A Relaxed Sarah

Speaks normally while in Hamilton, Ontario
Sarah Palin was in Hamilton Ontario on April 15 for a

$200-a-ticket event [which] raised money for Charity of Hope, a local group supporting charities such as Good Shepherd Youth Services and McMaster Children's Hospital.

Her visit was surprisingly underreported in the media (mainstream and blogs), mainly because I think she was here on a fund raising mission rather than a political tour (why would she do politics in Canada, anyway?).

Still here is an interesting short video of an interview with her and Connie Smith of the Christian television network Crossroads/CTS, which I managed to catch purely by chance yesterday. It was clearly a replay of an earlier broadcast.

Sarah is relaxed, speaking in what resembles an Alberta accent. This is the first time where I haven't heard her use her convoluted sentence structures and her circuitous thought processes.

Here is the link to her short 8-minute interview, with a clearly star-struck interviewer, and Sarah who is obligingly charming.

Oprah as a Manufactured Guru

And Kitty Kelley's facts


In my last post on Oprah, I wrote:

I think every guru has a cultivated image. Anyone who lives for a following and for adoring crowds must be doing subtle image building (and alterations). And Oprah is no exception.

Part of that cultivated image is how special this "guru" is, who went through some difficulties some time in his life, and who overcame them through a combination of resilience and luck. Everyone can be resilient, but not as resilient as this guru. And not everyone (in fact very few people) can have the luck and good fortune bestowed on him.

This is how Oprah presents herself. The interesting thing about her revelations on her difficult background is that she describes them as incidents over which she had no control, and almost all of them could be blamed on the initial horror of the abuse she suffered as a child.

Kitty Kelley seems to be straightening out those facts. For example, she writes that Oprah’s promiscuity, which she acted out in the form of prostitution, could have been her desire for money in order to appear equal to her highschool friends, and not an angry reaction to her abuse and abusers.

Oprah as a materialistic teenage prostitute deflates the whole guru/goddess image that she has been cultivating. It’s no wonder that she keeps as silent as possible about her background, and provides carefully constructed variations when she does speak out.

I'm beginning to think I should have a whole category just for Oprah. In the past six months, I have been writing intermittent posts about the her, and have deciphered a few things just by watching her shows. And, Kitty Kelley's book came at a surprisingly appropriate time (for my blogging schedule, that is).

As far as I know, Kelley doesn’t try to decipher the Oprah Mystique; she just provides the facts. Could that be a mission I can take on?

Oprah's Exposure

Kitty Kelley takes a hard look at Oprah


I'm trying to prepare a long post on Oprah, her mediocrity and her fabricated (to some extent) world. And the strange hold she has managed to garner over most of the female population of the world, including conservative cultures and women.

Here is something interesting Kitty Kelley's biography has revealed. I always felt that part of Oprah's mystique was her secrecy, or her attempt to hide the mundane, ungainly parts of her life. She seems extremely forthright, especially as she disclosed her childhood abuse. But what Kelley shows is that Oprah has told us parts of her stories, but covers up some aspects of those stories.

For example, she has told us that she was very promiscuous as a teenager. But Kitty revealed that she was actually a teenage prostitute, selling her body for money to compete with her financially superior highschool classmates.

Oprah also talks about the death, soon after birth, of her son. Again, Kitty writes that Oprah was trying to harm this child during her pregnancy - not going for an outright abortion, but abusing her body in order to affect the birth of the child.

I think every guru has a cultivated image. Anyone who lives for a following and for adoring crowds must be doing subtle image building (and alterations). And Oprah is no exception.

Manhood without the Validation of Women

Why homosexuals shouldn't write about manhood

Continuing with the theme from my last post on a homosexual as the main contributor for the Virtus blog of Alternative Right, this same writer has a new post up titled; "MAN vs. 'Person'." The article got quite a few negative responses.
Read the article if you will, but here is the crunch of it all. Voicing his surprise

Has Alternative Right now finally reached the level of importance where it attracts obsessive Marxist/feminist concern trolls, Trojans and evangelists?

Donovan, the author of the article, ends one of his comments by saying

if your manhood needs a woman's validation -- the feminists have already won.

It is frighteningly misogynistic and weirdly narcissistic. Why show "valor, manliness, excellence, courage, character, and worth" if not partly to validate the other 50% of the population, which is made up of women as sisters, mothers, and, of course, wives? Donovan seems to buff up his masculinity just for the sake of masculinity.

No one in the fifty-strong list of commenters has picked up on this loosely placed sentence. The conservative ones are probably got taken aback by the feminist connotations. The "manly" ones have bought the idea that men can do their thing without women telling them what to do.

But, I think Donovan is more hardcore than that. He seems to be saying that since he doesn’t need women to be virile, neither should other men.

Alternative Right is progressing into a strange site. It has embraced those elements which contribute to our culture's decadence and decline: homosexual virility, neopaganism, anti-Christianity, anti-Semitism, atheism, anti-Americanism (here is the strange article where the author denounces – crucifies – American women), and even to some extent a subtle misogyny (those "Gamers" seem to post there).

More Strangeness at Alternative Right

A homosexual contributor for Virtus

The main contributor to the section called "Virtus: Men's Studies" at Alternative Right is a homosexual.

This is how Wikipedia defines "Virtus."

Virtus was a specific virtue in Ancient Rome. It carries connotations of valor, manliness, excellence, courage, character, and worth, perceived as masculine strengths (from Latin vir, "man"). It was thus a frequently stated virtue of Roman emperors, and was personified as a deity.

But, once again according to Wikipedia,

Virtus applies exclusively to a man's behaviour in the public sphere, i.e. to the application of duty to the res publica in the cursus honorum.

And,

His private business was no place to earn virtus, even when it involved courage or feats of arms or other qualities associated to it if performed for the public good.

Thus,

While in many cultures around the world it is considered "manly" to father and provide for a family, family life was considered in the Roman world to be part of the private sphere. During this time there was no place for virtus in the private sphere.

This separation of the public from the private makes sense if one accepts that having children is a natural aspect of being a male (anyone can have children), whereas courage in war needs to be cultivated, as does good judgment in public office. In addition, these two public duties are selective – some are more courageous than others, some have better judgment.

While any man can have children, being a good father and family man is not intrinsic to everyone. It is something that needs to be taught and cultivated. And some are better fathers, and better at maintaining their families, than others.

At the cost of refuting a whole tradition of Ancient Rome, I will say that at least in our modern world, a man as a heterosexual being, who has a family of a wife and children, and who maintains that family through the years, ranks high with the virtue of Virtus. Various levels of heterosexual men (married without children, unmarried) can also subscribe to this virtue.

In my humble assessment, I think to qualify for Virtus, a man needs to exhibit both these private and public qualities. This sounds harsh, but look at our modern leaders. Although the attention given to spouses and children is unduly high these days, there is a greater respect given to a leader if the public feels that the leader has accomplished an exemplary private life together with a noteworthy public career.

A homosexual can never achieve both conditions.

A Cat's Eye View

By Leo and his Cat Cam

Textures and lines

Notice how Leo doesn't fall for the "dead center" trap.
He places his prominent tree 1/3 into the photo, rather than
right in the middle.


Here's what Fran Hurcomb's cat Leo does all day. Fran attached a camera around Leo, and let him wonder around Old Town, Yellowknife.

I don't mean to marvel at the artist that Leo is, like those elephants who can paint with their trunks. But Leo does have a good eye, at least once in a while!

I don't think a dog would "take" the kinds of pictures that Leo does. Dogs seem too agitated and mobile, and when they're not moving, they're lounging about without much regard for their surroundings.

Many of Leo's pictures are taken on the move. But there are some shots where I can imagine him sitting in that calm, serene way that cats have, observing his surroundings, and being very particular at what he thinks is worth looking at (and photographing) and what isn't.

Leo's camera is around his neck, so the images that we see are lower than Leo's eye-level. But, given that minor imprecision, Leo's photographs have been displayed at the town's gallery.

Leo's images can be viewed here.

No Land Left to Defend

At the rate the Indians are going

Every time I write about David Yeagley, I find a new piece of information about Canadian Indians that is not particularly flattering (to the Indians). I'm not saying that the issues regarding American and Canadian Indians are the same, but they are often similar, although things are more extreme here.

The CBC reported that British Columbia homeowner Louise Allix has to pay $35,000 for having archaeologists assess her property for potential "heritage" artifacts. She wasn't even aware that her property was considered a heritage site until she decided to build a house on it. Regarding heritage sites, the CBC diplomatically writes, "the province keeps the database of sites that are reported to them by First Nations and other interested parties," but doesn't specify who those other interested parties are.

So, I can come to my own biased conclusions (albeit with some backing, this is B.C. after all and I've reported on the B.C. land claims issues that unraveled during the Olympics) that most of this reporting comes from First Nations people. In fact, here is a quote from former chief of the Nanoose First Nation:

Buyer beware. That land you are buying may be of historical importance to First Nations...Heritage can be preserved or destroyed. And the biggest problem that we've had is that it's been destroyed.

So far, there are 38,000 heritage sites in B.C., with 2,000 added each year. That is 38,000, and growing, possibilities for "heritages" to be destroyed.

Mrs. Allix's property dig uncovered "part of a human skull...a dog skeleton, several arrowheads and a hand-carved pin." This is the "heritage" that the B.C. government and Indians are jealously guarding.

Part of the problem, of course, is that Indians can claim as a heritage site any place where they believe some artifacts (or bodies) are buried. Given the nomadic nature of many Indian tribes, any part of B.C. can potentially be a heritage site – as the yearly reports of 2,000 sites indicate. It is time that the B.C. government took a firm stand and simply refused to cave in to the atrocious demands of Indians-gone-amuck. Before they know it, there will be no land left to defend.

Email Problem

I accidentally deleted an email sent to Cameralucidas@yahoo.com this morning. I closed the tab while my email inbox was loading. If you've been trying to get in touch with me, please try again.

Article on Frontpage Magazine

"Reclaiming Religion from the Left"

Frontpagemag.com has kindly published my article: "Reclaiming Religion from the Left" about Cecil B. DeMille's epic The Ten Commandments, Easter, Passover, and President Obama's wealth distribution plans. Here is one comment I especially like by someone called Mary Ann:

Concerning government action and social justice, the Catholic Church teaches the doctrine of subsidiarity. Aquinas's thought on subsidiarity, "It is contrary to the proper character of the State's government to impede people from acting according to their responsibilities- except in emergencies." A fuller definition is found in the Catholic Catechism: "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of it's functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with the view to the common good." The Church teaches that excessive intervention by the State threatens personal freedom and initiative, and is against all forms of collectivism.

Jesus did not preach about wealth distribution as wealth distribution is understood by liberals in todays society. What He preached about was individual people, on their own free initiative, loving and caring for others who are less fortunate.

Jesus did not preach against wealth and making money. [H]e preached against loving money more than Him.

Of Empires and Nation Building Revisited

My advice to Indians

I don't mean to return to my previous post on "Empire and Nation Building," in response to David Yeagley's long article "The Meaning of Nationhood in a Globalist Society." But, here is the reason why I reacted so strongly to it.

I got thinking: “why did Yeagley attributed a phrase to me which I have never written (or thought), and what was his purpose for using that phrase?”

Despite my presence on his forums, describing historical contexts surrounding modern Ethiopia, he decided to close himself off intellectually the information I was providing.

But, that is not really a problem. What is interesting is that he used an incorrect paraphrase of mine, to forward an ideology of his, which ultimately goes back to his Indianness and his relationship to America.

In his essay, he divides the world into two sections: the Soros globalist types, and the tribalists who just want to be with their own kind. I was suggesting something in between. There are many points in history when countries consolidate their surrounding areas into one entity for many different reasons. Even the cross-continental empires that the Europeans built weren’t some type of Islamic Ummah bent on subjugating the whole world. In fact, many European colonized countries welcomed their colonizers initially. Many reaped the exponential benefits they received from these colonizers. It just so happens that Ethiopia falls under these “colonizers” and empire-builders, an enterprise which started in the 18th century, and was completed in the 18th century.

It is this third interpretation that Yeagley left behind in his long thesis. And, his imagination (and stereotyping) attributed my ideas and positions to leftist ideologies by saying, “Kidist Paulos Asrat believe[s] the African nations are all quite artificial, with boundaries superimposed by European imperial powers.” But, I have previously said that Yeagley himself has leftist/liberal takes on Indians' situation.

There are many implications to this quote, some of which are that I think the European powers harmed these tribal people (I don’t. I think the benefits they gave them surpasses any harms they may have done); that these boundaries are useless (I actually think they work reasonably well, and the problems in Africa cannot be solely attributed to “artificial” boundaries); that Africa needs to be re-divided (this unrealistic and potentially dangerous. More irresolvable issues can easily arise by this rearrangement).

It is perhaps normal that all roads lead to Indian country in Yeagley’s exploration of ideas. So, naturally, his long thesis has to deal with the American colonizers of Indian tribes. I still don’t know how Yeagley ties American Indians with America proper. He seems to advocate semi-autonomous Indian regions, living under the auspices of treaties. This sounds like a “having your cake and eating it too” proposition. I understand it is a complicated position to be in: a colonized (or defeated) group that has to find the best possible way to react to the reality of this world order. But, I think Indians should simply stop their quest for an over-philosophized understanding of their world, and simply turn to practical and pragmatic matters. Get jobs; clean up the reservations; stop depending on government handouts; resolve the treaties in a manner that doesn’t leave them dependent on “free” money; try to assimilate. Perhaps one thing none of them have thought to do: be a little more humble. I mean this in the spiritual sense. Understanding what God has put before them.

Writing to Influence the Public in the Right Direction

Where did the Pulitzer go wrong (or left)?

A great image posted by Diana West.
When I searched for the image, it
simply says "A portrait of Joseph
Pulitzer superimposed on images of the
New York World and the St. Louis
Post-Dispatch."
There's no artist attributed to it.

Diana West has an article about the liberal trend in the Pulitzer Prize winners, and that Joseph Pulitzer himself intended his prize to reward conservative views. Here is a memorable quote on how what Pulitzer expected of the winning novels:

[T]he American novel published during the year...shall best present the wholesome atmosphere of American life, and the highest standard of American manners and manhood."

Similarly, on editorial writing:

[T]he test of excellence being clearness of style, moral purpose, sound reasoning, and power to influence public opinion in what the writer conceives to be the right direction."

West writes that these "criteria were more nebulous" but goes on to explain what kinds of writing fulfilled these expectations:

Maybe some of the first Prize winners, a pair of 1917 editorials from the Louisville Courier-Journal, can clue us in to what that "right direction" was. Written in support of U.S. involvement in World War I, one is called "Vae Victis" -- Woe to the Vanquished -- and the other, "War Has Its Compensations."

Perhaps we can go a long way if we simply follow these two quotes from Pulitzer.

Of Empires and Nation Building

David Yeagley's perspective

I have to take to task David Yeagley's long, interesting, but subtly flawed article on imperialism. He titles it, "The Meaning of Nationhood in a Globalist Society" and it was a speech presented at the Phi Beta Delta International Honor Society in April 2010.

I would like to first direct my criticism at the quote attributed to me in the speech in this blog post. I might take up his other points in later blog entries. He says:

There are African thinkers who, like Kidist Paulos Asrat, believe the African nations are all quite artificial, with boundaries superimposed by European imperial powers; some believe the African nations should be re-divided and re-established according to tribes, not according to economic resources—of benefit principally to the imperial powers drawing the boundaries.

First of all, Yeagley always refers to me as "African," "Ethiopian" and at one instance as "woman of the world." If he had qualified his "African" with "Canadian of African descent," perhaps we might have had a pleasant interaction going. But, his bottom line is his bottom line, and I have some pretty clear ideas why he's doing so. There's a funny quote by Camus where Camus says: "I believe in justice, but I'll defend my mother before justice." It reminds me of Yeagley who might say: "I believe in truth, but I will defend my Comanche tribe before truth." That is my harsh judgment. And Yeagley has many erudite and interesting ideas, but at the end of the day, they are tainted with this philosophy. So be it.

Back to African nations. I’ve never, in my forum interactions on his site, ever talked about "artificial" African nations with "boundaries superimposed by European imperial powers." His paraphrasing is incorrect. In fact, that sort of opinion reeks of leftist oppressive ideology, which I don’t subscribe to one bit. There are many reasons why the European powers created those boundaries. And, in spite of everything, these boundaries actually seem to work, so they were not so "artificial" after all. The Tutsi and Hutu case is extraordinary, in my opinion.

What I’ve talked about is the Ethiopian Empire, if you will, which was fully established in the 19th century, having started in the 18th. It was an empire created by the Amhara emperors. The Amhara were the single ruling tribe since the beginning of Christian Ethiopia. These emperors consolidated the various regions, including the Muslim regions in the southeast, the non-Amahara regions south and southwest, the Tigray and now what is known as Eritrea in the north, to create their Empire. My interpretation of this empire building is that it was: part missionary - to form one Christian nation by saving all these “heathens;” a way of controlling invading tribes from the south, who were encroaching into Amhara territory over the centuries; and the Ethiopians following the Europeans’ trend of colonizing African lands.

Imperialism is a complicated, subtle, geography-specific, ethnicity-specific enterprise. I think the overall effect of (and reason for) this Ethiopian empire-building was benign and beneficiary. All ethnicities within that empire were considered Ethiopians, and during Emperor Haile Selassie’s reign, there was even a sort of “affirmative action” where the Amhara were at times displaced for the benefit of these other tribes.

But, the consequences were tragic. This amalgam of peoples, this multi-ethnic, multicultural, multi-faith society finally fell apart. The poorer, southern tribes could never really catch up with the established northerners. Envy and disappointment was rampant. This finally resulted with Mengisut Haile Mariam, the Communist dictator, whose sole mission was to destroy the Amhara. By trying to do so, he almost succeeded in destroying Ethiopia. But, the problem was also with the Amharas. Their leaders were so steeped in Marxist and leftist ideologies that they never battled the premises of an imposter like Haile Mariam.

So, Yeagley is right that imperialism is a difficult structure with which to rule countries. But, its modus operandi is highly idiosyncratic, differing from region to region. Also, for empires to survive, some group has to take the reins and the leadership. The leadership has to be based on common traditional structures and some kind of transcendental belief system. The Ethiopian Empire was based on centuries of Christianity, and the leadership that the Amhara brought along with them. Once these became undermined, it became difficult to rule the country, and charlatans like Haile Mariam had easy access to wreak havoc.

One more thing I would like to add. Yeagley spends ample time on ancient Middle Eastern empires, and writes effusively on the Persian Empire. Yet, he hasn't even bothered to check his facts, or make some effort at informing himself on this particular "African" empire. He writes as though he doesn't even know that Ethiopia was never colonized, and that the Ethiopian "boundaries" that he attributes me to commenting on were not a result of European colonization, but of Ethiopian “colonization,” if you will.

I will leave alone my speculations on Yeagley's dearth of knowledge on African, and specifically Ethiopian, history, given that he has interacted with me numerous times on his forums. But it is fascinating to try and figure out what induces people to close off their curiosity.

Oprah's Mystique

Can Kitty Kelley expose it?


I'm not sure I will read Oprah's unauthorized biography. So much information has leaked out already, that it many not be necessary. For some reason, I'm also just not interested in her "story." It sounds rather boring to me, and a little too sordid.

My interest in Oprah has never really been in her "autobiography" but in how she managed to pull practically the whole female population of the planet into her world. I don't know what she has tapped into. She is not a particularly empathetic person, she is not very forthright either. Other than tell us her story of childhood sexual abuse, teen pregnancy and the consequent death of her infant son, she never talks much about herself. In fact, her abuse is a major part of her Oprah Show, shaping many of her programs. As one of her relatives says, all this may have been exaggerated. It is telling that these are the parts she focuses on most when presenting her background.

I think her mystique comes from this strange secrecy she maintains, along with her aloofness. I’m not sure Kitty Kelley’s unravelling will provide much more new information. I’m not sure it is more facts we need about Oprah, but more psychology. Not just, "who is she?" but, "what makes her tick?"

I’ve tried to answer the latter question once in a while in this blog, simply by watching her shows, and analyzing her behavior. One thing I noticed, for example, is that she craves attention; everything has to revolve around her, and if it doesn't, she has no qualms about setting that straight. She also often cries in her show, but I once watched her doing it quietly in a corner (she wasn’t in the main part of the show), and it seemed like she was crying for herself, rather than for the victim that was her guest. She's also addicted to human horror stories, the worse the better. Most of her guests have overcome their tragedies, but she seems to relish in recounting their stories, like picking at a scab. And she’s not as sophisticated and as cultured as she likes to make out. Her "favorite things" are simply items anyone can find and pick out from some high-end store. At the end of the day, she is a rather boring woman, with strange obsessions.

But, why do millions upon millions of women tune into her show, and follow her guidance through so many of their life's experiences? That is the $64,000 question. And I think I’m a little closer to answering it. No book offers yet, though!

My Oprah blog posts:

- Oprah and Sarah Gang Up on Bristol
- Sarah, Oprah and Hillary
- Why Does Oprah Cry on Air?
- Oprah and Martha
- Oprah, the Most Powerful Everywoman in America
- Oprah Power

What Do Women Want?

For home decor?

Pottery Barn cushion collection:
Left: Brighton Pillow Cover, $39.00
Right: Allover Coral Embroidered Pillow Cover, $35.00

I went to the Pottery Barn the other day. I didn't mean to go, since I find their items too expensive. But, I happened to be walking by, and I was interested to see their spring/summer fabrics.

I wasn't too disappointed, at least in the color and pattern choices. There are a lot of large floral patterns, and some nice sea-themed designs like starfish and shells. The florals were impressive, but they looked like they were made from fabrics I could buy at the fabric store. Some of the starfish and seashell pieces were a little empty and colorless.

But, I think in general it is a successful collection. The most important thing being the bright, colorful and cheerful patterns. They were a little over-priced, especially since I could make a similar cushion for probably less than ten dollars (labor not included). But, for people who don't have time to run around looking for fabric and to sew, a couple of bright accessories for $70 may not be too bad.

At the end of the day, I think women want cheerful, colorful homes. Those monochromatic, minimalist years are over. Even fancy stores like the Pottery Barn have acquiesced.

Hillary the "Yeswoman"

And her acquiescence to power


There was a point during Hillary's campaign when she really seemed a changed woman. She almost looked like she was turning into a conservative. I think that the unexpected rise of Obama, and her realization that some of his beliefs were more left than hers, perhaps made her say things that were more "right" than what she would ordinarily have said.

Even now, as Secretary of State, reporters have written glowing remarks about her tenacity, how she is hard working, and how she seems to connect with the people. And I keep thinking that her obvious intelligence would lead her away from her leftist ideology. That perhaps she would be transformed into an American Margaret Thatcher.

But, no such luck.

I see Hillary as an extension of the men around her. I don't see anything wrong with a woman being subservient to a husband, a father or an older brother. But, in Hillary's case, it always seems like she's hiding behind these figures, as though she really just cannot stand up for herself. Her ambitions for a political life seem simply like an afterthought to capitalize on the life she had led with her husband.

When Obama cleverly chose her for Secretary of State, he had to woo her into the position. She had run for President, lost, and was content to return to the semi-obscure life of a Senator. She didn’t seem to have any more fight left in her to continue her ambitions for the highest political position.

Hillary always seemed strong and tough as nails. But, she always keeps coming out as some kind of underdog – betrayed by her husband, and her presidency stolen from her by an impostor. And even now, despite exemplary reports from her colleagues, she is not advancing any independent thoughts or ideas, but is simply Obama’s yeswoman.

I’ve written before that I think if Hillary is to run for the next elections, it is Sarah Palin who will be her rival and not Obama. And whatever we may say about Sarah, we know that she has more fight in her than Hillary. I hope that Hillary doesn’t suffer through a second humiliation. But then, Hillary seems to admire power. And she might indeed give her loyal services to a President Sarah Palin, just like she’s doing for Obama, and like she did for Bill Clinton.

Who Plays the Sport Determines How It Is Played

Observations from the sidelines

This image is courtesy of Debbie Schlussel's webpage.
I mischievously googled "butch female basketball players"
and this is the first image that came up. Schlussel
titles her piece "Man or Woman?: Weird Basketball’s
Tenth Anniversary (WNBA)." Read all about it at her site,
it's pretty funny.

I was pretty good at an English sport called netball. It is like basketball, except there is no bouncing - just passing the ball. I was a good shooter, and a good dodger – and sprinter too. So, when I left England and crossed the "pond" as they say, to go to college, I thought I would try out for the basketball team. I got the idea because I became friends with a girl on the team, so I asked her what I had to do to join. She very nicely told me that the sport is rough, and that I was too short and too small. (I'm about 5.2, and at seventeen I looked maybe fifteen, with small bones and frame). I was a little insulted. But, I went to a game, and I understood exactly what she meant.

I kept my friendship with the girl for a while, then I started to see her deteriorate. I don't think she ever finished college. As I became more accustomed to things, I realized that the female basketball team was notorious for being filled with lesbians. And these lesbians were pressuring the girl to be "one of them." She was just a naive freshman.

I mentioned to someone recently how female basketball is played by a bunch of butch lesbians, and they direct the way the game is played – which is rough and ugly. And no, female sports doesn't have to be rough and ugly to be on par with male sports. Well, here are a couple of posts, one at VFR and another at AltRight (yes, at AltRight) on how sports take on different characteristics with the kinds of players involved.

I think female basketball's butch lesbians and the hubristic black golf (and everything else) players have been given too much of a free ride. People have been very patient with them. I’m glad that Americans are reclaiming their sports.

What's Hair Got to Do with It?

The Governor General goes natural

I've always thought that the Governor General Michaelle Jean was erratic and a little unstable. She was at one time associated with Quebec separatism, admittedly while she was much younger. But, her inauguration speech didn't convince me she was totally all for Canada. And to make things worse, the coat of arms she chose is a hodge-podge of mostly voodoo symbols.

Prime Minister Harper is now looking for a replacement. I don't really know why he's doing that. Jean is very popular. I think people like the relaxed, party-like atmosphere she brings to the job, dancing and singing where she will, crying in public, her emotional "I love you" to the crowds she addresses. But, people forget that her position is a very important and formal one. She is the representative of the Queen. Perhaps Harper feels this way too. Or he wants his own government to appoint a Governor General - Jean stayed when Paul Martin left.

I have written about her in this article, so I won't go into too much detail, except to say: look at her new hairstyle.


I'm not sure what brought this on. Jean is a little erratic, as I've mentioned above. But, even if she were trying to go "native", this is bizarre. There are so many more beautiful options she could take, rather than this messy frizz.

How about braids? If Jean is so bent on going "natural" then why not go for the really exotic African braids that are neatly, perfectly and artistically done?


Cornrows from Sahan African Hair Braiding

Back for More Postings

I've been busy with some projects, one of which included an email correspondence with climate change researchers, who had some flaws in their data. I brought two problems to their attention, and left others unsaid. So, long story short, I won't even bother to present the information here, since it really shows nothing interesting (or accurate, in my humble assessment).

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

And his adolescent obsessions

The new "right wing" website Alternative Right is becoming a source brimming with amusing articles. There are several political issues I will take on later, as I did with Peter Brimelow of Vdare (here), Ilana Mercer (here), Conservative American Indian David Yeagley (here) the Secular Right's Heather MacDonald (here). The question of right wing and conservative seems to be an elusive one, and many of these attempts reveal strange, weak points, which even I, an amateur, can identify.

Well, here is an article at Alternative Right  by some guy called Scott Locklin, which he titles "The Case For Open Borders." It is about finding non-American women for dating purposes. Locklin doesn't seem too concerned about marriage and children, although from his photo he looks like he's in his early forties. What man in his early forties obsesses about dating, like some adolescent? I noticed this same adolescent streak in another recent contributor to Alternative Right, Denis Mangan.

Locklin writes:

My F.O.B.-dar [Fresh off the Boat-dar] is so finely tuned, I can spot a Russian, Eritrean or Serb at 50 paces, and I'll know if a Korean in America was raised in Los Angeles or is from the old country long before she opens her mouth. They seem to do a decent job of finding me as well; perhaps they notice my surfeit of self-respect compared to other American men -- that's how I spot my xenosexual brothers.

What a moron. Maybe what these astute women are seeing is some American male, who looks a little lost and indecisive, who seems bent on chatting them up in a clumsy adolescent fashion, and who will certainly make a great catch for THEIR "status monkey games (muuuust get big house)," as he writes about his fellow-American women. He doesn't know the half of it.

Many of San Fransicso's Landmarks Still Standing

Scenes from the San Fran of Hitchcock's Vertigo compared to the present day

Judy approaching her apartment in the Empire Hotel

Film buffs can be obsessive. Here is someone who compiled all the prominent landmarks - mostly buildings - that occur in Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo, and found that many of them still exist today. Some are even better looking than their originals. This is truly heart-warming since so many buildings have been demolished over the years, especially in the late 1960s and early 70s.

Even if you haven't watched the film, it is a pleasure to see these 1958 photographs, some with street scenes with people and cars. I don't want to sound nostalgic, but there is something dignified about that epoch. The people, the cars, and even those buildings, which are almost exactly the same in the 21st century, had some kind of gravitas. It could be the warm tone of the photographs. But things did look more formal; most of the men wore hats, and the women were in heels and well-tailored clothes even when it looks like they were just out shopping.

The Taking of Christ

By Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio

The Taking of Christ, Caravaggio, 1602

New Article at Frontpage Magazine

"Truth and Fiction in Polanski’s The Ghost Writer"

Frontpagemag.com's editor was kind enough to publish my long article on the The Ghost Writer, the new film by Roman Polanski. My article is overly long. But, it is mostly a description of the visual elements of the film. I really wrote it as a guide for moviegoers, to help them to understand the cinematic language that very good directors like Polanski use. Most films these days are just special effects, with simplistic visual and sound elements. Polanski has made a subtle film, with sophisticated direction.

The film review is also more of a cinematic review rather than a political take on what has now become a Polanski cliché. Many reviewers consider this film to be anti-American. I'm not so sure, and neither is one of the commenters on the article. In fact, I try to prove that it is not an anti-American film, which is a political stance on its own. But, to be fair, I concentrated much more on reviewing the visuals (and the sounds) of the film, rather than connecting it to politics.