The ideal person for this job has at least three years’ experience as a story editor (either in print or online) and knows the basics of copyediting and fact-checking. Rookie is a fast-growing but small operation; we work independently and remotely. Applicants should be very comfortable working…
Real scabs aren’t cute.
I just went on strike from my job writing for a highly rated cable TV show. That might mean the brilliant comedians I know here online or in real life will be asked to come in and replace the striking workers. There are tons of people that are so funny, and I’d…
I don’t know what show this is for, but Eliza makes good points … especially about how the shared aim of the people in a union are more important than the possibly less-than-pure inner workings of that union.
Alerted by a post from a friend of mine - fellow poster artist (John Howard) - I came across a couple of sites selling prints of the poster I designed for The Black Keys.
Obviously you would be unsurprised to hear they do not have my permission to sell
cheap, digitally printed…
Some of my artist friends who I know through GigPosters.com are being ripped off by a website called art.com. Please never buy anything from art.com. They are the terribles.
As a fully engaged citizen of this country, you must know full well that our rights are often argued in terms of “original intent” vs. those of “a living document.” This is the heart of a rhetorical exercise happening constantly amongst politicians, pundits, lobbyists, etc, each attempting to clarify (or restrict) certain inalienable rights, which were guaranteed each of us by The Constitution & its subsequent amendments.
Such open interpretation especially surrounds the initial ten amendments. These ten were ratified together as The Bill of Rights. Should you require a live demonstration of the type of debate some of these inspire, you must only do the following: engage someone in a light-hearted conversation about your own interpretation of the rights you believe are secured on your behalf via the First &/or Second Amendments. Typically you may experience disagreements with co-workers, friends, acquaintances, internet trolls, complete strangers, and your own loving relatives.
The Fourteenth Amendment, on the other hand, is comparatively unambiguous. Its language is somewhat less archaic. Its ultimate meaning is less steeped in obscurity. Historically, it seems obvious why more precise language was used: In 1866, the year it was ratified, our country had freshly concluded a civil war which nearly destroyed the Union itself. A litany of legislative compromises and vagaries over the previous eight decades had lead directly to that point. The Fourteenth Amendment seems to have been written with decidedly less room for interpretation; Section 1 of the Amendment, for example, is crystal clear:
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
I would like to point out that the above is written with neither a conservative nor liberal point of view. The above is not an argument for or against anything in particular. This is in no way an interpretation of facts, but simply a statement of the immutable law of our land, as written, as passed, and as properly ratified by both Federal and State legislative bodies.
A lot of people I’m friends with who live here now are probably too young to remember when the name Ed Koch was synonymous with New York City. Sure, The 59th Street Bridge was renamed for him, but why? Well, he basically dragged this city back from the brink of financial ruin, and had to make a lot of tough calls, often altering his long-held personal beliefs in order to do so. Of course, like the current Mayor, a lot of people had problems with some decisions he made, but unlike Bloomberg, Koch would gladly defend his decisions to anyone who approached him on the street.
I once read a statistic that, at least at the time these numbers were compiled, the second most reported on elected official in the country, right after the President of the United States, is the Mayor of New York City. As a child of the 80’s, having seen Ed Koch constantly on the news, parodied on SNL, etc, etc, that stat seemed perfectly normal.
Ed Koch died this morning, at the age of 88. I think it would be a little sad if we didn’t recognize that this person acted in what he considered to be the best interest of the City of New York. If this country had more elected officials who would put the greater good before special interests or dogmatic policy issues, it might not be such a bad thing.
Oh, and thanks to Tim Ruggeri for reminding me of this:
They still have the poor thing’s corpse on display. Rumor is, tonight they’re going to “light it up” on love TV. (at Rockefeller Center)
From here you can see southern Manhattan (to the left of Empire State Building) is mostly without power. (at Pulaski Bridge)
Progressive today doubled-down on their winning strategy of straight-faced denials; continuing to prove what a ridiculous concept corporate “personage” actually is.
Today, in response to my blog post entitled “My Sister Paid Progressive Insurance to Defend Her Killer In Court,” Progressive released a statement saying that ”Progressive did not serve as the attorney for the defendant” in my sister’s case. I am not a lawyer, but this is what I observed in the courtroom during my sister’s trial:
At the beginning of the trial on Monday, August 6th, an attorney identified himself as Jeffrey R. Moffat and stated that he worked for Progressive Advanced Insurance Company. He then sat next to the defendant. During the trial, both in and out of the courtroom, he conferred with the defendant. He gave an opening statement to the jury, in which he proposed the idea that the defendant should not be found negligent in the case. He cross-examined all of the plaintiff’s witnesses. On direct examination, he questioned all of the defense’s witnesses. He made objections on behalf of the defendant, and he was a party to the argument of all of the objections heard in the case. After all of the witnesses had been called, he stood before the jury and gave a closing argument, in which he argued that my sister was responsible for the accident that killed her, and that the jury should not decide that the defendant was negligent.
I am comfortable characterizing this as a legal defense.
I wrote about this case on my blog because I felt that, in the wake of my sister’s death, Progressive had sought out ways to meet their strict legal obligation while still disrespecting my sister’s memory and causing my family a world of hurt. Their statement disavowing their role in this case, a case in which their attorney stood before my sister’s jury and argued on behalf of her killer, is simply infuriating.
An Open Letter From a Decent, White Male Comic
My name is Jim Tews. I’m a thirty-one year old white male, and I’ve been a comedian for...
Please don't work my job while I strike.
Real scabs aren’t cute.
I just went on strike from my job writing for a highly rated cable TV...
Acting Classes for Comedians: A Helpful Guide
Many people lately have been asking me about the acting classes I have mentioned on Facebook or in...
Another Improv Note That Has Made Sense To Me Recently
“In Harold, we must say yes to bad ideas immediately, while good ideas can be resisted a bit.”