Siouxsie noticed that a lot of folks are blogging about the Hermes Fall 2010 collection. Well, at least a lot of folks on blogs that Siouxie reads. Well, alright, Haute Macabre blogged about the collection.
Siouxsie wanted to share the collection with you. For one, the suits shown are absolutely spectacular. And second, it is a really bizarre collection. At least it is if you are familiar with the British television series the Avengers.
Just hear me out. This is important. The Hermes collection essentially takes Emma Peel (Diana Rigg) and morphs her into John Steed (Patrick MacNee). In the collection Emma Peel starts out in her classic iconic leather cat suit. Note though, that the outfit is accessorized with John Steed’s bowler hat. The gender-bending collection is surprisingly accessible and scorchingly hot.
See for yourselves. Here is the Hermes Fall 2010 collection.
If you don’t know who Emma Peel is or who the Avengers were, then do yourself a favor and watch the opening sequence to the show embedded below.
Below is a clip from Siouxsie’s favorite episode of the Avengers: A Touch of Brimstone. This episode was banned in the United States. How in the world does Emma Peel get out of this predicament?
Siouxsie wasn’t overly familiar with the term upskirting before reading about this case. It is an odd use of a gerund. But apparently it is accepted usage, although not found in the GMAU3. Upskirting, for those who don’t know, is the surreptitious photographing of underneath a woman’s skirt.
A New York jury found that even though T.J. Maxx knew that there was a upskirter in their store, it was not liable for failing to prevent him from upskirting Svetlana Van Buren, one of its customers.
Van Buren was shopping for coffee when Jeremiah L. Williams upskirted her. She did not know that she had been the victim of this crime until store security approached her and told her.
Apparently T.J. Maxx was well aware that Williams was trying to upskirt women at the store that day. But instead of banning him from the store or warning customers, T.J. Maxx decided to try to catch Williams in the act.
Van Buren alleged that the company was negligent when its store security failed to intervene while the weirdo took pictures up her skirt.
Security videotaped Williams taking a photo up the skirt of an unidentified woman and immediately called police. While officers were en route, he saw him approach Van Buren and also “upskirt” her.
***
[Van Buren] said that rather than use a customer without her consent to catch Mr. Williams, the store should have used a female police officer or investigator to set a trap for him. He claimed that, at minimum, [security] should have approached Ms. Van Buren and cautioned her about Mr. Williams, or inserted himself between her and the suspect.
Van Buren claimed that because T.J. Maxx knew what Williams was doing, T.J. Maxx owed a duty to warn customers, and not use them as bait.
This is a portrait of the eighth POTUS, Martin Van Buren. Apparently, President Van Buren is no relation to the victim.
The jury disagreed and found that T.J. Maxx was not negligent in its actions.
Siouxsie is going to have to side with Van Buren on this one. While it is admirable that T.J. Maxx wanted to catch this guy in the act so he could be prosecuted, it simply is not cool to use an unsuspecting customer as the lure.
In any event, this case brings up a broader, more important issue to women — how can you avoid becoming a victim of upskirting?
Siouxsie doesn’t really know the answer to this question especially since there is absolutely no description as to how the upskirting occurred here. Seriously, how does one get upskirted while shopping for coffee? Who knew that T.J. Maxx even sold coffee? In this case, Van Buren wasn’t climbing any stairs or riding an escalator. Nor was she getting out of limo.
But here is some advice.
Be sure to wear undergarments that you can be proud of.
The T.J. Maxx story has a somewhat happy ending, Jeremiah L. Williams was convicted of violating a New York law that prohibits “upskirting” and sentenced to two to four years in prison. So, kudos to the prosecution and cops for putting this guy away.
As for T.J. Maxx, they have to live with their slogan “You get the maxx for the minimum at T.J. Maxx.” At T.J. Maxx you can get the maxx abuse for the minimum recovery.
Recent posts on two of the most popular blawgs have inspired Siouxsie to write a mini-fashion blawg round up.
Corporette, which normally churns out safe (bordering on dowdy) fashion advice, went completely off the rails yesterday. A reader asked if it would be okay to shave her head to show solidarity for a friend’s kid who was undergoing chemo. The reader stated that she was concerned because she was about to start a round of serious job interviews in Washington, D.C. Corporette basically said, “You go girlfriend.” What? Siouxsie says, “Don’t take their advice!” Never shave your head before a job interview, even if you yourself have cancer.
Take that ATL!
At the same time, the folks at Above the Law (“ATL”) tried to start a debate about how female attorneys should look. The folks at ATL noted that they wanted to keep their balls intact; and so they pussyfooted around giving a real opinion. For the record, ATL’s post included a photograph of a luscious pair of red lips. In fact, that is the only reason why Siouxsie bothered to read the post. The folks at ATL should get kicked in the balls for not owning up to their obvious perspective. The same thing that drives traffic to their blog, is the same thing that brings business to law firms. Sex, and in particular female sexuality, drives commerce.
So what does all this mean. Can one shave their head? Do you need to wear make-up?
Here’s the deal. You can do whatever you want. And work wherever you want. But if you choose to work in an area of law such as Biglaw and you want to do yourself a favor, learn how to wear makeup, dress well, and wear the biggest pair of heels you can find. Siouxsie even dyed her hair blonde (gasp) in preparation for a jury trial in the deep south. That is just how the game is played.
And if you can play the game well enough, you can even bend the rules.
Even in Biglaw, it is better to look feminine, edgy and goth, than unkept and mousy. People may not want to hear all of this, but it’s true.
Does that mean you need to attend stupid seminars about how to dress or wear your hair. Hell no. Those folks don’t know jack. Save yourself some time and (your firm’s) money. Figure out your own style and run with it.
Siouxise for example adores Mina Harker. She’s not for everyone, but she should be. Ms. Harker uses makeup by Aromaleigh, a small independent mineral-makeup company. Siouxsie endorses and uses Aromaleigh too.
Here is a tutorial from Ms. Harker herself. This should get you started on the right track. Just be sure to swap a black suit for the fabulous vampy outfit, and you will be good to go (even in the corporate world)(maybe).
A northern Mississippi school district will not be hosting a high school prom this spring after a lesbian student sought to attend with her girlfriend and wear a tuxedo.
The school is the Itawamba Agricultural High School in Tupelo, Mississippi (birthplace of Elvis Presley). Here’s what happened. Constance McMillen, an 18-year-old high school senior who is gay wanted to bring her girlfriend to prom. Her girlfriend is also a student. The school’s policy required that senior prom dates be of the opposite sex. The ACLU of Mississippi demanded that the school change its policy because it violates the students’ constitutional rights. Instead of changing the policy, the school canceled prom.
The school’s cancellation is discriminatory, bratty, cowardly, and stupid. If they really don’t want gay students at the prom, they should fight it in court and stand up for whatever stupid beliefs they have.
The school made this statement –
It is our hope that private citizens will organize an event for the juniors and seniors, . . . . [h]owever, at this time, we feel that it is in the best interest of the Itawamba County School District, after taking into consideration the education, safety and well being of our students. (source)
Siouxsie will unpack school board’s message for you — Gays are dangerous. Hold your own prom, and discriminate however you want.
This is wrong.
And apparently the ACLU of Mississippi agrees.
In today’s legal complaint, the ACLU asks the court to reinstate the prom for all students and charges that the First Amendment guarantees students’ right to bring same-sex dates to school dances and cites cases holding that other parties’ objections don’t justify censorship. The ACLU also said that the school further violates McMillen’s free expression rights by telling her that she can’t wear a tuxedo to the prom. (source)
A copy of the complaint can be found at this link.
As for women wearing tuxedos, it is nothing new. And it is much more tasteful, quite honestly, than most prom gowns.
It’s that time of year. Peeps are everywhere. The ABA Journal is holding their annual Peeps in Law contest – where you make a legal-profession inspired Peeps diorama, and if you win you get a prize.
Siouxsie thought she would contribute here.
Siouxsie and the Bad Peeps. In order to see the Peeps in their full glory, click on the picture to enlarge the photograph.
This diorama is a hyper-realistic depiction of Siouxise’s lair. Note the GMAU on the desk, her Gareth Pugh leggings, and over-the-knee boots. A bat, which Siouxsie saved from white-nose syndrome, flies above. Outside the door lurk some of Siouxsie’s favorite subjects to blawg about:
Dahms v. Cognex, Corp. — photograph of plaintiff in a sexy Halloween costume admissible in a sexual harassment case to show whether she had been offended by the harassing behavior
Doe v. Starbucks — teenage barista sues Starbucks for statutory rape by shift supervisor
Comins v. VanVoorhis — adog shooter who is being prosecuted for felony animal-abuse charges sued a blogger for writing about the shooting
McDonald’s v. McFest — McDonalds tries to prevent a 19-year-old girl, who has a Mc surname herself, from trademarking and using the prefix Mc for her charity, which she named “McFest.”
The defendant, Mr. VanVoorhis, publishes a WordPress.com blog called Public Intellectual. He is being sued by Christopher Comins because of a blog post.
For those who do not know, Mr. Comins is a well-to-do Orlando developer who was caught on video acting like a douchebag — Mr. Comins shot two Siberian huskies at point-blank range, multiple times, and for no good reason.
Unbeknownst to Mr. Comins, an Irish tourist videotaped the entire incident. The video went viral. And the media had a field day with it.
According to reports, Mr. Comins believed the dogs were a pair of wolves poised to attack nearby cattle. [source] This excuse is bullshit. For one, the woman videotaping the shooting (and standing farther away) knew that the animals were dogs (she says so at .37 on the video). But even worse, wolves are a protected, endangered species; you can’t just shoot them whenever you feel like it. In any event, when the shooting was done, Mr. Comins had shot the dogs a total of seven times. Raley took four hits; Hoochie took three. Both dogs were severely injured. Hoochie lost an eye. But both miraculously survived. [source]
Below is the video that sparked worldwide outrage. It is difficult to watch. You can hear the videographer express her horror at what she is witnessing.
The video and the possibility that Mr. Comins might escape being charged led to intense media coverage and public outcry. After watching the video, Mr. VanVoorhis apparently felt compelled to join in the fray. He wrote a highly-critical and disapproving blog post, and embedded the video of incident. The post also noted what other news reports had — that Mr. Comins had pled “no contest” two years earlier for pointing a gun’s laser site at a twelve-year-old boy. [source][source]
Mr. Comins is now facing two counts of third-degree felony animal-cruelty charges for his conduct. [source] Mr. Comins, for whatever reason, blames everyone else for his current predicament. He is suing Chris Butler, the owner of the dogs. And instead of accepting responsibility, he is also bullying suing Mr. VanVoorhis for defamation.
Even though mainstream media reported negatively on the shooting, and even though thousands of people organized to sign a petition to ensure that Mr. Comins would be prosecuted, Mr. Comins singled out Mr. VanVoorhis to sue for defamation. As noted at Simple Justice, “[g]iven the scope and breadth of the attacks on Comins for his dog-shooting, only one rational explanation surfaces to explain why he picked VanVoorhis to sue for defamation. He’s the easiest target.” This is just how Mr. Comins rolls. He likes to pick on children, defenseless animals, and now innocent bloggers.
The lawsuit against Mr. VanVoorhis has no merit; it was brought only to muzzle others from speaking out about the merciless dog-shooting and to punish Mr. VanVoorhis for his critical post.
And that is it why the lawsuit is a SLAPP suit of the worst kind. For those not familiar with a SLAPP suit (or Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation):
[It] is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.
The plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff’s goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. [source]
SLAPP suits are bad for everyone. As the Public Participation Project states, “[t]hese meritless lawsuits clog the courts, waste resources and contribute to a general culture of litigousness. Instead of answering speech with speech, SLAPP filers answer speech with subpoenas and spurious claims.” [source] And most scary, they are one of most dangerous threats to First Amendment rights: “SLAPPs chip away at the will and ability to speak out, person by person, group by group, issue by issue.” [source]
The lawsuit against VanVoorhis illustrates why it is so important that federal anti-SLAPP legislation be enacted. Such legislation would help to prevent lawsuits like this and possibly provide people who are wrongfully sued with a means to recover their damages.
Conveniently, there is a federal anti-SLAPP bill currently sitting in committee in Congress. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) introduced this bill three months ago. This bill, HR 4364, the “Citizen Participation Act of 2009,” would provide protection for bloggers and others against SLAPP suits. As law professor Eric Goldman explains on his Technology & Marketing Law Blog:
[D]efendants can turn the tables on the plaintiffs, file an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the litigation, and thereby ask the court to end the lawsuit much more quickly than under traditional rules. Second, anti-SLAPP laws allow successful defendants to be awarded their legal defense costs.
Everyone should want this legislation to pass — tort reformers, bloggers, readers of blogs, democrats, republicans. No one likes being SLAPPed.
So if you read blogs, or have a blog, let Congressman Cohen know you support his bill. You can email him at this link. And write your representative in Congress and tell them that this law is needed.
The federal legislation won’t be enacted in time to help Mr. VanVoorhis, but as noted at Simple Justice, “. . . the news isn’t all bad for VanVoorhis. He’s defended by one of the most vigorous and brilliant free speech on the internet lawyers around, Marc Randazza. And Randazza isn’t satisfied to just defend a blogger’s right to free speech and fair use. He’s going after the dog-shooter as well.”
Stay tuned.
Bonus (and less disturbing video): Red Hot Chili Peppers – True Men Don’t Kill Coyotes
But it looks like the Obama administration does not share this love.
The Western Watersheds Project has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for waiting too long to decide whether to grant endangered-species protection to the super-cute rare pygmy rabbit in eight Western states.
Pygmy rabbits, which weigh up to one pound and can fit in a man’s palm, have been decreasing in numbers for years in the West because of habitat loss, which reduces their ability to escape predators.
“They are the smallest rabbits in the western hemisphere,” John Marvel of Western Watersheds Project said. ”They are the cutest small rabbit in the world.” [Source]
Aww.
In 2007, the federal court in Boise, Idaho reversed the Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision to not protect the cute bunny.
[And] [i]n January 2008, the agency concluded that protecting the rabbit “may be warranted.”
But since then, the agency has missed a 12-month deadline for making a final decision. [Source]
Meanwhile, the world’s cutest and tiniest rabbit is getting devoured wiped out.
Endangered species protection probably is not likely for the little adorable pygmy rabbit.
And in other rabbit news, “the Obama administration has determined that the American pika, a small rabbit-like mammal, is not threatened by climate change.” [Source] (Siouxsie understands that pikas are rodents, not lagomorphs like rabbits, but Siouxsie is taking artistic license with this one.)
Double Awww.
Environmentally-friendly scientists consider the pika to be the animal most susceptible to changes in climate; it is believed that the pika cannot handle even the smallest increases in temperature.
In an initial finding issued last April, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said that protecting the pika under the Endangered Species Act “may be warranted because of the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range as a result of effects related to global climate change.” [Source]
But after a full study, the Fish and Wildlife Service decided that the pika is probably tough enough to deal with global warming.
Siouxsie hopes so, but is not too optimistic after reading the not-so-certain statements of John Isanhart, a biologist with the Fish and Wildlife Service:
while lower-elevation pikas might disappear as the West warms, enough pikas at higher elevations across the West should survive to keep the species from going extinct.
***
“It’s pretty difficult to look into a crystal ball to look where a species is going to be in the next 40 years[.]“
Good luck to the little pika and pygmy rabbit! Sounds like you will need it.
ohn Isanhart, a biologist with the Fish and Wildlife Service, said Friday that while lower-elevation pikas might disappear as the West warms, enough pikas at higher elevations across the West should survive to keep the species from going extinct.Officials said they expect most pikas in the Rocky Mountains and along the West Coast will survive in warmer conditions, while in the Great Basin around Nevada, which has already seen some the disappearance of some local populations, pikas face a tougher struggle.
Siouxsie has a warm place in her heart for the undead. Apparently, the Eighth Circuit feels the same way.
Earlier this week, the Eighth Circuit ruled in favor of seven zombies whom cops had arrested in Minneapolis for protesting “mindless consumerism” during the 2006 Aquatennial. (Technically, the undead in this case were just people wearing white powder and fake blood on their faces and dark makeup around their eyes.) [source]
The zombies’ protest included carrying bags of sound equipment and playing music from an iPod, speakers and radios. “They also broadcasted announcements such as ‘get your brains here’ and ‘[b]rain cleanup in Aisle 5′ by speaking into the wireless phone handset.” [source]
The police also cooked-up some charges that the zombies (by carrying radio equipment and speakers) were displaying simulated weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
The zombies were held in jail for two days.
The Court held that the actions of the police violated the zombies’ Fourth Amendment rights because the police had no probable cause to arrest the undead for disorderly conduct. The Court reasoned that the Minnesota statute, which defines disorderly conduct, did not reach expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. And the Court concluded that the zombies’ conduct was a peaceful anti-consumerism protest that amounted to expressive conduct:
The plaintiffs intended to protest mindless consumerism when they dressed in zombie costumes, walked erratically, and broadcasted anti-consumerism statements over a makeshift, portable sound system. Moreover, under the surrounding circumstances, the likelihood was great that the plaintiffs’ artistic and symbolic message would be understood by those who viewed the protest. [source]
The Eighth Circuit further held that the police did not have qualified immunity to protect them from civil damages arising out of their unconstitutional actions. The Court explained that the police should have known that there was no probable cause to arrest the zombies. The Court noted that this was especially so because the Supreme Court of Minnesota previously had held that constitutionally protected speech includes “[someone] . . . protesting homosexuality by riding his horse through a crowd gathered to celebrate National Coming Out Day, shouting anti-homosexual statements, swinging a rope, and knocking over signs advertising the event.” [source]
Siouxsie can empathize with the police officers reaction to the zombies. In most zombie movies, police officers are quickly overpowered and devoured by zombies because they fail to comprehend the threat posed by the zombies. The Eighth Circuit got it right though. Fear of zombies does not give law enforcement officers probable cause to arrest.
Minneapolis cops would enjoy this game a lot.
Siouxsie has a proposed solution — For all the cops and others that fear zombies and are looking for vengeance – install the newly released iPhone application of Plants versus Zombies.
Remember you read it here first (or the Baltimore Sun or the Washington Post).
As of yesterday, Maryland will now recognize same-sex marriages. As reported by the Washington Post:
Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler (D) said Wednesday that effective immediately, and until challenged in court, the state recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere and that Maryland agencies should begin affording out-of-state gay couples all the rights they have been awarded in other places.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause is ALIVE! This is a great day for marriage equality in Maryland.
You can read the forty-five page opinion of Maryland’s Attorney General here.
