Friday Ephemera

BTW, I was hesitant about clicking the “foley” link, but YOLO, right? Imagine my relief.

There were a couple of notable omissions from that, I think: Wicker Man and, as I am reminded by another of the links, which I think fits in the Horror genre, the original Westworld (Yul Brynner as the original Terminator).

Simen,
Re: the first thing they mention. The Goudy typeface, in all its various iterations, was EVERYWHERE in the early 1980s.
My very first graphic design job, at least one I was paid for, was designing my dad’s business cards and office stationary. I used Goudy Old Style. This was 1978, and I was still in high school. By 1982 or so, I was sick to death of it, and went out of my way to avoid using it, despite my production manager’s fondness for it.

Morning, all.
Well, goodness me. Brexit it is.

Yes, you heard her. Laurie will write faster.

“How Subarus Came to Be Seen as Cars for Lesbians”
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/06/how-subarus-came-to-be-seen-as-cars-for-lesbians/488042/

And finally, voyeuristically, some passions are best left unseen.
So. Many. Questions.

A brief history of beehive hair-dos.
Noting the picture captioned The Ronettes and Phil Specter, and then there were the later years . . . No, not the Ronettes, Specter.

Well, goodness me. Brexit it is.
Turns out calling voters xenophobes and racists because they disagree with you isn’t a winning strategy.

I’m doing it with my mind.
Oh, nonsense. Sudden Microburst Wind Storm Causes Grounded Planes to Inadvertently Take Off is strictly caused by this being a particularly involved electoral campaign season . . .

Turns out calling voters xenophobes and racists because they disagree with you isn’t a winning strategy.
Well, it’s interesting how many of our self-imagined betters are still digging that ditch, with barely concealed disdain for a large part of the electorate and assuming only the basest of motives – racism and xenophobia, not concerns about sovereignty and democracy. That such assumptions and disdain undoubtedly played a role in today’s outcome seems to escape them.

Las Vegas in infrared.
There was at least one other movie that made a lot of use of the second movement of Beethoven’s 7th Symphony, with, stylistically, rather the same results.
Yeah, yeah, go ahead, cue the Brexit vote as showing the UK now being a vortex . . . !
The world was dying. We took all that was good, and made an oasis here. We few- the rich, the powerful, the clever- cut ourselves off to guard the knowledge and treasures of civilisation, as the world plunged into a dark age. To do this, we had to harden our hearts against the suffering outside. We are custodians of the past for an unknown future. You are the price we now pay for that isolation. You have brought hate and anger into the vortex to infect us all.

Barely concealed?
I stand corrected. This morning I’ve seen several variations of that, with leftwing students tweeting that old people shouldn’t be allowed to vote, presumably on grounds that they tend to disagree with leftwing students, and all peppered with denunciations of old people’s “fascism.” Apparently, the way to avoid fascism is to restrict voting to only the right kind of people with the right kind of views.

The link doesn’t work.
Ah, been deleted. It was something along the lines of ‘People who didn’t vote as I did are racist, ignorant scum and aren’t fit to vote.’ I’m paraphrasing, but only just.

Turns out calling voters xenophobes and racists because they disagree with you isn’t a winning strategy.
The ruling elites in the UK and the US are so detached from the people they’re supposed to represent that they imagine they can actively hold them in contempt without consequence. Thus the victory for Brexit here and the rise of Trump in the States. They continue to be baffled by it all however.

On the one side we had the might of the EU, the craven mass media, all the lefty institutions, the Tories and Labour standing should-to-shoulder and yet…
The majority of ordinary people facing them weren’t taken in. Funny, that.

Alright, can someone explain something to me:
Why would David Cameron resign?

Status of Note (although it may not sway our gracious host)
https://twitter.com/ElizabethHurley/status/745605008012546048

Congratulations are in order for you David, and for all our cousins across the pond. May the spirit of freedom, prosperity, and self-determination spring anew. Were it up to me, I’d make Britain our most-favored trading nation immediately.

This seems apposite.

In other news, the Vienna International Dance Festival is kicking off. So book those tickets now.

So Laurie is going “to love fiercer”? Can you simultaneously love (more) fiercely and polyamorously without serious emotional consequences? Oh wait…

So Laurie is going “to love fiercer”?
And type with even greater haste.
Oh wait…
Yes, I’m a little confused. Days ago, Laurie was telling us, quite emphatically, that love is “a systemic lie designed to manipulate women into lifelong emotional labour.” But apparently she’ll be doing it anyway, and rather fiercely.
In fairness, Laurie has had a long personal struggle with coherence. As demonstrated, for instance, when she scorned “bikini ideology” as a vile product of capitalism and the garment itself as a vehicle for anxiety, self-esteem issues and sexist woe, while simultaneously championing the padded bikini bra for seven-year-old girls, who are, we were assured, “negotiating the complex world of adult sexuality.”

Someone fetch a damp flannel for the forehead of Mr Muldoon.

“It’s not about you, it’s about what your ancestors passed down to you and about what you can pass down to your descendants.”
But when you’re told that everything in the past of your country was racist, sexist, homophobic and a blight on history, why would you bother continuing to “pass anything down”?

Apart from the ageism, this “years to live with the consequence” argument misunderstands what a country is. It’s not about you, it’s about what your ancestors passed down to you and about what you can pass down to your descendants.
Don’t worry, I’m sure everything will turn out ok when they start again from Year Zero. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

The newly elected muslim Mayor of London, Sidiq Khan, has launched a petition to declare independence from England and join the EU. London, now a majority non-white city, voted to remain.

Have we started the mass deportations and eating of human flesh yet?
Mrs Pierce is itching to get cracking.

She hopes to bag a big one.

Laurie Penny shares her grief with the nation.
Says Laurie, “I’m no longer at all worried about risking hyperbole or unoriginality when referencing all that Nazi history they made us study in school.” After denouncing the “fear-mongering” of people in favour of leaving the EU – and their racism, obviously – Laurie warns us that the systemic mistreatment of “ethnic minorities and queer people” is likely to kick off any second now.

Turns out calling voters xenophobes and racists because they disagree with you isn’t a winning strategy.
The race card has been declined.

I was looking for a house name. I think ‘Vile Scum’ would do nicely. Thanks.

A quote from American history seems apposite, so feel free to share it with the Remain voters:
“If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” – Samuel Adams

The newly elected muslim Mayor of London, Sidiq Khan, has launched a petition to declare independence from England and join the EU.
Errr, actually Khan has done nothing of the sort, according to that link . . .
This petition is calling on Mayor Sadiq Khan to declare London independent, and apply to join the EU
. . .
This petition was started by James O’Malley. Get in touch if you like: psythor (at) gmail.com or tweet @Psythor.
Of the referendum overall . . . . Um.
Sooo, if I had access and the related franchise, I rather expect that with some near coin tosses, I would have voted for remain. Why? Lesseee . . .
Immigration Will occur, regardless of the circumstances, consider the stereotypical Polish plumber. When in the EU, the immigration border and border control is In France. When out of the EU, the border, and border controls, move to the UK landmass.
The EU parliament, to address an issue in general, is indeed continuing with All Sorts Of Rules. Of those rules, there are two responses. One is to get the hell out and proclaim to all that We are better because we don’t do that sort of nit picking crap. The other is to stay in and proclaim to all that That nit picking crap is bullshit and we all can and bloody well will do better together.
Oh, why together? That would be an entire Uni course of discussion—Actual, genuinely elite Uni, of course, some place with a majority of mathematicians—, but what keeps coming to mind is a comment by historian Shelby Foote on the US Civil War.

Before the war, it was said “the United States are.” Grammatically, it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war, it was always “the United States is,” as we say to day without being self-conscious at all. And that’s sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an “is.”

No, I’m not going to project what that match for the US Civil War would be, that’s what the Uni course is for.
Having noted the above, my personal and general reaction to the result is a very emphatic and definite Oh, Bloody Hell, You have got to be kidding. . . . . . And I am not reacting to the result, I’m reacting to the margins.
Fifty two percent to forty eight percent?!?!?!?!?
That’s not a margin, that’s a bloody tie vote. Tactically and Technically that is only a majority by very basic numbers. What is an actual majority? Sixty percent to forty percent is a majority. Seventy percent to thirty percent is a majority. Unanimous is a majority.

John Hancock: The principles of independence have no greater advocate in Congress than its president. And that is why I must join those who vote for unanimity.
John Adams: Good God, John! What are you doing? You’ve sunk us!
John Hancock: Now, hear me out! Don’t you see that any colony who opposes independence will be forced to fight on the side of England? That we’ll be setting brother against brother. That our new nation will carry as its emblem the mark of Cain. I can see no other way. Either we all walk together, or together we must stay where we are.
—1776

What do I see in the news?

Hours after Britons voted for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, they started Googling “What is the EU?” according to Google Trends.
. . .
The Washington Post noted that a British woman named Mandy, who voted in favor of an exit, told ITV that since the reality of the vote has hit her, she has realized that she would choose to stay with the EU if she were given the chance to vote again.

Given the interest, bloody well yes, the referendum should have been had, regardless of the result, but bloody well yes, that referendum required being an actual assessment of the mass of people voting for or against Brexit, that referendum should have required two thirds majority to pass.
A friend of mine is from London. He got his BS in Computer Science from the Uni of Edinburgh. He and I were in a training meeting yesterday evening–Pacific Time, so eight hours after Greenwich—, as he was pulling up the results on a cell phone. He matter of factly noted that Oh, By The Way, Scotland voted for remain by a genuine real majority . . . rather pointing to Scotland then announcing, Y’all have fun, we’re joining the rest of Europe . . . And yes, that discussion is also its own very interesting Uni course . . . .
My friend’s overall assessment? Very roughly, very paraphrasing, as we’re watching numbers coming in, seeing what those numbers were and noting that the numbers are as noted, not any viable majority, his assessment is basically that Oh, y’know, of course, that it’s not going to go through . . . . . too much disruption, too much damage, absolutely not a chance of Brexit actually getting carried out . . . . .

Jabrwok:
There’s an American quote that begins “When in the course of human events” that seems appropriate too. Especially about Brussels sending hither swarms of officers.

@Hal,
You’re team lost, we’re exiting with the majority vote.
Regards,
Someone with an honours degree in computing.
P.S. Mrs Krankie is welcome to rule New Venezuela.

Fifty two percent to forty eight percent?!?!?!?!?
But if Britain had voted Remain with that margin reversed, would the winners have gone “hang on now, that’s not enough to stay in. Perhaps the Leavers have a genuine beef. We should look at their case.”
Would they fuck!
You’ll find that Leave will now strengthen, as it turns out that a) everyone realises that it is a defendable position to have, b) the world doesn’t immediately turn to custard as the Chicken Littles are predicting, and c) people like to be on a winning side.

You’re team lost, we’re exiting with the majority vote.
Actually, no, not my’re team, or as the rest of us with a demonstrable degree and having clearly learned something would put it, Not my team.
Through all the discussions I saw, I could see assorted reasons for and against, but all stacking rather evenly. Therefore, for all the demands that the issue is very simple, if the issue was indeed that simple there would have been a very clear majority for leaving or staying, Which Ever The Decision.
What I’ve pointed out is what Jimmy has echoed, and is now the big problem that is not going to go away: How does a country become so divided against itself?
And as with picking through a very peculiar game of Go, instead of doing a slight shift, see the result, do a different slight shift, see the result, every decision is going to be country scale, and is going to trigger several other cascading rounds of additional effects and results and decisions . . .
The fun starts now.

> How does a country become so divided against itself?
Vote buying. It broke down basically along those lines, subsidy junkies voted to stay, wealth creators voted out.

Vote buying… subsidy junkies voted to stay,
And in the Guardian, “leading figures from the arts” express their “rage” with “the illiterate,” i.e., many of you and your families. You have brought “shame” on your betters.

Fifty two percent to forty eight percent?!?!?!?!?
Yes, a fairly narrow margin on a high turnout. There are issues on either side that aren’t easy to dismiss – I certainly don’t feel entitled to disdain people who voted differently, all of them, as morally indecent or unfit to vote. And that asymmetry in characterisation, as illustrated repeatedly above, is worth noting.
As Daniel Hannan put it before the result was known,

A narrow leave vote is not a mandate for anything precipitate or radical. It is a mandate for a phased repatriation of power, with the agreement, wherever possible, of our European allies. Many of our existing arrangements will remain in place; and those which we want to disapply won’t be scrapped overnight. Brexit, in other words, will be a process rather than an event. It will be the moment when Britain starts to pursue a different trajectory, away from political union with the EU and toward a looser arrangement based on trade and co-operation.

My general feeling is that the EU is a corrupt, corrupting and unsustainable project, one doomed to dramatic failure, and that we made it to the escape pod just in time. The question now, I think, is the size of the blast radius. Others may disagree, of course. I don’t plan to call them names.

My general feeling is that the EU is a corrupt, corrupting and unsustainable project, one doomed to dramatic failure, and that we made it to the escape pod just in time. The question now, I think, is the size of the blast radius. Others may disagree, of course. I don’t plan to call them names.
That.
The EU, and in particular the Eurozone, has been a complete disaster and has become as near as dammit a Fascist entity, awaiting only the ratification of the TTIP to make it entirely so. The consequences for Spain, Portugal and Greece have been awful, with nearly 50% unemployment rates for young people and trashed economies which will take a generation to recover. If the question were turned on its head (“Do you want to be involved with this catastrophe?”) then surely anyone who positions themselves on the Left would answer “No”. The ridiculous weeping and wailing that has taken over social media seems to be rooted in nothing more than some sort of half-arsed notion of internationalism. It’s pathetic to behold.

The ridiculous weeping and wailing that has taken over social media seems to be rooted in nothing more than some sort of half-arsed notion of internationalism. It’s pathetic to behold.
Is that not the default belief of most under 30s?
They grew up with mass immigration as a fact of life; after the Cold War and have some vague idea that the EU and not NATO kept the peace after WW2; and have been taught to have no empathy with the white working classes.

I can understand the anxiety about how Brexit will affect the economy – it is, after all, what caused me to vote Remain. I think it would be very optimistic indeed to disagree that some specialised jobs in the city will go. Plenty of hard working people will have a tough few years – there’ll be redundancies and retraining even in a best case scenario.
But those of my Facebook friends who declare themselves “ashamed to be British” and act as though we’ve been driven from the EU by an angel with a burning sword must be looking at a different EU from me.
If a British government created youth unemployment on such a scale, ignored democratic mandates in favour of a grand scheme and facilitated tax avoidance in the way the EU does, we’d never hear the end of the screeching. But criticising foreigners is racist, apparently.
You’re right about the half-arsed notion of internationalism. Have you seen that EU flag where one of the stars has been replaced by a tear? Pathetic.

“That’s not a margin, that’s a bloody tie vote. Tactically and Technically that is only a majority by very basic numbers. What is an actual majority? Sixty percent to forty percent is a majority. Seventy percent to thirty percent is a majority. Unanimous is a majority.”
52 is more than 48. Therefore, in terms of a vote, it’s a majority.
Stop changing the meanings of words like a progressive.

… that referendum should have required two thirds majority to pass.
I confess ignorance. Was the decision to join the EU ratified by a two-thirds majority plebiscite?

I confess ignorance. Was the decision to join the EU ratified by a two-thirds majority plebiscite?
Hmmm. Excellent question, that. . . . . . . Interesting. Apparently it was a genuine majority, as opposed to—as noted repeatedly—the Brexit vote.

The United Kingdom EC referendum of 1975, also known as the Common Market referendum and EEC membership referendum was a referendum held on 5 June 1975 in the United Kingdom to gauge support for the country’s continued membership of the European Communities (EC), often known as the Common Market at the time, which it had entered in 1973 under the Conservative government of Edward Heath. Labour’s manifesto for the October 1974 general election promised that the people would decide “through the ballot box”[1] whether to remain in the EEC. The electorate expressed significant support for EEC membership, with 67% in favour on a 65% turnout. This was the first referendum held throughout the entire United Kingdom, and remained the only UK-wide referendum until the 2011 referendum on alternative voting.
The February 1974 general election yielded a Labour minority government, which then won a majority in the October 1974 general election. Labour pledged in its February 1974 manifesto to renegotiate the terms of British accession to the EEC, and then to consult the public on whether Britain should stay in the EEC on the new terms, if they were acceptable to the government. The Labour Party had historically feared the consequences of EEC membership, such as the large differentials between the high price of food under the Common Agricultural Policy and the low prices prevalent in Commonwealth markets, as well as the loss of economic sovereignty and the freedom of governments to engage in socialist industrial policies, and party leaders stated their opinion that the Conservatives had negotiated unfavourable terms for Britain.[2] The EEC heads of government agreed to a deal in Dublin on 11 March 1975; Wilson declared, “I believe that our renegotiation objectives have been substantially though not completely achieved”, and said that the government would recommend a vote in favour of continued membership.[3] On 9 April, the House of Commons voted 396 to 170 to continue within the Common Market on the new terms. Along with these developments, the government drafted a Referendum Bill, to be moved in case of a successful renegotiation.
The referendum debate was an unusual time in British politics. During the campaign, the Labour Cabinet was split and its members campaigned on each side of the question, a rare breach of Cabinet collective responsibility. Most votes in the House of Commons in preparation for the referendum were only carried thanks to opposition support, and the Government faced several defeats on technical issues such as election counts. Finally, although the Government declared in advance that it would comply with to the result, the referendum itself was not binding upon the government in the strict legal sense, due to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. This principle would itself come into question as a consequence of EEC membership in the Factortame litigation.
. . . No referendum was held when Britain agreed to an accession treaty on 22 January 1972 together with the EEC states, Denmark, and Ireland, or when the European Communities Act 1972 went through the legislative process. Britain joined the European Economic Community on 1 January 1973, along with Denmark and Ireland. This later became the European Union.
. . . The government introduced a bill which became the Referendum Act 1975.

@Hal I am a Computational Science graduate and I voted to LEAVE.
It is NOT a “statistical tie” when the winning margin was by more than a million votes. And by the way, at the last US Election Obama got 51.1% of the votes. Do you think that that should be classed as “a tie” as well? If not, why not?
The EU so-called “Parliament” cannot enact legislation, amend legislation, nor repeal legislation.
It is solely a rubber-stamp talking shop for the decisions taken by the UNELECTED Council of Ministers in cahoots with big business.
It is explicitly ANTI-democratic – no wonder why so many EU supporters are now calling for the vote to be overturned. They don’t believe in Democracy and are happily showing their true colours for all to see!

Perhaps what they thought they bought in 1975 is not what they got instead in 2016.
That.

Something that happened?

Or something that only happened in Laurie’s head?

It is NOT a “statistical tie” when the winning margin was by more than a million votes.
See some helpful and informative pictures.
And by the way, at the last US Election Obama got 51.1% of the votes. Do you think that that should be classed as “a tie” as well? If not, why not?
Lessee . . .
Brexit: A situation of an ongoing occurrence and a decision to keep going on or to end.
U.S. presidential election: A situation where there will be an end and a resulting void, and a need to fill the resulting void before it occurs.
Fruit salad is very nice, but apples and oranges remain utterly different fruit.