"Morgellons is a slow, unpredictable killer – a terrorist disease: it will blow up one of your organs, leaving you in bed for a year."Is this disease real or a delusion?
***
Underneath the skin
An empty space to fill in
24 એપ્રિલ, 2010
"Fibres in a variety of colors protrude out of my skin like mushrooms after a rainstorm: they cannot be forensically identified as animal, vegetable or mineral."
Joni Mitchell says she's got Morgellons disease, a "weird, incurable disease that seems like it's from outer space."
Underneath the skin
An empty space to fill in
Underneath the skin
An empty space to fill in
Is radical Muslim the new Goth?
You can upset your parents and teachers by masquerading as a zealous devotee of other people's religion.
ADDED: Eugene Volokh notes the historical resonance.
[Zachary Adam Chesser] was a "loner," a former classmate said, one who frequently drew pictures of Satanic figures in his notebooks and had just a few friends, most of them male.This is a much greater mockery of Islam than a drawing of Muhammad! Nice work, Chesser, you loser.
"He was definitely sort of weird," the classmate told FoxNews.com. "He was very into violent industrial music, borderline Satanic bands and stuff like that. He had dark undertones in his interests."
Two years later, Chesser is literally a changed man. He now uses an alias and has a new set of hobbies. He now likes to be called Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee, and his primary interest in this world appears to be Islamic radicalism.
ADDED: Eugene Volokh notes the historical resonance.
"Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" is not a good idea.
And as long as I'm disagreeing with Glenn Reynolds, let me say that I disapprove of "Everybody Draw Mohammed" Day, which he seems to be promoting. (Hot Air, Dan Savage, and Reason are actively delighted by the idea.)
I have endless contempt for the threats/warnings against various cartoonists who draw Muhammad (or a man in a bear suit who might be Muhammad, but is actually Santa Claus). But depictions of Muhammad offend millions of Muslims who are no part of the violent threats. In pushing back some people, you also hurt a lot of people who aren't doing anything (other than protecting their own interests by declining to pressure the extremists who are hurting the reputation of their religion).
I don't like the in-your-face message that we don't care about what other people hold sacred. Back in the days of the "Piss Christ" controversy, I wouldn't have supported an "Everybody Dunk a Crucifix in a Jar of Urine Day" to protest censorship. Dunking a crucifix in a jar of urine is something I have a perfect right to do, but it would gratuitously hurt many Christian bystanders to the controversy. I think opposing violence (and censorship) can be done in much better ways.
At the same time, real artists like the "South Park" guys or (maybe) Andre Serrano should go on with their work, using shock to the extent that they see fit. Shock is an old artist's move. Epater la bourgeoisie. Shock will get a reaction, and it will make some people mad. They are allowed to get mad. That was the point. Of course, they'll have to control their violent impulses.
People need to learn to deal with getting mad when they hear or see speech that enrages them, even when it is intended to enrage them. But how are we outsiders to the artwork supposed to contribute the process of their learning how to deal with free expression? I don't think it is by gratuitously piling on outrageous expression, because it doesn't show enough respect and care for the people who are trying to tolerate the expression that outrages them.
UPDATE: More here.
I have endless contempt for the threats/warnings against various cartoonists who draw Muhammad (or a man in a bear suit who might be Muhammad, but is actually Santa Claus). But depictions of Muhammad offend millions of Muslims who are no part of the violent threats. In pushing back some people, you also hurt a lot of people who aren't doing anything (other than protecting their own interests by declining to pressure the extremists who are hurting the reputation of their religion).
I don't like the in-your-face message that we don't care about what other people hold sacred. Back in the days of the "Piss Christ" controversy, I wouldn't have supported an "Everybody Dunk a Crucifix in a Jar of Urine Day" to protest censorship. Dunking a crucifix in a jar of urine is something I have a perfect right to do, but it would gratuitously hurt many Christian bystanders to the controversy. I think opposing violence (and censorship) can be done in much better ways.
At the same time, real artists like the "South Park" guys or (maybe) Andre Serrano should go on with their work, using shock to the extent that they see fit. Shock is an old artist's move. Epater la bourgeoisie. Shock will get a reaction, and it will make some people mad. They are allowed to get mad. That was the point. Of course, they'll have to control their violent impulses.
People need to learn to deal with getting mad when they hear or see speech that enrages them, even when it is intended to enrage them. But how are we outsiders to the artwork supposed to contribute the process of their learning how to deal with free expression? I don't think it is by gratuitously piling on outrageous expression, because it doesn't show enough respect and care for the people who are trying to tolerate the expression that outrages them.
UPDATE: More here.
"Were I representing Arizona, I’d argue that the federal government is in default on its 'protection against invasion' responsibility, and that this empowers the state to resort to self-help."
Says Glenn Reynolds, citing Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. ("The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.")
UPDATE: Glenn fights back on the political question doctrine. He connects Article IV, Section 4 to Article I Sec. 10. ("No State shall... engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.")
I think that if the Arizona policy were challenged and Arizona argued it had suffered an invasion that the feds wouldn't deflect, that the courts would say: It's not for us to decide what constitutes an "invasion." Congress and the Executive have already made their decision about that, and the Constitution makes that the final answer. As they say in political question doctrine talk, there's "the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government... an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made... [and] the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question."
At that point, the court would be back at the original barrier to the state's law: the exclusive federal power over immigration.
Not sure how that would play out, but it would make an interesting law review article. And a fun oral argument.I'm pretty sure how it would play out. The courts would apply the political question doctrine and say that Article IV, Section 4 is a "textually demonstrable commitment" of the question to Congress and the Executive. It is for them and not the courts to say what constitutes an "invasion" and what protection is warranted. Even though it would not be a lawsuit against the federal government, attempting to get a court to compel it to act — it would only be a justification of the state's acting in its own defense — the courts would refuse to interpret and apply that provision of the Constitution.
UPDATE: Glenn fights back on the political question doctrine. He connects Article IV, Section 4 to Article I Sec. 10. ("No State shall... engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.")
Arizona is not — yet, anyway — engaging in war, but it’s clear from this language that it’s constitutionally empowered to do so when invaded, even if the federal government does nothing (and perhaps even in the face of federal objection). Arizona’s legislation is passed in response to armed people coming across the border and killing Arizonans, which sounds rather like an invasion. If that’s the case, then lesser responses to invasion are, arguably, permissible as well in the face of federal inaction. What the courts will do with this is, of course, uncertain (and likely not tied very closely to the actual text of the Constitution!) but it’s certainly not a frivolous argument.An immediate military response to a sudden invasion that "will not admit of delay" is clearly distinguishable from the long influx of migrants to which the state has responded with a stringent policy of requiring and checking papers and deporting people. Arizona has adopted its own immigration policy, because it doesn't like the policy the federal government is following. But the federal government has complete power over immigration. This "invasion" concept is offered as a work-around to that power.
I think that if the Arizona policy were challenged and Arizona argued it had suffered an invasion that the feds wouldn't deflect, that the courts would say: It's not for us to decide what constitutes an "invasion." Congress and the Executive have already made their decision about that, and the Constitution makes that the final answer. As they say in political question doctrine talk, there's "the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government... an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made... [and] the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question."
At that point, the court would be back at the original barrier to the state's law: the exclusive federal power over immigration.
It's the President and the First Lady vacationing in Asheville and eating at 12 Bones.
That's what we did last year. Look at the photograph.
See the big red sign in the background in that photograph? Here's my picture from the same room:
The guys are RLC and Meade (my 2 husbands).
(And here's my old blog post about 12 Bones. We need to do a summer drive that takes us back down that way again. I'd like to spend a few days in Asheville and eat every meal at 12 Bones.)
***
See the big red sign in the background in that photograph? Here's my picture from the same room:
The guys are RLC and Meade (my 2 husbands).
(And here's my old blog post about 12 Bones. We need to do a summer drive that takes us back down that way again. I'd like to spend a few days in Asheville and eat every meal at 12 Bones.)
23 એપ્રિલ, 2010
Old images.
I have so much more time and subject matter for artistic projects in the summer, and with classes ending on Wednesday, I was looking for inspiration in the earliest examples of photography on this blog.
1. The blog post with the first digital photograph I ever took.
2. An early model of a post using photographs I happened to take that day and creating — concisely — a narrative arc.
3. Riffing on a movie with photographs taken — unabashedly — from the TV screen.
4. Photos of signs and displays accompanied by text that looks at them from a skewed perspective.
5. Attending and interpreting a genuinely interesting artistic event: Here and here.
6. I could use my drawings in a bloggy style. That reminds me: Palladian has done a magnificent job of presenting his drawings on line. Check it out. I used to travel with a pen and a sketchbook instead of a camera. I was highly influenced by this book. You have no idea how much time I spent, traipsing about, alone, looking and drawing. I don't know if I could go back to that, now that I've found digital photography. But I think there are alternative things that you can do, combining drawing and photography. I wonder if I'll ever get back to something like that....
7. Another idea is to get a new lens for the SLR camera and see what happens.
Anyway... just casting about....
1. The blog post with the first digital photograph I ever took.
2. An early model of a post using photographs I happened to take that day and creating — concisely — a narrative arc.
3. Riffing on a movie with photographs taken — unabashedly — from the TV screen.
4. Photos of signs and displays accompanied by text that looks at them from a skewed perspective.
5. Attending and interpreting a genuinely interesting artistic event: Here and here.
6. I could use my drawings in a bloggy style. That reminds me: Palladian has done a magnificent job of presenting his drawings on line. Check it out. I used to travel with a pen and a sketchbook instead of a camera. I was highly influenced by this book. You have no idea how much time I spent, traipsing about, alone, looking and drawing. I don't know if I could go back to that, now that I've found digital photography. But I think there are alternative things that you can do, combining drawing and photography. I wonder if I'll ever get back to something like that....
7. Another idea is to get a new lens for the SLR camera and see what happens.
Anyway... just casting about....
"Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed the toughest illegal immigration bill in the country... and reignited the divisive battle over immigration reform nationally."
Why is it so inflammatory for the people of a state to deal with a problem of disorder within their own borders?
Even before she signed the bill at a 4:30 p.m. news conference here, President Obama strongly criticized it....What is irresponsible and unfair about what Arizona did?
Saying the failure of officials in Washington to act on immigration would open the door to “irresponsibility by others,” he said the Arizona bill threatened “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”
The law... would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime. It would also give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Opponents have decried it as an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status.
The New York crime of having a balloon.
In NY, a court found helium a "noxious substance" and upheld the charge of "unlawfully possessing or selling noxious material" against a man who sold 2 helium balloons. It says "possessing or selling," so I must infer that even having a helium balloon is a crime. So watch out kids.
"I would like the firing squad, please."
In Utah, one has a choice of execution method.
ADDED: Almost no one is going for the idea that your choice of method would depend on whether you deserved harsh punishment. I put those alternatives in there because I thought people would quibble about that. But no. Now, the 2 choices have been polling about equal, and I wonder if it's because there's a difference of opinion about which is actually less painful or if it's a preference about the sort of drama you'd feel best about.
ADDED: Almost no one is going for the idea that your choice of method would depend on whether you deserved harsh punishment. I put those alternatives in there because I thought people would quibble about that. But no. Now, the 2 choices have been polling about equal, and I wonder if it's because there's a difference of opinion about which is actually less painful or if it's a preference about the sort of drama you'd feel best about.
I like this Harvard Law Review attack on the FTC regulation of bloggers who write about stuff they get free.
Noted here. But whatever happened to editing?
In the interest of providing consumers with full disclosure, the Guides require bloggers to disclose any “material connection[s]” they have with producers of any products that they “endorse” on their blogs. A “material connection” includes not only monetary compensation, but also any free good received by the blogger — even if that good was provided unsolicited, with no conditions attached, for the purpose of allowing the blogger to review the product.The word referring to merchandise is "goods." You can't invent the singular "good" in serious writing. Come on, Harvard!
આના પર સબ્સ્ક્રાઇબ કરો:
પોસ્ટ્સ (Atom)
પોસ્ટ્સ
