Where Have All the Good Jokes Gone

Jumping marines don't ask or tell. They just demonstrate.

I watched the recent White House Correspondents' Dinner speeches, and I thought there were reasonably funny and light-hearted moments, although there were a couple of mean-spirited jabs, especially when comedian Jimmy Kimmel sniped:

The President was very candid in an interview with the Atlantic a couple of weeks ago when he called Kanye West a jackass. No offense sir, but I think you got the wrong West. I think you meant Allen.

Allen West was in the audience, and took the "joke" with stride.

I thought Obama was generally funny. But he was also dead serious at some moments. His took a mean-spirited jab at Sarah Palin with: "What’s the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? A pit bull is delicious." Of course, this is in reference to his dog-eating childhood in Indonesia, but at the same time, he managed to slyly and cleverly denigrate Sarah Palin, who used this famous line in her Vice-Presidential campaign:

"I love those hockey moms. You know, they say the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick"

Mitt Romney's wife, Ann Romney, proudly says that she raised fours sons as a stay-at-home mom, after news commentator Hilary Rosen quipped that Ann Romney "never worked a day in her life." I think ordinary women are beginning to realize the importance of child rearing as a sole activity and not intertwined with some career oriented job. But the true pit bulls are still out there, who have an underlying hatred of motherhood permeating through their blood, and who see no independent value in the role.

Obama's "joke" on homosexuals in the military was also dead serious:

In my first term as president, I repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell. In my second term, I will replace that with 'It's Raining Men.'

"It's raining men" is a popular song, and the phrase is used as a code identified with homosexuality. With his "it's raining men" promise, Obama simply means that he will not give up on allowing homosexuals to enter the United States Army, and that he will do so with renewed vigor and force for his new Presidential term. He is making a campaign promise right there.

Hitler's Manhood

Time Magazine's issue of Hitler as Man of the Year

[Large image here, Click on linked image to magnify further]

The caption reads:

Man of 1938
From the Unholy Organist, a hymn of Hate

The illustration shows:

Organist Adolf Hitler playing his hymn of hate in a desecrated cathedral while victims dangle on a St. Catherine's wheel and the Nazi hierarchy looks on, was drawn by Baron Rudolph Charles von Ripper (see p. 20), a Catholic who found Germany intolerable.

The illustration is by Baron Rudolph Charles von Ripper [text of linked article is small, but the biography is the most complete I can find online]

Hitler on the cover of Time:
Top - Left: 1931, Right: 1933
Bottom - Left: 1936, Right: 1941

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

A couple of days ago, the T.V. game show Jeopardy asked who was the Time Magazine Man of the Year for 1938 as its final question. Guess, if you don't know.

Unbelievably it was Hitler.

By 1938, there was enough information coming out of Germany to paint a viscous picture of Hitler's ambitions and rise to power, including his invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland.

Below is a review of Hitler as he attains the leadership of the Nazi Party to his death by suicide in 1945.

On November 8th, 1923, Hitler, the leader of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, or the Nazi Party for short, marched with 2,000 Nazis to disrupt a meeting at the Munich Beer Hall (known as the Beer Hall Putsch) to spark a "revolution." This failed. The following morning, Hitler and about 3,000 Nazis marched in Munich to take over the entire city. This was averted by the police. Hitler was arrested two days later at his hiding place in the attic of friends. He served only one of his five-year term. He wrote most of his Mein Kampf treatise while in prison. The book was published in two volumes in 1925 and 1926. There was no doubt what he thought about, and intended for, the "Jewish Question." In 1933, he was elected Chancellor of Germany by popular vote. In 1936, his government hosted the summer Olympic Games in Berlin, a prestigious recognition of his country by the world at large.

Hiter's aggressive leadership, his clear-cut anti-Semitism, his nationalistic politics to bring Germany to the forefront of Europe through Nazism, and his expansionary goals, were ignored or undermined by world leaders, despite enough (I could say ample) evidence.

The January 2 1939 edition of Time Magazine named him Man of the Year for 1938, as a world figure who "for better or for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year." This ambiguous honor gave some legitimacy to Hitler's leadership by the world at large.

Here is more from the 1939 article in the magazine, describing Hitler:

[T]he figure of Adolf Hitler strode over a cringing Europe with all the swagger of a conqueror. Not the mere fact that the Führer brought 10,500,000 more people (7,000,000 Austrians, 3,500,000 Sudetens) under his absolute rule made him the Man of 1938...More significant was the fact Hitler became in 1938 the greatest threatening force that the democratic, freedom-loving world faces today.

In March 1938, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia. On September 1, 1939, Hitler invaded Poland. On September 3, 1939, Britain and France declared war on Germany, but with no military action against Germany. Hitler then invaded Norway and Denmark, and launched his blitzkrieg on Holland, Belgium and France by 1940. Churchill, who became Prime Minister of Britain in 1940, led the British to war against Germany with his June 1940 "Finest Hour" speech, and his famous line:

"I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin."

The Americans joined soon after, in December 1941

Hitler stayed in power from 1933 until the defeat of the Nazis in 1945. He had managed to convince the German people to elect him as their leader despite his aggressive and destructive coup on the German government more than ten years earlier. His stint in prison was forgotten. His book, Mein Kampf, failed to alert the public of his true intentions. His invasions were initially downplayed by foreign nations. News, reports, and perhaps more importantly anecdotes by Jewish dissidents to America on this treatment of Jews in Germany, including stories of Jews being rounded up for labor/concentration camps, were ignored or downplayed.

On November 9, 1938, his SA stormtroopers conducted two days of destruction and pogrom on Jewish neighborhoods using as a pretext the shooting of a German Embassy staff in Paris by Herschel Grynszpan, a young Jewish student. Grynszpan was retaliating against the deportation of his parents from Germany to Poland. Although the international community condemned this Germany-wide pogrom, or Kristallnacht as it is known, some by cutting off diplomatic relation with Germany, Hitler suffered no serious consequences. The world didn't take his clearly displayed Jewish animosity as a precursor to his impending aggressions.

Hitler himself said in a public speech in January 1939:

"If international-finance Jewry inside and outside Europe should succeed once more in plunging the nations into yet another world war, the consequences will not be the Bolshevization of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation (vernichtung) of the Jewish race in Europe."

His speech was included in

the 1940 Nazi propaganda movie The Eternal Jew (Der ewige Jude), whose purpose was to provide a rationale and blueprint for eliminating the Jews from Europe. [Source: Wikipedia]

It would take Britain and France another eight months after Time's honor of Hitler before they would declare war on Germany, and another nine months before Winston Churchill would lead the fight.

I don't think there is a Hitler analogy in our era, and I sincerely hope there never will be. Yet, I keep coming back to the Muslim presence in the West. We may never have a Muslim leader in a Western country like Canada or the US since Muslim culture is just too different from Western culture. But we have enough multicultural propagandists and liberal equality mongers who work around the clock to convince the public that Muslims in our countries are part of that wonderful, peaceable smorgasbord of peoples, and that letting more of them into our liberated, free and equal lands should be part of our mission. Soon, Muslim will have built up a mass that will work in tandem to wreak real havoc on our societies, and not with just the occasional bombs that blow apart buildings and people.

Sam Solomon, a former Sharia expert and converted Christian, seems to have similar ideas to mine. I discuss here his book Modern Day Trojan Horse: Al-Hijra, The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration, Accepting Freedom or Imposing Islam? on Islamization and the Umma. Below is an excerpt from his book:

The beginning phase of Islamization usually includes activities pivotal to building a physical presence. It consists of public calls to prayer; founding of schools, libraries and research centers; and the teaching of Arabic -- actions that appear to be reasonable and respectable infrastructure requirements necessary to support the presence of a faith. At this point in the Hijra ["immigration designed to subvert and subdue non-Muslim societies and pave the way for eventual, total Islamization"], it is permissible for Muslims to engage in haram, or forbidden actions, out of necessity to establish and empower the umma or Muslim community. Koranic rules such as the prohibition against friendships with infidels are suspended while the objectives of future Islamization are systematically put into place. In its initial phase, the Hijra passes scrutiny by the West whose citizens erroneously view the migration as mainly economic -- a pilgrimage for a better life.

Just as the Nazis prepared the German people over the years about the evilness of the Jews, and concurrently built up their war machine, Muslims are building their societies in our Western shores by giving us a false image of their peaceful and integrationist intentions, while strengthening their powers. And Jews are also their great nemesis. Jews are like the canary in the coal mine, showing the approaching dangers. It is up to us to pay attention to this virulent anti-Semitism that is in the fabric of Islam, and which is surfacing in other, non-Islamic bodies and groups. Sam Solomon understands this link between anti-Semitism and Islam, and discusses it in his second book Eternal Islamic Enmity and the Jews, which I briefly review here.


Photo above:

A group of Jews, including a small boy, is escorted from the Warsaw Ghetto by German soldiers in this April 19, 1943 photo. The picture formed part of a report from SS Gen. Stroop to his Commanding Officer, and was introduced as evidence to the War Crimes trials in Nuremberg in 1945. (AP Photo) [Source: The Atlantic. Oct 16, 2011]

Getting Ready

Urban Outfitters "Auschwitz Chic" from 2012

Urban Outfitters "Jihad Chic" from 2008 and 2006

[Above photos posted at Atlas Shrugged]

Ugliness begets evil. The t-shirt, which is on my list of clothing to avoid, is making news in an ugly way.

Urban Outfitters, another one of those stores which sells:

...a sorry collection of goods. "Distressed" jeans, graffiti t-shirts, and plaid shirts..."

has stretched ugliness to its end: evil.

I cannot find the "Auschwitz Chic" t-shirt at the Urban Outfitters on-line store, but there are enough news agencies reporting on it to validate the authenticity of the photos posted by Atlas Shrugged, who writes:

American clothing company Urban Outfitters is selling a holocaust T-shirt bearing the Jewish star that Jews were forced to wear by the Nazis in death camps. This Urban Outfitters T-shirt is labeled "Auschwitz chic" and retails for $100. The “patchwork Star of David on the left breast pocket goes back to 1930s and 40s Europe.” The “vintage yellow color” of the shirt is Nazi yellow -- obvious to students of Nazi Germany.

Atlas Shrugged has been documenting the products at Urban Outfitters for a number of years:

This is just another in a long line from the antisemitic Urban Outfitters of Jew-hating clothing pieces using monstrous iconography. The latest Jew-hatred fashion follows on the heels of Arafat's war scarf (the keffiyeh) is this Auschwitz tee shirt. The store also generated anger in 2004 with a shirt bearing the words “Everybody Loves a Jewish Girl,” surrounded by dollar signs and shopping bags.

This commercialization of evil is not new for Urban Outfitters.

I titled this post "Getting Ready" since I think this is part of an insidious, popular, shift towards evil. The anti-life, anti-West, anti-Christian coalition is getting ready for its deadly (final?) assault on life and civilization. I don't know how this will manifest itself in our modern era. We saw something of its viciousness during Hitler's time. Now, left-liberals of the West and Muslims are already giving us a glimpse of what we can expect.

In conjunction with this commercial enterprise (perhaps unconnected, but definitely related), American Thinker has posted an article titled "Obama's come-uppance from Elie Wiesel during self-serving visit to Holocaust Museum" on Obama's visit to the Holocaust Memorial Museum on April 23 in honor of the Holocaust Remembrance Day (Yom Hashoah). Am I being too conspiratorial to wonder why Obama couldn't be at the Memorial on the day of the international event, the Holocaust Remembrance Day, which is on April 19th? Elie Wiesel seems to have thoughts similar to mine. I think the American Thinker article correctly interprets Obama's visit as an election year campaign to garner Jewish votes and sympathy. Even his "escort" Elie Wiesel, who also spoke at the event, said that Obama hasn't done enough to mitigate anti-Jewish forces and sentiments around the world. From the American Thinker article linked above:

During the last three years, President Obama did not visit the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. But today, he did; and promptly gave a self-serving campaign speech for Jewish votes...

The president had with him as escort and introducer Elie Wiesel and lavishly praised the Nobel Laureate and Holocaust survivor for his unrelenting campaign to keep the memory of the Holocaust front and center.

But Wiesel did not reciprocate. Instead, determined to tell truth to power, he admonished Obama for not doing nearly enough to confront Assad's atrocities in Syria and Iranian President Ahmadinejad's development of nuclear weapons and threats to wipe Israel off the map...

Since the Holocaust Museum is a national undertaking, it is fitting for a U.S. president to pay an occasional visit and call its lessons to public attention. But by waiting until 2012, an election year, and in the substance of his speech, Obama turned his visit into a political event, just as the presidential-election campaigns move into high gear. It leaves a stain on the museum and the Holocaust to exploit it for political purposes

I suppose Urban Outfitters was "getting ready" for the Holocaust Remembrance Day that was duly, but perversely, remembered by Obama.

Obama and Elie Wiesel at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C., on April 23 2012 for the National Holocaust Remembrance Day.

[Image above from the Washington Post's photo gallery]

Wiesel's suffering, wrinkled face is in contrast to Obama's defiant and arrogant (with the "Mussolini" chin lift) expression. Yet, there is the vacant, frightened look in Obama's eyes on the picture on the left that I've often observed. When intent and action don't jive, something shows, somewhere.

Holocaust Memorial Museum ceiling

Dufy's Beauty

I've posted "Trente Ans Ou La Vie En Rose" by Dufy in conjunction with Edith Piaf's song "La Vie En Rose" (picked up by Louis Armstrong) here. I've always liked Dufy, and have carried around a postcard of his "Yellow Violin" for many years. Below are paintings by Dufy, where he captures diverse images from bouquets of flowers to the seaside, and some of his charming views through windows.

Nature Morte Devant La Fenetre, 1924

Interior With Open Window, 1928

Vue Sur Notre Dame, 1924

Bouquet d'Arums, 1939

La Tour Eiffel, 1935

La Baie Des Anges, Nice, 1926

La Baie Des Anges, Nice
Looks like a sketch study
for the above painting.
Christie's describes it
as a print "stamped with
the artist's atelier stamp
(lower left)" and drawn with
"ink and pencil on paper"

Trente Ans Ou La Vie En Rose, 1931

Window On The Promenade Des Anglais, Nice, 1938

The Philadelphia Museum of Art describes Dufy's "Window on the Promenade des Anglais, Nice" [above] from its Modern and Contemporary Art collection:

In this work Dufy depicts the view from the closed window of his studio in the Hôtel Suisse, which looked out over the Promenade des Anglais, the celebrated shoreline road fringed with palm trees that hugs the curved Bay of Angels in downtown Nice. The work owes an equal debt to Henri Matisse's earlier hotel window paintings and to Piet Mondrian's severely geometric abstractions. The rectilinear windowpanes, placed parallel to the picture plane, serve as a framing device for the hillside city, which Dufy has rendered in saturated colors dominated by the vibrant blue sea and sky.

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

Much of modern art is a rearrangement of reality, according to the visions and sentiments of the artists. The impressionists perhaps are at the cusp of bringing together what the artist saw and what the artist felt. Their art was still linked somewhat to reality, although the shimmering colors of Monet, and the psychedelic, moving lines of Van Gogh might have crossed the line to the other (their imaginary) side. Still, I think they were talented. Many went through rigorous training at various art institutions, and deconstructed, or reinvented, art through knowledge (and progress), rather than some malicious intent at destruction which is how our era is treating art.

Dufy works the thin like between impressionistic painting and line drawing. He cannot help splashing those glorious colors on the canvas, but he want to define them, and contain them, with his lines. No mad/unrestrained chroma explosion for him.

He of course deconstructs space too, but not as masterfully as Matisse, surely his mentor. His indoor spaces often seek the infinite freedom of the exterior by giving us a glimpse of this world through half open windows.

Perhaps the final quest of these artists is to attain some kind of glorious freedom, some utopic or paradisiacal world, right here on earth, and through their own creations. The restraints of civilization, of time and history, of culture, and even of etiquette were mildly scorned by them (and they seem mild compared to the advanced modernists.) But, they were still the draughtsmen of the demons which they unleashed into our world.

Still, beauty is beauty, and I think Dufy loved beauty.

La Vie en Rose pour Edith et Louis

Trente Ans ou La Vie en Rose, 1931
By Raoul Dufy (1877-1953)
Oil on canvas
Musée National d'Art de Moderne in Paris, France

[See notes on the painting below the lyrics]

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

Edith Piaf and Louis Armstrong
"La Vie en Rose"

I recently heard Edith Piaf's lovely song "La Vie en Rose" on the radio, with Louis Armstrong singing it in his inimitable voice. He sings mostly in English but endearingly tries a little French along the way, mostly in the refrain "La Vie en Rose" where his rose sounds more American than French. Another "Armstrong" variation is when he adds the letter "n" in the French "en" and pronounces it "en" as in "end" without the "d" (the correct pronunciation of "en" is at the 1:06 spot in this French pronunciation video).

Below are videos of Armstrong and Piaf singing "La Vie en Rose" (Armstrong also plays the trumpet):

Edith Piaf singing La Vie en Rose

Louis Armstrong singing La Vie en Rose

Lyrics to La Vie en Rose:

Des yeux qui font baisser les miens
Un rire qui se perd sur sa bouche
Voilà le portrait sans retouche
De l’homme auquel j’appartiens

Quand il me prend dans ses bras
Il me parle tout bas
Je vois la vie en rose

Il me dit des mots d’amour
Des mots de tous les jours
Et ça me fait quelque chose

Il est entré dans mon coeur
Une part de bonheur
Dont je connais la cause

C’est lui pour moi, moi pour lui dans la vie
Il me l’a dit, l’a juré pour la vie

Et dès que je l’aperçois
Alors je sens en moi
Mon coeur qui bat

Des nuits d’amour à plus finir
Un grand bonheur qui prend sa place
Les ennuis, les chagrins s’effacent
Heureux, heureux à en mourir

Quand il me prend dans ses bras
Il me parle tout bas
Je vois la vie en rose

Il me dit des mots d’amour
Des mots de tous les jours
Et ça me fait quelque chose

Il est entré dans mon coeur
Une part de bonheur
Dont je connais la cause

C’est toi pour moi, moi pour lui dans la vie
Il me l’a dit, l’a juré pour la vie

Et dès que je l’aperçois
Alors je sens en moi
Mon coeur qui bat

About painting above, "Trente Ans ou La Vie en Rose" by Raoul Dufy:

Trente Ans ou La Vie en Rose (30 Years or Life Through Rose Colored Glasses)

Raoul Dufy took thirty years to paint ‘Trente Ans ou La Vie en Rose’, hence the title for this composition. The painting is also known as ‘La Vie en Rose’ which can be interpreted as “The Rosy Life” or “The Sweet Life”.

Flowers, flowers everywhere! The small bouquet that sits in a vase on a corner table is somewhat replicated in the painting that hangs behind it. The walls seem to scream sweetness and happiness with their varying wallpaper designs, two of which are flowers, the whole in soft and hot pink tones, including the baseboards. Dufy’s inspiration for the wall décor most likely comes from his experience in fabric design and interior decorating.

The artist’s intention, with regard to this painting, was to depict all the good things that life has to offer, ignoring any pain or strife that often interrupts its flow, as implied in its English title, ‘Life Through Rose Colored Glasses’. The overall aspect of ‘Trente Ans ou La Vie en Rose’ appears simple, yet it is intricate in its meticulous details. Dufy added the title, his name and date at the bottom of the canvas.

Critique of the painting:

The artist adapted the creative use of color and drawing exemplified by Henri Matisse and the Fauve movement, but added a heightened ambient light to achieve the brightness that became an integral element of his work.
– W.Scott Bailey U.S.A. Today

On Dufy:

It was only after the war that he (Raoul Dufy) found his own personal style, producing rapid but precise drawings of frequently plunging perspectives, to which clear colours are applied with a kind of casual freedom. His favourite subjects are regattas, casinos and palm trees, race courses and orchestras, but his representations of the southern towns of Avila and Caltagirone are imbued with equal charm.
- From “ART20, The Thames and Hudson Multimedia Dictionary of Modern Art”

Deconstructing (Destroying) The Union Jack

Stella McCartney (Paul McCartney's daughter) has successfully worked in fashion for a number of years now, and has become one of those avant-garde designers that people rave about. Her reward finally came when she was asked to design the Olympic clothing of the British team. Her design is: "A deconstructed Union flag in blue..." according to the BBC. Here's what she says about her design:

"For me, it's one of the most beautiful flags in the world and it was important for me to stay true to that iconic design but also to modernize it and present it in a complementary way. Ultimately, we wanted the athletes to feel like a team and be proud with the identity we created."

Stella McCartney and her Olympics uniform design on a f"multicultural"
group of athletes

Here is the history of the Union Jack:

In 1603, James VI of Scotland inherited the English and Irish thrones, thereby uniting the crowns of England, Scotland and Ireland.

In 1606, a new flag to represent this regal union was specified in a royal decree, according to which the flag of England and Scotland would be joined together, forming the flag of Great Britain and first union flag.

The current and second Union Flag dates from 1801 with the Act of Union 1800, which merged the Kingdom of Ireland and the Kingdom of Great Britain to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

The new design added a red saltire, the 'cross of Saint Patrick', for Ireland. The three component crosses that make up the Union Flag are: - The red St. George's Cross, which represents England - The white diagonal St. Andrew's Cross, representing Scotland - The red diagonal St. Patrick's Cross, representing Ireland

Here are some comments on McCartney's Olympic design by ordinary Brits:

The new looks were unveiled on Facebook today, prompting users to express their anger.

One member commented: 'Massive fail!!!! These are not our national colours!!!! Did someone not get the memo.'

Another wrote: 'Needs a LOT more RED !!! - Change it quickly PLEASE!!!'

One member agreed: 'Oh dear! Stella, Stella - did you not think of asking ANYONE on a UK street if they thought it was reasonable for you to take the red off our Union Jack?'

Of course, what McCartney is primarily "deconstructing" from the flag is the red cross.

Left: Union Jack over the years
Right: Stella McCartney with her design on an athlete

Four years ago, the Canadian Olympics team had the same "deconstructed" but ingeniously "reconstructed" uniform. This is what I said at my blog post "When National Symbols are Lacking." The post has images and background of this uniform:

I've always said that if there is no concerted effort at keeping national symbols alive and well, something else will come along and take up the space.

Stella McCartney and her design/cultural team haven't come up with their own unique, un-British version of the an English icon. But cutting up the Union Jack is such a bad enough enterprise that they probably didn't have energy to do any more destruction.

Below is a sample from McCartney's Fall 2010 collection. Look and judge:

Bruce Springsteen and "The E Street Shuffle"

Above, Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band recently performing "The E Street Shuffle" on the nerdy Jimmy Fallon's show. Fallon got a small part in the band playing the cowbell (around the 5:50 spot). The whole stage is over run with the happy ruckus.


"Glory Days" from the 1984 Born in the U.S.A.



"Dancing in the Dark" from Born in the U.S.A.



"My Hometown" from Born in the U.S.A.

Pseudo Style and Substance in a Post Modern Age

Cary Grant, true style and substance

Here is an email from a Camera Lucida reader asking me about men's stye, and I give my responses:

Reader:

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

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

And the way people let their kids scream and screech!

I think Lawrence Auster called it the age of the "totally liberated self".
Is this anti culture too far gone? Should we traditionalists run for the hills and try to carve out a little patch of sanity?

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

KPA:

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

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

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

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

Anyway, back to your question:

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

1. You can start right away. For example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

H. And behave well, gentlemanly and chivalrously.

2. Avoid these items

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

3. Try to find different styles for different occasion

A. Office wear

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

B. “Street” wear

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

C. Week-end and home wear

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

D. Visitors/Visiting wear

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

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

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

4. Look for good examples and guides

A. Magazines

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

B. Tailors

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

C. Formal Occasions

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

D. Public Figures

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

E. Fashion History

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

F. Fashion Statements and Items

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

G. Different Cultures

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

H. Different Classes

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

I. T.V. Shows and Movies

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

J. Vintage Styles

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

5. Ignore those who call you “old fashioned” or style-less

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

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

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

7. How to personally make a difference

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

A. Start a blog.

B. Write letters to the editor.

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

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

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

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

8. Change your manners and style to fit your message

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

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

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

9. Running to the Hills

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

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

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

And be good to people, even the slothful ones.

Biblical Marriage: Correction

In my previous post "Biblical Marriage" I wrote:

...the Bible does leave room for divorce, if its tenets are not, will not, or cannot be met by the married couple.

It should read:

...the Bible does leave room for divorce, if the tenets of marriage are not, will not, or cannot be met by the married couple.

Biblical Marriage

I wrote recently about the cross-bearing (actually it's less burdensome than that, they are merely cross-wearing) "strong" women and their husbands/"partners"(posts are here and here):

Elderly statesmen, youngish virile world leaders, live-in boyfriends, and faithful, eunuchized husbands pose next to these women. Taken aback by their femaleness, they often stand next to (and by) them, showing their natural, masculine, respectful deferment towards them, the same protective instinct that lets them open doors for women. Yet, this deferment, when stretched to its limit, becomes acquiescence, and ultimately capitulation.

Yet, despite all this deferment, acquiescence and capitulation, it seems to me that men cannot be the kind of "men" these modern women want them to be, who seem to want it all, including feminist freedom, careers, beautiful feminine gifts for birthdays and anniversaries (and flowers once in a while), their husbands'/ partners' unpaid baby sitter services, and dinner on a schedule. This must be an exhausting way to live for the men.

Mark Richardson, over at Oz Conservative, has a post about marital happiness, and writes:

[T]he percentage of very happy marriages declined from the early 1970s to the mid 1980s and there has been no recovery since then.

So despite things being made easier for women to divorce their husbands, women are no more happier in their marriages - they are on average less so.

Nor do the statistics support the idea that women were made unhappy by the traditional family and had to be "liberated" from it. There were more very happy marriages back in 1973 than there are today.

I think that women file for divorce because of the behaviors of their husbands, who stop being attentive, who are away often, who immerse themselves in work, who don't buy those special gifts, who "forget" anniversaries, etc. And the women cosequently become "unhappy" wives.

And the husbands are often reacting to "unwifely" women.

There is a Biblical role for wives:

Titus 2:3-5

The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

1 Timothy 5:14

I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house

Ephesians 5:22

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord

And a Biblical role for husbands:

1 Peter 3:7

Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

1 Cor 11:3

"But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ."

I think this kind of unwifely behavior by their wives unleashes a set of unattractive behavior in the husbands, including neglecting their wives and family through all kinds of pretexts, from undue time spent away from their family at "work" to forgetting special anniversaries and occasions. This passive aggressive behavior by men further unleashes the fury of the neglected wives, whose masculinized strength is no longer useful in the world of marriage, where female and male roles are subtly different.

Ultimately, though, I think the only strength men can acquire to bring their families together, and not to bail out on them, is to behave like strong heads of families.

Ephesians 5:23-31

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

And as controversial as this may sound, the Bible does leave room for divorce, if its tenets are not, will not, or cannot be met by the married couple.

Slothful City

Pedestrians on Fifth Avenue in midtown
Alfred Eisenstaedt
1942

Below are some photos of New York City that the ever-diligent photographers at NYC Daily Pictures recently posted. I think they are good images, capturing beautiful sun light making the building glow on the top photo; the background curtain of the Pan Am building in the distance in the second photo; trees, flags and signs making patterns in the third photo; and the Empire State looming in the background in the fourth.

Yet, look at the people. They are an overweight, under-dressed, slothful lot. In one of the most beautiful cities in the world (well, some wold say handsome), we have the ugliest women, or the women dressed in the ugliest manner, walking down its avenues.

Compare these photos of the enlightened 21st century with the one at the top of the blog. It was taken in 1942 by Alfred Eisenstaedt (the photographer who took the famous V–J Day in Times Square photograph). One could argue that midtown Fifth Avenue is not the same as the downtown, more bohemian Fifth Avenue that NYC Daily Pictures has posted, and that midtown Fifth Avenue women are smart, even in 2012. But here is a link to shoppers by Saks Fifth Avenue, and it is the same story of jeans, shapeless coats and dreary colors. Once again, the building outshines the pedestrians. In the pre-slothful era, extending to the 1940s period of Eisenstaedt photograph and into the 1950s, women complemented the buildings around them, looking worthy to walk beside them.

1 World Trade Center- view from 6th Avenue in Chelsea

Park Avenue South - view from Union Square, NYC

Broadway at Herald Square, 35th Street, NYC

Monday morning at Fifth Avenue. Chelsea, NYC

[Above photos from NYC Daily Pictures]

The Grandness of Train Stations

[A series of photographs are posted at the end of the blog post]

I regularly view the photographs that are posted on the photography blog NYC: Daily Photos (photos are often posted daily, sometimes with a bit of a hiatus), and I saw the recent photo of the interior of New York's Grand Central Terminal.

I've posted below photos that I had filed away of Union Station, Toronto's train station. I find similarities between Union Station and Grand Central Terminal, which I discuss pictorially and descriptively below.

I often find that Toronto architecture of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries mimic New York buildings of the same era, trying to instill some of the American grandeur into the Canadian cityscape. Union Station is a grand example of this, resembling the imposing architecture of Grand Central Terminal (although I cannot yet verify if Canadian architects were specifically copying Grand Central Terminal, or just using a generalized architecture styles of the period. Impressive train stations were a common feature in large cities of this era).

Here's information on the Beaux Art design and history of Union Station, which opened in 1927.

And here's information on Grand Central Terminal's architecture. Grand Central Terminal, as it is called now, opened in 1913. The 1871 original, smaller, building called Grand Central Depot (photo below) was demolished:

After a steam locomotive accident in 1902, the station was redesigned with a two-level terminal to accommodate electric trains.

Here's more on Grand Central Depot:

There have been three structures at East 42nd Street and Park Avenue, bearing the name Grand Central...[The first one, Grand Central Depot], which opened in 1871, brought the lines of the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad, the New York and Harlem River Railroad, and the New York and New Haven Railroad together under one roof.

According to this site, the terminal's reconstruction and renovation history spans over 130 years.

The first terminal of that name [Grand Central] was erected in 1871 at Fourth Avenue (now Park) and 42nd Street, then close to the edge of the built-up part of the city. It was conceived and built by Cornelius Vanderbilt,

The terminal replaced an earlier nondescript building further downtown at 26-27th Street and Fourth Avenue (now Park Avenue South).

Renovations in 1886 began to expand the building:

Long distance and commuter travel grew much faster than expected, so Grand Central had to be expanded in 1886, and comprehensively renovated in 1898. But as traffic continued to grow, it was clear that a new terminal was needed.

And finally, extensive work began in 1902:

[I]n January 1902 there was a disastrous accident. In the tunnel at 58th Street, with visibility greatly impaired by smoke and steam, an inbound express smashed into the rear of a local that had stopped, killing and injuring scores of people. The public was outraged, resulting a year later in both the city and state outlawing the operation of steam locomotives in Manhattan after 1908...

William J. Wilgus (1865-1949), chief engineer of the New York Central, proposed, proposed instead thorough, imaginative, and innovative solutions that function superbly to this day:

1) construct two levels of tracks below street level, the upper for long-distance trains, the lower for suburban trains;
2) eliminate the steam locomotives and move all trains by electric power instead;
3) construct a monumental terminal building; and
4) sell air rights above the new underground train yards, permitting developers to erect buildings there and pay rent to the railroad.

From the Grand Central Terminal site:

[A] comprehensive revitalization plan based on the Master Plan for Grand Central Terminal. Construction began in 1996 with the cleaning of the Main Concourse Sky Ceiling...

The revitalization project culminated with a gala Rededication Celebration of Grand Central Terminal on October 1, 1998. This event garnered both national and international media attention, and marked the beginning of a new chapter of this venerable New York City landmark.

Over the years since these major works, the terminal has gone through various projects, from Donald Trump's renovation of the exterior, to the restoration of the Main Concourse ceiling by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

Ending in 2007, the exterior was again cleaned and restored, starting with the west facade on Vanderbilt Avenue and gradually working counterclockwise. The project involved cleaning the facade, rooftop light courts, and statues; filling in cracks, repointing stones on the facade, restoring the copper roof and the building's cornice, repairing the large windows of the Main Concourse, and removing the remaining blackout paint applied to the windows during World War II. The result is a cleaner, more attractive, and structurally sound exterior, and the windows allow much more light into the Main Concourse.
[Source: Wikipedia: Grand Central Terminal Restorations]

While doing Google image search, I found photographs of Grand Central Terminal in the 1940s by John Collier, including photographs of passengers. According to Wikipedia, Collier worked in photography and visual anthropology, and this education site further elaborates that:

John Collier Jr. applied still photography and film to cross-cultural understanding and analysis.

Many photographers have also documented the building, some artistically. I've posted some impressionable images below.

The full-on light streaming in the early photos of Grand Central (see the 1929 photo posted below - The main concourse at Grand Central Terminal) will never be reproduced according to this photographer because:

(1) skyscrapers now block that exact light from shining through the windows at that position

and

(2) [Grand Central Terminal] is now a ‘smoke free’ place and so the cigarette & cigar smoke that mainly created the haze in the original photo will be never more.

Still, the grandeur of the station remains, and the windows let in enough sun to bathe the interior with majestic light.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interior of Union Station, Toronto
KPA

Interior of Union Station, Toronto
KPA

Grand Central Depot, ca. 1885
H.A. Dunne Archive

Grand Central Terminal, 1941
John Collier
The Library Of Congress

The main-concourse information
desk at Grand Central Terminal
in New York, October 1941
John Collier
Shorpy.com

The main concourse at
Grand Central Terminal, 1929
New York Transit Museum

Four-faced clock at a kiosk
inside Grand Central Terminal
on the east side of Manhattan, with
a noticeable amount of sunlight
shining through some of the windows.
Wikipedia [Link to larger image]

Grand Central Station, 2009
Dan K. Allen Photos

Afternoon rush hour
Grand Central Terminal, Main Concourse
NYC Daily Pictures

Grand Central Terminal, exterior
Gothamist

Flotus and Potus

If Obama weren't the President of the United States and such a dedicated liberal leftist, dangerous to his country and to the world, I could appreciate his charm. Once in a while, I do.

Here's what he says about his trip to Colombia:

Part of my job is to scout out where I may want to bring Michelle back later for vacation.

I think he regularly, covertly, teases (makes fun) of Michelle, who to her credit (or inability to understand him) never takes insult.

How Society Suffers Because of "Strong" Women

In my recent post, Justice by Female-Run America, I wrote on the various, powerful men that had their photos taken alongside Florida's Attorney General Pam Bondi:

Elderly statesmen, youngish virile world leaders, live-in boyfriends, and faithful, eunuchized husbands pose next to these women. Taken aback by their femaleness, they often stand next to (and by) them, showing their natural, masculine, respectful deferment towards them, the same protective instinct that lets them open doors for women. Yet, this deferment, when stretched to its limit, becomes acquiescence, and ultimately capitulation.

I should say that some (a few) men, when stretched to the limit, will not succumb to acquiescence and capitulation, but form a misogynistic, male-centered environment, where these protective deferments to women are no longer practiced.

I think marriage, which is the way that society protects its women (and of course its children) through a stable family with a strong male head, is in decline because of this unwillingness by men to be partnered with these competitive and ambitious women. Divorce, a less aggressive (although equally detrimental) form of "capitulation," is often instigated or pushed by men. Of course, in the end, the whole of society suffers.

Daffodils For Spring

Daffodils For Spring
[Photo by KPA, 2011]

Justice By "Female-Run America"

Head of Medusa
Gian Lorenzo Bernini, 1640

[Images that illustrate the post are posted at the end]

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

[Update: I have made corrections on the professional roles of Pam Bondi and Angela Corey]

Florida's Attorney General, Pam Bondi, looks like an early-thirty-something law clerk, but she's actually 46 years old. She has stated that, "We are doing everything in our power to ensure that justice is sought in this case," regarding the George Zimmerman case.

I wouldn't want to be in her line of fire, with her face in full-on war make-up which hardens into an uncompromising expression, and with red manicured nails jabbing into the air to make some kind of decisive point. Her get-up also includes power stilettos, those feminine daggers, a tight skirt that accentuates her glorious femaleness, but a sloppy red satin shirt to show that she's not seriously into beautifying herself. She is a public impersonation of the schizophrenic mental mode of modern females.

The mandatory blonde hair, flowing like Medusa's mane, is often the most prominent feature of modern women like Bondi, who fight for powers of position based on masculine prowess, yet display their presence through their feminized weapons. The blonde, loose hair is often a dye-job acting like a helmet covering darker roots of less imposing feminine presence.

News anchors and commentators have perfected the blonde helmet, combining it with their hard voices and steely eyes to give them a fascistic presence. Not a smile comes out of these prime-time Amazons. Ann Coulter is the Queen of the Blondes, whose hair flows back and forth as she pushes her decisive points at us. Her signature mini-dress is more a black armor than a feminine touch. And her golden locks seal her all female power.

If natural beauty isn't forthcoming, then red lipstick and red nails, bloody and threatening, becomes the signature look. Often, such pronounced make-up is the strategy of older women, like Angela Corey, the State Attorney in Florida's Fourth Judicial Circuit Court who is also the special prosecutor in the Zimmerman case. These women may have lost some youthful exuberance over the years, or added on some sluggish pounds, but they will still fight with their gendered weaponry. Nancy Pelosi has perfected the red dress with red lipstick, jabbing her hardened, painted nails at us, while temporarily disarming us with a smile full of her ingenious femaleness.

Ann Coutler, Angela Corey and Pam Blandi unabashedly wear the cross above their plunging necklines. Women are perhaps more spiritual than men, in a holistic, generalized way, so these feminists women are not necessarily acting hypocritically. Who should be accountable, though, are the many men who let them proclaim their female-centered, often anti-male, ideas while while standing quietly beside them.

Elderly statesmen, youngish virile world leaders, live-in boyfriends, and faithful, eunuchized husbands pose next to these women. Taken aback by their femaleness, they often stand next to (and by) them, showing their natural, masculine, respectful deferment towards them, the same protective instinct that lets them open doors for women. Yet, this deferment, when stretched to its limit, becomes acquiescence, and ultimately capitulation.

"The indictment of Zimmerman for murder is perhaps as much a result of Female-Run America as it is of Black-Run America," writes Lawrence Auster at the View From the Right. He may be generous with his "perhaps."

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

Florida's Attorney General Pam Bondi

Pam Bondi in power stilettos and sloppy, red satin blouse

Bondi with live-in boyfriend

Bondi with former Attorney General Edwin Meese

Bondi with Chaim Shacham, Israeli Consulate General of Miami

Bondi with Israeli Supreme Court Justice Elyakim Rubinstein

Bondi in the company of other fake blondes

Angela Corey, the special prosecutor in the Zimmerman case

Nancy Pelosi

Fox News anchoress Megyn Kelly

Ann Coulter

Women of the Cross