-
-
(Source: zombiescantjump)
-
man & structure / ryoma aoki.
(Source: fiore-rosso, via theremina)
-
(Source: zombiescantjump)
-
-
Action Figures Made Entirely From Twisty Ties
I’ve paid actual money for action figures that aren’t nearly as cool as these.
-
Hollingsworth v. Perry.
- COOPER: The plaintiff's expert acknowledged that redefining marriage will have real-world consequences -- that it is impossible for anyone to foresee the future accurately enough to know exactly what those real-world consequences would be. And among those real-world consequences, Your Honor, are adverse consequences. And consider, Your Honor, the California voter: in 2008, in the ballot booth, with the question before her: whether or not this age-old, bedrock social institution should be fundamentally redefined. And knowing that there's no way that she or anyone else could possibly know what the long-term implications of a profound redefinition of a bedrock institution, uh, would be. That is reason enough, Your Honor. That would hardly be, uh, uh, irrational for that voter to say, "I believe that this experiment, that is now only barely four years old" -- even in Massachusetts, the oldest state that is adopting it -- to say "I think it be better for California to hit the pause button, and await additional information from the jurisdictions where this experiment is still maturing --
- JUSTICE SCALIA (interjecting): Mr. Cooper, let me give you one concrete thing -- I don't know why you don't mention some concrete things. If you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, you must, you must permit adoption by same-sex couples, and there's considerable disagreement among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a, in a, in a single-sex uh, uh, family, uh, whether that is harmful to the child or not. Uh, some states do not permit, uh, adoption by same-sex couples for that reason.
- JUSTICE GINSBERG (interjecting): California does.
- (Crosstalk)
- SCALIA: Do you know the answer to that? Whether it harms or helps the child?
- COOPER: No, Your Honor. And there's --
- SCALIA: But that's a possible, deleterious effect, isn't it?
- COOPER: Your Honor, it is certainly among --
- GINSBERG (forcefully interjecting): Wouldn't be in California, Mr. Cooper. Because that's not an issue, is it? In California, you can have same-sex couples adopting a child.
- COOPER: That's right, Your Honor. That is true.
-
(via confid3ntial)
-
Kevin of The Filme hacked his Rolleiflex TLR to shoot Fujifilm Instax photos. The process requires removal of the camera back and a few adapters, but if you manage to pull it off, the results look amazing.
-
The (Supreme) Court will consider two cases: California’s Proposition 8, which singled out gay people and denied them marriage in that state; and the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which singles out legally married couples who are gay, and denies them federal benefits.
The stakes are particularly high in cases like these. We’re talking about singling out a group of adult couples and denying them a benefit based on a religious book which judges their mutual love to be inferior.
Now it’s true, that’s the way the law stands in most states right now - and it’s tempting to embrace what appears to be a majority view but as generations pass and public opinion evolves, what seems the “practical thing” could end up looking very different.
And I thought columnist EJ Dionne made a good point on Meet The Press, “I have a friend who has worked for a fairly conservative Christian institution for a long time who said, our problem isn’t that gay and lesbians want to get married, it’s that they’re the only people who want to get married.”
An exaggeration, of course, but the Supreme Court finds itself being asked to discourage monogamy among the very couples who seem to be the most eager to embrace it, on the grounds that their form of monogamy is objectively inferior.
Plenty of people have drawn a parallel to 1857 - when the Supreme Court tried to settle the slavery issue by ruling decisively, 7-2, that under the Constitution, due to their inferiority, African Americans did not have the rights of citizens. Seemed like the practical thing at the time. And yet I think we all agree that’s one they probably wished they could do over.
-
Uncovering the First, Fascinating Rulebook for Subway Sign Design
The 180-page binder, the key to the system’s iconic design choices, outlines a meticulous vision of signage intended not merely to look good — though it does — but to simplify navigation of the subterranean labyrinth. In its attention to passenger behavior, the manual goes above and beyond what most of us would term graphic design.
“The subway rider should be given only information at the point of decision,” proclaimed the designers. “Never before. Never after.”
Read more. [Images: NYCTA]
(via soupsoup)
-
Democrats and Republicans would have to be incredibly incompetent not to be able to avoid this self-designed-and-imposed mutual ball punch. It’s as likely as Dennis Rodman being our chief envoy to North Korea.
— The Daily Show’s JON STEWART, remarking on the sequester. (via inothernews) -
I’m beginning to realize that autoerotic asphyxiation isn’t really the right metaphor for the sequester. Because Congress did rig it up, and if they had pulled off the compromise, I guess it would’ve felt amazing for them. But as usual, they did it wrong, and yet somehow we’re the ones blacking out… while they’re still jerking off.
— JON STEWART, The Daily Show (via inothernews) -
-
(Source: richmondcee, via eliron)
