Nine Year Old Activists Overturns Anti-Snowball Fight Ordinance

In front of a packed Severerance, Colorado Town Board meeting, Dane
Best, 9, lobbies comuunity leaders to overturn a ban on snowball
fights. Photo by Sara Knuth/Greely Tribune 

I love it when kids re-enact the plot in the fictional movie "Footloose," in which a teenager gets a town to overturn a ban on dancing.

The situation I'm about to describe isn't exactly dancing, but it's still nice to see somebody overturning a stupid local ordinance.

The town of Severance, Colorado has long banned snowball fights. C'mon! Colorado in the winter? You gotta have snowball fights!

Enter Severance resident Dane Best, 9, who decided he CAN fight City Hall. And, spoiler: He won.

According to the Greeley Colorado Tribune, Best gave this simple but perfect argument before the Severance Town Board:

"The children of Severance want the opportunity to have a snowball fight like the rest of the world....The law was created many years ago. Today's kids need a reason to play outside."

BOOM!

You can't get a more persuasive argument than that. Why not let the kids of Severance experience the joys of children everywhere. At least in places where it snows And in this age of kids staying inside playing video games to the detriment to their physical health, wouldn't you want children to go outside and be active?

The anti-snow ball ordinance was part of an otherwise perfectly reasonable law that banned throwing missiles or stones at people or property. It's still illegal in Severance to throw stones and missiles, as it is in most if not all of America. Best didn't want the town to overturn that part of the law, and he promised never to throw a snowball with a rock inside.

But the snowball piece of the Severance ordinance is now officially off the books. After the Town Board meeting, the Greeley Tribune said Best and his little brother Dax, 4, went outside into Severance's snowy streets and threw the first legal snow balls in the town's history.

Severance Mayor Don McLeod also got into the act and tossed a snow ball or two.

This whole thing leads to a larger lesson for Best and any kid out there. Yes, you can change an injustice, but only if you put some effort into it.

Bottom line: The kids are alright.

Update: Awful Pit Bull Ban In Montreal Has Been Ditched

Izzy, pictured here, and other pit bulls are once again
welcome in Montreal, after a new mayor overturned
a bad breed-specific ordinance enacted last year. 

Sometimes, elections bring welcome changes.

Montreal has a new mayor, and that new mayor's administration has lifted a year-old stupid municipal ordinance banning pit bulls.

The ordinance was put in place after an understandable outrage: a woman was mauled to death by a dog that happened to be a pit bull.

Rather than tightening restrictions on all dogs deemed dangerous, the city passed a law that pretty much banned all pit bulls from the city. This raised the threat of euthanizing perfect good, safe pit bulls were part of peoples' families, and exiling others away from their forever homes.

The new mayoral administration just pulled the plug on the pit bull ban, saying Montreal should be a welcoming city for all pet owners. The city still has tight restrictions on dogs deemed dangerous, which makes perfect sense. Breed-specific laws don't, though, so I'm glad Montreal listened to the SPCA on this one.

Roy Moore Is Stupid, But You Knew That. Another Piece Of Evidence

Roy Moore wants to sue the Washington Post and Al.com
for their reporting on Moore's sexual harassment. Both
organizations hope he does sue. 

Roy Moore is angry.

The embattled Republican candidate for U.S. Senate from Alabama has been in the headlines for more than a week now.

As practically everyone knows, several woman have come forward to report sexual harassment and molestation by Moore decades ago. One of the victims was 14 years old at the time

This all started with a very well-sourced article in the Washington Post. Moore says it's all lies, and he would sue the Post. So far, no lawsuit. I thought somebody must have told him to shut up. A lawsuit would open Moore to a process called discovery, in which he'd have to spill a lot of beans under oath.

That would give the public possibly lots more horrible details about Moore's past.

But, nope. Moore is now threatening to sue Al.com, Alabama's largest news organization. Al.com has followed up on the Washington Post report with more well-researched reporting on Moore's past. Moore's lawyer sent a cease and desist letter to Al.com for its reporting and threatened a libel suit.

If you want to boil it down to the simplist terms, to win a libel suit, you need to show that someone said or published something about you that they knew was untrue and that they intended to harm you.

Both the Washington Post and Al.com were careful to source their stories, got people to talk on the record, and corroborated statements given to them by the women who said Moore assaulted or harassed them.

In other words, Moore's threats to sue are just bluster. Just like Donald Trump, who threatened to sue the women who said he harassed, it was just a weak attempt to scare them into shutting up.

Problem is, the women in the Trump and Moore cases know libel law, especially since they've been lawyered up. The Washington Post and Al.com, being journalism outfits, know libel law even more.

Right now, Al.com is begging, begging Moore to sue them. That way, Al.com could counter sue. We'd get discovery, and it would all be easy-peasy one stop shopping news reporting for them.

I wish I was the lawyer for Al.com, because it seems like such an easy job, defending the organization against dumb bunnies like Moore and his lawyers.

For now, Al.com has responded to Moore's cease and desist by saying it stands by its reporting, and that like every political candidate, Moore is subject to scrutiny and analysis by the media.

The ball is back in Moore's lawyer's court. And I join the chorus: Please, please try and sue the Washington Post and Al.com.  Then we'll know for sure all the details.

Assault On Reporter By Republican Candidate Gianforte A Campaign Boost

Republican Greg Gianfonte, in a special Montana Congressional
election today, is accused of assaulting a reporter Wednesday
evening. Will that help or hurt him?

Everybody is talking about Republican Greg Gianforte today this morning.

He's up for a special Congressional election today against Democrat Rob Quist in a closely watched race.

Of course the reason all the talking today is going on is because Gianforte assaulted a reporter who fairly aggressively questioned him about the Republican repeal and replace of Obamacare, which would kick 23 million people off health insurance, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Yep, Gianforte is charged with misdemeanor assault for body slamming Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs the night before the election.

Many people rightly condemned the assault. Montana newspapers withdrew their endorsements of Gianforte. Many people are now hoping he loses the election, which had been tightening anyway due to revulsion over some Republican proposals.

If Gianforte loses, that would be something, as his Congressional district is normally reliably Republican.

Don't count on him losing, though.

There's a large subset of the worst of the Republican base who are thrilled that Gianforte punched a so-called obnoxious reporter, especially one from the left-leaning Guardian.

Gianforte's macho moves might lead hard-core Republicans to come out and vote for him in droves today.

After all, the Trump campaign and his administration has made literally bashing journalists - not just criticiziing them - a popular move among the Republican wacko caucus.

As CNN notes:

"Senior Huffington Post media reporter Michael Calderone pointed to the arrest earlier this month of a West Virginia reporter who shouted questios about health care reform at Health Secretary Tom Price and the manhandling by security gaurds of a Washington reporter at the Federal Communications Commisson headquarters."

All this led Modern Family Executive Produer Danny Zuker to tweet, "It's a sad fact that in this climate I have no idea if assaulting a reporter hurts Gianforte or helps him."

That is sad.

But people really are applauding the assault. Brent Bozell, the president of the conservative Media Research Center, tweeted, "Jacobs is an obnoxious, dishonest first classs jerk. I'm not surprised he got smacked."

If Jacobs is an obnoxious, dishonest first class jerk, does that justify assaulting him? To Bozell, the answer is yes.

Of course, Bozell might still have sour grapes because Jacobs broke a story about suspicious financial dealings by the Media Research Center.

Reports from Montana polling places this morning are not encouraging.  CNN National Correspondent Kyung Lah offered the following tweets from Montana this morning:

"MT GOP voter to me just now, knowing I work for @CNN. 'That audio made me cheer.' She smiled as she walked in to vote for Gianforte."

And:

"MT  GOP voter, upon learning we're from @CNN: 'You're lucky soeone doesn't pop one of you.'"

Sigh.

 By the way, Jacobs also got Gianforte pissed off in another respect

The assaulted reporter - Ben Jacobs - had previously broken a story about Gianforte's investments in Russian companies and we all know how controversial that type of thing is under the Trump administration.

It was telling that Gianforte's statement after the assault blamed Jacobs, saying he was a liberal reporter being aggressive. I guess that's grounds for body slamming, I guess.

Also, how can anyone run for office if they can't stand reporters asking tough questions and shoving tape recorders in their faces? That's what life is like for all politicians, liberal and conservative.

Today's election in Montana has turned into a referendum on which is better: Civility, or the natios continued decline into an acceptance of mob "justice" or the rule of law.

Chutzpah: Wells Fargo Says Signatures It Forged Makes Contracts Legal, Victims Can't Sue

Add caption

I just read an infuriating article in Consumerist.

Remember that whole thing a year or so ago when we learned Wells Fargo opened a whole bunch of fake accounts so that employees could make sales goals?

People suddenly had Wells Fargo accounts that they didn't seek and didn't want, and were subject to fees on those accounts. Wells Fargo employees forged signatures of these customers to establish the accounts.

As you might expect and remember, this was a huge scandal. More than 5,000 low-level employees were fired, as were four executives. Even then, a lot of people understandably wanted further repercussions against Wells Fargo.

Another non-surprise is that people who had been signed up for these fake accounts are suing Wells Fargo, or intend to.

Here's where it gets infuriating. Most banking transactions -  credit cards, bank accounts, that type of thing - have contracts that have an arbitration clause.

What that means is when you sign up for an account or a credit cart through a bank, you sign a contract that says if you are dissatisfied, you agree to go through arbitration rather than sue the bank.

Of course, the deck is stacked against you through that system, since the arbitration is set up by the bank, which has an interest in siding with the bank if there is a dispute.

But that's not the heart of the infuriating thing here.

According to Consumerist, to fend off lawsuits over all those thousands of fake accounts, Wells Fargo says that since the contracts in the fake accounts are subject to arbitration, the victims have to go through that arbitration.

Remember, the victims didn't sign these contracts. Wells Fargo forged them. Wells Fargo is essentially claiming that the forged contract are legally binding, which is a novel approach to the law.

In a statement to Consumerist, Wells Fargo wrote this gem:

"Our goal is to do what's right for every customer and team member, every day. If we are unable to resolve a dispute directly, arbitration is a forum in which a customer or a team member dispute is heard and resolved with a neutral third-party legal process. Arbitration is generally faster and less expensive than litigation. It is a fair, efficient and effective forum availale for a customer and a team memger to purseu and resolve a legal claim."

Yep, Wells Fargo is telling the victims of the fraud that they're doing them a favor by trying to deny their day in court. And remember, Wells Fargo isn't offering the arbiration as a voluntary alternative. They want to require it.

Besides, as Consumerist points out, the legal trouble will involve a class action lawsuit. That means lawyers will handle things for the victims and the people who were defrauded by Wells Fargo will not have to go through the time ane expense of going to court, meeting with lawyers, depositions, etc.

If Wells Fargo requires arbitration, then each victim will have to go individually to arbitration, and gather up all their information and attend hearings and that sort of thing.  That's not exactly easier than the class action lawsuit, where the victims can just wait and home and see how the legal battle plays out.

Lawuits against the bank are on hold while judges decide whether they should be combined into one gigantic class action lawsuit, or whether everybody should be forced into arbitration, the way Wells Fargo wants.

The second question shouldn't even be up for consideration, but that's the way things are nowadays.  More often than not, corporations get to choose what they want, and the hell with the rest of us.

A consumer group called We Do Count is urging the courts to throw away this stupid arbitration effort.

Additionally, six U.S. Senators (led by Vermont's own Patrick Leahy, yay!) are urging Wells Fargo to knock it off with this arbitration idea.

I guess we have to wait and see whether corporate fraud wins in the end.

She Wasn't Supposed To Park There Until 10 AM But.....

I thought the video I put in this post is humorous, so i thought I'd share.

The woman in traffic court parked in a spot where no parking was allowed between 8 and 10 a.m.

She parked in the spot at 9:59 and 58 seconds. Here's how it turned out in a Rhode Island traffic court:

Today's Overreaction: Cop Has Ex-Wife Jailed For Griping About Him On Facebook

The Facebook post that got Anne King arrested by
her vengeful ex-husband cop. He's now being sued

There's a strange lawsuit bubbling down in Georgia that started with this Facebook post by Anne King, griping about her ex-husband.

"That moment when everyone in your house has the flu and you ask your kids' dad to ge them (not me) more Motrin and Tylenol and he refuses."

OK, so that doesn't put the ex-husband in the best light possible, but hey, everybody complains on Facebook right?

Well, if the allegations in a lawsuit are correct, the ex-husband now looks much, much worse.

The ex-husband is Washington County sheriff deputy Corey King, who, according to the lawsuit filed  Anne King, had her arrested and jailed for posting the complaint. He also had Anne King's friend Susan Hines, who posted a response in support on the Facebook message.

All Hines said was "POS. Give me an hour and check your mailbox. I'll be GLAD to pick up the slack."

A local magistrate called the comments a criminal defamation case and threatened to an Mrs. King from Facebook says television station WRDW.

The case finally went to a more professional state court judge, who told the women, "I don't even know why you're here," as he promptly dismissed the charges, as Popehat notes.

Small town "justice" being what it is sometimes, Corey King and a local magistrate didn't seem to have a firm grasp of the niceties of First Amendent law.

The local magistrate, Ralph O. Todd, who is not a lawyer, somehow got elected to be that local judge, but boy does he seem to relish the role.

According to Popehat, Todd's criminal complaint against the women said, "Subject did, without privilege to do so ad with intent to defame another, communicate false matter which tends to expose one who is alive to hatred, contempt or ridicule, ad which tends to provoke a breach of the peace, specifically subject did make derogatory and degrading comments directed at and about Corey King, for the purpose of providing a breach of the peace."

Them there's some hifalutin' words, but of course, sometimes people who don't worry all that much about what's legal when they get into petty feuds over an insult.

Anne King could well get the last laugh with her lawsuit. She had the constitutional right to her opinion, expressed on Facebook, and her sheriff deputy ex might himself end up on the wrong end of the law after all.

Pettiness boomerangs sometimes, doesn't it?

That Stupid, Awful Montreal Pit Bull Ban Is Back In Effect

Montreal's draconian pit bull ban is back in effect,
but it will probably only harm dogs, and not
prevent dog attacks against people, as intended.

Remember that pit bull ban that Montreal tried to enact and enforce earlier this year that a court temporarily put on hold.

It's baaa--aack. and once again a lot of innocent, docile dogs, some pit bulls, many who just sort of look like pit bulls, are now in danger of euthanasia, or at best. some terrible restrictions.

Back in June, a Montreal woman was mauled and killed by a dog that looked like a pit bull.

No question that was a totally sad and unnecessary. The owner of the dog that caused the problem is the most culpable, since the dog obviously wasn't trained right.

As is usual with politicians who genuinely want to "do something" about a problem or a tragedy like that terrible mauling, the fine leaders of Montreal totally overreacted.

The ban also affects American Staffordshire terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers and any dog that remotely resembles a pit bull. They have to be registered, muzzled in public, and nobody can own one if a criminal background check comes up with something.

The Dodo reported that a Quebec court had ended a temporary suspension of Montreal's ban on pit bulls.

The court at least did at least temporarily curbed a provision that would have spelled a death sentence to these types of dogs in shelters, The Dodo reported.  The Montreal ban would have banned the adoption of these 700 or so dogs in Montreal area shelters.

Rescue groups have been trying to move as many of these dogs out of Montreal for adoption elsewhere.

If Montreal thinks the "pit bull ban" would reduce dog bites, they need only look to Toronto to see how wrong they are.

Toronto passed a rather draconian pit bull ban in 2005,  and most pit bulls are gone from that city. However, the number of annual dog bite incidents has risen there in recent years. 

In other words, all dogs have the potential to bite. It's just a risk in life.

I'm glad Canadian politicians want to do something about problems that arise. I just wish they would do something that would actually make a difference, and not harm innocent dogs, or their owners.

Mississippi Latest State To Screw Itself Over Because Jesus

The Mississippi billboard says it all...A 

It seems to be a required ritual of Republican state legislatures across the United States.

Prove to their voters they are Christians by passing odious and usually unconstitutional laws "legalizing" discrimination against gays, and transgender people and anybody else they deem as not going to be Saved.

The latest is Mississippi, and as is that state's style, basically every business, every service provider, every government agency and every church can now refuse service to gay people, and anybody else they deem immoral, like people who have sex outside of marriage, whether straight or gay, divorcees, you name it.

The only protected people in Mississippi are monogamous, straight married couples. Presumably only ones that are Christian.

I don't know how you determine whether somebody who walks into your store is following these rules without interrogating them, but I'll let Mississippi figure that out.

That state sure does have a lot to figure out, especially this: Why does the Mississippi legislature and governor do something like this, knowing that there will be an outcry that will hurt its already meager and sad economy, budget and everything else?

I don't have a good answer, and they probably don't, either.

I know these weird "religious liberty" bills are coming fast and furious nationwide from wackos who want us to turn into a theocracy.

It's everywhere, it seems, not just Mississippi. Tennessee. Idaho.

The governor of Idaho just had to veto a bill that would have said schools can use the Bible in public school instruction. The gov, and his attorney general, wisely said this would have been unconstitutional.

Tennessee State Senate, not to be outdone, approved a bill designating the Bible as the official state book. The state's attorney general, along with every other legal eagle, says the measure violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

One Tennessee senator, according to Slate, said "the very founding of our nation, the very form of government we have to today" is based on the Holy Scripture.

Um, no. They created a secular government in which the freedom of religion was bestowed on the citzenry. Quite a different thing.

 The Tennessee legislature, in its "wisdom" also passed a bill that would allow mental health couselors to not help someone if doing so would conflict with their "sincerely held religious beliefs."

As the website thenewcivilrightsmovement.com put it:

"The ACLU of Tennessee warns the bill, should it become law, would allow counselors to 'refuse to see clients for almost unlimited reasons. For instance, a counselor could refuse to see a lesbian simply because of her sexual orientation, or see a couple involved in an interfaith relationship A counselor who is an atheist could refuse to see a Catholic client - and the list goes on.'"

That last sentence is important, and could really screw the right wing evangelists who are trying to create this evangelical Christian theocracy.

All this anti-gay, right wing evangelical Christian faux lawmaking is being done in large part to distract from the real problems facing their constituents that the legislatures are too stupid, or too in the pocket of wealthy campaign donors to tackle.

Let's not deal with an iffy economy, creating jobs, paying for schools and infrastructure, all that stuff is too hard!

So the resort to the tried and true "the gays did it" or "the atheists did it" or whatever to redirect voters' ire. That way, when the economy, the state, the schools, the roads and everything else is a mess, they can just blame it all on the gays and the ungodly, and pretend it's not their fault.

OK, then, Christianity is saved from the heathens! Our laws work!

Or not.

What happens if some smart aleck gay person, atheists, activist or prankster tries to take advantage of these new rules and laws to turn them on their heads?

The unconstitional lawmaking is designed to "protect Christians" from the "attack" their under from society as a whole, not to mention the big bad heathen U.S. Supreme Court.

You saw the example above of the atheist counselor not treating a Catholic client. You know somebody is going to refuse to serve somebody in Mississippi or North Carolina because that would-be client is an evangelical Christian.

"It's against my closely held religous belief to serve a Christian, so I'm not going to do it."

Will these upstanding Christians cling to their weird theocratic laws then? It will be fun to watch.

Meanwhile, the economies in the states with the bigoted legislatures are going to suffer because of their actions. (But as noted, it's the gays fault! And the atheists!)

We know North Carolina is losing lots of investment and business from people repelled by their bad anti-LGBT law. North Carolina has potentially a lot to lose: Its business sector is pretty vibrant.

You'd think the Mississippi legislature and its governor would work on fixing the state's really big problems. And they're YUUGGEE! as Donald Trump might say.

As ThinkProgress notes, Mississippi's economy is ranked worst of all the 50 states. It has the highest unemployment rate, the lowest gross domestic product per capita, the lowest averge money spent on personal consumption and the lowest average annual wages.

Mississippi also ranks lowest on its innovation and technology efforts, its educational attainment and health.

The state sounds like a helluva fun place, huh?

Their legislature and governor are only making things worse in Mississippi.

What happens when Mississippi gets too poor to even maintain its Christian churches?

Hey Patent Trolls: Listing Your Favorite Things Isn't Patent Infringement

Hoping a trend is starting to reign in greedy,
corrupt patent trolls.  

A Pennsylvania photographer named Ruth Taylor had an innocent website called Bytephoto, on which she ran photo contests in where winners were chosen by viewers choosing which images they liked best.

It's something that's been going on since there were humans: People rank things in order of how much they like or dislike them. Nothing innovative about that. 

The problem is, there are still epic problems with patent trolls, people who find examples of mundane activities and sue, or more accurately, try to extort money by claiming the idea is stealing from a patent the trolls say they own.

My complaints about patent trolls might seem esoteric, but the reason I do is because  it affects everybody.

 Like shoplifting, it drives up prices for all of us. The unfairness of it is also galling. People getting rich of things that aren't an original idea, or not any kind of real idea at all. They're just scammers and crooks. 

Unfortunately, it's easier to pay the ransom trolls demand than pay lawyers piles of money to fight these cases, so people hand over money to the trolls to make they go away. Which encourages them to keep extorting. 

Every once in awhile, though, somebody fights back. While I don't know if I would fight back, I still wish more people would, since Congress doesn't have the balls to pass sensible legislation to reign in the trolls and bring a whacked out U.S. Patent Office back under control.

A guy named Michale Garofalo, who had a little-used video website called Garfum.com, sued Taylor, saying she was infringing on U.S. Patent 8,209,618, Ars Technica reports.   Taylor, he said, was somehow infringing on the patent with her photo contests, reports Ars Technica

Garofalo initially demanded $50,000, but cut the demand to $5,000, and later $2,500 when he discovered Bytephoto didn't have much of an income. 

Taylor decided, instead of paying, she'd take a shot at contacting the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is kind of an ACLU for free and open and fair access to the web.

EFF filed a motion to dismiss Garafalo's suit, saying the photo contest patent should be thrown out, as per a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision that said that adding technological sounding or computeresque language to an existing idea isn't enough to claim patent rights.

Garofalo at that point gave up and dropped the case.

But it gets better. Finally, a patent troll has really been held accountable.

U.S. Chief District Judge Jerome Simandle said Garofalo's company, Garfum, should pay the lawyers fees because of its "unreasonable" behavior during the litigation, Ars Technica says.

"The practice of ranking things in categories based on popular vote was well-known before the advent of the internet, or even computers, and the requirement to involve an online database does not make this claim inventive," Simandle wrote. "Any person with a pen or paper could perform the same steps."

Well, duh!

But that doesn't stop patent trolls. Ars Technica says the Garfum case was handled by Austin Hansley, a Texas law firm that worked on some of the most outrageous patent troll cases.

Austin Hensley also represented an outfit called aDekka, a patent troll that was ordered to pay $390,000 in attorney's fees for 168 cases thrown out by a Texas federal court,  Ars Technica says.

By the way, the town of Marshall in eastern Texas, from where those 168 cases grew, illustrates the most extreme example of corruption surrounding patents and patent trolls

The story is unbelievable.

Local federal judges there began encourage these patent troll cases to be heard there, instead of in places closer to where the alleged patent misdeeds happened. All these high powered lawyers and consultants and such that were forced to make trips to Marshall made the town prosperous, because they went to local businesses.

Locals serving on the juries in these cases knew it and acted accordingly.

So the area became a patent troll mill.

According a 2014 article in Texas Monthly:

"Over the years, Marshall has earned a reputation as the intellectual property equivalent of a speed trap, a place where juries smack big companies with huge judgements. And over the years, federal lawmakers have tried to do something about it, with little success.

The U.S. Supreme Court and the federal appeals court in New Orleans have enacted restrictions on new filings. (The late) U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia declared Marshall "a renegade jurisdiction.' "

Last year, a bipartisan bill in Congress was being considered to reign in patent trolls, but so far, nothing has been passed.

The bill was blocked by conservative lawmakers who said strong patent protection create wealth and  jobs in the U.S. and encourage innovation.

Sure, but can't you have strong patent protection and stop patent trolls too? Kinda like walking and chewing gum at the same time?

Patent trolls don't deserve any protection. Time to reign them in, and punish those who abuse honest entrepreneurs and others. Let people who come up with great, innovative ideas obtain patents and the protections they deserve to preserve their investments and inventions.

Commerce and wealth should rise from good, innovative businesses. Not from extortion and corruption. 

Surprisingly, I'm On Jan Brewer's Side As She Considers Lawsuit

A couple of the dubious web ads that
were placed using images of former Arizona
Gov. Jan Brewer. She's threatening to sue.  

I can't say I've ever been much of a fan of Jan Brewer.  But now she's threatening to sue an advertiser, and I'm totally rooting for her.

Brewer, you might remember, came under fire  (and was praised in other quarters) when she signed into law that required police to determine people they encountered whether they were in the United States illegally.  

She turned into a lightning rod with that one. But she later did not seek re-election and had largely faded from the spotlight.

Brewer cropped up again as the face on one of those annoying snake oil ads that appear on so many web sites.  Some show doctored "before and after" photos of Brewer after she'd gotten the purported company's wrinkle removing doohickey or whatever.

Brewer is 70 years old, and lives in sunny Arizona, so you don't expect her to look like a 20 year old.

Worse, Brewer never agreed to be the model for the ads. They company or ad agency just swiped the photos from the Internet.

The ad that pictures Brewer said she got the "revenge makeover" after her husband dumped her because she had gotten so "ugly"

"Divorced For Being So 'Old'" reads the ad's headline.

In reality, Brewer and her husband John have been happily married for nearly 50 years now.

Brewer told the Arizona Republic "It's obviously a very distorted and unflattering photo, and it's hurtful and it's wrong....I want whoeer is behind the use of this image to cease and desist and do so immediately, or it will leave me no option but to pursue legal recourse against them."  

I'm not linking to the Arizona Republic ad because of the hoops you have to go through to get to it, and because there's an autoplay, but the paper said RevContent and Content.ad placed the advertisements.

RevContent said it is not the orignator of the ad.

Content.ad said it is investigating the circumstances of the ad's placement, but will stop running it.

We'll see if there is eventually a Brewer lawsuit, but I'm behind her on this one.

It's one of many examples of advertisers using a person's likeness to peddle their (sometimes dubious) products, and it DOES have to stop.

Apparently, Adults Must Control EVERY SINGLE Moment Of Kids' Lives Or ELSE!

Apparently, the kids in this photo are
being horribly neglected by these parents because
they're allowed to play alone in a park
near their home. That is, at least in the eyes
of Maryland Child Protective Services.  

UPDATE: 

What people are really talking about how Maryland CPS deliberately didn't tell the parents where their kids were for TWO HOURS. 

After CPS finally fessed up that they had the kids, they spent more time not telling the parents what was going on.

Basically, Maryland CPS kidnapped these kids. If any random person grabbed the kids off the playground and kidnapped them, they'd spend 30 years in jail.

So, why aren't the people at CPS charged with kidnapping? Shouldn't they go to jail?

The parents also had to sign a so-called "safety plan" in which they are forced by law never to leave their kids unattended.

So Maryland CPS think they can raise kids better than loving parents? The same organization that thinks it's OK to kidnap children if they disagree with how their parents are raising them?

Like I said, I want jail time for Maryland CPS employees who were responsible for this outrage.

PREVIOUS DISCUSSION

I would hate to be a kid nowadays.

The rules seem to be that if you're a kid, an adult must be hovering two inches from you at all times. If you're a kid, you don't get to pick what game to play, what to imagine, who to play with, or when.

You don't just go out and play. It has to be a tightly controlled "play date."

Deviate from these rules just a bit, and dire things can happen. You might be taken away from your parents. Arrested and jailed because you misbehaved. Kicked out of school. Shamed in front of your peers.

I'm offering this rant because the so-called "Maryland free range kids" are back in the news again.

According to the Washington Post, authorities grabbed the children of Danielle and Alexander Meitiv out of a park because some busybody saw the kids playing alone, with no adult guiding their Every. Single. Move.

The busybody called the cops, who got the kids and handed them over to Maryland Child Protective Services.

The Meitive kids were previously in the news because Maryland CPS had previously investigated the parents for the "neglect" of having the kids walk home from a nearby park.

According to a previous Washington Post article:

"The Meitivs say they believe in 'free range' parenting, a movement that has been counterpoint to the hyper-vigilance of 'helicopter' parenting, with the idea that children learn self-reliance by being allowed to progressively test limits, make choices and venture out in the world.

'The world is actually even safer than when I ws a child and I just want to give them the freedom and independence that I had - basically an old-fashioned childhood' (Danielle Meitev) said. 'I think it's absolutely critical for their development - to learn responsibility, to experience the world, to gain confidence and competency.'"

But we can't have that!

An independent thinking child will grow up into an independent thinking adult, one that questions the Powers That Be, one that thinks of creative solutions that threaten the orthodoxy of whatever bonehead is in charge at the moment.

Look, I'm not saying there's some grand conspiracy to control kids' behavior so that they don't question authority as adults.

I'm saying this is the result we will get as we continue to squelch any hint of independence and self-sufficiently in kids.  Do we really want to live in a world were any independent thought is squelched?

But squelching we're doing, as we learned on Sunday.

On Sunday, the Meitivs were expecting the kids home by 6 p.m., and became pretty frantic when they didn't show up. Authorities didn't bother to mention to the Meitivs that they had the kids until 8 p.m..

My conspiratorial side thinks the CPS maybe wanted to frighten the parents by teaching them a lesson. You know, feel the terror over the possibility your kids were abducted or something.

Yes, I know, I know, abductions are possible. Rare but possible. That's the ostensible reason why we're supposed to hover over the kids.

Abductions are indeed horrible, and I sincerely wish that wouldn't happen to any kid, anywhere, period.

Maryland CPS eventually handed the Meitiv kids back to their parents around 10:30 Sunday night, the Washington Post said.

Way to go, Maryland CPS! Let's terrify parents who aren't helicopters, and more importantly, terrify kids into not having any independence and being fearful of being taken away from their parents, all because they wanted to play in a park.

The kids might have cause for worry.

In the previous incident, when the kids were caught walking home without a parent clinging to them, Maryland CPS eventually made a finding of "unsubstantiated neglect."

That means the agency found evidence there might have been neglect, but it couldn't really be proven. To me, this was a weasly way for the CPS saying that, no, you technically didn't do anything wrong, but we hate what you did so watch your back.

When I was a kid, nobody thought twice about our parents letting us go off on our own, maybe organize a touch football game on our own, or go splashing in the brook in the woods, imagining we were explorers, or knights or whatever our funny little brains decided.

If we misbehaved, it would get back to our parents, and we would be dealt with accordingly.

It would drive me crazy if some parent was with us every step of the way. How oppressive!

Likewise, if we misbehaved in school, the school would let it be known to our parents that we up to no good.

Granted, some parents don't follow up with discipline, which makes it particularly difficult for schools to deal with the troubled kid who's causing the problems.

The solution in those cases seems to be arresting the kids and charging them with serious crimes when they misbehave.

Like that 11-year old autistic kid who freaked out recently and fought as he was being restrained by adults in an escalation with the kid kicking a trash can. He was charged and convicted of felony assault on a police officer.

The kid is 11 years old and autistic!!

So, kiddies, let this be a lesson to you. Apparently, us adults don't want you to learn and have any independence, we don't want you to be creative, to explore, to let your mind wander, to think of innovative solutions to life's little and big problems.

No, we want you to be automatons, who don't even ask, "How high?" when we tell you to jump. You just jump.

And don't you EVER ask why anybody in charge is making stupid decisions. It's not for you to ask.

What a sad world for children.

This Apartment Complex Must Be AWFUL If Owners Threaten To Charge Tenants $10,000 For Bad Reviews

Windemere Cay apartments in Florida tried
to obtain right to fine tenants $10,000 for negative reviews
and tried to claim copyrights for any photos
tenants took in or at the complex.  

Owners of an apartment complex in Florida are deservedly being ripped to shreds on social media, and now on main stream media for their threats to charge tenants big money if they criticize the place on line.  

The apartment complex owners also laughably tried to say they own the copywright on any photos tenants take in, or of the building.

The publication arstechnica.com broke the story, and it's one of the most hamhanded attempts I've see to control what people say on line.

Businesses or other entities who say they will fine people for posting negative reviews are on extremely shaky legal ground. An online retailer, KlearGear had to pay more than $300,000 to a couple that KlearGear tried to fine because the pair wrote a negative review.

Plus, if these outfits have to threaten people with hefty fines for criticizing their goods or services, the logical conclusion, fair or not, is that these goods or services are pretty lousy.

Still, we do see people trying this stunt anyway.

The apartment complex, called Windemere Cay says it abandoned the policy a year ago, but a tenant said he was handed a lease agreement with the conditions earlier this month.

Other conditions of the lease agreement are way, way over the top. The owners of the apartment building claimed the copywright to "any and all written or photographic works regarding the Owner, the Unit, the property or the apartments."

So if your kid has a birthday party in one of the apartments and you snap some pictures of the goings on, the apartment landlords own the photos.

Or so they think, anyway.

The apartment managers should hope they don't get sued over these attempts at controlling tenants' speech, law experts say.

According to Arstechnica:

"'Not only is such a contract unenforceable, but it could expose anyone promulgating it to legal repercussions,' Santa Clara University Law Professor Eric Goldman explained.

'It would be a terrible idea to enforce this in court. A judge is going to shred it,' Goldman said."

The fee Windemere Cay proposed for dissing the place on social media was pretty steep --- $10,000 to be paid within five business days.

Like that would ever happen.

Arstechica also says businesses that try to enforce these contracts might run afoul of federal law because of unfair and deceptive business practices.

What gets me is how the managers at Windemere Cay didn't think there would be a firestorm, even thought they seemed to understand a boneheaded move on social media could cost them.

In the lease agreement they tried to foist on tenants, the document said of negative social media posts "Such postings can cripple a business by creating a false impression in the eyes of consumers. The damages resulting from this false impression can include potentially millions of dollars in economic losses........"

They didn't think Windemere Cay would get a lot of negativity when this proposed lease agreement came to light? They're not that smart, are they?

Forbes magazine had four straightforward rules to avoid social media firestorms that are really just common sense.  One is to not go screaming to the attorneys and launch a lawsuit against critics. That just amplifies what a jerk you are.

Also, reach out directly to the people complaining to try to make things right. You might even turn that person  into your advocate if you treat them well. Even when you make a small mistake with a customer and they call you on it, fix the problem fast. And make it easy for customers to reach you if they have a question or concern.

Pretty basic, right?

With all the publicity, I don't imagine Windemere Cay will try to enforce the lease.  

Still, if I ever move to Florida, though, I can tell you I won't be looking for a place to live at Windemere Cay.

Is The DEA A Little Too Interested In Your Spring Gardening?

Apparently, we need to use a little caution when going to garden centers this spring, especially if those garden centers sell hydroponic equipment.

OK gardeners, you're busted. Don't tell
the DEA you're just starting tomatoes indoors
They know it's drugs!  

In some areas of the Midwest, the federal Drug Enforcement Administration is staking out garden centers that sell hydroponic equipment, then conducting raids on households whose occupants were seen buying the stuff, says the Huffington Post, Patch, and other media outlets. 

Of course, a number of people who buy hydroponic equipment indeed use it to help grow pot. One of the people who were staked out indeed had some.

Angela Kirking, 46, was arrested in a raid on her place three weeks after she bought a bottle of organic fertilizer at one of these garden centers. It turns out she had less than a third of an ounce of pot at her place.

Yeah, possessing a third of an ounce of pot is illegal in Illinois, but staking out a garden center, conducting a three week investigation then having a big SWAT team conduct this huge raid on Kirking's place seems to be a bit of overkill don't you think?

DEA officials were asked that very question about overkill, but they're not answering questions.

It was even worse for the Harte family in suburban Kansas City last spring, according to the Associated Press. Adlyn and Robert Harte, both former CIA employees, thought it would be fun to buy some hydroponic equipment to teach their kids about gardening.

But the DEA surveillance caught the couple buying the hydroponic equipment.  So the DEA, like they seem to like to do, conducted another one of their dramatic SWAT team style raids on the Harte home last spring.

The "illicit" plants they found in the house were: Three tomato plants, one melon plant and two butternut squash plants.

I wonder how much this raid cost taxpayers?  The gall of the Hartes! Growing vegetables under grow lights and hydroponics!

And it could get more expensive. The Hartes are suing, because they said police and drug officials had no basis to carry out the raid. (They seem to have a strong case)

So, gardeners, now that it's spring, don't garden suspiciously! No grow lights to get plants started early indoors! No hydroponics!  Even buying fertilizer is suspect.

The DEA is watching, and they know that tomatoes are a gateway drug. You grow one tomato plant, and soon you'll graduate to a pot farm and a meth lab.

Or something like that. Maybe the DEA wants us all to stick to McDonald's and Twinkies?

Pervert Edition: Man Has Weird 1st Amendment Upskirt Photo Argument

A weirdo in Boston has come up with a novel application of the First Amendment.

Police said this moron
thinks he has the right to take
"upskirt photos" of
unsuspecting women.  

He says he has every right to sneak "upskirt photographs," quickly getting a snapshot of the area beneath a woman's skirt as he follows her, say, as she's climbing up a flight of stairs.

Yes, I know. Creepy.

According to the Boston Herald, Michael Robertson says that since the First Amendment protects the public's right to take photographs in public places, he can do this since the women he's stalking are in public places. 

It is true you can photograph pretty much anything to your heart's content while you're out in public streets. You don't have the right not to be included in a photograph as you're walking along a municipally owned street.

But lawyers say we do, of course, have some rights to privacy. Which common sense dictates that a woman should be able to wear a skirt while walking down the street without some weirdo like Robertson harassing them.

And Michael, Michael, Michael. Do you honestly think people will say, Oh, yeah. It's fine if you stalk woman with your camera like that?

Isn't there any online porn you can look at while you're home or something? Geez! Get a life!

In any event, Massachusetts lawmakers are considering legislation that would more specifically ban "upskirt photography" since it's clear people like Robertson need clarification on the issue.







As I side note, the Boston Herald had maybe an embarrasing error in their original report. They had a picture of a guy that made it look like he was Robertson, the upskirt photo pervert. But the guy in the photo had nothing to do with Robertson or the upskirt weirdness.

Oops.

DOMA Supreme Court Plaintiff Is Inspiring

In big huge Supreme Court cases, people who are hoping for some sort of landmark decision try to get a very sympathetic, smart and approachable plaintiff to be the Everyperson face behind the issue. Think Rosa Parks and civil rights.

Edith Windsor address the press and supporters on
the day of the big U.S. Supreme Court case on the
constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.  

That was true yesterday, as the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on whether the Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional.

The plaintiff in this case is Edith Windsor, 83, whose wife Thea Spyer died in 2009. Windsor had to pay $363,000 more in estate taxes than she would have had she been married to a guy.

Buzzfeed  had a very nice, quick photo essay on Windsor's back story, and Spyer, who was the love of her life,  That is centerpiece of what is at issue before the Court.

The couple were together for 42 years. Shortly before Spyer's death, the pair finally got the chance to marry.

Here's the text of what Windsor had to say to the press, public and supporters on the steps on the Supreme Court as her big case, United States vs. Windsor, had its day in court::


"Somebody wrote me a large speech which I'm not going to make but there are a couple of things I wanted to say. I wanted to tell you what marriage meant to me.

"When my beautiful sparkling Thea died four years ago I was overcome with grief. Within a month I was hospitalized with a heart attack, and that's kind of common, it's usually looked at as broken heart syndrome.

"In the midst of my grief I realized that the federal government was treating us as strangers and it meant paying a humongous estate tax. And it meant selling a lot of stuff to do it and it wasn't easy, I live on a fixed income and it wasn't easy.

"Many people ask me why get married. I was 77, Thea was 75, and maybe we were older than that at that point, but the fact is that everybody treated it as different. It turns out marriage is different.

"I've asked a number of long-range couples, gay couples who they've got married, I've asked them: 'Was it different the next morning and the answer is always: 'Yes'.' It's a huge difference.

"When our marriage appeared in the New York Times we heard from literally hundreds of people, all congratulating us and sending love because we were married. It's a magic word. For anybody who doesn't understand why we want it, and why we need it, it is magic.

"We did win in the lower courts. Today is like a spectacular event for me, a lifetime kind of event and I know that the spirit of my late spouse Thea Spyer is right here watching and listening and would be very proud and happy of what we've come to."


The most poignant part of the Buzzfeed profile of Windsor is the part where we find out out she has a life size photo of Spyer in her house. Windsor leans up against the photo and the two women  "talk" about what's going with their court case.

I know from experience what Windsor was talking about in her statement yesterday. I got same sex married in August. On one hand, everything stayed the same. Jeff and I kept living in the same house, kept to our same routines, kept loving each other.

But the fact that we were now married was a Big Deal. You wouldn't think a word would change a relationship, or at least my view of the one I'm in.

However, being married makes me feel special, and also gives me a sense of responsibility. It somehow makes our relationship that much more important. It shows the world that Jeff, and our union, is the most important thing in my life now.

And that every marriage, at least every successful one, is a precious pairing that has to be cherished. The glow of our happy marriage can only make the world just a bit better of a place for everyone. That's what I like to think anyway.

So yes, I agree with Edith Windsor. When I woke up the next day after Jeff and I got married, the world was completely different. My world, at least, had become a much more glorious place. Everyone should be so lucky.