New Year's Fruit

Bowl of tangerines
[photo by KPA]

I've posted this image before for New Year's. So, a cheery, bright and happy New Year. I think hard times are ahead for planet earth, but that doesn't mean we cannot (and should not) recognize her beauties.

Giant Portraits, Subsumed Individuals

Kim Jong-Il's funeral procession moves through Pyongyang, North Korea

Kim Jong-Un is the new leader of North Korea. He is to be:

"the great successor to the revolution" and "the eminent leader of the military and the people." [Source: cbc.ca]

Here is an excerpt from unpublished article I wrote on the Chinese Olympics and the "giant" perspectives of the Chinese designers:

While discussing his experience working with Western actors, Yimou says: “[They] were so troublesome [because] in the middle of rehearsals they take two coffee breaks…[T]here can’t be any discomfort, because of human rights…[T]hey have all kinds [of] organizations and labor union structures. We’re not like that. We work hard; we tolerate bitter exertion.”[1] Like the suffering his heroines endure, Yimou confesses that he sees nothing wrong with exerting pressure and discipline on his performers to have them conform to his giant designs.

Individuals are swallowed by the giant collective. So it is not surprising that giant portraits and statues dominate in communist countries, where the individual has to understand from the cultural environment around him that he is part of "the mastery of synchronized masses." As I wrote in the article:

Throughout China’s history, there seems to have been an overpowering preference for the individual’s submergence into the collective. Confucius lays out the ground rules for this coexistence, and Communism was the harshest, most inhumane, example of that history. Yimou is simply recording this cultural reality. He further demonstrates this with his direction of the Beijing Olympics opening ceremony. The spectacular ceremony consisted of thousands (15,000 in total) of Chinese performers shifting in huge carpets of precise and united movement.

The world of Chinese human coordination is brought to light when Yimou compares Chinese performers to those of North Korea. He says: “Other than North Koreans, there’s not one other country in the world that can achieve such a high quality of performance.” Yimou didn’t compare his 15,000 synchronized human bodies to American or European artistry, but to an enclosed, isolated extreme dictatorial state like North Korea...

Olympics which took place in Westernized countries - the US, Australia and Greece to name a few - emphasized more individualized performances and content-rich opening ceremonies, rather than the mastery of synchronized masses.

But as I've show in a previous post, this mastery of the masses is executed by an elite (and self-proclaimed) few, and North Korea is no different.

Kim Jong-Un surrounded by the military

Here is an interesting bit of information in the CBC article cited above, on the modern North Korean dynasty by a Japanese chef who wrote his memoirs on his life as a sushi chef for Kim Jong-Il. Although I will take this with a grain of salt, I still find what he says about Kim Jong-Un interesting:

According to the memoir of a man who says he spent 11 years as the Kim family's sushi chef, Jong-Un possesses his father's toughness and ambition.

The chef, who goes by the pen name Kenji Fujimoto, described Jong-Un as a competitive, even ruthless, child.

Dressed in a military outfit, the young Jong-Un "glared at me with a menacing look when we shook hands" the first time they met, Fujimoto wrote in Kim Jong-Il's Chef. "I can never forget the look in his eyes which seemed to be saying, 'This one is a despicable Japanese.'"

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

Reference:
1.  “Zhang Yimou’s 20,000-Word Interview Reveals Secrets of Opening Ceremony,” Nanfang Zhoumou (Guangzhou), August 14, 2008

Michelle Obama's Sartorial Decisions

Michelle Obama "loves young designers of color" according to this site. I'm not sure if that's what's going on with the First Lady's sartorial decisions. She's recently promoting (by wearing) the designs of Comme des Garçons, whose designer is not "young" but certainly attempts at youth in her odd and style-bereft designs (she is also close enough to the hue that Michelle is looking for).

Here is what this site has to say about the designer at Comme de Garçons, labeling her as an "anti-fashion designer":

Rei Kawakubo has refused to accept stereotypes in fashion.
AMONG the plethora of international labels that biannually produce fashion according to what’s written in the stars, Comme des Garcons stands out simply because it doesn't give a glossy toss about fitting into the conventional world of style.

To understand why this is, one just has to look beyond the clothes to the label’s designer, Rei Kawakubo, the mastermind behind the label's non-conformist clothes. Although she has been designing collections for over 20 years, Kawakubo happily remains a nemesis to the system and, as a result, has often been labelled “anti-fashion” and her work, unprecedented and difficult to categorise.

Here’s a quick run-through of some of her work: When she first showed her range in Paris in 1982, her austere, almost monastic, clothes were so different from the colourful creations of the time that her style was dubbed “Hiroshima chic”. She also introduced the now familiar and much imitated “unfinished” look with ripped clothes and exposed seams on wool suits and squarely declared that “what’s inside is more important than the outside”.

I wonder if this is Michelle's attempt at trying to look young and trendy herself?

A real, young designer, twelve year-old (non-colored) Grant Mower, is actually designing dresses for the First Lady. Here is one of his finished products, which looks like a better version of her inaugural gown. The gown was also designed by an up and coming Jason Wu (a little older than Mower, and closer to the "colored" that Michelle seems to seek).

Yet, one cannot blame these inexperienced (and perhaps not so talented) designers for the clothes Michelle puts together for these important occasions. And she is the one that has her scouts scouting around looking for "young designers of color," not necessarily to promote excellence in design, but to fulfill her "affirmative action" quotas for dresses at the White House.

Back to the above collage. Notice how almost all the other women are wearing some kind of suit, or formal attire. Even Oprah attempts at formality when she joined Michelle to bid for Chicago to host the 2016 Olympics. Michelle opts for casual, if not dowdy.


Whether in a dress (long or short), a skirt or a pant suit, there is something stubbornly gauche about Michelle's clothing choices. Notice how Carla Bruni may be wearing pants, but she softens them with a long, colorful coat and a handbag. Queen Elizabeth's soft pink stands out against Michelle's dreary dark. A little girl skirt, pink and with a bow at the back, is overshadowed by the subdued sophistication of Princess Letizia's dress. And who can forget that "gladiator" gown, aggressive and shiny, next to the ornate dress of Mexico's First Lady, who covers hers arms modestly with a shawl.

Michelle can have all the Comme des Garçons she wants. Style and beauty are not going to die off just because she wears a Jason Wu inaugural gown.

Date Night Attire

Date Night at the Press Lounge

Here's the New York Post's online Food section for Winter Hot Spots. The Upstairs at the Kimberly (a hotel) has a caramel ice cream sandwich with blackberry salad for $11. A little steep for ice cream, but it is the ambient that counts, and the place looks nice. The folks at Southwest Porch in Bryant Park drink expensive sangria at $9.19 and look like they just came from #OCW. And pork chops go for $24 at Eataly's (a cute word play on Eat and Italy). Pork isn't exactly an expensive meat, so it better be very well cooked (as in savory) for that price.

But what caught my attention is the couple clearly out on a date at the Press Lounge (near the - now- trendy Hell's Kitchen). I wouldn't think that whatever they're drinking comes cheap. And the Press Lounge may look "trendy" but clearly presents itself as sophisticated, with its "classy neo-Gothic chairs," and "hand-painted Venetian walls."

Now to my point: What's going on that the woman comes dressed in leggings (actually stockings) with a short sweater that barely covers her corpulence, and wearing those ugly (trendy, again) ugg (what an apt name) boots? And the man is much more formal, but is tie-less, perhaps in solidarity with his date?

Drinks on a rooftop evoke romance, and the clothing (at least for the woman) should follow. These days, drinks on a rooftop of a hotel means something entirely different.

A Room With a View

Winter Dusk
[Photo by KPA]

These are the tops of gables I see from my window. I used to have the Toronto skyline, which glitters at night like jewels. I'm not sure which view I like best.

Poodle Elegance

I'm not sure how this black Standard Poodle sees himself, but he is the epitome of elegance, as he walks (or gets walked) around the neighborhood. I don't know what his name is, but Algernon might fit.

Allan Gardens Conservatory Decorations

The Allan Gardens Conservatory (I've posted about it here and here) has put up Christmas decorations. They are interspersed, almost like a treasure hunt, throughout the conservatory. Above are photos I took of giant baubles at the entrance, of one of many Christmas trees decorated with flowers, and of Christmas wreaths.

I also took many of poinsettias, which give a lovely festive air to the conservatory. They are everywhere. I asked the gardener about the dramatic names placed before some of the poinsettias (Shimmer Pink, Snow Cap, Da Vinci), and he told me that they were the names of the hybrids. They are created in Mexico, which apparently has a large poinsettia hybrid export industry, and come as far north as Toronto. I wanted to ask him why they cannot be bred right here in Toronto. Instead I wished him a Merry Christmas, and thanked him for keeping the conservatory so beautiful, especially during the holidays.







[Photos by KPA]

Merry Christmas!

Sacredness of Art?

Many times, it is during these holy days that we contemplate the images that depict our sacred Biblical characters.

There is a discussion going on at Larry Auster's View From the Right about the recent image of Mary holding a pregnancy test which was cut to shreds by Catholic traditionalists in New Zealand.

A VFR reader writes, "I'm surprised by the fact that you cherished what can only be considered an act of barbarism."

Auster succinctly replies: "...you are sure that people who properly take action against intolerable things are morally backward."

That is just it. Non-Christians love to quote, or allude to, the "turn the other cheek" line in the the New Testament:

But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. [Matthew 5:39]

I think they do this so that they can get away with their ultimate purpose, which is to destroy Christianity, and to have no retaliation in the process, having turned these "devout" Christians into inert bystanders.

When someone (or some people, or a whole society) starts the systematic destruction of our religion, standing by passively (and "piously") is actually sinful. We are allowing the message and word of God to go to ruin, destroyed by forces that hate it.

The other part of this story is of course that cultural items like paintings are more sacred than or equal to God. Therefore destroying them becomes worse than upholding God's name.

The poster itself is more than a poster. The artist has clearly spent time trying to make a pretty good painting of the Virgin Mary, using classic drawing and painting techniques. He isn't merely using a "poster" as a propaganda tool, but a work of art that mocks all other religious art which depict Mary in a true, holy manner. This ugly (not aesthetically, but morally) painting of Mary fools people into thinking it is the erudite, well-thought out, submission of an artist, when in fact it is mocking everything Mary, and God, stand for.

Therefore, the right reaction for this ugly work is to cut it to shreds with scissors, just as the Christians in New Zealand instinctively and confidently did.

The "reason" given for putting up this poster by the Anglican church St. Matthew-in-the-City is the usual "Christianity as a vehicle for social change" where:

Mary was unmarried, young, and poor. This pregnancy would shape her future. She was certainly not the first woman in this situation or the last.

As in the past it is our intention to avoid the sentimental, trite and expected to spark thought and conversation in the community. This year we hope to do so with an image and no words. We invite you to wonder what your caption might be.

Although the make-believe of Christmas is enjoyable - with tinsel, Santa, reindeer, and carols - there are also some realities. Many in our society are suffering: some through the lack of money, some through poor health, some through violence, and some through other hardships. The joy of Christmas is muted by anxiety.

In this season we encourage one another to be generous to those who suffer, to give to strangers, and to care for all – especially those who have the least. Like the first Santa, St Nicholas did. [From the St. Matthew-in-the-City website]

The Clutching Obamas, Again

Ample space on the sofa for several others

The Obamas during their interview by Barbara Walters for
her Christmas at the White House special

[Video here]

I've written (or more precisely posted many images) on the formality and decorum that US presidents showed in public appearances, and how that has devolved into some kind of public display of exaggerated clutchings and hand-holdings. The Obamas are big on clutching and hand-holding. Linked above is their Christmas at the White House interview with Barbara Walters on 20/20 just yesterday, where they don't once let go of each other's hands, and sit so close together that I thought the seat was too narrow. As the picture above shows, there is ample space for several others.

"V-J Day in Times Square" And What We Have Now

V–J Day in Times Square, by Alfred Eisenstaedt

There is a post and discussion at Lawrence Auster's View From the Right where he posted the photograph of a sailor kissing a nurse at the announcement of V-J Day in Times Square on August 14, 1945, and paralleled it to the kiss by two military women upon the return of one of them in 2011 from time away at sea. He writes:

[T]he "kiss" between the two "female" "sailors" (see how more and more of reality must be placed in scare quotes nowadays, as per Laura's second point?) is a perverted copy of the sort of romantic kiss we remember from the World War II period, like the famous photograph by Alfred Eisenstaedt of a sailor embracing (in the French sense of the word) a woman in Times Square on VJ Day [Eisenstaedt 's above photo is posted here].

Meanwhile, culturally approved "kisses" between "men" and "women" today all look something like this: [photo of a contemporary male and female couple posted here].

In this complicated, manufactured world of homosexual constructions, it is difficult to decipher what roles these "females" - lesbians, and "males" - homosexuals, are playing. Here is what I think might be going on.

I've noticed that in many homosexual couples (male and female) there are "masculine" and "feminine" roles, although it is bigger than roles because they seem to really embody them. In other words, in the lesbian couples, one is "male" and the other is "female" and the same for the male homosexuals. The "males" act in the dominant, aggressive and controlling manner (controlling in the sense of handling the relationship). The "females" are more submissive, domestic and emotional.

It is uncanny and creepy, since one can detect this "differentiation" very quickly. In my liberal university years, I used to be friends with a homosexual couple. The "female" baked cakes, arranged the house, remembered birthdays (I got a few great birthday cakes), etc. The "male" was harsher - he didn't like me because I was close with his "partner," since we liked similar things - movies, fashion, books, photography, etc. He was more of a engineer type, a little authoritarian and decisive. For example, he made it clear he didn't want me around too much.

The last I heard, they got married when gay marriage became legalized in Connecticut (where they're from).

It is strange that this "gender" differentiation is so prominently and seriously taken up by homosexuals, while many heterosexual couples these days seem to be blurring these differences. For example, I've observed that young men and women are dressing in androgynous, undifferentiated clothing, and it is sometimes hard to tell who is female and who is male. The strange side/after-effect of this is young women (in their teens and twenties) who still want to be considered "female" are dressing in such sexualized ways that they look like prostitutes.

It's as thought homosexuals are intent on trying to take on "normal" male and female roles, while heterosexuals are abandoning them.

So I'm not surprised that this lesbian "sailor" couple looks like the couple in Eisenstaedt's photograph, since what they're trying to embody is the heterosexual masculine/feminine interaction. They want to be like "normal" heterosexual people.

Of Skyscrapers and Castles

[Larger image of NYC skyline here and of Eilean Donan castle here]

The skyscrapers shot comes from a photography blog NYC Daily Pictures, and the castle is from my surf around the web.

The castle is from the Scottish island of Eilean Donan (which means Island of Donan, after a 5th century saint, more interesting information here). I found its austere surroundings, with the mountains in the background, very beautiful. These are the kinds of images of Scotland which have always influenced my wanting to travel to there, which I haven't done yet.

Tall and imposing buildings are not just a modern feat. I am always surprised at the complex and intricate cathedrals that were built throughout Europe.

Although New York is known as the city of smooth glass skyscrapers, there are a surprising number of buildings that have intricate decorations (I've tried to capture a few here) and especially of art deco, as well as many low-rise (three or four floors) buildings.

Christmas Tree at the Metropolitan Museum of Art

Christmas Tree with Neapolitan Baroque Crèche
at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

(Detail) Neapolitan Baroque Crèche at the base of Christmas Tree

Infant Jesus by Guiseppe Sammartino (1720-1793)
From the Crèche

[All images from the Met website]

Each of the figurines under the tree is apparently created by a different artist. The baby Jesus above is by Giuseppe Sammartino (1720–1793). He is with Mary, who is under the pillars (with the cherub flying in between). Joseph is standing behind Mary.

The Metropolitan Museum website has images of 233 artworks of the tree and the crèche, which includes the figurines and some of the designs that went in their creations. The very first page has descriptions of the figurines of the holy family.

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

It is the Christmas season, and Christmas trees are everywhere, so I cannot help but comment on them.

Despite their name change (Eaton Centre calls theirs a "Wish Tree") and odd shapes (Dundas Square - across from the Eaton Centre - has mounds of snow made of wire that make a tree), they still give a festive air to these days.

Above is a tree I saw at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which seems to be a long-standing tradition at the museum.

It is hard to see all the pieces from the images above, but in front of the pillars are Joseph and Mary with the infant Jesus, and the various wise men (on horseback, camel, and elephant) are on either side of the family. Shepherds are there too, as well as angels. And many "ordinary folk" including "a man with bagpipes" and "girl carrying a basket of onions" amongst many others.

Here is more on the tree and the crèche from the Met's website:

The annual Christmas display is the result of the generosity, enthusiasm, and dedication of the late Loretta Hines Howard, who began collecting crèche figures in 1925 and soon after conceived the idea of combining the Roman Catholic custom of elaborate Nativity scenes with the tradition of decorated Christmas trees that had developed among the largely Protestant people of northern Europe. This unusual combination first was presented to the public in 1957, when the Metropolitan Museum initially exhibited Mrs. Howard's collection. More than two hundred eighteenth-century Neapolitan crèche figures were given to the Museum by Loretta Hines Howard starting in 1964, and they have been displayed each holiday season for nearly forty years. Linn Howard, Mrs. Howard's daughter, worked with her mother for many years on the annual installation. Since her mother's death in 1982, she has continued to create new settings for the Museum's ensemble and additional figures that she has been lending to the collection. In keeping with family tradition, Linn Howard's daughter, artist Andrea Selby Rossi, now joins her mother each year in creating the display.

Vdare's Senior Citizen with His Infant Child

Just telling the truth here.

Vdare is in the middle of fundraising for its blog and website. In true coercive manner, it seals off the site (and stops its contributors from posting their recent articles?) until a certain level is reached, and has posted instead a photo of Peter Brimelow with his infant daughter (in case they change it, or resume normal postings, I've posted the photo above).

He looks like a grandfather who is out of his element, with ice cream on his chin and a child demanding to be fed. I suppose there was an attempt at humor here, but Brimelow's wizened face shows a deeper anxiety, and there is no humor in the photo.

Such is conservatism these days, where the interests (best interests) of others are thrown aside for one's gratifications.

I've written about this here.

More on Chelsea Clinton's Name

As I tried to find a title for the Chelsea Clinton blog I posted, I went on an internet detective tour to figure out why the Clintons named their daughter Chelsea.

I thought of "Chelsea Lately" but it is the name of a pretty obnoxious late night show "comedian" Chelsea Handler. Then, I thought of "Chelsea Again" but Chelsea isn't that famous that she needs a comeback.

I thought the name might have to do with the once bohemian Chelsea neighborhood in New York City, which might fit the 1960s bohemian style of the Clintons when Hillary was a radical college student who wrote her thesis on Saul Alinsky.

The Clintons apparently did give their daughter her name from the Joni Mitchell song Chelsea Morning recorded in 1969, which was inspired by the Chelsea neighborhood where Mitchell lived when she composed the song, where she references the glass mobiles which made a "rainbow on the wall" of her apartment. It is a pretty song.

My blog story is really about how Chelsea is neglecting her home life and new husband, so I took the Barbra Streisand song Sadie Sadie Married Lady from the film Funny Girl. Apparently Sadie is a Jewish slang for a married woman. I cannot find further evidence for this, but here is an event, Sadie Hawkins Day, that evolved from an episode in the comic strip Li'l Abner and had became a real-life event. Sadie Hawkins Day is when spinsters of all ages "foot raced" bachelors to get themselves a husband.

In Funny Girl, the "Sadie" is Fanny Brice, a career (singing) girl who gets married, but doesn't give up the stage. Her less successful husband (whatever his reasons are, but could they be a neglectful wife?) gets involved in gambling debt and is sent to prison. Fanny in the end divorces this husband, and continues her show business life, becoming famous.

Barbra Streisand as Sadie in Funny Girl,
singing Sadie, Sadie, Married Lady

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

Joni Mitchell singing Chelsea Morning in 1969

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

Chelsea Morning
By Joni Mitchell

Woke up, it was a Chelsea morning
And the first thing that I heard
Was a song outside my window
And the traffic wrote the words
It came ringing up like Christmas bells
And rapping up like pipes and drums

Oh, won't you stay
We'll put on the day
And we'll wear it 'till the night comes

Woke up, it was a Chelsea morning
And the first thing that I saw
Was the sun through yellow curtains
And a rainbow on the wall *
Blue, red, green and gold to welcome you
Crimson crystal beads to beckon

Oh, won't you stay
We'll put on the day
There's a sun show every second

Now the curtain opens on a portrait of today
And the streets are paved with passersby
And pigeons fly
And papers lie
Waiting to blow away

Woke up, it was a Chelsea morning
And the first thing that I knew
There was milk and toast and honey
And a bowl of oranges, too
And the sun poured in like butterscotch
And stuck to all my senses

Oh, won't you stay
We'll put on the day
And we'll talk in present tenses

When the curtain closes
And the rainbow runs away
I will bring you incense
Owls by night
By candlelight
By jewel-light
If only you will stay
Pretty baby, won't you
Wake up, it's a Chelsea morning

Busy Chelsea, Married Lady

A Clinton is in the news again. Hillary receded from the headlines recently after she announced that she wouldn't be going for another run at the presidency. And Bill Clinton is keeping quiet, despite an apparently busy schedule of running two organizations: the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative.

This time it's Chelsea. She is newly hired to work for the NBC Nightly News "Rock Center with Brian Williams" and its "Making a Difference" series.

I don't doubt that Chelsea is bright and talented. She is pursuing a doctorate in History at NYU, and has degrees from Stanford, Oxford and Columbia. She has been working since 2003, first for a management consulting firm and later for an investment firm. She is on the boards of the School of American Ballet and InterActiveCorp. She worked with Hillary during her 2008 presidential campaign and helps with her father's foundations. She clearly has some experience and background to go on a television news program.

Commentators who are calling her debut a "journalistically-bankrupt decision" may be exaggerating, and are surprisingly mean-spirited, but Breitbart is a little more informative:

Her delivery sounds more fit for an obscure web series than broadcast television; she mumbles and low talks through her questions and response. This, coupled with her name and the general knowledge of how she got her job, strikes a discordance against the sort of story she’s reporting. A tale of elite privilege sharing the story of poverty.

Will the story get attention because of her name? Yes. For her name, not for the quality of reporting. Is that the new standard defining good journalism?

She may learn to get better, but she took on this job along with a busy schedule of: Married life, doctoral studies in History at NYU, and working for her father's foundations. All this for a "feel-good" job, almost as fluffy as her wedding dress. She credits her grandmother, Hillary's mother, for: "cajoling me and challenging me to do more with my life, to lead a more of purposely public life." Didn't our current president spend many years as a "community organizer" perhaps with the same intent as First Daughter Chelsea, and the hopes of a "more purposely public life?" Are we seeing a future "Mrs. President" here, a post which Chelsea's mother couldn't quite snag, and whose biggest (and most vicious) rival was the "nice" community organizer Barack Obama? Maybe Chelsea can learn more from him than from her mother (and no need to trace back the authenticity of her various degrees).

Her husband, Mark Mezvinsky, is already complaining that he has to find ways to fit into her busy schedule, and that she is delaying having children to pursue her career. There were rumors that the marriage was under strain even before this complaint surfaced.

Chelsea got married in a fluffy Vera Wang wedding dress to her Jewish fiancé who has a sordid family history. I blogged about this "interfaith" wedding, the groom's incarcerated father, and the "mounds of chiffon" wedding dress that Vera Wang designed for her. These beginnings didn't give a cheerful start to their new life together. And her husband's background may tarnish her political future (but that seems to be nothing new, or necessary bad, for the Clinton family).

I wish her and her family life well, but running off to do feel-good television assignments (Breitbart more eloquently calls her first show: "A tale of elite privilege sharing the story of poverty") rather then taking care of her home, hearth and husband isn't going to help her much.

Idiot Ilana Mercer Is At It Again

Mercer with Peter Brimelow of Vdare
[Photo from ilanamercer.com]

I rarely reference other bloggers and writers with epithets, but Mercer earned this one after I ended my correspondence with her when she cleverly introduced "idiot" in conjunction with my name in one of her emails. Of course, I was writing to her in a formal, courteous manner (I don't have the time - nor the desire - to dig up those emails) since she was a former Canadian (immigrant) who might have had interesting insights on the U.S., the country she immigrated to from Canada.

So, here is another idiot blog post by Mercer on Ron Paul, where she comments on the presidential candidate on Jay Leno:

Update, Strassel's Non Sequitur:

I thought Paul was strong on Jay Leno, but should probably not have cozied-up to the Left in the way he did. More on that later: [video provided]

...About Bachmann, Paul Said, “she doesn’t like Muslims, she hates them, she wants to go get ‘em.’” “In reference to Rick Santorum, Paul said he can’t stop talking about ‘gay people and Muslims.’” (ABC)

Leave aside whether these statements are true or not: Paul has taken a classic Chris-Matthews kind of ad hominem swipe against Michele Bachmann: she hates Muslims. Santorum hates gays and Muslims [Mercer sounds fine so far]. Siding with the Left by adopting its arguments may be situationally advantageous, but it is wrong, and will backfire on a Republican candidate in the long run [Back to normal for Mercer. Ron Paul a Republican candidate? Libertarians always want to latch on to some "respectable" organization, to deflate their positions which ordinary people would not accept] .

This tactic, even if it was a not-so-funny joke, damages Ron Paul’s effectiveness from the vantage point of conservative libertarians [Oxymoron?]who think that liberty cannot be reduced to the non-aggression axiom and has a cultural and civilizational dimension.

This is the section that really needs attention:

Paul is wrong to imply, reductively, that Islamic terrorism in general and September 11 in particular are the sole consequences of American foreign policy. Libertarians cannot persist in such unidirectional formulations. Our adventurous foreign policy is a necessary precondition for Muslim aggression but it is far from a sufficient one.

The first paragraph starts off good enough, but as usual with Mercer, she goes full steam ahead to reveal her true libertarian colors.

"Our adventurous foreign policy is a necessary precondition for Muslim aggression but is far from a sufficient one" reads like a mathematical formula gone wrong.

Muslims don't need any "necessary precondition" such as an "adventurous foreign policy" to launch their Jihad - a word which Mercer doesn't use once in her "explanation" of Muslim's war-like behaviors over the centuries. Muslims simply follow the mandates they receive from the Koran, and their prophet Mohammed's various texts explaining and expounding upon the Koran, telling them to eradicate the world of infidels, through conversion, submission and Jihad. Various writers, of various scholarly and non-scholarly backgrounds, have shown again and again that the overriding purpose of Muslims vis-à-vis the rest of the non-Muslim world is to achieve Allah's Ummah (has Mercer read any of them?). Muslims are strategists and tacticians while planning their invasions. They are not irrational aggressors (i.e., they have their own purpose and logic). Whether the infidels sit quietly, or start wars with them is irrelevant to Muslims.

More than ten years after the Jihadi attacks on America, and countless other ones that occur throughout the world since, Mercer is unable to report on the real news.

There's for idiocy for you.

Pink Flamingos

Pink Flamingos

Calling Out Evil

Celestial Light?
[Photo by KPA]

I've noticed something.

People who indicate that they don't believe in evil (and hence, who fundamentally don't believe in the good - and in God) cannot say the word is evil. They just cannot say it. They even hate the word (said aloud, at least).

When pressed to explain evil, or find a word that describes/replaces it, they will search for synonyms like: poverty, bad luck, difficult childhood, lack of education/knowledge, oppressive society, [place your favorite version here].

Yet whatever good they see, or whatever good anyone tries to do, they attribute to some nefarious intent. A good or kind deed is to curry favors. A beautiful work of art is the result of oppression. Nature is destructive all its floods and earthquakes. People are not to be trusted.

So they do believe in evil! Actually, for them, evil is the only force in town. Their whole world is one big evil, to be carefully and studiously picked at, either to be outwitted, or to serve their own purposes.

But, if they believe in evil, they must also believe in (or at least acknowledge) good. So, good (God) is a force that has to be destroyed, or contained, since it is the only force which is capable of destroying their evil, their world.

They may genuflect, chant and purport to kneel before God, but they are only biding their time until they gain a sure upper had and can unleash their apocalyptic evil onto the world. Their bleak and terrible world of evil cannot (will not) be accepted by ordinary people, so they have to cajole and lie, to them until the moment is right, and ripe, for a full-on assault.

Our modern world is replete with these quasi-invisible, hypocritical, non-believers. It is disarming to see them rear their satanic heads when they are unable to contain their terrible secret. Sometimes it is with an unusually violent reaction (often with exaggerated words and tone) to an innocuous (good) statement or observation. Other times it is with a deafening silence with "NO COMMENT" emanating from their very pores, again at seemingly innocuous (and good) words. Yet other times, it is with insidious deceits, trying to pull in bystanders in this war against the good, and against God himself.

But most of all, these haters of the Good and of God hate hearing the word evil, and especially being called evil, because evil is embedded in their hearts and something which they secretly and shamefully harbor, which they know in moments of clarity (one can see stunned expression in their eyes when this realization takes place) is a nefarious force that will throw them down a never-ending abyss. Therefore, the biggest insult they can receive, the biggest fuss they make, is when someone calls them evil.

We need to call out evil, to get it out of the woodwork and into plain sight, where we can fight it.

More on Presidential Family Portraits

Malia Obama in 2011

In my previous post, Presidential family portraits, I tried to make a comprehensive analysis of the presidential portraits through the centuries. I should add that my critiques of the paintings and photographers are mostly cultural rather than aesthetic. Even the family sprawl of the Kennedys is endearing. Except when it comes to the Obamas, whose family portraits I really find odd and off-putting, with all the clutching that is going on.

But to describe a little more the aesthetic decisions in the portraits:

The perching on the arms of chairs (in the Truman family portrait and the Nixon family portrait) I think are aesthetic choices by the artists. In the Truman portrait, a type of pleasing triangular structure is formed, with Margaret appearing higher (standing would make her too high) to form the triangle. This is a common portrait strategy, which I describe here. This triangular form is somewhat used in the the Roosevelt photograph.

Framing the image is another common strategy, which is evident in the Nixon family portraits. In the top one, the older daughter and the mother frame the photograph. In the later portrait, David Eisenhower sits beside his wife Julie Nixon, perched on the sofa arm, (yes, the photo does attempt casualness), while Patricia Nixon completes the frame on the other side of the  sofa. There is also an attempt at symmetry, with President Nixon flanked by his (colorfully dressed) wife and daughter.

But, I wasn't trying to revisit these portraits. As I was looking through the many images out there of the Obama children, I was struck by the masculine, flat expression on Malia's face in recent photos (2011 especially). She used to look pretty as a little girl. It seems that some of her mother's empty harshness, and her father's arrogant air has rubbed on to her.

Presidential Family Portraits

Early presidential family portraits tend to be less formal than the presidents' portraits. Families are often sitting, gathered around a table, engaged in small activities which often consist of reading to one another.

Despite this casual air, almost all presidential family portraits nonetheless display some air of formality. Parents sit upright. Small children may be on laps, but seated, not sprawling. Standing members don't lounge, but lean gracefully on the backs of chairs or on a shoulder.

The Washington Family
By Edward Savage
Oil on Canvas
1789-1796
Andrew W. Mellon Collection
National Gallery of Art

President Lincoln And Family Circle.
Respectfully Dedicated To The People Of The United States
Lithograph by A. Hohenstein.
Published by John Smith, 1865.
18 5/8 x 24 3/4.
[An interesting anecdote is that this lithograph was after a painting of Lincoln and his family by Francis Bicknell Carpenter, where he is reading to his son Tad. In Hohenstein's lithograph, Tad reads to his father.]

Franklin D. Roosevelt, Eleanor Roosevelt, and family
In Washington D.C.
June 12, 1919
(Picture courtesy the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library)

The Truman Family
By Greta Kempton
1952

The cut-off point for formal turning to casual seems to be the late 1950s. The reasons for this are complex, although they are mostly to do with the decline in authority and hierarchy in modern life, which brought forth the tumultuous 1960s. The Truman family portrait of 1952 subtly shows this change, where despite the parents' still formalized presentation, the young member of the family, the daughter, is sitting casually perched on the arm of her mother's chair.

The 1959 family portrait of Vice President Nixon has his younger daughter Julie leaning on her sister Tricia, with her arm draped around Tricia's shoulder. And rather than placing her hand on her father's arm, she seems to be clutching on to it. This is very different from the gentle hand President Roosevelt's son places on his father's shoulder, or even the soft placement of Margaret's hand on the back of the chair. Still, while Julie is less restrained, all the rest are sitting upright. Perhaps such informality can be allowed for a young child. A later portrait, with the daughters as grown young women, shows the family in a more formal air (despite those 1960s mini-skirts).

Vice President Richard Nixon and his family, 1959

President Richard Nixon and his family, 1969

The sprawling, informal family portraits began with the Kennedys' 1962 Christmas photo, where the extended family, which included Jacqueline Kennedy's sister and her family, were part of the unofficial portrait that was available for the public. Previously, portraits were of the nuclear family: parents and children (without their spouses). And family members were carefully positioned to compose a structured tableau. Was it the catholic nature of the Kennedy family that allowed this departure from tradition?

The Reagan, and especially the Bush, families follow this example of extended family inclusion, albeit with somewhat more formal photographs.

President John F. Kennedy and First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy
on Christmas Day at the White House Dec. 25, 1962.
Caroline Kennedy, John F. Kennedy Jr. , Anthony Radziwill ,
Prince Stanislaus Radziwill, Lee Radziwill, Ann Christine Radziwill.
(John F. Kennedy Library/ Getty Images)

A later Kennedy "family portrait" is even more casual, where instead of the formal interior setting of the White House, the Kennedys posed at the porch of their Cape Cod vacation home, where Jackie is in a summer dress, and President Kennedy is in jeans and a shirt with the sleeves rolled up.

The Kennedy family at their Cape Cod vacation home,
Hyannis Port, August 4, 1962

This is perhaps one of the first photographs of children clutching at their mother which we will see in an exaggerated and inelegant form in the Obama photographs. But, Caroline seems to be holding on to her mother to avoid tumbling off her somewhat unstable perch.

The Kennedys also posed in an informal manner sitting on stairs for a Christmas card family portrait, to have been released in December 1963, but which was cancelled after President Kennedy's assassination. Little John Kennedy is bare foot, and is held tightly (and somewhat clumsy) by his president father. The photo is endearing, but still I wonder at the (uncomfortable) casualness of it all.

A never-released Kennedy family portrait from 1963,
photographed just before President Kennedy's assassination

Portraits where all the protagonists are standing were rare in the past. I think that such portraits are imposing, especially if there is a large number of people. They are not necessarily formal. I'm not sure why this "tradition" started, and it seemed to have been initiated by the Fords, and later on followed by the Reagans.

A family portrait of Gerald Ford's family in the White House in 1974
Left to right:
Son Steven Ford, son John Ford,
First Lady Betty Ford, President Gerald Ford,
daughter Susan Ford,
and daughter-in-law Gayle Ann Ford
and her husband, Michael Ford.

The Reagan family also opted to stand for their Christmas photo in 1983. Despite the "extended" family of children's spouses, with only two children and no grandchildren, this portrait is less of a sprawl compared to the Kennedy portrait.

Reagan family Christmas portrait, December 25, 1983

A sprawling Bush family portrait, which still has a formal air, includes:

President George W. Bush, first lady Laura Bush, former first lady Barbara Bush and former President George H.W. Bush sit surrounded by family in the Red Room of the White House January 6, 2005 in Washington, DC. Friends and family joined former President Bush and Barbara Bush in celebrating their 60th wedding

A 2005 Bush "extended" family portrait

The Clintons avoid chaos in numbers in their family portraits because there is only three of them. Yet, Chelsea is too old to be sitting at her parents' feet (and wearing such a short skirt), and Hillary opts to perch on the chair's arm. These casual interjections distract from their well-groomed appearance. It's as though they want to contain casual and formal in one photograph.

Clinton Family Portrait, 1993

And finally to the clutching Obamas:

Obama Family Christmas card, 2006

The caption reads:

Happy Holidays [not Merry Christmas]
Wishing you and your family all the joy of the holiday season [no mention of Christmas, again. "Holiday season" uncapitalized...] and the hope that the New Year brings ["New Year" capitalized].
Barack, Michelle, Malia and Sasha [we are on first-name basis with the president].

Obama family portrait, 2009

Just released Obama family portrait, 2011

The Obamas have released their family portrait, two years after their last one. I blogged about their 2009 portrait here, where I ask:

Why does Michelle allow her daughter to wrap herself around her like that?

I found the "wrapping around" odd behavior, despite the relaxed, family-oriented rather than formal, intent of the photograph. But, the collection of other presidential family portraits I've posted above, and even in the most casual shots, have a certain formality and decorum.

I continue:

What kind of daughter anyway (except for these self-conscious "low-self-esteem" types, who are always looking for attention) behaves like that?

I try to answer the question thus:

I think Michelle must be a distant, and not very affectionate mother, for all the talk she does about her daughters. And I think that Malia has to seek that affection.

In any case, irrespective of any psychological dynamics that go on within their house, many people avoid bringing them to the outside. Such an onus is especially placed on the First Family. Granted, modern-day presidential privileges are few, or tainted, such as having images of the couple and its family get taken at the oddest moments. But, such an adroit person as Michelle Obama surely could handle these difficulties. As I showed above, families with deep internal difficulties, including even the Clintons, often put on a brave and solid face before the public. The Obamas seem to just "let it all hang out."