“Made in Heaven”

MichaelBMoore-PhilipAndrew

Hot on the heels of the announcement of Conjoined, the girl-on-girl blockbuster of the year, comes the announcement of a production of Made in Heaven, a theatrical piece also examining the sex lives of conjoined twins. While Conjoined director B. Skow likes to take stories that interest him and “leave in the sex,” Made in Heaven takes a look at the logistics of how conjoined twins have sex, without the hardcore sex of Conjoined. As the Huffington Post recently reported, Conjoined examines female conjoined twins’ sex lives when one is gay while the other is straight.

Similarly, Made in Heaven’s conjoined twins, Ben and Max, share various organs, including that most important male organ, but one is straight while the other is gay. And it’s not until they propose to leading-lady Jessica that they find they must confront their differences.

It appears fascination with conjoined twins having sex is at an all time high with back-to-back productions on their way. Both directors have picked up on a long-overlooked nuance: the only thing more interesting than straight conjoined twins’ sex lives (a la Stuck on You and Chained for Life) is opposite-oriented conjoined twins. And why not: these stories looks at issues of sex, gender, how to have sex while your sibling’s in the room, and a never-ending game of Twister.

Catch Made in Heaven during Dallas’ Uptown Players’ Pride Performing Arts Festival this month.

See Conjoined this fall on DVD.

Advertisements

“Conjoined”

water_melon

“I thought about two hot twins who are connected and wondered, ‘What if one fell in love and wanted to be separated?'” he told The Huffington Post. “And I wondered if the other one would get jealous.”

So naturally you would make that into a stag film.

Via Huffington Post (NSFW).

See also Alice Dregers’ article on the sex lives of conjoined twins.

North Korean for Beer

repoman

The Taedonggang, named after Pyongyang’s river, is one of the city’s most notable nightlife stops, producing seven types of beer. Although these are named with typical Soviet flair — Beer Number 1, Beer Number 2, Beer Number 3 and so forth…

In Soviet Russia, Zhigulevskoye was virtually the only beer available, a much catchier name than Beer Number 1.

Via The Atlantic.

Don’t Get Caught Being a New Lawyer in Mississippi

h-armstrong-roberts-elderly-man-with-pockets-turned-inside-out-portrait_i-G-56-5634-CJEMG00Z

Everyone will agree there are too many lawyers and not enough jobs. But what states are suffering the worst? Matt Leichter, author of Law School Tuition Bubble, compiled lawyer job projections for 2010-2020 with anticipated graduates from ABA-accredited law schools to determine who’s the worst off. This list comes hot on the tail of news that law school applications declined for a third straight year:

• Mississippi (10.53 law grads for each job opening, according to initial numbers)

• Michigan (6.48 law grads for each job opening)

• Delaware (4.20 law grads for each job opening)

• Nebraska (4.04 law grads for each job opening)

• Vermont (3.50 law grads for each job opening)

• Massachusetts (3.27 law grads for each job opening)

• Indiana (3.03 law grads for each job opening)

• Oregon (2.98 law grads for each job opening)

• Louisiana (2.95 law grads for each job opening)

• New York (2.92 law grads for each job opening)

And way down at #26: California (1.99 law grads for each job opening). Rounding out the list, Alaska was ranked as one of the best because it had no grads from ABA-accredited law schools (0.00 law grad for each job opening). Running these numbers based on new bar admittees, Alaska, like all other states, suffers from an oversupply of lawyers.

Via The Atlantic.

Non-Conjoined Twins As Legal Actors

twins-poster-thumb

However, DNA matches have connected identical twins to the crime, but criminal charges cannot be pursued against them because their DNA is exactly the same and the victims cannot identify which of the twins may have committed the crime.

Via The Merc.

See also, Summers v. Tice and the case of the lawyer too clever by half.

Urban Dictionary Finds Place in Official Court Opinions

yolo-final

What once was restricted to Wikipedia, the scholarly source, has now extended to a research tool with potentially less integrity. In a recent piece, the New York Times reports on the growing use of urbandictionary.com as a dictionary of slang and colloquialisms legitimate enough for reference in official court opinions. As official, print dictionaries like Websters and the OED lag behind the parlance of our times, Urban Dictionary maintains an up to date, peer-reviewed list of common words.

Uses of Urban Dictionary, started in 1999 by founder Aaron Peckham from his college dorm, include last month’s Wisconsin opinion where the court sought to determine what was meant by two suspected robbers who referred to themselves as the “jack boys.” A court in Tennessee sought to define what a manager accused of sexual harassment by an employee meant when using the phrase “to nut.”

Prior to the inception of Urban Dictionary, courts would hire linguists to conduct surveys of the population to determine what was meant by a slang term, not found in any traditional dictionary. Now, anyone can provide a definition for a word, whether original or not, which must be approved by five other site users before appearing on the site.

While Rutgers law professor Greg Lastowka anticipates that the use of Urban Dictionary will become more prevalent, Peckham points to the inherent problem with using his site as a traditional dictionary:

[P]rivate analyses the site has conducted show that “funny” is the No. 1 reason people give for voting for posts.

Whether courts will take into account the demographics of the users of the site or that anyone and four of their friends can skew results remains to be seen. YOLO.

Via NYTimes.

Stream of Slurs, Threats Not Protected Under Constitution

Complainer-Yelling-Phone-into-Man-Person

The SF Chronicle reported this weekend on a decision by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in San Diego affirming that loud, angry, aggressive, and disruptive language is not constitutionally protected speech.

The case, In re Curtis S. (2013) Cal. Super. Ct. No. JCM230237, came on appeal after a conviction in juvenile court of three counts:  1) petty theft (Pen. Code,  § 484); 2) assault (§ 240); and 3) disturbing another person by loud and unreasonable noise (§ 415, subd. (2)). Testimony revealed that Curtis S., a minor, stole a cell phone from another student and was pursued by a good Samaritan who stopped her car in front of Curtis S., preventing him from getting away. He threw the phone into a construction site and then began yelling obscenities and threatening language at the woman. When she attempted to grab his arm to detain him, he swung at her with a closed fist. According to testimony, Curtis S. called someone on his own cell phone during the altercation and said, “you better get this lady, because I’m about to.” Police arrived and arrested Curtis S. for the theft and for threatening the woman.

On appeal, Curtis S. argued that the purpose of his speech was to communicate and that such speech was protected by the First Amendment. Section 415, subdivision (2) makes it a crime for any person to “maliciously and willfully disturb[] another person by loud and unreasonable noise.” The appellate court relying on In re Brown (1973) 9 Cal.3d 612, 621, found that creating a disturbance by making loud noises, shouting obscenities, and making threats verbally is not protected speech.

Further, the Supreme Court has recognized, “the protections afforded by the First Amendment, however, are not absolute, and . . . the government may regulate certain categories of expression consistent with the Constitution.”  (Virginia v. Black (2003) 538 U.S. 343, 358.)  Words may be restricted under the First Amendment where they are ” ‘ “of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.” ‘ ”  (Id. at pp. 358-359, citing R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) 505 U.S. 377, 382-383.)

In California, when is speech not protected? When it communicates nothing!

“The loud shouting of obscenities and threats was disruptive, rather than communicative in nature.”

Via SF Chronicle.

Read the opinion.