You may have to Search all our reviewed books and magazines, click the sign up button below to create a free account.
Today we are witnessing an increased use of data visualization in society. Across domains such as work, education and the news, various forms of graphs, charts and maps are used to explain, convince and tell stories. In an era in which more and more data are produced and circulated digitally, and digital tools make visualization production increasingly accessible, it is important to study the conditions under which such visual texts are generated, disseminated and thought to be of societal benefit. This book is a contribution to the multi-disciplined and multi-faceted conversation concerning the forms, uses and roles of data visualization in society. Do data visualizations do 'good' or 'bad'? Do they promote understanding and engagement, or do they do ideological work, privileging certain views of the world over others? The contributions in the book engage with these core questions from a range of disciplinary perspectives.
At the ideological center of the Supreme Court sits Anthony M. Kennedy, whose pivotal role on the Rehnquist Court is only expected to grow in importance now that he is the lone 'swing Justice' on the Roberts Court. The Ties Goes to Freedom is the first book-length analysis of Kennedy, and it challenges the conventional wisdom that his jurisprudence is inconsistent and incoherent. Using the hot-button issues of privacy rights, race, and free speech, this book demonstrates how Kennedy forcefully articulates a libertarian constitutional vision. The Tie Goes to Freedom fills two significant voids—one examining the jurisprudence of the man at the ideological center of the Supreme Court, the other demonstrating the compatibility of an expansive judicial role with libertarian political theory. At the end of Kennedy’s tenure as the most important swing justice in recent Supreme Court history, Helen Knowles provides an updated edition of her highly regarded book on Justice Kennedy and his constitutional vision.
Since at least the Middle Ages, the laws of war have distinguished between combatants and civilians under an injunction now formally known as the principle of distinction. The principle of distinction is invoked in contemporary conflicts as if there were an unmistakable and sure distinction to be made between combatant and civilian. As is so brutally evident in armed conflicts, it is precisely the distinction between civilian and combatant, upon which the protection of civilians is founded, cannot be taken as self-evident or stable. Helen M. Kinsella documents that the history of international humanitarian law itself admits the difficulty of such a distinction. In The Image before the Weapon...
None
None