Beach Boys minus auto-tune. // Musical mice. // “Clown on Stratford Broadway.” // The long, slow death of whom. // Further to this, the snack time hazards of a British secondary school. (h/t, Deborah Hare) // Signs of the End Times. // Socialist diet book. (h/t, Mr Eugenides) // Orderly waiting. // Ode to the mainframe. // Recovered from the deep: rocket engines. // Toe ploughs. // Circuits. // Live bomb found in squid. // A Danish aquarium. // On Kilimanjaro. // This is not Photoshop. This is dangerous. // The film before the film. // Identical twins play Doctor Who theme on electric harps. // Test your combat skills with super duck punch. 

Franklin Einspruch climbs Mount Vanity and argues with art dealer Ed Winkleman, who tells us:

“Is that art?” is not a valid question for the observer, despite how well educated, to apply to a declared artwork. “Art” is whatever an artist says it is. The role of the observer is limited to deciding whether that declared artwork is any good or not. It’s not at all up to them to declare whether the work is “art” or not. The artist said it was. Full stop.

Yes, you – the lowly punter – have a “limited role,” even if you’re “educated.” And even if you’re a taxpayer being stiffed with the bill. Thank goodness our artistic Brahmins are so much better than us.

Mark Bauerlein on the left’s hold on academia (and why writing about it may make things worse):

In interviews of professors conducted by [sociologist, Neil] Gross and his colleagues, the most common explanation for the dearth of conservatives on the faculty was that conservatives lack the “open-mindedness” necessary for academic work (41 percent of interviewees stated this), while the second most popular reason was that conservatives care too much about making money to become academics (30 percent noted this). Prejudice or greed, take your pick – but don’t overlook the self-congratulation in each judgment (“we are here because we’re broad-minded and we care more about people than about dollars”).

If
that sounds vaguely familiar you may be thinking of this peacocking professor. He’s
one of many. And
it’s worth bearing in mind the objectionable nature of quite a few
teacher-training programmes.

Daniel Greenfield on wealth: 

As the 10th richest man in America, Michael Bloomberg wields a personal fortune of a mere 18 billion dollars, but as the Mayor of the City of New York, he disposes of an annual budget of 63 billion dollars. In a single year, he disposes of three times his own net worth. A sum that would wipe out the net worth of any billionaire in America. That is the difference between the wealth wielded by the 10th wealthiest man in America, and the mayor of a single city. And that is the real concentration of wealth. Not in the hands of individuals, but at every level of government, from the municipal to the state houses to the White House.

Christopher Taylor ponders the workplace, pregnancy and feminist outrage: 

What’s amazing to me is that anyone, anywhere, would be so shocked and outraged with such an obvious business principle that they would not simply disagree or debate this topic, but would instantly and totally reverse their perspective on me and go from amiable esteem to contemptuous hatred. It is shocking to me that someone’s worldview could be so totally damaged and their comprehension of economics and business so twisted by a leftist concept of life that they would react so violently and irrationally to such a plain fact of life.

Oh, and here’s some laughter at the expense of poor not-so-poor Matt Yglesias, the leftwing booster of Occupy, leftwing denouncer of property rights, and now leftwing owner of a $1.2 million townhouse. 

Feel free to add your own links and snippets in the comments.

Via Ka-Ching!

This is not food. // At last, a 3D cooking simulator. // Alluring elements. // Bombsites of the London Blitz. // Electronic dice barbarian gauntlet. You heard me. // Accelerated shipbuilding. // Aircraft underbellies. // Big teeth. // Spider-Man beard. // Passers-by, New York. // The economics of spam. (h/t, rjmadden) // Paper chandeliers. // “An all-weather, self-illuminated, human powered vehicle.” // The music for movie trailers. // Star Trek Into Darkness. // The slide you’ve always wanted. // “Explosions are most definitely a bad thing.” (h/t, Kate & EBD) // Reading chair. // A revolution in toast. // Via TDK, the truth about the Death Star.

Via reddit’s SRSsucks forum, comes this stern correction regarding countercultural coiffure:

This is the post about white people with dreadlocks. This is the post about white people who just don’t get the possibility that they could be doing something colonialist.

The author of the piece, a self-described “white, queer, rural-identified, able-bodied+mentally ill Episcopal priest lady,” is unhappy with the sight of,

white dude colonisers with dreads.

Why?

Because we’re seeing white boys… maintaining and justifying racist hair.

Yes, racist hair.

And being white herself, our Racially Enlightened Hair Corrector has much to say on the subject of the melanin deficient:

White people have this terrible, awful, no-good habit of trying to take everyone else’s “authenticity” because they feel so like lost and indie and culturally dislocated and their poor little selves are so tired, because they have all this power and it’s so exhausting.

Which I’m sure describes every single pale person you happen to know, yes? Thankfully, the author is determined to make the world a kinder, fairer, fluffier place, a feat that’s to be achieved by everyone else doing exactly as she says. And so, should you encounter a pale person with politically incorrect hair, the author’s suggested response – the “only appropriate thing” – is to deliver a long, un-paragraphed diatribe with fits of random shouting: