I’ve always liked trademark attorney Enrico Schaefer, though we’ve only “met” via email. I mean, I’m not about to go to Traverse City, Michigan to have a beer with the guy.
Well, after reading this story, I think that it might be worth the trip – even in the winter.
Every lawyer has that one adversary whose uber-doucheness makes you want to smack them upside the head. Enrico, the founding partner of Traverse Legal has one too. Instead of getting mad, he just bought some billboard space outside the douche’s office!
The best part? According to Schaefer, the douches threatened to run him out of town – yet most of the companies logos on that billboard are companies that were formerly represented by the “annoying law firm!” Go Enrico, Go!
Enrico FTW!
Can anyone recommend a billboard company in Barcelona?
They didn’t ask me what I think, so I’m just going to tell everyone here.
The U.S. does need an auto industry — but it does NOT need the auto industry that we have, and that we have had, for the past 50 years.
The three dinosaurs have refused to adapt. Ford, GM, and Chrysler think that merely advertising small penis machines” to the masses as an affirmation of their “individualistic ruggedness” was all the innovation they needed. Well, that lasted for a few years, and now the party is over.
Here is the Randazza Plan to Restructure the Auto Industry.
Step one, Take every single high-ranking executive from the big three, drag them into the street and beat them, cover them in syrup, and release 1,000,000 bees.
Step two: Confiscate every dime those executives or their extended families have, and distribute it to the workers who built the companies. I don’t care if some of those people lose money that they rightfully earned. Sometimes life is really unfair — like when your uncle exports a job to Mexico. The guy who lost his job didn’t do anything wrong either, but Flint, Michigan still died as a result.
Step three: Declare “open season” on any passenger vehicle that gets less than 12 miles to the gallon. Just make it legal to vandalize or steal them.
Step four: This is the big one — The Glengarry / Glen Ross program. A bonus/bailout/prize program for the auto industry.
The target — a car that will run 500 miles on a single charge, with built in photovoltaic cells so it can trickle charge when parked, plug in capability, that is dependable and reliable as a Honda Civic, that costs $30,000 or less.
The first American-owned and American-based company to build this car with more than 75% of its components built in the United States, and all its assembly in the United States, gets a prize.
First prize is $3 billion and the biggest vehicle contract the government may have open.
Second prize is $500 million and the second biggest vehicle contract the government may have open.
Third prize is a set of steak knives — and certain death for that company if it happens to be one of the “big” three.
I have prepared a speech for Obama to give to the big three, and every little entrepreneur out there in “America needs a carmaker” land.
Put this on the teleprompter, and watch what happens:
Let me have your attention for a moment! So you’re talking about what? Union guy, you’re bitching about “exported jobs” and “management?” Shareholders? You’re talking about your stock tanking? Management and CEO’s, you’re bitching about the unions? You’re all bitching about someone and so-forth?
No bailout money for any of you losers. Bailout money is for winners. Do you think I’m fucking with you?
I am not fucking with you.
I’m here from Washington. I’m here from the American taxpayers. And I’m here on a mission of mercy.
You call yourselves Americans, you sons of bitches?
You don’t want to be talked to like this? You don’t need to take it. ‘Cause the good news is — you’re all off the government tit. No bailout. No government contracts. No unemployment payments. Nothing. And it is fuckin’ cold in Michigan with no money to pay the heating bill.
Oh, have I got your attention now?
The bad news is you’ve got, all you got, just one year to get your shit together. ‘Cause we’re adding a little something to the bailout bill.
As you all know, first prize is $3 billion. Second prize is $500 million. Third prize is a set of steak knives and the corporate death penalty.
You get the picture? You’re laughing now? You got people. You got technology. You can’t make a decent car that we need, you can’t make shit, you ARE shit, hit the bricks pal and beat it ’cause you are going out!!!
General Motors: But we can’t compete with the Japanese.
Obama: You can’t compete because you are LOSERS! You go home and tell your wife your troubles. Because only one thing counts in this life! Build. Something. Competitive! You hear me, you fucking faggots?
You want bailout money? Get the job done!! You think this is abuse? You think this is abuse, you cocksuckers? You can’t take this — how can you take the abuse you get when you’re all out on your asses and bankrupt?! You don’t like it — move your whole plant, management, and workers to fuckin Mexico. You sons of bitches! Get mad!! You know what it takes to make cars? The Germans do. The Koreans do. The Japanese do. The Swedes do. And this program says “American owned.” You think the Koreans aren’t savvy enough to just START a fucking car company here with 51% American ownership? Think again.
You wanna go out and get the prize, it’s yours. If not you’re going to be shining my shoes. Bunch of losers sitting around in a bar. (in a mocking weak voice) “Oh yeah, I used to be an auto executive, a line worker, it’s a tough racket.”
Now get out there and do your goddamn jobs. Unions? Management? Suppliers? You better get your shit together, because all of you wind up in the same boat if you come in third.
The US Copyright Office will hold hearings at Stanford University this Friday, May 1, to consider possible exemptions to the DMCA’s prohibition on circumventing technological protection measures. One exemption, proposed by the EFF, would allow artists to copy snippets of DVDs to make new works that would qualify for fair use.
For the uninitiated, the DMCA is a US copyright law that focuses on digital technology. Among other things, the DMCA prevents individuals from finding ways to get around copyright protection technology — for instance, the technological measures built into DVDs that prevent users from copying them.
It’d be nice if the Copyright Office gave the issue serious consideration. The movie industry takes the position that ripping DVDs is copyright infringement no matter the purpose. This can’t be a correct interpretation of copyright law, because if so the DMCA would allow copyright owners to effectively excise fair use by installing strong anti-copying protection.
If there is no legal means of copying copyrighted works then no one can use them to create new works. As the EFF notes, that would have serious implications for the thriving “remix culture” evidenced by the sheer volume and popularity of works appearing on YouTube and social media sites.
He may not look Mexican, but the sinister disease-spreading immigrants are shifty, crafty, and inscrutable. CLOSE TEH BORDER!
I just figured I would get in on the moronic faddish hysteria. 150 people in a country of 300 million 236 people on a planet of 6,000,000,000 have a nasty strain of the flu. There have been less than 200 deaths world wide. In the United States, we have had less than 100 confirmed cases and ONE person died – and that was an infant.
Recently in Slate magazine, Dahlia Lithwick wrote a compelling piece arguing the high demand for a more gender balanced court. I don’t necessarily agree with some of her language–words such as gender are problematic as a result of socially constructed ideologies, but I do agree 100% with the article as a whole .
“Still, beneath all the formal legal reasoning at the Supreme Court, there are the countless stories of casual influence: the female law clerks, the secretaries, and the family members whose experiences, like Marshall’s, slowly taught insulated justices how much they needed to learn. It’s long past time for women to influence the high court in more direct ways. Women who want Obama to push for gender balance at the Supreme Court need to remind him that fighting for gender diversity at the high court isn’t just for show. The real point may be to tell.” (source)
If I were a religious person I would exclaim, Hallelujah… But instead I’m exclaiming are you fucking kidding me?! The critique of Lithwick is so assanine I find it comical. Suddenly some of the “feminists” are deprecative and claim that advocating for a female justice is essentialist…
“This question is critical. All women do not think the same way, share the same opinions, nor agree on what it means to be a woman in America in the early 21st century. It would be folly to treat women like a deck of cards – “pick a woman, any woman” – and hope that the desired result – that being concern for women – will be obtained based on the presence of two X chromosomes. When politically disenfranchised groups are placed in prominent positions, this danger is ever present. Clarence Thomas and Thurgood Marshall are both African American males, but their judicial philosophies are entirely opposite. Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton share little in common politically despite sharing a race and gender. Thus, in the desire to see a woman on the Court we must be clear on what is desired. I believe what most people are saying when they say “we need a female justice” is that there should be someone on the Court who cares about women’s rights and can effectively articulate those positions. But must this person necessarily be a woman? …However, there are men out there that can understand these concepts. Justice Blackmun – a man – was responsible for Roe and defended that decision, as well as women’s reproductive rights in other ways during his tenure on the Court. Given the choice between a Justice Blackmun and a justice who cares little about the myriad problems women face but who happens to be a woman – most women’s rights advocates would probably take the guy. (source)
Of course men have the potential to be advocates for women as much as women have the potential to be self loathing misogynists. And NO ALL WOMEN DO NOT THINK THE SAME (another thing to be thankful for)…Lithwick is merely suggesting that we need another woman on the Supreme Court—regardless of the way they interpret the world. Herein lies the irony with the critiques–now that we are in the post modern flux of constant gender deviation and deconstruction, patriarchy still trumps through its reproductive and ubiquitous nature and suddenly it appears that equality between men and women is irrelevant. But then again I suppose that is not surprising because life becomes so much easier when we become blind to color, race, sex and gender and stew in our “melting pot.”
The article mentioned above which critiques Lithwick’s “essentialism” ends as follows:“However, it is also true that in any human group, people bring their past and personal philosophies to bear.”
It would then seem to follow that allowing the Supreme Court to go back to a homogenized boys club is sound logic…HA HA HA. I think what I will do is go get my” post-modern stick” of rational thought and start tapping people so they can wake up because saying gender shouldn’t matter in terms of proportionality on the Supreme Court is like saying that marriage rights don’t need to be defined as a measure for achieving “equality” and that Columbus discovered America…
Artist Michael D’Antuono was scheduled to publicly unveil his painting (pictured below) in New York’s Union Square Park this morning, to commemorate Obama’s 100th day in office. However, due to “thousands of emails and phone calls; online blogs and other public commentary received in the first 48 hours following its release”, the event was canceled. (source)
Should this speech be suppressed? What do you think?
Well, thank goodness that the era of animal fucking in Flori-duh has come to an end.
The thing that really makes me laugh at these dipshits is this: Lets say that there’s some guy in Baldwin, Florida who is creeping up on his goat — all horny and lubed up and ready to fuck a goat — do you think he’s wondering if he’s about to break the law or not?
If you fuck goats, donkeys, geese, dogs, or chinchillas, chances are that you’ve already decided that you don’t really give a shit about nothin’. Either that, or you’re so mentally ill that you can’t really appreciate the fact that you’re behaving in a pretty socially unacceptable manner.
U.S. journalist Roxana Saberi turns 32 today in an Iranian prison. After an hour-long trial, she was sentenced to eight years behind bars for “espionage.” She was initially told she was arrested for buying bootleg wine, and then because she was working as a journalist without a license. She’s now on day five of a hunger strike. Today, one of her defense lawyers was denied access to her.
This story is shocking and tragic — provided you feel strongly about the kind of personal liberty that we enjoy here in the U.S.
The 5-4 decision came down yesterday. In an opinion written by Scalia, the Second Circuit’s speech-protective ruling in Fox v. FCC was overturned. (Prior decision discussed here) At least the Court left open the question of whether the FCC’s policy might violate the First Amendment in certain circumstances.
Scalia says vaffanculo to the First Amendment (what else is new, lately)
Scalia flatly rejects any notion that he might have a responsibility to examine the First Amendment issues in the case.
The Second Circuit did not definitively rule on the constitutionality of the Commission’s orders, but respondents nonetheless ask us to decide their validity under the First Amendment. This Court, however, is one of final review, “not of first view.” Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718, n. 7 (2005). It is conceivable that the Commission’s orders may cause some broadcasters to avoid certain language that is beyond the Commission’s reach under the Constitution. Whether that is so, and, if so, whether it is unconstitutional, will be determined soon enough, perhaps in this very case. Meanwhile, any chilled references to excretory and sexual material “surely lie at the periphery of First Amendment concern,” Pacifica, 438 U. S., at 743 (plurality opinion of STEVENS, J.). We see no reason to abandon our usual procedures in a rush to judgment without a lower court opinion. We decline to address the constitutional questions at this time. (Op. at 25-26)
In other words, Scalia gives a big “fuck you” to the principles laid out in two key First Amendment cases. See Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 499 (1984) (”[I]n cases raising First Amendment issues . . . an appellate court has an obligation to ‘make an independent examination of the whole record’ in order to make sure that ‘the judgment does not constitute a forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression.’” (quoting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 285 (1964)).
On what grounds did the Court overturn the Second Circuit’s ruling?
The Second Circuit said that the FCC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in suddenly changing its three decades old position that “fleeting expletives” are not actionably indecent. The Second Circuit said that some of the FCC’s justifications for its new policy, in contrast to the earlier policy, were “divorced from reality“.
Scalia’s view is that as long as the FCC can come up with any articulable rationale for its rule, and it could have enacted the rule in the first place, it doesn’t need to have a more detailed reason to change the rule. The Constitution be damned:
In this appeal from the Second Circuit’s setting aside of Commission action for failure to comply with a procedural requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act, the broadcasters’ arguments have repeatedly referred to the First Amendment. If they mean to invite us to apply a more stringent arbitrary-and-capricious review to agency actions that implicate constitutional liberties, we reject the invitation. (Op. at 12)
Nevertheless, the analysis of the administrative procedures act and an agency’s rule-making authority is, quite honestly, too dull for me to get into in depth. (A future update may change this). Suffice to say that the FCC can change the rules if it has some reason to do so.
But here is where it gets exciting.
Are you sitting down? Good. Read this from a concurrence in the case.
I write separately, however, to note the questionable viability of the two precedents that support the FCC’s assertion of constitutional authority to regulate the programming at issue in this case. See Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367 (1969); FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726 (1978). Red Lion and Pacifica were unconvincing when they were issued, and the passage of time has only increased doubt regarding their continued validity. “The text of the First Amendment makes no distinctions among print, broadcast, and cable media, but we have done so” in these cases. (Concurrence at 1)
Guess who wrote that… wait for it… waaait for it.
Clarence Thomas!
Yeah, THAT Clarence Thomas.
Holy shit, it gets better.
First, instead of looking to first principles to evaluate the constitutional question, the Court relied on a set of transitory facts, e.g., the “scarcity of radio frequencies,” Red Lion, supra, at 390, to determine the applicable First Amendment standard. But the original meaning of the Constitution cannot turn on modern necessity: “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___, ___ (2008) (slip op., at 63). In breaching this principle, Red Lion adopted, and Pacifica reaffirmed, a legal rule that lacks any textual basis in the Constitution. (Concurrence at 3)
A reminder, that is Clarence Thomas writing there. Clarence. Motherfucking. Thomas.
I am open to reconsideration of Red Lion and Pacifica in the proper case. (Concurrence at 6)
Clarence Thomas. First Amendment Bad Ass of the Week.
UPDATE: According to Fischer, Thomas has always been awesome.
The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) was born of a group of Catholic Americans concerned about the multiple crises shaking every aspect of American life. Founded in 1973, the American TFP was formed to resist, in the realm of ideas, the liberal, socialist and communist trends of the times and proudly affirm the positive values of tradition, family and property. (source)
Yes, because if there is one thing that Jesus and The Pope teach us, it is to defend property.
Lets just say that the updates from TFP are usually just hysterical shrieking about gay marriage or some other “the sky is falling” alert. This one just took the cake. In this update, our brave TFP warriors describe the ordeal of being attacked by homophile demons in the chaotic wastelands… New Hampshire:
Pro-homosexual Stalkers Harass TFP Volunteers
As we wrapped up after an exhausting yet very successful day, four individuals dressed in black raced across the parking lot towards the intersection where we had been standing. Not finding us there, they burst into the nearest office building, a used car dealership, asking where we had gone. To our dismay, the salesman pointed to our van. Seconds later our van was surrounded by the four sinister individuals in black. Their garish hairstyles defied any sense of decorum. Imagine bright purple hair and you have a mental picture of what they looked like. Honestly, I could not tell if they were male or female. They carried a sign caked with fresh red paint which they slapped on our windshield, smearing wet red paint on our van window. The sign was vulgar and I will not repeat was it said.
I was on the phone with a reporter when this happened but quickly realized these individuals wanted to damage our property (van) and perhaps harm us physically, if they could. “Get off the phone and leave,” I told myself. Then my TFP colleague, Mr. Benjamin Hiegert, calmly reached out and removed the pro-homosexual sign that was slapped onto our windshield, clearing our view. Although the sign was removed, red paint remained smeared on a portion of the windshield.
We drove away, but the harassment continued. ”We’re being followed,” observed TFP member Charles Sulzen (also our bagpiper) from the back of the van. In fact, the individuals in black also drove a black car. They tailgated closely behind our van, cutting off other vehicles on the road, breaking traffic laws in the process. If someone deliberately opposes God’s law, why would they respect traffic laws?
After making a series of traffic maneuvers and u-turns, the pro-homosexual advocates were still following us, flaunting their lustful behavior while waving a rainbow flag outside the window of the their car. Moments later, a second pro-homosexual car joined the first and it soon became clear that we were being stalked.
We invoked the Saints and decided to drive to the nearest police station. About one block shy of our destination the pro-homosexual advocates realized where they were being led and veered off in another direction. The police officer on duty received a detailed description of the incident and put out a search for the vehicles.
May Saint Joseph continue to protect us from the snares of the devil as we travel for traditional marriage. Please keep us in your prayers. Thank you. (source)
Fortunately for us, we had a Legal Satyricon camera crew up in New Hampshire and caught the whole thing on film.
There have been a lot of stupid flip outs since Sept. 11, 2001. The most notable was when the City of Boston got chowdah in its trousers over the Aqua Teen Hunger Force lite-brite displays. Everyone whose pulse went up a single beat after seeing a cartoon lite brite display should be forcibly sterilized.
On the other hand, we have this brilliant maneuver: For a “photo op,” someone decided to fly a 747 and a fighter jet 1500 feet above New York City.
As demonstrated in my lede, I am not tolerant of those whose first instinct is fear and to scream “9/11!” But, I can’t imagine anyone looking out their window in Manhattan and seeing this, and not flipping out a bit.
Would it have been so damn hard to just tell everyone beforehand? Just a little announcement: “Hey, we’re gonna be flying a plane over you, just like on 9/11, except the ending will be different this time.”
Raw footage here. Tell me if you would have freaked.
Posted by marcorandazza 
By Email
By RSS Feed
