I have seen this manicure a bunch of times so I decided to give it a go. For the matte, I used Knock Out Cosmetics’ Flatte Black. And I used Chanel’s Black Satin for the rest. I feel a little guilty about using Chanel, but in my defense, it was a gift (from me to me, cause I deserve it).
Apparently Mickey Mouse loves Joy Division. I kid you not.
The goth world is divided on whether this shirt is genius or blasphemy.
Liz Ohanesian, writer for LA Weekly, tweets that she thinks “they are kind of cute.” While Liisa Ladouceur, author of “Encyclopedia Gothica” tweets it is “[w]rong.”
In any event, it doesn’t matter anymore. As of a few hours ago, according to Pitchfork reports, Disney has removed all shirts from its shelves because Disney “became aware there could be an issue” and they needed “to review the situation further.”
What does this mean? These shirts are now selling on eBay for more than $100.
Bonus video:
Tiny top hat tip: Spence
This is absolutely crazy. I love bats, and I’ve considered building a bat house or two. But I wouldn’t want them living in my roof.
All bloggers (and even some blawgers) struggle with what one can post on their blog without fear of violating copyright law. What is fair use? The always awesome Marc Randazza of the Legal Satyricon breaks it down:
The bargain we make with copyright owners is this: Creators of content get a monopoly over the commercial exploitation of their works. In exchange, we all get to engage in creative or transformative expression using those works, as long as we don’t go too far.
Got it. You may wonder what exactly is a creative or transformative expression? Or, how far is too far? As of now, it looks like judges can lift copyrighted images for use in their opinions.
This week, Professor Althouse reports that Judge Posner used a copyrighted photograph of Bob Marley without giving credit or getting permission in a judicial opinion and that Judge Posner reasons that his use of the photo falls within the parameters of the “fair use” doctrine. Judge Posner explained to a reporter, “[i]t’s not as if we’re selling our opinions in competition with a photographer . . . .Using the photo in a judicial opinion couldn’t conceivably be hurting the copyright holder.” [source]
The case, by the way, involved an Illinois inmate who claimed that prison officials violated his free exercise rights by requiring him to cut his dreadlocks. The prisoner complained that officials allowed Rastafarians to wear long hair, but not members of the his religion, the African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem. The appellate court ruled that the prison could not favor one religion over another in its grooming policy.
Are you concerned that the goth and/or punk look are going mainstream? Do you worry that nothing is edgy anymore? Do you wonder where the line is between us and them? Apparently, it is dog collars.
Personally, the spiked-collar look is a little too NCIS lady for me. 
Though some spiked collars can be quite lovely. Recently, I saw a young art student sporting a three-tiered spiked collar. It worked for her. And this link has a spiked collar and outfit I like very much.
The West Memphis Three (“WM3″) are free after having served close to twenty years in prison for a crime they didn’t commit. And now, there is a new Peter Jackson-produced documentary on the case called “West of Memphis.” The WM3 and their legal battle were previously documented in a series of films called “Paradise Lost.” Unfortunately, there seems to be at bit of an unpleasant rivalry between the groups behind these two films. Beyond that, it appears that the new documentary is very good and worth watching. The reviews from Sundance are quite good. On top of that, the producers of the film have uncovered new evidence and new witnesses in the case. ”The attorneys for the WM3,… claim they have three new witnesses, friends of Michael Hobbs, Jr., who claim Hobbs told them that ‘my uncle Terry murdered those three little boys.’” Given the reviews and hype, it looks like that West of Memphis will be released to theaters across America. I, for one, am going to check it out.
Today the Washington Post reports:
According to the WSJ,
Let’s hope the European bats have the cure. In the meantime, if you notice more insects this summer, you know why.
I never get to work on cases like this.
In September 2009, Jonathon Doyle decided to film himself dressed as Bigfoot atop Mount Monadnock. ”To execute his planned filming of Bigfoot, Doyle purchased a costume resembling an ape and then climbed the mountain with his girlfriend. At the top, he put on the Bigfoot costume and filmed conversations he had with other hikers.” He did this for fun and so that he could post his video on YouTube.
Apparently happy with how his hoax went, he decided to do it a second time. This time he publicized that he would be climbing the mountain dressed as Bigfoot. He also brought with him Yoda and a pirate. But when Doyle and his buddies returned to the mountain to film the YouTube video they were informed by park rangers that they needed a special-use permit and that Bigfoot, Yoda, the pirate and others would have to leave the mountain. The permit, but the way, cost $100 and required proof of a $2 million insurance policy.
Doyle sued for his right to have fun by dressing up as Bigfoot on the mountain and filming it.
Last week, the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that the permit requirement violated the right to free speech because it was over broad. Free speech “does not permit such a panoptic regulation because, far from being narrowly tailored, it applies in numerous circumstances that have no relation to [the park's] significant interests,” the court ruled. The court noted that its ruling is narrow — “It rests on the assumption that Mount Monadnock is a traditional public forum. … [and] that it is possible that the regulation at issue here could be permissible as applied to [other] properties that are not traditional public forums, and that in any event [the park] may adopt regulations consistent with the right to free speech, which will require [the park] to take into account the character of the property it regulates.”
This is a great case and ruling. There is absolutely no reason why an amateur filmmaker needs a $2 million insurance policy before filming in a state park. Not to mention, fighting this guy and his ape suit is just plain stupid. State parks are underused and underfunded. Instead of spending time and resources litigating this case, the New Hampshire park system should have teamed up with Doyle and his ape costume and filmed some videos to promote New Hampshire parks. That would have been awesome.
So in honor of Doyle and his ape suit, I’m planning to hike in New Hampshire this summer in full elf costume.
Random anecdote — While hiking one time, my friend spotted someone apparently dressed up as The Crow running up the side of Mount Bonnell in Austin Texas. When my friend reached the top, there was no sign of that person. It is stories like this that make hiking totally worthwhile.
Source — Associated Press via How Appealing
A copy of the court’s ruling can be found at this link (via How Appealing)
Back in September, the WTO agreed with Indonesia’s claim that the ban on clove cigarettes discriminates against their country. The WTO judges agreed stating that, “[t]he panel found that the ban is inconsistent with the national-treatment obligation because it accords clove cigarettes less favorable treatment than that accorded to menthol-flavored cigarettes.” The WTO, however, upheld the ban because it did not agree with Indonesia’s second contention that the ban was not necessary. The WTO instead concluded that “there is extensive scientific evidence supporting the conclusion that banning clove and other flavored cigarettes could contribute to reducing youth smoking.”
It originally appeared that Indonesia would appeal this ruling. But the Jarkata Post now reports that Indonesia will not be.
It may not really matter because, as many readers have pointed out on this blog, the ban has been circumvented by the sale of clove cigars.
No offense to drum majors, but I don’t want this on my epitaph. I’ve never said such a thing.
Just like Martin Luther King, Jr. never said “I was a drum major for justice, peace and righteousness.” Those who knew and worked with Dr. King, i.e. Maya Angelou, say that the shortened quote makes him seem like “an arrogant twit.” To me, it makes it sound like he had an obsession with marching bands.
I simply can’t comprehend the thought process behind misquoting Dr. King on his long-overdue monument. Even worse, the misquote misses the entire point of Dr. King’s Drum Major sermon. The “Drum Major Instinct” speech, given just two months before his assassination, warns us of the impulse to want to be the drum major — the leader of the parade, greater than everyone else. In his sermon, Dr. King encourages us to embrace this instinct but to do so through service and love to others. The most poignant part of the sermon is at the end when he describes his own funeral:
I’d like for somebody to say that day that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to love somebody.
I want you to say that day that I tried to be right on the war question. (Amen)
I want you to be able to say that day that I did try to feed the hungry. (Yes)
I want you to say on that day that I did try in my life to visit those who were in prison. (Lord)
I want you to say that I tried to love and serve humanity. (Yes)
This whole incident makes me want to print out the entire “Drum Major Instinct” sermon, drive to D.C. and tape it on the monument. Or at least use my online pulpit to encourage others to do this.
