Pacificapocalypse

Yay! New Walt Disney Family Museum just opened in the Presidio!

Boo! They won’t let you take pictures there.

WTF? I thought we were over this nonsense; when are museums going to learn that a ‘no photography’ policy is absurd, almost impossible to enforce and absolutely pointless? What are they protecting? I see art students all the time at the De Young or the SFMOMA sketching or painting from the art there. Why is a photograph any different?
Thomas Hawk has some great takes on this and other such ridiculous photography polices.

Oh great, this I need right now. Just got this in a company wide email:

To: SFC-All Users
Subject: Chronicle Communication – This Evening’s Planned Protest
We have been advised that there is a protest planned today from 5 until 7 p.m. at The Chronicle building at 901 Mission St. The protest is in response to the media’s coverage of events in the Middle East.

If you make me miss my bus, you keffia wearing hipster trustafarian douchebags, I’m gonna start crackin; skulls.

I’d never thought I’d say this, but, thank you Supreme Court.

Ok here’s the deal; the definition of the 2nd Amendment has been kicked back and forth for the last century (that’s 100 years kids). The main contention has been this – does the 2nd Amendment confer an individual right or a collective right? Lemme see if I can explain.
Some people view the 2nd Amendment (hereafter referred to as 2ndA) as referring to a collective, that is the militia referenced in the actual wording of the amendment. The Army, the National Guard. In this light the ownership and use of firearms is affirmed when on duty, in the performance of your duties as part of a collective group.
Then again the opposite opinion states that the 2ndA refers to the individual’s right to keep and bear arms, and that you do not need to be part of an organized militia, Army or National Guard, in order to legally own firearms.

That’s it. Pretty simply stuff but no court in this great country of ours has decided what exactly is the correct definition.
Until now.
Today the Supreme Court adopted the individual rights view, affirming District of Columbia v. Heller in a 5-4 decision.

This decision by the Supremes will have a ripple effect throughout the country for a very long time; individual cities bans against firearms ownership such as San Francisco’s ill-fated attempt, Chicago’s ban and the now reversed Washington DC ban are all out the window and any future bans, city, state or federal, are in serious question.

And to clear up a common misconception, the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution, does not give the right to own firearms (whether collectively or individually) – it simply affirms an existing right. It says nothing about bestowing a right, it simply states that the existing right “shall not be infringed.”

Right on America.

Via Esquire.com:

The first thing they teach kids is that there’s a God — an invisible man in the sky who is watching what they do and who is displeased with some of it. There’s no mystery why they start that with kids, because if you can get someone to believe that, you can add on anything you want.

Really going to miss that cranky fucker.