Canadian Cincinnatus

Fashion designers are not creative

I don’t know about you but I hate the way the fashion world congratulates itself on its creativity. Creativity is defined as the ability to create. A writer is creative when he takes a blank sheet of paper and fills it with words. This is distinct from editing, that is taking existing words and sentences and improving them. Editing is sort of creative but it is nothing like putting pen to paper in order to express an original thought. Fashion designers imagine themselves to be creative in the first sense. Their blank piece of paper are rolls of cloth and their act of creativity is to design clothes from them that are pleasing to the eye. But is this what they really do?

If you look at the history of fashion, you see remarkably few new ideas.  A lot of current fashion is merely past fashion that has been brought back. And when you do see completely new fashion designs, they rarely originate from the fashion studios of Paris and Milan (or wherever fashion studios are located). Usually they come from some subculture. The fashion world’s only real act of creativity is to pick out the pre-existing fashion and market it to the mainstream. For instance, the fashions of the 1990’s and early 2000’s were inspired by the rap subculture (which in turn originated from the black gang subculture); the fashions of the 80’s came largely from the punk and new wave movements; the fashions of the late 60’s and early 70’s started out with hippies; cargo pants and camo patterns have been taken from the military; and tight-fitting spandex workout-wear came from bicyclists.

Most of the rest of our fashions are recycled from the past. Miniskirts were in style in the 60’s and early 70’s. They came back in the 90’s but were out in-between. The styles of today are becoming more and more influenced by the 1970’s (as the baggy 90’s style clothes fade away). I used to think that bringing back old styles was done merely to channel nostalgia, but the more I think about it, another important reason for it is the lack of creativity among clothes designers.

Take men’s suits. These haven’t changed much for a century. It is interesting to note that where men’s dress suit styles have changed significantly, it has been to get rid of stuff that used to be acceptable. No more spats, tails, walking sticks or top hats. All that today’s men’s fashion designers have to do is to decide whether blazers should have 2 or 3 buttons this year and whether vests are in or out. (Of course, a side benefit of this creativity drought is that a good quality suit in a conservative style can be worn successfully for decades.)

The only fashion trend I can think of that was created ex nihilo by a fashion designer was the bikini, which is still going strong after 60 years.

The uncreativeness of clothing designers first really struck me a few years ago when I chanced upon an article about a designer who had brought back tight-fitting t-shirts for women. He was a nobody who happened to notice a previously unremarked-upon trend, that young women were buying t-shirts in boy’s sizes because they felt that the baggy t-shirts that the fashion world was then selling to them were ugly (which I agree). In response, he created a line of t-shirts for women that were tight fitting. Basically, he took existing boy’s t-shirts and sold them to women (after making a few rudimentary adjustments for fit). For this conceptual breakthrough, he made a fortune and was hailed a genius. When I read this, I though, that’s it? That’s all you have to do to be considered a genius in the fashion world (and make a gazillion)? Sure is easier being a genius in the fashion than in physics.

All of which justifies my belief that the fashion world is among the most useless and frivolous aspect of modern society. 

 

Gun registry battle good political move for Tories in today’s political climate

John Ivison had a very perceptive article in the National Post yesterday on the politics surrounding the gun registry battle. Some highlights are:

In the eyes of the government, not all registries are created equal. While law-abiding citizens who happen to hunt ducks can be trusted, our political class cannot. The fact that both registries are expensive bureaucratic paper mountains is ignored, not to mention the ideological inconsistency. But the Conservatives have correctly judged the public mood — anger at the intrusiveness and expense of government; disillusionment at the failure of public institutions to address the issues people care about; distrust in the ability of politicians to fix their problems.

The bill to scrap the registry is fundamentally a protest against lawmakers who have forgotten that the purpose of the law is not to tell people how to live their lives, but to bridge differences. Just as the fox hunting ban in Britain became a rallying point for opposition to the former Labour government, even among people who didn’t hunt, so the gun registry is becoming a symbol of out of touch legislators, even for people who don’t own guns.

I think this is just about right. However, Ivison ends his article in a cautionary note for the federal Conservatives:

“The broader and more unpredictable upshot is how it impacts on the resentment that seems to be rippling across the continent. From the Tea Party in the U.S. to the Wild Rose Party in Alberta; from Rob Ford’s mayoral campaign in Toronto to the anti-HST movement in B.C., there seems to be a growing feeling that government is no longer for the people, by the people.

In B.C., Alberta and Ontario, this mood is manifesting itself as an anti-incumbency vote. The federal Conservatives, aware they’ve driven up the cost of government as much as any Liberal government...”

“As U.S. pollster Scott Rasmussen said recently: “The major division in this country is no longer between parties but between political elites and the people.” Something similar is in the wind in Canada and it looks like the Conservatives have sniffed the danger signs.”

This is, of course, good news for Rob Ford and Ontario’s opposition leader, Tim Hudak. The problem for Stephen Harper is that, as Prime Minister for the last 4 years, he is now indelibly identified with the ruling class.

However, the Tea Party saga south of the border has embedded within it an object lesson of how an establishment figure can survive and prosper in such an environment. I am speaking of Senator John McCain. Prior to the Tea Party, McCain was the mainstream media’s best bud and a ‘maverick’, who delighted in bucking the conservatives within his own party. His signature policies were amnesty, McCain-Feingold free speech restrictions, bipartisanship and ‘reaching across the aisle’. All of this should have killed McCain with a stick. But it didn’t. Unlike snarlin’ Arlen Specter, Bob Bennett, Charlie Crist, Lisa Murkowski and Mike Castle, McCain - to his great credit - saw very early on that the US political climate had undergone a seismic shift. As a result of this foresight, he decisively changed his views and handily beat Tea Party challenger J. D. Hayworth. You may call his about-face on amnesty hypocrisy-in-action but you also have to admit that it worked. All those others didn’t get it and still don’t get it. And now they are ruined.

Stephen Harper has to channel McCain. He should highlight politically incorrect issues that separate voters from the latte liberals, things like gun control. When the Liberals complain about conservative overspending, retaliate by introducing a series of budget cuts in the House – to stuff the Liberals love, like the CBC. See what Iggy does then. 

As Mike Downtown pointed out in the previous post, one of the secrets of Rob Ford’s success is that he doesn’t make the slightest effort to appeal to political correctness. The people like that. It’s authentic. Therefore finishing the gun registry should be a banner item in the next federal election campaign (assuming it fails today). Nothing reinforces your anti-establishment street cred like opposing gun control.

And don’t forget stopping the government subsidy to political parties!

 

Why a Right Wing Mayor Mayoralty Candidate is Winning in a Left Wing City

Some would say voter frustration with Toronto's arrogant city unions is why Rob Ford is ahead of the Toronto Star's anointed for mayor, George Smitherman, but it goes far deeper than that.

Ford is ahead because he continues to frame the debate, despite all that Smitherman, Rossi, or Thompson can do.  Ford has been a one issue guy for ten years: cut city spending.  He wants to do it by contracting out garbage collection and anything else he can, and by cutting councillors' generous expense accounts, etc.  Ford's most important promise is to end the party councillors are having at city hall on the tax payers dime.

When this election began the left just laughed at Rob Ford, and someone in Torstar media, the parent company of the Toronto Star, went so far as to edit the wikipedia entry on Rob Ford to redirect people to a phony website designed to ridicule Ford, proving once again that news from the Toronto Star is neither fair nor balanced.

But then the polls came out placing Ford in the lead. Suddenly Smitherman and Rossi began talking about taking back city hall and cutting expenses.  Smitherman even promised a two year property tax freeze.

However Smitherman's sudden air of fiscal responsibility doesn't ring true from the man who cost Ontario tax payers a billion dollars on the e-heath scandal with nothing to show for it.  Even those who are only vaguely aware of the ridiculous sole-source contract he awarded to Samsung for wind power, which is set to substantially  increase electricity costs, have a sense that when it comes to spending, Smitherman is the opposite of Ford.  This is probably why people have taken to calling him Slitherman.

But just when the others thought they could out-talk Ford on spending, he jumped ahead, stating that it was time to end the war on the car, get rid of traffic-blocking street cars and build subways.  Once again, Ford is framing the debate.

The left is apoplectic.  The idea is the opposite of politically correct, where global warming is a sacrosanct concept and cars are the ultimate evil.  But Ford's position resonates with voters, who are sick of sitting in traffic beside empty bike lanes and empty street car right-of-ways.

Ford is winning because he isn't making even the tiniest attempt to cater to the mushy middle of the vote.  And Ford is winning despite everything the pundits from the MSM can throw at him.  Indeed, their anti-Ford rhetoric may be helping him, because the voters have also lost faith in the judgment of the MSM.

David Miller's Toronto is about to change.

Mike Downtown

BTW: I see a new poll came out this morning before I could even publish this that puts Ford at 45% of decided voters, far ahead of the pack.

America Institutes Sharia Law

Still think we will never have Sharia law in North America? Guess again. Sharia law is here already, and we still haven't figured it out.

On September 11 2001, Jihadists flew airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing almost 3000 people. At that time, the western world discovered that we had been at war with Islam for a decade or more, we just didn't realize it. History is repeating itself.

The news of a small time preacher, to a parish of some 40 people in Florida, planned a September 11th demonstration to burn the Koran as a statement that Islam is a religion of the devil. The news spread like wildfire and a small protest in Afghanistan found it's way to the covers of newspapers around the world. The General in charge of Iraq and Afghanistan pleaded for the pastor to cancel the burning. Leaders from every party and every western nation denounced the planned protest, including the President of the United States and unlikely bedfellow, Tea Party darling, Sarah Palin. All demanded that the Koran burning be cancelled. The US Federal Bureau of Investigation, twice (at least) visited the Pastor Jones. An event that would make anybody's guts turn to liquid.

The Pastor has now cancelled the Koran burning. Who wouldn't. It was clear that nobody was going to come to the Pastor's defense.

Legal experts and government officials have repeatedly stated that Pastor Jones was fully within his Constitutional rights to hold such a demonstration. There was no legal way to stop him, yet he has cancelled the demonstration, in full accordance with Sharia Law. There is no need for Islamists to change the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights. They don't care about them anyhow. We have just provided evidence that Islam already has the power to institute Sharia Law upon the western world, and are doing it.  How long will it be before we realize it?

WiseGuy

 

 

America's elites and Koran burnings

The contrast between the reaction of America’s elites to the Ground Zero Mosque and to the Koran burning by Pastor Jones is instructive.

On one matter, they focus on religious freedom. On the other, they stress the need to be sensitive to other religions. However, in both cases, freedom of religious expression is an issue; and in both cases, people are being deliberately offended. The only difference is whose religious freedom is at issue and whose honour is being offended.

To America’s elites, the freedom of a religious nutcase is sacred only when he is anti-American. If the loon happens to also be a patriot, now that is intolerable!

I think it is becoming increasingly clear that the first step in winning the clash of civilizations between the West and Islam is to replace our decadent, guilt-addled ‘elites’.

 

Concerning the Ground Zero Mosque and Koran burnings

Is General Patraeus a Coward? 

I can understand politicians and newspapermen expressing their fear of Islamist reprisals for the Koran burning planned for September 11th, but I can't excuse General Patraeus. While there may be room to argue that US soldiers may be put in more danger by such an event, I think it is a stretch at best. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda are already hell bent on killing as many infidels as they can find. It is hard to imagine them getting any more upset. More important is the duty of the US military, which is to protect the Constitution of the United States, which just happens to defend the rights of Pastor Jones, not the unreasonable sensibilities of foreigners. Correct me if I am missing something, but the General appears to me to be demonstrating cowardice, before the enemy. This is a far more damaging event than burning a few Korans.

The fear shown by politicians, the media, and now the military, regarding this non-event, are demonstrating the effectiveness of terrorism. When the Dutch newspaper was attacked for publishing political cartoons depicting Mohammed, the world's news media lay down in fear rather than showing courage by publishing the cartoons en-mass. An opportunity to deliver a victorious blow to the Islamists, was squandered. The lesson for terrorists is that their tactics are working. The west has already surrendered the free press, and shows little sign of trying to win it back. Is the military about to follow suit?

As to the Koran burners, they may be on to something. They just need to adjust their tactics slightly. Perhaps they should insist that the Democrats ban abortion or else they will burn a Koran a day until their demands are met.

WiseGuy

The paradox of evangelical Christianity

A while ago I was stuck behind a red light in East York. I noticed that the car in front of me had the the Darwin fish logo on it. You know the symbol. It is a take-off on the fish symbol that many Christians have on the back of their cars exept that the Darwin fish has little feet stuck on the bottom of the fish, to symbolize evolution. The implication being that devout Christians who don’t believe in evolution are backwards in their thinking. Clever riff, I thought. Then I noticed in addition to the Darwin fish, the car had a gay nations flag.

My next thought was, is this guy conscious of the irony involved here? 

What I mean is this: Charles Darwin argued in The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection that the principal mechanism that drove evolution and explained biological diversity was natural selection. Well what does natural selection care about? Only one thing: a species’, an individual‘s or gene’s fitness function.  What’s a fitness function? Partly it can be measured by IQ tests and bench press contests, but an irreplacable central element is the number of offspring you have.

And who has the most offspring? evangelical Christians or urban hipsters? (And by that term I include heterosexual downtown trendys as well.) Natural selection doesn’t care whether you believe in natural selection or not. All it cares about is your fitness.

I know, I know. It is not just a race to see who can have the most babies. Quality counts as much, or sometimes even more, than quantity. This is true. But it is also true that, as a bare minimum, in order to be fit you have to reproduce at least at a replacement level. And if you want to be fitter than a population that has significantly more babies on average than your group, you are bumping up against a quality curve that is very steep. But regardless, if you have no kids, you aren’t fit. By definition.

I wonder if the guy with the Darwin fish on his car ever stopped to think about the impications of the theory of natural selection on him?

 

Jennifer Rubin on Sarah Palin

According to Jennifer Rubin, Sarah Palin is in the process of redefining feminism and the left is both apoplectic about it and completely impotent when it comes to doing anything about it.

“She certainly has them on the run. At the National Mall rally on Saturday, Sarah Palin delivered an eloquent and moving tribute to servicemen and a nonpartisan call to restore — not transform — America. The complete text should be read in full. (If you are not moved to tears by the stories of three heroic military men, you have a heart of stone.)”

“Meanwhile, Palin clearly has the left in a tizzy. They have finally gotten it: she is redefining feminism.”

“You see, Palin has proved by example that a woman politician need not spout the pro-big government, pro-abortion, pro-welfare-state line. ‘Ms. Palin has spent much of 2010 burnishing her political bona fides and extending her influence by way of the Mama Grizzlies, a gang of Sarah- approved, maverick-y female politicians looking to “take back” America with “common-sense” solutions.’ She sure did, and she proved herself to be the most effective female politician in the country. Sorry, Hillary — while you have been playing errand girl for the Obama foreign-policy train wreck, Palin has ascended to the throne. (Nancy Pelosi’s days are numbered.) The left is waving the white flag of surrender.”

“Palin not only trumped the left on style but she also managed to connect on nearly every issue — ObamaCare, bailouts, Israel, taxes, American exceptionalism, and the stimulus plan — in a way the president and his liberal supporters could not. For all of her supposed lack of ‘policy muscle,’ it was she who defined the debate on ObamaCare and she who synced up with the Tea Party’s small-government, personal-responsibility, anti-tax-hike message.”

It constantly amazes me how the ‘smart people’ berate her, calling her a ditz and a bimbo and a hick and a dumb, beauty contest winner. And yet, incident after incident, issue after issue, the dumb rube outfoxes the sophisticates and comes out on top. It almost makes me wonder who really is the ignorant rube here.

I think at any given time, there are a small number of naturally gifted politicians in the US. In the 1990’s, conservatives were cursing Bill Clinton for being one of them. I believe Sarah Palin is another. It is the left’s folly to misunderestimate her.

 

The importance of the Glenn Beck rally at the Lincoln Memorial

I have been writing a lot about Glenn Beck’s Restoring Honour rally recently because I believe that, looking back on it, it will be viewed as a watershed event in American culture. There are a couple of important posts by writer Lexington Green at the Chicago Boyz website that I think hit the nail right on the head:

“The Glenn Beck rally is confusing people.

Why?

He is aiming far beyond what most people consider to be the goalposts.

Using Boyd’s continuum for war: Material, Intellectual, Moral.

Analogously for political change: Elections, Institutions, Culture.

Beck sees correctly that the Conservative movement had only limited success because it was good at level 1, for a while, weak on level 2, and barely touched level 3. Talk Radio and the Tea Party are level 3 phenomena, popular outbreaks, which are blowing back into politics. “

 “Beck is creating positive themes of unity and patriotism and freedom and independence which are above mere political or policy choices, but not irrelevant to them. Political and policy choices rest on a foundation of philosophy, culture, self-image, ideals, religion. Change the foundation, and the rest will flow from that. Defeat the enemy on that plane, and any merely tactical defeat will always be reversible.”

Lexington Green, in an earlier post, describes the problem and says what must be done:

Why does the Ruling Class, using Codevilla’s term, have such strong cultural confidence? 

And what can we do to undermine it?

If I had to pick an ultimate target for activism and action by Conservatives, Libertarians, Tea Partiers, and common-sense Conservatives, it would be strengthening to diamond-hardness the cultural confidence of those who believe in the American way of life –free enterprise, limited government, personal freedom — and nuking out the foundations of the cultural confidence of our opponents. That is, long term, the most important thing. Many things in the short and medium term have to come first, but that is the long term goal.

John Boyd said that war is waged on the material, intellectual and moral plane, and the moral plane is the most important. 

Winning elections would be the material plane, winning arguments among people who read about and care about policy would be the intellectual plane, but getting people to be proud of the American way of life, and making its enemies embarrassed and ashamed to hold their views and to come to despise and mock their own signs and symbols of class solidarity, that would be bringing the conflict to a victorious conclusion on the moral plane. 

I see the Beck rally as the latest step of a process that started with Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980. When Reagan was elected, the movement to restore American values in America was top down. In fact it was just one man: Ronald Reagan. Aside from a few conservative and libertarian think tanks and magazines like National Review, the Reason Foundation and the CATO Institute, it was Ronald Reagan and the unorganized, silent majority that supported him.

But by the 1994 revolution, things had evolved – a bit. Though the Contract with America was the brainchild of one man – Newt Gingrich - and a lot of his fellow Republican congressmen were merely political opportunists happy to surf the wave of anger against Hillarycare and the assault rifle ban to electoral success - there was nevertheless many true believers with him: Rick Santorum, Jim Inhofe, Tom Coburn, etc. The center of mass of the conservative revival had moved downwards a notch.

But concurrently with this political development, there was a parallel cultural development – the birth of the alternate media. Talk radio, Fox News and the internet was a cultural not political phenomenon but it nevertheless liberated conservatives and libertarians from the shackles of the mainstream media. For the first time, the silent majority could bypass the mainstream media’s (really, the gatekeeper media’s) stranglehold on information. The center of mass moved a little further downwards.

Which brings us to the present day when the grassroots are spontaneously organizing into Tea Parties. And much to the consternation of the establishmentarians of both parties, it is they who are now driving the political process. Beck’s rally crystallizes the cultural aspirations of this revival. As Mark Steyn recently said, culture is upstream of politics. Glenn Reynolds has called the Tea Party movement the Third Great Awakening and I think he is right. 

My prediction: the next development of America’s conservative revival will be the gestalt switch when the conservative alternate media becomes America’s new mainstream media. Look for that to happen in the next several years.