Feminine Feminists

How modern women compete


Laura Wood's website at The Thinking Housewife has an interesting discussion on my two previous posts about women in powerful positions using their feminine assets to the extremes. Usually these women are in the entertainment/media fields. Although Sarah Palin, who seems to be an aspiring politician, also falls under this category.

Long, loose hair, enlarged breasts, ever-shortening skirts, ridiculously high heels, blonder hair, and make-up that is almost garish, seems to be characteristic of these women in positions of power.

I don’t think it is surprising that it is the "conservative" women of Fox News that have become these super women. Most conservative women do accept their femininity as apart and different from masculinity.

Yet, in any position of potential power, competition does come into play. And this competition is set by the best players in the field, who are men. Of course, the best way to compete is to get the job done better than your adversary. But surely, it must be tempting for these feminine women in the media, always in the limelight, to compete with their own specific weapons.

I think this is where all this ultra-femininity comes from. It is a feminized source of power, to gain the upper hand in this unfair competition. By using their feminine assets in full force, they can gain increased viewership, which increases their program’s ratings, which is ultimately what TV programs want. They are feminine feminists, at the end of the day.

There is definitely a streak of enhanced, aggressive femininity even in the ordinary world. I was recently testing a perfume at a department store. The young woman who was helping me declared that the one she recommends is "strong and feminine." Now, we’re talking about perfume here. Who wants a "strong" perfume? Feminine props have become weapons, not simply to enhance feminine attraction, but as a type of artillery.

Look at My Hair

Hear Me Roar!


Wow! I decided to do some independent research on the long locks of anchoresses, and googled "fox news women" and this grid is what I got.

Now, when I was talking about Ann Coulter's blonde tresses in my previous post, I was reacting purely to her hair, which is even more spectacular than these Fox News women's in its length and even blondeness. I think I've watched Fox News a couple of times. Here in Canada, we have to especially subscribe to Fox News, outside of cable, so I don't bother with it.

I've heard the hype of these Fox Blondes, but I've never heard anyone talk about how long their hair is, and how "unstyled" it is. Look especially at #s 1, 3, 7 and 9. I would imagine as they talk, and some of them look like pretty impassioned women, their hair would sway around and cause quite a commotion. How can anyone watch them say serious things without getting distracted with all that hair? Incredible.

Back to Ann again. She really is the epitome of the Conservative Fox News Woman, isn't she. Her hair is longer and blonder than any of these women. Plus she obviously leads in other points, like she is probably much smarter, and she also wears shorter skirts, and has a louder voice.

It’s like the incrediblely high heels that women are wearing these days. More than five inches high seems to be the fashion! Complete insanity. I think, like all these overgrown blonde locks, it is a way of women saying: We are women, we are strong, we have our own feminized power, WE CAN ROAR!

Hair Today

And Ann as its champion

Ann Coulter at a book signing in London, Ontario


I was struck recently by the kinds of hairstyles the rich and famous (and movie stars) wore just a couple of decades ago. My thoughts were partly a reaction to Ann Coulter’s long blonde tresses that we saw a little of during her visit here in Canada, and partly a reaction to Michelle Obama's casual holiday attire last summer, which included unmade hair.

Left: Jackie Kennedy managed to have great, styled hair even at the beach 
Right: Michelle Obama going on holiday...No comment

Perhaps the advantage for those bygone public figures was that there were no constant paparazzi at their side, so they were not surprised while wearing inappropriate attire. But, I also think they had different expectations of how they should look.

Clockwise: Kim Novak, Lauren Bacall, Katherine Hepburn, 
Grace Kelly, Lana Turner, Audrey Hepburn  

Look at Grace Kelly at the wheel of a convertible. I know there was a bit of hairspray that kept her locks in check, but the overall effect is of controlled dishevelment, which is, I think, much more attractive than hair gone wild. Even Lauren Bacall's longish hair was contained in some fashion. If Katherine Hepburn's curls look a little windswept, there is still an attempt at styling them, rather than letting them fall loosely all around. Audrey Hepburn opts for elegance over bohemian in this early sixties shot of her in Breakfast at Tiffanies. And Kim Novak's styled curls in Vertigo give her a sophistication and mystery that modern thrillers could never achieve in their protagonists.

What has happened to hair, and hairstyle these days? Like much of fashion, it is allowed to "do its own thing." Just as tailoring is scorned, so is hair styling ridiculed. There is also a strange tendency to let the hair grow to longer lengths, and then let it swing and sway around as it will, like a young girl's. T.V. anchoresses, still somewhat styled, go for those longer locks. It is strange to watch all that hair in the middle of serious news about world epidemics and devastating legislature.

CNN Newscaster

Back to Ann, the newscaster/commentator par excellence. Like her contemporaries, her long blonde tresses are distracting, yet lovelier than most, I will admit. A grown woman (I think she's in her late forties) wearing her hair down to her waist is a little disconcerting. It gives the impression that she is uncontrolled, and uncontrollable. Perhaps that is the image she wants to emit – no one bosses her around, least of all liberals (and Muslims). Perhaps, in a contradictory fashion, it is also her way of regaining her femininity, while out in the field with the guys. “Look at my beautiful blonde hair in all its glory,” she seems to be saying. She's also clearly trying to look provocatively  (her favorite word) sexy in this very unsexy field of partisan politics to get attention for her words. She may have a huge fan base (of adoring males, too), but at some level, people take her a little less seriously than she would like. She would be even more effective if she contained herself a little more, including those skimpy black dresses that she has made into her signature costume. She has made herself into a memorable and popular caricature. But, I think she could do better than that. And it could all start with changing the hair.

In any case, look at the stars of the past. Marilyn Monroe was smoldering on the screen. And her hairstyle was never out of control.

Stereotypes as Jokes

How Late Night Shows get away with telling the truth

I often say that the jokers/hosts of late night talk shows are the ones that hold truth in the palm of their hands. Of course, they can get away with it because it is all a joke, don't you know. Forget about the daytime Ellen DeGenereses and the Oprahs, they have nothing going, and even less so the news shows.

I don't often watch these late shows, mostly because their lugubrious Hollywood guests, who are all about themselves, are not worth sitting through to get at the 10 to 12-minute monologues of jokes.

But here is one (video below), where Jay Leno tries repeatedly to get John Weir, the obviously gay figure skater who didn't break any records or win any medals in Vancouver despite being one of the most talked about athletes, to admit that he is gay. Weir, for all his flamboyance, is holding back. Why?

Along with Weir, there is also the black basketball star Charles Barkley who says that black people don't skate. Now let's hear a sports commentator at ESPN say that, and he would probably be out of a job.

Near the end, Weir talks about his fascination for Russia, but says Arabic is much harder to learn than Russian. Leno says, "Don't try the flamboyant thing in Arabic." Loud laughter - everyone knew what he's talking about. On Fox News, Leno would be reprimanded, or have his comments section filled with how racist and Islamophobic he is. On Leno, the ordinary audience gets it.

You can watch the video here.

ObamaScare

First Ladies' gowns at the Smithsonian

Jackie Kennedy's gown at the Smithsonian

Maria Pinto, whose dresses Michelle Obama wore at the Democratic National Convention and at several other prominent events, is closing her retail shop. Apparently, the recession was too hard even for this favored designer. I wonder if MO couldn't have found a stimulus package just for her.

But another Michelle favorite, Jason Wu, who designed her inaugural ball gown, is reaping huge dividends. The dress has been placed in the Smithsonian as part of a permanent collection of First Ladies' gowns.

I have refrained these days from commenting on Michelle Obama's sartorial decisions. Frankly, they are not really worth the attention, and I don't think she's any kind of fasion icon, or worth emulating. The proof is her inaugural gown, which is shapeless, with an unattractive asymmetry at the shoulder, and stiff three-dimensional flower-like shapes which don't fit on the light-weight material. It looks like a cheap wedding dress.

Both Jackie Kennedy and Nancy Reagan have dresses at the Smithsonian which have asymmetrical shoulders. But, both dresses are infinitely more attractive. I think the secret lies in the straight and simple cuts, and structured forms of both the dresses, which don't compete with the unusual asymmetry. Nancy Reagan's dress can also afford the large, slightly sculptural prints since the cut of the dress provides a simple background for these domineering patterns, which fit well on the sturdy material. In contrast, Michelle Obama's gown has busy gathers at the waist, and undecipherable 3-D blobs scattered on an ephemeral, shifting background material. 

More Reason for Resolve

Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse,
ca. 1497–98. Albrecht Dürer

One thing my short time battling liberals has taught me is that liberals never, ever compromise. They expect us to come to their side, and they don't budge an inch toward our side.

The other lesson I've learned is that, despite all our (my) good intentions and fair play, at some point, liberals often resort to lying and trickery (I will stick by those words) so adeptly and insouciantly that it looks like they made a mistake, to forge ahead with their desires.

The third lesson I've learned is that anyone who persistently and determinedly refuses to "go to the other side" is deemed irrational, and even fanatical. Liberals are very good at soiling a person's character, to render that person's arguments moot.

The despairing thing is that many conservatives do cave in, just a little here, and a little there, moving inch by inch towards the liberal side of things until finally they're right in the middle of it all.

I don’t know why, or how, this really happens. I think at some point conservatives think their positions are untenable, that they are truly the uncompromising monsters that liberals make them out to be, and what is wrong with health care for everyone anyway?

This is the time for resolve. It is also time for study and reflection, to understand and follow the true principles that provide the best possible environment for the best possible human beings. Sentimental reactions are not the solutions.

Recently, I have been watching End Times programs of American and Canadian Evangelicals. There are reasonable men who describe and analyze the scenarios from the Book of Revelation. They provide unimpassioned views of what we should expect. But, they say that just because the world appears to be heading that way (although it actually is) doesn't mean we give up on our principles. The wilder the world gets, the stronger our resolve should be to make it right, by following proper guidance. The more despairing the world appears, the more our responsibility to try to correct it. We should strive to do so every single day, despite our disappointments and our failures.

The American health care battle – war, really – has taught us that there are no soft liberals. They mean what they say, and they do what they say they will do. This goes for every aspect of the liberal world. They may be following the path toward the predicted End Times, but we have the option of not going down that road with them. The world is still ours to save.

One last thing I should add. After all the lies, arm-twisting and sheer bombarding force that the Democrats went through, all they got was four extra votes. Hardly a resounding victory. People should never despair. Evil is often far weaker than we can imagine. Capitulation is never the answer.

Friends of America

Psalm 57:1-4

In this time of incredible social upheaval, when America most needs friends and prayers, here is what I send:

Psalm 57:1-4 (King James)

¹Be merciful unto me, O God, be merciful unto me: for my soul trusteth in thee: yea, in the shadow of thy wings will I make my refuge, until these calamities be overpast.
²I will cry unto God most high; unto God that performeth all things for me.
³He shall send from heaven, and save me from the reproach of him that would swallow me up. Selah. God shall send forth his mercy and his truth.
 ⁴My soul is among lions: and I lie even among them that are set on fire, even the sons of men, whose teeth are spears and arrows, and their tongue a sharp sword.

The Different Realities in The Purple Rose of Cairo

A study of film  


I happen to think Woody Allen is funny. Here is a poignant, light, airy film, which plays with the many themes in film, which all filmmakers at some point like to explore. Allen, though, does it in his own, almost slapstick, way without getting too abstract and intellectual about it.

The Purple Rose of Cairo, with Mia Farrow and Jeff Daniels, is as much about the nature of film, as it is a Depression-era movie, and a kooky love story (or stories).

Mia Farrow's character Cecilia, who has an overbearing husband who is out of work because of the Depression, tries to hold down a waitressing job, and is a regular at the town's cinema. She sits in the darkened theater, and is transported into the wonderful life of the film, with glamorous people living the high life.

One day, after she has sat through multiple screenings of The Purple Rose of Cairo for a whole day, Tom Baxter, a character in the film, decides to exit the screen and meet up with this woman whom he’s observed watching him and the film so many times. Different realities merge together for the remainder of the film: Cecilia's reality, the theater audience's reality, Tom Baxter's reality, the reality of the actor who plays Tom Baxter - Gil Sheperd, the agents' and film producers' reality, and of course our reality. And not to forget the interwoven realities of all these personalities.

The rest is an adventure of the imagination by Woody Allen.

More Minority Immigrants Who Can't Quite Connect with the Dominant Culture

Art in America Iranian style

"Going Down" by Iranian American
painter Negar Ahkami

I have been going through fascinating discoveries over time, where I find non-white artists, often first or second generation immigrants, simply cannot produce artwork that reflects Western culture. Of course, that begs the question why I am not drawn into depictions of my own ethnicity.

I've always said that I am a bit of an anomaly. Growing up, in England and France, my exposure to Ethiopian art was minimal. It was mostly Coptic crosses, and I think we had a painting of the Queen of Sheba (whom Ethiopians have adopted - and I think rightly so) visiting King Solomon. But, I could be mistaken about this, and that the paintings were part of my visual vocabulary later on.

But ethnic minorities these days are immersed in their cultures from birth (or arrival). High immigration, coupled with multicultural policy (or acceptance) makes this infinitely possible for them. They don't have to give up a thing, except perhaps their language.

Here is an Iranian-American artist, Negar Ahkami, who presents herself this way:

I grew up in the New Jersey suburbs of New York City, a daughter of Iranian immigrants. Through my art, I selectively choose the aspects of each culture I want to inherit, on my own terms. The negotiation of cultures in my work reflects the first-generation American experience. The Persian-Islamic art influences I inherit include color, pattern, detail, ceramic textures, stylized representation, and symbolism. But I take permissions from my Western influences to make art that is visceral, emotional, individualized, corporeal, experimental, raw, and free.

Although she talks about negotiating cultural elements from her Persian and American backgrounds, the concrete, tangible elements come from her Persian background. Her Western influence is "to make art that is...free."

What she is really saying is that she is influenced mostly by her Persian background, and her American concepts of artistic expression and freedom will allow her to express that Persian background even better. She, in fact, is not making any kind of American art, but a more profound and "visceral" Persian art, which America’s freedom of expression allows her to make.

And she admits as much in the second paragraph of her artist's statement:

Unlike the Persian-Islamic art system that shuns authorship and the individual, my art emphasizes my own hand and imagination. My paintings embrace cultural baggage with a flamboyant pride, recalling the flamboyant elements of Iranian culture that counteract its repressive systems. This flamboyance in my work also unites Persian-Islamic with baroque sensibilities worldwide, undermining prevalent notions of an alien, isolated Islamic world. 

But, despite their very foreign and exotic look, I wonder if Iranians in her homeland would connect with her works? Perhaps the blue ceramic-like designs, the Arabic scripts, the turbaned figure, women in burqas and carpets evoke Persian symbolisms. But then, she has naked figures and "modern women" scattered within her paintings.

Still, Iran is now a relatively modern society. So, despite some of these non-traditional elements, many in Iran would probably recognize these images, and accept them as an evolution of their own culture, rather than a hybrid with American culture.

I think her Western, American contemporaries will view her art as foreign and exotic.

This is the real face of immigration. Negar Ahkami, despite having been born in the U.S., uses up all her energy to produce artwork that has far more connection with the homeland that she has probably never seen (and if so briefly), than the one she was born into.

ADDENDUM: Negar Ahkami is exhibiting her works at a New York City gallery, Leila Taghinia-Milani Heller Gallery, which states that it:

shows paintings, works on paper, sculpture, installation and video from international contemporary artists to modern masters, with a specialization in artists from the Middle East.

Ahkami's work is exhibited in a program called Tehran-New York (notice the Tehran first...) where:

[it]  will survey work by 40 well-known and emerging contemporary Iranian artists – including artists living in New York and the United States...as well as the work of artists currently living in Tehran, such as Reza Derakshani, Shadi Ghadirian and Farideh Lashai. A significant portion of the work has never been shown in the U.S. A catalogue will accompany the exhibition. 

 The exhibition is clearly focused on Iranian work, and the venue is simply a circumstance of geography.

Is Oprah Delusional?

Or simply a dyed-in-the-wool ultra liberal?


Gabourey Sidibe, the "star" of Precious, at the Oscars

Yesterday I wrote about Howard Stern's reaction to Oprah's newly adopted project of making the morbidly obese actress from Precious, Gabourey Sidibe, into a Hollywood star. Now Sidibe appears to be a nice girl, she laughs easily at interviews, and seems genuinely happy at her new-found place in life. But I personally think she's not that great an actress, and Stern thinks (as I do) that her roles will always be limited to her weight.

Does Oprah not see this? I'm not sure. But, that is surely the typical behavior of liberals, who see their agenda overriding any sense of reality.

Plus, Oprah's presence at the Oscars to introuduce Gabourey was her underlying expectation that her will, her wish, should be our command. In other words she is commanding: "Hollywood, look at this perfect specimen of all those things that are wrong with you, which you can make right simply by accepting Gabourey into your fold."

As I said, her stand has nothing to do with Gabourey the person, but with Gabourey the perfect symbol for those oppressed by every institution in America, and especially Hollywood. The overweight, black, female, abused, single mother (here Gabourey's real self is intertwined with her alter ego in Precious), should be vindicated and placed on the pedestal of society.

It is the whole liberal project which is stubbornly delusional. Of course, reality will hit hard as the euphoria dies down, and Gabourey is no longer offered even those guest roles in new, untried sitcoms on cable TV, which may not last another season. She has also just secured a role in an “indie” movie. But she is not even the star in the movie – surely a step down - and she will still be playing the overweight black girl from a rundown neighborhood. I don’t see it going uphill from here.

Howard Stern is right. And Oprah is the most dangerous woman in America.

Who Will Fund Canadian Athletes for the Next Olympics?

The government?


It is no secret that the Canadian government spent an exorbitant amount of money on the athletes for the Vancouver Olympics. In fact, the slogan "Own the Podium" was invented to encourage Canadian athletes to win as many medals as possible to validate the millions spent.

The federal government contributed half of the CAN$112 million (US$105) that went towards athlete training. But several layers of government are embedded within the other half, which is falsely labeled as "corporate funding, as this article indicates:

Approximately half of the funding originated from the Government of Canada, through Sport Canada. VANOC [the Vancouver Organizing Committee] raised the other half through corporate, provincial, territorial, and public support.

So, if it all comes down to proportions, the government probably contributed about two thirds of the whole amount.

In contrast, there is no government funding for American athletes, who get their monies from a myriad of private sponsors (including family money).

Canada won the highest number of gold medals this winter, but Americans won the MOST medals, and they also showed the most ingenuity and creativity in their performances. Rugged American individuals, who have removed themselves from constraining teams, kept breaking the records and setting the standards. Will Canada ever show the innovations that the American athletes consistently produce? Or is the government run "Own the Podium" just about aggressively getting as many medals as possible?

Canada may have had a successful "Own the Podium" program in Vancouver, but for how long will the government be able to dish out the millions of dollars to train Olympics athletes? Vancouver was a special event: it was on home territory (almost), and the country wholeheartedly approved.

Where will the funds for Russia come from, or even in two year's time for London?

Well, the government has announced it will pour CAN$45 million over the next two years into the ongoing "Own the Podium" program. But, it is riding on the Vancouver success story. When all this dies down, and when Canadian athletes are just another team on foreign soil, will they deliver as enthusiastically and readily as they did in Vancouver? Will the public be as enthusiastic to fund their endeavors?

Howard Stern vs. Oprah

Howard Stern wins hands down

Gabourey Sidibe, the "star" of Precious, at the Oscars

The shock jock radio host Howard Stern recently focused on the star of the movie Precious, Gabourey Sidibe, who won a Best Actress nomination for her role as a sexually abused teenager. Stern talks about how Oprah heaped praises on Sidibe when she introduced her at the Oscars during the Best Actress nomination, saying that Sidibe has far to go, with great roles to play in the future.

Stern rips this completely apart. How is an extremely obese woman like Sidibe going to get any more roles in Hollywood? For all his harsh words, he is much kinder and much more empathetic than Oprah, who is encouraging Sidibe to pursue acting because the world certainly needs more black, morbidly obese actresses. Look at all the discrimination that is going on! Look at Hollywood. Oprah's praise has nothing really to do with Sidibe as a person who indeed achieved quite a remarkable feat, but is way of encouraging this young woman to fulfill Oprah's ideological agendas.

Stern calls Oprah "a filthy liar" for declaring that Sidibe will have a stellar life of an actress from now on. This is of course why he is a shock jock. But how far wrong is he? How often does Oprah go on about her own battles with weight loss on her program, and she the indestructible goddess of day time talk shows? Sidibe is a completely unseasoned actress who was chosen, I will dare to say, because she looked the part. I didn't think she was an exceptional actress, even factoring in her inexperience. Either Oprah is completely delusional, or she is indeed a liar.

The truth probably rests somewhere in the middle. But give me Howard Stern's brutal honesty any day.

Fashion at the Oscars

The one night for stars to return to tradition


Against all the indoctrination of the feminists, the Oscars abound with feminine desires. The supreme of which is to appear beautiful (and feminine). Almost all the celebrities present go through great pains to look as glamorous as possible, with rented gowns and jewelry just for the day (or night). I don't quite understand why this is. But I will venture my observations.

Hollywood, despite being hijacked by the boho lefty types, still basks in its old glory. Without that history and tradition, there would be no Hollywood. In fact, modern Hollywood would soon be lost in the pathetic, and often tragic, digressions of its stars who ventured into alcoholism, and now suicide by an increasing number of its young male actors. Such transgressions are minutely followed by the crude, crass paparazzi, who report to us the sordid details. Modern Hollywood does not have an inch of glittering silver, but is mired in amorphous mud.

So, modern Hollywood desperately needs the old, truly glamorous one, where the mundane (and often squalid) lives of stars were kept secret from the admiring public, which only saw the sparkles. This one night a year, Oscar night, stars can resume that old wonder of Hollywood, and the public forgets their unglamorous lives outside of the movie screen. Modern Hollywood and its public crave for tradition, and relive it once a year. This way, we are temporarily able to regain our trust in this Hollywood, which miraculously revives itself for one night, which we hold on to for a full year until another Oscars.

Avatar Makes the Circuit of the Jokers

And some serious debate too


Everyone is making fun of Avatar. The Late Night jokers, Youtube videos, and even at the Oscars.

Cameron took his movie VERY seriously. He even wrote a whole book depicting Pandora, the Na'vi and the language. I am not sure that he is taking this joke making with stride.

At the Oscars, right in front of Cameron, several people dared to squeeze a laugh out of Avatar. The funniest was Ben Stiller coming out in full Na'vi gear to present the Best Costume category. He then looked straight at Cameron, went into his imaginary Na'vi monologue, and ended up saying in English, "I See You." If Cameron were the Queen, I am sure he would have declared "We are not amused."

There was a more serious discussion on Avatar on Steve Paikin's The Agenda at TVO. The leftists and the rightists on the show equally hated it. The leftists say it wasn't overt enough about discrimination, oppression, colonization etc., while the rightists say that there was nothing racist about Avatar, it was just too simplistic and sweeping about race. The clever and astute Paikin simply lets the ball roll where it may, with a mischievous grin on his face. This must be the panel of his dreams, where all his hosts agree, but for different reasons.

Here is the TVO video. It is about 45 minutes long, but I think it is worth watching.

A Middle-Aged Man Still Adrift on the Sea of Life

And what the simple cure is


Since I have posted comments at Mangan's blog, and have been quoted once at his blog, I think I have earned my right to make these observations about him.

Actually, my observations started a long time ago, when he admitted on his blog that:

[I] do not find a rational proof of God's existence of much use because it doesn't tell me how to live my life, find that the doctrines of the world's religions mutually conflict, and therefore remain adrift - I'm not ashamed to admit it - on the sea of life.

It was a shocking revelation, in the midst of thousands of words of commentary on that particular thread. I duly noted it as a strike against atheists, who appear for all purposes to be functioning, confident human beings, but whose inner thoughts are full of turmoil.

Another reason I bring this up is that this supposedly conservative blogger lists his interests in his blog profile as "Women Money Drink." This is from a man who admits that he is near retirement age. There's nothing wrong, essentially, with liking women, enjoying money and having those glasses of your favorite spirits, but it is odd that they are the ONLY three interests of a relatively mature male.

But then, Mangan is a great proponent of the "Alpha-Beta-and any other that may fall down the list" depiction of men (this link provides all the posts on alpha males at Mangan's blog). Primal alpha man, like his cousin the ape, rules the clan, including all those betas. Yet betas can learn to be alphas too, by participating what is called "Game," which was invented by someone called Roissy, who rose from beta to alpha status using "Game" techniques, and who isn't too stingy to share his methods. The idea behind "Game" is to get at all those females who scorn betas. Such betas get the females by acting alpha, i.e. by humiliating and degrading the females to desire the beta-now-alpha male, who dares to use such tactics. So, perhaps it is not so surprising that Mangan's interests lie at the level of an adolescent.

Often I think that people's deepest problems will be resolved, at least their psychological contradictions, if they would anchor their lives on something other than atheism. No one has to remain adrift forever.

Is She Bored Already?

And the answer appears to be "Yes"

Nicolas Sarkozy and Carla Bruni at the
Elysee Palace in Paris to meet Russia's
President Dmitry Medvedev and his wife
for a state dinner on March 2, 2010

A couple of days ago, I was going to post this photo of the fashionista (not) Carla Bruni with the caption: "Is She Bored Already?"

Bruni, along with Michelle Obama, has received accolades of praise for her fashion sense. But, I never saw it, and posted on her here.

But, this weird jersey dress, with its even weirder color, surpasses even sartorial mediocrity. Along with Bruni's expression, which looks supremely bored as though (temporarily) supressing great pains to be her husbands', the President's, escort (as in wife), this dress is the choice of someone who is not quite right in the head. It is ugly, unflattering to her body, and the color doesn't go well with her skin - as we fashion followers like to say. What normal woman would wear a dress like this?

Well, the French news are throwing out a bomb. Sarkozy and Bruni are supposed to be in the middle of affairs.

I've always said you cannot change a leopard's skin. Both Mr. and Mrs. have been in multiple affairs, married and not, in their previous non-Presidential lives. And now, they are back at it again.

Bruni is rumored to have moved in with her musician friend, and Sarkozy has fled into the arms of his Minister for Ecology.

Don't let anyone tell you that fashion (and dress) is unimportant. It gauges sensitive, hardly observable, truths of a person.

Finding a Culture Which Makes Sense to Their Being

Children of immigrants in the West

"Peaches of Longevity" by Qi Baishi (1864 - 1957)

I haven't written for a while about the cultural adoptions that immigrants and their children make. The untold story is that a larger percentage of immigrants' children feel alienated from their "country," and many end up interacting in ethnic enclaves with like-minded immigrant children to connect with their ancestral cultures. This seems the case in Canada, where multiculturalism and difference is celebrated, and in the U.S. which has more of an assimilationist policy. Here is a post I wrote on Indian immigrant's children, and their incessant activities to connect with their Indian heritage.

I think the reasons are clear. How can children of Chinese immigrants, for example, find a connection with American or Canadian (Western) culture? Their whole experience growing up in their immigrant parents' homes is an Eastern one.

I remember reading something about Lucy Liu, the famous Asian movie star who was in the Charlie's Angels remake. She was born in the U.S. from immigrant Chinese parents. I was shocked when I read that she had never listened to a Beatles song growing up. The Beatles! By age ten, I had a favorite Beatles song. In fact, that has led to a life-long admiration for the Beatles (yes, I am a Beatles people, and more Paul than John).

But, I think there is something more fundamental than simply not accepting the cultures in which these immigrants live. I would think that Chinese immigrants' children prefer Chinese things because they are more suited to their way of thinking and being.

I took Chinese brush painting for about nine months. It was actually a wonderful experience. It is very calming to use those brushes to make different shapes and compositions. But, it never went beyond that meditative experience for me. Chinese brush painting always seemed one-dimensional, flat and unadventurous. Yes, there are beautiful watercolors of flowers and landscapes, but they always seemed more decorative and pleasing, and frankly a little boring. Compare that with a Van Gogh, or a Caravaggio, which push one's intellectual as well as artistic limits.

Here is an article which describes a cultural center for Chinese immigrant children in California. The students are school-age, and it is clearly a case where the parents want them to be immersed in Chinese culture from a young age.

But, I think it goes deeper than that. It goes deeper that wishing to communicate with a Chinese grandparent, or traveling to China with adequate Chinese language skills. Even if the parents had not provided these cultural centers, these children would still search for those things that make sense to their being.

Merging Colors

The watercolors of Emil Nolde

My version of a Nolde watercolor. (From this original).

Emil Nolde, described as a German Expressionist, was a master of watercolor. I think his landscape and flower watercolors have the perfect balance of color and form. I tried to replicate one of his paintings. It was an quite exercise in speed (time I had before the paint dried up, and was no longer manipulable), and improvisation (allowing the various colors to merge and mingle).

Conservatives Still Cannot Get Away from the Noble Savage Myth

Despite (their own accumulated) evidence to the contrary

One of the analogies between Avatar's fantasy world and our real one is that the Navi (blue people) of Avatar's world are the Indians of ours. Actually, I thought the blue people looked more Masai then Sioux, and the landscape more South American rain forest than Kenyan rift valley, but that is the nature of a filmmaker's prerogative. Especially, if as James Cameron says, he saw it all in a dream.

Dan Gagliasso, who does a two-part review [1,2] of Avatar in the "conservative" Big Hollywood, certainly equates these blue people with the red skins of North America. But he seems to want it both ways, as is the problem with mainstream conservatives these days: He wants the Noble Savage myth of the non-conservative side, and then he wants to adhere to the more factual picture of Indians who were the ruthless enemy of whites. Part of the reason for his preference for facts is because he is a historian. I suppose a borderline conservative historian will still pay attention to those facts.

Here is a quote from Gagliasso, where he excuses the savage and atrocious methods Indians used to annihilate their enemy:

[Such things as] gang rape of female captives [and] genocide against ones enemies…wasn’t because Indians were evil, terrible people but because they were primitive stone-age warriors. That’s how primitive warrior cultures react to their enemies and if you’re not one of "the people," i.e. their specific tribe like Cameron’s Na’vi tough luck, you’re out of luck.

He then writes that Indians were not only vicious to their white antagonists, but behaved in a similar manner in their endless inter-tribal warfare:

In 1841 American missionaries traveling with the Sioux were shocked as they watched Lakota warriors casually wipe out a Pawnee Village including all the women and children.

He later on (in part 2) writes:

[A]t the battle of the Washita in 1868 against the Cheyenne from Sand Creek… George Armstrong Custer went out of his way to stop any killing of women and children.

Gagliasso’s two part, long-winded, themeless (is it about Indian cruelty, Avatar’s resemblance to leftist Hollywood directors' visions of the Noble Indian, a critique on films mixing facts with fantasy?) review is perhaps typical of today’s conservatives, whether they be film critics or politicians.

Historically, whites have been far more respectful of Indians than our leftist film directors and their entourage will ever give them credit for (think of all the rivers, mountains, cities, towns, states and provinces that have Indian names). But no one would have eulogized the Indians then. They were savage fighters, and they would have been called terrible for the way they conducted their warfare.

Conservatives of our age, following that liberal disease of elevating "the Other" will equate the savage strategies of the Indians as simply a different way of fighting, and not as what it is: savage. Gagliasso was swayed by historian T. R. Ferenback's words which he faithfully reproduced in his article, "If you’re looking for good guys and bad guys during the Comanche Wars, you won’t find them. It was a clash of two completely disparate cultures that just didn’t understand each other."

Such desire to reconcile the clash of "two completely disparate cultures" in the recent Vancouver Olympics opening and closing ceremonies elevated four tribal chiefs to the same plane as Canada’s Prime Minister. We are all equal in our differences, but some are better.

Posts at Our Changing Landscape

Please note that if I'm a little slow with my posting here at Camera Lucida, I usually have posts going on at my other blog Our Changing Landscape. I have an RSS feed link there too.

In the next while, I will be posting my final impressions on the Olympics, a (quick) review of a review of Avatar, and some more thoughts on the "live-in" partner of the Toronto mayoral candidate, as discussed by Toronto "conservative" TV host Michael Coren.