Friday Ephemera
Crammed. (h/t, Dr Westerhaus.) // An illustrated history of computer data storage. // 3000 photos of antique computers, 1961-1989. (h/t, Coudal.) // Newspaper clippings from 1885. Tales of woe and strangeness. // Caminito del Ray, near Malaga. Not for vertigo sufferers. // The spatuletail hummingbird. // The dioramas of Lori Nix. // Control rooms of note. // How to disarm an atomic bomb. // Bomb the Bass: Butterfingers. // Laurie Anderson, O Superman. (1981) // Eugene Sandow’s Physical Culture Museum. (h/t, Things.) // Iron Man clip. Yes, I’d like one of those. // Batman and Robin take on schoolgirls, British hippies and African Death Bees. Wait for the saucy nail file scene. // Laser gloves. Fight crime, impress women. (h/t, Chastity Darling.) // Deter thieves with soiled underwear. Again, impress the ladies. // “Talking like this may get you shunned by polite society (i.e. scared society).” // Saudi cleric says questioning Islam is “barbarism” and leads to terrible things, like freedom of belief. // A Millar on why the left has gone jihadi. (h/t, Cookslaw.) // Ruth Fowler on being a middle-class lefty. “More commonly termed wankerism.” // Lost titles, reimagined. // And, via The Thin Man, Music for a Found Harmonium.
Holy sex face Batman! Outrageous. 🙂
It’s Adam West’s finest hour. And it does feature Death Bee anti-venom in handy capsule form.
I like the Penguin Cafe Orchestra…
Ruth Fowler’s money quote: “Is it so pessimistic of me to see these glorified years out as merely a means to excuse their own privilege?”
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ruth_fowler/2008/04/club_rules.html
Dodge,
If you look into the backgrounds of our favourite hand-wringers, you’ll find a remarkable number of them are not at all strapped for cash, and never have been. Just as strident Communists tend, very often, to have terribly bourgeois upbringings and resources to fall back on when their youthful enthusiasms fade. Indeed, the more a hand-wringer benefits from the existing social and economic system, the more likely they are to bemoan it, at least in public. It seems to me embarrassment and deflection are important motivators. This may explain why there are several websites with detailed corrections of Polly Toynbee’s endless factual errors. I suspect for Toynbee and many others it’s not necessarily about apprehending the issues, thinking clearly and being honest; it’s as much about pantomime and the deflection of envy. It’s rhetorical chaff.
Adraine,
Glad you approve. 🙂
Miss Fowler is drably conformist and shares all the preoccupations of the chattering classes.
Gradually she realises that her milieu can come across as being smug, pious and humourless. She doesn’t like to think of herself in this way.
So she writes an article carefully detailing all the little ways in which she falls short of the ideal, mocks herself gently, and pokes fun at her friends.
She takes care, however, not to challenge any of the underlying assumptions or ideas that she and her friends share. This means that she can present herself as funny and charming without opening herself up to accusations of ideological impurity.
The resulting piece, therefore, is unfocused and tiresomely self-regarding. Not realising this, she submits it to her editor anyway. Everyone at the Guardian thinks it’s splendid. You see, they cry, we don’t always take ourselves so seriously. Bollinger and fair-trade canapés all round!
Horace,
“She takes care, however, not to challenge any of the underlying assumptions or ideas that she and her friends share.”
Yes, it’s essentially written on the level of social manners and cliquishness, rather than a serious testing of assumptions. But despite the blather about “diversity” and such, CiF is one of the most reactive and unpleasant venues I visit. If you read it regularly – which I wouldn’t recommend – you’ll see how anyone who offers serious criticism of some modish shibboleth is very likely to be denounced immediately, vehemently and at tremendous length.
Still, I quite like the term “wankerism”. Though I prefer “twattery”.
I rarely visit CiF, for the reason that you mention. If I do, I tend only to read the commissioned article. Dipping into the comments is invariably a dispiriting experience.
Yours is one of the few sites where the comments can be as interesting and informative (and fun) as the main article. Often it gets combative, and occasionally a little ascerbic but most people here seem to relish a proper argument. Civility rules.
Yes, “twattery” is rather nice. How about “twatitude”?
“Yours is one of the few sites where the comments can be as interesting and informative (and fun) as the main article.”
Heh. That’s the idea, anyway. I try to encourage interaction. I suppose I could just read the comments left here and maybe reply later with a new post – from on high, as it were. But for the most part I like joining the discussion. It’s more immediate, and often more fun, and different thoughts occur. Tangents and all that. I tend to think of the posts as starting points rather than full stops.
“They-are-LOST – on a ma-gi-cal island…” Awesomeness.
Ruth Fowler: article designed for Cif – writing by numbers – contrarian – straw men by the shed load – faux vitriol – faux angst – genuine middle class sensibilities – box-ticking – has own comments deleted (edgy!!) – pretentious – unoriginal – Julie Burchill without the content – Maximilian Gogerty 10 years on and still clueless – come hither eyes – PR creation – will probably achieve some success in guardianland.
Friday Links
Good poll news for John McCainNYT writes unbiased article on IraqTruth-telling about immigration in Swedish MSM. GatesAn illustrated history of data storage (h/t, Thompson’s Friday Ephemera)The disastrous 17th Amendment (h/t, Right Wing Prof)