I am resurrecting my Tumblr…
Because most things I want to post are
a) too frequent for Facebook
b) too lengthy for Twitter
and
c) too mundane for my blog.
Thus, Tumblr!
Ohhhhh shit. Y'all need to follow freal.
Because most things I want to post are
a) too frequent for Facebook
b) too lengthy for Twitter
and
c) too mundane for my blog.
Thus, Tumblr!
Ohhhhh shit. Y'all need to follow freal.
On Distraction by Alain de Botton, City Journal Spring 2010 (via machinery, secondperiod, andrewtsks)
Man, fuck that. I don’t “allow” shit to do shit in my mind. If culture wants to assume a weight in my thoughts, it better damn well tear down my barricades and storm its way in.
If you click through to the link, De Botton waxes rhapsodic about some of the most limiting and stale ideas in human history. Viz:
A student pursuing a degree in the humanities can expect to run through 1,000 books before graduation day. A wealthy family in England in 1250 might have owned three books: a Bible, a collection of prayers, and a life of the saints—this modestly sized library nevertheless costing as much as a cottage. The painstaking craftsmanship of a pre-Gutenberg Bible was evidence of a society that could not afford to make room for an unlimited range of works but also welcomed restriction as the basis for proper engagement with a set of ideas.
You know what? I’m 100 per cent OK with having read more than the Bible in my lifetime. (I haven’t actually read the Bible because it’s boring and badly written.) But knowledge is good. Finding out new things is good. And finding out new things goes hand in hand with thinking about new things; one does not come at the expense of the other. I am the culture eater: feed me, feed me.
I am very busy this week so it’s killing me that I can’t spend the necessary hours to luxuriate in the copious analysis the Atlantic has been giving to urban geography the past few minutes. If y'all don’t know, I love cities, and this is, like, I'unno… as far as things tailor-made to gratify me go, this is as close to perfect as a strip club where all the strippers are Rory Gilmore*. And the music is Taylor Swift** and Gaslight Anthem. And there’s an election on***.
*Not Alexis Bledel. Rory Gilmore.
**Stripping to “Love Story”? Ehh… I’ll take it.
***Everyone start unfollowing me… now.
I have a blog, which is kind of non-specific. Recently, I’ve started blogging a lot about Australian politics, and this really interests me, so I’m thinking about focusing on an Australian politics blog. Should I keep doing it at my site with my existing brand and my existing audience, http: //www.naysayersspeak.com, or do I start a new site that is only-and-forever Australian politics?
Anyone got any advice for Erin?
A useful adjunct to the Wikipedia Reporting Verb is the YouTube Legal Disclaimer. Commonly found on illicitly uploaded movies, TV series, or music videos, the YouTube Legal Disclaimer is an inspired innovation in intellectual property law. It works as follows:
1. When uploading material one does not own to YouTube, one should insert into the description field, “No Copyrite Intended.”
2. The upload is now legal and the uploader is immune from prosecution.
The legal brilliance of this maneuver derives from the strict legal principle that possession is nine tenths of the law, and intention is the other ten per cent. Since the uploader possesses the material in question, and has no intention of observing that anyone else might own the copyright, by declaring “No Copyrite Intended,” he or she instantly legitimizes his or her activities.
I asked Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia about this piece of legal creativity, and he told me he was astonished. “It’s foolproof,” he marveled. “The inventor of this disclaimer must be a legal genius of the sort not seen since the creation of the No Backsies doctrine!”
(Later, Clarence Thomas approached me and said, “I agree with Scalia.”)
Maia, “shorter, cuter, more honest people," Feministe, July 27, 2010 (h/t Rachel Hills)
Ah, now this is a thing. Surnameless Maia considers it discriminatory for adults to prefer places and social occasions where her daughter is not welcome.
Her argument is that… well, she doesn’t have a very well formed one save for her contention that her child is – firstly – really, really, great, and – secondly – a person. If you’ve ever met other people’s children, you know how whopping is the grain of salt required to uncritically accept the first point, but, in regard to the second, if Maia had a reasonable point that adult privilege was being wielded against her three year old, that should be enough.
But, of course, no discrimination is being wielded against her three year old. Her three year old isn’t taking herself down to a bar and being told that her kind isn’t accepted round these parts. Maia’s three year old is being dragged around town by her mother, which is absolutely reasonable, because three year olds aren’t self-governing, autonomous individuals; that is, the kind of individuals who are capable of bearing rights. The person burdened in Maia’s post is Maia, not her three year old.
If we’re going to talk about privileged classes, let’s talk about privileged classes. Parents are an overwhelmingly privileged class. Tax systems are structured to advantage them. Politicians target their campaigns at them ("working families,” anyone?). Censorship laws are written according to their demands. Their education expenditures are subsidized.
So, let’s talk about privilege. This is a member of a privileged class complaining that she is being limited in wielding her privilege to impose on the people around her. Somehow I’m not particularly outraged.