san-francisco-vacating-marijuana-convictions.jpg

I always thought things that sounded too good to be true usually aren't told why discovered this!

Getty Image

Since California legalized recreational marijuana earlier this month, a number of interesting questions have been raised. Things like, “Where can people consume marijuana (not at Coachella)?” Or, “What does the state do about banks unwilling to work with (perfectly legal) drug money?” However, the most important question was one raised by criminal justice activists, who were highlighting concerns with people already possessing criminal convictions thanks to the now-legalized drug. “What about them?”

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, their city “will retroactively apply California’s marijuana-legalization laws to past criminal cases… expunging or reducing misdemeanor and felony convictions going back decades.” The move will benefit thousands who have been burdened with criminal records due to past convictions and have seen employment opportunities or access to government benefits affected by said records.

San Francisco is taking a proactive approach by enacting this measure. Proposition 64, which legalized recreational marijuana use for those 21 and over, included a provision that allowed “those with past marijuana convictions that would have been lesser crimes — or no crime at all — under Prop. 64 to petition a court to recall or dismiss their cases.” Instead, San Francisco will review cases and wipe them from the books entirely, saving would-be petitioners from a potentially time consuming and expensive process. District Attorney George Gascón said that more than 3,000 misdemeanor convictions dating back to 1975 would be immediately dismissed, while felony charges, like possession of more than one ounce, would potentially be re-sentenced.

(Via San Francisco Chronicle)

see how I told my boss to take this job and shove it!

from Carlos B2 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/uproxx/features/~3/k_HxKau-rnQ/
via carlosbastarache216.blogspot.com/

trump-ask-rod-rosenstein-on-my-team-jpg.jpeg

see how I told my boss to take this job and shove it!

Getty Image

According to fired FBI Director James Comey’s congressional testimony and previous reports citing White House staffers, President Trump demands loyalty from those who work for him. Hence why CNN’s latest story concerning a December meeting between Trump and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, whom the former apparently wants to “fire” or “get rid of,” doesn’t sound all that surprising.

Per CNN, Rosenstein was seeking the president’s help in “fighting off document demands” made by Rep. Devin Nunes, but Trump had something else in mind:

[T]he President had other priorities ahead of a key appearance by Rosenstein on the Hill, according to sources familiar with the meeting. Trump wanted to know where the special counsel’s Russia investigation was heading. And he wanted to know whether Rosenstein was “on my team.”

Rosenstein “appeared surprised” by Trump’s question and “awkwardly” answered, “Of course, we’re all on your team, Mr. President.” Aside from the question, however, Trump was also reportedly focused on the deputy attorney general’s forthcoming testimony before the House Judiciary Committee (during which he was asked if he had taken a “loyalty pledge” at Trump’s request). The president “brought it up” him during the White House meeting, then later “suggested questions to members of Congress that they could ask Rosenstein”:

One line of inquiry Trump proposed lawmakers ask about was whether Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 election because Mueller was not selected as FBI director… Sources say Trump believes Rosenstein was upset Mueller wasn’t selected as FBI director and responded by making him special counsel.

However, the attending members of the House Judiciary Committee didn’t ask Rosenstein any questions similar to Trump’s alleged suggestions.

(Via CNN)

nobody knows I'm unemployed because I've got so much money

from Carlos B2 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/uproxx/features/~3/_hD8TJhclnE/
via carlosbastarache216.blogspot.com/

snap-dog-uproxx.jpg

nobody knows I'm unemployed because I've got so much money

Getty Image

I usually know exactly what I’m getting myself into when I order a hot dog… that being: I have no idea what I’m getting myself into. I remember reading the ingredients on hot dog packaging like the super inquisitive, weird little 7-year-old I was and scruntching up my nose.

“Disgusting!” I thought. “I am literally eating random ground-up animal parts!”

In middle school, I read about the governmental health allowances for what can legally be processed into hot dogs and still safe to eat. It was not a great educational experience. Then, in 2009, the items found in hot dogs over the course of one calendar year were revealed by the USDA. It was grim.

FDA

If you can’t read that entry, I’ll give you a cheat sheet: Worms. Lots of worms.

It wasn’t until I was an adult that I learned the novelty of a 100% beef frank in a world full of fake meat. Even then, I had questions. I wanted to know what was up with my dogs like the Portlandia couple wanted to know about their chicken.

I wasn’t the only skeptic. We’re living in an era where food manufacturers are doing what they can to keep costs down and production up. At any given time, what we think we’re eating could turn out to be completely different from what we actually put in our mouths. As so many studies have proven of late, the problem of “fake food” is probably far bigger than you think,

Keith Dorman — a man with a family history of making cheat codes for food (his great grandfather is the guy responsible for the pieces of paper that keep cheese slices from sticking together) — was every bit as concerned as me. The food manufacturer believes people should have a right to know what’s in their food, and that labels ought to accurately reflect what’s in the package.

In fact, he’s trying to put the labels on the food itself: stamping his new brand of hot dogs with info about their ingredients.

Snap Dog

Dorman’s journey to “food wokeness” started when he decided to expand a barbecue restaurant he owned and turn it into “fast, casual barbecue” in the way that Chipotle, Panera Bread, and Starbucks have turned usually slower-paced, sit-down experiences into quick, grabbable bites. He wanted to do it in a cost effective way, too. That meant not purchasing tons of real-estate.

“I looked at all these hot dog carts that are already out there on the streets,” Dorman says of his first eureka moment. “Instead of taking years to have 30 locations, it could literally happen overnight.”

The process wasn’t quite that quick, but growth did boom. Soon, Dorman had a fleet of hot dog stands.

“It didn’t happen overnight,” Dorman says, “but over about two months, I think we got up to about 30 carts in the New York City area.”

Of course, having hot dog carts didn’t change anything. In fact, it made Dorman feel pretty basic. He was one of an endless number of carts, with products that were both uniform and generic.

“I sold hot dogs on 55th and Broadway,” Dorman says of his early days in the cart game. “I noticed that the other cart guys, were selling hot dogs made from mechanically separated chicken, and they were advertising beef on their umbrellas and this whole ‘hot dog fraud’ thing was going on. Meanwhile, I was selling these gourmet hot dogs and I realized most hot dogs look the same.”

This second realization led Dorman to a whole new business. He would keep selling dogs, but he would mark them too. A stamp of authenticity, like so many high end brands favor.

Snap Dogs

“How does the consumer really know what hot dog they’re eating when you buy a hot dog on the street?” Dorman asks. “There’s a lot of false advertising out there. That’s what led me to find the way of branding each hot dog with the name ‘beef’ — so that there could be no question at all as to what hot dog was actually being served versus the hot dog being advertised.”

Dorman put his proof on the casing (with some added branding, of course). He even found a company that would use cellulose from plants (instead of the usual sheep intestine) for the casing, and used all natural means — with no artificial colors — to print words on every dog.

In a world where fake food convos have hit the mainstream, Dorman is weeding out the frauds and giving consumers what they pay for. He’s also making it easier for those who don’t consume pork, don’t care to eat certain animals, or those who just want to know what they’re eating beyond a shadow of a doubt to enjoy hot dogs again. As the world’s cheif hot dog skeptic, I’m definitely here for it.

I always thought things that sounded too good to be true usually aren't told why discovered this!

from Carlos B2 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/uproxx/features/~3/xBH15zQO6e8/
via carlosbastarache216.blogspot.com/

matinee

I always thought things that sounded too good to be true usually aren't told why discovered this!

Shout! Factory

A monthly guide to what’s essential in the world of streaming, Blu-ray, and DVD with an emphasis on vintage favorites getting a second life.

Matinee (Shout! Factory)

In January of 1993, Joe Dante released the film he’d been more or less born to make, one that combined his ability to bring warmth to macabre scenarios, a career-long interest in monster movies, and an increasingly deft command of comedy. Working from a script by Charles Haas, Matinee unfolds over a few fraught days in 1962 Key West where young Simon (Gene Fenton) waits for his dad to return from a ship involved what will come to be known as the Cuban Missile Crisis. One compensation: the same weekend sees the local premiere of Mant!, the latest film by Lawrence Woolsey (John Goodman), a director known for his outrageous gimmicks.

Dante brings a great love affection for the period — that it coincides with his own coming-of-age years probably doesn’t hurt — and Goodman’s tremendous fun as Woolsey, whose flair for showmanship rivals that of his inspiration, William Castle. The dead-on parodies of period films help, as does Cathy Moriarty’s deadpan work as Woolsey’s long-suffering leading lady/girlfriend. It’s set apart, however, by the way it captures the anxiety of growing up wondering if the end of the world is just around the corner — and hoping it lasts at least long enough to see one more movie.

Matinee fell through the cracks at the time, but this Blu-ray edition does right by the film, throwing in a number of extra features including the full-length version of Mant! (Viewers are left to provide their own Atomo-vision, and Rumble-rama, alas.)

Criterion

The Breakfast Club (Criterion)

I wrote about this movie at length a few weeks ago, but it’s worth reiterating that this Criterion edition nicely fleshes out the experience of revisiting one of the key films of the 1980s.

Scream Factory

Hell Night (Scream Factory)

Hell Night is not a key film of the 1980s, or any decade, but it’s fun to have this long-unavailable ’80s slasher film back in circulation. Come for the chance to see Linda Blair and Vincent Van Patten try to escape death. Stay for the quaalude jokes.

Olive Films

A New Leaf (Olive Films)

Elaine May is one of the key comedic voices of the second half of the 20th century, but that doesn’t mean it’s been easy to catch up with her films lately. The Heartbreak Kid –her best movie, and biggest hit — remains unavailable via streaming services and out of print on physical media. Her most famous film — Ishtar — is easy to find but remains divisive. (It’s actually pretty great, especially in its first half.) Happily, her 1971 directorial debut, A New Leaf, recently saw a re-release featuring a handsome new restoration and some special features that delve into its troubled production history. Whatever the tumult, the finished film, in which Walter Matthau plays a wastrel playboy who decides to marry and kill a wealthy eccentric (May, going daffy), remains a delight.

Warner

Blade Runner 2049 (Warner Bros.)

The dust may have settled after its theatrical release, but expect the debate over this sequel to rage on, fueled by the chance for obsessives to study its every frame at home. If nothing else, it’s a great looking movie.

Universal

Happy Death Day (Universal)

A horror film that shamelessly rips off its premise from Groundhog Day (which it more or less admits in the film) shouldn’t be this fun. But director Christopher B. Landon keeps finding amusing, and scary, variations as a not-so-nice sorority member (Jessica Rothe) has to relive the same day over and over unless she can stop a serial killer from doing her in.

Shout! Factory

Macon County Line (Shout Factory)

Sometimes it’s just fascinating to watch a movie that was a huge hit in its day but has since fallen into obscurity. First released in 1974, Macon County Line played drive-ins and regional theaters for months, finding appreciative audiences in secondary markets and small towns as it expanded. (It wouldn’t debut in New York until nine months into its release.) Allegedly based on a true story — it’s not — the film stars real-life brothers Alan and Jesse Vint as good ol’ boys on a tear through the ’50s South before their army stint begins. But trouble follows, thanks in part to a narrowminded sheriff played by Beverly Hillbillies‘ Max Baer Jr. (who co-wrote and produced the film). After some early thrills, it plays like a long, earnest ride to an obvious tragic destination. But as a cultural artifact of a time when a movie could become a hit by playing into regional interests, it’s a compelling watch.

do you like going to work? Me neither! See how I got around that and got paid too!

from Carlos B2 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/uproxx/features/~3/R30ZJ-zDMGo/
via carlosbastarache216.blogspot.com/

tiffany-haddish-jpg-2.jpeg

I paid off my student loans early

Getty Image

Today seems to be a great day for Beyonce stories. First, Chrissy Teigen revealed her bizarre greeting for the iconic pop star, and now, Vulture has published an interview with Tiffany Haddish, wherein the breakout actor-comedian shares her secret for getting a selfie with Queen Bey. Somehow, it also features Beyonce saving a partygoer from a confrontation with Haddish as well:

I also saw on your Instagram that you were at a party with Beyonce, and I want you to talk me through the process of asking Beyonce for a selfie.

Okay, so what had happened was, something had went down with somebody at the party, right? I’m not at liberty to say what had went down at the party, but Beyonce was just telling me to have a good time, and I was like, “No, I’m gonna end up fighting this bitch!” She was like, “No, have fun, Tiffany,” and I said, “I’m only going to have fun if you take a selfie with me.”

Wow, perfectly played.

She said, “Okay,” and then she buried her face in my wig. We took the picture and I was like, “Is my wig slipping?” And she was like, “Mmm-hmm.” But she knew who I was! She came up to me and was like, “I think you are so funny, Tiffany Haddish.” I was like, “What? You know me?!” She said, “I’m Beyonce.” “I KNOW!”

The Girls Trip star also had plenty to say on Groupon, with whom she’s now got a brand ambassador partnership, and how her newfound fame has placed her in the path of Hollywood legends like Paul Thomas Anderson and Barbara Streisand. She also doesn’t seem to be taking her awards show snubs personally, since her star keeps rising and she gets to take pics with Beyonce.

extra money never was this easy

from Carlos B2 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/uproxx/features/~3/DhN4TZxQs14/
via carlosbastarache216.blogspot.com/

weed-money-uproxx.jpg

extra money never was this easy

UPROXX/Shutterstock

As of January 1st, marijuana is completely legal in California and an already burgeoning industry has exploded. One problem, though: It is almost entirely a cash enterprise. Banks won’t touch drug money, even if it’s legal on the state level. This means dispensaries and shops need to pay their taxes, buy their stock, and otherwise do business entirely in cash. It’s weird, considering they aren’t breaking laws.

California’s government doesn’t enjoy this any more than the marijuana dispensaries, so it’s taking an unlikely action: It’s considering opening a state bank to handle the marijuana cash coming in. But is that legal, and even if it is, can California pull it off?

• It’s perfectly legal for a state to start a bank: In fact, North Dakota does all its business through the Bank of North Dakota, and that’s a good model here. The BND is more of an industrial bank than a consumer service, handling student loans, government bonds, and other financial business. It’s guaranteed by the taxpayers of North Dakota, not the Fed. This is rarely done because America has a central banking system, the Federal Reserve, that’s largely independent of the federal government and most states just do their business through that.

• Only a state bank could really handle marijuana cash, legally speaking: National banks are under the jurisdiction of the federal judicial system, and marijuana is still illegal on a federal level. Banks aren’t certain whether they’d be breaking the law, and they’re not terribly eager to find out. That leaves those selling marijuana with no option but cash, which means they’re vulnerable to organized crime, robbery, and other problems. It also makes it easier to launder money or evade taxes.

• But there are problems with the idea, starting with who guarantees the bank: Every bank needs a guarantor — basically a way to keep cash on hand so depositors don’t lose their shirts. For most banks, that would be the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC, which covers your money up to $250,000. Needless to say, any marijuana bank would not enjoy FDIC support. But the other option is the taxpayers of California, who voted for legal weed in the first place.

• Thought the federal government may also object to the very idea: It’s not clear how federal law enforcement will react to a bank that collects the funds and enables what it still considers a crime. One of the key concerns as states legalize marijuana is that drug traffic will spill across state borders, and any bank the state of California founds would, by necessity, probably only be able to do business within the state itself.

• There are other options, however: Hawaii is working to take cash out of the system entirely and use digital payments. Or if the state really wanted to get high tech, they could turn to the unsurprisingly high number of cryptocurrencies tied to marijuana.

In the end, there are two realities here. One is that marijuana legalization is not going away. In fact, 2018 kicked off with Vermont’s Republican governor signing a legalization bill, and so far, 2018 will see ten states with marijuana ballot initiatives, with more likely on the way. The other is that the Trump administration seems to want to push back on states’ legalization initiatives. Neither side seems willing to budge, and for now, that means anybody who wants to make money off the boom is stuck in the middle.

do you like going to work? Me neither! See how I got around that and got paid too!

from Carlos B2 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/uproxx/features/~3/SHW227kVQ0Q/
via carlosbastarache216.blogspot.com/