#david walsh

[you-need-not-apply]

LISTEN UP: A LADIES LOUNGE IS BEING REMOVED DUE TO "SEXISM"

TERFS DNI - I'm trans

The Tasmania's Museum of Old and New Art (MONA) is a popular place in the state with free entry for TAS residents. But the ladies lounge is one of the best places inside. It seeks to highlight historic misogyny by banning male visitors, making men feel the exclusion experienced by women for thousands of years.

However, it is now being removed due to discrimination against "people who do not identify as ladies", and as someone who doesn't ID as a women (most of the time) FINE BY ME! Keep me out when I ID as a man. A New South Wales man (Jason Lau) took legal action against Mona, claiming that being denied entry into the Ladies Lounge when he visited the museum last April due to his gender was against the  Tasmanian Anti Discrimination Act (1998) 

HE DOES NOT EVEN LIVE IN THE SAME STATE

Artist Kirsha Kaechele and MONA director David Walsh

Artist Kirsha Kaechele has said:

"The men are experiencing Ladies Lounge, their experience of rejection is the artwork"

Why is it being banned?

The Tasmanian Anti Discrimination Act (1998) states that you are not allowed to treat someone differently based on an attribute or characteristic like, gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, or disability. source1

But there are exceptions to this rule.

"A person may discriminate against another person in any program, plan or arrangement designed to promote equal opportunity for a group of people who are disadvantaged or have a special need because of a prescribed attribute," the Act states.

Things like women-only gyms are for women to feel safe, promoting equal opportunity, and men's sheds are to promote men's mental health. source2

Mona's Ladies Lounge, however, is not a club and has no membership.

The judgment has ordered Mona to allow men to access the installation within 28 days.

[guy60660]

David Walsh | AFL

[blueshistorysims]

David died in the night, unable to break the fever that had consumed his poor young body. Rose was devastated, weeping by his bedside for hours. It was Peter and poor Rebecca that had to tell the weakening Edwin of his younger son’s death. It seemed to be the final blow for Edwin, whose body had fought so much for life, gave up after hearing his little boy was dead. For three painstaking nights and three pain-staking days, Rose, Peter, and Rebecca watched him wither away, and when Dr. Ingall arrived that morning, he informed them to say their final goodbyes. Mr. Walsh wouldn’t last the day.

“Edwin, my darling,” Rose whispered, brushing his ear gently. 

Weakly, her husband hummed in acknowledgment, too weak to even open his eyes.

“I’m here, Father,” Peter said gently, taking his father’s hand in his. 

“Oh, I wish we could have grown old together,” she lamented, tears in her eyes. “I would do anything to have you and David here.” She chuckled, tears spilling off her cheek. “I would even change our bedroom wallpaper and blankets—I know how much you hated the bombardment of roses.” She leaned forward and kissed his forehead gently. “I’m your only Rose, and I shall be for the rest of your life and mine.”

“I love you, Papa,” Peter uttered, his throat closing up. “Will you te-tell David that I am still angry I have lost my favorite chess partner? And how much I miss him?”

He sighed and a strange smile fell upon his face.

Rose leaned forward and kissed his burning lips. “We shall be fine, my dear. Be at peace now.” 

And with a final shaky breath, Edwin Bernard Walsh III died.

~~~

The funeral service was small as Edwin had bequeathed in his will. Rose, Peter, Rebecca, and Mr. and Mrs. Kingsley were the only people who attended the actual service while his wake had been on a much larger scale. Rose felt relieved by the intimacy of the service. To say her final goodbyes to her husband and youngest child was a private affair she did not want many to witness. 

She hated how bright and sunny it was that summer afternoon, as if the weather did not understand her pain. Rare for England, to have a sunny day without a cloud in the sky, and a cruel thought on her husband’s and son’s funeral.

She gently placed the wreath of flowers on David's headstone and sighed, a single tear pouring down her face. “Rest well, my little one,” she uttered quietly before turning to her husband's grave. "I shall love you always. Keep well, my dear."

beginning/previous/next

[t0rschlusspan1k]

A realistic depiction of violence also serves to show that even if you do survive a war, you probably won’t feel like a hero. In fact, the impact of combat can be so traumatic that the toll it takes on your mental health can end up destroying exactly what you thought you’d protect, and leave you as a mere shell of your former self that’s neither heroic, nor victorious over evil, nor death-transcending. War don't ennoble men. It turns them into dogs. What is important to remember is that in hero systems, violence and suffering can be redeemed as long as they serve a greater purpose. As Becker wrote; “What man really fears is not so much extinction, but extinction with insignificance.” And so when we’re discussing the cinematic depiction of combat and trauma, this nuance is precisely the reason why many war films stumble in their message. One popular war film that exemplifies this is Saving Private Ryan. The film opens with the invasion of Allied soldiers at Normandy. The 20 minute or so sequence, which is filmed in a realistic-looking documentary style, features graphic violence, terrified soldiers, and the overall chaos and destruction of combat. But after that, as Agnieszka Monnet explains in her essay “Is There Such a Thing as an Anti-War Film?”, the conventions of Hollywood storytelling re-emerge and ultimately frame the violence and cost of human life as heroic, and renders it all meaningful. This is most notably demonstrated as our main hero falls at the end, which could have left us wondering if the sacrifice to save Private Ryan was worth it or not. But instead, the film provides us a clear answer with its epilogue in which Ryan lives to be a good man and beloved grandfather, who remembers and honors the men who died for his sake. In doing so, we are reassured that all is well, that all the sacrifices eventually served a heroic purpose, and death has successfully been transcended to achieve greater significance. To emphasize; this doesn’t make Saving Private Ryan a bad film, but it does make it a comfortable one, and as such, it greatly detracts from its effectiveness as a true anti-war statement. In his review, David Walsh also draws attention to the film’s heroic leaders. “The implicit stance taken by the film” – he writes - “is that only the authorities in Washington concerned themselves with ideological matters, while the men in the field were unthinkingly doing the dirty work.” By looking closer at the representatives of what we could see as the film’s hero system, we indeed see that they are portrayed as righteous, rational, and deeply concerned with the suffering of soldiers and their loved ones. The point is not so much if leaders were actually like this or not, but that it doesn’t at all question the hero system that is driving the violence. The film states the sacrifices were costly, but then assures us they were laid upon the altar of freedom. And this sentiment of meaningful suffering echoes throughout the entire film, and in doing so, redeems it. What it comes down to is that despite showing the gritty reality of combat, war films can still romanticize instead of criticize if they do not question the general function of their hero systems.

— Like Stories of Old, Lies of Heroism. Redefining the Anti-War Film

[lock-my-feelings-in-a-jar]

[tyger-land]

����𝙡𝙖𝙙𝙚 𝙍𝙪𝙣𝙣𝙚𝙧 1982

[ghost-bison]

i got curious which members of the doctor who cast could sing and now i have a crush on a lot more of them. especially jodie. omg.

[nixotene]

“Even the janitors are complaining!” Loving the fact that Diego couldn’t sit through more than 5 minutes of orientation yet still took the time to listen to the workers, even the custodial staff

He truly is a man of the people

[expelliarmus]

[sconesfortea]

Blue & Red in Doctor Who: part 1 [part 2 here]

So I noticed that 15's Sonic was red in Rogue, and that sent me fully down the rabbit hole. So this is part 1 of some rambly connections.

In S1 (2005) the time vortex was blue for journeys into the past and red for journeys to the future.

In S2, 10 usually wears a brown tie with a white/light shirt in the present/future, and a blue shirt with no tie in the past.

In S4, 10 usually wears his blue suit in the future and keeps the brown for past adventures.

In S5/6, 11 wears a blue bowtie, braces, & shirt details when they're in the past, which are all red when they're in the future.

In S11/12, 13's tshirt is usually red/burgundy in the past and blue in the future.

[panelshowsource]

There's also something ghostly about you... I wouldn't be surprised if at the next recording they said, "Wasn't it weird that on Lee's team we only had one guest?" I say, "No! No, there was another guest! Sam! He was from Australia!" And Rob says, "There is no such place..."

Sam Campbell on WOULD I LIE TO YOU? — 17.09

[deeninadream]

for some odd psychological reason that I don’t really want to get into, I am not having the best time in real life so I’m going to ask for amazing angst to read

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Corporate Bullshit

I'm coming to BURNING MAN! On TUESDAY (Aug 27) at 1PM, I'm giving a talk called "DISENSHITTIFY OR DIE!" at PALENQUE NORTE (7&E). On WEDNESDAY (Aug 28) at NOON, I'm doing a "Talking Caterpillar" Q&A at LIMINAL LABS (830&C).

Corporate Bullshit: Exposing the Lies and Half-Truths That Protect Profit, Power, and Wealth in America is Nick Hanauer, Joan Walsh and Donald Cohen's 2023 book on the history of corporate apologetics; it's great:

https://thenewpress.com/books/corporate-bullsht

I found out about this book last fall when David Dayen reviewed it for the The American Prospect; Dayen did a great job of breaking down its thesis, and I picked it up for my newsletter, which prompted Hanauer to send me a copy, which I finally got around to reading yesterday (I have gigantic backlog of reading):

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/27/six-sells/#youre-holding-it-wrong

The authors' thesis is that the business world has a well-worn playbook that they roll out whenever anything that might cause industry to behave even slightly less destructively is proposed. What's more, we keep falling for it. Every time we try to have nice things, our bosses – and their well-paid Renfields – dust off their talking points from the last go-round, do a little madlibs-style search and replace, and bust it out again.

It's a four-stage plan:

I. First, insist that there is no problem.

Enslaved people are actually happy. Smoking doesn't cause cancer. Higher CO2 levels are imaginary and they're caused by sunspots and they're good for crop yields. The hole in the ozone layer is only a problem if you foolishly decide to hang around outside (this is real!).

II. OK, there's a problem, but it's your fault.

An epidemic of on-the-job maimings is actually an epidemic of sloppy workers. A gigantic housing crash is really a gigantic cohort of greedy, feckless borrowers. Rampant price gouging is actually a problem of too much "spending power" (that is, "money") in the hands of working people.

III. Any attempt to fix this will make it worse.

Equal wages for equal work will cause bosses to fire women and people of color. Protecting people with disabilities will cause bosses to fire disable people. Minimum wages will cause bosses to buy machines and fire "unskilled" workers. Gun control will only increase underground gun sales. Banning carcinogenic pesticides will end agriculture as we know and we'll all starve to death.

IV. This is socialism.

Income tax is socialism. Estate tax is socialism. Medicare and Medicaid are socialism. Food stamps are socialism. Child labor laws are socialism. Public education is socialism. The National Labor Relations Act is socialism. Unions are socialism. Social security is socialism. The Fair Labor Standards Act is socialism. Obamacare is socialism. The Civil Rights Act is socialism. The Occupational Health and Safety Act is socialism. The Family Medical Leave Act is socialism. FDR is a socialist. JFK is a socialist. Lyndon Johnson is a socialist. Carter is a socialist. Clinton is a socialist. Obama is a socialist. Biden is a socialist (Biden: "I beat the socialist. That's how I got the nomination").

Though this playbook has been in existence since the nation's founding, the authors point out that from the New Deal until the Reagan era, it didn't get much traction. But starting in the Reagan years, the well-funded network of billionaire-backed think-tanks, endowed economics chairs, and latter-day propaganda vehicles like Prageru breathed new life into these tactics.

We can see this playing out right now as the corporate world scrambles for a response to the Harris campaign's proposal to address price-gouging. Reading Matt Stoller's dissection of this response, we can see the whole playbook on display:

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/monopoly-round-up-price-gouging-vs

First, corporate apologists insisted that greedflation didn't exist, despite the fact that CEOs kept getting on earnings calls and boasting to their investors about how they were using the excuse of inflation to jack up prices:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/11/price-over-volume/#pepsi-pricing-power

Or the oil CEOs who boasted that the Russian invasion of Ukraine gave them cover to just screw us at the pump:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/03/15/sanctions-financing/#soak-the-rich

There are all these out-in-the-open commercial entities whose sole purpose is to "advise" large corporations about their prices, which is just a barely disguised euphemism for price-fixing, from meat-packing:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/04/dont-let-your-meat-loaf/#meaty-beaty-big-and-bouncy

To rents:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/07/24/gouging-the-all-seeing-eye/#i-spy

That's stage one: "there's no problem." Stage two is "it's your fault." That's Larry Summers and co insisting that a couple of stimulus checks a couple years ago are responsible for inflation, because it gave you too much "buying power," and so the only possible fix is to jack up interest rates and trigger mass layoffs and sharp wage decreases across the economy:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/12/14/medieval-bloodletters/#its-the-stupid-economy

Stage three is "any attempt to fix this will make it worse." When Isabella Weber pointed out that there was a long history of price-controls being used to fight price-gouging, corporate apologists lost their minds and brigaded her, calling her all kinds of nasty names and insisting that her prescription didn't even warrant serious discussion, because any attempt to control prices would destroy the economy:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/podcasts/lately/article-the-millennial-economist-who-took-on-the-world/

You may recognize this as cousin to the response to rent control proposals, which inevitably trigger a barrage of economists screaming that this will not work and will actually reduce the housing supply and drive up prices, which is true, provided that you ignore all evidence and history:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/16/mortgages-are-rent-control/#housing-is-a-human-right-not-an-asset

And stage four is "this is socialism." Look, I am a literal card-carrying member of the Democratic Socialists of America and I can assure you, Kamala Harris is not a socialist (and more's the pity). But that didn't stop the most eminently guillotineable members of the investor class from hair-on-fire, ALL-CAPS denunciations of the Harris proposal as SOCIALISM and Harris herself as a COMMUNIST:

https://twitter.com/Jason/status/1824580470052725055

The author's thesis is that by naming the playbook and giving examples of it – for example, showing how the "proof" that minimum wage increases will destroy jobs was also offered as "proof" not to abolish slavery, ban child labor, add fireproofing to textile factories, and pay women and Black people the same as white guys – we can vaccinate ourselves against it.

Certainly, we've reached a moment where the public is increasingly skeptical of claims that we can't fix anything because the economists say that this is the best of all possible worlds, and if that means that we're all going to boil to death in our own skin, so be it:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/27/economism/#what-would-i-do-if-i-were-a-horse

In other words, after 40 years of subordinating politics to economics, there's a resurgence of belief in politics – that is, doing stuff – rather than hunkering down and waiting for the technocrats to fix everything:

https://www.programmablemutter.com/p/seeing-like-a-matt

Corporate Bullshit is a brisk and bracing read – I got through it in about an hour in my hammock yesterday – and, in laying out the bullshit playbook's long history of nonsensical predictions and pronouncements, it does make a very good case that we should stop listening to people who quote from it.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/08/19/apologetics-spotters-guide/#narratives

[lock-my-feelings-in-a-jar]

[enthusiasteditor]

You know your brain is gone when you're watching an episode of Breaking Bad and since they're talking about nazi zombies you start laughing like an idiot thinking about Good Omens

[virtualweirdo]

Scott‘s POV

‘David told us to find what matters most in the world, then to make that our purpose, our reason for doing the things we do. I don’t know if you two have found yours yet or not, but I can tell you that this –‘ he makes a circle with his finger, ‘ – this matters. Our family matters. Don’t go and damage this because you can’t let things go.’ Scott pins Jason with his stare. ‘Or because you can’t admit you were in any way wrong.” He looks pointedly at Coop.

I just LOVE found family, any iteration of it. These boys have gone THROUGH it, goddamn. They deserve the best.