aTypical Joe: a gay New Yorker living in the rural South
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
‘Bushit’ an expletive in GA
It was 9:30 on a recent Friday night when Denise Grier saw blue lights in her rearview mirror.
She pulled over on Chamblee-Tucker Road, unaware of her infraction.
“The officer asked if I knew I had a lewd decal on my car and I thought, ‘Oh gosh, what did my kids put on my car?’ “
As it turns out, the decal was an anti-Bush bumper sticker Grier slapped on her 2001 Chrysler Sebring last summer. The bumper sticker - “I’m Tired Of All The BUSH-” - contains an expletive.
So being pulled over is bad enough, but then the ATLANTA JOURNAL CONSITUTION CALLS IT AN EXPLETIVE???
The Athens Banner Herald (registration required) printed it:
Is BUSHIT lewd?
Is it even a word? [...]
The Georgia Supreme Court ruled more than a decade ago that the law against lewd bumper stickers is unconstitutional, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.
Grier, the officer and an ACLU attorney will meet in court next month when Grier contests the misdemeanor charge, which carries a $100 fine. [...]
While Grier argues her bumper sticker is political speech protected by the First Amendment, the case that challenged the lewd decal law didn’t involve such a serious message. In 1991, the ACLU backed a motorist who was cited for a “S--- happens bumper sticker.
The court called the decal law vague and overly broad.
The current edition of the Georgia Law Enforcement Handbook, which officers rely on, doesn’t mention that the decal law was overturned.
UPDATE: Case dismissed.
Facebook worth $2 billion?
Facebook, the Web site where students around the world socialize and swap information, has put itself on the block, BusinessWeek Online has learned. The owners of the privately held company have turned down a $750 million offer and hope to fetch as much as $2 billion in a sale, senior industry executives familiar with the matter say.
CNet’s roundup of blogger reaction: a big puh-leez!
Viacom makes sense to me, and the article a negotiating ploy.
...on how atheist fathers and mothers are routinely discriminated against in child custody cases. He cites over 70 recent cases across the country - and these were only the ones which were appealed, so they probably represent a fraction of the actual cases. Volokh recalls how Percy Byshe Shelley was the first father to be denied custody because of his atheism - but his dilemma doesn’t belong to a different time and place:
“That time and place, it turns out, is 2005 Michigan, where a modern Shelley might be denied custody based partly on his ‘not regularly attend[ing] church and present[ing] no evidence demonstrating any willingness or capacity to attend to religion with [his children],’ or having a ‘lack of religious observation.’ It’s 1992 South Dakota, where Shelley might have been given custody but only on condition that he ‘will agree to present a plan to the Court of how [he] is going to commence providing some sort of spiritual opportunity for the [children] to learn about God while in [his] custody.’ It’s 2005 Arkansas, 2002 Georgia, 2005 Louisiana, 2004 Minnesota, 2005 Mississippi, 1992 New York, 2005 North Carolina, 1996 Pennsylvania, 2004 South Carolina, 1997 Tennessee, 2000 Texas, and, going back to the 1970s and 1980s, Alabama, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Montana, and Nebraska. In 2000, the Mississippi Supreme Court ordered a mother to take her child to church each week, reasoning that ‘it is certainly to the best interests of [the child] to receive regular and systematic spiritual training’; in 1996, the Arkansas Supreme Court did the same, partly on the grounds that weekly church attendance, rather than just the once-every-two-weeks attendance that the child would have had if he went only with the other parent, provides superior ‘moral instruction.’”
It appears a “fairy” is trying to give a queer eye to the tough car, and the fairy is bumped to the sidewalk for trying to do so. Even language is used, a guy points to the fairy and laughs: “You silly little fairy!” Not nice. The fairy turns him gay as a revenge I guess.
Gay people are shown in this collection as classic gay stereotypes, including leathermen, sissies and queens, and Liipstick Lesbians, but are otherwise accepted by characters in the ad. While some in the gay community now accept these depictions as “diversity” and “reality”—others remain sensitive to them and do not. These ads do not meet Commercial Closet’s Best Practices.
I note that they played the Dodge ad during Desperate Housewives. Do these marketers have a clue about who’s watching???
Meanwhile, TBS sent this ad [WMP] parodying the Lord of the Rings suggesting I link to it. It looks like they want to appeal to the gay people in their audience rather than risk offending them.
ANOTHER UPDATE: This post continues to attract traffic, while my later post, No fun with fairy, which looks at the Commercial Closet rating for the ad sits unread. Please check it out.
Super Hero madness
ULABAY: The word superhero was trademarked by Marvel and DC Comics in the 1960’s says Michael Lovitz. He’s a lawyer who focuses on intellectual property like comic books.
MICHEAL LOVITZ (Lawyer): Marvel and DC created this category of adventurers, of costumed adventurers.
ULABAY: But Marvel and DC Comics super lawyers will leave you alone if you use the word superhero casually. You can even use it in a comic as long as that word stays off the cover.
Mr. LOVITZ: The law basically says that no one has the right to exclusively appropriate a word.
ULABAY: Neither DC Comics nor Marvel agreed to comment for this story. Ronald Coalman is a lawyer who blogs about intellectual property issues. He says both companies are so powerful that they constitute an industry duopoly. He finds preposterous any claims that their brands might be comprised by unauthorized use of the word superhero.
Mr. RONALD COALMAN (Lawyer): People in the comic book area know very well who are Marvel’s superhero’s, who are DC’s superheroes, and who are indie comic book superheroes. There’s zero chance of actual confusion.
ULABAY: For Marvel and DC to protect the word superhero as a trademark, he says, it takes…
Mr. COALMAN: A little bit of audacity and a lot of lawyers on retainer with a generous mixture of judicial indifference.
RELATED: Just for the fun of it Which Super Hero are you?