Here is my other photos of me….
Here is my other photos of me….
Permanent link to this article: http://www.internetking.us/wordpress/2017/01/28/interesting-day-part-2/
I went to The Arts Institute on Elliot in Seattle…
When they held a open house… The theme was Grunge. I learned something new there with Adobe Photoshop… 🙂
The Final Picture as Shown:
I was taught a bit how Photoshop works and I tried it with little help from the professor… I had to cobine those to make it the way the picture looked like above…
Then in Photoshop i added those layers and adjusted a bit to make the final picture…
It was very interesting… I might go next fall… who knows…
Permanent link to this article: http://www.internetking.us/wordpress/2017/01/28/interesting-day/
They still on re-runs, no new plays still… but they are still damn funny to go to. I used to go to those plays and laugh at them. lol
January 2017 – Plain
March 2017 – The Lucid Journey
June 2016 – The Lucid Journey
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Permanent link to this article: http://www.internetking.us/wordpress/2017/01/27/294/
Eds: Updates with Ryan comments. With BC-Mexico-Trump, BC-Trump-Immigration-Glance, BC-Trump-Interrogations. With AP Photos. AP Video.
Trump moves to ‘build that wall’ with Mexico, curb refugees
JULIE PACE, AP White House Correspondent
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump moved aggressively to tighten the nation’s immigration controls Wednesday, signing executive actions to jumpstart construction of his promised U.S.-Mexico border wall and cut federal grants for immigrant-protecting “sanctuary cities.” As early as Thursday, he is expected to pause the flow of all refugees to the U.S. and indefinitely bar those fleeing war-torn Syria.
“Beginning today the United States of America gets back control of its borders,” Trump declared during a visit to the Department of Homeland Security. “We are going to save lives on both sides of the border.”
The actions, less than a week into Trump’s presidency, fulfilled pledges that animated his candidacy and represented a dramatic redirection of U.S. immigration policy. They were cheered by Republicans allies in Congress, condemned by immigration advocates and the trigger for immediate new tension with the Mexican government.
Trump is expected to wield his executive power again later this week with the directive to dam the refugee flow into the U.S. for at least four months, in addition to the open-ended pause on Syrian arrivals.
The president’s upcoming order is also expected to suspend issuing visas for people from several predominantly Muslim countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — for at least 30 days, according to a draft executive order obtained by The Associated Press.
Trump is unveiling his immigration plans at a time when detentions at the nation’s southern border are down significantly from levels seen in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The arrest tally last year was the fifth-lowest since 1972. Deportations of people living in the U.S. illegally also increased under President Barack Obama, though Republicans criticized him for setting prosecution guidelines that spared some groups from the threat of deportation, including those brought to the U.S. illegally as children.
As a candidate, Trump tapped into the immigration concerns of some Americans who worry both about a loss of economic opportunities and the threat of criminals and terrorists entering the country. His call for a border wall was among his most popular proposals with supporters, who often broke out in chants of “build that wall” during rallies.
Immigration advocates and others assailed the new president’s actions. Omar Jadwat, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said the president’s desire to construct a border wall was “driven by racial and ethnic bias that disgraces America’s proud tradition of protecting vulnerable migrants.”
How Trump plans to pay for the wall project is murky. While he has repeatedly promised that Mexico will foot the bill, U.S. taxpayers are expected to cover the initial costs and the new administration has said nothing about how it might compel Mexico to reimburse the money.
In an interview with ABC News earlier Wednesday, Trump said, “There will be a payment; it will be in a form, perhaps a complicated form.”
Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto, who has insisted his country will not pay for a wall, has been expected to meet with Trump at the White House next week, although a senior official said Trump’s announcement had led him to reconsider the visit.
Congressional aides say there is about $100 million of unspent appropriations in the Department of Homeland Security account for border security, fencing and infrastructure. That would allow planning efforts to get started, but far more money would have to be appropriated for construction to begin.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, in an interview Wednesday on MSNBC, said Congress will work with Trump on the upfront financing for the wall. Asked about estimates that the project could cost $8 billion to $14 billion, Ryan said, “That’s about right.”
Trump has insisted many times the border structure will be a wall. The order he signed referred to “a contiguous, physical wall or other similarly secure, contiguous and impassable physical barrier.”
To build the wall, the president is relying on a 2006 law that authorized several hundred miles of fencing along the 2,000-mile frontier. That bill led to the construction of about 700 miles of various kinds of fencing designed to block both vehicles and pedestrians.
The president’s orders also call for hiring 5,000 additional border patrol agents and 10,000 more immigration officers, though the increases are subject to the approval of congressional funding. He also moved to end what Republicans have labeled a catch-and-release system at the border. Currently, some immigrants caught crossing the border illegally are released and given notices to report back to immigration officials at a later date.
Trump’s crackdown on sanctuary cities — locales that don’t cooperate with immigration authorities — could cost individual jurisdictions millions of dollars. But the administration may face legal challenges, given that some federal courts have found that cities or counties cannot hold immigrants beyond their jail terms or deny them bond based only a request from immigration authorities.
Some of the nation’s largest metropolitan areas — including New York, Los Angeles and Chicago — are considered sanctuary cities.
The president also moved to restart the “Secure Communities” program, which was launched under President George W. Bush and initially touted as a way for immigration authorities to quickly and easily identify people in the country illegally who had been arrested by local authorities.
The program helped the Obama administration deport a record high of more than 409,000 immigrants in 2012. But Obama eventually abandoned the program after immigration advocates and civil libertarians decried it as too often targeting immigrants charged with low-level crimes, including traffic violations.
Among those in the audience for Trump’s remarks at DHS were the families of people killed by people in the U.S. illegally. After reading the names of those killed, Trump said, “Your children will not have lost their lives for no reason.”
Trump’s actions on halting all refugees could be announced as soon as Thursday. Administration officials and others briefed on the plans cautioned that some details of the measures could still be changed, but indicated that Trump planned to follow through on his campaign promises to limit access to the U.S. for people coming from countries with terrorism ties.
AP writers Alicia A. Caldwell, Vivian Salama, Andrew Taylor and Erica Werner in Washington and E. Eduardo Castillo in Mexico City contributed to this report.
Follow Julie Pace at http://twitter.com/jpaceDC
Permanent link to this article: http://www.internetking.us/wordpress/2017/01/25/trump-moves-to-build-that-wall-with-mexico-curb-refugees/
Permanent link to this article: http://www.internetking.us/wordpress/2017/01/25/266/
Television great Mary Tyler Moore, the beloved star of “The Dick Van Dyke Show” and “The Mary Tyler Moore Show,” died Wednesday in Connecticut. She was 80. The Associated Press confirmed her death.
The vivacious brunette performer transformed the image of women on television first as Van Dyke’s sexy, vulnerable wife Laura Petrie and then as single career girl Mary Richards in her own series. Her work in the two series brought Moore five Emmy Awards, in 1965, 1966, 1973, 1974 and 1976. She won another Emmy for 1993 TV special “Stolen Babies.”
Her role as Laura Petrie, the suburban wife of comedy writer Rob Petrie, also represented a step forward for the portrayal of women on television. Though they maintained separate beds, the Petries otherwise shared an active, romantic marital life. And unlike Desi Arnaz on “I Love Lucy,” Van Dyke’s character was not threatened by his wife’s talents or her intelligence.
The series made Moore a star, and she worked on films under contract at Universal. With the exception of “Thoroughly Modern Millie,” in which she played third fiddle to Julie Andrews and the scene-stealing Carol Channing, the studio’s attempts to fashion her in the Doris Day mold was unsuccessful. Moore also tried her hand at the Broadway stage, co-starring with Richard Chamberlain in David Merrick’s musical version of Truman Capote’s “Breakfast at Tiffany’s.”
With the help of her second husband, producer Tinker, and the talents of creators James L. Brooks and Allan Burns, she fashioned a new series, “Mary Tyler Moore,” which debuted on CBS in 1970 and revolutionized the sitcom. Even more than the Van Dyke show, it focused heavily on the central character’s work life.
And in this case the central character was a single woman, Mary Richards, carving out a life for herself in Minneapolis. Moore was the pragmatic and delightfully vulnerable center of a strong ensemble cast that included Ed Asner, Valerie Harper, Betty White, and Ted Knight. “Mary Tyler Moore” raked in the accolades during its run and thereafter was a permanent fixture in television syndication.
“The Mary Tyler Moore Show” won the Emmy for comedy show three years in a row, was named as one of the most influential TV shows of all time on numerous lists, and was one of the first shows to tackle issues including equal pay for women, divorce, infidelity, homosexuality, premarital sex, and infertility. Moore’s character even recovers from an addiction to sleeping pills during the show.
After “Mary Tyler Moore,” which Moore retired after seven seasons, she tried other series including sitcom “Mary,” variety hour “The Mary Tyler Moore Hour” and “New York News,” another attempt to recapture the magic of her landmark ’70s TV series. There was even an effort to reunite her with Harper, her Rhoda sidekick on “Mary Tyler Moore,” starting with a TV movie, “Mary and Rhoda.”
The actress finally snared a role that challenged her abilities in Robert Redford’s Oscar-winning directorial debut, 1980’s “Ordinary People.” She played completely against type as a stern, cold matriarch, living in denial after the death of her favorite son. The beautifully wrought performance brought her an Oscar nomination. Then in the mid ’90s she was again offered a film role, supporting this time, that displayed her range: As a neurotic, overbearing Jewish mother in “Flirting With Disaster,” Moore was hilarious in a completely different way than in any of her TV comedy appearances.
Moore also returned to Broadway stage, finding some success in the drama “Whose Life Is It Anyway?” and taking home a special Tony for her performance. She also appeared on the Rialto in A.R. Gurney’s “Sweet Sue” in 1987.
On TV, she carved a niche for herself in TV movies, most notably the breast cancer tale “First You Cry” and the miniseries “Lincoln,” in which she played Mary Todd Lincoln. She drew Emmy nominations for both. There was also “Finnegan Begin Again,” “Heartsounds” and “Just Between Friends,” which brought her good reviews and award recognition.
Moore continued in TV movies during the 2000s, including the sentimental “Miss Lettie and Me,” and she guested on series including “That ’70s Show,” “Lipstick Jungle” and, in 2011, “Hot in Cleveland,” where she reunited with her “Mary Tyler Moore Show” co-star Betty White. There was also a reunion show, 2004’s “The Dick Van Dyke Show Revisited,” in which she participated.
In 1983, after almost 20 years of marriage, Moore separated from Tinker, who had gone on to run NBC and sold to her his share in MTM Enterprises, which she subsequently sold. The company had been very successful with several spinoffs from the “Mary Tyler Moore Show” as well as other hit series like “Hill Street Blues” and “WKRP in Cincinnati.”
Moore was born in Brooklyn but grew up in Los Angeles, where she attended Immaculate Heart High School and married Richard Meeker at age 18. She broke into performing through television commercials, memorably as the Hotpoint elf on “The Ozzie and Harriet Show” in the mid-’50s. Her first regular TV assignment was on the TV series “Richard Diamond, Private Detective” in 1959 as the urbane investigator’s assistant, though only her legs and hands were visible onscreen. It led to guest spots on such series as “77 Sunset Strip” and “Hawaiian Eye.”
Moore had been interviewed by Danny Thomas to play his daughter on the series “Make Room for Daddy,” and he remembered her and recommended her to Carl Reiner when he was casting “The Dick Van Dyke Show.” After a shaky start in 1961, the sitcom afforded Moore the chance to show off her comedic gifts and sometimes even her song-and-dance abilities.
The actress penned two memoirs. In “After All,” released in 1995, she acknowledged that she was an alcoholic; “Growing Up Again: Life, Loves, and Oh Yeah, Diabetes” (2009) centers on living with type 1 diabetes. Moore had been diagnosed with diabetes in her 20s and was a tireless crusader for the disease via the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation.
In May 2002, cabler TV Land unveiled a statue in downtown Minneapolis of the character Moore made famous on “The Mary Tyler Moore Show.” The statue depicts the iconic moment in the show’s opening credits in which Mary throws her tam o’shanter in the air. Moore was present for the ceremony.
Moore received the SAG lifetime achievement award in 2012 from Dick Van Dyke.
In 1980, her only son Richard (by first husband Richard Meeker) died accidentally from a gunshot wound at the age of 24.
Moore is survived by her third husband, Dr. S. Robert Levine, whom she married in 1983.
Permanent link to this article: http://www.internetking.us/wordpress/2017/01/25/actress-mary-tyler-moore-beloved-tv-icon-dies-at-80/
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 01:07:36 +0000
From: Kshama Sawant <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: BREAKING: A declaration of war.
Permanent link to this article: http://www.internetking.us/wordpress/2017/01/24/breaking-a-declaration-of-war/
SIGN ON: Condemn Trump’s decision to silence the EPA >>
Permanent link to this article: http://www.internetking.us/wordpress/2017/01/24/sign-on-condemn-trumps-decision-to-silence-the-epa/
Net neutrality is the basic concept that internet service providers should not be able to charge more for data based on where that data is coming from.
I believe that net neutrality is important to retain, so that all internet users can have equal access to the same content under a data plan. Those who believe in net neutrality believe that an internet service provider should not be able to charge more for the same amount of data of streaming a video on YouTube vs. Amazon. Net neutrality is made possible with rules set by the Federal Communications Commission in 2010. In 2014, a court ruling decided that phone service was different and should not be protected by net neutrality, scaring many net neutrality supporters.
On February 26th, 2015, new net neutrality rules were adopted by the FCC. Rules regarding net neutrality are protected by the Communications Act and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, although provisions that are no longer relevant to modern broadband service are no longer required to be followed. These two legal documents outline the regulations for broadband innovators and investors, such as discriminating service based on the web domain. The election of Trump brings net neutrality into question again, as Trump has publicly opposed net neutrality in the past.
In my opinion, it is important that net neutrality is continually protected. I understand a lot of arguments against net neutrality, and I admit that getting rid of net neutrality could have some potential positive effects. For example, enabling more innovation within the internet service provider industry through putting new packages on the market. However, the principle of service providers being able to basically censor whichever sites they choose to, without any legal protection for the consumer, is too much of a risk.
The internet is a beautiful thing. In our modern life, we often take for granted how crucial the internet is to our day to day lives. Instant access to the entire repository of human knowledge at our fingertips is absolutely incredible and something that is precious to our modern society, something that needs to be protected. It seems a little counterintuitive that more laws enforced by the U.S. federal government would actually be beneficial to keeping access to the internet more equitable and accessible for all. However, since the major service providers essentially serve as gate keepers for the world’s entire repository of knowledge from the rest of society, having government regulations on the abilities of these service providers is the only sensible thing to do in order to protect the internet.
Net neutrality is not just important for consumers and internet users, it is also good for small websites. With net neutrality, small websites do not have to pay a small premium in order to to prevent their flow of data from being restricted, allowing small sites to grow, even if bigger sites then suffer from comparably slower loading speeds.
Some would argue that since larger websites are more important to internet users, if internet service providers gave preferences to these sites for loading speed, internet users would actually benefit. However, this would just increase the gap between the presences of major companies and corporations, and small sites just getting started online, basically creating an online elite class of websites. How is this good for anyone, except those at the top? People would have to pay for these faster loading speeds anyway, and the difference in loading speeds and money would in my opinion not even be worth it.
Yet another argument is that since consumers would just choose the ISP with the best prices, for the increased charges for certain services, prices for internet wouldn’t actually raise that much because of the population. However, I believe a monopoly would likely form between the major carriers AT&T, Sprint and Verizon, in which all three companies would raise prices so that consumers would have no choice but to pay more.
In conclusion, net neutrality isn’t a perfect solution, but the current regulations put in place and important for protecting the free internet, and should stay there.
Permanent link to this article: http://www.internetking.us/wordpress/2017/01/24/net-neutrality-protects-the-internet/
With Trump’s victory, net neutrality is again a topic of discussion.
My philosophy is to generally assume any piece of government legislation will do the opposite of what it says. The Patriot Act wasn’t anything close to patriotic, the Affordable Care Act did not make care affordable, and the Environmental Protection Agency does more damage to the environment than just about anybody I know. In that same vein, net neutrality does not make the net neutral.
One of the most fundamental concepts in economics is the idea of scarcity. There are finite amounts of resources that need to be distributed. Normally, this is done through prices. Prices communicate supply and demand and coordinate the use of resources over time. The price at where supply and demand meet for maximum efficiency is called the equilibrium price. If a price is set over the equilibrium price, a surplus is created – if widgets are too expensive, people won’t buy the widgets and they will sit around, gathering dust. A price below equilibrium price creates a shortage. If widgets are too cheap, they’ll disappear and people who want widgets won’t be able to obtain them. Market forces usually push a price to equilibrium, but external forces like government can artificially raise or lower prices.
When a price is artifically set to zero, then economics pretty much goes out the window. There’s no way to allocate a scarce resource when that resource costs nothing to obtain.
Net neutrality seeks to eliminate the price of scarce resources, namely network access, to certain “edge” companies in the market.
A parallel would be if all factories and land in a city suddenly became free. If anybody could just waltz in and take over a factory, it would be complete chaos. People with no idea what they were doing would run in and make absolutely ridiculous things. The factories would not be utilized efficiently. In a free market, those with the best ideas and best plans would get the best investment and be able to outbid the worse ideas and sub-par plans. Given a price of zero and no desire to have chaos, the only alternative is to have the government allocate the resources, to allow politicians to decide who ought to recieve what.
There can be zero neutrality if resources are allocated by political means.
Free speech is a big point raised by people who advocate net neutrality. Free speech is a long, long way from government-approved speech.
Net neutrality, in effect, is subsidizing politically-connected firms, giving them an unfair advantage. These companies can use the political nature of a “neutral net” to regulate against their competitors, profiting not off of meeting customer demand, but by abusing the government’s power over the market.
FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, dissenting against net neutrality, puts things in a fearful light:
“Using these new rules as a weapon, politically favored companies will be able to pressure three political appointees to regulate their rivals to gain competitive advantages. Litigation will supplant innovation. Instead of investing in tomorrow’s technologies, precious capital will be diverted to pay lawyers’ fees. The era of Internet regulatory arbitrage has dawned.”
The same economic laws that govern the allocation of scarce resources must be allowed to function when it comes to the internet.
Politicizing access to the internet is not the answer. Political means are abused to maximize profit at the cost of innovation, ISPs must bear the burden of profiting through meeting customer demand, not through crony capitalism.
Permanent link to this article: http://www.internetking.us/wordpress/2017/01/24/net-neutrality-is-crony-capitalism/