Not entirely unexpected, but in a six-to-one decision, the California Supreme Court upheld the state’s ban on gay marriage, the Proposition 8 referendum voters approved last November. The court ruled that Prop. 8 “constitutes a permissible constitutional amendment (rather than an impermissible constitutional revision).”
Silver lining: the court declared that the 18,000 same-sex marriages conducted last summer, prior to the passage of the proposition, would remain legal and recognized. I think this presents an odd legal problem — how can 18,000 gay marriages be considered legal when the rest of California’s gays are legally forbidden from marriage?
Importantly, though the court upheld the ban on the use of the term “marriage” by same-sex coupes, it reaffirmed the fundamental constitutional rights of gay couples:
[T]he measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term “marriage” for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
Indeed, the bulk of the court’s May 2008 ruling that originally legalized gay marriage — which emphasized “respect and dignity” — stands.
In a blistering dissenting opinion, Justice Carlos Moreno wrote that the decision "weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority." Moreno also rejected the majority's claim that banning full marriage rights was a "narrow" civil rights restriction for gay couples. Regardless how narrow the restriction, he argued, the ruling violates these couples' right to equal protection:
Denying the designation of marriage to same-sex couples cannot fairly be described as a “narrow” or “limited” exception to the requirement of equal protection; the passionate public debate over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, even in a state that offers largely equivalent substantive rights through the alternative of domestic partnership, belies such a description. […]
But even a narrow and limited exception to the promise of full equality strikes at the core of, and thus fundamentally alters, the guarantee of equal treatment that has pervaded the California Constitution since 1849. Promising equal treatment to some is fundamentally different from promising equal treatment to all. Promising treatment that is almost equal is fundamentally different from ensuring truly equal treatment. Granting a disfavored minority only some of the rights enjoyed by the majority is fundamentally different from recognizing, as a constitutional imperative, that they must be granted all of those rights.
He's right, of course. But I suspect that in a few years, or one generation at the most, California will come around and overturn Prop 8.
President Obama announced on Tuesday that he will nominate the federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, choosing a daughter of Puerto Rican parents raised in Bronx public housing projects to become the nation’s first Hispanic justice.
Judge Sotomayor, who stood next to the president during the announcement, was described by Mr. Obama as “an inspiring woman who I am confident will make a great justice.”
The president said he had made his decision after “deep reflection and careful deliberation,” and he made it clear that the judge’s inspiring personal story was crucial in his decision. Mr. Obama praised his choice as someone possessing “a rigorous intellect, a mastery of the law.”
But those essential qualities are not enough, the president said. Quoting Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Mr. Obama said, “The life of the law has not been logic, it has been experience.” It is vitally important that a justice know “how the world works, and how ordinary people live,” the president said.
I co-argued in front of her once, before she was appointed to the Second Circuit, and found her to be very competent and prepared.
Regarding her jurisprudence, there isn't much for conservatives to object. She certainly leans "liberal", but not too the point of circumnavigating clear and established law. In her biggest abortion case, for example, she denied a claim brought by an abortion rights group challenging a Bush policy that prohibited foreign organizations that receive foreign funds from performing or supporting abortions. Her biggest decision in the field of environmental law also happened to go against environmental groups. (A rundown of her major decisions can be found here).
But that hasn't stopped the early cirticism. The (predictable) theme seems to be that she will rule based on her own prejudices, rather than the law. Exhibit A for this seems to be the recent case of Ricci v. DeStefano, Sotomayor's highest profile case to date. Sotomayer joined the decision of an en banc panel of the Second Circuit, which upheld a lower court decision denying a lawsuit by white firefighters in New Haven.
In Ricci, the town of New Haven refused to certify the results of a civil firefighter examination, after the results showed that blacks did unusually worse on it (leading to allegations that the examination itself may have had a racial bias). New Haven refused to certify the results in order to protect itself against a Title VI civil rights lawsuit. The white firefighters sued, but the lower court rejected the lawsuit. The Second Circuit (including Sotomayor) upheld the lower court decision. The case was recently appealed and re-argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, and the decision will probably come out before Sotomayor is confirmed.
There exists a couple problems with using Ricci as the blunt instrument to hit Sotomayor with. For one thing, it doesn't really jibe with the allegation that Sotomayor will be swayed by her own personal bias — after all, she is Hispanic, and so was one of the white firefighters who filed the lawsuit and lost. Secondly, the court was showing deference to the legislative process, which is something conservatives complain that liberal judges don't do.
With the GOP in disarray, it will be interesting to see how senators will vote and more importantly, why they will vote a certain way. The Republicans accidentally sent out their talking points to the media. Here are the talking points:
o President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is an important decision that will have an impact on the United States long after his administration.
o Republicans are committed to a fair confirmation process and will reserve judgment until more is known about Judge Sotomayor's legal views, judicial record and qualifications.
o Until we have a full view of the facts and comprehensive understanding of Judge Sotomayor's record, Republicans will avoid partisanship and knee-jerk judgments – which is in stark contrast to how the Democrats responded to the Judge Roberts and Alito nominations.
o To be clear, Republicans do not view this nomination without concern. Judge Sotomayor has received praise and high ratings from liberal special interest groups. Judge Sotomayor has also said that policy is made on the U.S. Court of Appeals.
o Republicans believe that the confirmation process is the most responsible way to learn more about her views on a number of important issues.
o The confirmation process will help Republicans, and all Americans, understand more about judge Sotomayor's thoughts on the importance of the Supreme Court's fidelity to the Constitution and the rule of law.
o Republicans are the minority party, but our belief that judges should interpret rather than make law is shared by a majority of Americans.
o Republicans look forward to learning more about Judge Sotomayor's legal views and to determining whether her views reflect the values of mainstream America.
President Obama on Judicial Nominees
o Liberal ideology, not legal qualification, is likely to guide the president's choice of judicial nominees.
o Obama has said his criterion for nominating judges would be their "heart" and "empathy."
o Obama said he believes Supreme Court justices should understand the Court's role "to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process."
o Obama has declared: "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old-and that's the criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges."
Additional Talking Points
o Justice Souter's retirement could move the Court to the left and provide a critical fifth vote for:
o Further eroding the rights of the unborn and property owners;
o Imposing a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage;
o Stripping "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance and completely secularizing the public square;
o Abolishing the death penalty;
o Judicial micromanagement of the government's war powers.
That's pretty tame if you ask me. The GOP is in a bit of a bind — how are they to oppose a Hispanic and a woman, who is left but not FAR left, and who is (by all accounts) intelligent and qualified? AND who many voted for in 1998? Ed Kilgore writes about the risks for the GOP in opposing the nominee:
Conservatives could definitely try to turn Sotomayor into a latter-day Lani Guinier, and turn her confirmation hearings into a white male pity party, all about identity politics. This would not, of course, go over very well with Latinos, who will naturally feel strongly about their first-ever Supreme Court nominee, and who probably think white men have been pretty well represented in the Court’s history.
The rightwing punditry is a little more unhinged in their opposition. Take Glenn Beck this morning, who tweeted:
"Does the nominee still have Diabetes? Could the Messiah heal her, or does she just not want to ask?"
Hmmmm. Such important relevant questions by the loyal opposition.
Anyway, it's off to the races. I predict a lot of fury [UPDATE: and lies], but in the end, she will pass easily.
UPDATE: Perhaps I should address the "controversy" surrounding Sotomayor regarding her statement in a symposium that the appellate courts are where "policy is made". This no doubt will be used by conservatives to bolster the argument that Sotomayor will ignore the law and simply use the court to dictate her policy. Here is Sotomayor making the statement, in context:
The context, as Orin Kerr helpfully explains in this post, is that Sotomayor was explaining the differences between clerking at the District Court level and clerking at the Court of Appeals level. Her point, which is unquestionably true as a descriptive matter, is that judicial decision making at the Court of Appeals level is more about setting policy, whereas judging at the District Court level is a more about deciding individual cases and disputes. And the reason for this is obvious. Decisions at the Court of Appeals level don't just determine the fates of individual litigants; they serve as controlling precedent for all District Court judges within that circuit. Thus any decision by a Court of Appeals becomes the policy of that circuit, at least until it's overruled by the Supreme Court (which is rare).
There is nothing remotely controversial about this. Cases get appealed to the Circuit Court level for one reason: because the answer to the question being litigated is not clear. When the law is clear, no one bothers to appeal (because it's really expensive). A Court of Appeals grapples with the difficult questions, the gray areas in the law, and ultimately issues rulings one way or the other. These rulings then become the policy of that particular circuit, serving as controlling precedent in future cases. This is just as true in the ultra-conservative Fourth Circuit as it is the more liberal Ninth Circuit.
But in Simplistic Republican World, none of this actually happens. Good conservative judges don't "make policy," they simply enforce the law. The law is apparently always clear. Indeed it's a wonder that lawyers even bother to appeal cases in the Fourth Circuit. After all, they should know that the conservative jurists in that circuit will simply "enforce the law" (because they wouldn't dream of "making policy"), so the outcome should be very predictable.
Undoubtedly conservatives will point to Sotomayor's reaction to her own words as evidence that she was letting slip some secret about how liberal judges actually operate. But the obvious truth is that she was merely anticipating that some clown like Orrin Hatch might someday twist her worlds to mean something they don't. She was talking about how all judges operate at the Court of Appeals level. If you're not thinking about the policy implications (i.e., the precedential effect) of your rulings, you're not doing your job.
Well, the shows are done. Audiences seemed to like it, although almost everyone who attended was a friend or family member of someone in the cast…. so that doesn't count.
After-show outings were entertaining: HGTV's Libby Langdon ("Small Space, Big Style") took us to a nice restaurant for which she had interior designed (Libby is the daughter of cast member Mary Ann Luedtke).
We also went out with Michael McDonald, who came to our show right after the Tony Award dinner. Mike, a friend of Joe's (our director), has received his first Tony nomination ever – for costumes in Hair.
On Thursday, Cheryl and I went to Central Park to watch the Broadway Show League. It was hot; we ended up mostly watching South Pacific beat out 9 To 5, sitting with Laura Osnes (Nellie) who didn't play, but was nice enough to show up to route the team on.
Some random celeb sightings: Senator Bill Bradley, Tim Robbins, and Michael Emerson. Oddly, this is the second Emerson sighting for me. On another visit to NYC a couple of years ago, I saw him too. This time it was in the 23rd St. subway; he was with wife and kid.
Anyway, some shows to see this weekend, including 9 to 5, and Waiting for Godot. Lots of sailors in town (it's Fleet Week), but they don't sing and dance like in On The Town.
Well, I hate to be one of those people who thinks the original cast of any production is the standard-bearer by which all future casts must compare (and inevitably, be found wanting). But in this case, it really is applicable. Steppenwolf workshopped the hell out of August and that's why the original cast was so tight.
Estelle Parsons is a phenomenal actor, but her pill-popping Violet Weston was almost — almost — a caricature, played for laughs. This was especially true during Act One when she was "high" — she looked a bad actor playing (well, over playing) a drunk. Fortunately, she bounced back in Acts Two and Three… but in the end, she was no Amy Morton.
On the other hand, she was probably no Phylicia Rashad, who replaces Parsons. (Yeah. Phylicia Rashad).
The rest of the cast was very good, especially John Cullum who has that wonderful opening monologue.
***
As for The Nebula of Georgia, the reason I'm here in the first place, we had our first NYC rehearsal at the Manhattan Repertory Theatre, which is on the third floor of a building occupied by winos.
Actually, the "theatre" isn't as small as I had imagined, but with no exit on stage left, we're having to reblock a lot. Tickets are selling well, except for our opening night (Wednesday).
Now, torture supporters are all over the place saying, "But what about the 'ticking time bomb' scenario?" That refers to the hypotheticalsituation where we know that a dirty bomb is about to go off in the center of some major city, and we have some terrorist suspect in custody who can tell us where the bomb is. Do we torture him in that situation?
Well, let me first say that anyone that thinks this is a likely possibility simply is watching too much Jack Bauer. This is the stuff of movies and 24. How likely is this to actually occur? Less than 0.1%. Nothing close to that has ever occured. Ever.
But fine. I'll play the game. Do we torture in that situation?
Yes.
If that's all we have is this suspect, and there is simply no other way to get information to possibly stop the bomb, then yes — torture away.
That said, torture is illegal.
It should be illegal.
It should stay illegal.
And if we torture in the "ticking time bomb" scenario, and it ends up saving thousands of lives, then the President pardons the torturers. We all cheer. Life goes on.
But torture stayes illegal.
The reality, of course, is that in such a silly "ticking time bomb" situation, our terrorist captive can simply LIE about the bomb's whereabouts, sending us on a wild goose chase. "It's in Atlanta!" he sputters from the waterboard table. We stop torturing him, only to find out he lied. Tick, tick, boom.
The truth is that torture really isn't likely to provide valuable NEW information; at best, it may provide semi-valuable CONFIRMING information. That's because the subject of torture will say ANYTHING to make it stop. Which makes it not appropos for the "ticking time bomb" scenario in the first place. (In fact, the United States used torture after we invaded Iraq in order to find an al Qaeda-Iraq link. Again, not exactly a "ticking time bomb" situation).
But I stress again, the whole "ticking time bomb" thing is just too fanciful and unrealistic. And we shouldn't backtrack on the moral high ground just because one can concoct an unlilkely situation in which torture might help. After all, wasn't Saddam eeeevil because he tortured? Wasn't that one of the justifications for invading Iraq? I'm sure he had his reasons, too (or so he thought). Where's the moral consistancy of those who lambasted Saddam for torture, but who think America can and should?
Looks like NH Gov. John Lynch is going to veto the same-sex marriage bill passed by both houses of the NH legislature.
He gives a long explanation here, but it boils down to this: he wants additional legal protections for religious and fraternal institutions, specifically:
I. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a religious organization, association, or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges to an individual if such request for such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges is related to the solemnization of a marriage, the celebration of a marriage, or the promotion of marriage through religious counseling, programs, courses, retreats, or housing designated for married individuals, and such solemnization, celebration, or promotion of marriage is in violation of their religious beliefs and faith. Any refusal to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges in accordance with this section shall not create any civil claim or cause of action or result in any state action to penalize or withhold benefits from such religious organization, association or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society.
II. The marriage laws of this state shall not be construed to affect the ability of a fraternal benefit society to determine the admission of members pursuant to RSA 418:5, and shall not require a fraternal benefit society that has been established and is operating for charitable and educational purposes and which is operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization to provide insurance benefits to any person if to do so would violate the fraternal benefit society’s free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States and part 1, article 5 of the Constitution of New Hampshire
III. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed or construed to limit the protections and exemptions provided to religious organizations under RSA § 354-A:18.
IV. Repeal. RSA 457-A, relative to civil unions, is repealed effective January 1, 2011, except that no new civil unions shall be established after January 1, 2010.
What does this mean? Simply that the government or citizens can't go after (in court) a church if that church's religion compels it to refuse to perform a same-sex wedding ceremony. Same protection for the Local Order of Elks (or whatever) who refuse to rent their hall for a gay wedding.
I don't think these added provisions are unreasonable, especially the part pertaining to religious organizations (the First Amendment probably protects them anyway, but what the hell). I'm less crazy about the second provision — the one that allows fraternal organizations to discriminate, but what the hell. We'll give them a pass.
As the governor notes, these protections exist in the current laws of Connecticut and Vermont.
I suspect the governor's sought-after provisions will be added to the bill, and the governor will then sign.
There are moments during "Lost" where I think to myself, "Wow. This is dumb. Why have I been watching this show all these years?"
One of the things that annoys me most is that the charactors' motivations seem to turn on a dime. Ben, for several years, has been the evil leader incarnate, and then, suddenly, he turns all sheepish and is willing to do whatever John Locke (who Ben killed — uh — twice) says. Why the change? Well, he explained it in a ten second conversation with somebody at some point, but it just didn't hang together.
Or…
Kate boards the submarine to convince Sawyer and Juliette that they need to stop Jack from denotating an atomic bomb that will destroy the island. Juliette, who has been hellbent to get off the island up until now and begin her life with Sawyer, suddenly agrees with Kate. Why the change? Oh, she gave some ten second explanation, but it really didn't make sense.
But the "turn on a dime" phenomenon gets worse….
So Kate, Juliette and Sawyer commandeer the submarine, force it to the surface, get in a lifeboat, and go to the island. They finally confront Jack in the jungle, on his way to the Dharma construction site where he intends to detonate the atomic bomb. [Footnote: it's not clear why he has to go to center of the Dharma construction site — it seems to me that he could detonate the bomb NEAR the site and it would do the trick. It's a friggin' A-bomb, after all]
And after all that — after ALL that — Kate decides to help Jack in his quest, and so does Juliette. And why the sudden change? Why did they decide to help Jack after coming all that way to stop Jack?
Well, I don't even remember Kate's ten-second explanation. She just changed her mind though, all right? We're just supposed to accept it.
And Juliette decided to assist, rather than stop, Jack because — well, according to Juliette, she saw how Sawyer was looking at Kate, and began to doubt that she and Sawyer were supposed to be together. Therefore, she's going to help Jack detonate the atomic bomb so that none of this time travel stuff will happen.
I pity these actors who have to play within these wishy-washy charactors. They spend episode-after-episode in which their character seeks goal X, only to be handed a script where their charactor does a 180, and decides on a different course. And about 5 seconds of dialogue to explain the sudden change in motivation.
That said, Michael Emerson really is a good actor.
I've never been a fan of the folks they usually get to host the Tony Awards. I'm not a huge Jackman fan (being a striaght guy) — he did it for several years in the 2000's. Sometimes the ceremony goes host-less, which is kind of bland. Whoopi was okay last year, but didn't bowl me over.
Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick hosting in 2001 was the last time I thought the academy made a good choice. Up until now.
Mercury Radio Arts is the New York based production company owned by Radio and TV host Glenn Beck.
Mercury seeks a writer for contributions to Glenn’s radio program, magazine, and web site. The ideal candidate will have a strong interest in news, current events, and politics.
Key responsibilities will include contributing original content to GlennBeck.com and to Glenn’s radio program and magazine. Writing will include a mix of short pieces and long articles, fact-based commentary on the news of the day, etc.
Requirements:
• Strong written and verbal communication skills • Research skills • At least 2 years of journalism experience
Interested candidates, please send resume, cover letter, and at least 3 writing samples. Cover letters must include salary requirements to be eligible for consideration.
Location: New York, NY
We are an Equal Opportunity Employer.
Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.
Please, no phone calls about this job!
Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.
PostingID: 1169741827
My favorite part: "fact-based commentary". Yeah, because that's what Glenn does soooo well…..
LOS ANGELES—According to his teammates, his coaches, and the media, Manny Ramirez has appeared visibly confused and anxious since receiving a 50-game suspension for violating Major League Baseball's drug policy, and has repeatedly asked those around him if he is in some sort of really big trouble right now.
"Uh-oh, things are not going so good for me I don't think," Ramirez was overheard saying to Dodgers pitcher Chad Billingsley. "Chad? Did I do something bad? If I did bad, I did not mean to do it."
"I tried to put on my uniform today and the day before that and Joe [Torre] told me not to do that," the left fielder added. "Chad…. Chad? Chad. Hey, Chad, do you think Joe is mad at me? I am not mad at him. Is Joe mad at me?"
Sources close to the Dodgers organization confirmed that ever since the suspension was handed down last Thursday, the visibly worried Ramirez has spent the majority of his time sitting in the clubhouse biting his fingernails and saying to himself, "Something is no good right now. Something is definitely no good."
In addition, a sulky Ramirez reportedly spent Tuesday afternoon pacing back and forth in front of Joe Torre's office in an apparent attempt to get the manager to invite him inside. When Torre exited his office without acknowledging the 2004 World Series MVP, Ramirez muttered, "I must be in big, big trouble, man. Big trouble."
"I think things are really bad because the people are being different toward me right now," Ramirez told reporters gathered around his locker Wednesday. "The people with the microphones who stand in front of the cameras and write the things in their books? They are talking about me differently than they usually talk about me. Usually they smile and laugh when they talk about me. But not now."
"You kind of look like them," Ramirez added.
Ramirez claimed he began feeling like he was in trouble during Tuesday's game against the Philadelphia Phillies, when he found he was not in the starting lineup, was not asked to pinch-hit, and was left off the team plane when it departed Los Angeles for Philadelphia.
"Being suspended is one thing, man, but not being able to play baseball is really, really bad," Ramirez said. "I am going to miss baseball very much. I would like to tell everybody that I really love baseball, and that I love baseball, and that I am going to miss hitting the baseball forever and ever. I would like to end my career as a Yankee."
Dodgers teammate Rafael Furcal told reporters that although several people have attempted to explain the situation to Ramirez, the 12-time all-star either avoids eye contact entirely, smiles for no discernable reason, or nods his head with a furrowed brow, though many believe this is simply Ramirez's way of pretending to understand what is being said to him.
Sources close to Ramirez have reported that when the embattled star is told that his urine sample contained traces of a women's fertility drug, he typically giggles, extends his arms, and points his index fingers at whoever is trying to explain the predicament.
"If something is really messed up, I didn't do it, okay? It wasn't me. It was probably Brad," said Ramirez, attempting to deflect blame onto Dodgers catcher Brad Ausmus. "He's no good. I do not like him. He should be in trouble, not me."
On Wednesday, Ramirez said that if he is in as big of trouble as he thinks he is, he hopes to receive his punishment soon so the situation can be over and done with.
"I am sorry for doing what I did, and for all the people who are mad, and for my parents, and my family, and for the fans, and the people I love, and everyone," Ramirez told reporters. "Please just let me start hitting the ball again, and doing all the things that let me do that so good—like looking at the videotape, practicing in the batting cage, and taking anabolic steroids."
UPDATE: More than a few people on Twitter did what *I* did — i.e., tried to find out about Google outage by searching "google outage"…. except they searched on Google. Duh!
It does pose an interesting dilemna: how do you find out about Google problems when Google is having problems. We really do rely on it too much. (Oh, sure, there's Yahoo search, and Twitter, but they're stone age by comparison…)
UPDATE 2: Problem apparently affect Google search, Google News, Gmail, and anything that syncs with Google, including YouTube and Blogger.
UPDATE 3 (11:40 am EST): As far as I can tell, this CNET article is the only thing in the media confirming the outage, but it says it is over. Not!!
UPDATE 4 (12:02 pm EST): CNET still the only one reporting this, in a new article:
Many people found Google's search site was extremely slow or inaccessible Thursday, and other reports pointed to troubles with other properties including YouTube, Gmail, Google Analytics, Google Maps, Google Docs, AdSense, and Blogger.
Judging by a Twitter search for the #googlefail hashtag, the problem was international in scope, though it wasn't immediately clear how universal the problems were. Google didn't immediately comment for this story, though it did confirm an earlier Google News outage that lasted about three and a half hours.
Google is central to the online lives–and livelihood–of many, and an outage shows exactly how central it's become–and not just through its primary business, search.
"The Internet dies without Google. Can't get to my bank Web site because it's waiting on 'google-analytics.com.' This is made of lame," said Twitter user Tadiera.
I also note (from Twitter) that may people are turning to Yahoo Search "for the first time in [7,8,9…] years"
We have seen our fair share of failures from web based products, but this morning, for a large number of users (at least in the U.S.), it looks like every Google service has been either wiped off the Internet or is running extremely slow for a large number of users. Even Google Search is only creeping along slowly right now, and YouTube, Google Reader, Blogger, Google Analytics, Gmail, Google Maps, and Google Apps are pretty much unavailable as well.
Typically, these outages have never lasted for long, but once again, this outage shows how depended we have become on Google for so many of our daily tasks.
As of now, all of our attempts to contact any Google property are timing out, but we'll keep you posted once we find out more about this.
Update: Judging from the comments here and the conversations we are tracking on Twitter, it looks like these outages are somewhat localized, though we haven't seen any patterns evolve yet. It does seem, though, like the outages are mostly in the U.S., though we are also seeing some reports from European users, while Google seems to be working just fine in most Asian countries.
Currently, this looks like a networking issue, as users on some ISPs are able to access all of Google's services, while their neighbors are unable to connect to Google's servers.
The comments to this article are interesting. There's a person in Boston saying it's down, and another person in Boston saying "no problem here"
FINAL (?) UPDATE (12:16 pm EST): Googlefail is over. Over for me, and for lots of others….
ANOTHER FINAL UPDATE (12:24 pm): Who's to blame — f***in' AT&T.
Maybe I'll bookmark the Internet Storm Center, now that I know it exists, for future problems.
And now that Google's back, you can Google "google outage may 2009" and see that I'm the #1 search result…. which is why this blog is getting slammed (for me) right now.
Everytime pledge week rolls around on NPR, I am reminded of Fred Rogers (aka "Mr. Rogers", of "Mr. Rogers Neighborhood") in 1969 testifying before Congress.
Public television was in danger of having its budget slashed dramatically. Mr. Rogers, still a relative unknown, went up to Captial Hill. He not only urged that the public broadcasting budget not be cut, but he also weighed in on a hot issue at the time: whether VCRs should be allowed to record TV shows from the home — his argument was that recording a program like his allowed working parents to sit down with their children and watch shows as a family.
He gave a 6 minute testimony on how TV had the potential to give kids hope and create more productive citizens. In a style only Mr. Rogers could deliver, his message was so simple but passionate that even the most gruff politicians were charmed.
Six minutes later, it was all over. Before Rogers' testimony, the public broadcasting budget was slated to be slashed to a mere $9 million. Thanks to Mr. R, funding for public broadcasting was actually increased over the prior year — to $22 million.
