Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Holga Experiment

Inspired by the various Holga pictures I've seen (notably on Apparently Nothing), I decided to experiment myself. The first few shots aren't precisely awe-inspiring but it's interesting to face the restrictions of non-digital photography again. Not having to ration film and being able to see results immediately (and re-shoot), can make life a bit too easy...

Monday, August 21, 2006


So. It's not that then. It'll be interesting to learn what those guys were up to and how severe a crime an incompetent conspiracy actually is...

Friday, August 18, 2006


I've just been reading up on the Michigan wire-tapping ruling and the injunction that accompanied the ruling (both pdf). It's a sad day when a government has to be told that 'there are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution.'

According to the BBC, 'the judge's ruling is on hold' until the Government appeals it (also, the NYT). I notice, however, that further down the NYT's article (which cover's President Bush's remarks on the case), the reporter says that 'the government said it would ask Judge Taylor to stay her order at the hearing on Sept. 7.' I wonder did she do that? If she did, can an signed injunction simply be shelved?

Since the Administration is almost certainly going to lose the case, but not definitively until it reaches the Supreme Court (barring a spectacular departure from two centuries of jurisprudence), are they going to be allowed keep the programme going until then? Or will the injunction stand?

Update: That last paragraph isn't very well put is it? Let's try that again! I think the administration is going to lose the case (because they cannot refute the key constitutional and legislative arguments on the limited scope of FISA and the limited powers of the Presidency). Stop. Also, I am wondering whether an injunction can be waived during a long series of appeals. One point isn't exactly related to the other!

Monday, August 07, 2006

Asked Out

I was very struck on Friday, listening to the World Tonight on the BBC, where they were talking about UN negotiations over the resolution on the Lebanon crisis. Remember - this was before the text of the resolution had been agreed. Claire Bolderson was interviewing Warren Hoge, the UN Correspondent of the New York Times when the following exchange took place (if you want to listen, it's at 15 minutes, 45seconds, here.
Bolderson: It's interesting that you say the British were involved in these negotiations and aren't any more. Why not?
Hoge: They were asked out really. I know this from both the French and the Americans. They really felt that the British were not helping and they decided that they would resolve this more easily among themselves.
Amazingly, there was no producer roaring down Bolderson's ear to pursuethis comment and she moved on to the next question. But I wonder what that was about. If I was to guess, and this is just a guess, I wonder if the British UN team was getting a clear line from London. Very strange nonetheless.

Saturday, August 05, 2006

Wednesday, August 02, 2006