But there is one thing that has always been a mystery to us. All sane and righteous parts of the Western world celebrate, if I may so describe the activities involved, a thing called "Halloween". This thing called "Halloween" is fixed, by traditions of century-long – nay, millenia-long – standing; it is All Hallows' Eve, the night before All Saint's day, November first. Ergo, Halloween is the evening of October 31st, no ifs, ands, or buts.
But. For some reason, here in central Iowa, Halloween is Not Allowed. Poof! Just like that, by some mysterious community decree, the thing has vanished. What is allowed is some pale imitation called "Beggar's Night", which is 'celebrated', in anemic fashion, on the night before Halloween, or maybe the weekend before, or whenever the meddling civic leaders decree it to be so. Oh, and the city clamps a draconian curfew upon activities also, which better be wrapped up by 7:30pm.
I've asked locals what the meaning of all this is. No one can really say, other than to mumble something about it being necessary for public safety, the implication being that hordes of drunken high school kids would rampage through the town if this heavy-handed interference were not in place. Or maybe it's hordes of drunken college kids. (That at least would have some precedent.) But I've lived in other towns with both high schools and colleges, and none seemed to have this problem. Perhaps there is some dark impulse hidden deep in the Norwegian soul that goes on a rampage if given the chance on late October nights. Perhaps. But nobody seems to offer any evidence that said drunken rampaging is likely to occur; perhaps the adults just got together and decided that Halloween was just a little too rich, a little too wild, and dealing with young people was just too much of a burden, so they decided to clamp down.
Elsewhere: the ranting kid opines.
UPDATE (10/31): The heavy hand of the State adds insult to injury.
Interestingly, when I looked at the image, my first thought* was that it was spinning in one direction only, and I simply could not get it to flip and spin the opposite way; whereas Moira could get it to flip much more easily. I was finally able to get it to flip by scrolling the screen so that only the feet and lower legs showed, and then also viewing the screen obliquely rather than straight on. Apparently, once my brain had latched on to too many apparent visual cues, it was impossible for it to make the switch.
(Also discussed by the erudite minds here, and here. In truth, it never occurred to me that Crow faced any direction but the screen.)
In contrast, with a simpler figure, (e.g., your basic Necker cube), I can make the switch much more easily. Being able to stop the rotation helps, too.
Moira here: "...once my brain had latched on to too many visual cues". Hmmm, perhaps the image is a tad distracting for straight male viewers? (See footnote.) Note Fleck had to get the lower legs only in his visual field to get the image to flip. I speculate that pertinent neurons were otherwise occupied, otherwise.
*Actually, my first thought was, "Whoa! Nice body!"
- Where was this picture taken?
- No, I mean, exactly where was this picture taken?
- Why is the image blurred? (The correct answer to 2. provides a valuable clue!)
UPDATE. Ok, I guess that's as much participation as I'm going to get. So, it's obviously Washington, D.C., but where in Washington? Determining the compass direction of the photo becomes key. For instance: that ruddy sky – sunrise or sunset? The crescent moon provides a valuable clue - on Sept. 15th, the crescent moon was only visible in the evening hours, rising at 10:48 a.m. and setting at 8:54 p.m. Therefore it is sunset, and the picture looks south and west. Or you could look at the EXIF data on the Flickr page for when the picture was taken. (Also, the dome of the Jefferson Memorial is visible just to the left of the Washington Monument, which is to its north.) So the picture is taken from the north, and just to the east, of the Washington Monument. The large, light-rimmed expanse in the center of the image is the Ellipse, so we must be north of that, placing us just east of the White House, and obviously at some elevation – a small plane or helicopter would never be allowed so close to the White House, so we must be on a building of some sort. The White House is out, as is the neighboring Treasury building, and so that places the picture-taking point on top of the next building over, the Hotel Washington. Which just happens to have a nifty open-air terrace bar overlooking the city, and at which I had no place to sit, so I had to juggle my Sam Adams in one hand while trying to keep the camera steady with the other. I was not very successful. (The terrace is visible in this picture, right on the midline and two inches from the left edge.)
This whole pointless exercise inspired by this post.
Even in a crowd of Democrats in the college town of Iowa City, mingling over lemonade and apple pie at their annual barbecue, it was hard to find many people who had so much as heard of the king of all liberal blogs, Daily Kos. (“Daily Post?” one man repeated quizzically.)
Of course, this is mostly true because Iowa is full of old fart luddites. Possibly the mighty power of the Web is a bit more – mighty – in more happening, with-it places.
"...with respect to S2087 (the Native American Omnibus Corrections Act of 2007) all of the sections of the bill are similar to sections which were previously approved by the committee or passed by the Senate in the 109th Congress. So it's my hope that the committee and the full Senate can speedily enact these provisions into law."
Well, if by "similar", you mean "completely opposite in content and intent", then I guess the above is an accurate description of Section 2 of S.2087. (Follow the link, select "bill number" and search on "S2087".) And I'm sure the bit about "hope" and "speedily enact" is accurate.
If you are interested but not up to speed on this issue, please check out my category archive page or (not quite perfectly updated) post links page. (The former link goes to complete posts but only goes back to 2005. The latter lists links to all the actual posts on both this and the old blog.. One of these I shall rationalize my archives. )
The issue, in a nutshell, is this: NAGPRA (the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act) was enacted to make sure that Indian tribes could exercise control over ancestral remains and artifacts, and prevent and redress any abuses of that right. Problems arise when groups make claims to remains or artifacts to which they are unable to demonstrate the ancestral or cultural affiliation which would trigger NAGPRA's provisions and legally privilege their claims over those of other interested parties. The most famous of these disputed cases is that of the Kennewick Man, in which the courts (after years of appeals) ruled in favor of scientists and the general public interest against tribal claimants. The latter were unable to persuade the courts that Kennewick Man was their ancestor.
Immediately, parties that were unhappy with the Kennewick decision attempted to amend NAGPRA to ensure that any and all pre-1492 artifacts and remains would be legally defined as falling under the purview of that legislation, no matter what "absurd results" (as the Kennewick Man plaintiffs' lawyers explained) this definition might entail, and no matter what new evidence about the peopling of the New World comes to light. Essentially, S2087 Section 2, like its failed predecessors, will function to suppress new information, and enshrines the religious beliefs - about history and origins - of a select group of citizens into law, which is of course a direct violation of the First Amendment.
See Kate Riley's Seattle Times piece and a National Review editorial.
And, as always, keep up on these issues at Friends of America's Past.
Update: We're out of town this weekend, to toodle along the Great River Road and finally explore Effigy Mounds National Monument. Here's an editorial from the Seattle Times arguing against the amendment. Be on the lookout in the same souce for a feature article (this Sunday?) from Kate Riley, who writes extensively on the topic. Word is that John J. Miller of National Review will have a piece up there on Monday.
Enjoy your weekend.
(Related posts here.)
