“– Sempre achei que essa história seria bem compreendida no Brasil, onde os rituais do candomblé são tão parecidos com os dos exorcistas marroquinos” — concluiu Tahir Shah (depois de contar como livrou a Casa do Califa de uma infestação de espíritos). Eu estava pronta para contestar, do alto do meu ateísmo e da minha descrença universal, quando me lembrei de um caso que me aconteceu há muitos e muitos anos, e que envolveu um Fiat 147, um contrabandista e uma mãe de santo. Eu contaria essa história agora com o maior prazer, mas como o espaço já está no fim, ela fica para a semana que vem.”

Assim terminou a crônica da semana passada. Cumpro a promessa:

O caso aconteceu há muito tempo, no começo de um ano de que não lembro mais. Eu havia passado o Réveillon no sítio, em Nova Friburgo, e já no dia primeiro estava na estrada, sozinha, a bordo do meu Fiat 147, voltando para o batente. Vinha distraída numa reta quando fui parada por um grupo de pessoas nervosas:

– Para! Para!

– Um desastre!

– Dois carros!

– Uma família inteira…

– As crianças, coitadas!

– Muito sangue!

– Uma desgraça, uma desgraça!

Todos falavam ao mesmo tempo. Ali na frente, a poucos metros, os dois veículos destruídos, uma figura que eu não sabia se estava viva ou morta no meio da estrada, mais adiante um carro branco com as portas abertas, cercado por outras pessoas.

É curioso como funcionam as nossas lembranças: eu não me lembro de ter registrado se o corpo na estrada era de homem ou de mulher, mas me lembro do carro branco em detalhes, um adesivo horizontal no vidro traseiro. Também me lembro de ter me perguntado de onde havia saído aquela gente toda, já que além dos carros envolvidos no acidente não havia nada na estrada a não ser o tal carro branco, mas logo percebi uma birosca na beira do mato e umas casinhas miúdas.

– Moça, você leva a mulher do carro, que está muito mal.

Não era uma pergunta. Também não era uma ordem. Era apenas a conclusão a que alguém havia chegado a respeito do que devia ser feito. Antes que eu pudesse responder, a porta traseira do Fiat já estava sendo aberta, e uma senhora, que sangrava muito, foi deitada no banco. Um dos homens que a havia trazido bateu a porta e me mandou correr.

– Ali adiante tem um hospital, não fica longe.

Pode até ser que ficasse perto, mas o tempo de chegar me pareceu uma eternidade. Era evidente até para mim, que nunca havia visto uma pessoa agonizante, que a pobre mulher estava morrendo: respirava em bolhas, fazendo um barulho surdo, terrível. Depois de um tempo o barulho acabou, mas o silêncio era ainda pior. No meio do caminho, um carro da polícia havia emparelhado com o meu, e sinalizado para que o seguisse. Os policiais me escoltaram até o hospital, tomaram todas as providências necessárias e me disseram que eu não precisava me preocupar com mais nada: meu nome não constaria do BO.

Cheguei ao Rio moída, as lembranças horríveis martelando na cabeça. Não consegui dormir. No dia seguinte bem cedo fui até o posto para lavar o Fiat, mas quando viram aquela sangueira toda os funcionários se recusaram a tocar no carro. Percorri os outros postos da vizinhança, e em todos encontrei a mesma reação. Finalmente voltei para casa e o porteiro cuidou do assunto.

Mas o carro ficou esquisito; algo continuava errado. Mandei lavá-lo num lavajato. Não adiantou. Levei-o ao posto que, segundo meus amigos, fazia a limpeza mais bacana da cidade. Troquei os tapetes. E nada. Passei a me sentir muito mal dentro do querido Fiat e, muito a contragosto, decidi vendê-lo.

– Mas vai vender o carro novinho, que acabou de comprar? — perguntou o My
Friend, meu amigo contrabandista. — Por que?

Contei o que havia acontecido.

– É, a energia ficou pesada, — constatou. — Liga para a Mãe Deocleciana, ela pode dar um jeito nisso.

Fazia sentido. Com quem mais eu poderia resolver um problema daqueles? De modo que, no dia seguinte, liguei para o número que ele me havia dado. Mãe Deocleciana atendeu do outro lado, muito gentil. Eu disse quem era, falei do My Friend e contei a história.

– Que coisa, minha filha. Você tem um bom advogado?

– Tenho sim.

– Perfeito, perfeito. Isso é o mais importante. Pessoa morta, sangue no carro, não se pode facilitar com essas coisas… Agora você vai levar esse carro numa encruzilhada, vai acender uma vela em cada esquina e vai queimar uma buchinha de café dentro dele, viu?

Ela me ensinou como fazer a tal buchinha e, na calada da noite, lá fui eu para uma encruzilhada no Andaraí, morta de medo de ser vista por algum amigo. Cumpri as instruções, envergonhadíssima por ter embarcado naquela bobagem.

Mas, no dia seguinte, quando peguei o carro para levá-lo à revendedora, ele estava curado: voltara a ser o meu lindo Fiat 147, com as boas vibrações de sempre. Continuamos juntos e felizes ainda por vários anos. Quando liguei para Mãe Deocleciana para agradecer e para perguntar quanto lhe devia, ela respondeu que não era nada, ora essa. E despediu-se com um conselho:

– Cuidado na estrada!

(O Globo, Segundo Caderno, 2.10.2014)

tastefullyoffensive:

Video: John Oliver Shoots Celebrities with a Salmon Cannon

tumblr »» youtube

Surely you've heard about this. A Texas court — full of old men, reeking of misogyny — has ruled that taking upskirt photos of unwilling women is free speech protected by the First Amendment!

How ridiculous! How despicable!

I mean, at least — that's what I think happened, based on how the story has been reported and talked about.

Consider, say — the Mary Sue, a really very good blog that deals with how pop culture treats women. Here's how they headlined and wrote about it:

Kansas City, Missouri May Soon Outlaw Catcalling; Texas Lifts Proposed Ban on Upskirt Photos

. . .

Just this week, Texas’ highest criminal court threw out a state law banning “improper photography” like upskirts and other invasive images taken without consent —in a decision ostensibly meant to protect “free speech” that will just protect perpetrators instead.

You think a blog is a bad example? OK, take The Guardian:

Texas court upholds right to take 'upskirt' pictures

A court has upheld the constitutional right of Texans to photograph strangers as an essential component of freedom of speech – even if those images should happen to be surreptitious “upskirt” pictures of women taken for the purposes of sexual gratification.

It's not all progressives. Look at Breitbart:

Texas Court: Ban on 'Upskirt' Photos Violates First Amendment Rights

HOUSTON, Texas — Texas' highest criminal court threw out a law on Wednesday banning "improper photography in public." Banning such photography, which includes "upskirting" or "downblousing" for the purpose of sexual gratification, would be considered a violation of free speech.

Or, on the other side, Salon:

Texas court throws out “upskirt” photo law, because banning creepshots is “paternalistic”

Texas’ highest criminal court struck down part of a law banning “upskirt” photos on Wednesday, arguing that photos taken without permission in public are entitled to First Amendment protections. Outlawing “improper photography or visual recording,” the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals panel ruled, would be a violation of federal free-speech rights and a “paternalistic” effort to regulate the photographers’ thoughts.

If you read those articles — if you read most of the coverage of this decision — you would conclude that (1) Texas had a law banning upskirt photos, and (2) a Texas court struck down the law because upskirt photos are protected by the First Amendment and can't be banned.

Or, you could, you know, read the actual court decision to see what the court said. Mike Masnick at Techdirt did so, and found that the decision didn't much resemble its coverage.

First, take the statute that was at issue. It's Texas Penal Code section 21.15(b)(1).

(b) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of another at a location that is not a bathroom or private dressing room:

(A) without the other person's consent; and

(B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

That odd "not a bathroom" clause, by the way, is there because there's a separate part of the statute that deals with filming in bathrooms and dressing rooms — which the Texas court did not strike down.

So. Let's consider this a minute. Taking a picture of someone in public with the intent to gratify anyone sexually is a felony under this statute.

Is this picture a felony?

That depends on whether a jury thinks that the photographer took it for anyone's sexual gratification. Could you get arrested for taking the picture? That would depend on whether a cop thinks that you are taking the picture for sexual gratification. The picture is iconic; it depends upon apparent juxtaposition of a heavily-policed riot and a passionate embrace. I'm sure the cops will have a nuanced view of it when you're standing there taking pictures. No doubt someone finds the picture sexually stimulating. If you take the picture, with the intent to put it on the internet, and you know what the internet is like, are you committing a felony? Does it depend on whether you intended that people would be stimulated by it, or merely knew that they would?

How about this picture?

Various people find Jake and/or Maggie Gyllenhaal to be sexually stimulating. Many of these people probably read the papers and magazines that print pictures of them at the beach. The photographers know this, which is why they take the pictures, so they can sell them to the papers and magazines. Has the photographer committed a felony? Does it depend on how "hot" the picture is? Does whether it is a felony depend on whether Jake is wearing a rash guard?

Perhaps you think that's a ridiculous question, that I'm making up stupid slippery slopes. The Texas court doesn't think so.

This statute could easily be applied to an entertainment reporter who takes a photograph of an attractive celebrity on a public street.

How do we know it won't? We don't. We're supposed to rely on the discretion of cops and prosecutors. We're supposed to believe that when a statute allows the government to arrest and prosecute you for a wide range of conduct based on its subjective evaluation of your mental state, that they won't abuse it to go after people they don't like. But experience teaches that cops will, in fact, harass photographers given a chance.

But wait, you say. The Texas court didn't just say that! They said that upskirts are protected by the First Amendment!

No. They didn't. In fact, they explicitly said they weren't saying that.

Here's what the court did. Faced with a challenge to the statute, it first addressed whether photography in general is protected by the First Amendment. The answer — which I hope you will be happy to hear — is yes.

The second question is a bit trickier. Is photography an inherently expressive act that triggers the First Amendment, or does it depend on whether any given photograph has a "particularized message?" The Texas court weighed the precedents — parades are inherently expressive, flag-burning may or may not be expressive depending on the circumstances — and decided that photography is inherently expressive. The court quoted Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston, which pointed out that demanding an individualized show of "particularized message" tends to chill and suppress speech:

As some of these examples show, a narrow, succinctly articulable message is not a condition of constitutional protection, which if confined to expressions conveying a "particularized message," cf. Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 411 (1974) (per curiam), would never reach the unquestionably shielded painting of Jackson Pollock, music of Arnold Schönberg, or Jabberwocky verse of Lewis Carroll.

The third question is also tricky. Even if photography is generally protected, is this statute limited at only specifically unprotected types of photography? That's what the state argued — that because the statute only applied to photography intended to cause sexual gratification, it only applied to unprotected photography. Not so, said the court. Not everything designed for sexual gratification is unprotected. In fact, a large amount of sexual expression is protected. Here, the law bans both protected expression — say, taking a photograph of an attractive celebrity on the street — and unprotected expression, like child pornography or obscenity. The fact that something is designed to cause sexual arousal doesn't take it outside the protections of the First Amendment:

Banning otherwise protected expression on the basis that it produces sexual arousal or gratification is the regulation of protected thought, and such a regulation is outside the government’s power . . . .

But what about the "without consent" clause? Can the government ban non-consensual photographs? The state thought so — they argued that the lack of consent makes the ban constitutional, even though it would still apply to the hypothetical celebrity on the street. But, as the Texas court points out, the state is vague on the details. The state conceded in this case that we all effectively consent to being photographed when we go out in public to some extent, but argues there are some circumstances — which it can't define — in which that consent is no longer implied. But the First Amendment doesn't permit such ambiguity. Here the Texas court found that the state's definition of consent was so vague that it wasn't clear whether or not the defendant's conduct (taking pictures of women and children in bathing suits at a water park) would be illegal or not.

So, does that resolve the issue? No, it does not. That merely means that the statute bans some protected conduct. The next question is whether the state has a sufficiently compelling reason to ban that conduct. Here's where the coverage was the most woefully misleading. The court explicitly suggests that a law banning upskirts may survive First Amendment analysis:

We agree with the State that substantial privacy interests are invaded in an intolerable manner when a person is photographed without consent in a private place, such as the home, or with respect to an area of the person that is not exposed to the general public, such as up a skirt.

But this statute doesn't do that. This statute bans non-consensual photography (with a definition of consent that is not clear even to the state prosecuting under the statute) if someone has sexual intent. As the court points out, the state is perfectly capable of drafting a narrower statute, and does so in the next subsection by banning nonconsensual photography in bathrooms and private dressing rooms.

So — shouldn't the court just uphold convictions when they are for clearly unprotected conduct (say, a photo of a child that qualifies as child pornography, or a picture that qualifies as obscenity, or an unquestionable invasion of privacy like an upskirt), and strike down the ones that are for protected conduct? That's not how First Amendment analysis works. Under the overbreadth doctrine, if a statute poses a "realistic" risk of banning a "substantial" amount of protected speech, the whole thing fails. Here, the court found that the statute's reach was "breathtaking." Therefore, even though there might be some constitutional applications, the statute is unconstitutional.

But wait. What about that extremely douchey part where the Texas court said that banning non-consensual pervy photography was "paternalistic" to the women it sought to protect? What assholes!

Well, actually, that's not what they said at all.

Protecting someone who appears in public from being the object of sexual thoughts seems to be the sort of “paternalistic interest in regulating the defendant’s mind” that the First Amendment was designed to guard against. [emphasis added by irritable blogger]

The court was talking about being paternalistic to defendants by regulating sexual thoughts, not paternalistic to victims of creepshots.

So, to sum up, allow me to mainsplain:

Sometimes the rule of law — due process, application of established rules, procedures, and rights — result in nasty people getting away with bad things. That makes us angry. But it's not about how we feel.

The Texas court didn't say upskirts are protected by the First Amendment. Texas could probably ban upskirts, if it did a halfway-competent job of drafting a sufficiently narrow statute.

But who's going to get outraged about that?

If you're wondering why I give a shit, consider this: our freedoms are recognized or denied based on court rulings. Our understanding of those court rulings often derives from media coverage of them. When we do a lousy job of covering law, or when we put up with journalists doing so, we're doing a lousy job as citizens.

Texas Court Makes Upskirts Mandatory, Outlaws Kittens, Hates Your Mother © 2007-2014 by the authors of Popehat. This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only. Using this feed on any other site is a copyright violation. No scraping.

Video: John Oliver Shoots Celebrities with a Salmon Cannon

Paralelní Polis, which in Czech means “Parallel World,” is known mostly for being perhaps the world’s first bitcoin-only cafe. (Here’s my photo essay of what it’s like to buy coffee in the shop.) All transactions — from wages to point of sale — are processed virtually, using one of the most well-recognized cryptocurrencies. More broadly though, the recently-renovated space, which includes a co-working room and hacker space, was conceived as way to demonstrate on a micro level how an entirely decentralized society might function.

There is more here, and supposedly there is no hierarchy among the employees either.  The original pointer was from Ángel Cabrera.

sistermaryfake:

mx-ro:

brown-likeme:

nizhonibird:

sikssaapo-p:

THE TRUTH OF NATIVE AMERICANS BEFORE THE GENOCIDE

Gotta put this on blast.
We never needed a white savior.

I hate this country.

What I learned from this video:

• 100 million Native Americans died at the hands of white colonists

• Instead of planting crops the colonists spent their days digging random holes in the ground looking for gold. They started starving and dug up Indian corpses to eat. They took Indian prisoners and forced them to teach the colonists how to farm
• Native Americans had massive cities with tens of thousands of well constructed houses, intricate water canals and large merchant areas.

• The Native Americans used soaps, deodorants and breath sweeteners while colonists never bathed or even took of their clothes

• There was a delousing policy with the mantra Nits create Lice; nits being Native American babies, so their goal was to kill every Indian, including babies 

• In the 1700’s 80% of the Federal Budget went towards eradicating the Native American population so they could take their developed farmland

• Colonists leaders went town after town killing men women and children under the approval of George Washington

• "Pursue Indians to extermination" -Thomas Jefferson

• California governor (1849-1851): “extermination must continue to be waged until the Indian becomes extinct”

The main factor which prevented Native American extinction was the fact they were used for slave labor. The most prized Native Americans were young girls who were said to be valued for labor and lust (that one white dude in your ethnic studies class that says he’s 1/36th Cherokee?)

In modern times children were forced into Indian Boarding Schools whose goal was to “Kill the Indian in them”. It was federal policy. They were beaten if they used their native tongue, they were forced to dress and style their hair like whites 

This country was literally built on terrorism and mass murder. White people are savage terrorists.

Until, this is taught in schools everywhere- “history class” is merely a racism propaganda course.

Things to marinate on this “holiday” weekend

Can you see it? [via]

northeastnature:

This plant is a ghostly parasite. Most plants use a green pigment to make food from the sun, but some, like this Indian pipe (Monotropa uniflora), steal nutrients from fungi that are connected to tree roots. Without the need for sun, this plant can grow on gloomy forest floors. I think it’s rather pretty, but you won’t see it in a garden any time soon. To grow one, you’d need to transport the whole system - unsuspecting trees and fungi - too.

paulamaf2013:

keithboykin:

“If you ask a Republican in Congress if they believe in climate change they say ‘Well, no…I’m not a scientist.’ But when it comes to a woman’s right to choose, suddenly they’re a doctor.”

- President Obama in Michigan on Saturday campaigning for Gary Peters.

BURRRRRRRRRRRNNNNNN

monobeartheater:

ultrafacts:

Sources: 1 2/2/2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Follow Ultrafacts for more facts

hey reminder that american stereotypes of mexico prevented be from knowing any of this and lead me to believe that mexico was a crime ridden horrible place

When howling together, no two wolves will howl on the same note. Instead, they harmonize to create the illusion that there are more of them than there actually are. Source