Occasionally, I'll read one or two articles on the elections, but I do this only to keep up on current events from a government standpoint. Was it congresspedia where I found a table listing of contributing corporations? If money had anything to do with the outcome of elections, then Hillary chose her words wisely for her New Hampshire primary acceptance speech
I am coming
This election year will probably not show an attempt to clarify the constitutions first amendment. It is one of those issues nobody will touch because of its sensitivity. But I assure you that, if I was offered a job writing for TV (alongside Ana Garcia) in exchange for my immediate censorship to the issue, I would take it. I'm easy that way.
- University of Chicago $156,054
- Kirkland & Ellis $143,138
- Henry Crown & Co. $79,5000
- Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal $74,950
- Northwestern University $72,930
- Citigroup $228,110
- Goldman Sachs $193,570
- Metropolitan Life $154,850
- Time Warner $138,630
- Corning, Inc. $135,750
A bill was introduced and revised concerning the Freedom Of Information Act. The part that interests me involves who exactly the government deems worthy to be citizens fortunate enough to claim freedom of the press, a first amendment right. Originally, the bill read like this (replacing the word "if" with the word "fuck" because, what doesn't get mentioned, and conveniently overlooked, is screenwriting, AND because although screenwriting & screenplays may once have been interpreted as one in the same, I believe that the computer era will rewrite the definition of the former). Why? Acronyms, that's why:
Fuck the requestor has no prior publication history or current affiliation
Fuck the requestor has no prior publication history and no current affiliation with a news organization
ORGANIZATION: n 1a) the act or process of organizing or of being organized b) the condition or manner of being organized 2a) ASSOCIATION, SOCIETY b) an administrative and functional structure (as a business or a political party); also: the personnel of such a structure.
Age on and long live the queen! when I screenwrite, I publish my words on-line. As far as I know, the whole world has access to my blog, except China maybe, and I don't even know anything about my maximum accessibility space. (ie. the maximum quantity of MB permitted to pass through the cyberspace before my IP blocks further access until I start paying more $$$).
The second part of this bill proposal reads
… consider the requestors stated intent at the time the request is made to distribute information to a reasonably broad audience.
but got revised this way:
… review the requester's plans for disseminating the requested material and whether those plans include distributing the material to a reasonably broad audience
So, I'm a little confused. Instead of a government agency considering a request for CIA torture tapes, the government agency will now be expected to review, not just the request, but review plans which requests for CIA erased torture tapes are a motive for uncovering.
Going back to the topic of the 2008 presidential elections, issues on abortion, health care, taxes and war by American interests might as well be censorship, education, taxes and Yazidi because I don't fool easily, and I believe in marriage. Not weddings. I believe in love but once in a lifetime. If my livelihood, ehem, fuck my livelihood is compromised by an employee of Citigroup, Time Warner, University of Chicago, etc. You can bet your bottom dollar my epitaph will include all the indications of "assassinated"