Please upgrade your browser to make full use of twiends.   chrome   firefox   ie   safari  
Create your own wall, sign in free!
Abigail Arrington
Now, perhaps the proprietor of said system considers creating your own necessity a marketing scheme, but consumers not likely to be amused.
Irony: When the alarm system that allegedly monitors for fires is the cause of one.
It's only Monday, but by relevant indicators, the world is already mad. Most weeks, we make it to Wednesday before that happens. :-/
For folks still upset re: #HobbyLobby: 4 reasons the Supreme Court contraception ruling means less than you think ti.me/1lsp4a0
And, in other news, I am left to wonder... Why doesn't GM just recall all of their cars and get it over with?
But, in terms of the "War on Women" (very much ongoing), I think our bigger fight is to challenge the "studies" which denounce needed tests.
So, the outlying question is how far does the association b/w individual and an entity have to go for the entity to assume their soul?
Now, mind you, I don't like the idea that corporations can be "persons" in this or other contexts, but there is established law on that.
Also, it seems HHS missed one of the most compelling arguments that might've changed the outcome, which was challenging the sincere belief.
From a legal perspective, that made it very difficult for HHS to show other types of corporations could not have the same protections.
One of the biggest hurdles govt faced in defending the ACA regulations is that HHS had already carved out exceptions for non-profit corps.
To bring some clarity to the #HobbyLobby ruling, thought I'd outline a few things that bear emphasis and explanation --->
I very much like Ginsburg, but disagree that Court opened can of worms. Rather, I think Hobby Lobby did. Just give it time. ;)
So I'm guessing Hobby Lobby will be divesting itself of all sponsored benefits that support contraception, including 401k mutual funds.
And, if they ain't putting their money where their mouth (er I mean faith) is, they don't get past go. Should be challenged on that front.
So basically, Hobby Lobby could under SCOTUS decision opt out of contraception mandate, but to do so will require proof of religious belief.
The litigator in me, loves that retweeted article b/c it opens a whole new side to the argument. Standing can be challenged at any time.
'Hobby Lobby Invested In Numerous Abortion And Contraception Products While Claiming Religious Objection' forbes.com/sites/rickunga…
Retweeted by Abigail Arrington
Found myself singing that after someone said they thought I am crazy. To which I replied, "Which of my little voices are you?" :)
Name that tune: Yesterday's over my shoulder, so I can't look backward too long... :)
Seems to me the Zuck should have at least bought those folks dinner before he zucked 'em. :-/
Also, not a surprise and why I do not "Like" ---> Facebook prompts outrage with experiment on users on.wsj.com/1x24cim via @WSJ
I say that as someone who's totally been a broke college student digging for change stuck in between the car seat. :-/
And, let's be real, birth control pills are $4 at Walmart or free at some clinics so they are accessible.
Which means, if a Dr. prescribes birth control hormones for med. reason should be covered, if contraception only, same as any elective med.
Why not surprised? Because the S.Ct. has to balance competing interests &the mandate is overly broad. Should be limited to medical needs.
Not a surprise --> Supreme Court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby in birth-control mandate case chicagotribune.com/news/chi-supre…
That said, media hasn't asked this - If all that NSA spying was supposed to track terrorist activity, how'd they miss the ISIS uprising?
In other news, the oil markets are conveniently surging just before the most travelled holiday weekend of the summer...
Does anyone else think the current Iraq unrest will somehow resolve itself after our summer travel season? :-/
Hmm, police can't search phones on arrest, but NSA can at will? Supreme Court limits police searches of cellphones usat.ly/1v5DToz
So, for all the folks out there creating female attorney characters, please take note, and get real with it. Bitches be complex. ;)
People are trained to take information and advice from men, but less so from women. To break from the custom, a girl's gotta stand out.
Now, on top of that, a female litigator also needs to be more likeable than male attys, which is hard. That's where smarts or style come in.
So, the point is, you can't have a female atty purportedly a badass in court if she's an awkward speaker with no skills as an orator.
To that end, you don't have to be smart to capture a jury (audience), just interesting and have a way with words. Denny Crane, anyone??
Number one requirement for an attorney claimed to have courtroom prowess is ability to capture an audience with their manner of speaking.
Now, perhaps, given my profession, I am a bit hard on lawyer shows, but some do meet my muster. The key is really in the casting.
By way of contrast, though, the show Extant looks interesting and, lo and behold, seems to have a plot! Obviously good casting, too.
Last but not least, got story? By all appearances, that would be a no. One remotely attractive male atty squaring off with a shrew is, meh!
Secondly, the vague dialogue they have shown in promos is barf-worthy at best, which I guess is why in later promos they dropped it. :-/
For one thing, the female lead looks vacuous in every scene, no matter they setting. Plus, she's not sexy or a convincing orator.
Probably shouldn't tell CBS that the show Reckless is gonna flop.... But, uh, yeah. So many reasons, so little space to expound.
Comcast turns 50,000 paying customer homes into public hotspots, millions more by the end of the year extremetech.com/computing/1842…
@AbbyArrington Found out yesterday Comcast is turning cable modems in people's houses into wi-fi hot spots, without their knowledge.
Retweeted by Abigail Arrington
And, on that note, we end today's episode of Technology Is Scary, with a shout out to all the dads who love their gadgets! #HappyFathersDay
Such broad claims are usually followed, some months later, by a resounding, "D'oh!" Or, for the more verbose, "My bad..." ;)
Naturally, their first response to this will be something you all know I hear daily... "That's never happened before!" :-/
That question should be closely followed by asking when they plan to notify the public of the vulnerability and/or breach.