Shared posts

22 Aug 22:50

growing objectsProject from nervous systems is a collection of...









growing objects

Project from nervous systems is a collection of 3D printed zoetropes depicting natural-like growth algorithms:

“Growing Objects” is a series of kinetic sculptures that illustrate algorithmic growth processes. Inspired by 19th century zoetropes, these interactive sculptures consist of 3D printed objects that when spun and illuminated animate the development of complex forms; when still, they allow the viewer to examine each step of the growth process.

Our zoetropes reimagine some of the earliest ancestors of modern day cinema and animation: the phenakistoscope, zoetrope and praxinoscope. We’re fascinated by these devices because they are fundamentally interactive and participatory, enabling the viewer to deconstruct the animation process. We are adapting this kinetic apparatus to illustrate and explain our algorithmic art process via 3D printing.

More Here

22 Aug 20:14

Photo





22 Aug 20:13

floralls: peonies by Emma


peonies by Emma


peonies by Emma


peonies by Emma


peonies by Emma


peonies by Emma


peonies by Emma

floralls:

peonies by Emma

 
22 Aug 20:13

fairytalemood: “Beauty and the Beast” illustrated by Nicole...









fairytalemood:

“Beauty and the Beast” illustrated by Nicole Claveloux

22 Aug 20:13

Photo



22 Aug 20:13

Photo



22 Aug 20:13

nubbsgalore: lightning strikes the grand canyon. photos by...


travis roe


dan ransom


rolf maeder


adam schallau


gerard baeck


doug koepsel


adam schallau


adam schallau

nubbsgalore:

lightning strikes the grand canyon. photos by (click pic) travis roe, dan ransom, rold maeder, gerard baeck, david ponton, doug koepsel and adam schallau

22 Aug 20:13

A Peek Inside the Galleries and a Playlist of Short Films Showing at Banksy’s Dismaland

by Christopher Jobson

gallery-1
Dietrich Wegner / Photo by Christopher Jobson for Colossal

The fun thing about Dismaland is that in addition to pieces by Banksy, you get to immerse yourself in the works of 58 additional artists, and films by 22 directors and animators. It’s impossible to grasp the scope of every last sculpture, painting, and installation, but included here is a small selection of pieces the crowds are buzzing about inside the three large indoor gallery spaces at Dismaland. You can see our additional coverage of the event here, and Evan over at Juxtapoz managed to get an exclusive interview with Banksy before the event.

Lastly, here are links to the 24 short films included in the hour-long Cinema program I helped with.

F*ck That: A Guided Meditation by Jason Headley; Bottle by Kristen Lepore; New York Park by Black Sheep Films; Symmetry by the Mercadantes; Magic Hats by Jake Sumner; Golden Age of Insect Aviation: The Great Grasshoppers by Wayne Unten; Walking on By by Mr. Freeman; Merry-go-round by Vladimír Turner; The Gap by Daniel Sax; 5 mètres 80 by Nicolas Deveaux; I’ve fallen, and I can’t get up! by Dave Fothergill [with audio added]; Danielle by Anthony Cerniello; Anamorphose Temporelle by Adrien M. & Claire B.; Stainless / Shinjuku (excerpt) by Adam Magyar; Collapsing Cooling Towers by Ecotricity; Liberty by Vincent Ullmann [edited with audio added]; The Employment by opusBou; Yawns by the Mercadantes; Rush Hour by Black Sheep Films; Pug Particles by Ramil Valiev; Shell’s priceless Grand Prix moment by Greenpeace Living With Jigsaw by Chris Capell; Teddy Has An Operation by Ze Frank; and Don’t Hug Me I’m Scared #1 by Becky and Joe.

maskull
Janus, 2015 (Courtesy of Maskull Lasserre)

gallery-4
Damien Hirst

adp-1
Jimmy Cauty’s ADP installation / Photograph by Christopher Jobson for Colossal / Click for detail

gallery-5
Embroidered cars by Severija Inčirauskaite-Kriaunevičiene / Photo by Christopher Jobson for Colossal

ronit
Anatomical ceramics by Ronit Baranga

gallery-7
Tattooed Porcelain Figures by Jessica Harrison / Top photo by Christopher Jobson for Colossal

gallery-8
Paco Pomet / Photo by Christopher Jobson for Colossal

22 Aug 20:12

YIMMY'S YAYO™

by walkman
22 Aug 20:12

Photo



22 Aug 17:06

Hazy sunrise in Portland this morning #pdx #portland #sellwood...



Hazy sunrise in Portland this morning

#pdx #portland #sellwood #portlandoregon #pnw

22 Aug 17:06

Photo



22 Aug 17:06

rosalarian: rritchiearts: Check this comic and others out on...









rosalarian:

rritchiearts:

Check this comic and others out on Everyday Feminism!

Transcripts of the comic available at the above link.

Webcomic | Twitter | Patreon | Prints

Be aware of your Pride and what exactly it is you’re proud of and who you’re throwing under the bus to get that pride.

22 Aug 15:35

scully’s eye roll





scully’s eye roll

22 Aug 15:34

The War on Social Security

by Scott Lemieux

bush-cardjpg-1fa6815b23a95d99

…is, as Helaine Olen observes, also a war on women:

Social Security is rightly viewed as a program that provides economic security for all Americans in their old age. But who is most likely to benefit from it? From the time an American can first claim eligibility at age 62, the majority of those receiving a Social Security check in retirement are female—56 percent to start off, to be specific. But because women outlive men, that discrepancy grows only larger with time. By age 85, about two-thirds of the recipients are women.

Moreover, women—who earn less than men and take more pauses from the workforce (due in part to their assumption of caretaking duties for everyone from children to elderly relatives)—are more dependent on Social Security for their economic well-being in their final years than their male peers are. According to the National Women’s Law Center, 30 percent of women 65 or older rely on Social Security for at least 90 percent of their income. Men? Only 23 percent are so reliant. And women’s checks are smaller, too. The average retired female worker receives more than $300 less a month from Social Security than a male one.

Viewed all together, this leaves women more likely to suffer from any cutbacks in Social Security, even the most innocent-sounding ones. Take a look at calls to change the formula to determine annual cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security payments, a position supported by, for example, Ted Cruz.

This is one of the many reasons to oppose radical efforts by Republicans to end Social Security,* and it’s also one of many reasons to oppose the Chained CPI proposals floated by Obama. Politically, Democrats need to position themselves as the party of strengthening and expanding Social Security, period. It’s good policy and good politics.

*George W. Bush did not just run on privatizing Social Security in his 2004 campaign but in his 2000 one, exhibit ZZZ showing why people who insist that there was no way of knowing how conservative he was ex ante just didn’t know what they were talking about.

22 Aug 15:10

glitteringgoldie: Neon Genesis Duckvangelion PT.1/??? This was...









glitteringgoldie:

Neon Genesis Duckvangelion PT.1/???

This was way too much fun…might do more of these.

22 Aug 15:09

goldenageestate: Charlie Chaplin ~ Sunnyside, 1919



goldenageestate:

Charlie Chaplin ~ Sunnyside, 1919

22 Aug 15:09

Photo



22 Aug 15:09

thecommonchick: WHY AM I LAUGHING SO HARD AT THIS 😂





thecommonchick:

WHY AM I LAUGHING SO HARD AT THIS 😂

22 Aug 15:09

Photo









22 Aug 15:08

rhaenyraetargaryen: Sissi + favourite costumes



















rhaenyraetargaryen:

Sissi + favourite costumes

22 Aug 15:08

The Saturday Rumpus Essay: Growing Up Gaming

by Jonathan Harper

There are people who play games and there are people who are gamers. And then, there are those of us who are caught somewhere in between.

The game I’m currently playing is Inquisition, the third installment of the Dragon Age franchise. Over the past few months, I’ve invested over fifty hours and yet I’m barely halfway through. I’m one of those slow methodical types with very busy schedule. I’m lucky if I can find one night a week to play and I can only focus on one game at a time. According to some, this would automatically exclude me from being a true gamer. I can’t help it. I’m the kind of player who values story over action; I easily get distracted by all the subplots. I become infatuated with all the side characters. I spend too much time collecting companions, talking with them, learning their histories. I also like to flirt, especially with the men.

Long gone are the days where we raced along a linear path only to be told, “Sorry, Mario, but the Princess is in another castle.” I prefer today’s princess. She usually doesn’t need to be rescued. Instead, she’s more likely to grab a weapon and fight by your side. Pink is not her color. Unlike the previously silent damsels in distress, the princess now has dialogues and a backstory. If you ask, she’ll happily give her opinion on the current situation. She will question your decisions and challenge your authority. If you want to romance her, you’ll have to work for it. She doesn’t just swoon over the first hero to show up at her feet. Not interested in the princess? Then leave her behind and take one of the other companions instead. They’ll each bring their own spin on the story and are equally fun to sleep with.

In Inquisition, the object of my affection is the Iron Bull, one of the two romance plots available to queer male players. Bull is a hulking barbarian with an eye patch and horns. He is vulgar and charming and even leads his own mercenary band. As with most romance plots, Bull requires cultivation. You have to flirt with him and flirt hard. Then, invest in his subplots: bring him on missions, make decisions based on justice over mercy, and eventually fight a dragon. Lastly, give him a gift. Then the romance is authenticated and the reward is a cinematic cut scene.

It opens to a private bedchamber where Bull lies naked in all his brawny glory, his naughty parts strategically obscured from plain view. The player character leans in close. This is the tender moment before sex when two lovers share a moment of intimacy. Of course, the door opens and in walks Cullen, the prudish military advisor, who mid-sentence cries out in surprise. Following him are ambassador Josephine and knight-commander Cassandra. All three interlopers stare in disbelief, the player mumbles through an explanation, witty comments are exchanged and Bull remains naked the entire time.

Cassandra: (in a shocked voice) So, I take it…
Bull: (pointing to the player) Actually, he’s the one who’s been taking it.
Cullen: (averting his eyes) Nothing wrong with a bit of fun.
Josephine: (staring forward, mouth agape) Who wouldn’t be a little bit curious?

daibullThe scene is both hysterical and cringe-worthy. As I watched, I was instantly transported back in time to my careless college days, specifically one afternoon when I was discovered in an upperclassman’s dorm room, caught in a very compromising position. We were interrupted by the roommate and his girlfriend, who both erupted into laughter. In my horror, I could only shield my face. I was certain that if I was identified, that I would be publicly ridiculed and ostracized. Instead, they gave a quick dinner invitation and left so we could “finish up.” Later that evening, I sat happily in a restaurant booth, eating and laughing with these people as if we’d been friends for years. They made it clear I had no reason to feel ashamed.

The Iron Bull romance left me with a similar hopeful feeling. At first, it is a recognizable scene: two men meet in secret for a tryst and are discovered by their associates. It is a moment of unwanted exposure, where our bodies and their private functions are on display for people who will judge us. In the scene, witty comments are exchanged and a few chuckles are murmured. But it ends with goodwill. There is no challenge to the player’s leadership or integrity. The romance plot becomes canonized into the story and this group will continue to work together without the need for secrets.

Scenes like this show that the gaming industry is doing something right.

My husband, Gordon, tolerates my gaming romances with an exasperated sense of humor. He refers to it as my silly habit of screwing my way through the campsite. We are different types of gamers: he’s into first-person shooters; I prefer interactive stories. In the previous Dragon Age games, I’ve carried on dalliances with the assassin Zevran, the apostate mage Anders and the witch Morrigan (for plot value, of course). Thank goodness my husband is not the jealous type.

After the climax of the Iron Bull scene, I could not wait to show it to Gordon. I described it with vivid hand gestures, repeating the same one-liners as if he hadn’t heard me the first time. He, however, did not share my enthusiasm. “Is this inclusive or exclusive?” he asked with a creased brow. “I don’t like the idea that we’re being treated as a joke.”

I was taken aback. Nothing about this felt offensive. Instead, I was excited to see this level of development for a queer protagonist. But I understand my husband’s concerns. It’s not enough that we’re represented; we must be represented appropriately. I think we’re still trying to figure out what that means. I’d hate to think what Gordon would think of the other gay character, Dorian. Ugh—I could barely acknowledge him. Dorian is everything you’d expect: flamboyant fashion sense, discordant relationship with his family, and manscaping to near magical proportions. Not my type. I liked Iron Bull for his rugged and sardonic personality. Plus, I imagine he would be a lot more fun to snuggle with.

The companion characters have become the lifeblood of the modern RPG. In terms of gameplay, they are the chess pieces a player uses to vanquish enemies and overcome obstacles. In terms of plot, they are the context for the story. They are meant to be interacted with in order to learn about the mythology of the world and offer subplots. Their own ethics can affect how they respond to player decisions. Sometimes a companion will offer special rewards. Other times, they will abandon or betray the party. The special few can be romanced. As game plots became more intricate, so do the companions.

Baldur’s Gate: Shadows of Amn was the cause of so many skipped classes and late papers during college. I had trouble focusing on the immense story arc because the side characters were too interesting. From a cast of sixteen, I could only recruit five companions, which never seemed like enough. Each of them had their own involved storyline. They were constantly asking me to do things for them. Sometimes, they even spoke to each other. Walk out of an inn and the game would pause. The overbearing Annomen started bragging to the meek Aerie about his exploits while she complimented him. Then the conversation ended and the game continued. I’d never experienced anything like this. I kept restarting the game to try out all the different characters, and the plot twists were epic. viconia_devir_by_nixxical-d5rd6baYoshimo always betrays the party at Spellhold; it is revealed that Imoen is the player’s sister. I grew attached to certain personalities and knew which events I wanted canonized into the story.

The character I liked the most was Viconia, the salacious dark elf priestess. She was one of three romance options for male players. There were no queer characters, so I always chose her (though I felt our union was one of those platonic relationships between a gay men and straight women). I liked her because she was humorous, sultry, and had a habit of taunting the other companions. With the right dialogue choices, you could convince her not to be so evil.

In one side quest, the stoic Valygar turns down a prostitute’s offer, after which Viconia wastes no time in questioning his sexuality. “I wonder if you’re swinging your sword for the right team,” she said.

Gay jokes are common and easy in an environment where gay identity is not acknowledged. At the time, I wasn’t offended. I didn’t think about it, nor did I think about the lack of diversity. For one of most influential RPGs of the last decade, female characters were heavily outnumbered by males, heroes of color were practically non-existent, and the only reference to queerness was a joke. I do not know if the characters themselves were flawed or if there simply weren’t enough of them.

For some of us, what makes an adventure meaningful are the people we bring along the journey.

I come from a close-knit, fiercely loving, but sometimes overbearing family. We were military and Catholic, which together created a hefty umbrella of expectations. Because we moved every other year, there was an emphasis on family-bonding. First impressions were not only important, but they happened frequently. I was a gawky and slightly effeminate boy who valued his privacy. I found this constant pressure suffocating. I preferred to be alone. My favorite activities involved fantasy novels and make-believe. I remember receiving so many strange looks from others that I lived in a perpetual state of embarrassment. It was a good, safe childhood, but not always a happy one.

For a while, I had a nice circle of friends I saw regularly. These boys were like me: nerdy, socially awkward, and prone to living in their imaginations long after it was encouraged. We enjoyed being weird and isolated. Our mutual love of fantasy gravitated us toward games like Dungeons & Dragons. Our weekends were spent in someone’s basement surrounded by gaming manuals, dice, and figurines. The adventures we played were from prepackaged booklets, but the characters were our own. We spent entire afternoons designing them, each an extension of ourselves, only with magic powers and epic talents. Each of us had a specific role; I was always the healer. We carved out elaborate backstories and coincidentally we were all orphans. In this world, we had no family or obligations, just each other: a band of traveling misfits. dungeons_and_dragons_party_by_uncannyknack-d7j7l0rThat was all we wanted out of life. I started transcribing our stories, thinking one day I would turn them into the next great fantasy novel to rival Tolkien. Of course, I never finished. My family moved a year later and I never saw these boys again.

I grew up learning there was a great distinction between what you wanted to be and what the world would allow you to be. I was a closeted gay teenager in a military family, often bullied and intimidated by all things masculine. I was a social drifter. The few gaming groups I joined were often short-lived and my queerness was usually the reason. I am often surprised how a group that was often stigmatized could turn on one of their own so quickly. They avoided me in public. Around the game table, they were very cruel under the guise of playfulness. I never stayed long.

The girls I befriended were the nurturing sort, who saw me as a fragile, broken thing that needed mending. We could talk all night about books and sex and pop music. They often joked that I was their own personal Ricky from My So-Called Life. Once, I told them about a funny thing that happened to me in an online chat room. I had listed “role-playing games” as an interest in my profile, which had a very different meaning to certain people. A dude messaged me about it. In his version of role-playing, I wasn’t a healer, but a broke pool-boy and he was an important business executive with lots of money. I was fifteen. When I told the girls about this, they all agreed that it was a hysterical story, but it would be wise if I dropped the role-playing interest. I shouldn’t give people the wrong impression.

For years, the family computer was an archaic Apple 2C. I had a collection of old computer games, the kind with low graphics and text boxes. I would create a group of adventures and named them after the friends I liked most. There were no subplots or personalities, just a list of names, but that was enough to imagine this group meandering together through a pixelated world. Sometimes, I played until sunrise. In retrospect, I think of this with an overwhelming sense of loneliness. I was trying to recreate an experience. It didn’t feel that way at the time.

In March 2008, The Economist ran an obituary for Dungeons & Dragons creator Gary Gygax. The Internet was alive with postings titled, “Gygax Fails His Savings Throw,” memorializing him in the way he probably would have wanted. I was surprised by the amount of loss I felt. This was a strange grief, the kind reserved for public figures,18943 when we mourn not only the person, but what they represented. To me, Gygax represented a part of my childhood. I was in my late twenties, juggling graduate school and a full-time job. There was no time for games, which only increased my nostalgia.

As with most creators, Gygax had been disenfranchised from his own product. His own company had let him go; he did not approve the new versions of his core rules nor the transition into video games. As stated in the article,

… he thought computer graphics cheapened the experience by substituting an artist’s imagination for the player’s. And while computers were ideal for streamlining tedious dice rolls and arithmetic, those, for him, were never the point. He considered role-playing a social thing, a form of group storytelling.

I agree. The RPG was a unique experience, which removed the elements of competition and replaced them with cooperation. A collective of players bring their unique ideas and collaborate to tell their story. Video games, however, changed a communal experience into a solo one. They became different stories: prefabricated, linear, and impersonal. But for some of us, they were the only alternative.

That’s why the characters matter. As we become the story’s protagonist, the companions represent the other players. In a way, they bring a sense of humanity into the plot. Their personalities may attract or repel us, their motivations may or may not align with our own. They become our point of reference, our guides, our rivals or friends. They give us decisions to make and show us the consequences. Sometimes, through them we see our community. Sometimes, they are extensions of ourselves.

This idea has never sat well within the gaming community.

In 2003, after a long gaming hiatus, I eagerly purchased The Temple of Elemental Evil, which had earned considerable notoriety for featuring the first openly gay character. In Bertram’s storyline, he was a “cabin boy” in “servitude” to an evil pirate captain. His portrait depicted him as a grinning man with a moustache and a pink bandana under a pirate hat. A male player could flirt with him and thus open up a side quest to win Bertram’s freedom and have him join the group as the player’s boyfriend. Unlike the intricate story arcs of Inquisition, this was underdeveloped and a tad ridiculous, even for its time. But I bought the game anyway and rushed through the early sections so I could acquire Bertram as early as possible. There was no wooing or consummating the relationship. The romance wasn’t mentioned again until the ending credits where a narrator stated that Bertram and I lived happily ever after. But I cherished this campy character because he was the first time that my queerness had been integrated into a story. I felt connected. I was given something personal to care about.

bertramOverall, Temple of Elemental Evil begged to be controversial. It was saturated with adult themes of sexual servitude, child-brides, demonic religions—the list goes on. But it was Bertram, an optional queer character, that caused an uproar. From across the Internet, the words “AIDS” and “faggot” were tossed around like a limp wrist. Players claimed that gay characters had no place in RPGs, that somehow their authenticity was at stake, that we were ruining their experience. It was enough to make grown men turn into whiny children, threatening to take their toys away if the rest of us did not play with them correctly. None of this surprised me. Over a decade later, these voices are fewer, but just as loud. In a recent response to the queer romance options in the Mass Effect and Dragon Age franchises, one gamer actually claimed the industry was turning “heterophobic,” whatever that means.

When I encounter one of these critics now, I feel pity for them. I think, “You must be lonely and you are not used to being challenged.” The real danger of characters like Bertram and Iron Bull is that you begin to acknowledge that people like me exist, that our experiences have meaning. My husband asked me if these games were inclusive. I learned a long time ago that most people are not.

I suddenly find myself as a man in his mid-thirties who occasionally clings to the whimsical and nostalgic. I long gave up fantasy novels in favor of Flannery O’Connor and Mary Gaitskill. I got my MFA, got married, and bought a house. I eventually published a book and now I struggle with ideas for the next one. When I do play, all the house projects and the stress over my day job fades. My husband gently kisses my forehead at bedtime and I smile while pressing the buttons on my game controller.

In Inquisition, I’m someplace else, caught between the fantasies of childhood and the strain of the adult world. I stumble upon the Iron Bull romance and I am further drawn into the story. I reach the climatic scene I mentioned before and feel my husband’s disapproval like a sting. But I shrug his worries off. Two male lovers are discovered by three of their companions. The straight man is in the minority. Both women are in positions of authority and power; the dark skinned woman is the most educated person in the room. It’s the kind of scene that would have meant so much to my younger self, when these stories were what I lived for.

***

Image credits: featured image, image #2, image #3, image #4, image #5, image #6.

Related Posts:

22 Aug 15:05

beggars-opera: beggars-opera: My friends idea of a good time is dressing up in colonial attire and...

beggars-opera:

beggars-opera:

My friends idea of a good time is dressing up in colonial attire and pretending to beat each other up while similarly dressed colonial men jump around in the background waving fistfuls of cash

I feel like my life has reached a peak it’s all downhill from here 

In case anyone thought I was being facetious

where the actual fuck is this

22 Aug 15:04

skulls-and-tea: beesandsussex: The Adventure of the...



skulls-and-tea:

beesandsussex:

The Adventure of the Illustrious Client

WHAT’S THAT YOU SAY 

I CAN’T

HEAR YOU

OVER 

THE SOUND

OF MY 

EXTREMELY NON-HOMOEROTIC MODE OF RELAXATION

This topic comes up every now and again and benefits from having a little general data added.

In the period in question, baths weren’t primarily a homoerotic / gay thing. (Not that gay men couldn’t use the baths for facilitating their lifestyle… certainly it could be done, if one was careful. But that wasn’t the baths’ primary context.) What’s important to remember is that indoor plumbing of the type we’re used to wasn’t necessarily a given in the 1890s, even in houses in big cities. (And even less so in flats, which were seen as a budget option that a gentleman would dump as soon as possible. Not Holmes, though; he got comfortable there on Baker Street in the rooms he shared with Watson, and declined to move on even when he started pulling down the big four- and five-figure paycheques from troubled kings and distressed industrialists. Still, some people’s disdain on discovering that Sherlock Holmes was operating out of a flat rather than a house is spelled out specifically in Canon, and Gatiss and Moffat purposely riff on that in Sherlock by the pointed way Mycroft comes down on the “B” when mentioning Sherlock’s address.)

Your digs might have had a flush toilet if you were lucky, but the presence of the plumbing for that didn’t necessarily guarantee any bath facilities fancier than a collapsible tub downstairs in the scullery, near the household pump and the boiler associated with the cookstove. Daily casual washing was done in one’s bedroom with a jug and a basin, mostly, unless you were wealthy enough to have  servants to bring the tub up to your room, heat all that water, and haul it up the stairs.

So the amenity of having big luxurious city baths where other people dealt with the logistics of water and heating and whatnot was a big deal – all part and parcel of the Victorian Cleanliness Movement, which was huge. I did a post on that elsewhere a while back: I’ll duplicate that data here. 

Some data about the bath that Holmes and Watson were visiting:

After paying, the bather continued on to a cooling-room decorated in the style of the Alhambra in Spain. A fountain of cold filtered water, with a Doulton basin, reinforced  the Moorish ambience of the interior.      

The room was divided into a series of divans, or cubicles, each of which was provided with couches, an elaborate mirror, and an occasional table. The ceiling was clad in cream tinted panels with coloured borders, and the floors were covered with soft richly patterned carpets.      

Leading off from the cooling-room were three hot rooms, each with marble mosaic floors, and tiled walls and ceilings. Marble seats, stained-glass windows, and wall alcoves in faïence, gave the rooms a comfortable and luxuriant air. The calidarium  (the hottest room)  could be raised to a temperature of  270°F, the tepidarium to 180°F, and the frigidarium to 140°F. All were lit by electricity.

As in other Nevill establishments, fresh hot air came through a grated opening below the ceiling, while the stale air was extracted through ventilators in the seats near the  floor level, or gratings  in the floor itself.

There was also a vapour bath of marble with hot water pipes (under the seat) throwing out fine jets of steam, producing instant perspiration for those bathers unaffected by the dry heat of the Turkish bath. The adjacent shampooing-room was also fitted with marble slabs, and tiled throughout. The bather then had a choice of showers (rose, douche, needle, or spiral douche) after which there was a cold plunge pool, 30ft. long and 5ft. deep, lined with marble, mosaic, and tiles, with a decorative frieze. 

The ceilings of the hot rooms and the shampooing-room were of enamelled iron upon a solid roof of cement, and the windows were treble glazed to prevent rapid   transmission of heat. The design and colour of the various apartments differed, and a richly modelled stalactite cornice surrounded the cooling-room and the other main rooms.

At the top of the oak staircase leading to the baths below, and throughout the relaxation areas, were walnut screens with panels of coloured leaded  glass in    peacock blue and gold.8    

…Here’s a double cubicle in one of the drying / cooling areas of the bath. This could actually have been the spot ACD had in mind.  Click here for more info.

image

The big baths in London were in serious competition with each other in terms of the facilities they offered their clients. You want to look at the images of the interiors of some of these places. And the ads.

image

Thirty thousand quid is a LOT of money in 1890s London. These people were angling for the high end of the local clientele – businessmen who want to get together to relax and network*, and well-off ladies with the same in mind. This is nothing like the rather bare-bones civic baths meant for the working classes: this is what we would now think of as a spa.

Here’s an ad from another big London bath that due to popular demand had opened up a separate women’s bath facility so it wouldn’t have to do staggered hours at the main one.

image

…For those interested in some more background:

…This is just a hint of the resources that are out there. A fascinating subject…

YouTube Bonus: Michael Palin has a Turkish Bath.

*The ads suggest that the baths down by the City charged more, on the general principle that the gents working in banking and other finance could bear the strain of paying a little extra for the privilege of steaming themselves while they networked.

22 Aug 12:03

Train a Comin’

by Robert Farley

This is the kind of thing that’ll make you rethink your position on the Air Force:

French President François Hollande planned Saturday to meet three Americans who foiled a suspected terrorist attack on a packed high-speed train running from Amsterdam to Paris.

A gunman opened fire Friday on the high-speed train — a route packed with officials, busi­ness­peo­ple and diplomats — before being tackled and tied up by three men, according to family members and French officials, who said their quick work had foiled a major tragedy…

One of the Americans, Air Force serviceman Spencer Stone, was stabbed and remained in the hospital Saturday, said the parents of his two friends. The Pentagon did not provide his name but said that his wounds were not life-threatening. A dual French-American citizen was wounded by a stray gunshot, Cazeneuve said.

One of the others was a member of the Oregon National Guard. The initial reports indicated that the men on the train were Marines, based, I dunno, on the default assumption that only Marines would do this kind of thing?

In any case, genuine heroism. The gunman might have killed dozens of people if these guys hadn’t been heads up.

22 Aug 10:18

Trump and Wallace

by Erik Loomis

index

Who do you think Donald Trump reminds Alabama voters of?

“Donald Trump is telling the truth and people don’t always like that,” said Donald Kidd, a 73-year-old retired pipe welder from Mobile. “He is like George Wallace, he told the truth. It is the same thing.”

That’s really what we are dealing with here–the early 21st century version of George Wallace. Trump has about the same chance of entering the White House as Wallace too but both also represent the phenomena of race resentment and fear of non-whites.

22 Aug 10:17

Abolition of the death penalty is not a judicial “contrivance”

by Gideon

There’s been a lot of commentary about the abolition of the death penalty in Connecticut since State v. Santiago [PDF] was decided last week. Some of it has been interesting and insightful, if a bit of the “shh-don’t-give-them-any-ideas” variety. Some has been predictable and offensive.

A lot of the narrative has been what I call “conservative clickbait” with two themes:

  1. That the court engaged in judicial activism to overrule the clear will of the people of Connecticut, by abolishing death for all death row inmates retroactively, in clear contravention of the 2012 legislation that specifically said ‘prospective only’.
  2. That it is inconceivable that the two “Cheshire killers” will not get death.

I want to point out a few things about both these arguments because they are intellectually dishonest, misleading and dangerous.

First, the notion that a court – the third, independent branch of Government – cannot review and rule on the legality of legislation passed by elected representatives of the people was dispensed with in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison. It is an idiotic notion and anyone who espouses that should immediately have conveyed to you their utter stupidity. So the further question, then, is whether the judiciary must give deference to the legislature which has decided what is a crime and what are the punishments for those crimes. This is the argument raised by the Chief Justice’s dissent, which is quoted by many in support of their “judicial overreaching” argument.

This is also fallacious. Courts routinely decide whether a law is too vague, or whether the punishment exceeds constitutional bounds, like, say, execution of the mentally retarded, or of juveniles, or life without parole for juveniles, or criminalizing sodomy or making it illegal to marry a person of another race, or of the same sex.

This is precisely the function of a court: to review the laws passed by elected representatives and decide if they comport with due process and other constitutional guarantees, such as the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments. The judiciary has this independent function to serve as a check against the oppressive power of a majority. Our history is all too littered with examples of a majority imposing its moral will on a minority through the legislative process.

In fact, this is precisely what the Connecticut Supreme Court majority did in Santiago. But first what it didn’t do: it didn’t rule that the death penalty itself is unconstitutional. It specifically stated that if the people of Connecticut wanted to amend the Constitution to state that our evolving standards of decency will always encompass the punishment of death, then we are free to do so.

What it said was that the prospective abolition of the death penalty in 2012 was the straw that broke the camel’s back. It is the the last sign needed to conclude that Connecticut no longer considers the death penalty a legitimate punishment. While the repeal law was the catalyst, it was not the sole factor.

For instance, Connecticut had been trending towards abolition since the mid-2000s.

In 2003, a Quinnipiac University poll found that 47% of CT voters favored death and 46% favored life.

In 2005, a QU poll found that CT voters favored life by a margin of 49-37%.

And then Cheshire happened. Two of the most notorious killers in CT brutally tortured and murdered almost an entire family. It was horrible and set off a shockwave of profound effects in the CT criminal justice system.

Yet. In November 2007, that same year, a QU poll found that CT voters were essentially split 47-44 between death and life.

In 2009, the Connecticut legislature abolished the death penalty. Remember that? Governor Rell vetoed it.

And yet, in 2010, a QU poll found that CT voters were still split between death and life, 46-41%.

In 2011, abolition came by again and this time it was defeated by two legislators, Edith Prague and Andrew Maynard, both self-proclaimed fervent abolitionists, who both could not bear to see the Cheshire killers live and thus they killed abolition.

And yet, despite all of that hoopla, in 2011 a QU poll found that CT voters hadn’t budged much on the death penalty: 48-43.

In 2012, abolition came for a third time and this time it stayed. A QU poll found that CT voters were now exactly split on death vs. life: 46-46%, a bit of an upward trend for life.

And even the abolition that came in 2012 was a compromise. It was abundantly clear to everyone who watched the proceedings that prospective abolition was the consolation prize. We were settling for this because no one wanted to be seen publicly agreeing to give the Cheshire killers life.

To anyone following the course of abolition in Connecticut, there is no doubt that if Cheshire had not happened, the death penalty would’ve been abolished in 2007 or 2009. And no one would’ve cared.

This – not the 2012 law alone – is what leads the supreme court to conclude that we just don’t have the appetite for death anymore in Connecticut. That we have determined, through the legislature, that death is not a viable option anymore.

And if it cannot be a viable option going forward, then how can we say that we will still execute people? If the death penalty is no longer a valid punishment, then it is no longer a valid punishment for everyone. If we will not execute anyone because the death penalty is barbaric, or fraught with problems, or irreversible, or too costly, or morally repugnant, or a waste of time and money or overrun with racial and geographic bias, then that argument holds true regardless of the date of the offense. Because it is to the time of punishment that we look in determining if we have the stomach for executions.

That time is now and we don’t. Frankly, Connecticut never has had the stomach for executions. The last two have been volunteers and they’ve been the only two in over half a century.

It would have been judicial contrivance to say that the will of the people magically changed on that night in April 2012 and that from that day onwards and only onwards, would we have evolved to the point of disfavoring death.

Either Connecticut no longer imposes the death penalty or it does. We can’t do it for some and not others, where that distinction isn’t based on the acts or the individual but rather the date of the crime.

But really, this is about the Cheshire killers and our collective desire to see them dead. While Connecticut voters’ enthusiasm for the death penalty waxed and waned and ebbed and flowed, there really was an overwhelming consensus that the Cheshire killers be put to death. Voters wanted them executed by 4-1 margins.

Abolition bills were vetoed and nixed because of those two.

And yet, that is precisely why retaining the death penalty is a dangerous idea. To pin the veto of repeal or the reason for suddenly voting against abolition after being an abolitionist for most of one’s life on the desire to see those two individuals executed comes awfully close to a bill of attainder. That should frighten everyone.

Bills of Attainder, of course, were acts of the legislature that targeted specific groups of people and punished them. They are unconstitutional everywhere in this country and rightfully so because they are, in effect, the government singling out a few individuals because of who they are, not what they did.

To permit the death penalty to continue as a viable punishment solely because we want to execute those two – and, seriously, no one knows the other death row inhabitants or their victims, which is disgusting and insulting on its own – should be a notion that wakes the libertarian hiding inside each one of us.

The supreme court did what was squarely within its power to do. The death penalty is a contentious, moral issue, which is debated while seated on the corpses of the dead. It should be treated with the solemnity it deserves. To accuse the justices of neglecting the law to achieve a personal goal – activism – is to insult the profound questions we grapple with and demean our convictions that society must always evolve to be more humane and more decent.

There is no greater embodiment of this idea than Justice Palmer himself. Justice Palmer, who wrote the majority opinion, has voted to retain the death penalty every single time since he joined the bench. By my rough count, he’s had more than a few opportunities since 1993 to pen an opinion finding the death penalty unconstitutional. Rather, up until 2015, Justice Palmer had only said that the death penalty was not violative of the Constitution. To say that he flipped his vote out of judicial activism is to put political theater over the reality of coming to terms with a difficult but logical evolution in how we wish our society to be.

22 Aug 10:09

'Half-Life 2' plus 'Hotline Miami' equals 'Half-Line Miami'

by Jessica Conditt
What's better than a pixelated, top-down gorefest set to frenetic synth music? A pixelated, top-down gorefest set to frenetic synth music with a gravity gun. Half-Line Miami is an unapologetic mix of Half-Life 2, Valve's massively popular 2004 firs...
22 Aug 10:09

obviousplant: There’s a bonus fact on Instagram.

22 Aug 10:07

MIT figured out how to 3D print using glass instead of plastic

by Andrew Tarantola
Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology unveiled a new 3D printing method on Friday that employs transparent glass as precursor instead of plastic. The method, called 3DGP, works basically the same way that conventional 3D printing...