Piffling: Differential Geography, Islandness and a Fictional Channel Island

Wooden Overcoats is an independent comedy fiction podcast from 2015 about rival funeral homes set on the fictional island of Piffling. Study of the podcast offers a window into contemporary fictional Channel Island representation, a critique of which can help in comprehending the space and place of islands in literary studies more broadly. This article explores Wooden Overcoats in terms of small island representation (i.e., islandness) and how this contributes to discourse in the field of Island Studies. Focus is given to the ideas of differential geography, islandness and a fictional Channel Island. The podcast’s metaphorical language is deconstructed within a dialectics of space and place in order to foreground signifiers of cultural meaning that can help uncover meaning about the ontology of islands and the epistemology of islandness. Contrary to the cliché of social island insularity, Wooden Overcoats presents Piffling’s islanders as mostly open-minded and welcoming of outsiders. However, while the idea of ‘converse parody’ offers a surface-level depiction of islandness, this method of representation actually helps to reinforce the stereotype it’s aiming to counter. Whether remote, hostile or paradisiacal, islands have a character that can capture the creative imagination. Such inventiveness is played out in Wooden Overcoats in two main ways: (i) the island of Piffling is presented as central to the storyline, which portrays the lives of its islanders; and (ii) the social dynamics of Piffling are presented as a converse island parody in that the story portrays islanders in ways that refute stereotypical depictions that are typical in everyday discourse about island society

Was Atwater v. Lago Vista Decided Correctly? The Fourth Amendment's Shadow and Simulacra of Police Brutality and the American Dream

Atwater v. Lago Vista is a stand-alone case in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Often basic Fourth Amendment jurisprudence builds off other case law. There is a clear buildup regarding the exclusionary rule from Weeks v. United States (1914) to Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States (1920) to the expansion of “the fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine to Mapp v. Ohio (1961) incorporating U.S. Constitution the Fourth Amendment to the states. Likewise, there are cases building up from the incorporation into the states from United States v. Leon (1984) to Arizona v. Evans (1995), expanding Fourth Amendment case law and rights. The cavalcade of these cases somewhat plays a ballet of expanding and contracting the rights in certain circumstances. But the rights build off and limit each other in a cognizable method. Atwater v. Lago Vista is not based on such a cavalcade of cases. It is a stand-alone case at best citing 1600s case law, norms, and rules from before the founding of the United States. Granted, the United States adopted much of the English jurisprudence in the founding of the United States. Although Atwater does not deal with the exclusionary rule, the case law of the exclusionary rule depicts how Fourth Amendment Supreme Court cases build on top of oneanother. Atwater does not. It is a stand-alone case in the jurisprudence neither adhering nor not adhering to the principles of stare decisis. This article first summarizes the facts of the Atwater v. Lago Vista case and comments on the social and cultural implications of such facts. Then the article lays out the procedural posture of the Atwater case. Thereafter, this article examines the unique legal reasoning of the case suggesting that the case was incorrectly decided. After discussing the Atwater case, the article explores how subsequent case law interpreted and cited the Atwater case. Finally, the article concludes with the implications of Atwater, its progeny, and what this case means for future case law.<br/

Was Atwater v. Lago Vista Decided Correctly? The Fourth Amendment's Shadow and Simulacra of Police Brutality and the American Dream

Atwater v. Lago Vista is a stand-alone case in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Often basic Fourth Amendment jurisprudence builds off other case law. There is a clear buildup regarding the exclusionary rule from Weeks v. United States (1914) to Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States (1920) to the expansion of “the fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine to Mapp v. Ohio (1961) incorporating U.S. Constitution the Fourth Amendment to the states. Likewise, there are cases building up from the incorporation into the states from United States v. Leon (1984) to Arizona v. Evans (1995), expanding Fourth Amendment case law and rights. The cavalcade of these cases somewhat plays a ballet of expanding and contracting the rights in certain circumstances. But the rights build off and limit each other in a cognizable method. Atwater v. Lago Vista is not based on such a cavalcade of cases. It is a stand-alone case at best citing 1600s case law, norms, and rules from before the founding of the United States. Granted, the United States adopted much of the English jurisprudence in the founding of the United States. Although Atwater does not deal with the exclusionary rule, the case law of the exclusionary rule depicts how Fourth Amendment Supreme Court cases build on top of oneanother. Atwater does not. It is a stand-alone case in the jurisprudence neither adhering nor not adhering to the principles of stare decisis. This article first summarizes the facts of the Atwater v. Lago Vista case and comments on the social and cultural implications of such facts. Then the article lays out the procedural posture of the Atwater case. Thereafter, this article examines the unique legal reasoning of the case suggesting that the case was incorrectly decided. After discussing the Atwater case, the article explores how subsequent case law interpreted and cited the Atwater case. Finally, the article concludes with the implications of Atwater, its progeny, and what this case means for future case law.<br/

Was Atwater v. Lago Vista Decided Correctly? The Fourth Amendment's Shadow and Simulacra of Police Brutality and the American Dream

Atwater v. Lago Vista is a stand-alone case in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Often basic Fourth Amendment jurisprudence builds off other case law. There is a clear buildup regarding the exclusionary rule from Weeks v. United States (1914) to Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States (1920) to the expansion of “the fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine to Mapp v. Ohio (1961) incorporating U.S. Constitution the Fourth Amendment to the states. Likewise, there are cases building up from the incorporation into the states from United States v. Leon (1984) to Arizona v. Evans (1995), expanding Fourth Amendment case law and rights. The cavalcade of these cases somewhat plays a ballet of expanding and contracting the rights in certain circumstances. But the rights build off and limit each other in a cognizable method. Atwater v. Lago Vista is not based on such a cavalcade of cases. It is a stand-alone case at best citing 1600s case law, norms, and rules from before the founding of the United States. Granted, the United States adopted much of the English jurisprudence in the founding of the United States. Although Atwater does not deal with the exclusionary rule, the case law of the exclusionary rule depicts how Fourth Amendment Supreme Court cases build on top of oneanother. Atwater does not. It is a stand-alone case in the jurisprudence neither adhering nor not adhering to the principles of stare decisis. This article first summarizes the facts of the Atwater v. Lago Vista case and comments on the social and cultural implications of such facts. Then the article lays out the procedural posture of the Atwater case. Thereafter, this article examines the unique legal reasoning of the case suggesting that the case was incorrectly decided. After discussing the Atwater case, the article explores how subsequent case law interpreted and cited the Atwater case. Finally, the article concludes with the implications of Atwater, its progeny, and what this case means for future case law.<br/

Prediction of Things to Come for Exceptional Children and Adults as Seen through the Eyes of Science Fiction Writers

The problem is that education has not, to any degree, looked at science fiction as a source of information related to future problems in the lives of exceptional children and adults. By looking at science fiction that has won the Hugo and Nebula awards, it will be the purpose of this paper to examine a number of problems. 1, It will be the task of the author to show that science fiction has both in intent and by accident been a reliable predictor of future events. 2. The author will look at science fiction and identify the ways science fiction can and will, for the purpose of this paper, be used as a prognosticator of the future events in the lives of exceptional children and adults. 3, By looking at these events, the authon will be able to make recommendations as to the prediction of future events and show that science fiction is a viable tool for prognostication. 4. The author will look to an effective method of using science fiction as a prognosticator of the future course of events in the lives of exceptional children and adults

Critical Practice

This book is available as open access through the Bloomsbury Open Access programme and is available on www.bloomsburycollections.com. What is the relationship between theory and practice in the creative arts today? In Critical Practice, Martin McQuillan offers a critical interrogation of the idea of practice-led research. He goes beyond the recent vocabulary of research management to consider the more interesting question of the emergence of a cultural space in which philosophy, theory, history and practice are becoming indistinguishable. McQuillan considers the work of a number of writers and thinkers who cross the divide between theoretical and creative practice, including Alain Badiou and Terry Eagleton, and the longer tradition of 'theory-writing' that runs through the work of Hélène Cixous, Roland Barthes and Louis Althusser. His aim is to elucidate the contemporary ramifications of a relationship that has been contested throughout the long history of philosophy, from Plato's dialogues to Derrida's 'Envois'