Art (6) Books (5) Capitalism (1) Cleveland (5) Coffee (4) Cool Stuff (9) Design (12) Dresses (7) education (1) Europe (1) Fall (9) Family (6) Fashion (36) Food (20) Friends (5) Gay Marriage (3) Glee (4) Gravy (1) Green (1) Handbags (5) Holidays (4) Home (10) Humor (8) Jewelry (4) Laugh (4) Law (3) Law School (17) Life (11) Love (7) Men (5) Molly (4) Movies (2) Music (9) News (14) Photography (2) Politics (7) Professors (4) Satire (1) Shoes (11) Shopping (10) Sisters (7) Sports (1) Spring (1) Summer (9) Texas (6) Textiles (6) Travel (1) TV (7) Winter (4)
Showing posts with label News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label News. Show all posts

04 August 2010

Hooray!

Add California to the list of states that "get it" (presumptively, of course... pending appeals and hopefully a trip to the Supreme Court). Today, a federal Judge overturned the California voter-approved ban on same sex marriage.  Overturning Proposition 8 is surely a broad and fantastic step towards equality for all, however the hurdles to equality are still numerous across America.  And more specifically, the hurdles to finality in this case are high.  Below are highlights from various news outlets reporting on today's momentous decision.

from the San Francisco Chronicle:

"With an appeal virtually guaranteed, it was one step toward victory, but not a final win for gay marriage, said local residents.
"You could get happy about it, but we've been happy before and we got let down," said Michael Valdez, 59, who was out walking with his domestic partner Ray Smith.
"read more here

from the Los Angeles Times/Excerpts from Jude Walker's Opinion:

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."

from the WSJ blog: 

"Judge Walker ruled that the “fundamental right” in the case was the right to marry — and that it had been denied the plaintiffs. It’s important to note that Walker didn’t say the right was to marry someone of a specific sex, which might not be defined as a “fundamental right,” rather the right to marry generally. He wrote: "Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as “the right to same-sex marriage” would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy —— namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages.""
read more here

from the New York Times:

"...the very existence of federal court ruling recognizing same-sex marriage in California, the nation’s most populous state, set off cheers of “We won!” from crowds assembled in front of the courthouse in San Francisco. Evening rallies and celebrations were planned in dozens of cities across the state and several across the nation."

"During the trial, which ended in June, plaintiffs offered evidence from experts on marriage, sociology and political science, and emotional testimony from the two couples who had brought the case. Proponents for Proposition 8 offered a much more straightforward defense of the measure, saying that same-sex marriage damaged traditional marriage as an institution and that marriage was historically rooted in the need to foster procreation, which same-sex unions cannot, and was thus fundamental to the existence and survival of the human race.
But Judge Walker seemed skeptical of those claims. “Tradition alone, however,” he wrote, “cannot form the rational basis for a law.”"

read more here

22 July 2010

Study Break Fashion Challenge

On one of many study breaks this morning, I read this great article in the Times's Style Section re: the "shopping diet"
30 days.
6 pieces.
1 wardrobe.
I cannot wait until this wretched bar exam is over to expound on this idea.
Love and Luck.

13 July 2010

Agreed.

This is, perhaps, my laziest blog post.  Instead of thinking on my own, I'm just going to direct you to a blog link my law prof had on his facebook today:

http://volokh.com/2010/07/13/elizabeth-wurtzels-case-for-abolishing-the-bar-exam/

It's a super blog and at this point in my bar studies, I wholeheartedly concur.  Best of Luck to my friends studying.

06 July 2010

Why Morning People Rule the World

A friend posted this article on his facebook page today and I enjoyed it to bits.
It's a May article from the London Evening Standard that examines the differences and (dis)advantages to being either a morning person or an evening person:
"We are all morning or evening people. Scientists have established that our genes dictate around half of what they call our “chronotypes” — our natural preference for certain times of the day."
I am most certainly a morning person... hooray?

22 June 2010

making it a job to get a job...

The Times published an article yesterday called, 'In Law Schools, Grades Go Up, Just Like That".  It chronicles to a tee the games schools play so that more of their students will get jobs post-law school.  I found particularly entertaining (and sickening) SMU's practice of paying Dallas firms to hire their students.  Perhaps this is why certain law firms are not hiring any 3Ls who are not from SMU.  
Law Schools are now engaged in a frightful race-to-the-top make their students look more attractive.  Will Loyola Law School's students look more attractive to employers after this?  I doubt it.  The article does point out that some firms follow Above the Law's reports on schools changing grading system and take that into affect when hiring... but some do not.  
The hope for those still in law school (especially with the traditional grading curve) seems to remain in Journal activity and Moot Court teams.  Firms say that they can usually tell a student's rank based on these factors without even looking at a G.P.A. Some other highlights from the article appear below:

"In the last two years, at least 10 law schools have deliberately changed their grading systems to make them more lenient. These include law schools like New York University and Georgetown, as well as Golden Gate University and Tulane University, which just announced the change this month." 

A Dallas family law firm will receive $3,500 to “test drive” him this August.


"It is unclear whether grade inflation is particularly effective at helping students get jobs, especially because many large firms adjust their expectations accordingly."

"These moves can create a vicious cycle like that seen in chief executive pay: if every school in the bottom half of the distribution raises its marks to enter the top half of the distribution, or even just to become average, the average creeps up. This puts pressure on schools to keep raising their grades further."




15 June 2010

Pause for Thoughts

"...nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
At least two executions are scheduled in America this week.  One in Texas and one in Utah.  
In Utah, they're planning to execute Mr. Ronnie Lee Gardner by firing squad.  Yes, you read that correctly, firing squad.  CNN tells us that "the marksmen fire from a distance of 25 feet.  The inmate is blindfolded and strapped to a chair with a target pinned to his chest."  Scarily, Mr. Gardner would not be the first to be executed in Utah using this method.  Read the story here.  As it stands, Utah courts have said that Mr. Gardner is too late with his appeals and have refused to commune his sentence.  His last hopes now remain with the Supreme Court.
In Texas, Mr. David Powell is set for execution by lethal ejection today, June 15th.  He has been on death row since 1978 for murdering a police officer at a traffic stop.  (Info from here).  Since 1978 he has been sentenced to death THREE different times (due to appeals, remands, and overturning of sentences).  His latest appeals have highlighted how Mr. Powell has been a "model prisoner" on death row and that he is no longer a threat to society.  News reports (of varying different tones) can be found in the Dallas Morning News and the Austin American Statesman.  For Mr. Powell as well, the Supreme Court is his last hope.
As I often ask myself, I think we must all ask now "are these pictures and stories of a system that works?"

10 June 2010

Not Just for Hippies.

The New York Times has just reduced to writing a belief I have held near and dear to my heart for the past 5 years: 
Birkenstocks are NOT just for Hippies (or lesbians).
In this article, Guy Trebay looks at all the ways these wonderful shoes can be worn and all the different kinds of people that wear them.  Characteristically worn by those who oft prefer to hug trees and drive volvos, Trebay tells us that Birkenstocks are now being worn by NYC fashionistas and many male celebrities.
Pause for Hooray!
Better yet, after Birkenstock execs saw that their shoes were gracing these kinds of feet, they got inspired to design:
“It was never a goal of ours at Birkenstock to be fashionable with capital F,” said Shelly Glasgow, the director of product development for Birkenstock USA. “But when we saw pictures of male celebrities like Leonardo DiCaprio and Usher wearing Birkenstock products that we hadn’t in any way placed with them, we didn’t want to let that go.” And thus the company decided to raise the ante on design."


I've owned this pair since my romp in London and even though some friends, and others who had been a bit late on the fashion train, constantly mocked my wearing these shoes, I still wore them with a deep affection for their undeniable and classic style.
Visit the Birkenstock Website for more styles.  I think that these may be my next sandal purchase (Patent Black Sydney)



Thank you, New York Times, for bringing light to these sandals that every boy and girl should own!

27 May 2010

Happy Birthday 'To Kill a Mockingbird'

Happy Happy 50th Birthday to one of my MOST Favorite novels of all time, To Kill A Mockingbird.  
Below is the original New York Times review of the 'To Kill a Mockingbird'.  More exciting 'Mockingbird' Tributes over the summer to come!
(I apologize for the tininess- If you download the image and zoom, it is actually readable :)

20 May 2010

A Great Loss.

Some D-bags stole some works of art from the Museum of Modern Art in Paris, located essentially in the middle of the city.
Who do they think they are?  Totes Losers.
If you frequent the black-market art market, be on the lookout for these:



Picasso's Dove with Green peas, painted in 1911
Pastoral painted by Henri Matisse in 1906

Olive Tree near l'Estaque painted by Georges Braque in 1906
Still Life with Candlestick by Fernand Leger in 1922

Woman with Fan by Modigliani (1919)

12 May 2010

News-a-Palooza Wednesday.

Goood Morning!  Coffee is brewing and the sun is up.  Today is going to be filled with packing and cleaning, but I'm totally okay with that.  But before we get to all that, let's peruse some of the news (and that little phrase will now be used on 'abounding luxe') floating around the interwebs.

First up: Not so much a news piece, but a great, great video that Heather posted on her facebook wall the other day.  It comes to us from Afghanistan, from the 1st Batallion 6th Marines.  I too often forget that, regardless of anyone's political aversion to war, there is indeed, a war being fought.  I need to be reminded that far too many soldiers are being taken from their families for long stretches of time, and that some soldiers have been taken forever.  So here is this incredible video showing our phenomenal soldiers who are too far from home


Second up: The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that S.F. cops' pasts could jeopardize convictions.  The Article claims that more than 80 city police officers have "criminal histories" that were withheld and not disclosed by the city Prosecutor's office in cases where these officers testified against defendants.  I woke up to this story on CNN this morning.  They were interviewing both a spokesperson from the DA's office and Jeff Adachi, San Francisco's Public Defender.  Things got heated.  The DA spokesperson bashed Adachi (and his office) for making a big deal out of nothing and said that this was just a drop in the bucket of motions that are filed day in/day out that clog up prosecution and hinders their office.  (AL opinion: see now, this whole filing of motions is not to hinder prosecution, but to make sure everyone gets a fair trial.)  Adachi was adamant that this evidence should be turned over to defense teams under the auspices of Brady v. Maryland and because of previous crime lab tampering on some of those in the SF Police Dept. (AL opinion: I understand where Adachi is coming from in some cases, and I'm certain that there are some "dirty" cops, BUT- is a widespread look into every officer's past ok? Is it really relevant? Material? Exculpatory? I don't know.)  Read the whole story here:  Photo from Suzuki Lea/The Chronicle.

Last Up: The nomination of Elena Kagan to replace Stevens Supreme Court seat.  Everyone knew she was on the short list.  Apparently she's a brilliant legal mind (Obama says one of the best in the Country) but, has never served as a judge.  She's the first in nearly four decades who would join the bench without prior judicial experience.  Admittedly, I don't know much about her.  I was kind of pulling for Diane Wood based on her record as a phenomenal (in my opinion) judge on the 7th Circuit bench.  In order for us all to learn a bit more about Kagan, let's read this list of news outlets' early opinions on the Nomination:
This last link is my fave, of course.  Enjoy reading.  Enjoy your coffee!  More fun posts to come later in the day.


06 May 2010

Luxe Fashion, Bargain Basement Prices.

I just read a great piece in Times today about vintage clothing and Manhattan thrift stores.
Deidre Schoo for The New York Times
It got me to thinking about the few great things I've purchased from ebay lately.
(Let me preface following story with back story... I never "ebay-ed" until a month ago.  I had heard some bad stories, hadn't really thought about it as an outlet for great things, blah blah blah.  UNTIL I was searching for the perfect Coach briefcase ONLY to learn that Coach no longer cares about sleek lines, vintage style, and great American-made leather-goods.  Seriously.  So, the only place I knew to look for a vintage briefcase was ebay.  I found one.  On that particular day, the auction for this particular Beekman briefcase was ending that evening.  I figured that if I staked it out and remained the high bidder I'd win.  False.  Apparently everything in ebay comes down to the last seconds.  And I even had a high reserve.  I wanted this (used) bag $300 worth.  Sadly, someone else wanted it $306 worth.)
Even though I was completely deflated and still sans briefcase, I attempted ebay again a few days later.  This time, I utilized the precious, oh-so-glorious "buy-it-now" feature and secured this AMAZING bag:


After this initial boost of confidence and retail encouragement, (and an expense check from the school) I ventured into the world of ebay once more for a pair of frye boots.  Although I live in Ohio now, I am a true southern girl with MUCH need for boots in the summer (skirts and picnics, duh).  After much looking over a few days, I found a pair of distressed frye harness boots originally sold at Anthropologie.  Even though they were a 1/2 size too big, I purchased.  And I fell in love.  They are hands down the greatest boots I have ever owned.  And I got them for less than 1/2 price.  In fact, I saw the same boots at Saks today for $250.00. (score.)  these are the lovies:
( I love them too much to only put one pic)



This post is simply to state that although the title of this blog is 'Abounding Luxe,'  Luxe, and great, GREAT pieces of fashion, can be found anywhere at any price point.  Search around for those little gem-of-a-stores akin to those in the Times article.  Embrace vintage and ebay and thrift!

03 May 2010

Drill, baby Drill


It's been a few days since the oil rig explosion that has sent more oil into the Gulf of Mexico than the Exxon Valdez poured off the coast of Alaska some 20+ years ago.  Estimates now are that the oil is larger in area than the island of Puerto Rico.  In the wake of this undeniable environmental disaster, so many questions are unanswered--- who's fault is this? what really happened? what's going to happen? how much is this going to cost to clean up? is the oil going to reach the shore? what happens if it does.

Sadly, many of these questions, although being batted around, have no conclusive answers.  This morning I watched a piece with George Stephanopoulos and Tony Hayward (the CEO of BP).  Two parts of the interview were truly unnerving.  First, after the spill, BP asked fisherman it hired to sign waivers of liability.  Hayward stated that it was just a form contract and that he was looking into it and that the signing would stop.  Second, Hayward refused to take responsibility for the explosion.  Hayward said that the explosion and the spill were not BP's responsibility.  Well, surely there is some responsibility, here, right Tony?  Hayward answered, "the oil."  How does that work, Tony Hayward?  You have no responsibility for the rig, the workers on the rig, or the going-ons of the rig, but you have responsibility for the oil.  I guess that works well when you get to cash in on the black gold.

Obama set BP straight by saying, "Let me be clear, BP is responsible for this leak. BP will be paying for the bill."  I wonder what Hayward has to say to that.  Perhaps people wouldn't be so anti-capitalism if they actually saw some semblance of compassion, remorse, and apologies from CEOs instead of semantics and refusals to accept responsibilities.  Perhaps corporate responsibility shouldn't be an oxymoron anymore, especially for BP and Mr. Tony Hayward.

29 April 2010

Satire at Its Best

Happy Study Break Number 1.  I'm far into Criminal Procedure II studies at this moment, (the last flash-card written stated, 'to Prosecute or not to Prosecute') but took a little facebook/youtube break because I'm convinced that if I didn't, the world would stop spinning... Well, my social world, at least.

My fabulous friend posted this on his facebook wall and I couldn't help but click and watch.  The clip is a  little political/social humor; and a lot of a really good message.  I'm sick and tired of all sorts of people being treated differently because of their background, religion, sexual orientation, race, socio-economic standing, what-have-you.  I hate the ironic stance that so many politicos take on the topic of gay marriage.  I think that the kid in the clip points out some of those ironies in a very eloquent, albeit amateur way.



P.S. Closing Arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger are set for June 16th of this year.  This is likely to be a landmark cases addressing Prop 8, same-sex marriage, and the laws that ban it.  Read (and think) about the case here or here.

27 April 2010

Too Similar for Comfort.

(from CNN) -- Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed the state's immigration bill into law. It is considered to be among the toughest legislation in the nation. The bill requires police in her state to determine whether a person is in the United States legally, which critics say will foster racial profiling but supporters say will crack down on illegal immigration.The bill requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there is reason to suspect that they're in the United States illegally. It also targets those who hire illegal immigrant day laborers or knowingly transport them.The Republican governor also issued an executive order that requires additional training for local officers on how to implement the law without engaging in racial profiling or discrimination."This training will include what does and does not constitute reasonable suspicion that a person is not legally present in the United States," Brewer said after signing the bill.Brewer also stated, "As committed as I am to protecting our state from crime associated with illegal immigration, I am equally committed to holding law enforcement accountable should this stature ever be misused to violate an individual's rights." She added that the law would probably be challenged in courts and that there are those outside Arizona who have an interest in seeing the state fail with the new measure."We cannot give them that chance. We must use this new tool wisely and fight for our safety with the honor Arizona deserves."What does the Arizona law do?Previously, officers could check someone's immigration status only if that person was suspected in another crime.Arizona's law orders immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there's reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally.It also targets those who hire illegal immigrant laborers or knowingly transport them.

...Compare With...



The Reich Citizenship Law stripped persons not considered of German blood of their German citizenship and introduced a new distinction between "Reich citizens" and "nationals".
Hitler made a speech before the Reichstag in Nuremberg, introducing the laws and their alleged motivation, before the laws were formally read and proposed for adoption by Göring, the President of the Reichstag:
...Bitter complaints have come in from countless places citing the provocative behavior of Jews...a certain amount of [conspiratorial] planning was involved....[To prevent] vigorous defensive action by the [Aryan] people, we have no choice but to contain the problem through legislative measures....it may be possible, through a definitive secular solution, to create a basis on which the German people can have a tolerable relationship with the Jews.... This law is an attempt to find a legislative solution....if this attempts fails, it will be necessary to transfer [the Jewish problem] ... to the National Socialist Party for a final solution.
Legal discrimination against Jews had come into being before the Nuremberg Laws and steadily grew as time went on; however, for discrimination to be effective, it was essential to have a clear definition of who was or was not a Jew. This was one important function of the Nuremberg laws and the numerous supplementary decrees that were proclaimed to further them.  Their passports were required to have a large "J" stamped on them and could be used to leave Germany - but not to return.  They had to produce them upon request.
From September 1941 all Jewish people living within the Nazi empire, including Germany, were required to wear a yellow badge, which had been required in Poland (under German occupation) beginning in 1939.