…and the winner is…SHE GAVE GREAT HEAD! They say it had nothing to do with the beheading! (REPLAY)(Creeping Sharia)(Verizon drop Muslim TV channel A YEAR after owner beheaded his wife at the station | Mail Online). A Muslim cable channel has been dropped by Verizon a year after the owner of the station was given life in prison for beheading his wife at their TV studio.
Bridges TV will go off air on March 14, almost a year to the day after the channel’s owner Muzzammil Hassan, 47, was jailed for the brutal murder of his wife Aasiya, who was also the station manager.
Mrs Hassan had told her abusive husband that she was leaving him in 2009 and asked for a divorce. Six days later he lured her to their office in Buffalo, New York where he stabbed her 40 times and hacked off her head with two hunting knives. While his children were in the car waiting. Much more on the evidence here. Hassan, a former banker, was convicted of second-degree murder in 2011 for stabbing and beheading his 37-year-old wife. He received the maximum sentence of 25 years to life in jail. The Verizon network claimed that dropping the channel was unrelated to the brutal murder, putting the decision down to low viewership figures. Samantha Azzar, news anchor at Bridges TV told wgrz.com: ‘Without Verizon, we will cease to exist.‘ Things have a way of working out. Remember CAIR gave Hassan an award, then wiped all traces of that from their website after he beheaded his wife.
The controversial step to approve .xxx domain names has today been taken by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, paving the way for a whole slew of new addresses suffixed by the famous triplicate x. Funnily enough, before the decision was made today, opposition to it was proffered by both conservative groups opposed to pornography and adult entertainment companies fearing they’d be more easily compartmentalized and potentially blocked by overzealous governments. Moreover, every popular adult website at present will pretty much be forced to buy its .xxx version, which, for an industry famous for its frugality, will be an understandably tough pill to swallow. We are surprised not to see the people of Amsterdam consulted, however — their city’s emblem features three Xs too, shouldn’t they have a say in this?
A further meeting is scheduled by ICANN for June 20th to discuss opening up all possible domain name suffixes to registration, pending the validation of a set of guidelines for approval. That’s looking quite likely to be passed too, as the AFP sagely notes that there’s a celebratory party scheduled for two days after the event. URLs are about to get a lot more varied, it seems; they’re certainly going to feature a lot more of the (English) alphabet’s 24th letter, whatever the case.
I was doing a lot of thinking about the first amendment this month,,,,
I noticed that several social networks have opened for porn…
and they are encouraging people to share pornography….
If people are sharing porn online… why would they put their credit cards out?
(imagine Jenna Jameson talking it is the ass, but first it’s Miller Time
because Porn Commercial endorsements are the future)
This might bring a chuckle at first… but there is no financially stable working porn model… Hi-def maybe? but frankly I don’t mind cheap internet snips… and most other people like to watch the 60 second teasers as much as I do… we simply get tired of the scene after that long.
Some thing else dawned on me. The main financial support for 1st amendment issues (the porn industry) is about to take a dive. If the porn industry takes a financial dive the way the music industry is now… why would they spend money on the legal fees to protect dip shits (like Larry Flynt who is now endorsing KooKooChiniK for president). What I’m saying is that we could be facing some very rough freedom of expression waters. With communications becoming increasingly international and no longer on U.S. soil… I could see a social network not honoring free speech whatsoever… and that is frankly scary and I don’t think there is anybody with deep pockets like Larry Flynt anymore. The Volvo soccer mom’s and all that sexual perversion hysteria just might win out the day… because there is more money in “Security” then “Porn”.
I have already documented my experience in New York City under Rudy Ghouliani… (keep in mind I’m a white Republican who is writing this). Perhaps this Donna Hanover feminist hysteria is ripe for a national platform…. It seems that both political parties are targeting our “BILL OF RIGHTS”
….and the porn industry is in no financial position to fight this anymore
for the study on strippers and their chemical cycles in relation to tip quantity you will find it in this weeks issue of NYTimes Magazine page 79. (December 9th 2007 – The Year in Ideas)
“Lap Dance Science”
it might not make sense for Hilary to work when she’s not ovulating. but then again… “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Right Bill? Worked great when he prosecuted the American worker for sexual harassment while he ordered pizza out with Monica Lewinsky. And the biggest embarrassment in armed force history occurs in Abu Gharaib… but “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”… you might offend Brook Shields.
I would like to see Brook shoot herself in the head like she did in Freeway.
How come Woody Allen and Michael Douglas’s marriage is working Anita Hill?
Mrs Hiley, who gets £15 for every 10 ounces of milk she donates to the company, said it was a great “recession beater”. “What’s the harm in using my assets for a bit of extra cash?” she added. “I teach women how to get started on breastfeeding their babies. There’s very little support for women and every little helps.” Mr O’Connor said 14 other women had come forward to offer their services. Health checks for the lactating women were the same used by hospitals to screen blood donors.
via themadjewess.wordpress.com Posted via email from noahdavidsimon’s posterous
image by Will Cotton
(American, b. 1965)
Ice Cream Cavernvia artregister.com
Well Loic… guess there wasn’t Sex on Seesmic. maybe that was why the network failed? I’m going to attempt to save the best of my old videos there. it really is a shame that this network failed. originally from
Network of AntiZionists for the most part… but they had some interesting moments. French flavored Social Media. This guy was unfortunately from Delaware… where everyone is a kook. They even have Republican Wichans there. This guy was a Communist however.
I wish we could. really I do… but I’d rather not. ruling the world is no way to get power long term. obviously property is libidinal. too much of a display of that and you lose your backyard and your wife goes with the swing set.
I came across this story on a Conservative blog and was offended at his lack of respect for the Constitution.
this is what he said… (and I usually find this guy amusing, but not this time)
I’m not quite sure what this guy’s problem is and let’s just hope he decides to drop his crusade now. The thought of having the Supreme Court hear arguments on the legalities of allowing women to drink at a discount just strikes me as un-American.
I find it amusing that so called Conservatives and Feminists would team up because in the end everyone is looking for their cookie. This is not the way fair law should be applied.
The problem here is the blogger takes the stance that this guy is in the way of getting stupid drunk girls.
I’m actually not against ladies night. Nor am I against a “Jew night” or Christmas. We have events that cater to groups and our laws should never get in the way of this. As long as other groups have an opportunity to also have nights for them… or an event or even a prayer group of men (as Jewish Orthodox men do with their minions). This is not a matter of separate but equal because this is private property.
As for the man who is claiming that ladies night is sexist, I also disagree. In fact I’m fairly certain that a feminist like Gloria Steinem would be bemused to see a man trying to take advantages of women away because it would put them in a position of being sex objects. I’m not a fan of feminism and I think affirmative action and thinking in terms of gender as a means to advocate change is wrong constitutionally, but at the same time we also need to acknowledge identity and the needs for identity to congregate. We also need the government to recognize identity (which is why I’m against gay marriage) because identity is a form of transparency which is a characteristic that government should strive to attain.
From the blog one gets the feeling however that the judge ruled against the man against ladies night because he was threatened because of a need to take advantage of women. I agree with his finding that ladies night is constitutional, but the reason is not because it is inconvenient. I also think that even though the man is wrong, we should congratulate him for thinking about the slippery slope between discrimination and the right to be different.
here is the news story.
Lola can still get into the Copa for free.
A federal appeals court this morning upheld “Ladies’ Nights” promotions at the Copacabana and other city nightclubs.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan rejected claims by “anti-feminist lawyer” Roy Den Hollander that charging men more for admission than women violates their civil rights.
A three-judge panel unanimously ruled that Hollander failed to prove that several popular nightspots — including China Club, Lotus and Sol — are subject to a law barring discrimination by anyone acting under government authority.
Hollander alleged that the clubs “engage in state action” because they sell booze pursuant to licenses issued by the state Liquor Authority.
“(W)ithout the draw of alcohol, his argument goes, the nightclubs would not be popular destinations and accordingly, would not be able to charge for admission,” the judges ruled.
“Regardless of the veracity of this statement, we cannot agree that the state’s liquor licensing laws have caused the nightclubs to hold ‘Ladies’ Nights;’ liquor licenses are not directed related to the pricing scheme.”
The judges noted that Hollander “paints a picture of a bleak future, where ‘none other than what’s left of the Wall Street moguls’ will be able to afford to attend nightclubs.”
But because they agreed with a lower court ruling that Hollander “has failed to sufficiently allege state action, we must affirm.”
Hollander blasted the ruling, saying it will allow nightclubs to “discriminate against any group of persons by charging them more for admission than other groups.”
“It does not matter whether the nightclubs charge males or females or blacks or Latins or any other identifiable group more for admission—it is now constitutional,” he said. “It’s either a decision driven by feminist ideology or the Second Circuit decided to punt the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.”