Left: Vera Wang Red Wedding Dress, Chinese Style. Spring 2013 Right: Amsale Wedding Dress. Spring 2013: Silhouette in White Lace
Wang has red wedding dresses for Spring 2013. Although she doesn't specifically come out and say it, it is clear that her influence is the red wedding clothes worn at Chinese weddings.
This blogger found out more information about the background to this all-red 2013 bridal collection by Wang:
Vera Wang’s collection was titled “Mei Meng” (with accompanying Chinese characters) which means, “Dream.” Per the notes in Wang’s spring 2013 lookbook:
Beautiful dream. The symbolism of Red. Boldly romantic, charming, protective, grand, seductive, sexy. From dahlia to scarlet, crimson and vermilion. A celebration of love.
Another thing that struck me is how unattractive (or unattractively made-up, with dishevelled hair, etc) Wang's models look, compared to the well-styled Amsale models. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wrote to a correspondent about my posts on swimwear designer Jessica Rey (see below for links to posts on Rey):
I hate to say this, but this is how I find Asians. They have a certain level of intelligence and cleverness, but it gets lost in SOMETHING. What we end up getting, as a society which now seems to worship Asians, is things slightly below our standards, which we accept for now, but will eventually, incrementally, begin to notice the differences.
The seller calls it a "secretary dress." The 1950s secretary, even in her busy job, worried about the her dress: that the dress doesn't crease, that it covers her legs, that necklace isn't too tight and clunky, that the narrow skirt doesn't impede her movements too much. She would try to look as stylish and attractive as possible, but shouldn't overdo it for fear of getting unwanted attention from her boss and other male co-workers. But, if she is too dowdy, she would attract attention, although negative this time. She had to (and did) find time to carefully plan her outfits.
Compare the "secretary dress" with the fashionable, yet comfortable, suit of the 1950s businessman.
Now, we have the harried business woman. She has business meetings to attend, business trips that take her out of her city if not country, reports to write, strategies to plan, all while competing with that pariah: her male colleague. And at the end of the day, she makes plans to get her children from school (nannies and husbands come in handy), and perhaps out of guilt and her children still depend on her, runs errands for a tasty take-out meal (prepared just for families like hers). She NEEDS comfortable clothes and shoes.
But, since "She is Woman, Hear Her Roar," she cannot look feminine (that weak creature). She has to wear the pants. She is a working woman, after all.
The Diversity of Working Woman! All have one thing in common: drabness. Drabness which pretends to stand for practicality, with flat shoes, (mostly) loose skirts dresses - and pants to hide those extra pounds, (mostly) two pieces - that "business suit," (mostly) no color or pattern. And let's leave those tight, short skirts for the up and coming young ones.
But, there seems to be a strange backlash. Younger girls, who reject their dowdy mothers' outfits, but who have had the "girl power" message of their feminist elders drilled into them, want to look feminine and strong. What better than to accentuate their power through their sexuality? So we get girls in heavy make-up, wearing tremendously high heels, and clothes that cling to their body like a second skin.
Girl Power in Pretty Pink
Rey Swimwear Photo Shoot, 2012 How does one look like a business woman in front of swimwear models? Look modestly practical, but wear the skirt a little above the knees, to fit in with all those half-naked bodies. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claire Stevens, commenting at Laura Wood's Thinking Housewife, writes:
To me, Jessica Rey looks like an Asian version of Jenna Lyons, the lesbian president and creative director of J.Crew. Perhaps Jessica did that on purpose? Saying you’re modest and fashionable while looking similar to one of the supposedly most influential women in fashion seems pretty business savvy to me.
I don't know if we should read conspiracy theories into Rey's life and designs, but I do agree that she's following some kind of general uniform that makes contemporary women look alike. So, in a sense, it is a savvy business strategy, to look like other women, and especially successful white women, in order not to look too alien or different from the main culture.
I've posted on Jenna Lyons. She has a chaotic and destructive personal life, which I've written about here, although her business of running J. Crew seems to be going perfectly OK. I commented on one of her appearances:
Lyons has on an attractive floral skirt (bottom left), yet she wears it with a masculine blazer and dark, thick tights, not the feminine stockings it calls for.
The masculine/feminine of Lyons' attire
Rey opted for bland and pretty with her dress. Given that she is a public figure, making speeches in different parts of the country, and that she makes her living as a designer of clothing (albeit swimwear), one would think she invest more in her own appearance.
I wrote earlier that Rey may not be interested in beauty. I think it is her harried life that subverts beauty, where the practical is preferred. Beautiful clothes, shoes, hairstyles, glasses all take time to put together. A beautiful dress is also often not very comfortable, or easy to manage. Rather the quick, practical dress, for the busy, and even chaotic, life of the modern career woman.
Like the one she's wearing below, at a Power Rangers convention in August 2012, where she's pitching her web series No Nerds Here with her former Power Rangers co-actors.
She looks tired and weak, and she's possibly wondering what she's doing leaving a young child and her husband behind.
Her co-stars are Nakia Burrise (far left), who looks alert and strong. She is also married, with two children, but her current activity is charity work planning field trips and excursions for the inner-city children she teaches. She may be busy, but the community charity work must give her renewed energy.
To Rey's right is Catherine Sutherland. Since she left Power Rangers around 2002, Sutherland has kept quiet, getting married and raising two children. Her work since has been minimal: voice overs, and a couple of acting roles.
So, it is Rey who has taken on an ambitious post-Power Rangers career of a business woman. And it shows.
She still manages to pep herself up with cool finger flicks, as she makes her pitch in this video:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Common Marigold is familiar to everyone, with its pale-green leaves and golden orange flowers. It is said to be in bloom on the calends of every month, hence its Latin name [Calendula officinalis]... It was not named after the Virgin, its name being a corruption of the Anglo-Saxon merso-meargealla, the Marsh Marigold. Old English authors called it Golds or Ruddes. It was, however, later associated with the Virgin Mary, and in the seventeenth century with Queen Mary.[More at the site]
I picked a flower, to look closely, and to smell its scent. As Wikipedia describes it, "Marigold foliage has a musky, pungent scent." Yes, it is strong, but not unpleasant. A kind of fresh, leafy scent, with a muskiness.
I then wondered if any perfumes use this scent. So I went to Fragrantica, the online perfume site, and searched under "marigold."
Ralph Lauren complex Escape gives it Top Note importance.
So, it is not hidden in the middle notes, or used as a supporting base note, but is right there at the top. I didn't expect that. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, rather than comment on the truth of my statements, they talk about my writing style.
I will now begin to dissect their comments, the ones which Laura has simply posted without adding her comments. I actually think this is worthy of my time, although I would much rather be researching on my book and article projects, or reading one of the eight books on my reading list (there is a new one I'll be getting - Jim Kalb's which just came out: Against Inclusiveness: How the Diversity Regime is Flattening America and the West and What to Do About It).
Above is video from photo shoot for a commercial for Rey's swimsuits, with plenty of half-naked models (male and female) in the skimpy Rey swimwear, and some in underwear.
Diana J. writes early on in the post at Laura's site:
What exactly is the jab about Catholicism at the end of Kidist’s post? ...[She is] saying that religion is not an appropriate alternative? How is embracing one’s commitment to God not reclaiming beauty?
I agree this is confusing, but I found Rey's bland, uninteresting style to be hypocritically puritanical. I think God wants beauty for us and for the world. Rey's dressed down style seems to say that she is a "good Catholic." Yet, she goes out of her way to design "beautiful" swimsuites. I will pick up on this at a later post, how "beauty" is misrepresented and misunderstood by today's modern, feminist women.
Diana J. continues:
It’s one thing to disagree, but the snide remarks almost make it seem like Kidist has some sort of personal vendetta against Rey.
Why would I have a personal vendetta against Rey? I just know of her through her various online and merchandising enterprises.
And Claire Stevens writes, in my defense:
I read with interest the comments from others concerning Kidist’s post on Jessica Rey, then I went and read Kidist’s post. From the comments on your site I was expecting a much harsher critique by Kidist than what I found.
And finally, here are some excerpts from Paul T.'s comment, who is the most vocal (or verbal) of the commenters. I have added my reactions to his comments in bold:
Paul T: [The] rambling, catty quality of [Kidist's] attacks on Rey weakens her persuasiveness and credibility. KPA: Pure ad hominem
Then Paul T. proceeds to "describe" my case against Rey.
- Paul T.: Rey, though American-born, is an Asian invader of our culture - KPA: I will not shy away from this one. I have observed, over and over, that Asians, even up to third generation immigrant Asians, identify ethnically with their culture. With the increased numbers we are seeing in Canada (and America), Asians will be a dominant group soon, influencing us with their own version of non-American, but American-created Aisanness. - Paul T: She is running a for-profit enterprise, so her arguments on behalf of modesty are tainted with insincerity - KPA: What I'm saying is that she is using her "modesty" angle to attract people who would be interested in modesty, which is much larger than we think - concerned parents, young girls who do not want to show their flesh (maybe they're overweight, underweight, generously endowed, etc.) . So yes, she is insincere, since she's using it to make money. - Paul T.: Her swimsuits are overpriced in comparison with (Third-World-sweatshop-supplied) Wal-Mart’s — sorry, but Kidist raised Wal-Mart a second time, so it’s fair to mention it again KPA: What's wrong with saying what is true? Walmart prices are lower, and the suites comparitivley attractive. China made? I've addressed that too, here and here. Walmart is working hard at contracting American designers. - Paul T.: While some find her swimsuits beautiful, she herself dresses like a frump - KPA: Again, no refutation with examples. "She dresses like a frump" is an objective statement. If Paul T. thinks it is subjective (i.e. opinionated), or wrong, the burden is on him to show us how and why. - Paul T.: Her arms are too pumped-up from exercise, suggesting raised testosterone levels which probably make her still more aggressive in business - KPA: I've provided a short, external, report to show the validity of this statement. I didn't make it. Paul T. again simply dismisses it. - Paul T.: Clearly, she goes to the gym, which takes away time from the performance of her family responsibilities... - KPA: I used to go to the gym two to three times a week. It takes weeks before any kind of moulding of muscles takes place. Once there, one has to go regularly to maintain them. Even a week away from the gym can change the muscle tone. These shapes don't come easy! - Paul T.: She espouses [sic] - KPA: Clever Paul T. is trying to catch me out on language. - Paul T.: [Rey is following a ] puritanical’ Catholicism rather than a sincere regard for beauty, in fact she is out to “stifle beauty in our culture” (!) - KPA: I will grant Paul T. that this is a little confusing. I think the reason Rey's swimsuits look better than her speech getup is because she knows that women will go for beautiful things. Yet, she deosn't reciprocate that belief with her own attire. So, her schtick for beauty is a marketing device, rather than a true belief in beauty. But, I will write more in this later, since beauty is my theme, and Rey use is sophisticated and deceptive. - KPA: The Exclamation mark! In brackets, no less (!) He thinks he is speaking to an "in" crowd which will marvel at my stupidity as much as he does (!). - Paul T.: As an actress she never rose above parts in forgettable TV shows. - KPA: Well she didn't. Who watches Power Rangers and who watches day-time soap operas, unless it is bored housewives who should be getting their home in order? Does Paul T. watch these shows? No? I thought so. And who cares about soaps except for bored, unintelligent women who stay home (I won't call them housewives), while their husbands are out slogging away, and their children have been scuttled off to all-day schools?)
After the Power Rangers, Rey had one or two-episode parts in four television shows. This makes me think that she's waiting for the time her kids are grown (i.e. five, six and in school) before she takes on other acting roles.
Actually, she has started a "mockumentary web series" No Nerds Here "about fan conventions starring former Power Rangers."
Here is the the exhausted-looking Jessica Rey doing finger-clicking a la hip black culture, which looks charming when former black power ranger Nakia Burrise does it, but looks strained with Rey.
Paul T: Kidist's reasons are mostly piffling stuff and their scattershot, cobbled-together quality, taken all together, look more like attempts to justify a gut-level animosity than anything else. (Some might say that, at worst, many women do tend to argue that way).
KPA: So there we are. Since I criticize another woman, I must be envious. And not only that, I am of that sub-species of homo sapiens which is scatter-brained and incoherent. My arguments are invalid. My insights are useless. I may just as well stay at home and watch soap operas (!).
Paul T: By the way, I don’t know that anyone but Kidist has ever linked “Catholic” and “Puritanical.” It reminds me of the character in Philip Roth’s short story, “The Conversion of the Jews,” of whom Roth wrote: “Benny used the term “Catholic” in the broadest sense — to include the Protestants.” Ah well, Catholics, Protestants – they’re all white!
KPA: I will leave this to the Philip Roth aficionados. I have tried to read a couple of Roth's books. They are illegible for their utter promiscuity.
It's funny. I recently watched a PBS program on Roth, and was going to write about him comparing him to Rey. It seems that Roth had a profound hatred of his Jewish identity. But, he is still Jewish. So how to reconcile this hatred with himself? So he writes about Jews, but in the most basic, bare of identifications - sex.
Rey, with her rejection of her identity (her marriage to the white guy), provides us with a sexualized version of female attire - the swimsuit. If anyone has any other ideas about this, or wishes to elaborate on in it in some psychological sense, please let me know.
And finally, Mary writes at the Thinking Housewife:
I blame Facebook for the popularity of the maternity photo shoot – I’m guessing most of these photos end up posted.
She is right to speculate. But Rey is too clever to post her children's photos online. I guess a baby photo in a "pregnancy and marital" photo shoot is OK. Plus, the baby is too young to be recognized. But, the clever Rey has nothing of her children (except for this on Facebook, where we cannot see the toddler's face, and this for an ad for children's footwear, where again the toddler's face is not clearly visible, and Rey seems to be using the child for a footwear ad, making money already...), and only the pregnancy photo of her husband, online.
My blog is a daily account of how I see things. IT IS A BLOG, not a scientific journal or a literary anthology.
Plus, I like to write in a familiar style. I think it gets closer to "me" and closer to the reader.
I write as though I'm speaking, or as Larry Auster wrote to me in an email last January about my writing (blogging style):
There is something appealing about your semi flow-of-associations writing. Not everything needs to be big and important. What you provide is a feeling of your life, of yourself.
And Laura from Texas uncharitably writes (from Laura's post):
[Kidist's] posts are reminiscent of a middle school level book report, with a heavy dose of childish gossip thrown in.
Actually, I have taken on other endeavors besides blogging. I am in the process of writing a book, which I've called Reclaiming Beauty. That is what takes time. It will certainly not be in the casual style of my blog. It will be a researched, carefully constructed piece of writing. It will take time. I have already outlined the preliminary ideas here (which incudes a chapter on Rembrandt).
Then Paul T. contradicts himself at the end of Laura's post by saying:
I’m sorry if Laura from Texas thought I believe that ‘all women argue as ineffectively as Kidist does;” in fact I don’t even think that Kidist typically argues as weakly as I think she does on the subject of Jessica Rey. Often she argues superbly. I meant only that there is a long-standing perception that when women don’t argue well, it’s often because they are less interested in sorting out questions logically according to abstract principles, than in rationalizing their emotional reactions with whatever comes to hand. I assume that there is probably some basis for this perception, as with most folk beliefs; but just how fair it is, I really couldn’t say; and it goes without saying that men can argue very poorly too when passionate emotions get the better of them.
I think that I touched a nerve for some reason. They all seem to really want to like Rey for some reason: She is a mother; she is a wife; she is a Christian; She is a business woman; She's non-white; Why She is Superwoman!
I think there is still an feminist-tinged admiration for a woman who "does it all" in this society, and especially if she's non-white. We seem to be conservatives, but we are all liberals at heart. And then comes along Jessica Rey, and who embodies all that we wish to see in a modern, twenty-first century woman.
Laura Wood at The Thinking Housewife asked me for more information on a comment by Alex on her discussion about Jessica Rey, the swimsuit designer I discuss here.
One reader (Diana) criticized my critical approach on Rey saying:
I feel that perhaps I haven’t made myself clear. I did not mean to suggest that Kidist was “preaching to whites” or that non-white people couldn’t weigh in on racial problems. My issue is with the fact that Kidist herself writes about both African and American blacks and doesn’t appear to believe that she is one, since she speaks with disdain not only about non-Western culture, but about “black culture,” as if she is not “part” of it. I believe that this is misleading and dishonest.
Alex replies:
As I was taught in middle school back in the U.S.S.R., Ethiopians do not belong to the negroid race (the scientific term for the black race). Their skin is relatively dark but the facial features are more Indo-European (the scientific term for the white race) than negroid. They have such a large admixture of Indo-European genes that many of them consider themselves white, as Haile Selassie did. In my opinion, if an Ethiopian identifies and behaves as a white and criticizes the destructive, antisocial black culture, we should commend him instead of pointing out that his skin is darker than ours.
I replied:
Alex is essentially right, although I’ve never said that Ethiopians were white, but that we are non-negroid. And it is a distinct culture, the Amhara, which claims this (as I do). We had a discussion about this at VFR.
I will find the VFR discussion, and also give you a more objective review.
Here are the articles, posted at Larry Auster's View from the Right. As I wrote in the email to Laura, when sending her these articles:
As usual, Larry asks astute, learned questions, fairly and with a desire to know more.
Laura Wood at The Thinking Housewife has a post about the bikini. She has posted a video of a former television actress, Jessica Rey, who has started a movement on modesty, although this movement has been around for a while, so she's following rather than leading.
Now, first of all, the bikini is an American icon, however it may reflect on the culture. It has adorned songs, movies, photographs and movie stars. It is with this understanding, and this nostalgia, that bikini critiquing should take place, and with a little tongue in cheek. Rey does acknowledge the history of the bikini in American culture, but she doesn't acknowledge the nostalgia of the bikini.
The cute song "Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polkadot Bikini" is in its own way about modesty, or how to manoeuvre around the immodesty of the bikini. Rey sites this song, and does state that this is about the young girl trying to protect her modesty. But again, she rams through the charm of the song, and the spirit and era of the America in which it appeared.
It was sung in the heydays of the 1960s by a teen pop idol Brian Hyland:
She was afraid to come out of the locker she was as nervous as she could be she was afraid to come out of the locker she was afraid that somebody would see
Two three four tell the people what she wore
It was an Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini that she wore for the first time today an Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini so in the locker she wanted to stay. [The rest of the lyrics here].
Rey says that the alternative to immodesty should not be frumpy. Yet, she appears on stage giving her speech in a dull get up. Her hair is long and disheveled, she is wearing thick, unattractive, red glasses (so many to chose from, and that is what she found?), her skirt and blouse, despite some embellishment (the skirt has a ribbon, and the blouse patterned) have no interesting pattern or cut, and she's wearing black pumps - why not white, or even pale pink to contrast her skirt?
Also notice the ugly, pumped up upper arm muscles. This is a sign of prolonged "working out." What about the soft arms which are so much more feminine?
I will speculate here and say that this high energy behavior by Rey - having a family, running a business, acting as a national spokesperson for "modesty" with long-distance travels away from her family, etc. - is partly signs of her increased testosterone levels.
Also, the more aggressively one behaves, the more testosterone levels increase, both affecting each other in a cycle.
As I wrote in an email to Laura:
A business, however small, takes up a lot of time. She has an infant and is according to some sites expecting another baby.
So how is she a dutiful wife, a mother to infants and a homemaker when she's got her own full-fledged career going? This is no home-based business working out of a kitchen.
I think it is this extra boost that she gets from exercising (yet another activity that takes her away from her family).
Rey talks about frumpiness in her speech:
I remember speaking to a group of teenagers in New York, and when I mentioned modesty this girl yelled from the back: "What am I supposed to dress like then, a grandma?"...But I have to admit, I saw the same thing when I first learned about modesty. I thought it meant I had to be frumpy and dumpy and out of fashion.
I don't know if it is a lack of fashion, or if it is her crew who gave her this advice. But, if the alternative to immodesty is to dress in a bland style, why should any woman listen to her?
She ends her speech with "We were all made beautiful, in His image."
It is then her Catholicism that she's espousing, rather than a search for a cultural alternative to the ugliness around us. I don't think she's interested in beauty. Or rather, she is interested in beauty as a way to expose its weaknesses, in a puritanical way, rather than to demonstrate its great life-affirming strength.
There is a zealous desire to stifle beauty in our culture, from all sides. It looks like Rey is part of that.
Yet, in the contradictory way that is common to purists, what she calls modesty is not that at all.
Laura writes: "I wouldn’t call [Rey's swim suites] modest, except by today’s aggressively revealing standards."
There are one or two pieces from Rey's collection which resemble 1920s style dress/swimsuit. The rest are standard one piece suits which can be found at any store (Sears, Walmart, etc.) for much lower prices.
So much for modesty. The above photo is of a very pregnant Rey, with her husband. The photo is posted at a public site of maternity and wedding photographs, for the whole world to see.
Again, I keep wondering if Rey is doing a publicity blitzkrieg, so that people will know her swimwear line, and start buying. The photo is in the "Galleries" section under "Celebrities." I guess a role in unknown, forgettable TV shows makes her a "celebrity."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've just had my Photobuckets (image storage) files suspended for "nineteen days." Photobuckets is a free service, like blogger, so I should expect these kinds of interruptions. But, there is almost never any warning with these "free" services, which will suspend an account based on, well, I don't know.
In this case, I think they're trying to get me to subscribe to the "premium" services for a fee of $2.99/month. So, their free service was conditional all along.
For now, I will use blogger's "free" photo uploading and posting service. As Reclaiming Beauty matures, I will be using a fee-paying, reliable service (somewhere where I can interact with some responsible party, if necessary).
For now, please bear with me as I upload the images that are missing from my other posts.
Kidist
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted By Kidist P. Asrat -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I pointed out a month or two ago that the kind of meritocracy we have makes people stupid, mostly because it’s based on a technological attitude toward human life. Thought has an order, but not one we can fully grasp, so if it’s reduced to certified expertise and made a sort of industrial process it stops being thought. The more impressively it’s organized, after a certain point, the less like thought it becomes.
Since that’s so, intelligence needs to consider a counterattack: what should be done so our ways of thinking become more functional and attuned to reality? The most important point, it seems to me, is restoring an understanding of the world that has a place for intelligence and meaning. We orient ourselves toward reality, so if we think the world is mindless we become so ourselves. We can’t quite become mindless, and we can’t help but believe that the world makes sense of some kind, so to make our thought coherent with itself and with our own experience we must accept that the world is ordered by reason and meaning.
The Christian view enables us to do so, and thus to understand our actual situation. It tells us that the world includes not only atoms and the void, along with human skill and desire, but an array of other realities extending up to the absolute intelligence that is God. So technology is not everything, but leaves out what concerns us most. That view explains better than any other how thought can exist, why it applies to the world, and why it has an order we can participate in but can’t fully grasp.
In itself, though, the view is rather abstract. To be usable in a cosmopolitan and argumentative age, it has to be made concrete enough to give determinate results, and include a way of settling disruptive questions. Otherwise it won’t be able to keep itself together or tell us much that’s helpful.
That is where Catholics have an advantage. Our faith has distinct teachings, a structure of authority, a philosophical tradition, and other resources that make it possible to discuss and resolve disruptive issues. The result is that Catholicism is able to deal with new intellectual and social developments while retaining coherence and integrity. That is why Catholic civilization invented the university and fostered the sciences and liberal arts, and it is also why the Church has been able to come back repeatedly from catastrophic weakness and corruption.
Keeping the whole of thought together can be a lot of work, and cutting corners is always a temptation. The easiest way to do so, if new developments in the secular world are strong and the Church is weak, is simply to conform the Faith to the new developments. That is what Catholics have done in recent times, at least at the practical everyday level.
The civilization of the West was once Catholic Christendom, and until quite recently the Church remained a respected presence within it. That is not true any more, but we do not notice how profoundly the understandings now established are at odds with the ones we claim as Christians. The failure is made easier, of course, by the growing stupidity that affects all of us, and makes us unable to imagine any understandings other than those by which we are surrounded.
So to regain a way of thought that gives thought and meaning a place in the world, and so makes it possible for intelligence to function without defeating itself, we have a huge labor of intellectual reconstruction before us. We have to reconnect to our heritage, and that means unlearning many of the basic principles we’ve been taught by the world around us, such as the technological standard for life and thought, and putting what is good and true in that world on a different, more Catholic, and more adequate foundation.
Beyond that basic and necessary but somewhat daunting task, a move away from an industrial to a more human and more functional understanding of thought and knowledge would include more specific and immediately practical changes that rely less on Catholicism than on ordinary good sense that should be available to all.
First, most demands for educational and professional certification should be eliminated. The multiplication of such demands is based on the belief that people can’t do anything without special training, because the only knowledge that counts is organized technical knowledge. If we cut back on those requirements people will get back into the habit of doing things as a matter of common sense and everyday human functioning.
Secondly, we should get rid of the idea that everyone has to go to college. Only a minority have the talent and inclination to profit from higher liberal education. If people accept that point, higher education won’t be dumbed down and young people will be freer to develop the particular abilities they have in a way that makes sense. That will be good for everyone.
Our leaders have a variety of reasons for their insistence that everyone go to college. It means more years of thought reform. It means more of life gets absorbed by the formal technocratic structures our rulers dominate. It means jobs, status, and influence for the academically successful that dominate a meritocracy. And it means such people are the model for human worth, since their kind of education and the life it points to is treated as the only one worth having.
There is also a more basic philosophical reason. Technological society has no idea of the good, so it makes individual autonomy the highest goal. To advance that goal, an education is needed that emphasizes critical thinking directed toward informed autonomous decision, and that is what liberal education is now thought to be. To say that some people are limited in their ability to absorb such an education is to say, it is thought, that they are innately less autonomous and more subject to nature or to social categories than other people are. Since nature is now understood as a mindless force, and social categories as arbitrary and oppressive, the result is that such people would have to be considered slavish and even subhuman compared to others. Such a view is morally unacceptable.
In fact, of course, we are all limited in our ability to engage in abstract critical thought and make radically autonomous decisions. The world can’t be reduced to formulas and general principles, however useful they may be as a complement to skill and common sense, so we live more by intuition, imitation, experience, tradition, and the development of good habits than by abstract speculation or formal expertise. The result is that apprenticeship and similar methods of passing down the tradition of an occupation are likely to be more useful than academic study in most connections.
Academic study itself is less a matter of pure critical thinking oriented toward radically autonomous decision than the transmission of a tradition of inquiry and understanding directed on the one hand toward the good, beautiful, and true, and on the other toward leadership and wisdom. Education is always education into a community based on an understanding of man and the world, so it should always have a religious component and emphasize substantive cultural content. For that reason, liberal education should see itself as fundamentally religious, and emphasize something very much like study of the classics. A religious setting makes it possible to make sense of all else, while classical studies provide the discipline of close attention to extremely high-quality texts that present the viewpoint of free and active men capable of handling whatever comes their way. It is hard to imagine a better school for leadership and wisdom, or for the search for truth. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have removed some chapter titles from the list (here are the chapters last updated in April 2013). They distract from the theme of the book. The chapter titles I have removed are from Chapter Four: Beauty in Culture and Society.
The removed chapters are:
- Islam - Politics - Immigration - Multiculturalism
From the original list of:
- Religion - Christianity - Islam - Myths and Legends - History - Traditions - Conservatism - Politics - Immigration - Multiculturalism
I have also added a chapter in Chapter Two: Beauty in Art.
This new chapter is Gastronomy, and will include the art of food and drink (both consuming and creating).
And on food: - McDonalds' Aesthetics - And a brief paragraph on French cuisine - or the presentation of French food, here.
So it makes sense to incorporate these ideas in the book, as well as other topics on food and drink.
Here are the latest working chapter titles for Reclaiming Beauty:
Chapter One An Introduction to Beauty - Seek and Ye Shall Find - Beauty, Truth and Goodness - Synthesis of Beauty - Beauty in the Worship of God - Beauty and the Transcendent - Beauty and Humanity - Beauty and Femininity - Beauty and Masculinity - How to be a Beautiful Movie Star - Beauty: I will be your mirror - Rejecting Beauty - Elimination of Beauty
Chapter Two Beauty in Art - Architecture - Painting - Drawing and Illustrations - Film - Photography - Dance - Design and Fashion - Gastronomy - Art Criticism
Chapter Three Beauty in Language - Literature - Poetry - Writing - Books - Blogging - Humor
Chapter Four Beauty in Culture and Society - Myths and Legends - Religion - Christianity - History - Traditions - Conservatism
Chapter Five Beauty in Nature
Chapter Six Beauty in Science
Chapter Seven Desecration of Beauty
Chapter Eight Reclaiming Beauty
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perfume bottle for D'Extase I have photoshopped the image to give the bottle a rose hue. Otherwise, it looks a bland colorless crystal.
It's time I posted on a perfume.
Marchesa has a perfume out. It is their first one. About time!
I went to Sephora's to look around for what's new, and I found D'Extase sitting on the shelf. I had seen it before, had smelt it, and wasn't overly impressed by it. I decided to give it another try.
The salesgirl was pleasant. She said she's "In love with the perfume." I'm now used to the word "love" being thrown around for all kinds of things: "I loved the movie!" "I love how you do your hair!" "I love [fill in the actress/celebrity of the month here]!"
"I'm in love with [fill in some fashion item like a dress, shoes, lipstick, nail polish color, perfume]!"
I simply went off and sprayed the perfume on those sample strips of paper they have provided for us. Again, nothing impressive.
I went to the Sephora data base, and looked it up.
These are the notes for D'Extase:
Iris Flower, Freesia, Black Current, Young Violet Leaves, Lotus Flower, Night Blooming Jasmine, Bulgarian Rose Water, Orange Blossom, Iris Root, Ambrox, Captive Musks.
Rose water, jasmine and musk? These are my favorite ("I LOVE jasmine and rose together!").
Then I thought I should give it some time to settle and for the notes to combine together.
Sure enough, after about five minutes, it became something very different. After about fifteen, it had reached its peak and stayed that way for several hours.
The scent is floral, but not insipid. Musky, but not overwhelming. Slightly sweet from the jasmine but not clingy.
I asked the salesgirl to give me a sample. At $72 for 30ml, it will not be a purchase I will make any time soon, but I will keep the scent alive with the tiny (5ml) sample I have.
The perfumer (the nose, in perfume technical language) is Annie Buzantian, who has created a long list of perfumes with well-known designers.
I wonder if she chose perfume composition because of her long nose?
Annie Buzantian
The designer of the bottle is Malin Ericson, who appears to work for Calvin Klein and Nina Ricci. The bottle isn't that special. They could have added a blush of pink to it, or lavender, and designed the crystals around that. Here is the beautiful bottle for Violet Eyes by the aesthete Elizabeth Taylor:
Violet Eyes by Elizabeth Taylor
I've reviewed Violet Eyeshere. It has that combination of rose and violet. The cedar gives it a lighter quality, which while musk would have made it too heavy. Elizabeth Taylor's choices are perfect.
The beautiful Georgina Chapman, of Marchesa, with her multi-millionaire husband film mogul Harvey Weinstein ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've been promoting Walmart in my previous post Walmart: By George! where I posted some clothes from their online catalog. I went to the store today just to do a quick inventory of their women's clothing section, and the selection is big, varied, low-priced and with decent choices.
To avoid being viewed as a hypocrite, here is my most recent clothing purchase at Walmart (about a month ago).
Walmart Orange Sandals at $19.99, but which I bought on sale for $12.99
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walmart sells "quality fashion clothing at affordable prices" under a brand name George.
George is a brand of more formal clothing for men, women and children. It also consists of dress shoes, wallets, belts, and neckties. It was created by the British retailer Asda in 1990, and since Walmart acquired Asda in 1999, it has maintained and expanded it to other markets, notably the United States, Canada, and Japan. The George brand was named after George Davies, who was its original chief designer. Davies is no longer associated with the brand, although Asda and Walmart have aimed to remain true to the low price business model that he established. [Source: Wikipedia]
The chain also has collections from various designers. Other Walmart's well-crafted collections at extraordiarily low prices include: Bella Bird, Brooke Leigh Ltd., White Stag, Alexis Taylor amongst others.
One of the biggest criticisms of Walmart is its "Made in China" image. But, in recent months (about time), various Walmart leaders are working towards making it an American company, both in its geographical location and in the source of its products.
Bill Simon, Walmart's U.S. CEO, says there's a common" misperception about his company.
According to urban legend, our stores are filled with products that weren't made in the U.S.," Simon said in a speech at the National Retail Federation convention. "According to urban legend, our stores are filled with products that weren't made in the U.S.," Simon said in a speech at the National Retail Federation convention.
A majority of Walmart's spending, however, is on goods that were manufactured in America, he said.
"According to data from our suppliers, two-thirds of our spending is on American-made products," Simon said. "America is still the biggest manufacturer in the world."
Walmart plans to use even more made-in-America products, spending an additional $50 billion over the next 10 years, Simon said.
"We also plan on giving suppliers the certainty they need by signing longer contracts," he said. "Increasing what we already buy here will help American manufacturing."
Simon said the push for American manufacturing won't cause prices to go up for consumers. He also said the company would continue to make the same profits.
"Walmart isn't a charity, it's a business," Simon said. "We're not going to do something that will raise prices or hurt our margins."
A report by think-tank Demos alleged that Walmart's imported products eliminated 133,000 U.S. manufacturing jobs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These marigolds were planted by a small strip mall in Mississauga (Ontario). This suburban landscape is one of the most dismal in Southern Ontario, where two semi-highways cross through the "city" center to go to other much more pleasant and aesthetic towns and cities. The throughways are in front the of the Failte Irish Pub. I posted photographs of the interior of the pub here. Its interior is a small oasis from the steel and concrete of the surrounding area.
I think the managers of the pub decided to beautify their exterior as well. These marigolds are no-where else in the city center.
They are a welcome patch of gold.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sculpture depicts the Ancient Greek Titan Atlas holding the heavens. It was created by sculptor Lee Lawrie with the help of Rene Paul Chambellan, and it was installed in 1937.
The sculpture is in the Art Deco style, as is the entire Rockefeller Center. Atlas in the sculpture is 15 feet tall, while the entire statue is 45 feet tall, as high as a four-story building. It weighs seven tons, and is the largest sculpture at Rockefeller Center. The North-South axis of the armillary sphere on his shoulders points towards the North Star as seen from New York City. [Source: Wikipedia]
A recent PBS program featured the Rockefeller family. Like the Morgans, this is a family which influenced New York, and of course America.
The program is in several parts. Here is a synopsis:
The Rockefellers" is the saga of four generations of a legendary American family whose name is synonymous with great wealth.
The story begins in the Christian revivalist fervor of the 1830s with a marriage of opposites: Eliza Davison, a pious young woman, and "Devil Bill" Rockefeller, swindler, snake-oil salesman, and eventually, bigamist. Their son, John D. Rockefeller, created an industrial empire -- and a personal fortune -- on a scale the world had never known. He ruthlessly crushed his competitors in the process, alienating the public and leaving a stain on the family name. His dutiful son, John D. Jr., was a self-sacrificing young man who devoted his life to redeeming his family's reputation. Junior's five sons scaled the heights of the American century. One, Nelson, reached highest, exposing the very private Rockefellers once again to the harsh judgment of public opinion. In the 1960s, a fourth generation of Rockefellers -- "the Cousins" -- rebelled against their family, which had come to personify what was then known as "the establishment. (More here)
I think this sums up the attitude of the PBS programmers: "The Rockefellers were evil capitalists who were only interested in how to get very rich, off the blood of sweat of ordinary Americans, including innocent competitors."
What I saw was a hard-working, unsentimental family, which understood that making money was not a fool's business. Yet, at the same time, its members were deeply involved in their community, and by extension, their country. As they built their fortune, they also built their country.
Rather than their financial contributions, I was more interested in their architectural and artistic legacy, and more specifically, their legacy in New York City.
According to a list at Wikipedia's The Rockefeller Family, the Rockefellers left behind:
- Rockefeller Center, a multi-building complex built at the start of the Depression in Midtown Manhattan, financed solely by the family
- Museum of Modern Art, New York City, from 1929 (Abby Aldrich, Junior, Blanchette, Nelson, David, David Jr., Sharon Percy Rockefeller)
- Riverside Church, New York City, 1930 (Junior)
- The Cloisters, New York City, from 1934 (Junior)
- Lincoln Center, New York City, 1962 (John D. 3rd)
- World Trade Center Twin Towers, New York City, 1973-2001 (David and Nelson)
A small, but significant, incident took place while the Rockefeller Center's mural was being designed. The chosen artist, Marixist Mexican Diego Rivera, had painted a portrait of Russian Communist leader Vladimir Illich Lenin on his mural. He was asked to replace it, but refused. He was removed from the premises, and the mural destroyed.
This is how serious these "capitalists" were.
Below is a more detailed account of Rivera's presence in New York:
Rockefeller’s contractors sent proposals to three chosen artists-—Pablo Picasso, Henri Matisse, and Diego Rivera-—inviting each to participate in a “contest.” Instructions were clear, down to the material (canvas, not fresco), color scheme (black and white), and even the varnishing requirements (5 coats). And all three artists rejected the offer. As Rivera explained twenty-five years later in his autobiography, “there are few indignities that can be thrown in the face of an established painter greater than to offer him a commission on terms which imply any doubts as to his abilities.” Architect Raymond Hood was ready to drop Rivera, but Nelson Rockefeller-—executive vice-president for Rockefeller Center-—intervened, and his mother backed him up. Nelson praised Diego’s Detroit murals and wrote notes containing such flattering statements as “Please let me know when your frescoes in Detroit are finished so that we can arrange to come up and see them. Everybody is terribly anxious to see how you have interpreted the industrial life of Detroit” (letter of October 13, 1932). Rivera eventually agreed to do the mural, although negotiations dragged on over the summer between architect and artist over Rivera’s demands. According to Rivera, Nelson Rockefeller intervened in May 1932 and, in the end Rivera won out—he would be permitted to use color and the material could be fresco rather than canvas.
Rivera submitted a sketch addressing the agreed upon theme: “Man at the Crossroads Looking with Hope and High Vision to the Choosing of a New and Better Future.” The design concept, although eulogizing workers and indicting the more flagrant facets of American industrial society, was approved by Nelson and the architects. In March of 1933, Rivera set to work with a cadre of assistants.
As the painting neared completion in late April, a New York World-Telegram reporter, Joseph Lilly, visited the R.C.A. building for a preview. The resulting April 24 article, titled “Rivera Paints Scenes of Communist Activity and John D. Rockefeller Foots Bill,” highlighted many themes that were not at all new to those familiar with Rivera’s work. The abundance of the color red and the representation of toxic materials, for example, had also appeared in the Detroit murals. On April 28, however, an element was added that would almost seemed calculated to create controversy, the figure of Russian revolutionary leader Vladimir Illich Lenin.
Several days later, Raymond Hood the architect was on the scaffold examining some ceiling paint that had dripped onto Rivera’s mural and noticed the addition. And then, as Rivera’s assistant remembered, “the fun began.” On May 4, Rivera received a letter from Nelson Rockefeller. Claiming to find the mural “thrilling,” he nevertheless requested that another figure be substituted for that of Lenin because it “might seriously offend a great many people.” Although the figure of Lenin had not appeared in his original sketches, Rivera refused to budge. Lenin would remain, but he did offer to compromise by balancing Lenin's mural with that of some great American such as Abraham Lincoln. (The Correspondence between Rivera and Rockefeller)
At this point, the matter was turned over to the management team of Todd, Robertson, and Todd. Several days later, the Rockefeller Center management team—-along with security guards-—escorted Rivera off the scaffold, handed him a check for $14,000—the balance of his $21,000 commission—and placed tarpaper over the mural. Workers protested by picketing outside. Intellectuals, artists, and activists mounted both pro- and anti-Rivera campaigns.
The mural remained covered for about ten months. During the fall and winter, Nelson, Abby, and people from MoMA, tried to find a way for the fresco to be removed intact and transported to the museum, but no technique for removing it proved workable. At midnight on Saturday, February 9, 1934, the mural was destroyed and the chunks of plaster carted off in fifty-gallon oil drums.
Before we proceed to explore the cultural drama behind the creation and destruction of the most famous mural of the twentieth century, we should pause to consider what it looked like -- more or less. In 1934, Rivera recreated the design orginially intended for Rockefeller Center in the Palacio de Bella Artes, Mexico City. He entitled it, "Man, Controller of the Universe," and, in three obviously pointed gestures, kept the image of Lenin and added portraits of Trotsky and Nelson Rockefeller himself shown enjoying a drink in the nightclub scene beneath the hovering syphilis cells. [Source: The Battle of Rockefeller Center, Published by University of Virginia]
Rivera recreated the mural in Mexico City, including Lenin and adding Trotsky. The Mexicans accepted it, and it still stands in the Palacio de Bellas Artes in the city's center. They can have it. Diego Rivera's fresco Man at the Crossroads on the RCA building at the Rockefeller Center, covered with canvas. It was destroyed over the weekend of February 10–11, 1934 [Image and text source: Moma.org]
Below is a photo I took of the Cloisters, and here is a post I wrote on my visit to the Cloisters last year:
Garden in the Cloisters Discussed in: Garden Guide: New York City pp. 33-37 Cloisters Flowers [Photo by KPA, August 2012]
Cloisters Terrace With a View of the George Washington Bridge [Photo by KPA, August 2012]
Above is a photo I took from Cloisters' terrace with a view of the George Washington Bridge and the Hudson River. Across the river is New Jersey, and the undeveloped stretch of land is the New Jersey Palisades. John D. Rockefeller had the Cloisters built especially to house his medieval collection. He also bought several acres of the Palisade hills across the river in order to have the best view possible from the Cloisters. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A commentator from the site sent in a link of a man in an overcoat, posted at The Art of Manliness, which linked it from a site called The Sartorialist.
I think the cathedral behind the man is the Milan Cathedral.
Now back to this "sartorialist." I was so sure that The Sartorialist was a woman, and a young woman at that. The female "fashion" on the site is full of the slovenly, baggy, shorts and mini-skirts, with flat heels. The women rarely wear skirts or dresses. This is pretty much the uniform of women up to their mid-twenties these days. Older women don't do much better. In fact, they seem to have abandoned style altogether.
I shouldn't have assumed (that The Sartorialist was a woman).
Founder/blogger/photographer Scott Schuman began The Sartorialist with the idea of creating a two-way dialogue about the world of fashion and its relationship to daily life.
Apparently he is a big-shot photographer with work in various fashion magazines including GQ, Vogue Italia, and Vogue Paris.
And above is a photo of him, all in black, wearing those ubiquitious jeans which look like they could do with a wash, and he has looped his scarf around his neck. His overcoat looks a size too small for him. And his leather gloves are thick and clumsy- no fine leather for him. He looks like he visits tanning salons. His hair is groomed in a forties-style slick, which might be the only thing that resembles the man at the top, although the 1940s man has restrained the hair oil making his hair more attractive.
I wonder why Schuman takes photos: a) of girls, and not women, and b) why these "girls" came out wearing things that look like they dragged out of their laundry baskets?
His "On the Street" photos copy (there's no other word) the approach of the New York Times photographer Bill Cunningham, who is much wittier, and more whimsical, than Schuman (granted, Cunningham does take photos of clumsy New Yorkers, but he looks for beauty wherever he goes).
Right: Bill Cunningham's whimsical hat Left: Scott Schuman's protruding bag
I wonder if Schuman is gay, of the hard, harsh homosexual tribe which hates women?
Apparently not (not gay). His Wikipedia profile says:
Overalls, bermudas, sneakers, boyfriend jeans, boyfriend shirts, tuxedos, baseball caps… If you put together everything that’s in style right now, you’d find yourself dressing like a guy real fast.
How do you figure out the right amount?
I think it depends on who it is. Some girls can be super sexy in a t-shirt and baggy pants, even with a pair of sneakers on.
I find that for me, it’s good to balance everything out with a few accessories – and I think Yasmin here has it going for her.
Her overalls fall perfectly and aren’t too too big. The mix of prints is discrete but changes everything. The clutch adds the right amount of sophistication and the flip flops (I started loving flip flops but that’s a conversation for later) are so simple and show some skin…
A tomboy and casual look that totally works!
What accessories would you choose to add a little femininity to a boyfriend outfit?
———
PS: The clutch and the overalls are both designs by the always amazing Yasmin!
The perfect blend of maternal/tomboyish/slackly stylish/occasionally stern combination of a woman. A "metrosexual" man's girlfriend. And both have identity problems: "Am I a male/female? How can I look like a teenager (even though I'm in my late thirties)? Should I look soft and feminine, or hard and feminist (Garance)? Can I be a nice guy, or an alpha male (Scott)?
And even her humor is non-existent (she does write in French Vogue's "Humeur" section). She tries to be ironic, but she's too straightforward to evoke any kind of word play, as this September 2012 article shows:
Here is a larger version of the article (a little more legible)
Below is a close-up of her scratchy rendition of a woman in a tuxedo (smoking, in French).
How avant-garde and daring, a woman in a tuxedo, no less. The problem with contemporary avant-gardists is that everything they're doing has been done before, and with more aplomb. Look at Marelene Deitriech, who carries tuxes and gowns with equal ease.
In our era of a retarded culture, with adolescent relationships of adrogyny, undetermined sexuality in fashion, and crude art, the best we can do is to refuse to accept these trend setters, and denounce them at any chance. This blog, with its aim to reclaim beauty, is trying to do that, one step at a time. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is unique about this garden is that the rhododendron bushes grow between the trees, including pine trees. The whole place feels like a northern oasis. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I kinda think Teddy is a beagle; his legs are short like a beagle's and his ears are longer than the foxhounds. I enjoyed reading this segment about hunting and Jessica Fletcher. It gave me an opportunity to call up distant memories of my own long-gone beagle, the magnificence of the hunt, and the fun of seeing the unparalleled Angela Lansbury in modified hunting livery.
Here is a Beagle, which looks like Teddy:
And here an American Foxhound, which is "taller" than the Beagle (and more handsome, I might add):
Beagles were also hunting dogs:
Beagles were developed primarily for hunting hare, an activity known as beagling...Before the advent of the fashion for foxhunting in the 19th century, hunting was an all day event where the enjoyment was derived from the chase rather than the kill. In this setting the tiny Beagle was well matched to the hare, as unlike Harriers they would not quickly finish the hunt, but because of their excellent scent-tracking skills and stamina they were almost guaranteed to eventually catch the hare. The Beagle packs would run closely together ("so close that they might be covered with a sheet") which was useful in a long hunt, as it prevented stray dogs from obscuring the trail. In thick undergrowth they were also preferred to spaniels when hunting pheasant.[Source: Wikipedia]
Debra continues:
Your readers might get a kick out of this five-minute youtube about beagles
Here is the link to the video (the embedding function has been removed). It is of rambunctious Beagle puppies scampering around. Play is training for work, and these puppies, with their cuteness factor removed a notch, will run after the hare when the time comes.
A Hound started a Hare from his lair, but after a long run, gave up the chase. A goat-herd seeing him stop, mocked him, saying "The little one is the best runner of the two." The Hound replied, "You do not see the difference between us: I was only running for a dinner, but he for his life."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
