Politics

When Husbands , the online sitcom about a professional baseball player and a TV star who get married in a drunken weekend in Vegas and decide to stay together in support of marriage equality and because they think they might actually be in love, premiered last year, I wrote that “setting yourself up as a model minority may be an important way to argue for legal rights, real equality means the right to make mistakes and bad decisions—and to work your way out of them.” While that’s true of the show’s main characters Brady (Sean Hemeon) and Cheeks (Brad Bell, also the Husbands co-creator, writer, and executive producer with TV veteran Jane Espenson), when it comes to experimenting to discover the future, it’s also true of Husbands itself, one of the pioneering high-quality ongoing shows to live online rather than on a broadcast network. What’s exciting about about Husbands , though, is how quickly the show has grown in scope and emotional ambition from its first season to its second, w...

This morning on Fox News Sunday , Justice Antonin Scalia reiterated just how extremely his Constitutional originalism can be applied. Referring to the recent shooting in Aurora, CO, host Chris Wallace asked the Supreme Court Justice about gun control, and whether the Second Amendment allows for any limitations to gun rights. Scalia admitted there could be, such as “frighting” (carrying a big ax just to scare people), but they would still have to be determined with an 18th-Century perspective in mind. According to his originalism, if a weapon can be hand-held, though, it probably still falls under the right o “bear arms”: WALLACE: What about… a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute? SCALIA: We’ll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried — it’s to keep and “bear,” so it doesn’t apply to cannons — but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided . WALLACE: How do you decide that...

You can't blame 'em for trying, but it's no surprise that Samsung's second attempt to put a hold on the impending American ban of its Galaxy Tab failed. Judge Koh has already say the preliminary injunction could not wait while the Korean company pursued an appeal, and now the Court of Appeals is backing her up. To make matters worse, the court has also refused to expedite the appeal process, potentially prolonging the time the flagship slates are missing from the shelves. Now Sammy will just have to wait for the trial to start on July 30th and hope for a victory, or go back and redesign its tablets to look less like an iPad. We hear that triangles might be the ticket. View the original article here This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.