Super Pii Pii Brothers. // Precision seating. // Bubble rings. // Future Me. Send a note to your future self at a time of your choosing. // The Science & Society Picture Library. // 10 differences between brains and computers. (h/t, Stephen Hicks.) // Richard Dawkins’ Royal Institution lecture, 1991. // Pat Condell speaks his mind. // The crime of “close proximity”. // Fabian Tassano on boggling and elitism for everyone. // Andy Warhol on The Love Boat. // Kristen Hassenfeld’s paper sculptures. // Falafel. // Chewing gum wrappers. // The office ejector seat. For when the underlings revolt. // South Park: Cheesing, 1, 2 and 3. // Hitchcock stills. // Film noir moments. // Satellite images of secret places. (h/t, Things.) // How to create an alien invasion using Photoshop. (h/t, Coudal.) // Photoshop makeover from hell. A work of infinite subtlety. // Mastering shadow puppetry. // Derren Brown’s voodoo doll. // The Boswell Sisters: Heebie Jeebies. (1932)

Via The Thin Man, four moments of office frustration, with just a whiff of comedy. I particularly like the attempt to photocopy the image on a computer monitor.

Online Videos by Veoh.com

Related rage: BT courtesy call goes horribly, horribly wrong. And, before we feel too superior, I guess this is the blogger equivalent.

Sweet sandals of Allah! Someone is mocking Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens.

Will riots ensue? (Via Heathen TV.)

Michael Lind ponders America’s official, and rather peculiar, racial categories. 

I am a non-Hispanic white, according to the federal government. My niece, who has a black parent and a white parent, is black, according to the federal government. It is not clear what my godchildren, who are of European and Asian ancestry, are. They could be Asian and Pacific Islander, or non-Hispanic white, for all I know. Or maybe they are “multiracial”. The 2000 Census allowed Americans to identify themselves as such. But this should be recognised as what it is – a cop-out, a cynical attempt to shore up the crumbling, unpopular racial-classification system by creating a new, equally dubious “race” with an assigned place at the identity-politics table. Every human being is a unity. Ancestors from different ethnic groups do not make an individual “multi-ethnic” any more than ancestors of different religions make one “multi-religious” or ancestors from different regions make one “multi-territorial”. 

And, 

The way to combat racism… is to stop telling Americans that their most important characteristic, in the eyes of the US government, is their race.

This is published in, good lord, the Guardian. Gary Younge and Joseph Harker will, no doubt, be thrilled.

As I wrote a while ago,

Identity politics… can actually exacerbate suspicion and resentment. If some notional “communities” are being treated differently and being encouraged to cultivate difference for social or political leverage, then getting past a person’s skin colour or place or origin seems more difficult, not less. One is continually being reminded of how different a person is, or thinks he ought to be. A cynic might point out that the racial grievance industry – and the various commentators and lobbyists who benefit from it – depends on people being preoccupied by the colour of a person’s skin. And therefore, one might suppose, there’s an incentive to make sure lots of people are.

Related. And.

I’m guessing the curvature could lead to RSI or wrists the thickness of thighs, but this hedgehog cheese grater still looks mighty fine.

Right, I’m off shopping. Do try to keep the place tidy.

Cath Elliott, whose wisdom has previously been noted, today shares her insights regarding ethical consumerism. This, so far as I can make out, involves inordinate fretting over the morality of washing out empty peanut butter jars:

I usually just give up and throw it in the bin (as long as no one’s watching).

It also involves no end of bothersome contradiction and, of course, feelings of remorse.

I refuse to set foot through the door of Primark and yet I shop in Tesco. I make sure my vegetables are locally sourced, but then I eat mango like it’s going out of fashion. I cycle to keep fit and to minimise my carbon footprint, but I also smoke, not roll ups either, but cigarettes manufactured by a major tobacco company.

Oh, the humanity. I trust Ms Elliott is no less forgiving of others – say, people who shop at Primark.

No doubt some people would argue that I’m a textbook example of a hand-wringing liberal, making futile gestures so I can feel good about myself, and performing all sorts of intellectual contortions to try and rationalise any slip-ups.

Well…

After all, is my decision not to drink Coke realistically going to have an impact on a company that last year earned $5.98bn? Probably not; but just as I’m fairly sure my refusal to buy Cape fruit in the 1980s had no bearing whatsoever on the later dismantling of the apartheid regime, that’s not the point.

If not to have a discernible impact, directly or by example, what, then, is the point? What drives this level of anxiety over soft drinks and peanut butter residue? Unless much of this is indeed about seeking out pretentious guilt and then wringing one’s hands for public display and personal gratification?

I wasn’t going to comment on Geert Wilders’ short film, Fitna, largely because it’s been done to death elsewhere and because, despite the ridiculous fuss, it’s actually rather boring. Fitna’s content, such as it is, will be familiar to anyone who reads Robert Spencer, Andrew Bostom or the MEMRI media archive. Juxtaposing acts of terrorism with the sermons and Qur’anic verses that are used to justify them is old news, at least among those who pay attention. And while the texts cited certainly are used to mandate atrocity, and have been for centuries, there’s no attempt to explain the theological context or the lineage of these ideas, or how they’re propagated and rationalised. A much better film, which does provide some context and analysis, is Islam: What the West Needs to Know.

But while Wilders’ film is unoriginal and insubstantial, the reactions to it have been instructive. The company hosting Fitna online pulled it after receiving threats to its staff “of a very serious nature”, which confirms the dismal fact that Islamist thuggery – whose roots we must not speak of – all too often works. (However, such is the nature of the intartubes, the film can still be found on any number of sites.) And, as expected, the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, condemned the “offensively anti-Islamic film” and claimed, unconvincingly, that, “the right of free speech is not at stake here.”

In the Guardian, Ali Eteraz described Fitna as “an effort to turn the entirety of Islam into a demonic edifice” – which may or may not be Wilders’ personal view, but is a somewhat loaded reading of the film. Wilders may well be an objectionable self-regarding oaf, as Eteraz and others claim, but that doesn’t address the fundamental issues. It simply avoids them. Instead we get: “Most people familiar with the Qur’an… accept that you can have the Qur’an say pretty much whatever you want.” This is another variation of the “Oh, but all religions can be twisted to mean anything” evasion (discussed at length here) and is based on an idle assumption that Islam has no theological features and precedents that make it unusual among religions. Eteraz also bemoaned the “disgusting conflations of the Qur’an with acts of violence, murder, kidnapping and anti-Semitism” – a statement that reveals an ignorance of Islamic history and jurisprudence that is almost, but not quite, funny.

As usual, umbrage and disgust are directed at those who point to the sacralising of terror by others, rather than those who actually make terror a matter of pious obligation. Would such reactions have been very different if more elevated minds – say, Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq or Andrew Bostom – had made a film, any film, on the subject? Somehow, I think not.

Update:

I’ve often heard it argued, or rather asserted, that “Islamophobia” makes it more difficult to combat jihadist ideology and those who propagate it. But there’s an obvious problem with this. What is very often deemed “Islamophobic” is any attempt to highlight the roots of jihadism within Islamic history and teaching, and ultimately in the purported revelations of Muhammad himself. Thus, efforts to provide essential theological and historical context, as for instance by Spencer, Warraq and Bostom, are routinely denounced as “inflammatory”, “Islamophobic”, even “racist”. To mention the unedifying aspects of Islam’s prophet – which are central to any credible understanding of the jihadist phenomenon – is therefore very difficult to do without being denounced as xenophobic, hateful or in some way nefarious. The irony of this should not need pointing out.

This is very clever. Marion Bataille’s ABC3D. Published in October.

You know, for kids. Via Infosthetics.

The chocolate anus. // Chicago from 36,000 ft. // Stop-motion Tron. // Crayon Physics Deluxe. // Dreamlines. How it works. (h/t, Dr Westerhaus.) // Unusual instruments. Including the bubble organ and the bowafridgeaphone. // High end watchmaking. // “Dr” Charlene Werner’s “homeopathic lecture.” A world of stupid. // Mary Jackson on “hegemonic masculinities” and other gratuitous plurals. // Steven Malanga on poverty and family structure. // Robert Spencer on “defaming” Islam. // At home with the Ahmadinejads. // Bert Teunissen’s domestic landscapes. (h/t, Mick Hartley.) // Islands of the world. // The door to hell, Uzbekistan. // Remarkable bulbs. // Tokyo taxi lights. More. // There’s so much to know about shoelaces. // The Puma “speed legs” advert. // Body Care and Grooming. (1948) // Things to do with your body. (h/t, DRB.) // Balloon animal anatomy. // Teddy bear skulls. (h/t, Ace.) More. // Giant mechanical animals. // Comic vendors of yore. // Science fiction book covers. (h/t, Coudal.) // Via Drunkablog, Arthur C Clarke’s The Sentinel. Sausages on the Moon. // And, via The Thin Man, it’s Mr Mel Torme.

Seumas Milne’s readiness to abandon facts and rhetorically fellate theocratic thugs has been noted many times, along with his fondness for Stalinism and nostalgic Communists. At the Guardian, under Milne’s editorial wing, Milosevic groupies and other assorted rogues have been favoured with a platform from which to misinform readers. In today’s Guardian, the former comment editor and current associate editor accelerates his descent into cartoonish absurdity and attempts to paint religion as an ally in some radical crusade against the evil capitalist system. A system of which Seumas, son of Sir Alasdair Milne, is a notable beneficiary.

Milne sees the scope for

Stronger alliances between the secular left and religious progressives against poverty, capitalism and war… Religion can play a reactionary or a progressive role, and the struggle is now within it, not against it. For the future, it can be an ally of radical change.

Well, perhaps. But given Milne’s extensive history of regarding religious fantasists and bigots as “progressives” and worthy of propaganda space in a “progressive” newspaper, some doubts may spring to mind. This, after all, is a man who gave space to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb ut-Tahrir and apologists for ritual murder, and who describes Tariq Ramadan, who dreams of an Islamised Europe, as “progressive” and a “liberal academic.” Even less convincing is Milne’s depiction of those who take a different view – say, by criticising aspects of Islam or insisting on the separation of church and state – as

Secular absolutists whose attitudes uncannily mirror those of religious literalists.

Thus, an advocacy of critical thought and self-determination is deemed to “mirror” an urge to impose on others the purported will of hypothetical deities. The arguments of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are, it seems, in no way distinguishable from those of people who do this. Or this. Or this. Perhaps Seumas has started channelling the wisdom of his colleague, Madeleine Bunting, whose search for “authenticity” and disdain for Enlightenment values – of which she, a female journalist, is another beneficiary – are aired at regular intervals. Certainly, a sense of déjà vu is hard to miss, not least when those who criticise religion, and one in particular, often for very good reasons, are denounced by Milne as

Apologists for western supremacism and violence.

As Alan Johnson pointed out, and as was subsequently confirmed, it’s a signature of Milne’s commentary that practically no-one may disagree or refute his claims, even on matters of basic fact, without immediately being labelled a “NeoCon”, “Islamophobe” or “warmonger”. Words which, among some, are immensely effective in shutting down rational thought. One particular passage stands out to illustrate Johnson’s point and highlight Milne’s contortions:

Panicked by the rise of radical Islamism and the newly assertive religious identity of migrant communities in a secular Europe, the anti-religious evangelists are increasingly using atheism as a banner for the defence of the global liberal capitalist order and the wars fought since 2001 to assert its dominance. At the same time, they are unable to recognise the ethnic dimension of their Islamophobia, let alone the deeper reasons why people continue to search for spiritual meaning in a grossly destructive economic environment where social alternatives have been pronounced dead and narcissistic consumption is king.

One might wonder if the above also illustrates how the mind of a true believer, in this case Mr Milne’s, can so easily come undone.