first comment for answer).

New law allows sex-trafficking victims to clear their names.

The mystery of the khipus.

There's a ghost stroller in Brooklyn and no one is sure what it means.

Restoring the world's last surviving wooden whaling vessel.

The angry flight attendant already has reality TV offers: I TOLD YOU SO.

God, what the fuck with the throwing rocks at Tila Tequila? And hey, when she'd become a blonde?

Things I'm not linking too because they are from the department of the obvious: "Only children as social as peers" and "Teen sex doesn't always hurt grades."

I totally need this jacket, Y/Y? via jeliza.

Comments

[rm.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

I know that is speedy by these standards, but it's still sucky and sad.

On the other hand, good that they are stepping in, or else this would affect CA and nowhere else.

[newsbean.livejournal.com]

Just for a feeling of the speediness, a case is generally heard 15-16 months after being passed to the Ninth Circuit. Lawyer types are predicting that there will be a decision 2-3 months after the hearing, putting the total time around 6 months.

[firefly124.livejournal.com]

You're welcome. They could, apparently, still rule that the Prop 8 proponents do not have standing to appeal, which would limit the ruling to CA. It's weird to be almost rooting for that not to be the decision in order to have the judgment expanded nationwide.

And it is still sucky and sad that it's getting dragged out longer, especially for people who'd hoped to be able to marry last week or this week. While it may prove better on a national scale that it plays out this way in the long run, that doesn't stop it sucking in the short run.

[matthewwdaly.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid that wanting this ruling to be extended nationwide is an overreach. I'm nervous that there aren't five votes for it no matter how strong the argument is. And having seen Bush v. Gore and Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, I don't get the opinion that the court is going to be hamstrung by its own opinions about restricting standing. They obviously are comfortable making exceptions when it comes to making rulings justifying their ideological vies.

I'm sorry there's a stay, but I'd be more sorry if there weren't and the marriages performed in the interim were voided if the decision were reversed. That's a whole different level of suck. I also have no reason to doubt that the Ninth Court is going to legitimize and strengthen Judge Walker's awesome ruling while dealing a blow to the notion that unaffected parties can appeal rulings.

[tacky-tramp.livejournal.com]

I have that fear, too. I'm so torn.

[thatwordgrrl.livejournal.com]

As bizarre as it sounds, I'm actually OK with it. The court has explicitly said: "In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing."

Which, roughly translates as "Please explain to the court, using very small words, why you are wasting its time with this."

I'd far rather there be small careful steps that block any possible loophole for opponents than a giant leap forward that leaves a big opening for appeal.