For any of you reading the Resurrection AU: A question and a note

For the one or two of you out there who have expressed interest in the clothes our heroes might parade around in in the crack AU (or for anyone else interested), a pseudo contest. Since it has been firmly established that I am little but Ashley’s puppet, dancing haplessly to her tune, I’ve started working on the next story, and I need someone to give me a suggestion on designer clothing. Give me the name of a designer who would fulfill the following criteria: ridiculously expensive (the more outrageous, the better); men’s clothing (in particular silk shirts--though fabric is not actually a big deal); would be considered trendy by a young British gentleman (or a knight formerly from the 5th century); and is known (or it would not be unheard of) for the clothing to be bright and multi-colored. If more than one of you ventures an opinion, do feel free to fight it out among yourselves, or I’ll just end up flipping a coin or something. ; )

Prize? Um. You can pick the name of an original character that’s supposed to appear in the next chapter if you want. Details to the winner on request.

Oh, and in case anyone is interested in my crazy flailing the actual plot, I’ve made a very small change to Trouble in the Making to adjust for my caffeine-induced delusions of what I think the plot might be. Huge bonus points to anyone who figures out what I changed.

Thanks to those of you reading the fic and to any of you who choose to play!

I lose my zen (well, I probably never really had it in the first place)

I have been pretty much biting my tongue for the last week in an effort to not start ranting about the Gonzales "testimony" and other current events, but my tongue is bleeding now, so I have to point anyone interested to a piece by Reza Aslan on the Danish cartoon fiasco.

He writes:

So, while in Europe and the United States the row over the cartoons has been painted as a conflict between secular democratic freedoms and arcane religious dogma, the controversy is really about neither. Instead, it's another manifestation of the ongoing ethnic and religious tensions that have been simmering beneath the surface of European society for decades, like last year's Paris riots and the murder two years ago of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh.

In the minds of many Muslims in Europe, the cartoons were intentionally inflammatory, published to further humiliate an ethnic and religious minority that has been socially and economically repressed for decades. Indeed, it seems as though the cartoons were deliberately meant to provoke precisely the reaction they did. . . .

. . . .

And that is why as a Muslim American I am enraged by the publication of these cartoons. Not because they offend my prophet or my religion, but because they fly in the face of the tireless efforts of so many civic and religious leaders—both Muslim and non-Muslim—to promote unity and assimilation rather than hatred and discord; because they play into the hands of those who preach extremism; because they are fodder for the clash-of-civilizations mentality that pits East against West. For all of that I blame Jyllands-Posten. We in the West want Muslim leaders to condemn the racial and religious prejudices that are so widespread in the Muslim world. Let us lead by example.

( full text here )

And because I can't help myself, I have to add that, as someone who has gone to law school, I find Gonzales's argument for the legality of the administration's wiretapping to be utterly, completely and irredeemably laughable. A 1L who made this argument in law school would be torn apart by the professor. One of the basic principles for statutory interpretation is that, if the law is not clear on its face, and in the absence of controlling precedent, one looks to the intent of the legislative body that passed the law. In the absence of legislative intent, no go. Straight to jail, man--unless of course the judge is in your pocket.

Of course I'm being a bit facetious (but only a tiny bit) and it's slightly more complicated. If anyone's interested, a basic outline of the arguments (and why they're wrong according to the Congressional Research Service--which is a nonpartisan research arm of Congress) can be found here.

Ok. Resuming tongue biting.