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.

Via Pacifica Riptide

Local Mideast Peace Rally Turns Ugly

Tonight around 6, as people gathered peacefully at Highway 1 and Linda Mar to protest the war in Gaza, an enraged motorist stopped in traffic and engaged in a shouting match with the demonstrators. Then he parked his car at the shopping center and returned to the scene, shouting and shoving demonstrators, slightly injuring one of them. When the agitated man ran through the parking lot, several demonstrators followed him to take his picture and hold him for police, who shortly came on the scene to question the man and several witnesses. No one pressed charges, so because police did not see the incident occur, they took down the man’s information and released him. One bystander noted that as soon as the police detained him, his demeanor changed drastically, and he spoke calmly with police as if nothing had happened. But this reporter had heard the man shouting earlier and had seen him up close as he ran through the parking lot, his face and eyes full of hate and fear.

Pretty spot on; coincidentally I was in my car directly opposite this as it occurred, lamenting the fact that I didn’t have my camera on me. ‘This reporter’ sounds like he has a little bit of a personal agenda with the line ‘face and eyes full of hate and fear.‘, but I can confirm the that the guy threw punches and tore down some of the protesters signs.

Every discussion board I’m a member of is burning up with the war in Gaza right now and man there are some absolutely white hot emotions and incredibly vitriolic rants being posted. There seems to be no middle ground (or such a small amount that cooler heads get trampled in the rush to post screeds.) with these people. And that’s just online, from people that are *not* getting shot or blown up or having rockets dropped on them.
When will this shit ever end?

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.