Love this song and love Frente! You have to check out their version of bizarre love triangle. It is haunting.

Dua has some great stuff.

If 2 people were having sex on a table in a restaurant, that would be unacceptable. If a parent kissed their child goodbye while dropping them of at daycare, that would be acceptable. Everything else is somewhere in between. The challenge is where to draw the line and is it applied evenly.

If a parent and child can hold hands, can a hetero couple? If so, can a gay couple? Where do you draw the line, and who draws the line for all of society?

I think this has to do with intent. If I read a book to use it for the basis of a play, that would be illegal. If I read for enjoyment, that is legal. Since AI does not read for enjoyment, but only to use it for the basis of creating something else, that would be illegal.

Is my logic flawed?

Didn't they recently blow up a launch pad because they cut a corner? And then they had a couple of rockets blow up?

I shared the article this morning and we have all been discussing this. One option is to request they immediately switch to Whatsapp and delete the FB message. The good part, is that our state coalition is already looking into this.

I work for an agency that works with victims of crime. State and federal laws allow for privileged, confidential communication. We have had people ask for help via social media. This is very concerning.

I thought this was a federal law for years. Have poor people been trying to defend themselves all these years?

When I was little I thought girls had penises (I am male). In High School, I was very confused about reproduction and how it could work. The great part of living in a red state that does not believe in sex education. I was in college before I learned that women do not have a penis.

Now California needs to make a law that any books that have a sexual content rating cannot be sold to public schools. Vendors can then choose between which state they want to sell.

People who use beehaw. Because we are not in high school.

Each state does it differently, but in California alimony is generally 50% of the months of the marriage until 20 years and then it becomes permanent. The concept is that the spouses pooled their resources to generate the best outcome for the family and therefor the family should benefit from that outcome.

If one partner raised the children and took care of the home while the other partner acquired an education and developed a career, both partners benefit from successful children and a home so both partners should benefit from the income that was generated.

If government is going to change the rules, then they need to consider changing all of the related rules. When dividing assets, the courts will now need to consider the future value of an education, employment history, and business contacts. I could see a divorce where 80% of the current financial assets go to one spouse to offset these other assets. What is the present value of future income that is derived from the benefit of not having to stay home and take care of children?