Friday Ephemera
“Hey, bear.” // A brief history of beehive hair-dos. // A brief history of horror films. // A brief history of urbanisation and the building of cities, 3700 BC – 2000 AD. // Batteries of yore. // There’s a loud buzzing noise in the garden. // Great questions of our time. // The secret world of foley. // So you know. // Illusions of note. // I’m doing it with my mind. // Casting Marvel’s Avengers, then and now. // Enhance grid 17. // Go deep. // HBO’s Westworld. // What could possibly go wrong? // Ladies and their electronic music. // Cats on amps. // Las Vegas in infrared. // And finally, voyeuristically, some passions are best left unseen.
Update: Much Brexit rumbling in the comments.
Has the EU evolved into something more intrusive than a Common Market since then? Did the voters in the UK ratify that evolution? Perhaps what they thought they bought in 1975 is not what they got instead in 2016.
. . . and thus when one is a participant in the ongoing occurrence . . . .
From the Guardian website:
I wonder if the young woman on the right considers how her banner, and the attitude it implies, may fail to impress a large part of the British electorate?
. . . and thus when one is a participant in the ongoing occurrence . . . .
Does being a participant in an ongoing occurrence mean consenting to a bait-and-switch?
Or something that only happened in Laurie’s head?
Most likely, given that if she wasn’t waving a sign like the one above, and I may be wrong here, but what are the odds that the average Nigel wearing a flag of St George is going to recognize her as the fabled (in her own mind) Miss Penny ?
OTOH, if one did, would he have been essentially wrong ? Over here in the USandA there are plenty of leftists, many in Congress, alas, who are geographic Americans, yet believe in no traditional American values, and are hence American In Name Only (AINO). From what I have gleaned from these august pages, Miss Penny seems to fit that mold from an English perspective.
Regarding ties, damned ties, and statistics…Since we’ve begun to split hairs regarding an ongoing occurrence or filling a void or wtf all that is about…Simple google research (yes, I know) turns up considerable consternation among statisticians regarding use of the term. However, the understanding seems to be, and this is how I’ve understood the term so long as I have studied statistics and maths and such, that a statistical tie is a tie in regard to polling or some other sort of approximation of a proper measurement. Such approximation comes with an accompanying margin of error. Thus say a 53% vs. 47% poll (poll here being exclusive of an actual vote where all concerned parties have had their position recorded) with a margin of error of +-4% would be a statistical tie because the margin of error exceeds the difference between the majority number and the minority number.
This Brexit event is not a poll in the statistical sense, however. This wasn’t a random sampling of people, it was an opportunity for all concerned to express their conscious (well, disregarding dear “Mandy” anyway) decision. Now one might argue that in a 52-48 decision there were a significant number of eligible voters restricted from voting such that they could make up the difference.
I am not British I am European
Where does she live?
Where does she vote?
Where does she pay her taxes?
Where does she live?
Where does she vote?
Where does she pay her taxes?
I think what irks is the air of condescension. It looks like an attempt to signal superiority, and it implies a certain dismissiveness of national identity or affiliation, as if such attachment were parochial and unsophisticated, as if a country were little more than a glorified hotel. Which is to say, an attitude that a large chunk of the electorate has seen quite a lot of lately, generally from people in positions of unusual influence and comfort, and who are immune to the broader consequences of their pronouncements.
An attitude that much of the electorate has apparently grown to dislike.
Lord knows Godfrey Elfwick did his best to convince people to Remain, all to no avail.
What this world’s come to I’ll never know…
Because they want to build a better world.
Good article from Suzanne Moore, who gets it (I recall a pre-referendum article of hers that was also good, and understood the anger of the peasants as well as the snobbery of the righteous).
“I spent my entire adolescence trying to get to London, I have brought up my children here. But my God – the arrogance right now of my chosen home is unbelievable to me.”
“All that contempt has now handed back a broken plate to the entire establishment. The only question is why it took so long. This is not a revolution. It is a revolt. Those who thought sovereignty was a ridiculous fantasy cannot seriously want to cut themselves off more, can they? London. Check your privilege.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/25/london-separate-city-state-leave-voters-class
as if such attachment were parochial and unsophisticated
Being British = Living with your parents
Being European = Living in the university dorms
Although it is psychologically necessary for teens to emotionally break from their parents via disdain and rebellion, youngsters don’t have the judgment to see that they’re taking the analogy way too far, that a national identity compared to “international identity” ain’t the same thing.
“Citizen of the World” will mean something only when people start living off-planet — or we meet beings from other worlds. Otherwise, as David says, it’s just a conceit.
In the meantime, I discuss how it’s a problem for conservative pundit George Will to be condescending, and Ian Tuttle observes the left’s reaction at their worldview being shattered.
This may be the longest ‘ephemera’ thread we’ve ever had. Another first.
A glass of wine, I think.
Otherwise, as David says, it’s just a conceit.
It’s something that tends to be said by well-heeled pseudo-egalitarian poseurs. Working-class people who save up for a week holidaying in Spain or Greece, or in Scarborough or Blackpool, they tend not to describe themselves as citizens of the world.
i don not feel bad for saying this, but old white ppl need to die
RENEW! RENEW!
Another dystopian novel becomes an instruction manual for the Left.
And this insufferable little twit is hardly alone. When did youthful rebelliousness become so genocidal?
Actually, although I voted Leave, I tend to agree that a simple majority shouldn’t be enough for major constitutional change. The United Kingdom could have been broken up after 300 years by one solitary vote back in 2014, which is absurd. (The reason the nationalists did it that way was that a vote on the establishment of a Scottish Assembly back in 1979 which did have threshold requirements was lost by the “Yes” side despite gaining a simple majority, so they now claim that any such requirements are “gerrymandering”.)
But look: A) Those were the rules, and B) It’s only a referendum, not a binding plebiscite. We don’t have those in Britain. As of today, nothing has changed. The UK is still a full member state of the European Union. Article 50 of the consolidated Treaties has not been invoked, and probably won’t be for several months, despite the Colleagues’ agitation. No doubt the closeness of the vote will be taken into account during negotiations; it’s quite clear that there’s no mandate for the Remainers’ “doomsday scenario” of complete isolation (not that there was ever a realistic chance of that, but still). So EFTA and the EEA seem highly likely, probably still with a modified form of Freedom of Movement. This vote doesn’t concern our membership of the Council of Europe at all, so appeal to the ECHR will still be possible (as it was before we joined the EEC). I expect (sadly, because it’s an absolute bloody fustercluck right now) we’ll remain with the European Patent Office too, which isn’t an EU institution either.
Everyone – especially the Remainers – needs to calm down a bit.
You have to be either in or out. There are no halfway measures.
You cannot rewrite the rules to be half in because you don’t like the victory margin.
It is a gamble, but then so is staying. To stay merely on the basis that it is less disruptive however is pathetic. Any polity that is guided by a policy of doing the things that are the least fuss is going to be sclerotic pretty fast.
“Nothing must change! is not much of a rallying cry. “I don’t like change!” is the politics of seven year olds.
On this matter of convincing majorities:
OK, the vote came out as 52:48.
A narrower margin in 2008 was hailed as the Second Coming, and a mandate to Transform America.
I have read estimates that the murder of Jo Cox MP moved 5% in favour of Remain, though I guess some would be abstentions rather than positive votes.
I would expect voting fraud, especially in London (Brits on here know who I mean), worth perhaps 1-2%, all in favour of Remain.
Project Fear, the Remain campaign, probably moved another 5%. Does anyone remember any positive arguments for staying in?
I am told (I live in Italy and did not vote for that reason) that immigrants were given the vote. Few would opt to support their hosts in Leaving.
The back of my envelope suggests that among native Brits, the vote was 65:35 in favour of Leave. Also, in my native Scotland, the vote for Remain was lower than reported, because fraud.
A glass of wine, I think.
I’ll drink to that!
“We note that you seem to be extremely familiar with how to be Progressive. Certainly more than me, but then I’m conservative.”
“We?” Since when do you speak for anyone but yourself?
Yes, Hal, I do have have some experience with progs. I’m surrounded by them where I am. Know thine enemy and all that. They are trying to change how voting works over here so things like 52 to 48 don’t mean winning. Maybe if you worried more about how ‘they’ work instead of pretty pop culture pictures in your post, you might get somewhere.
I am aware of what you are trying to say about ‘margins’. I’m saying it doesn’t matter. 52 to 48 is a majority. No matter how you, yourself, ‘weasel’ out of it.
A glass of wine, I think.
I had a nice moderately priced Argentine Malbec with dinner.
Jeff Wood:
Obama actually won by better than 52-48 in 2008. It was under four points in 2012, however.
Getting back to the more traditional ephemera…Texas woman wakes up from surgery with British accent.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/06/24/instant-accent-change-moos-pkg.cnn
It’s time to break up into smaller countries. In too many countries right now the populations are split almost 50/50 as to whom they prefer to rule over them, resulting in constant and acrimonious bickering.
We’ve always been told the more choice the better. Wouldn’t the same apply to countries? Instead of slowly marching in lockstep to a New World Order that leaves no room for dissent, we should be moving to greater freedom of choice. Now that would be true diversity! 🙂
Well, with the Brexit vote, there are already the comments from Scotland amounting to Oh, Cool, so we‘re leaving, Y’all can flounder on without us!!—while noting that Yes, there could be that further exit, but that further exit would be just as convoluted and utterly all around disruptive as the UK proposing to pull out of the EU . . . And then there are also now the observations of which way the assorted Irish will jump . . .
Soooo . . . with all the histrionics of Hooray for England!!!—Oh, wait, others are involved along with the English, aren’t they, oh, bugger, Russtovich does present an interesting idea . . . So, Yes, what if a basically national entity wants to rather split off and rather definitely have its own constitution, and its own parliament, government and courts.—Why yes, I was quoting something there . . .
So what if;
RESOLVED: The European Union shall indeed include the assorted nations of England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, something involving Northern Ireland, and all the rest, where each such individual nation shall indeed be basically rather independent in that overall framework, so that each nation has its own constitution, and its own parliament, government and courts, where thus each such nation operates exactly as does a canton of Switzerland within the overall federal directorial republic of The European Union . . . . .
Discuss.
Because they want to build a better world.
Vote now, vote often!
https://twitter.com/cbfortescue/status/746721789011722240
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_referendum,_1995
Changing the rules after the event is the bailiwick of the niggardly informed.
Cheers
She has “feminist” in her profile. Imagine my shock.”
Crying with laughter over here right now.
“Most cited reason to #VoteLeave was democracy. Not immigration.”
https://twitter.com/jamieamartin1/status/746707798721990656
But we’re all racists apparently.
wtp
I wonder if there was an “Andy” who voted Remain and later had second thoughts. Ah, but that would be Faux News
Actually, in Thursday’s Times there was a piece by a chap who’d been eurosceptic all his life and who’d “bottled it” at the last moment and voted Remain – moved by the irresponsible scare-mongering of the Remain campaign (when they weren’t crying racist or using the death of a mother to encourage people to vote their way)
Ah sorry. ‘/’ in the wrong place. Heh
Avalanche of italics fixed.
Avalanche of italics
Was that another of the predicted events if people voted to Leave?
Henry, but did he then regret doing so or was this a case of a xenophobic racist taking advantage of the opportunity to was his sins away?
waswash his sins awaySuzanne Evans of UKIP on the non-Apocalypse:
https://imgur.com/JovrlTS
Re: Beehives. How could a story about beehives not mention Dusty Springfield? Or did I miss it?
All those demanding an immediate referendum etc to get the “correct” result…
http://i.imgur.com/7zhnPaQ.png
Just hope Article 50 gets activated sooner rather than later.
RESOLVED: …. Discuss.
Points of information:
RESOLVED by whom?
What is a quorum?
What margin is required for the resolution to be adopted?
Where might I find the rules that answer those questions?
Mark: The picture you linked to is clearly phony. No tattoos.
Actually Hal, your comments about this might be more cogent and less insulting if you knew a little more (or anything at all, really) about this issue as it has developed over the last 60 years.
I cast my first vote ever in the 1975 referendum: I voted “yes.” My vote was driven by a combination of naive youthful idealism (all my own) and the outright and repeated lies of the pro-EEC establishment, who knew very well that the direction of movement of the EEC (as it was then) was set inexorably towards “ever closer union.” Strangely, they failed to mention this in that campaign; more than that, they specifically denied it.
Had they admitted the truth, there is very little doubt that that vote would have been a defeat for them: many of my grandparents’ generation (alive while Victoria was still on the throne) were still voting. You’ll have to take it from me that there was little appetite in that generation (who fought both world wars) for throwing away their national identity, of which they were exceptionally proud. And still less for ending their national sovereignty, for which they had sacrificed so much, in favour of a system specifically designed to insulate political leaders from the popular will and make them almost entirely unaccountable.
I know that I would have voted “no” had I known where this was headed, and so would all of those of my friends with whom I’ve since discussed it.
Since 1975 the establishment of the UK has continued to deny that the EU has a pre-set, hard-wired destination, when the truth was becoming inescapably obvious (even for the most obtuse). Indeed, you will find that they were still denying it in the last few weeks.
Given the lack of basic truthfulness and the enormous propaganda resources of the Remain campaign, I am still astonished that Leave won a majority of any size.
I live opposite a polling station, and I knew early on Thursday that we were heading for a huge turnout. The street has never – and I mean never – been so busy on a polling day. It was a privilege to see such commitment expressed so peacefully.
We all knew – even your smug colleague knew – that the result would be binding if it were Remain, even if the margin was a single vote on a tiny turnout. That was the rule before the day, and that’s the rule now.
Discuss.
There is nothing to discuss- any proposal for such a constitutional arrangement would be anathema to the technocrats who pull the levers within the EU and absolutely antithetical to key EU treaties such as those of Maastricht and Lisbon.
Fen Tiger.
Well said.
By the way, the petition for a Referendum do-over with 2 million (3 million!) “signatures”? Those numbers might be 4Chan’s most successful prank to date.
I saw a early thread at the /pol/ board where they were encouraging readers to spam the poll almost immediately after it was created, but that was before someone posted a bot script that’s been reposted almost continuously since.
Mark: The picture you linked to is clearly phony. No tattoos.
Look again, major neck tattoo.
M R Tats
M R Not
O S A R
C @ Ink
L I B
M R Tats
I wonder if the young woman on the right considers how her banner, and the attitude it implies, may fail to impress a large part of the British electorate?
Young woman? She’s behaving like a child. And she’s been educated far beyond the level of her intelligence, because she conflates the EU and Europe and she clearly cannot grasp that being British and European are not incompatible.
Look again, major neck tattoo.
I stand corrected. I thought it was a scarf. (I’m old.)
And she’s been educated far beyond the level of her intelligence, because she conflates the EU and Europe
I take issue with your choice of verb. ‘Schooled’ , in the same sense as schooling a show jumper would be much nearer the mark. This has been my preferred descriptor for the products of the ‘education’ system for the past several decades but I’m coming to the conclusion that this is also too generous, so I’m coming down on the side of ‘processed’.
Captures something, I think:
Captures something …
Quite, although it’s been going on rather longer than a decade. I want to live in a nation where it is implicitly understood that everything is lawful unless there is good reason for it to be explicitly forbidden, rather than a State that assumes the right to supervise and regulate every aspect of human activity.