Tag Archives: california

Sookie Stackhouse & Vampire Bill Get Hitched

Or at least the people who play them did. Yesterday in a private residence in Malibu , California, Anna Paquin and Stephen Moyer were married. Their guests included Elijah Wood, Michael Emerson (Ben Linus from Lost ) and his wife, True Blood co-star Carrie Preston, who watched as the couple exchanged vows under a tent across from the beach.

Go here to read the rest:
Sookie Stackhouse & Vampire Bill Get Hitched

Dozens of Whales Have Died after 58 Were Stranded on a New Zealand Beach

Dozens of whales die after 58 are stranded on New Zealand beach By the CNN Wire Staff August 20, 2010 10:35 a.m. EDT Rescuers attempt to refloat 15 stranded pilot whales at Karikari beach in the far north of New Zealand. STORY HIGHLIGHTS * Fifteen out of 58 pilot whales are still alive * The whales were found Friday morning. officials say * Officials are trying to get them back out to sea; iniitial attempts failed (CNN) — A beachgoer in a remote area of northern New Zealand found a horrific sight Friday morning — 58 pilot whales stranded on Karikari Beach. When conservation officials arrived, only 15 of the animals were still alive. The whales probably became stranded sometime during the night, said Carolyn Smith of New Zealand's Department of Conservation in Kaitaia, and that's why so many died before being discovered. “The focus for everyone right now was to try to refloat the survivors,” Smith said. To do that, officials will position the whales to face out to sea and hope that they swim back out when high tide comes. The whales “need to be held in the water for at least half an hour to allow them to reorientate themselves, before being released to hopefully swim back out to sea,” the conservation department said. A first attempt to refloat the whales was not successful Friday night. Conservation officials were going to monitor the animals overnight in the hope of trying again, maybe after moving them to Matai Bay, where sea conditions could be more favorable for refloating. The next attempt would happen Saturday morning, said Mike Davies, acting area manager at the Department of Conservation's Kaitaia office. Far North Whale Rescue, which has a team of trained volunteers, is working with the department to achieve this. Currently, New Zealand's Far North region is experiencing heavy rain and wind, both a help and a hindrance to the rescue efforts, the Department of Conservation said. It means the whales are not at risk of drying out, but it creates difficult conditions for rescuers. Adult pilot whales can measure up to 20 feet long and weigh up to 3 tons. Due to their social nature, they are often involved in mass strandings, according to the American Cetacean Society. The ACS is a non-profit group based in California that works to protect whales, dolphins and porpoises, according to its website. added by: EthicalVegan

Obama Forgot "New Direction" In Drug Policy; Sticks With DEA Nominee Michele Leonhart Despite Criticism of Raids

Obama is confident that Leonhart is the right choice, the White House staffer said, and that as of Friday the president wasn’t considering anyone else for the position. In other words, the response from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to a chorus of concerns boils down to: Leonhart or bust. In response to this message, critics have pointed out that Obama is shifting his stance on marijuana policy. “It’s unfortunate — and outright baffling — that the Obama administration would choose someone for this post whose resume is so strongly at odds with the ‘new direction’ this administration had promised for drug policy in general and medical marijuana in particular,” the Marijuana Policy Project’s Mike Meno told The Daily Caller. “During the election campaign, and again through the Department of Justice memo in October, President Obama vowed to stop the outrageous Bush-era practice of raiding and prosecuting medical marijuana patients and providers who operate under state law. If change is what they seek, why would the administration nominate a Bush holdover under whom the DEA continues to raid the private property of citizens obeying state law? It makes no sense.” MPP and other marijuana activists have pointed to a series of raids the DEA conducted in California as recently as last month as evidence that Leonhart is continuing the Bush-era strategy of cracking down on medical marijuana dispensaries and growers, even if they are operating legally under California law. They say this conflicts directly with statements Obama made on the campaign trail, such as this one from April 2008: “When it comes to medical marijuana, I have a practical view more than anything. My attitude is that if it’s an issue of doctors prescribing medical marijuana as a treatment for glaucoma or a cancer treatment, there really is no difference between that and a doctor prescribing morphine, or anything else.” But the White House and the Justice Department both told TheDC that Holder’s memo does not give dispensaries carte blanche to grow or sell marijuana, and that recent raids don’t conflict with what Obama expressed while campaigning. “I wouldn’t say the memo ‘discourages’ certain raids,” a DOJ offical told TheDC. Rather, “it talks about prioritizing resources most efficiently.” And both the White House and the DOJ argued that the gist of the Holder memo was that the DEA would “not focus its limited resources on individual patients with cancer or other serious diseases.” Critics see the distinction between cancer patients who take medical marijuana and the people who sell them medical marijuana as hair-splitting. “Attorney General Eric Holder was crystal clear last year when he directed officials within his department not to waste federal resources interfering with state medical marijuana laws,” wrote FireDogLake’s Jane Hamsher in the open letter distributed by the Marijuana Policy Project. “Yet throughout the tenure of President Obama’s administration, the DEA’s raids have continued in a manner wholly inconsistent with the spirit of that directive. What part of ‘not a priority’ does Michele Leonhart not understand?” added by: Omnomynous

Andrea Mitchell: I Thought Al Gore Settled the Global Warming Issue

One may think that someone as well connected as long-time Washington correspondent and MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell might also connect the dots. After an unseasonably rough DC winter occurring right in the midst of the ClimateGate scandal, she would be aware of doubt being cast over the idea of manmade global warming. But if you want evidence her mind is made up regardless of any of this, you could detect from her reaction to a report from Politco’s Jim VandeHei that some Republican candidates are using the climate change debate to advance their campaigns. On MSNBC’s Aug. 18 broadcast of “Andrea Mitchell Reports,” Mitchell expressed her surprise that candidates would invoke this issue. “Well, you might think that the link between manmade greenhouse gases and global warming is clearly established science, but some Republican candidates are challenging conventional wisdom this year,” Mitchell said. Mitchell went on to play a TV spot from California GOP Senate hopeful Carly Fiorina, blasting incumbent Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., for her stands on global warming as a national security issue, even though many would argue there are other more serious threats on that front. “Fiorina is not alone as Politico reports today,” Mitchell said. “Joining me now is Politico executive editor Jim VandeHei. Jim, I got to tell you – John Kerry, Lindsay Graham and a whole group of retired generals are part of this national security initiative on climate change, so I just don’t completely get it, especially in California. How does this work in a general election campaign in California?” Mitchell was referring to an Aug. 18 Politico story by Darrel Samuelsohn , which she obviously didn’t read because it explained the strategy behind the use of this issue in a campaign. But VandeHei explained to it her and her viewers anyway. “There’s a big block of Republican candidates in California but also elsewhere, in Wisconsin where Rob Johnson is conservative, challenging Russ Feingold,” VandeHei explained. “We see it in New Mexico. We see it in Nevada, these candidates who are really calling into the science behind global warming and also man’s role in causing global warming. This is obviously been a big debate. We had it during the energy debate on Capitol Hill. What is surprising to us is we found a large number of people on the campaign trail sounding like [Sen.] James Inhofe, who has been one of the most unspoken conservatives on this issue on Capitol Hill.” But the source of Mitchell’s confusion: She had thought that former Vice President Al Gore and “all of that” had settled this debate, as his word was final on the issue. “Well in fact, Sharon Angle said that – she said in June that greenhouse gas legislation was based on an unscientific hysteria over the man-caused global warming hoax,” Mitchell said. “It just seems that I thought that after Al Gore and all of that – that it was pretty much a settled issue . You could argue about the economics and the priorities over it, as Lindsay Graham and others have. I didn’t think that they would be arguing this year that it wasn’t settled science.” But as VandeHei said, there’s a group of people that think the issue as been used politically to get certain provisions written into legislation and that climate change created by carbon emissions isn’t the only way the globe’s temperature is impacted, as Wisconsin GOP Senate hopeful Rob Johnson said in an interview published on Aug. 16 in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel . “But there’s definitely a group of people who do not think it’s settled science, or at least they think that the science is being exaggerated to make a political case in favor of these caps on carbon emissions as part of the larger energy bill,” VandeHei said. “What you’re seeing now is that the feeling manifested in a lot of the rhetoric during these campaigns. Rob Johnson was very, very clear in this interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, where he said, ‘I don’t buy the science. I don’t buy that argument.’ He said that global warming could just as well be caused by, he pointed up in the sky, by sun spots. It’s just a different view and there’s a lot of conservatives who hold that view.”

Continued here:
Andrea Mitchell: I Thought Al Gore Settled the Global Warming Issue

Roland Martin to Dems: ‘Protect the Constitution’ By Supporting Mosque

On Tuesday’s Anderson Cooper 360, CNN contributor Roland Martin strongly pushed for the Democrats to ” stand up and protect the Constitution ” by defending the planned New York City mosque near Ground Zero: ” Democrats should get some spine and say, ‘You know what? I am sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution .’… Stay strong- say it’s about the Constitution .” Substitute anchor John Roberts brought on Martin, along with Republican strategist Ed Rollins and CNN senior political analyst David Gergen, to discuss the continuing controversy surrounding the mosque project. The anchor first turned to the black talk radio host and asked, “Roland, is this the sort of thing that Democrats want to be talking about right now, at a point where many people form their opinions of who they’re going to vote for in November?” Martin didn’t begin with his “constitutional” argument, but instead emphasized that Democratic candidates needed to focus on local issues: “Frankly, if I’m a Democrat and somebody comes to me with that question…I say, ‘Hey, go talk to…the folks representing New York. I’m here talking about my district.'” Both Gergen and Rollins disagreed with their fellow guest. When the strategist stated that “there’s going to be some seats lost over this issue,” Martin doubled down on his initial point: “You’ve got school districts laying off hundreds of thousands of teachers. And you’re actually going to say, ‘I’m going to vote for somebody based upon this issue’- to me, that’s nuts. You vote on what’s happening where you are.” The CNN contributor then went right in his proposed strategy about making it a constitutional issue and echoed the argument of The Washington Post’s David Ignatius : that the President shouldn’t have backed away a bit from his initial statement on the issue on Friday: “Democrats should get some spine and say, ‘You know what? I am sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution.’ The President was strong on that on Friday. I think he blew it on Saturday by walking it back. Stay strong- say it’s about the Constitution, because every member of Congress, they are supposed to stand up and protect the Constitution.” Martin continued on this point throughout the remainder of the segment. Refreshingly, Gergen pushed back and disagreed: ” I increasingly believe it may come back to haunt him [President Obama] over time….there was a sense that this is another example of people thinking, ‘He doesn’t understand me. He’s not like me. He sees the world through different glasses than I do.'” Later, after Martin rephrased his point and stated that “it is amazing how he’s criticized for saying it is a constitutional right- to freedom of religion,” the senior political analyst retorted by basically endorsing the main argument of the mosque opponents: ” It is not simply a constitutional issue. It has to do with the sensitivities and sensibilities of a lot of families who lost loved ones there for whom this is hallowed ground . And a lot of Americans are saying, basically- look, if they’ve got real problems with it, I would rather they’d move it somewhere else.” Earlier in the segment, as he introduced the controversy, Roberts didn’t use the word “mosque” to describe it, labeling it instead as a ” planned Islamic community center and prayer space down on Park Place in lower Manhattan , two blocks northeast of the Ground Zero site, another two blocks south of a mosque that’s been in that area since 1970, before there even was a Twin Towers.” The full transcript of the panel discussion, which began 37 minutes into the 10 pm Eastern hour of Tuesday’s Anderson Cooper 360: ROBERTS: We’re talking tonight about the planned Islamic community center and prayer space down on Park Place in lower Manhattan, two blocks northeast of the Ground Zero site, another two blocks south of a mosque that’s been in that area since 1970, before there even was a Twin Towers. Sixty-eight percent of Americans surveyed by CNN/Opinion Research Corporation oppose it. In other polling, so does a smaller majority of New Yorkers. A narrow majority of Manhattanites say they support it. Believe it or not, when the local community board voted on it, the result was 29-1 in favor, with 10 people abstaining. It seems the farther you get from the location, the closer you get to election day, the hotter the opposition becomes. Well, that’s ‘Raw Politics’ for you, and here to talk about all of that: political analyst Roland Martin, political contributor/GOP strategist Ed Rollins, and our senior political analyst David Gergen. Good evening to you all, gentlemen. Roland, is this the sort of thing that Democrats want to be talking about right now, at a point where many people form their opinions of who they’re going to vote for in November? ROLAND MARTIN: Of course not, and you’re running for office- you don’t want to be talking about what’s happening in New York City in lower Manhattan. You want to talk about what’s happening on the ground, economic-wise, in Indiana, in Georgia, in Mississippi, Alabama, Idaho, California, or wherever you are. And so, frankly, if I’m a Democrat and somebody comes to me with that question, and I’m running for the U.S. Senate, I say, ‘Hey, go talk to Chuck Schumer, or go talk to- you know, the folks representing New York. I’m here talking about my district.’ ROBERTS: Well, if only Harry Reid had said that, instead of what he said. So Harry Reid is another Democrat, David Gergen, who’s distancing himself from the President. Do you believe, as time goes on, now that the White House has weighed in on what was a local issue, you’ll see more Democrats looking to put some space between them and the President? DAVID GERGEN: I think so, yes. There are a lot of Democrats that, of course, would like not to talk about this. Roland is right about that. But when it becomes a big national controversy, and you’re running for a Washington office- you know, it seems to me it’s totally legitimate for the press or their opponents to ask them, what do you think about this issue? I think that- you know, it’s like one of the issues you’re going to have to deal with when you’re in national life. ROBERTS [to Ed Rollins]: And you were one of the notable quotables from the Sunday shows when you said, ‘This is the dumbest thing that any president has said or candidate has said since Michael Dukakis said it was okay to burn the flag.’ ED ROLLINS: It’s a similar issue. It’s an emotional issue. You can give an intellectual answer- ROBERTS: Is it a defining moment for this president? ROLLINS: It may be. It may very well be. There’s going to be some seats lost over this issue, I think. It’s going to energize our base- ROBERTS: Really? ROLLINS: Yeah, I think there will. I think there’s- I think you’re down to where these seats are a couple hundred votes. I think people are distracted by they can’t talk about the things they want to be talking about, as Roland said, and I think this is an issue that’s not going to go away. It’s going to get bigger as time goes on, and- you know, it shouldn’t be, but I think it will. ROBERTS: Do you agree, Roland? It’s going to cost the Democrats some seats? MARTIN: No. No. I think if you’re sitting here voting- if you were in any other place in America and your district is broke, you’ve got people who are- increasing number of Food Stamps. You’ve got school districts laying off hundreds of thousands of teachers. And you’re actually going to say, ‘I’m going to vote for somebody based upon this issue’- to me, that’s nuts. You vote on what’s happening where you are. And I will also say this here. Democrats should get some spine and say, ‘You know what? I am sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution.’ The President was strong on that on Friday. I think he blew it on Saturday by walking it back. Stay strong- say it’s about the Constitution, because every member of Congress, they are supposed to stand up and protect the Constitution. ROBERTS: David, you’ve been here- I’m not sure if you’re nodding your head or shaking your head or a little bit of both. GERGEN: Listen, I’ve been talking to people about- is this a one-week story or is this going to be a lingering story, especially for President Obama, and I increasingly believe it may come back to haunt him over time. I thought at first it would be short. But there was a quality about this that I think a lot of people concluded- wasn’t just about the merits of the issue, but there was a sense that this is another example of people thinking, ‘He doesn’t understand me. He’s not like me. He sees the world through different glasses than I do.’ ROBERTS: Communication problem? GERGEN: Well, it’s- I thought in Philadelphia. during the campaign, that was a masterful speech because he gave voice to alternative perspectives and was respectful of them. And in this situation, he stated one point of view, but for lots and lots of other people who oppose this, he showed no sympathy for what they’re going through and why the public is- MARTIN: David! David, the one point of view is the Constitution! ROBERTS: Yeah, well- GERGEN: That is not the only issue, Roland. I’m sorry MARTIN: Wow! That’s not the one point of view! GERGEN: That’s not the only issue. ROLLINS: I don’t think anybody is basically arguing about repealing the First Amendment. I think the critical thing here is, it’s a judgment call. It was a bad judgment in the heart of the politics, and where this president carries this party or sinks this party is on his approval ratings. You go back to 1947- ROBERTS: Which are not looking good. ROLLINS: And they’re 52 percent- 42 percent today in the Gallup, back to the Nixon and the Reagan levels now. If he drops another two or three points, which he clearly could- and this is a defining- could be a defining moment- he’s going to hurt his party. And I say people are going to lose seats. The whole thing is about 3 percent or 4 percent out there. And our base is energized already, and this is going to energize some conservatives, some Tea Party people. ROBERTS: But the point has been made, though- but the point has been made, Roland- let’s get you to speak to this- that the GOP could also lose something over this, because they’re trying, obviously, to get as many votes as they can. There’s a large section of the Muslim population that presidential candidates and, obviously, local candidates court in Dearborn, Michigan. How are Muslims in this country going to feel about what the GOP are saying these days? MARTIN: Well, obviously, frankly, people really haven’t cared what they thought since 9/11, whether you’re a moderate Muslim- and folks have just blown them away and dismissed them and said they’re absolutely irrelevant. And so, sure- bottom line is if you’re Republicans, you’re trying to lock up those freshman Democrats who won in conservative districts, and that’s really who you’re really targeting. But it is amazing to me, though, when you have folks on the right who have attacked this president by saying, he’s not one of us and doesn’t understand our values, and when he does actually reinforce the Constitution, then it’s a bad thing. I get the whole political thing, but maybe- but it is amazing how he’s criticized for saying it is a constitutional right- to freedom of religion. That’s pretty interesting. GERGEN: It is not only- it is not simply a constitutional issue. It has to do with the sensitivities and sensibilities of a lot of families who lost loved ones there for whom this is hallowed ground. And a lot of Americans are saying, basically- look, if they’ve got real problems with it, I would rather they’d move it somewhere else. ROBERTS: We’re not going to solve this tonight. It’s going to continue- MARTIN: Right. It’s hallowed ground? There’s a mosque four blocks away. This is two blocks away. Wow! (laughs) ROBERTS: Roland Martin, David Gergen, Ed Rollins, thanks for coming up- appreciate it.

More:
Roland Martin to Dems: ‘Protect the Constitution’ By Supporting Mosque

Dr. Frank Ryan Died After Tweeting About Dog

Heidi Montag’s plastic surgeon was reportedly texting before his car plunged off a cliff on Monday. By Gil Kaufman Frank Ryan Photo: Jordan Strauss/WireImage In one of the starkest reminders to date of the dangers of texting while driving, the late celebrity plastic surgeon Dr. Frank Ryan was reportedly tweeting about his dog just before his car plunged off a cliff in Malibu on Monday. Ryan, best known for performing several surgeries on “The Hills” star Heidi Montag, was killed when his 1995 Jeep Wrangler fell off the side of the twisty Pacific Coast Highway and fell on its roof. Ex-girlfriend Charmaine Blake told People magazine that Ryan was sending out a Twitter message about his border collie, Jill, just before his crash. “He lived up in Malibu on a tiny street, and he was texting while driving, and he accidentally went over the cliff,” she told the magazine. Blake added that Ryan’s family was told by crash investigators that the texting caused the wreck. A California Highway Patrol spokesperson confirmed for People that Ryan was texting before the crash, but investigators have not yet determined the official cause of the accident. The dog was ejected from the car, but survived, sustaining head, eye and paw injuries. The New York Daily News reprinted what it claims are Ryan’s final texts. “After 25 years of driving by, I finally hiked to the top of the giant sand dune on the [Pacific Coast Highway] west of Malibu. Much harder than it looks! Whew!” he reportedly wrote. That missive was followed by a photo of Jill looking out at the Pacific Ocean with the caption, “Border collie jill surveying the view from atop the sand dune.” Celebrity publicist Blake, 29, who lived with Ryan from 2003-2006, said she remained close to the surgeon and hoped that his death will remind people that they “should not text and drive at all.” TMZ reported that the 50-year-old doctor was trapped inside his vehicle and suffered from major head injuries. He was pronounced dead after Ventura County Fire Department officials tried to lift him out of the wreckage with a helicopter. In addition to famously working on “Hills” star Montag, Ryan’s other patients included Vince Neil, Gene Simmons, reality-TV personality Adrianne Curry and Lorenzo Lamas. Montag took to her Twitter page to express her condolences. “I am devastated to hear the news of Dr. Frank Ryan’s death,” Montag wrote on Tuesday. “He was the most amazing person I have ever known. He was an angel and changed my life and the lives of everyone he met. He was the most brilliant talented surgeon who will ever exist. Dr. Frank Ryan changed the world.” Related Photos The Evolution Of: Heidi Montag

Read the original here:
Dr. Frank Ryan Died After Tweeting About Dog

Dr. Frank Ryan, Heidi Montag’s Surgeon, Dies In Car Crash

Celebrity plastic surgeon was killed in a car accident Monday. By Jocelyn Vena Dr. Frank Ryan Photo: Michael Kovac/ Getty Images A celebrity plastic surgeon best known for performing several surgeries on Heidi Montag, Dr. Frank Ryan, was involved in a car accident died on Monday. According to The Associated Press, Ryan died after his car fell from a cliff in Malibu on Monday. The California Highway Patrol told the AP that his 1995 Jeep Wrangler fell off the side of the Pacific Coast Highway and fell on its roof. No cause of death had been established at press time and an autopsy was expected to take place on Tuesday (August 17). “We are all in shock,” Ryan’s rep told People. “He was such a hardworking, philanthropic man, a loving son, and responsible for changing many people’s lives for the better. He will be missed by many.” TMZ reported that the 50-year-old doctor was trapped inside his vehicle and suffered from major head injuries. He was pronounced dead after Ventura County Fire Department tried to lift his out with a helicopter. In addition to famously working on “Hills” star Montag, Ryan’s other patients included Vince Neil, Gene Simmons, reality TV personality Adrianne Curry and Lorenzo Lamas. Montag took to her Twitter page to express her condolences. “I am devastated to hear the news of Dr. Frank Ryan’s death. He was the most amazing person I have ever known. He was an angel and changed my life and the lives of everyone he met. He was the most brilliant talented surgeon who will ever exist. Dr. Frank Ryan changed the world,” Montag wrote on Tuesday. My thoughts and prayers go out to his mother, family, friends, and anyone who was ever blessed enough to meet him,” she continued. “He is in a better place. FYI Dr. Ryan never drank, never smoked, he’s never done drugs this was something everyone knows about him. He was always on call 24/7.” Related Photos The Evolution Of: Heidi Montag

More here:
Dr. Frank Ryan, Heidi Montag’s Surgeon, Dies In Car Crash

Joaquin Phoenix: I’m Still Here!

Joaquin Phoenix has gone off the rails of late. Well, it actually started about a year and a half ago. The acclaimed actor announced he was quitting that profession, became a rapper, dressed like a homeless person, spaced out on Letterman and had to be escorted out of his own concert . As it turns out, this was all part of Casey Affleck’s directorial brilliance, documenting Phoenix’s transition from well-respected actor to an unproven rap talent for his new movie. Follow this link to check out the I’m Still Here trailer . Joaquin Phoenix, actor (left), and Joaquin Phoenix, caveman rapper. The official synopsis describes I’m Still Here as “a striking portrayal of a tumultuous year in the life of internationally acclaimed actor Joaquin Phoenix.” “Sometimes funny, sometimes shocking, and always riveting, the film is a portrait of an artist at a crossroads. Defying expectations, it deftly explores notions of courage and creative reinvention, as well as the ramifications of life in the public eye.” Deft and riveting? We’ll see about that. But it’s definitely worth a look.

Read this article:
Joaquin Phoenix: I’m Still Here!

Spencer Pratt Served With Divorce Papers; Heidi Montag Laments "Heartbreaking Experience"

You never know with these two loons, but Spencer Pratt and Heidi Montag seem to be well on their way to actually finalizing their long-rumored divorce. The Hills’ gruesome twosome have reportedly taken the next step to dissolving their marriage, with Heidi authorizing the service of her divorce papers. That’s right, Spencer Pratt has been served. He didn’t seem too distraught over it, either. Pratt reportedly received and signed the papers late last week, putting the wheels in motion for dissolution. Speidi’s divorce can become finalized six months from the time Pratt received the documents, as per California law. Her lawyer, Jodeane Farrell, said: “Both Heidi Montag and Spencer Pratt are in full agreement to settle their divorce as quickly as possible without the need of a court appearance.” In this file photo from the olden days, Heidi Montag and Spencer Pratt suck face and hold every copy of their terrible book that actually sold . While the plastic pair appear to be briskly moving along to the end of their marriage since tying the knot in April 2009, and staging at least one sham wedding prior to that, they have each been tweeting about their next moves. Pratt has been busy at strip clubs and working on a 3-D beach movie, while Montag, who dropped out of a reality show with BFF Jen Bunney, has been busy working on music and “finally hav[ing] some girl time for the first time in years!” “Cleaning house and getting rid of my old life, it feels fresh.” Montag also commented on Twitter regarding the state of her marriage to Pratt, noting that “this has been a heartbreaking experience to go through, and it’s not that I don’t love Spencer. We just want different things in life.” Confirming that they are actually separated , she notes: “We don’t live together. Spencer and I are finally moving forward with our lives, but with any divorce, there is much to work through. We’ve been together almost five years.” Poor Dolly and Ninja …

See the original post here:
Spencer Pratt Served With Divorce Papers; Heidi Montag Laments "Heartbreaking Experience"

N.J. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear gay marriage case raises question of Christie’s influence | NJ.com

http://www.queerty.com/did-some-of-new-jerseys-supreme-court-justices-refuse-gay… The New Jersey Supreme Court doesn't give interviews, so no one can ask whether the tribunal balked on the gay marriage issue because it was afraid of the reaction of Gov. Chris Christie. “There won't be any comment,” says Winnie Comfort, a spokeswoman for the court. “Of course, people are free to speculate. There is nothing we can do about that.” Comfort made the comments in response to remarks by legislators who raised the issue of whether the court — or, at least, three members — might have been afraid to touch the gay marriage case because Christie can remove them by appointing other justices. The way he did to Justice John Wallace, the court's only African-American. Both state Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union) and Assemblyman John D. McKeon (D-Essex) told The Star-Ledger's Matt Friedman the decision raised the question of whether Wallace's ouster led three non-permanent court members to duck the issue. Those members — Chief Justice Stuart Rabner and Justices Roberto Rivera-Soto and Helen Hoens — voted against a motion to have the court immediately revisit its earlier decision in the Lewis vs. Harris case that, in 2006 ruled the Legislature must provide marriage-like rights to same-sex couples. The court then left the details up to lawmakers and they decided to create “civil unions” rather than extend marriages to gays and lesbians. The three judges who don't have to worry about reappointment — Justices Virginia Long, Jaynee LaVecchia, and Barry Albin dissented from the order. They wanted arguments on the motion to go forward. Coincidence? “I think the three justices who voted against the motion looked over their shoulders and saw Chris Christie,” says Frank Askin, a Rutgers Law School professor and constitutional scholar in Newark. “There is no question in my mind that fear of what the Governor would do played a part in that decision.” Michael Drewniak, Christie's spokesman, declined to answer questions about the decision. The state court action contrasts with the robust ruling handed down by federal Judge Vaughn Walker who overturned a California plebiscite — Proposition 8 — banning gay marriages. Forget worrying about a governor, Walker rejected the will of the state's voters because, he ruled, Proposition 8 “violates the due process and equal protection rights” of gays seeking to marry. Walker's decision chews through the arguments of opponents of gay marriage, refuting contentions gay marriages are unstable and that children raised by gay parents do less well than kids from heterosexual households. He also makes it obvious supporters of Proposition 8 were trying to inject their religious views into law. “The evidence presented at trial,” Walker wrote, “fatally undermines the premises underlying proponents' proffered rationales for Proposition 8.” New Jersey once had a supreme court willing to render significant decisions. Under chiefs like Joseph Weintraub, Richard Hughes, Robert Wilentz, James Zazzali and Deborah Poritz, the state's highest court was a national leader in individual rights. It is often in state courts that individual rights are most effectively protected. New Jersey's decisions on school funding and fair housing — also now endangered — went far beyond what the federal courts would do. Even Walker's decision, for all the hype it has generated, could set back the cause. Rutgers Law Professor Carlos Bell, an expert on gay marriage, explains it could lead to an adverse decision by a conservative U.S. Supreme Court: “That is why most of the other same-sex marriage lawsuits (including New Jersey's Lewis v. Harris) have been brought in state courts alleging violations of state constitutions. When a case is decided on state constitutional grounds, it cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. “It is likely the court will hear the Proposition 8 case. The upside for gay people of a favorable decision is tremendous: It would mean same-sex couples all over the country would have to be afforded the opportunity to marry. But the downside is also great: It would mean a Supreme Court decision, which would likely stay on the books for a long time, holding gay people are not entitled to marry under the federal constitution.” Maybe too much has been read into the state court action. Even Steve Goldstein, the chairman of Garden State Equality, the state's leading proponent of gay rights, says “it's not a dooms-day scenario — we'll get our day in court.” Perhaps. But a lot is at stake, and one has to wonder — do the three judges up for reappointment really think Christie will keep them no matter what they do? This looks more like an opportunity to make history rather than curry favor. added by: toyotabedzrock