Month: December 2009

by Chris Bodenner

The wonderful site, founded by Joshua Foer, assembles profiles of obscure places from around the world. This entry is for an “Eat in the Dark” restaurant in Paris:

Co-funded by the Paul Guinot Foundation for Blind People, [Dans le Noir?] is staffed entirely by the visually impaired. One is seated by a waiter/guide and given hints on how to avoid spilling such as “putting a finger inside your wineglass” but beyond this the diners are on their own. Diners call their server by literally calling out for them. In the words of one diner, “You have no idea where your fellow diners are sitting, how many are at the table, how big the room is, or indeed if the guy in the next seat has stripped naked and is rubbing asparagus spears into his groin. Ità­s genuinely disconcerting.”

This entry looks at one of the biggest tree houses in world, built by a minister with a divine revelation:

Located just outside of Crosville, Tennessee, the 97 foot tall tree house/church is supported by a still living 80 foot tall white oak tree with a 12 foot diameter base, and uses six others as  further support. For 14 years he has built the tree house, spending only $12,000 and never running out of material.

Over that time the treehouse has gained truly monumental proportions, and may have achieved his goal of building the worlds largest treehouse. Currently the Minister’s treehouse is 90 feet tall, said to contain 80 rooms, and currently has five stories complete with a church and a bell tower. The bell tower at the top of the tree house is equipped with oxygen acetylene bottles that, re-purposed as bells, chime daily.

In true southern architectural style every story is fully surrounded by a deck. There are no “Private Property”, “Stay off the Grass” or “No climbing” signs. Burgess say the tree house is Gods house and everyone is welcome.

West Chester, Pennsylvania, 12 pm

by Patrick Appel

John Sides is skeptical:

I am…unsure whether contemporary politics is really characterized by more anger or intolerance for the opposition or what have you. I don’t know what the appropriate comparison would be, but thinking back, it strikes me that these qualities are somewhat endemic. Sure, accusations about Obama’s birthplace seem angry and extreme, but more so than accusations that the Clintons murdered people? Or that Thomas Jefferson was a “howling atheist,” according to some Federalists? My anecdotes don’t qualify as data, obviously. But it is tricky to come up with measures that would show American politics to be more “polarized,” even by this expanded definition. Of course, ideological polarization is evident among elites. But other possible measures of this expanded definition — e.g., the negativity of political campaigns — suggest no conclusive answer. (Compare the findings of John Geer to those of Lee and Emmett Buell.)

by Patrick Appel

Finally. But why put out the statement at the end of the day on a Friday and only in response to an inquiry by The Advocate?

by Chris Bodenner

Here the Nothing from gloobic on Vimeo.

by Chris Bodenner

John McWhorter processes the Tiger Woods scandal and the stereotypes it defied:

I can imagine a black stand-up routine where somebody said “These wives standing by their men admitting they fooled around – if Tiger’s wife was black you know she’d be all over his ass!!! (Ha ha ha …).” Well, it seems hardly unlikely that Tiger’s skinny blond lady came after him with a golf club. Call it a “black” experience – or evidence that people are people and Tiger has been leading nothing but a human life. Isn’t that what we wanted?

Supposedly if he had been sleeping with black women America wouldn’t care – this is a major thread in the blogs, such as here. But is this true? Let’s say the photos of the Tiger bimbos were of shapely brown-skinned babes – can we really say that the tabloids would suddenly lose interest and go home? Wouldn’t this be even better news – i.e. “Looks like Tiger got tired of his skinny white trophy wife and needed some chocolate?” […] The Civil Rights revolution was about allowing people to not only become President, but to fuck up “post-racially.” Let’s – as progressives in the true sense – go with it.

by Chris Bodenner

Reebok puts you in the perspective of a pervy cameraman:

Sophia Lear is "appalled," and points to a piece about the ad:

Two highlights: the study proving the benefit of the shoe (it supposedly works your gluteal muscles 28% more than a regular sneaker) was based on a single study of five women. And I love this:

The shoes are designed only for walking, and because of the instability design, wearers are discouraged from running, jumping and engaging in other athletic activities while wearing them.

So, basically, in the pursuit of a tighter butt, women should not run or play sports, but walk around in a specific (pink) sneaker. Nice.

by Patrick Appel

William Deresiewicz traces the history of the relationship. Like Norm Geras I think Deresiewicz too bearish on friendship and his argument that Facebook is destroying friendship is ridiculous, but this is worth pondering:

Modernity believes in equality, and friendships, unlike traditional relationships, are egalitarian. Modernity believes in individualism. Friendships serve no public purpose and exist independent of all other bonds. Modernity believes in choice. Friendships, unlike blood ties, are elective; indeed, the rise of friendship coincided with the shift away from arranged marriage. Modernity believes in self-expression. Friends, because we choose them, give us back an image of ourselves. Modernity believes in freedom. Even modern marriage entails contractual obligations, but friendship involves no fixed commitments. The modern temper runs toward unrestricted fluidity and flexibility, the endless play of possibility, and so is perfectly suited to the informal, improvisational nature of friendship. We can be friends with whomever we want, however we want, for as long as we want.

The final section of Love Undetectable is a reflection and defense of friendship. It remains one of my favorite pieces of writing by Andrew, or by anyone.