Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
I loved this. Thank you for drawing it to our/my attention. I would have never have encountered it and that would have been my loss.Thank you very much!
I enjoyed that.
Is this all we're getting for travel Friday?
Fantastic. Made me smile!
Women Good.Liberal Women Very Good and Better than Man.
In the event Ms. Kalman should buy herself a robe of sufficient substance, she will find she can lower the thermostat in her studio significantly.
Dr. Hanna Rydh knew how to dress, eh? Then she taught Mr. Peanut, Orville Redenbacher and George Will how to dress. It all makes sense now...
A childrens' book for adults. The perfect artifact of our era.
That looks a lot like one of the cartoonist from the New Yorker Magazine. A friend from work told me he developed a crush on her just from her work. He sent her a letter but I believe he never heard back.
Reminds me of Behmelmans(spelling?)
There once was a house all covered with vines...
Ah – my friend is off to some folk festival in Massachusetts. He’s a big time contra dancer.
BTW, this is one of the earth day "Adopt a Road" guys.
Too bad she didn't hang out with Scalia instead. I wonder if he gets his robes in Paris.
Why do I get the feeling that many of those who react to the comic sans serif font with the most visceral disdain would celebrate Maria Kalman's scrawl as wonderfully fanciful.
Completely delightful. The tear gas on my key chain was confiscated at the S.C. They wouldn't give it back because tear gas is illegal in the District. Who knew?
Where the Wild Supreme CourtJustices Areby Maria Kalman SendakThe night Ruth wore her judge suit and made mischief of one kindand anotherher mother said "NO MUSIC SCHOOL!"and Ruth said "I'LL STOP INJUSTICE!"so she was sent to law school without composing anything.That very night in Ruth's room a court grewand grew--and grew until her ceiling hung with red velvet drapesand the walls became Decorum and Historyand a Public information Officer tumbled by with a private tour for Ruthand she studied off through night and dayand in and out of weeksand almost over a yearto where the Supreme Court Jusitices are.And when she came to the place where the Justices arethey roared their terrible roars and gnashed their terrible teethand rolled their terrible eyes and showed their terrible clawstill Ruth said "BE STILL!"and tamed them with a magic trickof staring into all their yellow eyes without blinking onceand they were frightened and called her the most Just thing of all.
Comic sans is needed for comic book stories. Could this comic book story mean that our Courts are comical? She may be right about the comical values of the never-elected Super Heroes of the sexual revolution by fiat.
A childrens' book for adults.WABC's Imus stream contains the warning ``This program may contain material unsuitable for mature audiences.''
"Why do I get the feeling that many of those who react to the comic sans serif font with the most visceral disdain would celebrate Maria Kalman's scrawl as wonderfully fanciful."Two different issues. I dislike Comic Sans because it's a lukewarm novelty font, not enough like comic book lettering to be interesting but too mannered to be generally useful. I also dislike that it is so frequently used in inappropriate typographical situations by people who should know better.I don't really like Kalman's work that much, but her lettering is just what it is, hand lettering specifically drawn for each of her panels, a very different thing than a typeface.My issue with Kalman's New York Times work is not aesthetic but philosophical. It falls into the category I like to call State-Sponsored Children's Liberalism, the forced earnestness and faux naivete and artificial "diversity" that seems like it was decided by committee. It's interesting however, because it's an unintentionally candid depiction of the cartoonish and infantile nature of this brand of liberalism*.The somewhat frightening part is that for many people the naivete and earnestness is not faux nor forced at all. This is how they actually think about things.[* notice I said this brand of liberalism, not liberalism in general]
It's very hard to be the only woman on the Supreme Court.There's nobody to talk to.
re: palladianThat's what I had meant to say, although metaphorically, and less insightfully.**sigh**
I like that Ginsberg has a closet full of robes, some of them from Paris!Justice Breyer has one synthetic fabric robe, the same one he's been wearing for 25 years, purchased in a shop in Massachusetts.
Liberal Fascist Fonts.
You did, Pogo.Very interesting, Palladian. I enjoyed the art and my reaction to the writing was that it was sweet (and pretty benign), having never been exposed to Kalman. I'm sure I'll look at it with new eyes now.
"Very interesting, Palladian. I enjoyed the art and my reaction to the writing was that it was sweet (and pretty benign), having never been exposed to Kalman."Oh don't let my cynicism turn you off of something you like. I like looking at Picasso, even though he was a Chateau Communist.
"That's what I had meant to say, although metaphorically, and less insightfully.**sigh**"Oh yours was much more creative. I was just bitching.
"In the court, your adversary is not your enemy."OR"In the Althouse, your adversary is not your enemy." ... or at least that's how I see it.
Oh, you didn't turn me off to it, Palladian. I appreciate having the background and your insight, is all.
I enjoyed that a lot... even if some of it made me cringe a little.
"I enjoyed that a lot... even if some of it made me cringe a little."Funny, that's what I said to the guy I hooked up with last night.
It was interesting: I had the same mental reaction to it that Pogo and Palladian did, which they both expressed perfectly, but I still liked it.
Thanks, I enjoyed this. Palladian, I agree with your assessment of Comic Sans - it doesn't drive me crazy but it lacks the individuality of real comic lettering, and turns up in odd places.As much as I enjoy the real thing, I thought it was neat, and smart, of Allison Bechdel to have a font made from her own lettering for her memoir, Fun Home. It was a good solution for the problem of constantly correcting spelling or typos in such a long work.
I didn't dislike it, really. It had the effect on me that shopping in gift stores aimed at women has.'This is not meant for me', I think, for I know the lyrics but understand not the music.
Palladian said... "I enjoyed that a lot... even if some of it made me cringe a little."Funny, that's what I said to the guy I hooked up with last night.10:47 AM.Doing the craigslist thing again, dearest? I kid, I kid.Speaking of kidding, looking at this documentary (?) brought to my mind the immortal words of Patsy Stone:"What's the difference between an artist who chooses to paint like a child, and a child's painting?".
A purchase order.
Well, yes, but hers was more of a rhetorical question. Hehe.
Anything that's in the Saatchi Collection, I want things like that, alright? I just want everything, alright? Everything! It all looks like bollocks, so it must be worth something...
"Yeah, but is it art, Eddie?";)
Wait, there was text?
I loved this. I thought it was refreshing and beautiful and, particularly with regard to Justice Ginsburg, rather moving. However, I'm perplexed by Kalman's perplexity at the concept that an adversary might not necessarily be an enemy. Non-lawyers out there, and in particular, artsy-fartsy types, please advise me: is it only because I'm a lawyer that this concept seems self-evident to me? Does this idea seem mysterious and improbable to most people? Is the attempt to separate judicial decision-making from angry emotionalism really that unlike decision-making in the rest of the world? Or is Kalman just dim??
mrswhatsit...good observation... i asked a lawyer friend once what was weighing on her most during a criminal trial and she replied it was the responsibility. i'm sure her client had some other weight on his/her mind. when a litigant enters the court he/she is there to hit or avoid being hit. the lawyer is there as a stick for offense or defense with no real feeling about the subject - in inanimate object perhaps.i thought that was what was being portrayed anyway in the work at hand ... anyway that's how it struck me in response to your observation.
That's not really what I meant at all. Of course the litigants care more than anybody else does about what is actually happening to them, but it's not even nearly true that lawyers are just "sticks" with no feelings for our clients. Sure, we care more about some clients than others, and probably not at all about a few of them. But that's the way people are. You like some people more than others. It's life. I didn't mean that lawyers or judges don't feel emotion about their work. What I meant is that when they do feel something, they work damn hard to separate it from decision-making -- and we very rarely hate, or even dislike, our adversaries. The lawyer on the other side is usually just that, the lawyer on the other side -- an adversary, as the court clerk put it, but not an enemy. It's not an absence of feeling. It's care and discipline as to where that feeling gets directed. I'm thinking maybe this concept really is more limited to my own line of work than I had realized, which sheds a lot of light on some things.
mrswhatsit...i see what you mean and apologize for misunderstanding in my previous post. ...so a LSAT section should be created so those entering the legal profession (from which all judges eventually migrate) should be some rock 'em sock 'em debate and the test would be to see if the wouldbe legal eagle someday judge could refrain from taking the bait...like happens on this blog all the time?
mrs whatsit, I think I understood what you meant. The problem seem to be that within certain groups, an adversary is always an enemy. I am sure you have seen those examples not far from here at all.I remember working for a civil solo practitioner in Tampa whose opposing counsels were sometimes the same with whom she would have drinks at the club. And on the issue of emotions, another anecdote: we had a client that was divorcing her husband, and basically fleecing him. She had been cheating on him, and to top it all off, she was getting a promotion that would have made her the party with better economic means. Yet, she was suing him for the house, everything in it, and two cars. Anyway, the attorney and I discussed the case. I, a neophyte, was outraged at the case and the fact that she took the case. She just looked at me, smiled, and told me that she didn't like the woman either, but she was the client, and that she had to represent her client, regardless of her feelings toward her or her actions. And that's exactly what she did, all of her emotions aside. I still admire her much for it too.
Post a Comment