Monday, April 27, 2009

A Sneak Peek At My Newest Vintage & Designer Clothing Auctions


Here's a MySpace Sneak Peek At a Few Of My Newest Auction Listings of Exquisite Vintage and Exclusive Designer Clothing...

If You see something you like... I've made it effortless for you to find my eBay Page.

Just click here: vintage_u_luv.

Or, even if you don't care for any of these three items...

In addition to these three, you'll find several more unique items on my page.

(Including this amazing, vintage 1970's, men's Disco shirt with a print of several scenes from The Sorcerer's Apprentice - From Walt Disney's Feature Film "Fantasia".)
Photobucket

Here's a Stunning, Vintage 1920's~1930's, Bias-cut, Semi-sheer, Black Silk Slip Dress. Mint/Unworn Condition!
Photobucket

Here's a To-Die-For, Avant-Garde Diane Von Furstenberg, Silk Dress. Mint/Unworn Condition!
Photobucket

Here's an Exquisite, Vintage 1980's, ST.JOHN By Marie Gray Beaded, Knit Cocktail Dress. Mint Condition!
Photobucket

If nothing catches your eye today, please check back with me again.

I'm always adding new listings of hand-picked, rare and unique vintage and designer clothing at irrestistibly reasonable, below-retail prices.

Thanks For Looking & Supporting My One-Grrl Green Garment Biz!

Peace.

L.

Saturday, April 25, 2009

Cheney In Chains? ...Sweet Dreams Are Made Of This

"I'm Back In The Saddle, Again."

I found myself Internet Access-Less for almost a week recently.

I was going mad with World-Wide Web Withdrawals.

Try to go a few days without going online for any reason...

It forces you to realize how much of your daily life involves a keyboard, a monitor, a computer and access to the Internet.

I found myself sitting in my little vintage chair - in front of my desk, reaching for the mouse, looking up at the screen and...

Aww, shite!

Thankfully, I'm now getting my long-delayed
dose of DSL.

Just in time, too.

Check this out:

Picturing Dick Cheney with his hands and feet in shackles and doing the convict shuffle to a Federal Penitentiary...

Mmmmm...

What can I say...

It just puts a blissful smile on my face and always provides me with an especially warm, head-to-toe warm fuzzy feeling.

I was kind of ambivalent to read of the recent release of the so-called 'Terror Memos'. No Big Deal, in my eyes.

I don't see why the memo release caused certain former CIA spook officials and other Bush Admin officials to get their big-boy panties in such a bunch.

"Now, Al Qaida's operatives will know what techniques they might be facing and they will train to withstand it."

No.
According to the Obama Admin., the 'interrogation' techniques described in the memos were no longer to be considered approved means of questioning detainees.

"Now, the terrorists know that the US is unable to keep its "TOP SECRETS" Top Secret."

Again... No.
Nothing that I heard described from the memos was anything that could have been "EYES ONLY" material. Nothing was revealed that I hadn't heard before regarding the Bush legal team's acrobatic spin of legalese and semantics as they did their best to make it OK for US interrogators to torture detainees/suspects/innocents. And, I'm quite sure that, as AQ has internet access, they could have dug up the same info there, as I have.

I was concerned about the references to letting sleeping torturers lie... Water under the bridge... Look forward, not backwards...

I actually heard a few officials state something along the lines of:

"As long as interrogators were only using those (torture) methods approved by Bush's legal beagles - and in the ways and to the extent they are described - they will not face prosecution."

WHAT?! Objection!

Uh... Hello?!
There already is a solid legal precident that covers this sort of situation.

Just in case anyone forgot their 20th century History Lessons:

After W.W.II, certain Nazi officials were made to stand trial for their heinous crimes and their participation in mass murder.

In their own defense, some defendents stated:
"We were just following orders."

The Finding: "Guilty!"

It's a common reference - whenever someone commits some act(s) which basic common sense informs goes against everything that is Human and/or Humane... And they try to defend their actions by saying they were just following orders...
"Yeah?... Well, the Nazis were 'just following orders."

Basically - Unless there is something seriously and/or medically wrong with You...
You know what is Right. And, You know what is Wrong.

"Following orders" doesn't fly in the eyes of The Law.
When in Doubt, just walk out.

Peace.

L.

Photobucket
(From dailymail.com.)

(From: msnbc.msn.com)

Obama Open To Some Interrogation Prosecution -
But President Concerned About The Impact Of Hearings


WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama left the door open Tuesday to prosecuting Bush administration officials who devised the legal authority for gruesome terrorism-suspect interrogations, saying the United States lost "our moral bearings" with use of the tactics.

The question of whether to bring charges against those who devised justification for the methods "is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws and I don't want to prejudge that," Obama said.

The president discussed the issue of terrorism-era interrogation tactics with reporters as he finished an Oval Office meeting with visiting King Abdullah II of Jordan.


Obama also said he could support a congressional investigation into the Bush-era terrorist detainee program, but only under certain conditions, such as if it were done on a bipartisan basis. He said he worries about the impact that high-intensity, politicized hearings in Congress could have on the government's efforts to cope with terrorism.

Press secretary Robert Gibbs said later that the independent Sept. 11 Commission, which investigated and then reported on the terror attacks of 2001, might be a model.

The president had said earlier that he didn't want to see prosecutions of the CIA agents and interrogators who took part in waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics, so long as they acted within parameters spelled out by government superiors who held that such practices were legal at the time.

The vexing issue of how terrorism-era detainees held by the United States were interrogated has presented Obama with a quandary, both political and pragmatic. He harshly criticized these practices as the campaigning Democratic presidential candidate, and still feels pressure from his party's liberal wing to come down hard on it, even after the fact. But he also is being criticized by Republicans, including people as high-ranking as former Vice President Dick Cheney, who say the Bush administration doesn't get enough credit for protecting the country from a second 9/11-style attack.

Worsening Obama's dilemma: Now that he is president, he has to worry even more about the fallout of a release of government interrogation memoranda since he now oversees the entire national security establishment, including the spy apparatus.

Cheney said in a Fox News Channel interview that the U.S. government gained valuable intelligence from its aggressive interrogations. This came after conservatives roundly criticized Obama for releasing the internal Bush administration memos, saying that action was not in the U.S. national security interests.

In the interview, Cheney said, "I've now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was, as well as to see this debate over the legal opinions."

The Cheney transition office says that the former vice president made the request to the National Archives to declassify the CIA documents on March 31st - and the Archives confirmed on April 8th that they had forwarded the request to the relevant agencies. The Archives are the agency that former vice presidents contact for such matters.

Tuesday afternoon senior intelligence officials told NBC News they have not yet received any request. Late Tuesday an intelligence official said "these things take time" and as of their latest check it had not reached the Agency.

Tuesday evening senior intelligence officials told NBC News that they have checked again, at NBC’s request, after hearing from the Cheney transition office and the request from the former vice president to the National Archives for declassification "made its way to the agency" Tuesday afternoon.

That contradicts what the Archives told the Cheney office - which is that they forwarded the request on April 8th - more than a week after it was received from the former vice president’s office.

Complicated issues
The new administration's stance on Bush administration lawyers who actually wrote the memos approving these tactics has been somewhat murky. "There are a host of very complicated issues involved," Obama said Tuesday.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said in a television interview over the weekend that the administration does not support prosecutions for "those who devised policy." Later, White House aides said that he was referring to CIA superiors who ordered the interrogations, not the Justice Department officials who wrote the legal memos allowing them.

White House press secretary Gibbs was peppered with questions at a Tuesday briefing about whether Obama's latest statements conflicted with signals the administration had sent earlier and Emanuel's statements of Sunday.

"Instead of referring to what anybody might have said ... I think it's important to refer to what the president said," Gibbs replied. He said that Obama has said "he does not believe that people are above the rule of law." And his spokesman reiterated Obama's position that any determination on whether laws were broken "would be rightly determined by the United States Department of Justice."

If an investigation for a "further accounting" of the interrogation decision-making is launched, Gibbs said that Obama might favor the kind of independent, bipartisan commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Congress set up that panel but did not run it.

"I think that the president would see a 9/11 commission, in all honesty, a model for how ... a commission might be set up," Gibbs said. He added, "I'm reminded that Congress has a pretty big say in something like that given their ability and their lawmaking power."

Obama earlier Tuesday had taken a question on this for the first time since he ordered Justice to release top-secret Bush-era memos that gave the government's first full accounting of the CIA's use of waterboarding — a form of simulated drowning — and other harsh methods criticized as torture.

The previously classified memos were released Thursday, over the objections of many in the intelligence community. CIA Director Leon Panetta had pressed for heavier censorship when they were released, but the memos were put out with only light redactions.

Far from putting the matter in the past, the move has resulted in Obama being buffeted by increased pressure from both sides.

Republican lawmakers and former CIA chiefs have criticized Obama's decision, contending that revealing the limits of interrogation techniques will hamper the effectiveness of interrogators and critical U.S. relationships with foreign intelligence services.

The release also has appeared to intensify calls for further investigations of the Bush-era terrorist treatment program and for prosecutions of those responsible for any techniques that crossed the line into torture.

Obama banned all such techniques days after taking office. But members of Congress have continued to seek the release of information about the early stages of the U.S. response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terror under former President George W. Bush. Lawsuits have been brought, seeking the same information.

Obama said an investigation might be acceptable "outside of the typical hearing process" and with the participation of "independent participants who are above reproach." This, he said, could help ensure that any investigation would be a tool to learn, not to provide partisan advantage to one side or another.

"That would probably be a more sensible approach to take," Obama said. "I'm not saying that it should be done, I'm saying that if you've got a choice."

The president made clear that his preference would be not to revisit the era extensively.

"As a general view, I do think we should be looking forward, not back," Obama said. "I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively and it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations."

For more than a year, the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility has been reviewing the interrogation memos and whether the lawyers who drafted them complied with department standards. Spokesman Matt Miller said the agency had no comment "on the outcome of that review or on other possible investigations."

Wednesday, April 08, 2009

It's SOUL-WOW! It's Not New! It's Not Improved! Get That "... Just Baptized Feeling!"

Introducing... SOUL-WOW!!
It's (not) New! It's (not) Improved!
(And, it's definitely not for the claustrophobic.)
Come On In To Our Church And Put Your Bad Booty In Our Incredible Confessional!
It Seats One!
It Gets Your Grimy Soul Sparkling Clean!
It's Economical!
We Have Locations Throughout Your City!
And, As An Extra Added Bonus...
Keep Coming Back Throughout Your Lifetime And Confess All Of Your Sins and We'll Reward You With What...?
That's Right... Absolution! :o

I happened to be listening to ABC's World News Now (The Late Late News Show) last night while working on my upcoming eBay listings.

If you want to catch up on "the news", but can't stand the sight or sound of anymore plastic network people, the painfully-stiff narratives, the smarmy stuffed shirts and - worst of all - the horrible, yet hilarious, Helmet Hair...

Then, WNN might just be the news show for you!
Jeremy and Vinita are WNN's Dynamic Desk Duo.
Their delivery is casual and friendly... it's utterly conversational. Which means it is nothing like the bloodless, we're-all-frenemies-here banter squawked during what would otherwise be Dead-Air on most TV news broadcasts. (I think I'd prefer the dead-air.) Jeremy and Vinita move around in their chairs and around the set... They make completely natural movements with their arms and legs... They tell jokes... They even make personal comments on some of the stories/segments! Gasp! It's really quite refreshing.

And, although the curls of Vinita's lovely hair can actually be seen moving on her shoulders... I must admit that Jeremy's hair, on the other hand, might pass a wind-tunnel test with flying colors.

But, I digress.

Anyway~
They happened to mention last night that the Catholic Church is now uploading videos to YouTube in an effort to market itself to young people. (When you're running out of the old... how do you bring in the new?)

Not that there's an ice cube's chance in Hades that I'd set a foot in a church... (Well, not one of mine, anyway...) I just had to stop working for a minute to check it out.

I was half expecting to see a somewhat out-of-touch attempt by a white-haired man-of-the-cloth to guilt viewers into returning that included quoting scripture. (Guilt, after all, is one of their fortes.)

Not even close.

I was surprised and even amused at what I saw and I think you will be, too.

It's called:

SOUL-WOW. (Like the Infamous "Sham-Wow" infomercial.)

As I watched the video, I could imagine the now-defunct, but often brilliant, Mad TV doing something like this as a spoof.

Pun definitely intended...

In the few memorable words of Sarah Palin: "I kid you not."

Check it out and Enjoy... But, remember... It's an Infomercial.



Saturday, April 04, 2009

Iowa Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage! Gotta Love Iowa!

Photobucket
The Iowa State Flag.

The Iowa State Motto:
"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain."

Give Some Love To Iowa!

On Friday, Iowa's Enlightened Supreme Court unanimously struck down the state's decade-long ban of same-sex marriage.

Iowa is now the 3rd state in the country and the 1st from America's heartland to legalize same-sex marriage.

I'm remaining optimistic that California's Supreme Court will take note of this very important event as it considers what to do about the hateful Prop. 8 (which is based upon religious intolerance and needs to be kept out of our Constitution, for if it's allowed to, it would try to change the California State Constitution so that it would allow discrimination against people who fall in love with, want to marry and pursue their happiness with someone of the same gender.).

(From: The Washington Post.)

Iowa State Supreme Court Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage


By Keith B. Richburg
Saturday, April 4, 2009; Page A03

Iowa became the third state in the country and the first from the rural heartland to legalize same-sex marriage when its Supreme Court yesterday unanimously struck down the state's decade-long ban.

Gay advocacy groups hailed the decision as another example of same-sex marriage gaining traction in an increasing number of states, despite a ballot initiative in California last year that banned it there. They also said the emphatic ruling probably will sway other courts, including California's Supreme Court, which must decide by early June whether the November referendum was constitutional.

"Justices look at opinions from other states," said Jennifer C. Pizer, the national marriage project director for Lambda Legal, which brought the Iowa case. "There's a significant likelihood that [the decision] will influence other states, like California."

Efforts to legalize same-sex marriage are also gaining political support. On Thursday, the state House in Vermont overwhelmingly approved a bill legalizing such unions, following a similarly lopsided vote earlier in the state Senate. Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas (R) has said he will veto the measure, but gay advocacy groups noted that the House vote was just four short of the number needed to override a veto.

On March 26, the state House in New Hampshire voted narrowly to allow same-sex marriage in that state, sending the bill to the Senate.

Before yesterday's ruling, only Massachusetts and Connecticut allowed same-sex marriage. New York has said it will recognize such unions performed in other states. California allowed same-sex marriage for about five months last year before the ballot initiative banned it.
ad_icon

The strongly worded decision by all seven justices of Iowa's Supreme Court moves the issue away from more liberal coastal states, where most of the legal and legislative action aimed at overturning bans on same-sex marriage has taken place. While Iowa is home to many conservative Christians and evangelicals, the decision adds to a strong liberal streak that has spawned politically progressive movements.

"Iowa really does have a very impressive visionary history when it comes to civil rights, from desegregation to public accommodation to the rights of women," said Ben Stone, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa.

The Iowa Supreme Court decision upholds a lower court's ruling that a 1998 state law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution.

"We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective," the justices wrote.

The decision will take effect in 21 days unless a rehearing is requested. Attorneys for Polk County, which challenged the earlier ruling, indicated that the county will not request a review, meaning that same-sex couples will be able to apply for marriage licenses in Iowa in three weeks.

The only other recourse for overturning the decision is a state constitutional amendment, which would take at least two years to be adopted.

At least one group opposed to same-sex marriage, the Liberty Counsel, said it plans to advance a referendum to amend the Iowa Constitution to prohibit same-sex unions. "The Iowa Supreme Court has become a proselytizing engine of radical social change," said Mathew D. Staver, the group's founder. "Untying the knot that holds together traditional marriage will unravel the family, destabilize the culture and harm children."

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) blasted the decision and vowed to effectively overturn it. "This is an unconstitutional ruling and another example of activist judges molding the Constitution to achieve their personal political ends," he said in a statement.

Richburg reported from New York. Staff writers William Branigin in Washington and Kari Lydersen in Chicago contributed to this report.

Ha! Ha! Ha!
Actually, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), it's a wonderful thing called Enlightenment... or Real Equality Under The Law... or Real Freedom For All.

And, of course, we all know that "... molding the Constitution to achieve their personal political ends" is something right-wing politicians/judges who wrap themselves in the flag and spew insincere soundbites about being "... a good Christian" and "... promoting Family Values" whilst trying to keep their considerable commandment-breaking private have never done!

Peace...
And...
I Love You Iowa!
L.

Thursday, April 02, 2009

Genome/DNA Hacking: Don't Let It Happen To You

Photobucket

You Just Might Want To Nonchalantly Wipe The Lip Print Off Your Glass Before You Leave The Club/Bar/Restaurant...

Because, It's Not Just A Stubborn Lipstick Stain Anymore...

It's Your Unique Skin Cells... Your Unique Saliva...

It's Your Unique DNA...

In Other Words: It's You.

And, It's Easier To Hijack and Get Analyzed (Without Your Knowledge/Consent) Than You Might Think...

(From: www.newscientist.com/)

Special Investigation: How My Genome Was Hacked

25 March 2009 by Peter Aldhous and Michael Reilly

INTIMATE secrets hidden in your DNA could be stolen without you even realising. By taking a glass from which you have drunk, a "genome hacker" could obtain a comprehensive scan of your genome, revealing DNA variants that help determine your susceptibility to a wide range of diseases, from a common form of blindness to Alzheimer's disease.

That's the disturbing finding of a New Scientist investigation, in which one of us - Michael Reilly - "hacked" the genome of the other - Peter Aldhous - armed with only a credit card, a private email account and a home address.

You might have thought that genome hacking requires specialist skills, and personal access to sophisticated equipment. But in recent years, some companies have started to offer personal genome scans to the public over the internet. Other firms routinely analyse genomes on behalf of scientists involved in human genetics research. In theory, both types of service are vulnerable to abuse by a genome hacker determined to submit someone else's DNA for covert analysis.

Until our investigation, it was not clear whether this would be possible in practice. Could a hacker with no access to a genetics lab take an item carrying another person's DNA and obtain a sample that companies would accept for scanning? Would the sample be of high enough quality to yield accurate results? And would genome analysis companies have procedures in place to identify and refuse suspicious orders?

We decided to find out. Rather like computer security researchers who expose vulnerabilities in software code so that they can be "patched" to guard against malicious hackers, our goal was to uncover vulnerabilities in the way companies offering genome scans operate, so that they can be fixed.

Our investigation uncovered some loopholes that might be closed to help thwart genome thieves. The findings also strengthen the case for additional laws to protect the information contained in the DNA that we all shed continually and leave lying around.

"Just as we have a right to expect that relatives, neighbours, or even strangers can't poke through our medical records without our permission, we should have a right to expect that people can't snoop through our genes," says Kathy Hudson, who heads the Genetics and Public Policy Center in Washington DC.

Our experimental genome hack began like this: Peter drank water from a glass, which he handed to Michael. Michael's first task was to get Peter's DNA off the glass and turn it into a sample that he could submit to a genome-scanning company.

Michael approached several firms that ordinarily extract DNA from items like drinking glasses and match this DNA against particular individuals, on behalf of the police, private detectives or citizens pursuing their own investigations. He said nothing about his intentions, but soon found a company that would extract the DNA without performing any DNA matches. Some weeks later a vial containing a solution of Peter's DNA turned up at Michael's home.

To Continue reading this fascinating story, click Here.

For those interested in the final analysis without reading the entire article - although I recommend reading it - here it is:

"Thwarting genome hackers may also require new laws to protect privacy. One approach would be for other countries to follow the UK, which has made it a crime to have someone else's DNA with the intent of analysing it without consent. "Although we are not aware of any instances of this in personal genome analysis, there is a clear rationale for making it illegal to analyse an individual's DNA without their knowledge and consent," says Decode spokesman Edward Farmer. Such laws are difficult to enforce, however, as an earlier New Scientist investigation revealed (31 January, p 6).

Another approach, which could be tried in parallel, would be to make it illegal for companies to extract and analyse DNA left on everyday items, except under specific circumstances. "There's no good reason, unless you are a police officer investigating a crime, to be doing DNA analysis on a sample from a drinking glass," argues Mark Rothstein, director of the Institute for Bioethics, Health Policy and Law at the University of Louisville in Kentucky.

One thing is clear: if lawmakers fail to rise to the challenge posed by genome hacking, we all have reason to fear for the security of our DNA."

Peace...
and Privacy.
L.