AnasAbdin
if i look back, i am lost
todays bird
Origami Around
Acquired Stardust
❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
dirt enthusiast
Discoholic 🪩
art blog(derogatory)
shark vs the universe
★
tumblr dot com
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
d e v o n
Show & Tell
No title available
DEAR READER
pixel skylines
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
No title available
seen from Canada
seen from Vietnam
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Lithuania
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Canada
seen from China
seen from Netherlands
seen from Germany
seen from United Kingdom
seen from China
seen from Spain
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
@mavaddat
Identity Politics and the Left
Identity Politics and the Left
My lecture is about a surprisingly new subject.[1] We have become so used to terms like ‘collective identity’, ‘identity groups, ‘identity politics’, or, for that matter ‘ethnicity’, that it is hard to remember how recently they have surfaced as part of the current vocabulary, or jargon, of political discourse. For instance, if you look at the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences,…
View On WordPress
Bison being released into Banff National Park for the first time in 140 years
Source
“Heidegger, the Philosopher’s Hell.” In Points: Interviews
“Heidegger, the Philosopher’s Hell.” In Points: Interviews
Originally published in French in 1992 as Points de suspension, Entretiens by Éditions Galilée. Interview with Didier Eribon published in Le Nouvel Observateur, November 6-12,1987. The interview was preceded by this note:
Victor Farias’s book, Heidegger et le nazisme, published last month by Verdier, has suddenly relaunched the polemic over the political past of the great German thinker. The…
View On WordPress
The inclusion of the other? Habermas and the paradox of tolerance
The inclusion of the other? Habermas and the paradox of tolerance
Author: Lasse Thomassen
Department of Politics and Public Administration University of Limerick
Limerick Co. Limerick Ireland
Introduction: The inclusion of the other and the paradox of tolerance
In his most recent work, Jürgen Habermas has argued that it is possible to rethink, and thereby save, the concept and practice of tolerance and to avoid a paradox he identifies in other conceptions of…
View On WordPress
The king, with whom I had this discourse, was satisfied with the truth of it. 'You are in the right,' said he to me; 'and it is with very great justice that one of our poets has elegantly compared all kind of men to the pieces wherewith we play at chess: some act the kings, the queens, the knights, the fools, and simple pawns. There is a vast difference between them, while they are in motion; but when once the game is over, and the chessboard shut, they are all thrown promiscuously together into the same box, without any sort of distinction.
Death does the very same thing: kings, emperors, merchants, slaves, warriors, men of the robe, and of the revenue all then become equal; and there is nothing but our good works, and charity towards our neighbours, that will give us the superiority. Let us therefore, always be doing commendable actions; for they bring with them an inward satisfaction, which the wicked never enjoy.
M. Gueulette (1781), "Chinese Tales or The Wonderful Adventures of the Mandarin Fum-Hoam, Related By Himself, To Divert The Sultana, Upon the Celebration of Her Nuptials", Written in French, Translated by The Rev. Mr. Stackhouse, Volume The Second, Chapter: Evening XL, Page 96-97, Printed for Harrison and Co., London.
Art Theft by Old Navy
My art gets stolen all the time.
I have been through many copyright infringement cases - some have been resolved amicably, and there are ones that have taken more work. This case against Old Navy (Gap) is not getting resolved right now because Old Navy is denying copyright infringement.
They are being totally unapologetic, and have said that it would be a “bad business decision” for me to expect to be reasonably compensated for the use of my art. Instead of compensating me, they have chosen to pay a large law firm to fight me, and have even asked the judge to order me to pay THEIR legal fees.
When a company as large and mainstream as Old Navy steals my art and profits from it, and is unapologetic about it, I cannot afford NOT to fight this. My lawyers and I will be fighting this for as long as it takes.
Thank you for all your support. Please feel free to repost this!
Lili
#fightingformyart #stoparttheft #copyrightinfringement
How is this not blatant copyright infringement by Gap/Old Navy?
Is the youthful protest premature?
I’ve seen some commentators claim that young people are not warranted in political protesting nor justified in taking strong political positions, because they’re still far too ignorant to be able to offer meaningful solutions. For example, Professor Jordan Peterson makes this argument below:
Full exchange here: https://youtu.be/OD…
View On WordPress
“Nietzsche, Genealogy, History” by Michel Foucault
“Nietzsche, Genealogy, History” by Michel Foucault
Foucault, Michel. 1977. “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History.” In Language, counter-memory, practice: Selected essays and interviews, edited by D. F. Bouchard. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Nietzsche, Genealogy, History
Genealogy is gray, meticulous, and patiently documentary. It operates on a field of entangled and confused parchments, on documents that have been scratched over and re-copied many…
View On WordPress
Why debate is necessary and painful
The need for public debate arises from the nature of political persuasion, which is a slow accretion of reasons in the public consciousness. Reasons in support of a proposition and in opposition slowly become present for thinking in the memory of society as a whole. Despite its steady nature, however, persuasion is not gradual in its observable effects. People need to hear the same arguments…
View On WordPress
I hate this notion that universities need to let literally anyone speak or else you’re stifling knowledge. Here’s something that stifles knowledge: having to explain very basic things over and over. If you let someone barge into a medical laboratory and yell “everyone stop what you’re doing and prove to me that germs exist”, that’s stifling knowledge. Shutting everything down so that a neo-nazi can calmly ask whether black people are people does not enrich a learning environment in any way, It drags everything down and exhausts everyone. Free speech absolutism is crude and unsophisticated, we need to acknowledge that sometimes speech has deleterious effects on the free speech of others.
I like this analogy, but I think it supports the reverse of the opinion it intends.
An undergraduate education in science is nothing but a four-year rehearsal in the proofs of precisely those fundamental truths whose thorough understanding is necessary to conduct groundbreaking research.
Social progress is similar to this, I think. Moral progress, like persuasion, is not incremental. Rather, we rehearse the basics until a critical mass understands those basics. Then the stage is set for a sea-change …
Just as, when in the appropriate setting, the scientist relishes an opportunity to carefully review basic or established truths, so too should we be so well-versed in fundamentals of human justice that we will readily (and without anxiety) examine them with whomever may fail to understand or agree with them.
The American White man […] is paying for his treatment of the Negro in terms of what he does not know about the rest of the world. […] If I know that any one of you has murdered your brother, your mother, and the corpse is in this room and under the table, and I know it, and you know it, and you know I know it, and we cannot talk about it, it takes no time at all before we cannot talk about anything. Before absolute silence descends. And that kind of silence has descended on this country. I think that this country has really got to do something it has not done before, and this involves the humanity of everybody in it. The key to this is in the Negro. If one can face that, then one can face anything. But that has not been faced.
James Baldwin, 1961 [audio]
Staying in touch with the legal system
In common law, societal expectations (eventually) determine legal expectations. The interpretation of laws and the laws themselves change to reflect changing standards in duty of care. For example, the eighteenth century conception of torture of POW’s was much more limited than it is today. More familiarly, municipalities monitor typical traffic flow and adjust the speed limit (higher or lower)…
View On WordPress
And why is it that for nearly two hundred years the Security forces have hung onto the color of the heavens? That was what they wore in Lermontov’s lifetime — “and you, blue uniforms!” Then came blue service caps, blue shoulder boards, blue tabs, and then they were ordered to make themselves less conspicuous, and the blue brims were hidden from the gratitude of the people and everything blue on heads and shoulders was made narrower — until what was left was piping, narrow rims … but still blue. Is this only a masquerade? Or is it that even blackness must, every so often, however rarely, partake of the heavens? It would be beautiful to think so. But when one learns, for example, the nature of Yagoda’s striving toward the sacred … An eyewitness from the group around Gorky , who was close to Yagoda at the time, reports that in the vestibule of the bathhouse on Yagoda’s estate near Moscow, ikons were placed so that Yagoda and his comrades, after undressing, could use them as targets for revolver practice before going in to take their baths. Just how are we to understand that? As the act of an evildoer? What sort of behavior is it? Do such people really exist? We would prefer to say that such people cannot exist, that there aren’t any. It is permissible to portray evildoers in a story for children, so as to keep the picture simple. But when the great world literature of the past — Shakespeare, Schiller, Dickens — inflates and inflates images of evildoers of the blackest shades, it seems somewhat farcical and clumsy to our contemporary perception. The trouble lies in the way these classic evildoers are pictured. They recognize themselves as evildoers, and they know their souls are black. And they reason: “I cannot live unless I do evil. So I’ll set my father against my brother! I’ll drink the vie- tim’s sufferings until I’m drunk with them!” lago very precisely identifies his purposes and his motives as being black and bom of hate. But no; that’s not the way it is! To do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good, or else that it’s a well-considered act in conformity with natural law. Fortunately, it is in the nature of the human being to seek a justification for his actions. Macbeth’s self -justifications were feeble — and his conscience devoured him. Yes, even lago was a little lamb too. The imagina- tion and the spiritual strength of Shakespeare’s evildoers stopped short at a dozen corpses. Because they had no ideology. Ideology — that is what gives evildoing its long- sought justifica- tion and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination. That is the social theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and others’ eyes, so that he won’t hear reproaches and curses but will receive praise and honors. That was how the agents of the Inquisition fortified their wills: by invoking Christianity; the conquerors of foreign lands, by extolling the grandeur of their Motherland; the colonizers, by civilization; the Nazis, by race; and the Jacobins (early and late), by equality, brotherhood, and the happiness of future generations. Thanks to ideology, the twentieth century was fated to experience evildoing on a scale calculated in the millions. This cannot be denied, nor passed over, nor suppressed. How, then, do we dare insist that evildoers do not exist? And who was it that destroyed these millions? Without evildoers there would have been no Archipelago. There was a rumor going the rounds between 1918 and 1920 that the Petrograd Cheka, headed by Uritsky, and the Odessa Cheka, headed by Deich, did not shoot all those condemned to death but fed some of them alive to the animals in the city zoos. I do not know whether this is truth or calumny, or, if there were any such cases, how many there were. But I wouldn’t set out to look for proof, either. Following the practice of the bluecaps, I would propose that they prove to us that this was impossible. How else could they get food for the zoos in those famine years? Take it away from the working class? Those enemies were going to die anyway, so why couldn’t their deaths support the zoo economy of the Republic and thereby assist our march into the future? Wasn’t it expedient? That is the precise line the Shakespearean evildoer could not cross. But the evildoer with ideology does cross it, and his eyes remain dry and clear. Physics is aware of phenomena which occur only at threshold magnitudes, which do not exist at all until a certain threshold encoded by and known to nature has been crossed. No matter how intense a yellow light you shine on a lithium sample, it will not emit electrons. But as soon as a weak bluish light begins to glow, it does emit them. (The threshold of the photoelectric effect has been crossed.) You can cool oxygen to 100 degrees below zero Centigrade and exert as much pressure as you want; it does not yield, but remains a gas. But as soon as minus 183 degrees is reached, it liquefies and begins to flow. Evidently evildoing also has a threshold magnitude. Yes, a human being hesitates and bobs back and forth between good and evil all his life. He slips, falls back, clambers up, repents, things begin to darken again. But just so long as the threshold of evildoing is not crossed, the possibility of returning remains, and he himself is still within reach of our hope. But when, through the density of evil actions, the result either of their own extreme degree or of the absoluteness of his power, he suddenly crosses that threshold, he has left humanity behind, and without, perhaps, the possibility of return. From the most ancient times justice has been a two-part concept: virtue triumphs, and vice is punished. We have been fortunate enough to live to a time when virtue, though it does not triumph, is nonetheless not always tormented by attack dogs. Beaten down, sickly, virtue has now been allowed to enter in all its tatters and sit in the corner, as long as it doesn’t raise its voice. However, no one dares say a word about vice. Yes, they did mock virtue, but there was no vice in that. Yes, so-and-so many millions did get mowed down — but no one was to blame for it. And if someone pipes up: “What about those who …” the answer comes from all sides, reproachfully and amicably at first: “What are you talking about, comrade! Why open old wounds?” [Even in connection with One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, the retired bluecaps living on pensions objected because the book might reopen the wounds of those who had been imprisoned in camp. Allegedly, they were the ones to be protected.] Then they go after you with an oaken club: “Shut up! Haven’t you had enough yet? You think you’ve been rehabilitated!” In that same period, by 1966, eighty-six thousand Nazi criminals had been convicted in West Germany. 22 [Meanwhile, in East Germany, nothing of the sort is to be heard. Which means that there they have been shod with new shoes; they are valued in the service of the state.] And still we choke with anger here. We do not hesitate to devote to the subject page after newspaper page and hour after hour of radio time. We even stay after work to attend protest meetings and vote: “Too few! Eighty-six thousand are too few. And twenty years is too little! It must go on and on.” And during the same period, in our own country (according to the reports of the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court) about ten men have been convicted. What takes place beyond the Oder and the Rhine gets us all worked up. What goes on in the environs of Moscow and behind the green fences near Sochi, or the fact that the murderers of our husbands and fathers ride through our streets and we make way for them as they pass, doesn’t get us worked up at all, doesn’t touch us. That would be “digging up the past.” Meanwhile, if we translate 86,000 West Germans into our own terms, on the basis of comparative population figures, it would become one-quarter of a million. But in a quarter-century we have not tracked down anyone. We have not brought anyone to trial. It is their wounds we are afraid to reopen. And as a symbol of them all, the smug and stupid Molotov lives on at Granovsky No. 3, a man who has learned nothing at all, even now, though he is saturated with our blood and nobly crosses the sidewalk to seat himself in his long, wide automobile. Here is a riddle not for us contemporaries to figure out: Why is Germany allowed to punish its evildoers and Russia is not? What kind of disastrous path lies ahead of us if we do not have the chance to purge ourselves of that putrefaction rotting inside our body? What, then, can Russia teach the world? In the German trials an astonishing phenomenon takes place from time to time. The defendant clasps his head in his hands, refuses to make any defense, and from then on asks no concessions from the court. He says that the presentation of his crimes, revived and once again confronting him, has filled him with revulsion and he no longer wants to live. That is the ultimate height a trial can attain: when evil is so utterly condemned that even the criminal is revolted by it. A country which has condemned evil 86,000 times from the rostrum of a court and irrevocably condemned it in literature and among its young people, year by year, step by step, is purged of it. What are we to do? Someday our descendants will describe our several generations as generations of driveling do-nothings. First we submissively allowed them to massacre us by the mil lions, and then with devoted concern we tended the murderers in their prosperous old age. What are we to do if the great Russian tradition of penitence is incomprehensible and absurd to them? What are we to do if the animal terror of hearing even one-hundredth part of all they subjected others to outweighs in their hearts any inclination to justice? If they cling greedily to the harvest of benefits they have watered with the blood of those who perished? It is clear enough that those men who turned the handle of the meat grinder even as late as 1937 are no longer young. They are fifty to eighty years old. They have lived the best years of their lives prosperously, well nourished and comfortable, so that it is too late for any kind of equal retribution as far as they are concemed.
Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary Investigation
Collective deliberation as a theatre production
Democratic deliberation is like a theatre play on repeated showing. People choose their parts in the play by adopting one of the various arguments available. Once everyone is tired of seeing the same play (hearing the same arguments be met with the same counter arguments), we make a collective decision to not reenact the play (revisit its arguments) if for no other reason than sheer boredom.…
View On WordPress
Originally posted on Imgur here. First Year Law Students' Letter uploaded by Mavaddat Javid on Scribd
From: Concerned Students Dear ███████, We write this letter to you with concern about your inappropriate conduct at ████ Law School. Specifically you have presented yourself on campus, on at least one occasion, wearing a “Black Lives Matter” t-shirt. We believe this is an inappropriate and unnecessary statement that has no legitimate place within our institution of higher learning. The statement you represented and endorsed is also highly offensive and extremely inflammatory. We are here to learn the law. We do not spend three years of our lives and tens of thousands of dollars to be subjected to indoctrination or personal opinions of our professors. ████ Law School has prided itself on the diverse demographics represented within the student body. Your actions however, clearly represent your view that some of those demographics matter more than others. That alienates and isolates all non-black groups. As someone who is charged to teach criminal law, it should be abundantly clear to you and beyond any question that ALL lives matter, as it is expressed unequivocally in the law. Furthermore, the “Black Lives Matter” statement is racist and anti-law enforcement and has been known to incite violence in this country. As someone who is paid to teach the law, you should be ashamed of yourself. Your willingness to wear such an advertisement can only lead us to believe that you are completely ignorant of and uninformed about the social ramifications and implications surrounding the Black Lives Matter movement. People who support that message have robbed, rioted and burned innocent businesses and attacked law abiding peace officers who were charged with protecting ALL the demographics you’ve succeeded in isolating. While we can appreciate your sacred right to the freedom of speech, we would strongly urge you to seriously reconsider your actions. You should exercise a little bit of respect and restraint. This is not a political science class or college. We are a law school. We have undertaken the very solemn duty to learn and respect the law. We do not need the mindless actions of our professors to distract and alienate us. Just as our personal beliefs have no place in law exams, your personal beliefs have no place in the classroom. Law School is experiencing an unprecedented decline in bar passage rate. It is imperative that you utilize energy to actually teach law instead of continue to express hateful messages. Unfortunately, we feel that we must deliver this message to you anonymously. It is clear that the opinions expressed within this letter are not welcome. If student body opinions go against the school or faculty we fear there will be retaliation. In fact, ████ Law School administration and faculty, including you, have shown no shame in displaying appalling levels of discrimination. We are hopeful the new administration will rectify these abysmal failings and shortcomings. There is a lot of work to be done to rectify situations such as these.
Law Professor Reply uploaded by Mavaddat Javid on Scribd
Professor █████████ Response to Concerned Students Memo I am accepting the invitation in your memo, and the opportunity created by its content, to teach you. I would prefer to do it through a conversation, or especially through a series of conversations. Because I don’t know who you are, this isn’t possible. And there is an even more important reason for putting this in writing for the entire law school community. The larger issues that underlie your anger are timely, and they touch the entire law school community and transcend it. This response to your memo is in two parts. Part I addresses the substantive and analytical lessons that can be learned from the memo. Part II addresses the lessons about writing that can be learned from the memo. Part I When your argument is based on a series of premises, you should be aware of them. You should also be aware that if any of these premises are factually flawed or illogical, or if the reader simply doesn’t accept them, your message will collapse from lack of support. Here is a short list of some of the premises in your memo, and my critique of them. Premise: You have purchased, with your tuition dollars, the right to make demands upon the institution and the people in it and to dictate the content of your legal education. Critique: I do not subscribe to the “consumer model” of legal education. As a consequence, I believe in your entitlement to assert your needs and desires even more strongly than you do. You would be just as entitled to express yourself to us if the law school were entirely tuition free. This is because you are a student, not because you are a consumer. Besides, the natural and logical extension of your premise is that students on a full scholarship are not entitled to assert their needs and desires to the same extent as other students (or maybe even at all). So, as you can see, arguments premised on consumerism are not likely to influence me. On the contrary, such a premise causes me to believe that you have a diminished view of legal education and the source of our responsibility as legal educators. This allows me to take any criticism from such a perspective less seriously than I otherwise would. Premise: You are not paying for my opinion. Critique: You are not paying me to pretend I don’t have one. Premise: There is something called “Law” that is objective, fixed, and detached from and unaffected by the society in which it functions. Critique: Law has no meaning or relevance outside of society. It both shapes and is shaped by the society in which it functions. Law is made by humans. It protects, controls, burdens, and liberates humans, non-human animals, nature, and inanimate physical objects. Like the humans who make it, Law is biased, noble, aspirational, short-sighted, flawed, messy, unclear, brilliant, and constantly changing. If you think that Law is merely a set of rules to be taught and learned, you are missing the beauty of Law and the point of law school. Premise: You know more about legal education than I do. Critique: You don’t. Premise: There is an invisible "only” in front of the words “Black Lives Matter.” Critique: There is a difference between focus and exclusion. If something matters, this does not imply that nothing else does. If I say "Law Students Matter” it does not imply that my colleagues, friends, and family do not. Here is something else that matters: context. The Black Lives Matter movement arose in a context of evidence that they don’t. When people are receiving messages from the culture in which they live that their lives are less important than other lives, it is a cruel distortion of reality to scold them for not being inclusive enough. As applied specifically to the context in which I wore my Black Lives Matter shirt, I did this on a day in Criminal Procedure when we were explicitly discussing violence against the black community by police. There ore some implicit words that precede “Black Lives Matter,” and they go something like this: Because of the brutalizing and killing of black people at the hands of the police and the indifference of society in general and the criminal justice system in particular, it is important that we say that.... This is, of course, far too long to fit on a shirt. Black Lives Matter is about focus, not exclusion. As a general matter, seeing the world and the people in it in mutually exclusive, either/or terms impedes your own thought processes. If you wish to bear that intellectual consequence of a constricting ideology, that’s your decision. But this does not entitle you to project your either/or ideology onto people who do not share it. Premise: Saying “Black Lives Matter” is an expression of racist hatred of white people. Critique: “Black Lives Matter” is not a statement about white people. It does not exclude white people. It does not accuse white people, unless you are a specific white person who perpetrates, endorses, or ignores violence against black people. If you are one of those people, then somebody had better be saying something to you. (I am using “you” here in the general sense as a substitute for "one,” and not as in “you memo writers.”) Premise: History doesn’t matter. Therefore sequences of cause and effect can be ignored (or even inverted). Critique: To assert that the Black Lives Matter movement is about violence against the police is to ignore (and invert) the causal reality that the movement arose as an effect of police violence. Yes, the movement is about violence, in that it is about the subject of violence, but it is not about violent retaliation against the violence that it is about. It is a tragic fact that rage as a consequence of racial injustice sometimes gets enacted as violence (although not nearly as often as we might expect, given the long-standing causes of that rage). We can all lament the fact that violence begets violence. But we can’t even do that if we ignore the violence that has done, and is doing, the begetting. Premise: What you think something means is the same as what it actually means. Critique: We are all entitled to (and should make every effort to) discern meaning. There can be reasonable differences of opinion about what something means. Something can even carry a meaning that has a larger life of its own, regardless of the meaning ascribed to it by a particular person. For example, the flag of the Confederacy carries the meaning of white supremacy, even if a particular person thinks it only means “tradition.” One person, or even a group of people, cannot take away the flag’s odious meaning just by declaring that it means something else. Similarly, ascribing a negative meaning where none exists does not bring that meaning into being. Unless you speak for the Black Lives Matter movement you have no authority to say what those words mean to the people in it. You certainly have no authority to say (and apparently not even any knowledge of) what it means to me. Your interpretation of something and your reaction to it based on that interpretation are not the same as what something actually means. Things in the world have meanings that exist outside of you. The point I am making here is different from the points above that address your misunderstanding of the movement and the three words that embody it. This is a point about aggrandizement, not accuracy. Because a long time ago (in a law school far, far away) I was a teacher of legal writing, and because I still care about it very much, I will make some points relevant to formal and persuasive writing. When you are writing to someone who has a formal title (e.g., Doctor, Professor, Dean, Judge, Senator) you should address him or her using that title. To do otherwise appears either ignorant or disrespectful. Whether or not you actually have any respect for the person is completely irrelevant. I take that back. It might be more important to follow the formal writing conventions when you don’t respect the individual person. Otherwise, you are risking trading the credibility of your entire message for the momentary satisfaction derived from communicating your disdain. When you embed a statement in a dependent clause, you are signaling to the reader that it is of lesser importance (e.g. “While we can appreciate your sacred right to the freedom of speech, ...”). If this was intentional, it undermines your message. If it was not intentional, it obscures it. Frame the issue precisely and then focus on it. Don’t overgeneralize. You begin by stating that the issue is my “inappropriate conduct,” which sounds very general. Then you narrow the issue to "specifically” one event that occurred on a particular day last semester. Your use of hyperbolic rhetoric throughout the memo suggests that you really are angry about more than just a T-shirt. If it really is about just the T-shirt, then by overgeneralizing from a specific occurrence, your message is swamped by exaggeration. If it really is about other “conduct” on my part, I can’t tell what that is. By the end of the memo you have lost focus completely, generalizing (in statements that are unexplained and inexplicable) about bar passage and about the faculty and administration of the entire law school. Be as clear as you can about everything, including the remedy you are seeking. You are not required to want anything specific, but I can’t tell whether you do or not. Perhaps you are demanding that I simply cease and desist from wearing a Black Lives Matter shirt. If that is it, the demand could have been stated clearly. Instead, it is mired in the generalities and the threatening and overblown rhetoric that I referred to above. DO NOT YELL AT THE READER. The power of your message should come from carefully chosen words that have been thoughtfully assembled, not from the size of your fonts. Capitalizing words does not make them more powerful, it just makes you look angry. In conclusion, I believe that every moment in life (and certainly in the life of law school) can be an occasion for teaching and learning. Thank you for creating an opportunity for me to put this deeply held belief into practice.
Statue of Athena Nike gift from Greece to city of Vancouver in 2010 on Flickr.
Statue of Athena Nike gift from Greece to city of Vancouver in 2010
Statue of Athena Nike gift from Greece to city of Vancouver in 2010 on Flickr.
Statue of Athena Nike gift from Greece to city of Vancouver in 2010
