Disclosure Settle Lyrics
Narkis Eatman
The Pop Song Professor project is all about helping music lovers like you to better understand the deeper meanings of popular song lyrics so that you know what your artist is saying and can enjoy your music more.
SONG MEANING: "Magnets" is about a relationship that's weakening. Lorde, as the lead singer and narrator, doesn't want it to end and urges her lover to fight on. Keep reading to find out more! "Magnets" was dropped on Friday, September 25th. The song is hypnotic and dreamy with plenty of synth and an almost African/Caribbean dance floor beat. The song's going to make good dancing for a lot of parties this fall, and the constant refrain of "[l]et's embrace the point of no return" will only contribute to the two-stepping madness.
Like I said above, "Magnets" is about a romantic pull that's weakening. Two magnets (two people in love) had a strong attraction, but they're starting to fall away from one another, or one of them is turning around. No longer will north and south be facing each other. Soon, two north's or two south's will be pushing each other away.
The song, sung by Lorde, is told from the point-of-view of the female in the relationship. Her man is leaving her for another woman, but she knows that woman doesn't have experience or knowledge to understand the guy. Lorde want him to come back to her and to go so far that they'll never be able to return to a platonic relationship.
In Verse 1, Lorde sings about how neither she nor the guy ever felt the relationship was strong and how they kept on going with it even still: "Never really felt bad about it / As we drank deep from a lie." The lie is that they will be able to survive as a couple, and she describes this state as "melting magnets"--a slang term that refers to a supposedly strong relationship falling apart. When she mentions "half-shut eyes," we know that they're sleeping together and that after some excitement (possibly that of sex) reality begins to settle in.
In the Pre-Chorus, Lorde references "[s]moke and sunset off Mulholland." Smoke suggests mystery and secrecy in the relationship, and the sunset suggests romance or the end of a relationship (similar to the end of a day and the "half-shut eyes" reference).
Hi! I'm a university writing center director who teaches literature classes and loves helping others to understand the deeper meanings of their favorite songs. I'm married to my beautiful wife April and love Twenty One Pilots, Mumford & Sons, Kishi Bashi, and so many others!
Welcome to the Weintraub Resources section. Here, you can find our Blogs, Videos, and Podcasts, in which Weintraub attorneys regularly provide insights and updates on legal developments. You can also find upcoming Weintraub Events, as well as firm and client News.
In examining the claim, the Court held that when an employer hires a payroll company, providing a benefit to employees with regard to the wages they receive is ordinarily not a motivating purpose of the transaction. Instead, the relevant motivating purpose is to provide a benefit to the employer, with regard to the cost and efficiency of the tasks performed and the avoidance of potential penalties. Next, the Court held that there was no need to permit a third party employee to sue in order to enforce an alleged breach by ADP of its obligations under the contract, because the employer was fully capable of pursuing a breach of contract action against ADP on its own. Finally, the Court held that allowing employees to sue payroll service providers for alleged wage violations clearly imposes substantial additional costs on the payroll company in light of the significant legal expense that would be entailed in defending such claims, which regularly arise between employees and employers. Accordingly, such an expansive interpretation of the third-party beneficiary doctrine would likely lead a payroll company to pass these additional litigation costs on to the employer through a higher price for payroll services.
Acknowledging that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, the Court walked through the applicable Winter analysis, which includes: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) likelihood of irreparable harm; (3) balancing of the equities; and (4) the public interest. The Court analyzed the first two factors in detail, and briefly touched on the last two.
As to the proximity of the goods, the Court found that Stone and MillerCoors are nationally known beer producers. Both companies have national distribution, and their products are often located within close proximity of one another in stores. As such, the Court found this factor weighs in favor of Stone.
The forms are easy to use, and California courts provide free legal assistance for those seeking a restraining order. The forms, instructions, and information about legal assistance can be found here:
Initially, the courts will issue a temporary restraining order. These are given top priority in courthouses and are usually granted within a day of filing the forms. The temporary restraining order includes the firearms and ammunitions prohibition, meaning that there is an immediate impact.
The court will also set a date for a hearing for a full restraining order. These usually take place 2-4 weeks from the date the temporary restraining order is issued. The court will hear from both sides and make a determination as to whether the individual should be prevented from having access to firearms and ammunition. Once the full restraining order is issued, it will last up to one year, and can be extended upon its expiration. It will prohibit the individual from possessing any firearms or ammunition while it is in effect.
It is important to remember that the possession of firearms and ammunition is the only effect of the Gun Violence Restraining Order. It does not require the individual to stay away from any person or area, and it does not prevent them from contacting anyone. Its only purpose is to remove their access to weapons.
California also has other restraining orders which can similarly prohibit individuals from possessing weapons in certain circumstances.
Domestic Violence Restraining Orders can be found here:
-domesticviolence.html
These protect coworkers and employers from threats and harassment on the job. These can protect the coworkers or bosses individually, their families, or the whole business. It is also flexible, and can also include stay-away orders, orders not to contact all or some of the employees of a business, and can also prevent the possession of firearms.
These are catch-all restraining orders that cover circumstances where the person threatened is not a family member, romantic partner, coworker or employer. Like the above, these can include stay-away orders, orders not to contact all or some of the employees of a business, and can also prevent the possession of firearms.
California law now provides a way for family members, loved ones, coworkers, and anyone else who feels threatened to receive protection from the courts. It gives victims rapid protection, even where the perpetrator has not yet committed any crime.
The portion of the Demand Letter that caught my eye, however, has nothing to do with Taylor Swift, her lyrics, or the alt-right. What stood out was the closing threat of further legal action if the Demand Letter became public:
Curci then asked the trial court to add JPBI to the judgment directly (the aforementioned reverse veil piercing). Baldwin and JPBI argued that such brazen tactics were not allowed in California. The trial court agreed and denied the motion, relying on past California precedent disallowing reverse veil piercing. Curci asked the Court of Appeal to reverse that decision and, surprisingly, the court obliged.
The facts in this case are pretty extreme. When structured correctly, corporate entities will continue to exist separately from the individuals who form them. That said, litigants on both sides of a lawsuit should take note of this case, as should individuals when setting up corporate entities that are controlled largely by a single individual. Where, as here, it is pretty evident that an individual has near absolute ownership of and control over a company, courts may utilize reverse veil piercing to prevent that individual from controlling the company in a manner that prevents creditors from collecting judgments.
However, tattoo artists and patrons alike should be wary of the legal implications for their expressionistic choices. What happens when images, especially copyrighted ones, are inked on the human body? No US court has yet ruled that the copyright applies, despite several lawsuits resulting in settlements or dismissals. However, we may be about to receive a major ruling on the copyright of tattoos, thanks to LeBron James.
The Court should rule on NBA 2K16 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings shortly. In the meantime (and just in case the lawsuit does not result in a final determination of this issue), tattoo artists may want to consider more creative options for protecting their artistry while also allowing the vibrant community of artists and tattoo enthusiasts. Options include a tattoo registry, which would both protect against copycat tattoos and allow artists to protect their original works of art. See, e.g., Matthew Beasley, Who Owns Your Skin: Intellectual Property Law and Norms Among Tattoo Artists, 85 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1137 (2012). Per Beasley, this would comport with the established norms of the tattoo artist community, and would respect both the rights of the artist and the tattooed.
c80f0f1006