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.

On Radio 4 this morning, Quentin Letts asked, not unreasonably, What’s the Point of the Arts Council?

The reason Arts Council officials demand “challenging and contemporary” work is not that the new is necessarily better; it’s because the new gives them an edge. They can be its arbiters and make sure it follows approved creeds.

To hear a glittering cast opine, along with the notion of subsidised beer and what may be the first broadcast use of the term “tickboxery”, click here.

Masaru Tatsuki has spent nine years photographing Japan’s decorated trucks and the people who drive them. 

A book, Decotora: 1998-2007 Japanese Art Truck Scene, is available here.

Related: Smart Car Monster Truck. 

Stefan Nadelman’s Food Fight. A short history of modern warfare, fought with egg rolls, chicken nuggets, sushi and falafel.

An index of warring foodstuffs. Related: Warfare with nuts and ribbon.

For Battlestar Galactica enthusiasts, a slice of blasphemy.

Naturally, the image above contains clues as to the show’s final season. Is Baltar’s Six about to deliver the Cylon gospel? Who’s the new Number Six standing on the left, as if to denounce her counterpart? And who’s missing from the table, and why? Stay tuned.

Previously…

Pink-eyed fascination. (h/t, Mick Hartley.) // Earthquake van. // Christvertising. Do you have the best brand-prayer alignment? (h/t, Chastity Darling.) // The electromagnetic spectrum. (h/t, Infosthetics.) // BSG teaser. // “I’m afraid I can’t do that.” Dangerous computers. // On HAL’s programming conflict. A detailed breakdown. // The Dawn of Man and Discovery, rendered in Lego. Yes, the pod bay doors do open. // Things turn ugly between HAL and Dave. (h/t, Ace.) // The BigDog robot. Sounds like a fly, walks like a horse. // Dog and machine in perfect harmony. // Wooden elephants. // Wooden horses. // Knit your own squid. // Stefan Kanfer on misplaced pacifism. // Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism podcast. // Madsen Pirie on poverty. // Mary Jackson on a failed accountant’s jihad. // Iranian schoolbooks. Shaping young minds. // Remarkable crushing machines. // Luminescent gravel. // The luminescent pillow. (h/t, Ace.) // Prequels are evil. // Alarming intersections. // And, via The Thin Man, Janis would like some wheels.

The readiness of many Guardian commentators to assume that the views of their own modest readership reflect those of the country as a whole, and perhaps all enlightened beings, has previously been noted. Some project their personal dramas onto crushing social forces like Heat magazine, and Madeleine Bunting rarely misses an opportunity to tell us how we feel about things she doesn’t like. Yesterday’s Guardian leader, titled Fear and Flying, provides another example of this phenomenon while denouncing the use of aircraft as a means of covering large distances. Flying is, apparently, an “addiction” – one which must be curbed for the sake of Mother Earth. The piece states, a tad presumptuously, 

It is easy to preach about the need to restrict air travel…

Actually, I find it quite difficult to preach about the need to restrict air travel, but clearly that’s a sign of my moral inadequacy. More upstanding, and less inhibited, Guardian readers voiced their own ecstasy of indignation:

Air travel is disgusting both in the air and on the ground.

NOBODY who flies casually can call themselves ethical. 

Of note, however, is the article’s opening claim that,

Flying has become a modern middle-class hypocrisy, a source of guilt and pleasure all at the same time.

This belief that the rest of us must, simply must, share in some kind of titillating remorse caught the eye of Mr Euginedes: 

Now, I’m willing to accept that I may not have a finger on the pulse of the nation, but are people really “guilty” about flying? Are there actually people outside the Guardian / Independent Axis of Hand-Wringing who hesitate at the “checkout” screen at Expedia, their pointers hovering, shaky with guilt, over the “Buy” icon, before going back and booking trains to Cornwall instead? And if so, who are they?

It would, I feel, be of tremendous public benefit to repeat the phrase “Axis of Hand-Wringing” at regular intervals in the hope that it will be imprinted on the popular consciousness. Then, given time and sufficient repetition, everyone will come to feel exactly as I do.

Update:

Visitors via Tim Blair may also be interested in a condition that afflicts quite a few Guardian regulars, Phantom Guilt Syndrome.

In light of recent rumblings on bias in academia, Fabian Tassano has some not unrelated thoughts.

Imagine the following scenario. A bunch of intelligent people get together and create — using funding that is more or less unconditional — a system for generating intellectual output. However, this output does not have to pass any particular test except whether a majority of system insiders agree it is worthy. So the members of the system are entirely insulated from assessment other than their own. Like any social group, they create a hierarchy of rank, in which some are allowed to progress to the top of the ladder depending on criteria which the group as a whole decides on. What is the likely outcome? And what happens if there also starts to be an ideology which places pressure on them to produce results which fit with, rather than go against, that ideology?