Here’s a pretty thing. Like Christmas in space.
Its purpose, beyond eye-candy, is to draw your attention to this.
Here’s a pretty thing. Like Christmas in space.
Its purpose, beyond eye-candy, is to draw your attention to this.
Erotic bouncy castle. // Baby hedgehog attempts to eat human. // The most northern city in the world seen from above. // The shorter, less silent Nosferatu. // “Fall asleep with Teddy Love after he is done pleasuring you with his powerful vibrations.” // Ice cave and flare. // When George R. R. Martin wrote a fan letter to Marvel. // A map of real-time lightning strikes. // It’s called style, you peasants. // Pointless websites. // Android newsreaders not quite perfected. // Pizza. // Wooden houseplants. // Wobbling whiskey glasses. // Waging war from the air, 1918. // The origins of science fiction terms, from death rays to tractor beams. // Clever bird. (h/t, Kate) // Because casting is everything. // And everything is racism.
Theodore Dalrymple on the values and inversions of the British underclass:
Certainly the notions of dependence and independence have changed. I remember a population that was terrified of falling into dependence on the state, because such dependence, apart from being unpleasant in itself, signified personal failure and humiliation. But there has been an astonishing gestalt switch in my lifetime. Independence has now come to mean independence of the people to whom one is related and dependence on the state.
Mothers would say to me that they were pleased to be independent, by which they meant independent of the fathers of their children — usually more than one — who in general were violent swine. Of course, the mothers knew them to be violent swine before they had children by them, but the question of whether a man would be a suitable father is no longer a question because there are no fathers: At best, though often also at worst, there are only stepfathers. The state would provide. In the new dispensation the state, as well as television, is father to the child.
See also this, especially the last two paragraphs.
Ed Driscoll quotes Daniel Henninger:
The IRS tea-party audit story isn’t Watergate; it’s worse than Watergate. The Watergate break-in was the professionals of the party in power going after the party professionals of the party out of power. The IRS scandal is the party in power going after the most average Americans imaginable.
See also Roger Kimball on de-unionising the IRS. Paul Caron’s exhaustive archive covering the scandal is of course still growing.
And somewhat related to this, Christina Hoff Sommers on sporting gender quotas and law gone bad:
Because of pressure from women’s groups like the National Women’s Law Centre and the Women’s Sports Foundation, Title IX evolved into a rigid quota regime that dictates equal participation in sports by both sexes regardless of interest… Schools are cutting back on male teams and creating new women’s teams, not because of demand, but because they are afraid of a federal investigation. [Feminist advocates] have persuaded courts that if there are fewer women than men on college varsity teams the only explanation is discrimination. [But] the evidence that women taken as a group are less interested than men in competitive sports is overwhelming.
As always, feel free to share your own links and snippets in the comments. It’s what these posts are for.
You wouldn’t want to miss the annual International Buffalo Bodypainting Festival in Jiangcheng County, China.
Oh, don’t tut. You’ve been culturally enriched.
Silvia Murray Wakefield, a “London-based feminist and mother of two,” is unhappy about a certain ongoing sporting event. Yes, that one. And so, naturally, she asks:
Is it anti-feminist to watch the World Cup?
Then the sorrow unfolds:
Still warm and fuzzy from the joy of the Olympics two years ago, I hanker to join an emotional ride with fellow spectators again, but the World Cup is different, as is the Tour de France. There’s no Jessica Ennis or Victoria Pendleton to aspire to or root for because these events include male competitors only.
Apparently conflicted about cheering on members of the opposite sex, this hitherto-neglected detail puts Ms Murray Wakefield in a quandary.
Men’s football is loved in Britain simply because the players are men… Even the fact the men’s World Cup is not explicitly stated to be a men’s competition erases women.
Yes, dear readers. All of womanhood is being erased by a sporting event that happens once every four years.
So do we women sideline ourselves by boycotting the games or do we take up space and holler along because it is fun and exciting?
Clearly, it’s an issue fraught with political agonising.
You could argue that the FIFA World Cup is also ageist and disablist (footballers are doomed to retire as soon as their wisdom teeth fully descend and disabled people are tacitly excluded).
And so it turns out that the World Cup is not only patriarchal and sexist but also ageist and disablist. So much exclusion, it takes the breath away. It’s not so much a sport, then, as an avalanche of bigotry and sin. Though, curiously, no such concerns are aimed at the young and able-bodied ladies who’ll be taking part in the Women’s World Cup in Canada, an event mentioned pointedly, three times, in the same article. Or indeed at the Olympics, an event that two years on leaves our Guardianista feeling “warm and fuzzy,” and in which male and female athletes compete separately.
Recent Comments