Miriam's BD and such

Welp, there was some fun last week. Allie and I met up with Miriam and some of her girlfriends at PF Changs for a diner for her BD. Save for her older neighbor that joined us with this wife, I was the only guy...something that Allie made sure to point out.

Afterwards, we all headed up to SF to a club to meet up with some more people of various varieties that one might expect to meet in SF. Thangs where fun. We were at this one roof top club with a fairly ok view of the city and a large number of drunk people, and some not so drunk people too.

Allie and I headed out home around Midnight, as did several others. Miriam and several of her girls partied on and didn't get home til about 6am.

On the recent movie front, Allie and I have seen The Happening. Funny how nothing happens in a movie with that title. It was OK. Save for rental.

Patent exhaustion rule upheld

Yet another blow for customers' rights last week via the Supreme Court which just handed down a ruling that upholds Patent Exhaustion regardless of a patent holder's notices or attempts to put limitions on the purchaser. I recommend this more detailed article found at Electronic Frontier Foundation. It provides many links on the topic along with a detailed description.

Infection: Bigotry

As a Californian, I am oddly in the minority on the particular issue of acceptance of "gay marriage". It seems odd to me that so may people are so dead set against marriage between gay partners, particularly when their is no finiancial gain from such a ban. In fact, allowing gay marriage would help the ecomony by providing more jobs for people who are in the wedding industry. It is silly for people to look to the government to tell other people who they can and cannot marry. The Court here recently did its job. Life long conservative and liberial judges alike determined that their is clear discrimation. In fact, even though the vote was 5 to 4 by the judges, the minor opinion wasn't that gay marriage was wrong, but that it is ok, though a matter for the people to decide. I respectivefully disagree with that logic, of course. The rights of the minority must be protected regardless the opinion of the majority. When discrimination is institutionized, the majority will always side with it originally. We look to the courts to correct wrongs in our lawmaking. At one time, the majority felt slavery was acceptable. At one time, it was felt that banning interracial marriage was acceptable. Those laws not only banned blacks from marrying whites, but at one time also banned Asians from marrying anyone at all (even other Asians).

Even if you don't agree with the idea of allowing marriage between same-sex partners, there's no point in preventing them from having the same privileges and status as you. No one is harmed. It is a matter between each couple, and not for society to dictate with bigoted laws. Finally, it will help boost the Californian economy. Being the only state that allows gay marriage and that also allows anyone to marry from any other part of the country will create a new industry of Wedding Tourism. New money will flow into the state as a result of this Court ruling.

It's time to just let this happen. Just let people live their lives without asking the government to interfere just because we have personal beliefs. Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot. Imagine if gays where the majority and we the minority. Wouldn't we be running to the courts to protect our rights to marry if laws where passed to prevent breeders from joining in marriage? Every right we take hold back from a minority is ultimately a right taken away from everyone, including ourselves.

Current Cell Phone Cancellation Fees Legislation

I wrote this to my Representitive in the U.S. House of Representitives. I recommend everyone send something similar to their Rep This is in response to a recent article reported by AP.

Rep *** *****,

I voice my opposition to the current cell phone cancellation fee legislation going through Congress right now. The bills in their current configurations represent a free pass to the cell phone companies to get out of taking responsibility for their egregious actions in charging hellaceous amounts for cancellation of their service.

I agree with the following statements.

"If this plan goes through, the nation's largest cell phone carriers get a get-out-of-court-free card," said Chris Murray, senior counsel for Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports magazine. "We have long opposed limiting consumers' rights to sue, and that seems to be what we're doing here."

"The consumer protections are an inadequate fig leaf to justify federal pre-emption," said Patrick Pearlman, a lawyer with the consumer advocate division of West Virginia's Public Service Commission. "The FCC is not an adequate policeman."

"It's Christmas in May for the companies," said Pamela Gilbert, an attorney with Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, a Washington-based law firm working on one of the class-action lawsuits against the industry. She said if the FCC agreed to the proposal, it would save cell phone companies hundreds of millions of dollars. The people left holding the bag are the millions of people who paid illegal ETFs (early termination fees) and now will never get their money back," she said.

We do not need to punish these cell phone companies for taking advantage of American consumers, per se. However, we just need to prevent them from continuing to do so, with reasonable reconciliation to those consumers who have already been ripped off or forced to maintain plans by the industry.

Do not give the cell phone carriers a get-out-of-jail card. Hold them accountable for their actions and prevent them from abusing fellow Americans.

Any new bill about this topic should maintain State authority to decide how to regulate billing for services. It should also establish a national prohibition against any cancellation fees what-so-ever.

Sincerely,

Matthew Lorono

Politics 2008 (Part 1?)

I'm going to cover a couple of topics here.

Just some quick opinions about Props 98 and 99 for the June 2008 ballot here in California. Prop 98 is a load crap from special interest groups trying to sneak in their agendas guised as something beneficial. It is supposedly about emanate domain, but it's more about reduction of a city population's rights to affordable housing. Prop 99, supported by Democrats, is an over reaction to use of emanate domain. Emanate domain, of course, is the power of government to force the sale of a property for the benefit of the general population. It is useful for building large scale projects, to improve city structure and for urban renewal. Both 98 and 99 will make it very difficult for cities to conduct this sort of activity. 98 is especially bad because it has a bunch of special interest riders attached to it. I'm voting NO on both. I will wait for a better emanate domain prop to come along that addresses the issue of urban renewal.

Also, California Supreme court has just overturned two bigotted laws regarding those who can marry. It's about time. The idea that the government still has the right to dictate who can marry is still possessed by many. I just hope more people understand the issue now than before, so that our state constitution doesn't get raped by bigotry in an attempt to make gay marriage illegal.

Seattle IIII

 

May 8, 2008 to May 14, 2008 with Alice for the wedding of  Miriam and David 

Visited Seattle, Washington and Federal Way, Washington

(Original post, backup link)