The Destruction of Art by Artists

Comment on Bruce Elder's film "The Young Prince"



I just finished watching Bruce Elder's latest film "The Young Prince". Being a prolific artist and writer, this two hour "experimental" film was made at the same time as he was writing his book "Harmony and Dissent: Film and Avant-garde Art Movements in the Early Twentieth Century".

As I wrote in the short (preliminary) review on the book, my observations that modern-day avant-garde filmmakers (and artists in general) are interested in non-Christian ways of reaching the transcendence are being validated. Although Elder never elucidates this in his book (he takes a more of a descriptive approach, writing about this phenomenon, rather than expressing his views), his film is a clear indication of his approach. More on this later, but his final quote in his film, from the apocryphal Acts of St. John (which according to many Christian theologians is heretical), shows me that I am going in the right direction.

I am so glad that I went with my instincts, and refused to enter into the strange, trance-inducing films of these "avant-garde" filmmakers. Sometimes all you really have to go on is a non-rational, but equally strong and true, perception.

Again, I will write more on this, and how (and why) most modern artists are really in the realm that Elder and his filmmakers inhabit. And why art suffers and is destroyed as a consequence. Yes, strong words, but now I can finally say them.

Indian Immigration Lawyer's Take on Dual Citizenship

My rule of thumb is that an immigrant will always behave like an immigrant


Immigration lawyer Ravi Jain, who is a first generation immigrant of Indian background, was on Steve Paikin's panel on dual citizenship: "Dual Citizenship, Dual Loyalties?". He was behaving in a manner typical of immigrants. He has an automatic, knee-jerk, expectation that the whole world (or more precisely, the non-Western world) is entitled to immigrate to U.S. and Canada, and once there, to obtain an uncontested guarantee of citizenship. I don't know why immigrants such as Jain (that is 99.9% of immigrants) never question the logic of their argument. Still, Jain is an immigration lawyer, so part of the answer lies in his professional background. He has to accept and support the concept of immigration to win his clients' cases. And if I were a little more cynical, I would have to say that it is a lucrative business being an immigration lawyer.

But this arrogant sense of entitlement goes deeper than career opportunism. I've thought long and hard about it, and I think that non-Westerners come to Canada or the U.S. (and to European countries as well) with a "they owe us" dig. Of course, this hails back to all the perceived insults and oppressions of the colonial period, and the American influence around the world since then.

The contradiction is that Jain's India is one of the more prosperous countries in the world, and I would say that it is thanks to the institutions the British left behind, and the economic benefits Indians reap from American businesses.

And the fact that many of these immigrants are opting for dual citizenship shows that their countries are no longer the dismal, economically non-viable back waters which they presumably left never to return to again.

The phenomenon of dual citizenship has been brewing for the past twenty years or so, with about 150 countries (including Canada and the U.S.) now accepting such a status compared to only a handful in the early 1990s.

I would like to say that claiming dual citizenship is a good thing. After all, if more Indians return to India, they will find much to attract them there, including living happy Indian lives with their relatives, their traditions, their cultures and the many beautiful things that are part of their Indianness. And then they will stay in India.

But what the modern non-Western immigrant does is keep all his options open. For Indians, it would be to live and enjoy their Indian life, but keep the other foot firmly planted in Canada, including encouraging (coercing) more, ever-increasing Indian immigration to Canada. And going through impossible hoops to change Canada into their version of a Nordic India (if ever possible).

The objectives of non-Westerners like Jain is not Canadian nation building, but the acquisition of the rights and privileges of living in a prosperous nation and to glean as much as they can from it. Such “Canadians” will never publicly admit this, but their hearts and minds, all the way down to their second and third generation offspring, are back in their ancestral lands. The “We Love Canada” mantra of many non-Western Canadians is easily dismantled when asked what their affiliations to their non-Western lands are, and more succinctly, if they have, or agree with dual citizenship.

So, this is all a tidy(!) quagmire the thoughtless wielders of our immigration policies have come up with. A set-up for people like Jain, whose loyalties, despite his family living in Canada for multiple generations, will always be as an Indian first (a non-Westerner), and when push comes to shove, a Canadian next. When pressed, “Why Canadian” his reply will eventually reveal that all he wants is the gains, and let’s face it, it is mostly economic gains, he will get from Canada. In the mean time, he will be busy working under the radar to make sure that this prosperous Canada will continue to be a temporary haven (or a displaced haven) for people like him, and for thousands more whose entrance to Canada he will facilitate.

This is the stark reality of non-Western “Canadians”. Don’t listen to what they say, look at what they do. Or, if you’re Steve Paikin, bring them on TVO and ask them pertinent questions to reveal the truth behind their layers of lies.

Below is the full hour panel on dual citizenship with panelists:

- Martin Collacott, senior fellow at the Fraser Institute.
- Rudyard Griffiths, co-founder of the Dominion Institute
- Ravi Jain, partner with Green and Spiegel
- Audrey Macklin, associate professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Toronto
- Michele Wucker, executive director of the World Policy Institute

A Race-Obsessed Feminist With No Sense of Humor

And who can't do algebra either


Poet, writer and professor Rozena Maart is described thus in wikipedia:

Dr. Rozena Maart (born 1962) is a South African writer, professor and psychotherapist, currently living in Canada... [She] was nominated for the "Woman of the Year" award hosted in Johannesburg, for her work opposing violence against women and for starting, with four women, the first Black feminist organization in Cape Town, Women Against Repression (WAR).

She exercised her activist tendencies, and wrote a letter to the editors of the Globe and Mail about a cartoon entitled "Afrocentric Algebra".

The cartoon was in reaction to the Afrocentric schools that were opened up experimentally in Toronto last year.

Part of the joke is that the cartoon character is mimicking a popular American Idol judge who often exclaims, "What's up, Dawg (dog)" whenever he is pleased with a singing contestant. Jackson is an accomplished musician, and his colleagues on American Idol, as well as the contestants, admire him and respect his viewpoints.

So, the cartoon was in no way diminishing this black teacher, or his pupils, with that slang. In fact, it was a respectful (and humorous) reference to Randy Jackson's enthusiastic outbursts.

Of course, someone obsessed with race (racism, to be precise), sexism, and is an avowed feminist, as Maart is, would find this cartoon insulting.

But, that is all beside the point (and predictable). What is funny is the follow-up apology by the Globe and Mail editors, who after listing all the positive references and writings the paper has published about Afrocentric schools, wrote this zinger (and I think the bigger joke), which of course Maart missed:

Moreover, through a mistake in transcription, the equations on the blackboard were not quite correct. This was our mistake, and there was no intention to suggest that the imaginary teacher in the cartoon was not competent.

Or race-obsessed feminist are not either.

Benny Hill Does Have A Sense of Humor

Although he never comes out and says "catsmeat"

I've never really liked Benny Hill, especially his propensity to include dubious looking ladies in his skits.

But, in view of a a harmless joke on a lefty's blog( a lefty dubbed forever Catsmeat Kinsella by the the right wing faction), and the retaliation of the Chinese community to his harmless joke, I thought that in a sane world, this Benny Hill skit might get a few chuckles. That is, until the various levels of the Chinese community political branches decide that it's an HRC-worthy offense.

Here's the Youtube skit, uncannily titled: "Benny Hill as Chinese fish & chip shop owner Chow Mein, found guilty by Industrial Tribunal":


This skit, a little long at eight minutes, but you can get the gist after a couple - make sure to watch until the Indian walks in - is funnier and more timely, than it initially looks.

A Chinese shop owner is brought to an "industrial tribunal" by an Indian staff for work-related injuries. Language, accent, idioms and many other subtleties get in the way. The Indian and the Chinese are happily chattering away while the poor tribunal is jumping hoops to understand what exactly is going on.

Welcome to our multi-culti twenty-first century.

The Chic Homesteaders

That are the Obamas

The Obama homesteaders

There's an odd article by Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan entitled: "Goodbye Bland Affluence. Get ready for authenticity chic."

Now, there is nothing really wrong with the title, but I would think that the type who gets rid of "bland affluence" readily welcomes "authenticity chic", if only for the "chic" smuggled in there somewhere; authenticity without the chic would not cut it.

In fact, Noonan doesn't talk about anything chic at all, but she does make some kind of an attempt at prophesying a new post-recession era of homesteaders.

So what is the photo of Mrs. Obama doing on the cover of her story? The photo is of Michelle Obama out in the White House gardens planting the seeds for her organic garden. And it is a deceptive photo. Growing organic seems more of a hobby than subsistence for the Obamas, and Michelle's, "We’re going to serve it at some State Dinners" sounds more of a conversation piece than a survival plot.

Why is Noonan (or the WSJ) putting that photo with Noonan's Armageddon piece about the demise of civilization and our return to basic survival mode? Well, every other MSM writer, at some point, gets caught up in the Obama Hope and Change mantra and starts to believe it. Noonan is no different, and in fact was on the bandwagon from the beginning.

If the country is going to go down to hell in a hand basket, well, why not have the chic homesteaders, the Obamas, lead the way?

A Diagram To Explain Secularists as Parasites

Heather MacDonald's nonchalant comment that religions (read Christians here) are parasites on secularists really touched a nerve, and I blogged about it here.

I tried to explain that it is exactly the reverse. That it is secularists who are parasites on Christians and I used the dying Europe as an example. Europe's secular leaders, who are using Christian-based morals (one of the axes of Western Civilization) to govern it, are slowly killing it off, as parasites are wont to do.

I tend to see things better in visual form, so here is a really simple diagram to describe the really potent quote from MacDonald.

Christians killing off secularists after stealing their moral codes? No. In fact secularists and society at large flourish because of these moral codes.

Secularists killing off Christians (and the rest of society - big accusation, this) after stealing their moral codes? More likely. Just look at Europe.

Simplistic? But that is how inanely simplistic MacDonald's comment was.

Ruskin on Transcendence

An Appeal

St. Mark's, Venice. John Ruskin. 1877

It is refreshing to read Ruskin's writings on art, which show his vast knowledge on the subject from the technical to the spiritual. Some of them are available from his lectures at Oxford University which have been compiled into the book Lectures on Art. He has divided this lecture series into:

The Relationship of Art to Religion
The Relationship of Art to Morals
The Relationship of Art to Use

And three more lectures on line, color and light.

Here is a pertinent quote (in view of my last post on avant-garde filmmakers trying to find the transcendent without God) from Ruskin's lecture "The Relationship of Art to Religion" [the complete lecture is available on the linked Google Books], which is more of an appeal to his students:

That we may have the splendour of art again, and with that, we may truly praise and honour our Maker, and with that set forth the beauty and holiness of all that He has made.

No one writes like that anymore.

Heather MacDonald's Shallow Imagination

Who's the parasite now?

Heather MacDonald, who writes for the group blog Secular Right, and who participated in a video-taped dialogue entitled "God and Man on the Right", had this to say about religion:

Secular Right has also been arguing that morality comes out of a human, innate moral sense...and religion is parasitic on humans' own moral sense [this is around 3:30 mark and goes on until around 4:00].

Part of her argument is that she doesn't think it is necessary to bring "any kind of appeal to revelation" to support and argue for morality, since morality is grounded on "reason, observation of human nature and evidence."

Of course, that begs the question that an "appeal to revelation" is also grounded on "reason, observation of human nature and evidence."

Since humans innately managed to conjure up all these moral codes, who is to say that they couldn't have the innate ability to appeal to revelation, and interact with whoever manages this revelation to produce to those moral codes? Perhaps believers are the folks really grounded in reason.

There is a supreme arrogance in MacDonald's soft-spoken voice when she equates religion as parasitic on humans' moral sense. So, religious people steal from those hard-working secularists (to eventually destroy them, since that is what parasites do) all the morality they've innately developed, and turn around and attribute them to divine revelation.

I've never heard of this argument before. But, it shows a closed-mindedness and dearth of imagination that MacDonald must have that she can't even speculate that just as morality is innate, appeal to revelation is equally innate and acts as precursor to those moral values she thinks she plucks out of the independently working human mind.

In my bias and ignorance, I know that it is secularists who are killing off Europe, which has given up on an "appeal to revelation", as MacDonald so cleverly puts it. Whatever moral codes they have inherited came from this appeal, while their secularists friends thought otherwise. So, who are the parasites now?

New Books on Art

Beauty, Dissent and Wreckage


There are several illuminating and timely books that I hope to get to read before long. They are:

- Harmony and Dissent: Film and Avant-garde Art Movements in the Early Twentieth Century by R. Bruce Elder

- Roger Scruton's Beauty

- The Wreck of Western Culture: Humanism Revisited by John E. Carroll

I've already started the one by my former professor, R. Bruce Elder, who is an avant-garde filmmaker of much esteem. I deeply respect his erudition and great fountain of knowledge on art and philosophy. Yet, I profoundly disagree with his methods, which consequently led me away from avant-garde film to textile design.

I am absolutely thrilled to find his new book echoes many of my sentiments. I don't think Bruce Elder actually critiques, or even criticizes, the positions that he writes about in his book. His task is to unravel and describe them, which he seems to do thoroughly and fully.

Here is a quote from the preface (none too soon) about my exact perception of avant-garde film making, and why I left it:

Vanguard artists proposed that a universal transcendent art might come forth, might yet unite the arts, might yet re-enchant the world of nature and even of ordinary objects by treating them as hieroglyphs of an invisible reality, and so sway the mind toward a creator-unity immanent in nature. That new art might yet come forth that could fully express the artist's mind. At the beginning of the twentieth century, cinema seemed to many that most closely approximated this ideal. Furthermore... they believed that since it was a synthetic art that exemplified the best attributes of each of the other arts, it was the Ottima Arte.

This quote sounds innocuous enough, but the whole idea is to bring transcendence without God. A kind of man-made transcendence. Not only that, but to conjure up ways for the viewer of these films to be caught up in this transcendence.

And I think the vanguard artists were right. Film - cinema - is the best medium (better than painting, which still allowed Rothko to go into his transcendent forays) for this.

Immigrants' Quest for Dismantling Their Host Countries

Update on the Virginia Tech massacre


There really is a true definition of victim, and the Virginia Tech recipients of Seung-Hui Cho's bullets qualify 100%.

But, there is nothing more irritating, and destructive, than when victims exploit their victimhood and make impassioned requests to have things their way.

Some survivors of the Virginia Tech shooting tried to pass a bill in Virginia to require background checks for those buying guns from private individuals at gun shows. Their point is that anyone could end up buying guns this way, including people like Seung-Hui Cho who caused the mayhem that took the lives of 32 fellow-students, and almost took theirs.

But, Cho didn't buy his gun at a gun show, and there is no evidence that guns bought privately at gun shows are a source of criminal activity.

Pro-gun advocates say that this bill was just a red herring towards the bigger goal of eventually eliminating gun ownership altogether.

What I found especially pertinent about this anti-gun story was that one of the victims of the shooting (a true victim since she suffered several injuries), who was vigorously pushing for this particular bill to pass, is an immigrant from Eritrea.

So, an immigrant goes on a shooting spree, and amongst his victims is another immigrant who now tries to excuse his atrocious behavior (or at least camouflage it) by saying the problem was inadequate gun control laws.

I don't want to go too much into the predominantly leftist and liberal stances of most immigrants. What I find consistently appalling is that immigrants have taken on the role of dismantling their host country’s culture and traditions.

Cho's fellow-students, instead of discussing the conditions that led Cho to go out and shoot them in broad daylight (alienated immigrant, comes to mind, they should know better), are bringing into question an American tradition, the Constitutional right to bear arms.

There is this constant dearth of knowledge and understanding of their host countries by immigrants. I don't know where such obstinacy comes from, except that it may be (is?) an innate desire to dismantle their host country's standing institutions and traditions. Thus, anything that may have a historical or traditional component is up for questioning, if not removal, at some point.

So, instead of studying and honestly reporting on gun laws, the Second Amendment, the culture of gun ownership, the statistics on crime and gun violence, these immigrants immediately jump on the tradition itself and try to dismantle it.

I have never met an immigrant who hasn’t done this. So, it is safe to assume that the laws and traditions of a country will forever be in danger of destruction with increasing immigration.

Immigrants, to put it bluntly, will eternally be in the business of destroying their host country, for a variety of reasons (one being that they become liberals when they land on Western countries’ shores). But the reasons are irrelevant. Their behavior is already evident.

The Presence of God

On Good Friday and Easter

Stained glass showing the martyrdom of
Thomas Becket in Canterbury Cathedral

As I was going past St. James Cathedral to attend the Good Friday service (it was at 2:00pm, and I went late thinking it was the regular Evensong time of 4:30), I was thinking, "What a waste of a beautiful, historical building."

Why a waste?

Some dioceses from the Anglican Church of Canada have joined the recently formed Anglican Church of North America, protesting the loss of traditionalism in the original church, including its stance on homosexual marriage and the ordination of homosexual priests.

St. James Cathedral is not part of that protest, and continues to maintain those non-Christian beliefs.

I hardly ever go to services anymore, occasionally to evensongs, and more frequently to their first-class organ recitals on Tuesdays.

What a waste that such a magnificent building, with its stained glass windows and newly-restored organ, should be dedicated to a group of worshipers that are taking it down the heretical road.

When I was a young school girl in England, it was in the Anglican Church where I learned to appreciate, and love, the church liturgy. And the quiet and holy feeling of the church's interior with the subdued stained glasses whose stories I never tired to look up and contemplate.

It was there too where I learned of the beauty of English sacred music, which I think is superior to any. In fact, when the rest of Europe was busy inventing and composing opera, Queen Elizabeth I made sure that the church music never floundered, and in fact let it flourish.

There too, I learned to love this music, having been in choirs all through school (from 11 years on), and was awarded not one, but two, music prizes.

It deeply saddens me, therefore, that this great tradition is being stifled by heretics and blasphemers. And they don't give ordinary people like me a chance to wholeheartedly celebrate these most holy of days.

Perhaps that is why I went there late.

On a more positive note, the organist for recital for the March 31 Midday Series was Douglas Schalin, and his whole program consisted of music by John Stanley, specifically a selection of Stanley's Voluntaries for Organ.

The organ is a fascinating instrument. It can go from a the whimsy flute pipe (and a beguiling echo) to an awesome sound which evokes the presence of God.

These are the things that this blighted leadership is trying to destroy.

But through the grace of God.

Happy Easter to all.

From Career Women to Single Motherhood to Immigration

What do these "conservatives" really think?

The mandatory Sarah Palin groupie t-shirt.
I wonder what ex-groupies do with it?

I've written about Bristol Palin's induction into the cult of single teen-aged motherhood when when she attended the Republican National Convention visibly pregnant, here and here.

I've also blogged about so-called conservative women who supported her mother for, amongst other reasons, letting this family drama to play out in public during her campaign for vice presidency, and who even produced a video entitled: I am Sarah Palin.

One of those women is the blogger from Girl on the Right, Wendy Sullivan, whom I have criticized for this very stance - she was also part of the video production.

On Wednesday, Sullivan was on the Michael Coren Show again. And her position on Sarah Palin has changed. It has done a 180 degree flip, actually. Palin's life is a bit of a soap opera these days. Her sisters-in-law keep getting into trouble with, well, the law. And now her daughter's ex-fiancé and father of her grandson was on some cheesy talk show denouncing the Palin family.

At this point, I think Sullivan decided that Palin is no longer a viable candidate, and that she has too much "white trash" in her. Not a word of defense came out of her mouth when the panelists on the show were demeaning Palin.

It was pretty sad. Sullivan produced the video based on an emotional, blind loyalty to "conservatives". Now that Palin is going through personal and familial problems, there is not one word of sympathy from Sullivan. Not even, "Yes, that young man has no business going on TV airing the family's business." Strange. In the name of party loyalty, Sullivan went all out. In the name of basic, human sympathy, she kept her mouth shut.

Who are these people? Where do they get their frame of reference from? How can we trust them to report on conservative issues, and represent our views.

Still, here is more insight into our current "conservatives'" behavior.

On the same show, which included former NDP cabinet minster Marilyn Churley and libertarian/conservative journalist David Menzies, one discussion involved a homeschooling story from Germany.

An Evangelical Christian family in Bissingen, Germany, which is homeschooling its five children, has fled to the United States and is asking for asylum (refugee status) in Tennessee. It is illegal to homeschool in Germany, and people can be jailed for doing so. That is the basis of this family's fear, that the the parents can be jailed, and their children taken away from them.

Now, Coren's and Sullivan's position (and Churley's - a leftist!) is that they should be given asylum, since they are being "persecuted".

David Menzies quite reasonably said that this case is not a matter of life and death, the family should compromise, send their children to public school, and try to change that particular law. If they feel there is no hope, then they should go through the proper channels for immigration. Not request for asylum, at any point.

Both Coren and Sullivan jumped on Menzies. They based their position on freedom of religion, or more precisely, in defense of Christianity. This German family is Evangelical Christian, which is the reason it is opting for homeschooling rather than send its children to the secular German school system.

I suspect Sullivan's position has a lot to do with the strength that Islam is gaining over genuinely harassed Christians. But, this case is not about of freedom of religion, or support for Christianity, but about a family breaking the laws. Like Menzies says, fight to change the laws instead!

Now, this must be the frame of mind Coren and Sullivan have for all immigration.

Your country isn't nice to you, well, just come on over to Canada or America. No, don't stay there and fight your battles. Don't make positive changes. Just abandon ship and we will save you.

Imagine, if they say this about white immigrants, what they must be thinking about those huddled masses of the Third World, who, actually, are quite capable of staying home and fighting their battles.

And this coming from conservatives!

Michelle's Inelegance Exposed

By Prague's First Lady

Left: Michelle Obama walks with Livia Klausova, wife of
Czech President Vaclav Klaus visit St. Vitu's Cathedral in Prague
Right: Listening to a guide during a visit of the Pinka's Synagogue

Here it is again, the Michelle Fashion Machine. I will deconstruct it, for all it's worth.

She is in Prague now (Saturday April 4, and Sunday April 5) a cultured, sophisticated, European city. And this is what she gave them!

- Flats again
- Shirt untucked, which looks like some cheap, wrinkly cotton
- Plain (too plain) black skirt
- A shapeless overcoat - looks like a sweater coat!
- A Bow? A really big bow (is it to reinforce Obama's...BOW?).

Look at how elegant Livia Klausova looks; the coat, the suit with details on the jacket, the handbag - why doesn't Michelle ever carry a handbag? - the superior design of the string of pearls, the lovely pale pink/gray color, the gray fur trimmings, all beautifully coordinated.


AND... DRUM ROLL...


Here it is! That sweater again! But what style, what variation, what fashion.

No more buttons, let's just do the "too-small-look" and really go for it. Make it buttonless (a new Michelle invention, this), and add a plastic belt with plastic studs to really make it avant-garde - or whatever fashionistas call really outrageous designs.

There, I've been vindicated. No longer necessary to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Michelle has truly arrived.

Madonna Diptych

Experiments with composition

Left: My photoshopped version of what I think the
Madonna family portrait should look like.
Right: Original photograph with Lourdes,
Madonna, Rocco and the adopted David

Madonna's adoption of a young girl from Malawi has been rejected by the Malawi judge overseeing the case. The reason is that an adoptive parent has to live in the country for 18-24 months. This requirement was waived for her previous adoption of young David. I think this case will also go through, and that the judge is just making temporary fuss since people are talking about "child trafficking" and "stealing" children.

I came across this photograph (on the right) of her three children, and thought something was amiss. Here is what I came up with.

The photographer has grouped them in a pyramid - which is a classic painting structure used in many religious paintings showing important subjects on top.

But David's addition in the photograph changes the structure from a pyramid to a spiral, which pulls the image down to David instead of up towards Madonna (the mother.) David's color is also distracting. Even though it could have enhanced the overall contrast, what it does is make Rocco look too sallow, especially with Rocco's gray shirt obviously used to make him blend in better with David. Rocco also looks distanced from Madonna and Lourdes, in his gray shirt. He ends up not blending in with anyone, not with David, and not with his mother and sister.

David's presence thus becomes distracting, making the image look too busy, and diverting us from the pyramidal shape that would put Madonna in the center. There are also many negative metaphors for a downward spiral.

There is also something mysterious about the black section in the photoshopped version, making the three (or maybe just the two children) look as though they are regenerating out of some mystical center.

So, the photograph works better without David.

As I've always said, pictures never lie (or at least they reveal some deep-seated truths). In this case, David would have been infinitely better off in his homeland of Malawi, instead of trying to fit in the world that Madonna is trying to forge for him.

He doesn't belong in her family. He doesn't belong in her country.

Michelle's Insolence

Sparkles for day-wear is just part of it

What is this?! Sequins, argyle, asymmetry, pearls, a tank top/t-shirt,
turquoise/teal mix, buttons on the back.
This is the aesthetic sense of a truly clueless woman.

While watching Michelle Obama's fashion choices this week, I have concluded that she doesn't have a stylist, or if she does, she bypasses his advice.

Her choices are bizarre and idiosyncratic. Sweaters are too small and the buttons look like they will pop off any minute. Skirts are too tight or too billowy. Shoes are too flat (so what if she's tall, heels are more elegant.) Sparkles on day-clothes instead of cocktail-wear. Boring black with a t-shirt under her (shrunken) sweater for tea with the Queen. Tube tops with too-tight pencil skirts. Gaudy print dresses with non-matching overcoats.

I think Michelle Obama is just doing what she wants. Pretending to be a simple J.Crew kind of woman, when in fact she wears designer and non-designer clothes in much of her attire. And she has not really consulted the great stylists of Presidents' wives, let alone what Jackie Kennedy wore to really and truly "wow" the French, and this just exacerbates her stunning lack of style.

We will be subjected to at least three more years of crass, unfashionable, unaesthetic choices, with crowds unanimously declaring her as a fashion icon, not daring to whisper that there might be something wrong there.

Not that I really care. Ever since she came out with her bizarre choices during the Democratic National Convention, I realized that this isn't someone worth looking at for fashion sense, or any sense at all.

What makes me truly irritated, though, is her insolence. That she really thinks it's OK to wear the litany of clothes that I described above. This is not First Lady material. And people are going to have to see quick, through their glazed eyes, and realize that the "Empress" is not what she's been made out to be.

Obama's Bow

For the select few

Obama's bending from the waist down, almost touching the ground (well, exaggeration does make the point) with knees bent, to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has caused quite a stir.

Video of Obama bowing to King Abdullah of
Saudi Arabia. The bow occurs at 53 seconds

When watching the video, the first thing I noticed was the "quick step" with which Obama advanced toward the King of Sharia, his arm readily extended (to the already extended arm of the King). Then he did his bow. This is the behavior of pure, unencumbered deference.

This kind of deference is something that Obama must have had ingrained in him. His bowing to this Muslim monarch was something that happened automatically without him having to think about it; something he must have been taught to do. He has lived after all, for part of his childhood and teenage years in Muslim Indonesia.

This is a really scarey thought. For all his cool and composure, Obama has some strange, deep-seated beliefs and behaviors that keep popping up at unexpected moments.

Imagine, the President of the United States of America, a Western Christian country's leader, showing such unmitigated deference to the King of a Muslim, Oriental country, whose religion is waging war not only on America, but on all of Western and non-Muslim societies.