An interesting debate: Three guys with cameras taking pictures of San Francisco are questioned and released by police. Reasonable suspicion or overreaching? Remember: you're only getting one side of the story.
It's that time again: No Shame season! Guerrilla theater at its best.
Evan Schaeffer discusses blawging the f-word. He's got linkage:
The Smoking Gun awarded its Legal Document of the Year award to a brief that included the following sentence in one of its opening paragraphs: "In order to provide a context for the alleged crime, we must first examine the history of the word Fuck and its evolution in society."
I didn't blog that. Quotes don't count. And I was crossing my fingers at the time. Also on the Legal Underground: THE STANKOWSKI REPORT #13: Ten Things You'll Need to Work 70-Hour Weeks.
By the way, did you catch this article in the Daily Iowan?
In a typical Midwestern town lacking in ethnic diversity, a stagnant pool of milky faces with lukewarm apathy can produce an imposing film across the lives of its residents. Short of passport requests and expensive airfare, those who wish to look beyond this white membrane are often left to rely on artists and academics to widen their worldview. . . .
Anybody else find that interesting? Put it this way: if I turned it around and made it black faces in their ghetto hoods needing to get off the street and learn some "real" culture, or Native American faces needing to get off the reservation and learn how to deal with the modern world, or women needing to get out of the kitchen and learn some math, it would definitely be called out as a racist or sexist piece. So why is the converse unchallenged by our campus, which is quite quick to jump on the latter topics? Is it viewed as somehow morally justifiable to turn around offensive behavior against a perceived repressor? Just mulling it over.
Side Notes linkage to more weird stuff.
No comments:
Post a Comment