Mallard Ducks: Female Subtelty

[Photos By: KPA]

The most conspicuous of the ducks is the male mallard duck. Its iridescent head, glowing with gold tints, is truly beautiful. Its body, a fluffy down, inviting touch, is equally attractive.

But it is the subtly of the female that wins my points.

Here are a mallard duck couple. They didn't seem to mind my intrusion, as long as I didn't get more than two feet to close. Then they just simply quacked. And I obliged.

I had my weapon, my camera with its super-zoom lens, which can take tele-photo close-ups. And a close-up of the female's feathers was truly surprising.

There is a stroke of a blue-purple, in just one area, near the bottom of the abdomen, which brandishes and identifies this feminine counterpart. Nothing flashy, but present, all the same.

If only human females would learn this art of subtlety, and let that indomitable male shine, or let him let her shine.

But, I prefer the art of the mallard. A stroke of purple is all it takes.

From Nothing to Hip-hop

"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music" Friedrich Nietzsche

Below is a recent encounter I recently had with a young boy at the Square One Mall Food Court in Mississauga. And below that, I re-post another encounter I had with a young man at the nearby Jubilee Garden, near the mall, about two years ago.

---

I inadvertently sat next to a young white boy (about ten or eleven years old) in the busy Square One Food Court (where I hardly ever sit down and just pass through for a short cut or to quickly get french fries or some such snack).

This time I sat down with a Starbucks coffee.

When I first found a seat in the food court, there was a man eating some kind of greasy hamburger type meal with a heavy smell right diagonal to me.

I got up and moved across to the other side. While doing so, I didn't see that a young boy was sitting across (diagonal again!) just finishing off some meal. He was so quiet and silent.

After I added the sugar to my coffee, I looked up and around, and saw him there watching me. I smiled at him and continued drinking my coffee, in a hurry to be off.

Then it was my turn to watch him.

"Are you here by yourself?" I gently asked this boy, who bravely sat amidst this sea of black, brown and yellow faces, looking like an angelic apparition, like a visitor from another world. He had slightly wavy gold blond hair.

"Well my Mom was supposed to meet me here. But she's not here," he replied with a slight tone of irritation to his voice, barely audible. He didn't want to sound like he was complaining.

It was a Saturday afternoon so I intuited that he must be doing some kind of "extracurricular activity," and probably a sport.

"Are you getting ready for a match or something?"

"No. But I'm in a competition later on this afternoon."

"What kind?"

"Hip-hop."

I was a little taken aback. I didn't expect that.

But why not? The boy looked like a younger, much blonder, Justin Bieber, the star who's won all the accolades with his reinvention of the black dance style.

"So are you going to win?" I teased him.

"Of course!" he replied putting on his fighting front. He wasn't gong to let me get away with it.

By then, I was ready to leave.

I put a thumbs up and smiled "Good Luck."

"Thank you," he replies, once again alone, and waiting for his mother.

I intuitively refrained from telling him "what to do."

Like, for example: "Join a ballet class." Or "Find a modern dance program."

But let him find out for himself, the hard way. That way it will have true meaning for him, when he realizes the artistic limitations of hip hop.

---

Reclaiming Beauty
Sunday, October 16, 2016
Nothing

I was by the lovey Jubilee Garden in Mississauga when I saw a young man moving gracefully. At first it looked like he was doing some kind of stretching exercise, but he was moving to some inner rhythm. He was not a dancer (I didn't think so) but he was graceful.

"Are you an artist?"

"No."

"What do you do?"

"Nothing."

"Oh. What did you study?" I've met before another young man who told me he had recently been a student at the nearby Sheridan College and was going on with more school since he couldn't find work.

"Philosophy," said this young man.

"You're a philosopher!" I concluded, pointing my finger at him telling him off for his lazy withdrawal.

How many times did this young, white man hear that he was "nothing?" In this world where the brown-skinned man rules, where Chinese and Indian philosophers are venerated, where multiculturalism runs the world, the heir to the white western civilization is deemed "nothing."

Does this young man realize that it is this "nothing" civilization that his "nothing" ancestors built which draws all these people here, reaping all the benefits but giving him nothing in return, other than to call him "nothing?"

Bill Cosby and Our Legacy

So, Andrea Constand didn't like the fact that Bill Cosby got her to fornicate with him, and she is furious.

You see she's a lesbian!!!!

So how do we actually know her state of inebriation as she went into the room of debauchery? She could have been drunk, as could have been Cosby.

Cosby denies and she accuses.

I believe Cosby. I would have left him to resume his destroyed life. And who knows what comebacks people make! Especially comedians.

So the "jury" went by the #MeToo epidemic that is sweeping through our epoch and ruled in favor of the butch woman. Where was her butchness then!!!!

Oh right, she was overwhelmed by the shortish, stoutish comedian who never played any kind of macho superhero role in his life. The most he did as a crime-scene investigator was as Scotty in Spy where he was more an undercover agent than a karate-chopping James Bond. And she couldn't even muster enough chops to send him out of that bedroom, and by the way, to which she went willingly. So much for butch pederastes!

Shame on everyone who let this unfold.

The World in Pants

Image and tweet via James Perloff's twitter page

My elementary and secondary boarding school education in England required that we wear school uniforms. The girls' uniforms were skirts. ALL the time. We never complained. Much later in my last year in the secondary school (I left at 17, and a year before "graduation" to go to college in the US), we were allowed pants during a select period in the coldest days in the Winter Term - not the spring or fall.

The only other variation to the uniform was summer dresses during the hot summer days in the late Spring Term. Rather than the grey or navy blue of the school uniform, we were allowed to wear a light blue, and dresses of our choice (with approval by the housemistress of course). I had a dress from the Dutch department store C&A, which I wore for many years after.

The point of the uniforms wasn't really uniformity. It was more about concentrating on academics rather than fashion and self-pruning, which girls at that age (12 -18) are prone to do.

(For boys - a topic for a later post - it was about solidarity. School uniforms, with their schools' particular colors and insignia, promote loyalty and cohesiveness.)

But for girls, uniforms were also about modesty.

Skirts teach young (and teenage) girls not to engage in masculine activity, where they are very likely to behave in immodest behavior. Skirts and dresses teach girls to be girls, and later on to be women.

When girls want to be boys, boys will treat them (or will be coerced to treat them) like boys. And boys will stifle (or learn to stifle) their natural desire to help and assist girls, and later, women.

And boys will double guess what it means to behave like a boy, and later to behave like a man. Their importance social education has been curtailed, and worse, deemed BAD!

No opening doors, no "women and children first," no going to war for wives and family.

You're on your own ladies, with your freshly bought pant suits.

Conspiracy on a Chef

Bourdain in Ethiopia for hs CNN show taping with another "celebrity Chef" Marcus Maya Samuelsson

I can't remember what exactly I was watching when I had this "flash" about Bourdain's "suicide."

Of course Bourdain looks creepy with his tattooed arms. And his super skinny body (especially his legs) indicates a drug-addict's appearance. But cooking for one's job is tough. Cooking is tough, period. The heat, the slippery floor, all that washing, setting the timer, and setting it right, so food doesn't burn, or worse over-cook (you can throw burnt food out), tasting, and finally the verdict (too much salt will get the frying pan out!) A "celebrity" "international" chef is not a glamorous career. Traveling is very tiring. You get sick in foreign, third world, lands which even the best of treatment and the most sophisticated "anti-malarial/anti-bacterial/anti-everything" medications cannot prevent.

But Bourdain was a good sport. He enjoyed traveling despite its grueling schedule. He sat down and ate with the "natives." He went beyond the food and really tried to understand the cultures. He was professional and kept up his CNN reportage diligently.

But. No-one was able to report on the "suicide note." We don't know what it said and even to whom it was addressed. Presumably it is to his young daughter. He split up wth his wife (or she split up with him more likely), and was with a new girlfriend, who also split up with him recently! These professional feminists just cannot stand the idea of supporting a man with a super busy life who would have time for them only during brief "down times" and when all he wants is a comfortable and familiar home with a wife and family who can welcome him full heartedly. Think of soldiers and warriors who, if they didn't have their stable homes and loving wives, COULDN'T fight dedicatedly. Who would they be fighting for?! Who would Bourdain be cooking for?

Asia Argento, his new girlfriend, used to travel with him, but I guess the exoticism wore off when she was left in empty luxury hotels as Bourdain went off into the common quarters to find that special local dish. She was seen wandering around with a new boyfriend.

The conclusion by journalists is that Argento's new affair was what triggered off Bourdain's suicide.

Maybe so. The account I have written certainly can explain it.

But I don't think so. A man dedicated to his work, a kind of a chef-warrior, seasoned, experienced and who has probably been through all kinds of social and professional obstacles, doesn't suddenly kill himself because his new girlfriend split up with him.

Others say that he contemplated suicide for a long time because of a nihilistic streak of "is life worth living?".

No. If you have travelled at all, you know that traveling, and with a cause (like finding great recipes) can be invigorating. And Bourdain was with people all the time. Helping people. Talking and joking with people. Showing the world in his globalist liberal way that we are all one big close-to-happy world. A bit like his close-to-happy chef's life.

Maybe if he had built his career solely in a big city (like New York) and was a drug addict in his super-luxury enclave (like Kate Spade), abandoned by wives and girlfriends and pushed to go on by his heroin and other drugs, he might have become that white male suicide victim.

Perhaps. But how many alcoholics and drug addicts commit suicide?

The statistics of white male suicides is apparently on the rise. But is it really an epidemic? Does Bourdain fit that profile other than "middle-aged white male?"

Here is an interesting video which suggests that his shift towards more conservative ideology may have ignited the wrath of his globalist liberal followers. The youtuber - goes on to say that Bourdain might have been privy to all kinds of illicit and illegal international activities, like pedophilic sex trafficking, prostitution rings, border-crossing guides for illegal migration, etc. etc.

Alex Jones at Info Wars: Learn What Anthony Bourdain Was Planning To Say Before He Died



This makee complete sense. If he talks to village henchmen in an African village, they will TELL him things surely. If he cooks with the local chef in some South Asian town, he will reveal the next river crossing on the way to Australia. He cannot enter into these Third World countries without the special permission of the top leaders of these countries. And so on.

This fits with Bourdain's do-gooder personality. His missionary-chef zeal. Hs one-world ideology.

Before we jump on to band wagons that white men are killing themselves off and dying like flies, let's not put every suspicious death into the same basket.

The what male is still strong, clever, curious, intelligent, an adventurer, and an inventor.

The anti-white anti-West pushers will push this angle to make this curious, and charmed species appear to be on the wane, to be dying out.

If they repeat it enough times, he will begin to believe it. Some in fact do believe it.

Once the white man's psyche is weakened then all kinds of other things can be rammed in. And, then the final demise of the western world will have been achieved.

I say NO. Bourdain - chef-warrior - should receive a plaque at the very least. Make him into a cult figure, I say to all young men. Learn from him! He may be full of faults, but who isn't? He's one of the best examples you have in this white-loathing world. He's one of yours.

Fedora on the Job

Joseph Mitchell's Fedora
Exhibit at the New York Public Library, Stephen A. Schwarzman Building (42nd Street)
From the Manuscripts and Archives Division (acquired in 2015)
November 2017
[Photo By: KPA]

The Power of Woman Saving the World in Haute Couture

Nicole Kidman is coiffed and made up by a backstage team of who knows how many so that she can come out onto the Golden Globes stage looking like this.



So tells us this Nicole fan, inadvertently hitting the mark with Kidman's fairy dress. The Time's Out black has channeled darker forces where women stand with uplifted fists in flimsy glittering dresses to attack men and society. It only takes one (male) engineer to turn off those lights at the Globes and render Kidman aflutter. Imagine going to war dressed like a fairy!

The Australian actress gave us a sneak preview of Clare Waight Keller’s debut Spring 2018 Haute Couture collection for Givenchy, wearing a bewitching black gown.

"Wow. The Power of women! Huh!" Nicole mumbles as she accepts her globe

The dress is a Givenchy custom made gown whose price tag is off the charts. No ordinary "Time Outer" could ever in her dreams afford wear a dress like this.

And her accessories are:

Fred Leighton [jewelry], including Art Deco diamond earrings set in platinum; an Art Deco emerald, diamond and black enamel bangle; a 6.10-carat Art Deco old European diamond ring set in platinum; and an Art Deco diamond and platinum ring.

It's Time's Out with a six-figure wardrobe.

Here's a rundown of her hair helmet and makeup war paint:



- Her hair is that now popular manufactured disheveled look promoted by couture coiffeurs
- Cream or moisturizer on the skin
- Primer for her face to "prime" or prepare the skin and allow makeup to stay longer on the skin so it doesn't run in the heat of the spotlight
- Concealer to cover any dark shadows around her eyes or dark spots on her skin
- A foundation base to even out any flaws on her skin
- A highlighter cream to add glow to her face, especially around the cheekbones
- A rose-colored rouge to give her cheeks a youthful blush
- Eye-shadow primer to prepare the lids and lets the shadow stay longer on the lids so it doesn't run in the heat of the spotlight
- Baby blue eye-shadow to bring out her eyes
- Silver glitter eye-shadow on the corners and the top of her lids to make her eyes sparkle
- A pre-mascara treatment for her lashes to protect them from the mascara
- Black waterproof mascara
- False eyelashes, or lash extensions
- Lip "plumper" cream for fuller lips
- "Primer" for the lips to prevent lipstick (or lip gloss) from "flaring out" or from fading
- A lip liner slightly darker than the lipstick or gloss to contour the lips again to prevent lipstick (or lip gloss) from "flaring out"
- Lipstick sightly lighter that the liner applied to the lips using a lip brush
- Lip gloss slightly paler than the Lipstick to add a shimmer to her lips
- And the whole face is sprayed with a makeup setting spray

That's it!

But nothing must be overdone. We don't want her looking like those old, spent Hollywood under cakes makeup, who get called "legends" before they're even dead.

And of course the mandatory black nail polish, with at least a layer of top coating plus two layers of polish to make sure the goth polish stays on and no nail chips off.

Our fashion commentators elaborate:

The dress blackout thing worked out really well for Miss Nicole – at least, from our perspective, since we’ve spent years telling her (i.e., impotently ranting at her image) that she’s one of those rare birds who really come to life when she’s wearing black. Give her a little shimmer and sparkle, a little ruffle and romanticism; render it all in Disney-Witch Black and she never fails to look stunning. We understand why she wouldn’t want to step out in black every time she steps out, but we sure wish she’d stay in the darker end of the spectrum when making her public style choices, instead of defaulting to the washed-out, tea-stained romantic looks she tends to favor more often than not.

At first, we found all the foofaraw on the back a little distracting and silly, but once we decided they were fairy wings, we decided we loved it. Sparkle on, Goth Tinker Bell.

I don't think it is any accident that fairy dust and black goth are the theme this year as these women declared that black was their dress code.

There is a nefarious force creeping its way upward into our world ready, to capture and manipulate any anomalies. Fake News rapes and Woman Power are the perfect ruse to destabilize our world and Godly order to let the serpent in.

The globe has what is actually a reel of film looping around it in a sinewy curve. It is a snake with its head peering at the top. If we wait any longer, we might see its tongue flickering at us. Those Eves in black have already fallen for its charm.



And here is the the perfect man for the Modern Abused Hollywood Warrior Woman:


Keith Urban

The Marchesa and the Macho

Below is an article I wrote in 2013 on Georgina Chapman, the fashion designer behind the Marchesa label. She is married to Harvey Weinstein, but not for long.

Here is a post I wrote on her perfume, Marchesa's D'Extase.

Weinstein was cavorting around with Hollywood women and WHY!! with such a beautiful wife? I always wondered why she married him, the corpulent and crass "media mogul." She has her own millions, and talent too. She started Marchesa in 2004 and married Weinstein in 2007, although he may have pulled some Hollywood strings to get it started. Still designers come and go and Marchesa is now a big name. I guess it must be his machoness. "He's incredibly charming and so charismatic, it sort of draws you in," she says in an interview.

And why is he doing this? Well the truth is that his wife is successful, independently rich, and powerful in her field (Hollywood fashion). So that doesn't give him much to do as a husband. I already noted her modern-feminist-who-wants-it-all attitude in the article linked to above, where I comment on a video publicity of her perfume:

The ad...has one of the women rambling on about the perfume making a woman feel powerful, special, intoxicating, beautiful, sensual, confident, strong, ethereal. Is there any adjective missing for this woman who wants it all?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Blush of Rose
June 23, 2013
Reclaiming Beauty


Perfume bottle for D'Extase
I have photoshopped the image to give the bottle a rose hue.
Otherwise, it looks a bland colorless crystal.

It's time I posted on a perfume.

Marchesa has a perfume out. It is their first one. About time!

I went to Sephora's to look around for what's new, and I found D'Extase sitting on the shelf. I had seen it before, had smelt it, and wasn't overly impressed by it. I decided to give it another try.

The salesgirl was pleasant. She said she's "In love with the perfume." I'm now used to the word "love" being thrown around for all kinds of things: "I loved the movie!" "I love how you do your hair!" "I love [fill in the actress/celebrity of the month here]!"

"I'm in love with [fill in some fashion item like a dress, shoes, lipstick, nail polish color, perfume]!"

I simply went off and sprayed the perfume on those sample strips of paper they have provided for us. Again, nothing impressive.

I went to the Sephora data base, and looked it up.

These are the notes for D'Extase:

Iris Flower, Freesia, Black Current, Young Violet Leaves, Lotus Flower, Night Blooming Jasmine, Bulgarian Rose Water, Orange Blossom, Iris Root, Ambrox, Captive Musks.

Rose water, jasmine and musk? These are my favorite ("I LOVE jasmine and rose together!").

Then I thought I should give it some time to settle and for the notes to combine together.

Sure enough, after about five minutes, it became something very different. After about fifteen, it had reached its peak and stayed that way for several hours.

The scent is floral, but not insipid. Musky, but not overwhelming. Slightly sweet from the jasmine but not clingy.

These Marchesa ladies are smart.

I asked the salesgirl to give me a sample. At $72 for 30ml, it will not be a purchase I will make any time soon, but I will keep the scent alive with the tiny (5ml) sample I have.

The perfumer (the nose, in perfume technical language) is Annie Buzantian, who has created a long list of perfumes with well-known designers.

I wonder if she chose perfume composition because of her long nose?


Annie Buzantian

The designer of the bottle is Malin Ericson, who appears to work for Calvin Klein and Nina Ricci. The bottle isn't that special. They could have added a blush of pink to it, or lavender, and designed the crystals around that. Here is the beautiful bottle for Violet Eyes by the aesthete Elizabeth Taylor:


Violet Eyes
by Elizabeth Taylor

I've reviewed Violet Eyes here. It has that combination of rose and violet. The cedar gives it a lighter quality, which while musk would have made it too heavy. Elizabeth Taylor's choices
are perfect.


The beautiful Georgina Chapman, of Marchesa,
with her multi-millionaire husband film mogul Harvey Weinstein
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mental Health, Mental Resilience, and the Masculine Psyche

Determined Zach, with his parents. meeting with the Mayor of Barrie before he set off for his march to save souls

A young boy from Barrie, Ontario did a fundraiser walk/run/cycle from Barrie to Ottawa to "raise awareness and funds for youth mental health." He says got the idea from Terry Fox, another Canadian cross-country fundraiser who made his historic walk across Canada to raise money and awareness for cancer on one leg, the other having been amputated from cancer.

But what was it that really triggered Zach's efforts?

Well here is a report on his mother Shelley Hofer from the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto in 2012:

Shelley’s sought various treatments for twenty years, but traces her feelings of sadness, crying for unexplained reasons, and depression back to age five or six. She’d tried psychotherapy and medications without much relief.

And here is what she says:

“It’s hard to explain that you’d feel so low and the only way out is to take your own life,” explains Shelley, who has been getting treatments at CAMH for a decade. “I would have died if I didn’t get this help.”

And another, not readily available piece of information:

Zach Makes Tracks is a 410-kilometre trek to Parliament Hill.
He's accompanied by his mom Shelley and his stepdad Derek.

His mother "suffered" from the "disease" leaving this young, already fatherless boy, bereft and motherless.

I tried to figure out what was exactly this "mental health" this woman "suffered" from.

All I could deduce was that it was the usual "lack of self-esteem" that seems to be afflicting women, young and old, and almost always white, in this world full of pressures, where women are no longer allowed to be women but a masculinized form of themselves, in line with the aggressive and pervasive feminist world in which we all live, and where men have been demasculinized.

Striving for feminists' standards doesn't make us into successful female managers and CEO, but divorced, unhappy women with amorphous psychological ailments.

And everyone bears the brunt, including those like young Zach, who talks about his "mental illness," which is simply his attempt at understanding his mother's suffering, and which he, in his boyish masculine way, wishes to cure.

He did so much better at confronting the problem than Ms. Hofer, who retreated into self-pity without regard for what she was doing to her family, including her young son.

So this is the lot of young, white boys, whose parents (and whose society) have deemed them "mentally unstable," yet who can prove themselves far sturdier than anyone around them when given the chance, and, like Zach, even when not.

And would (has) an ordinary young girl done anything similar where she confronts the dangerous elements of nature and technology, by herself, to raise money for a cure?



So far, the best women have done is run in groups for short spurts in order to sell pink ribbons. I couldn't find any young girls who took this on as something to emulate.

Being a minor, Zach had his father ride with him through the course

Transgender Them When They're Young

Alexandra DeSanctis debating wth Peter Sterne at Bold TV's Is Trump at War With the Press
(She is Right/Left: He is Left/Right)

I recently posted the article Catch them While They're Young about a story-telling event at the Art Gallery of Mississauga, where a lesbian writer who published a "transgender" book for toddlers was given a weekly slot at the gallery to use the book for story-telling events with toddlers.

And here is an article at the National Review Online today:

Forcing Transgender Ideology on Kindergartens

So far so good (at least with the title). But further down the author - Alexandra Desanctis (brief bio at NRO: "Alexandra DeSanctis is a National Review Institute William F. Buckley Fellow in Political Journalism and a graduate of the University of Notre Dame, where she studied political science, theology, and the Constitution.") - adds this:

The kindergarten teacher did not notify parents of the lesson and ceremony [“transition ceremony” for a gender-dysphoric student in her class, introducing him to other students as a boy before he changed into a dress and announced his new, female name."] in advance; they found out only after their children came home and told them. Many of the students reported being “deeply emotionally bothered and traumatized,” according to Jonathan Keller of California Family Council, a group that has been counseling the families about their rights.

What do they teach in theology classes these days? How about: What is Right and what is Wrong. What is Truth and what is Falsehood? The big questions on morality, which is exactly where "transgenderism" fits.

If the best parents can do is demand their "right" to know what their children are being taught, then how will they explain to little Johnny: "No. You are a boy and can never be a girl." And tell young Mary: "Listen here young lady, you don't change what God gave you."

Of course the problem is clear, and deep. These parents DO NOT believe in gender specification. "You can be whatever you want to be" is what they've grown up with and damned if they wont impart that bit of wisdom, and fight to do so if necessary, to their own cherubs.

And through what lack of moral analysis can a theological writer, who appears to be "con" transgenderism, not realize this?

Tieless Trudeau

The Prime minster of Canada comes out to press conferences looking like this:



He's not only tieless but has also ditched his jacket.

But even what passes for ties now is a thin black strip, usually leather. Gone are the days of paisley designs with matching pocket squares. Men have become as emasculated as their fashion shows us.

This past section was written BEFORE I looked up "Men's Tie Fashions" in google (without quotes).

And I found this on GQ's April 3, 2017 issue:

Notice along with the Thin Black Tie ^TM, the top button is unbuttoned.

It was one of the images for the article: Justin Trudeau Just Nailed This Ryan Gosling-Approved Style Move

The article is written by an adolescent thirtsomething, who fawns over celebrity men (including Canada's celebrity Prime Minister), and who has a degree in Fine Arts from Boston. I guess looking at pretty men now counts for an artist's task.


Men in the 1950s
Gregory Peck advertising for Eagles Clothes

For more on men and ties, read The Necktie by The Thinking Housewife.

How to Acquire Style and Substance

Cary Grant, 1957

Below is a correspondence I posted on my style blog in 2013.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A young man recently wrote to me and asked:

Your posts are great and so pertinent to the madhouse we currently live in. I was wondering if you think the slovenly dress habits will be discarded within the next 10 years or so as people get fed up with the general ugliness. Or are they too far gone?

I generally gird myself mentally before I enter the public square these days. I expect to see slobs, hear rude language, be tailgated, walk away from cell phone conversations etc. I'm praying that network news goes the way of dvds.

And the way people let their kids scream and screech!

I think Lawrence Auster called it the age of the "totally liberated self".

Is this anti-culture too far gone? Should we traditionalists run for the hills and try to carve out a little patch of sanity?

George Orwell (a weird kind of socialist) wrote an essay called "Some thoughts on the common toad" and concluded it saying that in spite of the lies spewing out into the world Spring is Spring and they can't stop you enjoying it. A little comfort I guess.

I answered him with what I thought would be a practical guideline on how to maneuver the non-aesthetic mentality of our age:

I don’t know. Beauty, beautiful things, like a culture and a country, take years, centuries, generations to build and solidify. Ugliness and destruction occur in very little time. Even consider dressing: It is easier to slap on anything as opposed to wearing clothes that have an aesthetic sense.

I think our era hasn’t constructed, or built, its aesthetic sense. Other eras built theirs, out of what came from their past. Ours hasn’t bothered with that. I think it stopped soon after the late sixties and early seventies. I cannot think of a definitive eighties, nineties or “new millennium” style, but I can immediately recognize sixties, fifties, forties, thirties, twenties, styles, and further into the past.

I’m still trying to figure out why that is, but I think it happened when beauty was “downsized” as I call it, and when people thought it was too elitist. It probably has to do with equality, as I write here. But the problem with “equality” is that it courts the lowest denominator, so everyone becomes equally ugly.

But, the interesting thing about aesthetics is that it doesn’t require “equality” to function in any and all levels of life. The young shop girl can look beautiful (or at least aesthetically pleasing) and can borrow her ideas form the wealthy socialite to form her own pleasant look. Also, when beauty is around, even in limited quantities, everyone benefits. A beautiful statue in park is for everyone to appreciate. A beautiful lady glimpsed at in her car (in a store, a restaurant, etc.) makes people happy, including the lowly shop girl. Beauty does make the world a better place, I’m convinced.

Anyway, back to your question:

I think it is possible to discard slovenly dress habits, and even sooner than within the next 10 years.

1. You can start right away. For example:

A. Rather than wearing sneakers, always wear good shoes.

B. Dress well when going out, even to the corner store.

C. Of course, over-dressing to the corner store can look odd, so try to fit your dress to the occasion. There are great casual clothes around, and you don’t have to slip on a silly t-shirt or a worn out sweat shirt to go out and buy your milk.

D. Have a good hair cut, perhaps copying a style from another period, or using a men’s magazine for ideas (some have surprisingly well-groomed men models).

E. Try to get things to match, in style, color, design etc.

F. Find good accessories like ties, hats, belts, handkerchiefs, jackets. The whole look matters.

G. Avoid jeans at all costs. They look sloppy, and they are boring and unattractive.

H. And behave well, gentlemanly and chivalrously.

2. Avoid these items:

- Sweat shirts or t-shirts
- Sneakers
- Jeans
- Shorts
- Thematic prints like a shirt you bought at your last rock concert, or the tie with Disney motifs.
- Dramatic prints. Stripes and small circles or diamonds on shirts is as far as you should go.
- Baseball hats
- Odd jewelry, or pierced ear/nose
- Tattoos
- Hoodies

3. Try to find different styles for different occasion

A. Office wear

This is still generally more formal. Even if you work in a casual office environment, dress as if you might meet your next new boss, or your big client.

B. “Street” wear

Street wear is less formal. But you are out showing yourself to the whole world. Do you want to be seen in sloppy t-shirt and jeans, or look nice, presentable and attractive? You can add the thematic printed shirt here, perhaps a Hawaiian shirt for summer, and penny loafers are a good substitute for sneakers. As a hat, a panama hat might be a nice touch rather than that ubiquitous, ugly baseball cap.

C. Week-end and home wear

You’d be surprised at how people dress at home, when they think that “no one” is looking. Of course, their own families are looking, observing and often mimicking. If you have young children, they will be influenced at how you present yourself even at home. Get out of the pajamas and dressing gown mode, and actually wear some real clothes that are not for sleeping in. “Pajama mode” dressing includes baggy sweat shirts and sweat pants, and t-shirts, sloppy slippers/flip flops, etc. Leave the t-shirts and sweat shirts for the garden or yard work. You can be comfortable in a loose shirt and pants. Try a Hawaiian shirt, a short-sleeved golf shirt, sweaters, penny loafers, Dockers once in a while.

D. Visitors/Visiting wear

Dress up when visiting friends, and when friends come to visit. Don’t overdue it, of course, if the event is casual, but look good. Rather than a sweat shirt, put on a dress shirt, or a short-sleeved golf shirt. Try different, subdued colors for a change, like pastel lilac or light blue. Don’t pull out the Hawaii shirt for this one. No jeans, of course, and no sweat pants. But tan Dockers are a good, neutral choice. Penny loafers, and more formal shoes like Oxfords, can substitute for sneakers.

E. Visitors and week-end and home wear are somewhat similar

In a way, you should be ready for some event, even if at home. Some-one may decide to pop in for a visit. Mix your “visitors wear” with your casual home wear when you’re at home.

4. Look for good examples and guides

A. Magazines

Look up GQ magazine and other men’s magazines. Many have surprisingly good selections of men’s clothes. But pay more attention to the ads. The articles are often featuring the next “avant-gard” designer, whereas the ads are more conservative.

B. Tailors

Go to a tailor. Try to find a small, modest, old-fashioned one, who has had some formal or “old world” training. Such tailors are often a wealth of information. Ask for their advice. Have a suit custom made.

C. Formal Occasions

Look around during formal occasions. See what people are wearing for weddings, engagement parties, christenings, office formal parties, etc. Formal wear has been downgraded so much that wedding suits might actually fit your every-day life style.

D. Public Figures

Watch what public figures – news anchors, presidential candidates, Donald Trump, etc. - are wearing. Study how they accessorize with their ties, handkerchiefs, shoes, hats, and even their hair styles. We are still a some-what conservative culture when it comes to how our leaders are dressed.

E. Fashion History

Look up the history of fashion. How did people dress ten years ago, fifteen years ago? In the fifties, or forties? In the 19th century? During Medieval times? You’d be surprised to find that men took what they wore very seriously. A knight is identified partly by what he wears. So is a king. As is an early twentieth century gentleman.

F. Fashion Statements and Items

Find distinguishing items of different eras, periods and styles. It could be the walking stick/umbrella of the English Gentleman. Or the colors of a sixteenth century costume which you can incorporate into the colors of your tie and lapel handkerchief. Or the hats worn in the 1950s.

G. Different Cultures

Look at different cultures around the world and study how they differentiate between formal wear and casual wear (e.g is “casual wear” universal?). Did they have specific, attractive wear for men? Were men and women equally well-dressed?

H. Different Classes

How do the rich and the poor dress? You might think that only the wealthy are concerned with looking good. But, all walks of people dress cleanly, respectably, and with some flair. Poor people in Africa, for example, the poorest of the poor in the world, managed to develop a bright and cheerful style, with imaginative tie-dye, block print and batik fabrics, which million-dollar designers copy as their latest runway creations. Even cheap Walmart clothes are often colorful and attractive.

I. T.V. Shows and Movies

If you watch T.V., try to find shows that can give you good style examples. Subscribe to a “Hollywood movies” channel and watch shows and movies from the forties and fifties. We can still relate to those styles, and in fact they’re making a come-back. Study the suit cuts, the colors men wore, the shoes and ties, the hair cuts. Find what you like, and what can fit into your lifestyle, and just copy it!

Cary Grant shows true style and substance with a simple, relaxed pose (see above image). No aggressive expression, no slovenly style. Here is male aesthetics at its best.

J. Vintage Styles

Look for vintage style magazines (including women’s magazines), style history books, etc., and read about the dress and style expectations of those eras. Go to antique and vintage clothing stores and search their racks. As the shop owners for information. Many of them have a fountain of knowledge about style and design.

5. Ignore those who call you "old fashioned"

The MTV DJs or the slovenly week-end sweat shirt wearers have become standard bearers of our contemporary style. They are NOT experts. If your children or younger acquaintances tease you about your style, ignore them, and continue with what you’re doing. They will come around if they see you’re serious. Young people are susceptible to beauty, both boys and girls. We just need to show and teach them. Adults who tease you with subtle jibes are not worth paying attention to, especially if they are the types that wear the droopy sweat shirts and old t-shirts. They might come around, but don’t be too concerned about that.

6. How to approach those annoying loud cell-phone monologues, and jeans hanging down to the knees

Find it in yourself to “confront” slobs, bad language, loud cell phone conversations disclosing intimate details, etc. Don't do this every day, though, and don't stress yourself out. But, try it once in a while to show such people that they’ve passed beyond norms of decorum. This might get risky since people can get really angry, but assess who you can do it to. People need to know that such behavior is unacceptable.

7. How to personally make a difference

I think revolutionary things start with leaders, or those who take a bold step ahead of others, and who are not afraid of confrontations and negativity. But, prepare yourself mentally, intellectually and personally before you embark on your “making a difference” mission. Here are some things you can start with:

A. Start a blog.

B. Write letters to the editor.

C. Find a magazine, a newsletter, a community paper etc. which will accept your articles.

D. Talk to family and friends about your observations, especially if it concerns them.

E. Make suggestions to your retail stores about clothing items to bring into the store.

F. Form a society like "The Society of Sartorially Conscious People," or "The Well Dressed Group" as you develop ideas and plans on how to make the differences you wish to see around you. Many changes in the past occurred because people formed groups of some kind for support and for strength. Fashion is no less serious, and requires as much energy as any other movement.

8. Change your manners and style to fit your message

A. Please, thank you and excuse me go a long way.

B. Decent and polite behavior attracts people to you and your style.

C. Don’t shirk from full-on arguments, and don’t get bullied by bullies. But choose your place and your manner carefully when interacting with such people. Often, abrasive behavior will only alienate you from others, and prevent you from making your influence. Everyone can a potentially be on your boat, but some more than others.

9. Running to the Hills

I haven’t thought about this. I think it is an option, or could be an option. But this place, this whole place and not some cave in the hills, is our world. I think we need to defend it where we are. We can metaphorically run to the hills by building our own community as I have described above. But that should (could?) be the start of us building our defensive/offensive strategies, when we can begin more concrete changes. I think some inevitable confrontation is looming in the future, so we better get ready now.

10. "Spring is Spring and they can't stop you enjoying it."

And yes, you are right (or George Orwell is right). There are still many beautiful things around us, natural, cultural, familial, and so on. Enjoy the lovely spring that is already here, and the warm summer months just ahead of us. Read good books, look at good art, take care of yourself physically and spiritually. Start a hobby such as photography, woodwork, marathon running, etc., to enjoy life and to keep you in good spirits. We are not here to destroy, but to create.

And be good to people, even the slothful ones.

Nothing

"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music" Friedrich Nietzsche


Derek Hough, the talented dancer from
Dancing With the Stars

I was by the lovey Jubilee Garden in Mississauga when I saw a young man moving gracefully. At first it looked like he was dong some kind of stretching exercise, but he was moving to some inner rhythm. He was not a dancer (I didn't think so) but he was artistic.


The Jubilee Garden as winter approaches
[Photo by KPA]

"Are you an artist?"

"No."

"What do you do?"

"Nothing."

"Oh. What did you study?" I've met before another young man who told me he had recently been a student at the nearby Sheridan College and was going on with more school since he couldn't find work.

"Philosophy," said this young man.

"You're a philosopher!" I concluded, pointing my finger at him telling him off for his lazy withdrawal.

How many times did this young, white man hear that he was "nothing?" In this world where the brown-skinned man rules, where Chinese and Indian philosophers are venerated, where multiculturalism runs the world, the heir to the white western civilization is deemed "nothing."

Does this young man realize that it is this "nothing" civilization that his "nothing" ancestors built which draws all these people here, reaping all the benefits but giving him nothing in return, other than to call him "nothing?"


Derek Hough

The Poor, Discomfited George Clooney

The usually debonair George Clooney looks discomfitted, here with his new wife, Amal Alamuddin

I wonder why?

Here's the scoop on her, from last March 2014 (I collected these from a variety of sources - there may be more to add):

- She’s Druze, which is an offshoot of Islam.

- She is defending Julian Assange, of the Wikileaks fame in his extradition case with Sweden

- Her mother, Baria, is a foreign affairs editor at Al Hayat, a Lebanese newspaper

- She attended NYU School of Law

- After graduation, she joined the New York firm Sullivan & Cromwell, where she worked for three years before moving to London

- She clerked for Sonia Sotomayor when the future Supreme Court justice was a judge at the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, which covers New York

- She's worked as an adviser to the UN Special Envoy, Kofi Annan, on Syria

- She has been been Counsel to the inquiry launched on the use of drones in counter-terrorism

- She's the legal advisor to the King of Bahrain

- Sh has written on international criminal law

- She has edited a book entitled The Law and Practice of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon

- At the Doughty Street barristers' chambers, she represented Yulia Tymoshenko, the former Ukrainian Prime Minister

- She represented Abdullah Al Senussi, former Libyan intelligence chief and Muamar Gaddafi’s right-hand man in a case of alleged crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court


Alamuddin with Julian Assange

Clooney looks peaked and stressed. I don't think it is the new life as a married man, as the new life as a man married to Alamuddin. I wonder what they talk about? The terrible United States, with all those war criminals? The wonderful Middle East, blighted and maligned by the West?

Alamuddin looks like she's close to her family. Family dinners must be something special. Debbie Schlussel writes this about her experience with the family:

Over the past few months, actor George Clooney’s been photographed all over the place with Amal Alamuddin, a very anti-Israel Lebanese Arab who worked for the United Nations and represented Wikileaks’ anti-American former chief, Julian Assange. The Lebanese legal book she authored is extremely anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian. Alamuddin, who was Clooney’s date to the Obama White House last month, is not Muslim. I’m familiar with Ms. Alamuddin (pronounced “Ah-lah-muh-DEEN”) and her family because I met her and them at the wedding of her cousin in the mid-1990s. They are extremely anti-Israel, and I was subjected to their absurd, non-stop anti-Israel questions and comments as the only non-Arab (other than the bride and her family) at a dinner the night before the wedding.

I went to law school with Alamuddin’s cousin (who has the same last name) and the cousin’s wife. I was friends with the cousin’s wife (who is not an Arab), and when they were dating in law school, I repeatedly heard from him about how he hated Israel and sided with the Palestinians and the P.L.O. Later, when I was invited to the the Alamuddin wedding, I was on the receiving end of more of that. As I noted, I was the only non-Arab at the pre-wedding dinner at Chicago’s now-defunct “Uncle Tonoose” restaurant. They all knew I was Jewish, and the conversations and questions directed at me were a mix of myself as both Jewish museum exhibit and target of anti-Israel questioning. Clooney’s future girlfriend was there, too, and she was in her late teens at the time (I was in my mid-20s).

The situation with the Alamuddin family was surreal, as I was asked repeatedly about “Jewish Europeans” “invading” Israel, er . . . “Palestine.”

Clooney, I think, is in over his head. His Druze-lawyer-anti-Israeli wife will be nothing but a handful. What a stupid man.

And one strange thing. He wore the same suit he wore to his wedding at the Golden Globes. Yes he was there for Golden Globes' lifetime achievement award, the Cecil B. DeMille Award, but doesn't that warrant its own "special" suit?

This is the confident and debonair Clooney of a couple of years ago.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat

When America Was Great

Museum of Modern Art, New York
1956
Medium:Photolithograph
Dimensions:40 x 25"
Gift of TWA

The poster is from a recent Antiques Roadshow. Below is the appraisal's description. It was appraised at $2,500 - $3,000 in the original show in 2009, and upgraded to $3,000 - $4,000 in 2014.

APPRAISER: Let me tell you what I know about the poster. The obvious thing is, it's advertising TWA flights to New York City. The artist signs his name "David." His full name is actually David Klein. And David Klein was a very prolific artist who worked for TWA. This is one of the more recognizable and one of the more popular images that he designed.

GUEST: Really?

APPRAISER: And in my opinion, it is one of the greatest graphic depictions of Times Square. It's a geometric, abstract, almost kaleidoscopic view of this great, bustling intersection. He captures all of the energy, he captures all of the excitement, he captures all of the movement. It was done in 1956. It is part silk screen and part photolithograph. The bright colors have been put on through a silk-screen process, and everything else has been printed via a lithographic process. One of the other great things about the poster is the plane that's on top. The plane is the TWA Lockheed Constellation, known as the Connie. They were considered great airplanes. You see it was a propeller plane. There's the propellers on it. And with these planes, TWA was able to initiate full service to Europe. Now, I'm not the only one who likes this poster. The company liked it so much that they continued to reuse it in subsequent years. But there's one way that we can tell that this is the original printing and not a later printing, and that is the airplane itself. Because shortly after 1956, propeller planes were phased out and jet planes were phased in. So subsequent printings of this poster don't show the detailed Constellation. They show the silhouette of a jet plane actually leaving a vapor trail behind it as it goes across.

GUEST: Oh, my goodness.

APPRAISER: And not only was the company very fond of this poster, but this poster is also in the permanent collection of the Museum of Modern Art in New York-- MOMA.

(More here)

David Klein with his TWA Poster in his studio
Circa 1957

Here is some background on David Klein:

David Klein was born in El Paso, Texas in February of 1918. He moved to California where he attended the Art Center School [later renamed the Art Center College of Design] in Los Angeles.

During the 1930s, he was an active member of the California Watercolor Society. This group of artists often chose to paint watercolors depicting scenes of everyday life in the cities and suburbs of California. They painted directly with little or no preliminary pencil drawings, and used paper as a ‘color’ in a new and creative way.

[...]

David served in the army during the Second World War, where he illustrated numerous army manuals.

[...]

After the war, David Klein moved to New York and settled in Brooklyn Heights, where he would live for the next 60 years. In 1947, David Klein worked as an art director at Clifford Strohl Associates, a theatrical advertising agency. Before long, David became the illustrator of choice for many of Broadway’s best-known shows of the period.

[...]

David Klein is best known, however, for his influential work in the field of travel advertising. During the 1950s and 1960s, David Klein designed and illustrated dozens of posters for Howard Hughes’ Trans World Airlines (TWA).

David’s use of bright colors depicting famous landmarks in an abstract style defined the state of poster art of the period. In 1957 a TWA poster of New York City became part of the permanent collection of the MoMA (Museum of Modern Art) in New York. These works are much imitated and to this day define the excitement and enthusiasm of the early years of post-war air travel. They defined the Jet Set style and have become iconic.

David won numerous awards for Excellence from the Society of Illustrators for his TWA work, including his Philadelphia, Boston, Switzerland, and Africa poster art.

[...]

David Klein also created poster and advertising artwork for several films, most notably Barry Lyndon, The Island of Dr. Moreau, and The Gauntlet.

Although Mr. Klein worked commercially almost until the end of his life, in his 70s, he returned to his artistic roots, focusing his creative energies on watercolor paintings.

[...]

Examples of David Klein’s early and later watercolors are in the permanent collection of the Department of Interior’s Museum.

[...]

(The complete article is here)

Here is the current American Airlines ad:


The image is from the New York Times, which heads the article as:
American Airlines Focuses on the Glory Days of Flying

The text reads:

Modern life affords so few opportunities to think, to relax, to think. Make the most of every moment aloft between New York and Los Angeles or San Francisco. Rest in the fully flat seats of the First and Business Class cabins. Or enjoy enhanced Wi-Fi and a full library of entertainment at every seat. And with the most daily nonstop flights, you can make the most of your time on the ground too.

The legend is back.

NEIL PATRICK HARRIS // ACTOR

This is the homosexual actor who recently "got married," and "has" two children, juxtaposed with the real legend, Gregory Peck. And look at the guilty smirk on Harris' face. And see how Peck stands with such confidence.

There are other interesting things about the dyptich. There is the strange, thin pole, as though keeping Harris "straight." The pole also makes a clean separation between Gregory Peck and Harris, as though there is (or should be) no connection between the two. It is more like Harris who is being kept away, framed away, from Peck.

And there is the insipid colors on the out-of-focus plane positions far behind Harris. Whereas the out-of-focus plane behind Peck is still large enough, and close enough to the foreground, to show its impressive importance, but it is clearly Peck who is the real subject of the picture.

(I don't wish to go on with photo analyses, but the second image with Grace Kelly and Julianna Margulies shows a cropped "American" in the contemporary photograph. We only see ..."ican." This could be "Puertor---ican" since Margulies looks Hispanic. And look at her emaciated face next to the wholesome looks and cheery smile of Grace Kelly)


Grace Kelly and Julianna Margulies
juxtaposed for the American Airlines Ad

Man and technology have diminished in our modern era.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Four Good Reasons for Marriage

The Basics:
British Army folding bed: ca. 1860

More of the above at:

Royal Warrants, Circulars, General Orders and Memoranda
Issued by the War Office and Horse Guards
August 1856 - July 1864

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allan Roebuck, over at The Orthospehere writes on the topic of marriage:

I argue here that most men should attempt to marry, for several basic reasons. First, marriage is necessary for the survival of a people. Second, men (and women) need to be a part of a good order if they are to live well and a good social order includes marriage. And three, men were designed for leadership, as they are more attuned to the practical application of truth and justice, and are more able to impose their will on a situation, than women are.[Bolds are mine, for clarity]

He forgot one important point:

Fourth: Wives have a civilizing influence on husbands. Other than the desire to protect their wives, and the children that ensue, the very character of women civilizes men.

I think this is noticeable in the home. Regardless of the domestic influence of the wife (making the house habitable, the environment clean, and the atmosphere peaceful), a husband behaves far more civilly in his home than when in his workplace or other exterior environment.

And if his home life is civil and peaceful, and he has a trustful wife to tend to that, then his external behavior is also affected.

Think of soldiers, who have been away from their homes for months, and whose only company are other soldiers. Their existence, outside of the brutality of war, is a camaraderie of loud, boisterous interactions. They would not behave this way towards woman, and would most likely not behave this way with each other if they were in their homes with their wives and children nearby.

Or think of bachelors. Even those with erudition and great education are victim to the infamous "bachelor's pad," which is really more about having the proper environment to accomplish a purpose, whether it is to write the novel, or to have a place for whisky and frolics. They are content with the basics of domestic life: food, shelter and sleep.

When the purpose is to protect his wife and children, and their upkeep, the man's behavior and environment change accordingly. This domestic civility manifests itself with social and cultural civility, upon which societies, and countries, are built.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Young and Lesbian: An Epidemiology?

Photo from article: "Why Are So Many Girls Lesbian or Bisexual?"
From: Psychology Today, April 3, 2010
By: Leonard Sax, M.D., Ph.D.
These look just like the "college best friends" I write about below

Camille Paglia would be intrigued, and horrified, at this epidemiology of young lesbians, cheerfully "coming out."

Ellen Page

A few days ago, a young and pretty Canadian actress, Ellen Page, declared herself to be a closeted lesbian, that is until that moment when she dramatically announced to whomever bothered to listen: I am gay. She's twenty-six years old at this announcement, but according to her testimony, had been "gay" for years.

I found her video on New York Post's online magazine. It was hard to miss on the side column, with a large photo of her, and the headline: Tired of Hiding: Actress Ellen Page Comes Out as Gay.

Page is claiming that her "coming out" is "a personal obligation and a social responsibility [direct quote from the Youtube video here around the 6:15 minute point]", and is otherwise a "traumatic event."

It is interesting to see that "coming out" in the 21st century is such a traumatic event. I thought we had taken care of stigmatizing gays and had built such a "gay-friendly" world that people were declaring their "true selves" left and right.

Well, not so, apparently. Page tearfully declares: "I suffered for years because I was scared to be 'out'." Didn't Ellen DeGeneres, pernicious model for this young Ellen, present us with her "secret" in a similarly tearful declaration seventeen years ago? Her career hasn't diminished one bit, and in fact has climbed since then.


Page with "girlfriend"

Page was brought up in Eastern Canada, in Nova Scotia. Her parents divorced when she was very young, and her father remarried. She lived with her mother. At about fifteen, Page enrolled herself into a "Buddhist" school, with no academic structure, which emphasized "the arts." And her parents let her do this! Divorce is hard on any child, but a structureless one must be harsh. And worse, letting a young teenager decide on her intellectual and spiritual development is bizarre and cruel.


This is the best I could find of Page with her father.
Notice the impish quality of the father, who looks like he's out with his young son.
But then, what young boy would cling to his father like that?
Such is the ambiguous world of tomboys.


Page with her mother, looking dishevelled and tomboyish.
It looks like they were both out at some film premier,
where Page should be the star, but is upstaged
by her glamorous mother instead.

But homosexuality is still a social stigma, if "celebrities" have to make such a spectacle about their revelations. Normal, ordinary people, those that pay the films and shows to keep DeGeneres and Page in the business, will momentarily forget a gay person his abnormality as long as he entertains well. And if homosexuality is still a social stigma, despite all these efforts to normalize it, then it will always remain a social stigma.

And just in time for Obama's homosexual agenda of equality, the PBS program To The Contrary "for women, by women, about women" (my quotations), recently included on its panel an articulate black women, Danielle Moodie-Mills. I wondered who she was, with her caked make-up and twisted stringy hair.


Moodie on the PBS program To The Contrary, which aired a couple of weeks ago

I found her profile all over the internet, since then. She is a black lesbian, whose "marriage" to another black woman was profiled in the black magazine Essence. They "married" in 2010, Mills at 32 and Moodie 31, and had "been together" for six years before that, which means they started this "relationship" when they were in their early twenties.


Danielle Moodie, on the right, is:
Advisor, LGBT Policy and Racial Justice
Center for American Progress
Nonprofit; 201-500 employees; Think Tanks industry
(LinkedIn Profile)

and Ayisha Millis is:
...a Senior Fellow and Director of the FIRE - Fighting Injustice to Reach Equality - Initiative at the Center for American Progress, where her work explores the intersections of race, class, and sexuality.
(Center for American Progress profile)

They both have those fluffy jobs just right for the Obama administration.

There must be dozens around of these "lesbians" around. Girls walking around the mall, chattering and laughing: are they "young lesbians"? Two young women eating in a restaurant, fancily dressed: are they on a date? A couple, women, picking up a young child at school or at a day care: are they "two mommies"? And so on.

I won't go into the pshychological, sociological, cultural, School of Camille Paglia, analyses of what I'm seeing here, so here's my take, at least on Page, Moodie and Mills.

There is very little information forthcoming from Moodie or Mills. I've gleaned what there is available from various websites and their limited profiles in their professional biographies.

Danielle Moodie

Danielle Moodie's only reference to her parentage (from searches around the web) is a photo of hers which appeared on Essence magazine's profile of her "marriage" to Mills. Here, she is standing with a white man, named as Michael Newton, with the caption:

Dance with my father:
Danielle’s dad Michael Newton was close to tears as he danced with his daughter on her momentous day.

Below is the photograph:


(Source: Essence)

I can only assume that she is adopted. Where is the mother (adoptee)? Why isn't she included in this wedding photograph? Is she white, black, other? What kind of life does Moodie live where she has to call a white man as her father? How hard was this for her as a young girl (assuming she was adopted young)? How much harder did it get as she became conscious of her surroundings? How did the "black identity" culture affect her identity? How does she relate to whites, and to the ominous White Male?

Aisha Mills


Mills posted this photo collage on her Twitter page

Mills was raised by her grandmother. She says: "My entire life, I have been a variety of 'others'." According to this post, her mother had "Asian" roots, but she was raised by her Black Southern Baptist grandparents, as the photos above indicate. The young, light-skinned boy in the photo collage could be her brother. Or is it her dressed in a suit and tie (as a young boy)? Yes! It is her, dressed as a young boy! So there you have it.

And here below, she is with her MIU (Missing in Upbringing) father at her "wedding."


Source: Essence
Caption reads:

Proud Father
Aisha's father James Mills kisses his baby girl and wishes her well on her big day

The Mills-Moodie "elegant affair" of a wedding included baskets of chopsticks. The ominous absence of her Asian mother must make even the most mundane of Chinese objects into bouquets of roses.


Chopstick elegance: Reaching for some ephemeral roots
Chopsticks, from the wedding album by Essence
The caption reads:
Cocktail Hour:
"The entire wedding was an elegant cocktail affair," Aisha explained.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what is it with these young women?

- A chaotic home life?
- A dearth of masculine young men?
- Feminism pushing young women into competitive and masculine roles, where they clash with young men, both the feminized ones, and those standing their ground and refusing to give in easily to a woman-centric environment?
- Black men, unavailable, either through their dropping out of society, their criminality, or their immaturity?
- Men refusing marriage, for fear of repercussions by feminism, and feminist women and wives?
- Men refusing to mature, and instead delaying marriage and family?
- The culture pushing, through mass media, that marriage is not necessary?
- Divorce rates, and divorce costs, high, especially (uniquely?) for men, so many opting out of marriage?
The "otherness" of the other becoming too much to deal with for young people these days, who are not used to natural competitions, and eventually some awe for differences.
- The desire by contemporary people to make everyone the same, to avoid this natural alienness or otherness of people?
- The desire to make everything "nice" and non-combative?

In any case, this "best friend" type of coupling is well suited for girls in college and high school. Under normal conditions, these girls will find staunch mothers or grandmothers who will diminish that seductive environment, give them the education they need, and place them in situations where they can lead a normal life, including building their future families.

The women I've described above are traumatized orphans, both in society and in family. They have been dealt with difficult beginnings. Since their families didn't come through for them, then it should have been up to the larger society to see that they didn't normalize their ambiguities and abnormalities. Now, as adults, they are seeped in their iniquities, and will only further terrorize society. Our job now is to see that they don't do that, and that they don't amass more vulnerable innocents along their way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Parasitic Marriage and the Decline in Happiness

Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers on a panel at New America Foundation conference in 2013.
Their panel was titled: Home Economics: How the Changing Economy Shapes Decisions
to Marry - or Not Marry. (Scroll down to the bottom for the video.)

Stevenson has a Rottweiler's expression, as though she's ready to swat someone (Wolfers?).
I don't blame her. Who wouldn't swat Wolfers, with his meek and subservient demeanor.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I posted a couple of days ago images of unhappy, and aggressive, young girls who were part of a toy campaign to have them play with toys made for boys. The girls, despite their initial interest in these toys, ultimately wanted "girl" toys.

I found this comment I made at Lawrence Auster's Veiw From the Right in 2010 while looking through my emails. The comment was posted in a discussion titled: The Factory Of Liberal Society Keeps Churning Out Its Quota Of Dead Young White Women.

A long and complex 2009 study on women's happiness shows that women lose ground to men (are unhappier than men), and older women are less happy than younger women. And "[Twelfth grade] girls have lost ground [in happiness] both absolutely and relative to boys."
Twelfth grade girls, given a list of items and asked "How important is each of the following to your life? report a large number of these items with increasing importance, compared to boys. The list includes things like: "Having a good marriage and family life" to "Discovering new ways to experience things." It could well include "Running in marathons."
Twelfth grade girls in this study are overwhelmed with the expectations they adopt, and are more anxious and insecure (i.e. unhappy) in general than boys.

Although they seem happier than their mothers or grandmothers, their decline in happiness is predictable, if taken by their mothers' responses.

This study's results, coupled with the trust and innocence of teenage girls (not discussed/measured in the study), makes their "proud and sovereign" appearance not what it seems to be. And women's apparent pride and sovereignty in general. Although one would think by this study that teenager girls are more confident and happier (proud and sovereign) than their older relatives. Another one of those instances where facts debunk wishful thinking.

Here is the full pdf file of the study: The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness. By Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers.

Critics of this study show that the numbers are insignificant, but in a scientific study context, they are statistically significant: i.e., the data mean something.

Wolfer and Stevenson try to explain this declining female happiness, although I think another study which targeted the portion of women who responded with "yes, my happiness is declining" and asked them variations on "why are you unhappy" would be an important follow-up study.

This follow-up study never occurred, but Stevenson and Wolfers continue with another equally fascinating topic about the relationship of men and women in a household where both hold careers. They don't quite present it like that, but I have analyzed it in that context.

Below is a transcript of some sections of the conference Home Economics: How the Changing Economy Shapes Decisions
to Marry—or Not Marry, presented by Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfer in 2013. Here is the full video. They haven't come up with any explanation for this decline in

Stevenson: In our household...I do all the bills and all the taxes, and manage all the money.
Wolfers: And I have no idea how much money I have...
[Belly laugh from Stevenson]
Stevenson: And Justin deals with all the bills and all the technology. I can barely turn on...Every time I go on the treadmill I go "how does this TV turn on again?"

Of course, like all female feminists, Stevenson wants the best of both worlds. She can act all "girlie" and confused when it comes to technology (really, how hard is it to figure out house-hold appliances and home exercise machines?), but no toddler or infant will get in the way of her career ("We have a three-year-old and an eight-month-old" announces Stevenson). And she can get her "career" too.

This must be a parasitic relationship. Wolfers and Stevenson must benefit from the double income. I wonder how much of the household chores Wolfers really does? Stevenson implies that modern domestic work is relatively easy, with all the gadgets. But someone still has to cook the dinner and clean the bathroom, albeit with fortified and quick-acting detergents. And there are the children. I assume it is her who takes care of these by maneuvering a large supply of nannies and day-cares. I assume also that she makes the meals, or at least prepares the food in advance and stores it in color-coded tupperware for her husband to defrost and serve when she's out on her after-hour missions. Then she might even take an extra hour after work to buy that new perfume, or the pair of shoes she saw recently in some fashion magazine. Or take a "girl's night out" for a drink of wine with other career women at an expensive downtown bar one day a week. And of course there will be the hair stylist, the cosmetician, the manicures and pedicures, the spa. Her ragged look in the conference photo above should not fool us. And all this costing her several thousand over the course of the year.

I wonder what "gadgets" Wolfers gets for his suffering? A boat for the summer? A "man cave" in the basement, replete with an HDTV, a surround sound music system, and a state-of-the-art Laz-Y-Boy?



This article informs us that Wolfers' hobby is "running."

If You Run the Numbers, It's a Good Time:

I'm not just an economist, I'm also a runner, training for the Marine Corps Marathon.

Runners World magazine recently argued that marathon running is an incredibly cheap sport. All you need is a pair of shoes, and you're off and running. But they're wrong.

You see, they were emphasizing the out-of-pocket cost, which is small. But the foundation of all economics is something called opportunity cost. It says that the true cost of something is the alternative you have to give up.

So each hour that I spend running is an hour that I don't spend hanging out, working, or sleeping. How do I choose? Following economic theory, I keep doing an activity only as long as it yields greater benefits than the alternative.

And as I spend my hours slugging out the miles, I'm forced to confront my choices. Instead of sweating it out on the trails, I could take on extra teaching and earn a few extra bucks. And so going running costs me good money.

The same logic applies to you. Each hour you spend on your hobby is an hour you don't spend working harder to get a promotion, studying for a degree, or shopping around for the cheapest groceries.

By my calculations my 16-week training program comes at an opportunity cost of several thousand dollars. A quicker runner would have a smaller opportunity cost. It's only because I'm both slow and an economist that I fret that the world's cheapest sport is actually incredibly expensive.

But to an economist, the choice is still a no-brainer. We think you should only do what you love, and pay for it by doing what you are good at.

By sticking to economics, I make time for running. Rather than spend hundreds of dollars worth of time cleaning my house each Sunday, I hire a cleaner, who does a better job, at a better price.

When a friend asks me to help them move, I write them a check to pay professional movers instead. It's just more efficient.

And while it can be hard to forgo extra income for a long run, it is even harder to justify wasting that time on Facebook. And with the time that saves, I'm pulling on my shoes to head out for another run.

Running doesn't cost much money, except for the initial investment in a $200 pair of sneakers (I can't see Wolfers going for $50 running shoes) and a monthly gym membership fee of $75, which will set him back $1,000 for the year (he just couldn't share that treadmill with his wife).

But Wolfers clearly understands that the cost for his running is not necessarily monetary, but the time he cannot (does not, will not) spend with his wife and family. Perhaps his running is a ruse to avoid spending time with them, in that chaotic house where he will be shouldered with the chore of the evening.

The goal of women is marriage, however much they deny it. I doubt that Wolfers would want marriage with Stevenson, as is the nature of men unsure of their women, especially emasculating ones like Stevenson. Marriage, with its life-binding promises, with the burden placed higher on males, is something to be avoided with women like Stevenson.

In the meantime, Wolfers gets to work in a career and have a extra money around from his wife's income. Although, Stevenson is clearly the more advanced, career-wise (here is the Wikipedia profile for Stevenson, and here is Wolfers'). At some point, Wolfers who will have to deal with a discontented wife, making more "family" demands on him to come home earlier, take the kids skating or soccer, help with the dishes. And why not the cooking too?


Baby Duty

He surely gets what he deserves. But, since he won't see it like that, at some point he will have to contend with a wife who files for divorce, or a separation. Perhaps she might even suspect him of/catch him cheating.

I thought Stevenson's corpulence and sloppiness (in the top photo) was because of a pregnancy. But, she's eight months past her second child's birth at that point. She just seems overwhelmed with "How does this treadmill work" and "How do I continue with my fast-paced career which won't sync with my breast-feeding and nappy-changing schedule?" I suspect she has a plethora of nannies to feed her expressed breast milk to her infant, and might even bring her baby to her office on "light" days to show what a mom she is. I think all this adds to her her frazzled look of overwhelmedness, which I think is really guilt, buried deep at leaving her children, and husband, behind for a career. And she looks far older than Wolfers, although he is only a year younger. She looks like she could be his mother.



Above is a photo of Stevenson that is profiled in articles as far back as 2008. She has on make-up, and looks pretty. She must resemble the younger woman Wolfers met as a graduate student in Harvard, when they were both twenty-somethings (Stevenson graduated from Wellesley College in 1993, and I would estimate at twenty-three, and from Harvard in 2001, when she must have turned thirty). In her most recent photo (see the top of the blog for one taken in 2013), she looks like she's simply aged. Two toddler children, a full-time career, and a live-in "partner" don't make for an easy life.

Wolfers is no better, with his longish hair, chopped off as though to deny he grooms it carefully (this is a carefully styled hairstyle to look nonchalent and "radical"). Although he looks like he's regressed back to some college era age in his most recent photos.

But, he has a fanatical look which come through when he's discussing the evils done to mankind before Obama came to save it in this video at a Brookings Institue conference taken in 2013. He is a true Obama disciple. His views seem as though he's supporting "rich kids'" ability to transfer to non-paying public pre-schools. But then he faults their move by saying that the "poor kids" would be crowded out by these rich kids, who's greedy parents would rather have the option of sending their children to the non-paying public schools.


Image from the video at a 2013 Brookings Institute conference

Odd logic, these lefties. Surely a rich parent wouldn't want his children to receive mediocre education, as well as the plethora of dangers the child could face in a government subsidized poor school? Surely he will do his best to give quality care, on all counts, for his children and family, and that would include quality day-care, even at a cost?

Wolfers' reverse logic is of course that rich kids could also be crowded out of pre-schools by poor kids entering these schools through various subsidies. But these rich kids would then be forced to enter the free public pre-schools due to overcrowding by poor kids in their own rich schools, in turn crowding out those poor kids left behind without subsidies to enter rich schools. I knew there was a catch when he started "supporting" rich kids. I had to listen to his video, and read a couple of posts, before I could surmise the above [these links might be helphul: a and b).

He must have learned his tactics for arguments from Obama, his mentor.

Such are the convoluted personalities of the liberal elite, who live their public lives advocating for the poor, yet everything they do in their personal lives depends on a large stash of income.

Stevenson and Wolfers have two children, a daughter who is about four, and a son who is about one. It will be interesting to see how the "rear" these children, and if they will have found solutions to increasing the happiness quotient of girls. And what woudl they do if their doaughter wanted a full-own, wedding-dress including, church wedding (miracles do happen.) Would they attend, or would they refuse the invitation out of principle? Or if their son, as a macho teenager laughed at his father's dishwashing ways?

As I wrote above, there are many sequels to this research waiting to be written.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------