(no subject)
Jan. 9th, 2006 07:33 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cleolindaAnother bad day for working. Bad energy in the house, I'll just put it that way. Have I mentioned that I'm taking the semester off (mostly because there's not a class that I need available) to write? I'll tell you what once I've got the details hammered out, but it's going to involve a lot of hard, quick work, I'll put it that way. So the drama pajamas need to be hung up to dry, y'all (*pointed look at family*).
Still coughing a bit, but it's not that bad. I had to consume an entire box of wintergreen Tic-Tacs to keep from coughing during Brokeback Mountain, but by God, I only coughed once, so it was worth it.
Linkspam:
Andrea Yates Again Pleads Not Guilty. "Her convictions were overturned last January by a state appeals court because of testimony by the state's expert witness, forensic psychiatrist Park Dietz. He testified that, shortly before Yates killed her five children, television's 'Law and Order' series broadcast an episode about a woman with postpartum depression who drowned her children. No such episode ever existed."
Long after I copied this into Semagic, I got an email alert from MSNBC: "In insanity plea, Andrea Yates admits drowning kids."
Bush has signed a law that makes "annoying someone on the internet anonymously" a federal crime. No, I am not joking. No, I do not know how they will enforce this. No, I'm sure this won't get abused at all.
The eBaumsworld/ytmnd.com "jihad": Lindsay Lohan sparks massive denial-of-service war.
Gene Shalit Offers Defamatory Brokeback Review on NBC's Today. Specifically, saying that the Jake Gyllenhaal character is a "predator." What?
The Smoking Gun accuses James Frey (rather convincingly, I might add) of fabricating most of his memoir, A Million Little Pieces:
When TSG confronted him Friday (1/6) afternoon with our findings, Frey refused to address the significant conflicts we discovered between his published accounts and those contained in various police reports. When we suggested that he might owe millions of readers and Winfrey fans an explanation for these discrepancies, Frey, now a publishing powerhouse, replied, "There's nothing at this point can come out of this conversation that, that is good for me."When recalling criminal activities, looming prison sentences, and jailhouse rituals, Frey writes with a swaggering machismo and bravado that absolutely crackles. Which is truly impressive considering that, as TSG discovered, he made much of it up. The closest Frey has ever come to a jail cell was the few unshackled hours he once spent in a small Ohio police headquarters waiting for a buddy to post $733 cash bond. Speaking of frauds: JT Leroy. Remember that Law & Order episode I mentioned a long while back about the young girl writer who turned out to be a figment of a couple and an editor? Yeah. It's that situation, textbook. The accusation from the New York Times is that one or two people are writing the books and a woman named Samantha Knoop is portraying Leroy, who is either portrayed as male or now transgender-female. And here's an interesting echo of the Frey piece: "Reached by telephone, Ms. Knoop said, 'I don't need this in my life right now,' before hanging up. She did not respond to several voice-mail messages seeking further comment." Oh, well, if you don't need to be busted for fraud right now, I suppose we can wait until it's more convenient. How's next Tuesday?
[...]
Classic identity fraud from the vaults: The story of Kaycee Nicole.
The inspiration for the original King Kong: Ingagi, possibly one of the most offensive movies put to film (read: black women are "sacrificed" to giant apes for sex; babies are shown with fur pasted on to simulate monstrous offspring. Continuing today's theme, it, too, was a total fraud). Also, it made buckets of money. Coincidentally, Hostel was the #1 film this weekend. I'm just saying.
Clearly, Wal-Mart has seen Ingagi.
Hilary Swank and Chad Lowe separating.
Kevin Spacey "accidentally" outed; retraction promised.
The BAFTA (British Oscars) long list from first round of voting.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
shannonsequitur: "Hey Cleo, have you heard about this yet? Apparently, Michelle Rodriguez and Cynthia Watros aren't the only Lostaways getting into trouble off-camera." Oh dear.Stills from the documentary Ringers: Lord of the Fans.
The He-Man and She-Ra Christmas Special on DVD.
My LJ Mind Map is ready!
Dominic Monaghan still wooing Elijah Wood.
Burton and Depp to make Sweeney Todd?
The author of the book that inspired Munich (who claims, by the way, that Spielberg has presented the viewpoint opposite to his--his book was about the necessity of counterterrorism): "After the film opens, someone tells me that Spielberg shouldn't get an Oscar for not solving the problems of the Middle East. I agree. Spielberg should get an Oscar for making Munich, the gritty Hollywood flick. For not solving the problems of the Middle East, he should get a Nobel Peace Prize, like everyone else." O SNAP.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 01:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 02:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 01:41 am (UTC)"Cleo's Law," anyone?
no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 01:45 am (UTC)Ugh, more of the usual? Sorry about that, babe. *hug*
no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 04:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 01:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 01:55 am (UTC)Oh, fuck. Nobody tell vanceone, ok? I don't want to be a plantiff in a class action lawsuit against every person anywhere who ever liked Ron and Hermione as a couple.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 04:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 01:56 am (UTC)You know what this means? This means that Bush has become the patron saint of mary sue fanfic writers. He must be a gary stu created by Jesus himself, because there can be no other explanation for such a breach of sanity.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 01:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 02:01 am (UTC)AFAICT, Declan McCullagh's article is factually correct but somewhat slanted. You can read the old law here (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000223----000-.html) and the amendment to it here (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.3402:) (click on the last version. Relevant portion of old law, in brief:
[whoever] makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications; [is guilty of an offence]
Relevant portion of the amendment: [the abovequoted law] includes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet (as such term is defined in section 1104 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note)).'
So it was already illegal to anonymously use a 'telecommunications device' to 'annoy' somebody with 'obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent' material. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be surprised if a good prosecutor couldn't already have made a strong argument that a Net-enabled computer counts, in which case the amendment has little effect. (It does delete an 'and' earlier in the law, which might change the situation re. sending, say, an image you didn't yourself create, but that's not very objectionable.)
But if a Net-enabled computer is not a 'telecommunications device', then a stalker who makes harassing phone calls via a landline is treated differently to one who makes the same calls via Skype, and that's just absurd. AFAICT, the intent of this new legislation is to ensure the old law is consistent from one means of communication to another. Yes, there *are* free-speech concerns - but I think blame for those is better directed at the pre-existing law than at this amendment to it.
Also, although I'm still not a lawyer, I'm pretty sure the legal usage of 'annoy' is rather more stringent than general conversational usage (see second definition here (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=annoy)).
no subject
Date: 2006-01-11 09:43 pm (UTC)The change in question (Section 113) is part of a subtitle dealing with programs on domestic violence, stalking, etc etc. The following sections in that subtitle are concerned with:
* physical stalking
* repeat-offender stalkers
* dating violence
* making anti-violence laws applicable in special maritime/territorial jurisdictions of the US as they are elsewhere (loophole-plugging, presumably), and
* updating definitions of protection orders.
'Unrelated', my ass. Either McCullagh is being downright deceitful, or he hasn't actually read the laws he's talking about (which really isn't much better). The article's insinuation that Specter added the word 'annoy' to the definition of the offence is also somewhere between 'terminally clueless' and 'bald-faced lie'; it's been there since 1934!
no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 02:07 am (UTC)This is why writers with a deadline need a laptop/journal and a nearby library with worskspace.
I swear, as soon as you start typing or scribing at home,
mosteveryone needs to interrupt. They want you to have written, but they don't get how to contribute to letting you write.Best of luck organizing your semester's worth of writing time, Cleo.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 04:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 02:16 am (UTC)That still of the plastic Gandalf and Bilbo from 'Ringers"? I've been there!
'Hobbiton USA' is on the Avenue of the Giants in the California Redwoods. They have little vignettes with large plastic figures of Gandalf, Smaug, etc, and you press a button on the fence while a portentious voice tells you about the scene. Gollum looks like the bat-boy from the Weekly World News, and Smaug looms above a minitaure Laketown from his terrifying height of 5' or so.
It was 'Closed for the season" when I was there last October, and I totally climbed over the fences to take pictures. Gandalf is even less impressive when shrouded in a large clear plastic trash bag!
*giggles more*
no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 02:17 am (UTC)Ahem.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 02:45 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 02:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 04:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 02:40 am (UTC)*squee*
Date: 2006-01-10 02:55 am (UTC)dorkfriend who was interested in the He-Man/She-Ra link! *heart* So. Want. To. Find. Now.Re: *squee*
From:Re: *squee*
From:no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 03:06 am (UTC)I would swear to all that's holy that I've read that interview before. *searches* Ah, Newsweek in September (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9190574/site/newsweek/). Anyway.
If Burton and Depp made Sweeny Todd, I would be so happy. For some reason, I feel that Depp is too young (or too-young looking) for the lead role, but I'm sure the two of them will be able to pull it off. It's funny, I used to actively dislike Tim Burton, but now I am his bitch. I wonder when that happened.
Also, it makes me feel stupid, but my only reaction to all thess author fraud reveals is: "A Million Little Pieces
wasiswas non-fiction? Huh."no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 04:40 am (UTC)Well, that's why I said "still." ; )
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 03:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 03:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 04:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 03:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 03:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 03:53 am (UTC)Rather pathetically, I'm really sad about the Swank/Lowe split. I have very fond feelings toward Chad because of Life Goes On, and they always seemed so cute and happy. C'mon kids, you can work it out!
Oh, and I bought your book from Amazon UK today. :D I can't wait to get it.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 04:10 am (UTC)Actually, I'd LOVE to see just Burton do Sondheim in general. (Oooh, he could do Into the Woods!)
no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 04:12 am (UTC)(But fun creepy!)
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 04:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 04:15 am (UTC)And here's a nice little mental (*points to icon*) of Jo for good writing vibes.
Cheers!
no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 04:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 01:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 05:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 06:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 06:20 am (UTC)