« February 2007 | Main | April 2007 »
Welcome, Bloggingheads.tv viewers: Here's the Jessica Valenti breast controversy post you're looking for.
I'm told that BH.tv posted a memorable exchange between Ann Althouse and Garance Franke-Ruta in which Althouse appears very angry at Ruta. I haven't seen the video because I'm a Mac user and I can't get BH.tv to play on my machine. Does anyone have the video in a more Mac-friendly format?
Althouse is blogging about the exchange here.
New York City is asking a court not to unseal police files pertaining to police infiltration of non-violent groups before the RNC because the public might want to know what's in them:
Lawyers for the city, responding to a request to unseal records of police surveillance leading up to the 2004 Republican convention in New York, say that the documents should remain secret because the news media will “fixate upon and sensationalize them,” hurting the city’s ability to defend itself in lawsuits over mass arrests. [NYT]
That's right, the city is arguing that the public shouldn't have access to these records because the media will report what's in them, and that will make people angry. And if it became widely known that the NYPD violates people's civil rights, the police might lose more civil rights lawsuits!
What the other side is up to: A helpful guide, complete with PowerPoint, to melodies that do and don't praise God.
HT: Amanda.
Surprise, surprise. The NYPD infiltrated non-violent groups like the Billionaires For Bush and the Men (and Women) in Black Bloc during the Republican National Convention. [NYT]
I've read various media reports about spying before the RNC, but the idea that the Johnny Cash demo was infiltrated by undercover police officers cracks me up. Our tax dollars at work, eh? My previous blog photograph, the one with the slick-backed hair and the curled lip, was taken just before I left for the Man in Black protest at Sotheby's.
Ironically, one of the best things about that particular protest was that that the rank-and-file uniformed cops that I met were Johnny Cash fans.
We protesters were in this sort of metal livestock pen. It was shaped like a long peninsula parallel to the main auction building. I was up at the front. Since the enclosure was narrow at the tip, I was basically standing as close to the cops as I was to most of the other protesters. Granted, I was fenced in, and they were free, with their plastic handcuffs dangling conspicuously from their belts and helicopters flying overhead. Still, the uniformed cops I met seemed to actually be enjoying the music that Man In Black protesters were supplying. They were trying to keep that police officer impassive expression going, but I could tell they were suppressing grins. So, I started chatting with them. Turned out, the guys on the other side of the fence were big fans. I wonder if they knew that the NYPD had undercover operatives monitoring us.
Here's another picture from RNCweeps-week. This one was taken before the Billionaires for Bush croquet party on the Great Lawn of Central Park.
Test your inutitions about causation in a fun online experiment by philosophers Josh Knobe and Christopher Hitchcock.
The New York Times is running a correction to last week's Sunday Magazine feature on female veterans and PTSD. It turns out that one of the injured servicewomen featured in the piece didn't actually serve in Iraq, as claimed in the article:
On March 12, three days after the article had gone to press, the Navy called The Times to say that it had found that Ms. Randall had never received imminent-danger pay or a combat-zone tax exemption, indicating that she was never in Iraq. Only part of her unit was sent there; Ms. Randall served with another part of it in Guam. The Navy also said that Ms. Randall was given the medal with the insignia because of a clerical error.
Based on the information that came to light after the article was printed, it is now clear that Ms. Randall did not serve in Iraq, but may have become convinced she did. Since the article appeared, Ms. Randall herself has questioned another member of her unit, who told Ms. Randall that she was not deployed to Iraq. If The Times had learned these facts before publication, it would not have included Ms. Randall in the article. (Go to Article) [NYT]
Before the article went to press, a Navy spokesperson confirmed to the NYT researcher that Randall had been awarded a medal for service in combat. A few days after the article went to press, the Navy called back to say Randall had never received imminent danger pay or combat tax-exemption, which in the Navy's opinion, confirmed that she'd never served in Iraq. The Navy said that Randall was awarded a combat medal through a clerical error.
Very strange. The correction also implied that Randall may be suffering from cognitive problems as a result of her brain injury.
America's Next Top Model is doing dead girls.
You can see the full gallery at Zap2It.
When did the high fashion dead girl trend start? I started noticing it on Flickr a few months ago, but I'm sure it's older than that.
The judges comments at Zap2It are really bizarre.
Regarding the picture of the garroted model, Nigel remarked, "All the other girls managed to have some sort of spark even in this sort of morbid situation. I think I look at you in this picture, and you actually just look dead. One of the simplest things, like acting dead, can be the most challenging. The problem is that you didn't do anything. You just gave up and thought that that was being dead."
The judges can't figure out whether they want the girls to look dead or not.
This contestant, Whitney on the couch with the knife (below the fold), got chewed out for looking moribund rather than expired:
Nigel: I agree that this is a fashion shot, but you don't look dead to me. You look like you're dying.
Guest Judge Photographer Mike Rosenthal: Even though she doesn't look dead, I think she still came up with a great picture.
The White House says that it is "legally constrained" from moving the Guantanamo prisoners to a facility in the continental United States. Why? Because housing the detainees on American soil might increase their constitutional rights.
