ninjapornstar
SHARE THIS PAGE
    • ninjapornstar

      If the new Iran sanctions bill passes, then we will have clearly and unequivocally demonstrated to Iran that we have been negotiating in bad faith, that we cannot be trusted, that further negotiations or diplomacy are useless, and that we have no other goal other than regime change in Iran (aka War). Senator Mark Kirk knows this. He wants us to go to war with Iran. Torpedoing any diplomacy is not a side-effect of his bill, it is the goal of his bill.

    • ninjapornstar

      [Let’s find out if Buzzfeed will actually publish my comment this time. I’ve taken out the snark about lazy reporting. Now it’s just implied.] While there may not be any federal laws at issue here, there sure are a lot of STATE laws potentially in play. Here’s a short list: N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2 - Official Misconduct
      N.J.S.A. 2C:30-7 - Crime of Pattern of Official Misconduct
      N.J.S.A. 2C:27-3 - Threats And Other Improper Influence In Official And Political Matters
      N.J.S.A. 2C:30-6 - Deprivation of Civil Rights (which makes it a crime to use one’s official capacity to deprive or impede another’s lawful exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity).

    • ninjapornstar

      So… you talked to FEDERAL prosecutors.  Hang on… did you talk to any NJ STATE prosecutors? ‘Cause under NJ law there are lots of ways closing a bridge to exact revenge on a political opponent can be a crime. Google is your friend.  N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2
      A public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with purpose to obtain a benefit for himself or another or to injure or to deprive another of a benefit: a. He commits an act relating to his office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of his official functions, knowing that such act is unauthorized or he is committing such act in an unauthorized manner.  N.J.S.A. 2C:30-6:
      This section makes it a crime for a public official purporting to act in an official capacity to deprive another individual of his or her civil rights. It requires knowledge that the conduct is unlawful and with the purpose to intimidate or discriminate against an individual or group of individuals because of race, color, religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation or ethnicity through (1) unlawful arrest or detention including but not limited to motor vehicle investigative stops, searches and seizures; or (2) the denial or impeding of another’s lawful exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity.  Crime of Pattern of Official Misconduct, N.J.S.A. 2C:30-7:
      A person commits such an offense if he or she commits two (2) or more acts that violate the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2, supra, or N.J.S.A. 2C:30-6. This is a separate crime of the second degree if one of the acts committed is a first or second degree crime, otherwise, it is a crime of the third degree. However, it is treated more harshly in that the presumption of non-imprisonment for third degree offenses under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1 is expressly inapplicable to such a violation. Threats And Other Improper Influence In Official And Political Matters,  N.J.S.A. 2C:27-3:
      Under this provision, a person commits a crime if he or she directly or indirectly threatens unlawful harm to any person with a purpose to influence official action or the performance of an official duty. A violation does not require a threat of “harm” in an injury or damage sense, but would, for example, include a threat to disclose embarrassing information. See State v.Scirrotto, supra.

    • ninjapornstar

      So… you talked to FEDERAL prosecutors. That’s nice, really, it is.  Hang on…. did you talk to any NJ STATE prosecutors? Google is your friend. N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2
      A public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with purpose to obtain a benefit for himself or another or to injure or to deprive another of a benefit: a. He commits an act relating to his office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of his official functions, knowing that such act is unauthorized or he is committing such act in an unauthorized manner. N.J.S.A. 2C:30-6:
      This section makes it a crime for a public official purporting to act in an official capacity to deprive another individual of his or her civil rights. It requires knowledge that the conduct is unlawful and with the purpose to intimidate or discriminate against an individual or group of individuals because of race, color, religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation or ethnicity through (1) unlawful arrest or detention including but not limited to motor vehicle investigative stops, searches and seizures; or (2) the denial or impeding of another’s lawful exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity.  Crime of Pattern of Official Misconduct, N.J.S.A. 2C:30-7:
      A person commits such an offense if he or she commits two (2) or more acts that violate the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2, supra, or N.J.S.A. 2C:30-6. This is a separate crime of the second degree if one of the acts committed is a first or second degree crime, otherwise, it is a crime of the third degree. However, it is treated more harshly in that the presumption of non-imprisonment for third degree offenses under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1 is expressly inapplicable to such a violation. Threats And Other Improper Influence In Official And Political Matters, N.J.S.A. 2C:27-3:
      Under this provision, a person commits a crime if he or she directly or indirectly threatens unlawful harm to any person with a purpose to influence official action or the performance of an official duty. A violation does not require a threat of “harm” in an injury or damage sense, but would, for example, include a threat to disclose embarrassing information. See State v.Scirrotto, supra.

    • ninjapornstar
       

      If you read the article (I know, what a CRAZY idea), it’s clear that the dog did not climb Mt. Everest. It just hiked to the base camp. Everest basecamp is at 17K, the summit is at 29K, so there’s still some ground to cover at that point.
      Also, basecamp is hardly as remote as it once was. It now becomes a small town during high-season. You can even take a helicopter to Mt. Everest base camp if you want. http://www.getyourguide.com/kathmandu-l101/everest-base-camp-helicopter-tour-in-nepal-t25515/ Don’t worry, the dog is still cute.

      fact-checker
    • ninjapornstar

      Who cares? You can’t change the laws of physics. Or do planes fly faster where you’re from? The fact is that a response team was sent and arrived from Tripoli after the Ambassador was already dead. The mortar strike (second attack) commenced about 15 minutes after the response team arrived. All of these conspiracy theories people are throwing about essentially make two claims:
      (1) There was another military group which was available and could have arrived in time to do something about the first or second attack; but they were stopped from helping by nefarious evil-doers. (But why? “Shut up!” replies the conspiracy theorist)
      (2) When this magical additional response team arrived, they could have stopped the mortar attack. These claims are nonsense.
      (1) While there were other military response teams in that part of the world, none of them could have arrived fast enough to prevent the first attack which killed the ambassador. Unless you want to pretend that we can load, fly, land, and unload a plane faster than reality.
      (2) Fast response teams do not travel with C-RAMs. What would they have done against the mortars?  Make no mistake: this is a tragedy and a cock-up. But to pretend that there’s some Rosicrucian cabal that purposefully delayed deploying troops or what-have-you in order to kill Americans during an election year in order to…
      wait…
      … in order to do what? What’s the end-game of these mysterious puppet masters who are supposedly running this show? If they were so all-powerful and all-mysterious, don’t you think they would have preferred it if no one had been killed?

    • ninjapornstar

      Over on Tom Rick’s blog he had Billy Birdzell, a U.S. Marine Corps infantry officer and special operations team leader from 2001 to 2009, walk through the timeline of events at Benghazi. This was in response to an April 30, 2013 interview on FOX. Here’s Birdzell’s concluding paragraph: “Even if the CIF was on ready 5 (fully armed, sitting in the aircraft with pilots at the controls) in Sigonella (the closest European base to Benghazi) with advanced warning of an attack but unsure of the time, and they launched at 2232 on only-in-Hollywood orders from someone other than the president, they would not have been able to do anything about Stevens and Smith’s deaths, nor stopped the mortar rounds. Strike three. The person in the interview is a clown and I am incredibly disappointed in the news for not using Google.” Simply put: The timeline of events that FOX wants to believe simply does not match the reality. As long as credulous “journalists” like Laessig keep on copying down what other people say without exercising a hint of critical thinking (or doing simple math), this shit will continue.

    • ninjapornstar

      Except it totally does. This is a story about casual sexism. All the participants in the story are concerned about Aukerman’s display of casual sexism.  There’s a huge elephant in the room though. The band being discussed chose a name which basically means “Nazi Rape Factory.” You want an example of casual sexism? How about the name “Joy Division.” How about the fact that band chose to celebrate the institutional rape and murder of jews so that they could have a clever band name? There’s your casual sexism. And yet everyone’s ignoring it. Why? Because “Love Will Tear Us Apart” was a great song?

    • ninjapornstar

      I love the fact that throughout this entire “story,” no one mentions (or even seems to know) what “Joy Division” refers to. The band didn’t make up the name. “Joy Division” refers to Jewish women working as sex slaves in Nazi concentration camps (seriously!). Combine that with the album title “Unknown Pleasures,” and it’s kind of hilarious that no one appears aware of the name’s genesis. It also gives a second reading to Auckerman’s tweet, a pretty dark one, if you ask me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joy_Division_%28disambiguation%29

    • ninjapornstar

      Let me see if I got this straight. You (Tanner Ringerud), took zefrank’s 3 month old video, grabbed a bunch of screen shots, copied (verbatim) his narration and jokes, and then turned that into a post? I mean, you could have had some dignity or self-respect, and just written: “Here’s a link to a funny video zefrank created. I hope you think it’s funny.” But you didn’t do that. You took someone else’s work and blatantly repackaged it as your own. That’s lame (also, plagiarism!). Man, I can’t wait for Buzzfeed’s take on being a balding, white, divorced, red-headed shlub with two daughters. It’s gonna be great. An entire Louis C.K. set, typed-out verbatim and presented as if it was original material.

    • ninjapornstar

      This is relevant. (also, hilarious)

    • ninjapornstar

      They = American Catholics. (I have no idea why you’re talking about Belgium though. What do they have to do with this?) Here, let me dumb down those last two sentences a bit: “I could see how a [person of the christian faith, like Hagel who was raised Roman Catholic but is now an Episcopalian] could get upset about [the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, because their act explicitly satirizes the christian faith in an offensive manner.] [Christians like Hagel might have to tolerate speech by Americans in America which they find offensive because of the protections of the First Amendment, but they do not have to support or endorse that speech. Hagel’s comments regarding “common sense,” “reason,” and “a certain amount of decorum,” seem to reflect his dislike for the purposely offensive nature of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence’s satire and also question whether an individual who publicly supports such a group is an appropriate choice for Ambassador to a historically Roman Catholic country like Luxembourg.]”

    • ninjapornstar

      Andrew,
      FYI, you’ve gotten the quote wrong twice now. First in your subhead, and then again in the second paragraph. I guess third time’s the charm though, because by the fifth paragraph you actually get it right. In any case, Hagel stated that he thought Hormel’s association with the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence went “beyond common” sense for an ambassador. Not that being gay was “beyond common sense.” Here’s the quote in full plus some text from the 1998 article, taken from your link:
      ———————————————
      “His approach to nominees, he said, has been to examine the person’s qualifications first. The United States has had gay ambassadors in the past and gays in the military, who have done well by quietly adopting the Pentagon’s current “don’t ask, don’t tell” attitude. Hormel, however, has gone beyond that, Hagel said. He “very aggressively told the world of his gayness and the funding and all the things he’s been involved in. I think you do go beyond common sense there, and reason and a certain amount of decorum,” Hagel said.”
      —————————————- As it happens, I think the Sisters are hilarious. Their Hunky Jesus 2011 contest was a riot, and their annual Easter Sunday Pub Crawl sounds like a blast. But I’m an atheist who thinks religion is fucking dumb. I could see how a Catholic could get upset about the whole thing. They may have to put up with it due to the 1st Amendment (etc etc), but I can see why they would not like it.

    • ninjapornstar

      Clarification: If you’re referencing the Fourtin case out of CT, then you should probably know that the media got basically every single fact about the case wrong. Seriously. See ThinkProgress’s update to their story here:
      http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/10/03/947981/court-requires-disabled-rape-victim-to-prove-she-fought-back-calls-for-evidence-of-biting-kicking-scratching/?mobile=nc Also, see this very lengthy post (with multiple follow-ups) by a CT public defender explaining what really happened. http://apublicdefender.com/2012/10/04/supreme-court-hates-disabled-people-and-eats-children-for-lunch-probably/ Short Version: the prosecutor charged under the wrong statute. Instead of prosecuting the sexual assault on grounds that the victim was “mentally defective” (subsection 2 of this code), the prosecutor charged that sexual assault took place because the victim was “physically helpless,” but then the prosecutor did not present any evidence that the victim actually was “physically helpless.”  Basically, the entire prosecution from start to finish was a massive blunder.

    • ninjapornstar

      Oddly enough, the porn industry claims it has a good track record on the health of their actors. There was an article in the NYTimes on it today. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/06/health/unlikely-model-for-hiv-prevention-porn-industry.html?hpw Unlikely Model in H.I.V. Efforts: Sex Film Industry
      By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr. 
      The industry’s medical consultants say that about 350,000 sex scenes have been shot without condoms since 2004, and H.I.V. has not been transmitted on a set once. Outside the world of pornography, the industry’s testing regimen is not well known, and no serious academic study of it has ever been done. But when it was described to several AIDS experts, they all reacted by saying that there were far fewer infections than they would have expected, given how much high-risk sex takes place. “I don’t think there’s any question that it works,” said Dr. Allan Ronald, a Canadian AIDS specialist who did landmark studies of the virus in prostitutes in a Nairobi slum. “I’m a little uncomfortable, because it’s giving the wrong message — that you can have multiple sex partners without condoms — but I can’t say it doesn’t work.”

    • ninjapornstar

      Dagnabbit, this is what I get for typing too fast and not reading carefully enough. The action which can be brought by a person “directly affected” is one for “injunctive relief.” Which means that it’s not an action for money. Rather, it’s an action to make the film production either STOP doing something or FORCE them to do something. In this case, I presume the party directly affected would be able to get a court order halting the film production until it complied with the requirements of the proposition. (aka - wrap. it. up!) Whether anyone working on the set could seek such an order from the court, or if it would be limited to those actually engaging in or exposed to sex and the related bodily fluids, is beyond me.

    • ninjapornstar

      Kate Aurthur wrote: “I did not find anything about lawsuits by other people on set.” Take a look at 11.39.140 The proposed proposition does appear to have a civil enforcement provision which DOES allow folks on set to bring an action provided they have been “directly affected” by the failure to comply with the provisions of the chapter. What does “directly affected” mean? Beats me, I don’t do California law.
      - It could mean that they got a blood-borne pathogen from exposure on the set; or
      - It could mean that they were exposed to bodily fluids and risked getting a blood-borne pathogen on the set; or
      - It could mean that they merely worked on a set which did not comply with these provisions, and therefore the work environment was unsafe, and therefore they were harmed. How the provision will be interpreted is not clear to me, but this is hardly my area of expertise.  11.39.140
      A civil action to enforce the provisions of this section may be brought by the …or any person directly affected by said failure to comply with the provisions of this chapter. …

    • ninjapornstar

      Here’s a link to the product’s webpage. http://www.biolitestove.com/ Basically, some heat from the fire is used to generate electricity, which is used to run a fan so the stove burns hotter and cleaner (and also power your iPod). They’ve got a “Homestove” model intended for the 3rd world. They make a “Campstove” model to sell in the 1st world to subsidize the Homestove model.