The Manahatta Muir web. Photo credit: The Mannahatta Project / Wildlife Conservation Society and Chris Harrison / Carnegie-Mellon University.

What would the island of Manhattan have looked like to Henry Hudson when he first arrived in 1609? In 2000, the landscape ecologist Eric Sanderson began using a combination of cartographic analysis, modern computational geography, and old-fashioned scientific sleuthing to imagine just that. Sanderson’s investigation was presented as an exhibition at the Museum of the City of New York (May 20, 2009 through Oct 12, 2009) and published as a book (Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 2009), both titled Mannahatta/Manhattan: A Natural History of New York City.

Both a strong moral tenor and constructive optimism resounds throughout the comparisons that Sanderson draws between the ecology of Manhattan today and the time of the Native American people (the Lenapes). One particularly emblematic moment is Sanderson’s notion of a “grammar of habitat” comprised of a series of “habitat sentences.” Each sentence consists of the following elements:

A subject, or species (e.g., “beaver”, ”bird”, “insect”)

An object, or elements requires to support this species (e.g., “a slowly meandering stream,” “aspen trees”, “alder shrubs”, “willow thickets”, and “area near the water”)

And a predicate that links them, defining the type of dependency (e.g., “the stream supplies water and shelter,” “the trees supply shelter and food,” “the tree supplies materials for a bird’s nest,” etc.)

In other words, each habitat sentence comprised of a subject, object, and predicate that together produce a language of ecological interdependency.

Sanderson’s illustrations, featuring animals at home in a bucolic natural settings, begs the reader to examine his/her “grammar of habitat.”  When rigorously examined, cheeky initial responses like my own (“The metrosexual at home with his/her hair gel, monthly metrocard, tofurkey sandwich on rye toasted light with a little bit of mayo, daily digest of various news feeds, etc.) eventually give way to meaningful and fundamental interrogations about the natural resources upon which we rely and their underlying cultural values.  Sanderson himself reflects upon the recursive nature of the exercise:

“Like the parent of that child who won’t stop asking ‘why?’ we eventually had to define the ‘stops’ — questions we could not answer; otherwise, the search would be infinite and the Manahatta Project never-ending. Stops are elements that we could not or would not define the habitat sentence for; they include time, space, geology, climate, and the strange and surprising turns of human culture. I’m not a sociologist; I wouldn’t try to explain why the Lenape told stories of how the earth formed on a turtle’s back. I simply accept it as a given that they did” (Sanderson: 190).

Thus, by mapping the ‘givens’ (the agreed-upon elements) within a taxonomic structure, the muir web also represents the stops that demarcate the contours of ecological world-views (epistemes).  And it’s exactly at these ‘stops’ that in fact shift a regard of the landscape as an aftermath to one that recognizes the possibilities of the otherwise.

More about this can be found online at http://www.wcs.org/mannahatta

3pm, 4pm, 5pm at Storefront
Tuesday 7 – Saturday 11 April

Final screening with director’s presentation
7pm Saturday 11 April

China Town traces copper mining and production from an open pit mine in
Nevada to a smelter in China, where the semi-processed ore is sent to be
smelted and refined. Considering what it actually means to “be wired”
and in turn, to be connected, the video follows the detailed production
process that transforms raw ore into copper wire-in this case, the
literal digging of a hole to China-and the generation of waste and of power that
grows in both countries as byproduct. Animated from sequences of digital
still photographs and ambient sound recorded on location, China Town
focuses on the contemporary recycling of the American landscape and
industrial economy as raw mineral wealth for a developing nation.

From http://www.storefrontnews.org/films.php

The Really Really Free Market is a bazaar and a celebration, where we discard capitalist notions of interaction and have fun trying new models of exchange. Expect and share free food, skills, music, clothing, books, other things and fun!

This is an open participatory event some groups and individuals are planning to bring and share food, clothes, skills, music, and things, but there has always been space for you to do the same.

Expect to share and find
Live Music, Radical Reference, Acupuncture, Haircuts, Dental Consultations, Hugs, Face-Painting, Food by Freegan.info, Silk Screening, Tarot Card Reading, and More and More

indoors at the Judson Memorial Church
55 Washington Sq. South NYC
Yes the space is Wheelchair accessible!
Come as early as 2pm to help us set up or stay late for cleanup.
This event takes place on the last Sunday of each month but check with us for possible time and location changes.

From http://www.myspace.com/anewworldinourhearts

From queensmuseumofart.org

08/27/09

The Queens Museum of Art and the Center for Urban Pedagogy (CUP) invite you to two public programs associated with the current exhibition Red Lines Housing Crisis Learning Center.

Why are there so many foreclosures in Jamaica?
Housing Teach-In / Speak-Out
Thursday, August 27, 6–8 pm
Queens Borough Public Library Main Branch, Auditorium
89-11 Merrick Boulevard, between 89th & 90th Avenue
Jamaica, Queens

with NYC Council Member Leroy Comrie, CHANGER, Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project, and Rebuilding NYC Together

Why are there so many foreclosures in Northern Queens?
East Elmhurst Housing Teach-In / Speak-Out
September 2, 7–9 pm
First Baptist Church
100-10 Astoria Boulevard
East Elmhurst, Queens

with New York State Assemblyman Jeffrion L. Aubry, Councilwoman Julissa Ferreras, Neighborhood Housing Services of Northern Queens, Catholic Charities, Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project, and Queens Community House

As part of Redlines Housing Crisis Learning Center, Damon Rich’s current exhibition at the Queens Museum of Art in association with the MIT Center for Advanced Visual Studies and the Center for Urban Pedagogy (CUP), the Museum has worked with Queens housing organizations to host a series of neighborhood meetings in foreclosure-impacted areas. The Teach-In / Speak-Outs feature short presentations by elected officials, housing advocates, urban planners, journalists, and artists followed by an open forum for community members to share their experiences, concerns, and ideas for collective action.

The Jamaica event will examine the housing crisis in Southeast Queens and feature short presentations by local homeowners, Rebuilding Together NYC, NEDAP, Michael Hickey from the Center for NYC Neighborhoods, and Joseph Heathcoat, Professor of Urban Studies at The New School, followed by refreshments and a chance to speak individually with representatives from Neighborhood Housing Services of Jamaica, Catholic Charities, and the New York Mortgage Coalition.

The East Elmhurst event will examine the housing crisis in Northern Queens and feature short presentations by Neighborhood Housing Services, NEDAP, Peter Marcuse, Professor of Urban Planning at Columbia University, and testimonials by local homeowners, followed by refreshments and a chance to speak individually with representatives from Neighborhood Housing Services of Northern Queens, Rebuilding NYC Together, Catholic Charities, Queens Community House, and the New York Mortgage Coalition.

From anothercupdevelopment.org/events

From 11:30 a.m.–12:30 p.m., families are invited into our theater to view a 30-minute program of short films provided by Brooklyn International Film Festival’s kidsfilmfest.

New Museum First Saturdays for Families are free of charge. This program is designed and recommended for families with children 4 to 15 years old, and includes free New Museum admission for up to 2 adults per family. Children under 18 are always admitted free. No preregistration is required. Tickets are given out on a first-come, first-served basis.

For more information about New Museum First Saturdays for Families, e-mail familyprograms@newmuseum.org

From newmuseum.org/events

For detailed info about the seminar with Bifo

Please go to …

http://www.16beavergroup.org/bifo/

From bluestockings.com/events

From bluestockings.com/events

“. . . as a receptive function of skin, touch is not solely a prerogative of the hand. It covers the entire body, including the eye itself, and the feet, which establish our contact with the ground. Conceived as such a pervasive enterprise, the haptic sense actually can be understood as a geographic sense in a global way: it “measures”, “interfaces”, and “borders” our relation to the world, and does so habitually.” —Giuiliana Bruno, Atlas of Emotion. [1]

The following New York State Court of Appeals (New York State’s highest court) ruling, the People v. Hall, 2008 NY Slip Op 2676 (2008), ruling concerns an alleged drug dealer who, when apprehended and stripped, was found to have a piece of string hanging from his rectum.  The police declared they had reason to believe that the plaintiff, Azim Hall, had a baggie of crack cocaine inside his rectum.  The police pulled the string and found this to be true.  Hall maintained that his Fourth Amendment right — that the State must maintain a warrant before entering the private property of an individual — was violated.  The police explained they technically never entered the plaintiff’s body cavity; they merely pulled the “plainly visible” string from his anus and the contraband emerged with no difficulty. Hall maintained however that being subjected to a visual inspection was itself a violation of privacy and dignity.

The case that follows, Azim v. The People, raises a number of questions that test the constitutional protection against warrantless searches and seizures of one’s private property, whether dwelling or body: What defines the right to privacy?  Is it the contours of the flesh that envelop a the surface of a body and enclose a cavity or also perhaps the eyes of another that probe from a distance? Ultimately, can the two senses — vision and touch— be separated? At stake in this (epistemological) question about the perception of truth are “the interests of human dignity and privacy when a public official peers insider a person’s body” [2].

Employing language that wavers between restrained embarrassment and sensual descriptions of flesh and sight, the judges decide “eyes are as probing as fingers and tools.” Concluding that sight and touch are inextricably bound, the New York’s Court of Appeals consequently firm up constitutional search and seizure rules, imposing greater regulation of both hands and eyes.

But what still remains constitutionally weak are those exceptions that justify a search and seizure without warrant, those exceptions justified on the grounds of “probable cause” that render live the contingent thresholds of privacy.

_____________________________

Excerpts from, The People v. Azim Hall, 2008 NY Slip Op 2676 (2008)

Defendant was transported to a police station where Spiegel searched his clothing but no drugs were found. Spiegel placed defendant in a private detention cell and asked him to remove his clothing. Burnes entered the cell and defendant was ordered to bend over or squat, at which point Spiegel and Burnes observed a string or piece of plastic hanging out of defendant’s rectum. Believing that the string was attached to a package of drugs hidden inside defendant’s body, Burnes ordered defendant to remove the object. When defendant refused, Spiegel proceeded to hold defendant while Burnes pulled on the string and removed a plastic bag that [*3]  was found to contain crack cocaine. Hall at *2-3

There are three distinct and increasingly intrusive types of bodily examinations undertaken by law enforcement after certain arrests and it is critical to differentiate between these categories of searches. A “strip search” requires the arrestee to disrobe so that a police officer can visually inspect the person’s body. The second type of examination — a “visual body cavity inspection” — occurs when a police officer looks at the arrestee’s anal or genital cavities, usually by asking the arrestee to bend over; however, the officer does not touch the arrestee’s body cavity. In contrast, a “manual body cavity search” includes some degree of touching or probing of a body cavity that causes a physical intrusion beyond the body’s surface [3]. Hall at *4

Our task, then, is to determine whether it is reasonable to draw a constitutional distinction between a visual inspection of an arrestee’s body (which requires no touching of the person’s body whatsoever) and a manual body cavity search (which necessarily results in an intrusion beyond the body’s surface and possibly the removal of an object or the insertion of an instrument into an orifice). Hall at *7

Summarizing the relevant constitutional precedent, it is clear that a strip search must be founded on a reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is concealing evidence underneath clothing and the search must be conducted in a reasonable manner. To advance to the next level required for a visual cavity inspection, the police must have a specific, articulable factual basis supporting a reasonable suspicion to believe the arrestee secreted evidence inside a body cavity and the visual inspection must be conducted reasonably. If an object is visually detected or other information provides probable cause that an object is hidden inside the arrestee’s body, Schmerber dictates that a warrant be obtained before conducting a body cavity search unless an emergency situation exists [3]. Hall at *11

Because a manual cavity search is more intrusive [than a visual search] and gives rise to heightened privacy and health concerns, when weighed against the legitimate needs of law enforcement, we believe it should be subject to a stricter legal standard. . . A visual body cavity search “do[es] not create a risk of physical pain or injury” and is therefore somehow less intrusive than “a physical search of an arrestee’s body cavity” [however,] it is still true that eyes — as well as fingers and tools — can intrude unreasonably upon constitutionally protected privacy rights (see Kamins, New York Search & Seizure § 4.01 [1], at 4-3 [2007 ed.] Hall (Concurrence of Ciparick) *4

Endnotes
[1] Bruno, Giuliana. Atlas of Emotion: Journeys in Art, Architecture, and Film. New York: Verso, 2007. 254

[2] The People v. Azim Hall, 2008 NY Slip Op 2676 (2008). p.21

[3] See e.g. Paulino v State, 399 Md 341, 352, 924 A2d 308, 315 (2007), cert denied __ US __, 128 S Ct 709 (2007); Blackburn v Snow, 771 F2d 556, n 3 (1st Cir 1985); McGee v State, 105 SW3d 609, 615 (Tx Ct Crim App 2003); Kamins, New York Search and Seizure § 4.03 (5), at 4-141 (2007).

[3] “Clear indication” means “the necessity for particularized suspicion that the evidence sought might be found within the body of the individual”; it is not “a third Fourth Amendment threshold between ‘reasonable suspicion’ and ‘probable cause’” (United States v Montoya de Hernandez, 473 US 531, 540 [1985]). Because Schmerber mandates a warrant in the absence of exigent circumstances, the clear indication test requires that searches beyond the surface of a person’s body be supported by at least probable cause.

“The interests in human dignity and privacy’ invaded when a public official peers inside a person’s body cavity are at least as great as those invaded by a needle piercing the skin.” – United States v Oyekan, 786 F2d 832, 840 n 13
[8th Cir 1986]