marcel the shell with shoes on, three
"Today, near the corner of Avenue A and 7th Street, a fairly new sign adorns Ray’s Candy Store, with images of Ray and Bob on it—a quite literal example of how Bob is now a “ghost of place.” Whenever I walk around the East Village, I still get the sense of Bob’s presence, and not just from the sign. It’s from knowing the streets and brick buildings are the same he walked and photographed, and the people are the same he documented, lovingly or critically, but always honestly. He is part of the normal way I, and I’m sure many others, experience the neighborhood. One day the sign will be gone, his blogs and photographs perhaps nearly forgotten, hopefully waiting for a future historian to resurrect. But I still think whoever is living in the East Village then will feel Bob’s presence around them, compelling them to look a homeless person in the eyes, to stop and admire a tenement’s architecture, and to feel the humanity of the streets. Perhaps there are some things gentrification cannot completely displace."
"Louisiana’s wetlands act as a buffer protecting the southern part of the state against hurricanes and tropical storms. This is a vitally important feature not just to Louisianans, a third of whom reside in the state’s coastal parishes. The state is one of the U.S.’s top producers of energy and seafood, and its ports facilitate 20 percent of the country’s waterborne commerce. These natural resources are dependent on Louisiana’s fertile wetlands and the billions of dollars in infrastructure necessary to access it — the great majority of which is clinging to the state’s eroding coastline. D. Phil Turnipseed, the director of the U.S.G.S. National Wetlands Research Center, calls Louisiana’s shrinkage “the worst environmental and socioeconomic disaster in North America.” He adds: “I would dare say it’s the worst thing in the hemisphere if not for what they’re doing in the Amazon jungle.”"
"I will highlight two examples of doctrinal inconsistency … First, in race and sex cases, the Court has rigidly used the concept of a “classification” as a gate-keeping device, but it has ignored this requirement in sexual orientation cases. In theory, people of color and women enjoy suspect or quasi-suspect class status and thus can invoke heightened scrutiny. The Court has avoided applying heightened scrutiny, however, by imposing the additional hurdle of a “classification.” Thus, in Feeney and Geduldig, the fact that a veterans’ preference law and a benefits program that excluded pregnancy severely impacted women was deemed irrelevant because the Court perceived no gender classification. In McCleskey, the Court applied similar reasoning to a racial challenge to Georgia’s biased capital sentencing scheme. By contrast, the Court has never mentioned the requirement of a classification in gay rights cases. The laws in Windsor and Lawrence did not mention sexual orientation on their face, just as the law in Feeney did not mention sex, and the law in McCleskey did not mention race. Second, LGBT people can invoke animus, a standard that emerged from cases brought by people of color, poor people, and people with disabilities, but that the Court no longer recognizes in such cases. In place of the contextual, intuitive and rather subjective animus test, the Court requires people of color and women to demonstrate malice—“smoking-gun” evidence that the legislature wanted to harm the group. No Supreme Court litigant has been able to meet this standard. LGBT plaintiffs have twice prevailed under the animus standard."
"This will definitely be a turning point,” said Mayor Tom Bates of Berkeley, sitting in his office at City Hall after returning from a vacation to find his television flickering with advertisements and his mailbox stuffed with fliers opposing the initiative. “If it can’t pass in Berkeley, where is it going to pass? Honest to God, if they can stop us here, they can stop us anywhere. And they know that."
"Crucial to this space is a vision of working with communities rather than serving them, as “service” is often heard as a paternalistic term—expressive of the attitude that when university students engage with communities, the student is there to give, while the community is there to receive. In our time of such profound poverty and inequality, certain kinds of service provision are undoubtedly necessary. My point is: they are insufficient. Food pantries are not a substitute for food justice. Homeless shelters are not a substitute for establishing housing as a right. Tutoring in prisons must be seen as one node in a web of activity to dismantle mass incarceration of poor communities in the United States. A primary learning objective for our program is that students gain tools for thinking, strategizing, and innovating at this systemic scale, and, in terms of how we seek to relate to community efforts, solidarity has become a cornerstone concept in our program."
What the Bold Italic calls a “video love letter to SF.” It does a fine job of capturing the City.