Ethnic Kate and Her Role Models

The least innocuous of the "going ethnic" style,
the Canadian maple leaf on a hat

It looks like Kate gets "ethnic" on her various trips around the world. She even managed to find something "Canadian" on her trip to Canada last summer. The floral prints which she wore in the Solomon Islands this September were in solidarity with the Governor General's wife, who wore her own island floral print dress.

Kate with Lady Grace Kabui,
in Honiara, Solomon Islands

But it is the truly exotic which seems to earn Kate's special respect. Going barefoot and hijabed is one of the ways she shows that respect. She's not alone, and has illustrious role models to follow.

Queen Elizabeth also went barefoot, and diligently covered her head when she went to the Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque in Abu Dhabi in 2010, and at the Green Mosque in Turkey in 2008.

Queen Elizabeth barefoot at
the Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque
in Abu DhabiAbu Dhabi

Queen Elizabeth at the Green Mosque in 2008 in Turkey,
with slippers and a head scarf

Princess Diana wore Islamic dress on many of her trips. And the Crown Prince himself, Kate's father-in-law said this about Islam:

The Islamic world is the custodian of one of the greatest treasuries of accumulated wisdom and spiritual knowledge available to humanity. It is both Islam’s noble heritage and a priceless gift to the rest of the world.

It is no wonder, then, that this deep respect transfers to Kate Middleton, wife of the future King of England, and head of the Church of England, who enters a mosque with her shoes off.

Kate at the Assyakirin Mosque
in Malaysia, Respectfully shoeless
with a dress and scarf reminiscent
of her mother-in-law's below

And who else is the role model for Kate but her mother-in-law Princess Diana. Below, she gracefully puts on a pretty floral scarf that matches her green dress, as she enters the Al-Azhar Mosque in Cairo in 1992.


At one time, the monarchs of England fought wars to ward off Islamic invaders. Now, they subserviently enter their places of worship.

The Post-Modern Woman

Kate Middleton, barefoot and bare-breasted

The post-modern woman follows the latest sluttish trends, exposing as much skin as possible without being arrested for indecent exposure, yet will parrot the latest multi-culti truism, and have no qualms about Muslim women in full Islamic gear walking around her neighborhood.

Well, Kate Middleton, aka the Duchess of Cambridge, bride to the future king of England and ruler of the Commonwealth, parades around topless on an island resort while on vacation, and sees nothing contradictory about attending a princely (and princessly) visit to the Muslim country of Malaysia in a "respectful" hijab.

Hasn't she learned from the folly of her predecessors that anything the royals do is fodder for the public? Topless in a remote island while on vacation? What a silly woman. And why is she topless in the presence of her husband? Cannot she muster a little modesty in front of him?

I suppose this is what bored monarchs do, and why they got relegated to mere cosmetics. But, they can't even look good, so what good are they?

I like Queen Elizabeth (I've written about her here and here), but her odd forays into territory she doesn't understand, following what useless advisers tell her are good things, shows that even she has become the last bastion of this formidable, and fading lineage.

Perhaps Americans were right. It has taken us several hundred years to realize that the British monarchy has served its purpose, and nothing can ignite it anymore. I had hopes on William, but with a Crown Princess like that, who wants him around?

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.

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.

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

Coffee and Music at Starbucks

Friendly Starbucks barista
[Image source]

It's nice to be able to walk into a Starbucks, which is on almost every corner now, and order a strong cup of coffee to go in their paper cups (recyclable, of course - none of that styrofoam stuff ) of various sizes which I never get right.

"How tall is Grande again?" "Oh that's a Tall is it?" "No I'll just have a Short, and with a vanilla bean scone to go with it. Oh, a Short Pike." I don't care if Starbucks is a coffee shrine for coffee pseudo-connoisseur lefties, since whoever invented it knows how to make the coffee taste good.

The stores often have CDs playing music that is so very different from the hip-hop thumping at the Eaton Centre, or the wailing of the latest pop star that reached number one in some retail store. Starbucks goes for jazz, folk, or even hip country. And Brazilian jazz seems a favorite at the store I go to.

This afternoon, there was the plaintive melody of two women singing, and it sounded Irish to me. The coffee line was long, which was fine this time since I could listen some more. I asked the "barista" what the CD was. It was by a group called The Chieftains, an old Irish group from the 1960s (I was right), who produced this CD, Voice of Ages, in 2012 with numerous other artists, with whom they collaborated. She pointed out that the track I was listening to is with the Secret Sisters. The song is "Peggy Gordon."

The Secret Sisters are, according to Wikipedia:

...an American traditional country music duo, consisting of vocalists Laura and Lydia Rogers. The duo's music has been compared to artists like The Everly Brothers and Doc Watson.

...Laura and Lydia Rogers are real-life sisters from Muscle Shoals, Alabama. With a love for music coming from both sides of their family (their grandfather and his brothers forged a group called The Happy Valley Boys), they grew up with a zeal for country music and sang songs with their family by country music artists such as Don Williams. The girls first learned to harmonize through singing a cappella at their hometown church. Laura and Lydia never considered a singing career as a duo. Laura went to Middle Tennessee State University to pursue a career in business, while Lydia was considered the "real" singer of the family.

Lydia was set for an audition, but couldn't make it, and sent her sister instead. From there, the Secret Sisters act was formed.

They sound like some obscure Scots-Irish duo from the Appalachians, but they are more cosmopolitan than that, although they did grow up singing in their church in Alabama. Still, it is good to know that traditional American music is alive and well, with all the bombardments that are out there to silence it.

Below is the video of "Peggy Gordon" with the Secret Sisters and the Chieftains:

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.

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.

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."

Christmas Songs by Frank Sinatra

A $5:00(CAN) Christmas CD by the inimitable Frank Sinatra is more than a bargain. Yes, Christmas is being downgraded (why buy classic Christmas songs, and music by a legendary singer, when rap, hip-hop, and all the rest are around, all year round?). But that only means we should celebrate Christmas more. Listening to a bargain Christmas CD doesn't diminish the music.

This CD, Christmas Songs by Frank Sinatra, was released as a record in 1948 and has an introduction by General Reynolds, Chief of Special Services. What current General would lend his voice to a popular musician's CD, who might deign to release a Christmas album? We might get an insipid "holiday greetings" if anything at all, to music that is full of, well, holiday greetings. Sinatra's Christmas album is interspersed with his own Christmas wishes.

Here are transcripts from the CD:

General Russell Burton Reynolds, Major General of the United States Army, delivers his short message:

This is General Reynolds, Chief of Special Services. I am bringing you the Season's Greetings for the sixth Christmas since V-Discs [V for Victory] began coming to you through the cooperation of artists and musicians who have given freely of their time and talents. It is our desire to promote the well-being of mankind throughout the world. With these records, here are my very best wishes for a pleasant Christmas season wherever you are. And this Christmas, here is Frank Sinatra.

General Reynolds's grave, serious voice is contrasted with Frank Sinatra's:

Thank you General Reynolds, and hi there gang. It's time for me to hitch another ride around the world, and a V-Disc, and as usual it's a big thrill, especially with December 25th coming up. At Christmas, we should all count our blessings, and high among mine I count this opportunity to send you a heart-felt Merry Christmas, and to sing you these Christmas Carols.

With our bland "Season's Greetings" and "Holiday Songs" it is refreshing to hear the world Christmas being used so uninhibitedly.

Here is an Amazon.com MP3 download of the album. Track 11 has a brief excerpt of General Reynolds's introduction, with Sinatra's full message.

Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas, Frank Sinatra

Women of the Cross

I've had two interactions with women bearing (wearing) large and distinct crosses. The first one was on a manager at Laura's, who told me she was wearing it as a fashion statement.

The other one was on a manager at the Art Gallery of Ontario, who made my simple refusal to give out personal information (name and address) at the purchase of a ticket into some gargantuan problem.

I wonder what this means, in my small world, and, if I may pompously add, in the bigger picture of crosses, religion and Christianity?

I wrote a few weeks ago about a family wedding to which I was invited, and which I declined, where the wedding was to take place with no Christian religious ceremony. Yet, the couple chose an important (quasi-religious) holiday - the Canadian Thanksgiving - to "celebrate" their day.

I think people cannot do without some form of higher, transcendental order. Some will wear the only religious symbols they know, but give them different, or non-Christian significance. Others will be enticed by religious rituals and ceremonies, but restructure them to suit their requirements.

As with the "Wish Tree" which resplendently sits in the Eaton Centre, Christian symbols are around, but they are not used in their true sense.

I think it a sign, which we have to pay attention to. Idolatry is an integral part of our culture now.

We have to stay strong, and faithful. I think the Armageddon is not far ahead.

"What Do You Wish For?"

[Photo by KPA]

Last year's Sears Canada's billboard advertizement for its Christmas catalog (right by the Baubles Tree at Dundas Square) was "Holiday Wish." The word "Christmas" was carefully omitted, but there was a clear reference to it.

This year, it is "What do you wish for?" The reference to Christmas is now vague and indirect, with a question which was designed to elicit a materialistic response, as in "I wish/want a fur coat for Christmas," not something like "I wish/want world peace for Christmas." The holiday (the holy day) is gone, but the shopping spirit still lives on.

The fine print on the online catalog version of this year's sign elaborates:

If you were wishing for a little help with your Christmas shopping, check out these inspired gift ideas. There's something for everyone and every budget.