Details

 I love The Coveteur and I love Chanel, so I made a my own small Coveteur closet with a bunch of my Chanel items and shoes from Christian Siriano. The russian doll bag is my favorite ;)"It's more interesting to have just a picture of a small detail - then you can dream all the rest around it.Because when you see the whole thing, what is there to imagine?" -Dries Van Noten

Mother Nature is a Tease

This past weekend was just plain blah. Huge amounts of snow and crazy winds kept me in hibernation mode. While I did manage to get some laundry done and organize a few future blog posts, the rest of my weekend was pretty much a write off. Yay for hot cocoa and chick flicks!Before we got the random dump of 6 inches of snow though, it was actually starting to feel a little like spring around these

Jessica Chastain again proves herself as the best: this time by the dress

Beautiful Jessica Chastain

Coming 2012 films "The Wettest County" and "Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted" actress Jessica Chastain was chosen the best dressed celebrity at this year's Oscars according to data compiled by the awards from Twitter.

Chastain, 30, attended the 84th Annual Academy Awards in L.A. Sunday wiht her grandma Marilyn. "I am so proud," Marilyn told E! News' Ryan Seacrest. "You just can't believe how big and tall I am right now." She was a show stopper in a black and gold Alexander McQueen gown and Harry Winston jewels, while her grandma wore a design by Marina Rinaldi.

According to the official site of this year's Oscars, http://oscar.go.com, Twitter users thought Jessica Chastain was the ‘best dressed' at this year's awards, a conclusion based upon tweets sent regarding the awards ceremony with the hashtag ‘BESTDRESSED'.

Michelle Williams, who wore Louis Vuitton, came in second place on the Best Dressed list, while Emma Stone, star of The Help, came in third place wearing a floor-length red Giambattista Valli Haute Couture gown adorned with bows. Fifth place went to Muppets star Miss Piggy who turned Kermit's head wearing a bespoke Zac Posen gown.

The top five ‘Best Dressed' celebrities at this year's Oscars, according to data taken from Twitter and compiled by http://oscar.go.com were :

01.   Jessica Chastain

02.   Michelle Williams

03.   Emma Stone

04.   Penelope Cruz 

05.   Miss Piggy 

Jessica Chastain on red carpet

♣ Pretty Aishwarya Rai ♣

Slip It In: Finding New Places For Crabon

Celebrated American author Charles Dickens began his most celebrated novel, "Hamlet," with the following sentence:

"As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself transformed in his bed into a gigantic insect-like creature."

I don't want to spoil the ending, but Finny dies.

This morning, I woke up to a revelation a thousand times more horrible than any existentialist entomological crisis.  See, as I slept, I had uneasy dreams of Fredness.  Then, when I awoke, I realized that I had been losing precious wattage through inefficient power transfer.

Have you ever gone to a restaurant and ordered a meal, and then when the meal arrives you realize it sucks, but even though it sucks you eat every morsel and sop up all the remaining juices with a piece of bread and then finally lick the plate clean with the enthusiasm and relish of a cat cleaning its privates?  Probably not. Nevertheless, this behavior is the essence of Fredness.  Even though we suck, we labor under the delusion that we need to channel every bit of our pathetic power output and ungainly pedal stroke into the drivetrain of our overpriced bicycles in order to propel us to a rarefied realm of glory and achievement that exists only in our minds.  And when it comes to this behavior, the equivalent of that piece of bread you use to sop up that lousy sauce is the $395 crabon insole, forwarded to me by a reader:

Actually, this insole is not the equivalent of the bread so much as it's the equivalent of paying a surcharge for an ultra-stiff table to help you consume your crappy meal more quickly and efficiently.

Let's just pretend for a moment that there aren't like 26 bones in the human foot, and that it doesn't move at all.  Let's also pretend that you could get a shoe with an upper so stiff and with fasteners so tenacious that you could lock your totally rigid foot with its fused joints into position so firmly that it wouldn't flex so much as a fraction of a millimeter.  Finally, let's pretend that this rigid foot scenario was actually desirable.

On top of this, since we're talking about Freds, we can already assume that the frame is crabon, and the crank is crabon, and the pedal is crabon, and the sole of the shoe is crabon. 

Why, then, would you also need to slip in another layer of crabon in the form of this insole?

Well, because Freds live in a "bizzaro" version of "The Princess of the Pea," and any material even remotely yielding must be eliminated at all costs.  (Apart from their own doughy physiques, of course.) This is why I know my new line of crabon socks is going to be a huge success:

(Crabon sock prototype: laterally stiff and vertically hobbled.)

Or, if you're a "weight weenie," you can just skip the socks and the shoes and opt instead for my crabon insole modification:

The ultra-high modulus crabon toe thong coupled with the three-hole cleat mounting platform transforms your crabon insole into the lightest, stiffest racing flip-flop available.  

Of course, once you've eliminated all traces of flex from your Fred sled you're then ready to hit the park where you can ride around and around in circles while regaling other Freds with tales of your upgrades.  Fortunately, if your park of choice is Brooklyn's Prospect Park, you'll be pleased to know that the Department of Transportation has finally removed the "Barrels of Shame:"

I mentioned the Barrels of Shame last month, but while they may be gone we're only free temporarily because it's only a matter of time before the DOT implements some sort of "Phase II:"

"City transportation officials removed dozens orange traffic barrels intended to slow cyclists on a crash-prone hill in Prospect Park — and now they want your advice on what to do next."

It's odd that the DOT is so concerned with cyclists in the park, yet I've never heard anybody complaining about the high number of cars that speed through it during car-free hours.  For example, the park is closed to cars all weekend long, yet early Saturday morning I actually had to dodge a speeding car salmon.  Of course, he had his hazard lights on, so that makes it OK.  Actually, maybe that's the answer--hazard lights clearly legitimize every type of traffic infraction, so if we were to put them on our bicycles maybe we'd have total immunity too.  

In any case if the DOT really wants suggestions for what to do about cyclists in the park, here's my idea:

Buy us off.

Sure, I can't speak for everybody, but for the low, low price of $100,000 from the City of New York I'd happily agree to never, ever ride my bicycle in Prospect Park again.  Then, I'd take the money and invest in the Crabon Fred Miracle Dynamo Light, invented by acclaimed director Werner Herzog:

I don't know how it works since I'm not very knowledgeable about science, but my guess is that it's filled with tiny demons.  Anyway, I'd be sure to make millions, and then I could buy and sell your measly little park like that. [Snaps fingers to indicate ease with which he could buy and sell park.]

In your face, DOT.

Speaking of entrepreneurial ideas, here in New York City it's fairly commonplace to receive deliveries by bicycle, but a reader informs me there are other parts of the country in which the concept of bicycle delivery is as mysterious as a light filled with tiny demons:

Consider the writer's amazement when a single human is able to carry three (3) whole bottles of wine while riding a bicycle:

I live on a cul-de-sac in downtown Raleigh, south of Oakwood. We're grateful the pizza man even remembers where we are. So it was with awe that I watched as a trim young man on a bike rode up to my front porch and pulled from his Swiss Army backpack three bottles of wine that I had selected online just an hour before.

She should go to Portland, where the sight of a soup delivery bike would probably melt her face:

By the way, if you're like a lot of people you probably have trouble keeping your chowders straight, so when you're ordering soup by bicycle in Portland try to remember:

--New England clam chowder is the white one;

--Manhattan clam chowder is the red one;

and

--Portland clam chowder is the one filled with tiny chunks of smugness.

Also, if it's your first time eating Portland clam chowder you should be very careful--those smugness chunks are a choking hazard.

But while it's oddly satisfying that people are amazed by the concept of bicycle delivery, I miss the days when the bicycle still had the power to terrify a team of horses:

("On Your Left," by Frederic Remington)

A reader tells me the above painting hangs in the Amon Carter museum in Fort Worth, Texas.  Frankly, I'm not sure which is more amazing: that they actually have art museums in Fort Worth, Texas, or that people were once able to undertake "epic" bike rides without the aid of social networking or Kickstarter.  Certainly that's not the case now, and here is his modern-day equivalent:

(Forwarded by yet another reader.)

But while cyclists may not scare horses now, they can make people drop their knitting needles:

Man on bike, cat on sidewalk. - w4m - 21
Date: 2012-02-24, 8:00PM EST
Reply to: [deleted]


I was walking. We made startled, awkward eye contact as I yelled after a tabby that had just run between my feet, "YOU, CAT ! ARE YOU MISSING?" I was trying to communicate with the tabby because, a block prior, I had witnessed a distressed youth hyperventilating before a LOST CAT sign posted to the trunk of a sycamore. You understand. 


You: Were on a bike, waiting on a red light. You probably always wait at red lights. I like that. You looked like you have at least one toddler at home. You're one of those guys who has mastered the art of making "fuck me" eyes with strong undertones of "I'm taken and happy, so get lost" eyes. You were hot. Like, Billy Zane when he's wearing a wig, hot. 


If you are this guy, a lost tabby, or some hyperventilating youth, hit me up. I'm a decent looking brunette, and I'm ready and willing to drop my knitting needles for the time it takes for dinner, a movie, and a good-night kiss on both cheeks. 

Though they're not quite powerful enough to overcome sexual orientation, even when paired with exotic pants:

British gay dude on bike....commented on my pants - w4m - 28 (Manhattan)
Date: 2012-02-27, 12:13AM EST
Reply to: [deleted]


You commented on my bike gear, and considering the fact you were wearing shorts today, we need to have this conversation. My pants were Outlier (outlier.cc) and they're the best pants I've ever owned.


ANYWAYS


You're gay, so this is totally platonic, but I still want to chat with you! You got my number but I'm not sure if you got the right one, because you never texted me. 


Your name was Alex (I think), you did some reporting for the BBC, we were going to chat about Occupy related stuff.....so get back at me! 

I think someone may have given someone else a fake number.

WILLIAMS AND DAWKINS IN OXFORD ARGUMENT

SCIENCE VS GOD: RICHARD DAWKINS
TAKES ON ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

www.independent.co.uk - Oxford University held its first debate on the subject of evolution in 1860, just months after the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. Then, the Bishop of Winchester, Samuel Wilberforce, famously enquired of the biologist Thomas Henry Huxley whether it was through his grandmother or his grandfather that he traced his descent from a monkey. The response he drew from the man known as “Darwin’s bulldog” ensured that the exchange went down in history. The university hosted what seemed tantalisingly like a similar clash of great minds, between the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, and Professor Richard Dawkins – like Huxley, a bulldog on behalf of Darwin’s theories. The conversation was conducted with utmost politeness. The cleric even confessed his belief in evolution, and agreed with Dawkins that humans shared non-human ancestors.

The gentility of Dawkins and Williams’s confrontation was in sharp contrast to its febrile context. On a visit to the Vatican this month, the Tory party chairman, Lady Warsi, warned of the “militant secularisation” of society, presumably led by scientists such as Professor Dawkins. Dawkins subsequently made headlines by forgetting the full title of Darwin’s seminal work (On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life) during a live radio broadcast. He even faced a character assassination by a Sunday newspaper last weekend, on the basis that some of his ancestors probably owned slaves. Could Dawkins disprove the existence of God? He could not, he confessed, describing himself not as an atheist but as an agnostic.  On his own atheism scale of one-to-seven, the Professor suggested, “the probability of any supernatural creator existing is very, very low, so let’s say I’m a 6.9”.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, was going head to head in a public debate with the leading secularist Richard Dawkins at Oxford University.  Prof Dawkins set out a world view based on a process of evolutionary selection, played out over millions of years. But the Archbishop of Canterbury challenged this human-centric vision of the universe, arguing that all our analysis of the accidental or divine design of life was seen through the narrow lens of our own human experience.

WHAT DO THE VEDIC TEACHINGS TELL US? 

In the history of humanity there is a long standing debate on theism vs. atheism. Better thinkers than you or I have pondered this issue reaching different conclusions. From this it seems that there is sufficient logic in support of the spiritual reality, at least as much as there is in support of atheism. Beyond logic lies the realm of spiritual experience. ... And we can proceed to experience ourselves. If you like the experiences you get from your practice, continue the practice, as there is no other proven method by which one can get such experience. Furthermore, the method prescribed by the saints for attaining spiritual experience involves becoming an ideal person, whose actions (karma) are integrated with knowledge (jnana), making one fit for a balanced emotional life (bhakti).

Śrīla Bhakti Vedanta Tripurari Mahārāja :
“Difficulties on the Path: In the Hands of God”
Śrī Caitanya Sanga - Vol. II, No. 38 - November 2, 2000
http://www.swami.org/pages/sanga/2000/2000_38.php
http://swami.org/  -  http://www.swami.org/index.html

The value of Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy is defined as saying one thing but doing another, in which the thing that is done is worse than the thing being said. An example is a man professing to love all humanity in public but telling his little son in private to "stay away from those dirty niggas/chinks".

We generally regard hypocrisy as bad.

However, hypocrisy does serve a necessary function in society. Before I elaborate, let me pose a thought question - you are a parent of three young daughters. There is currently a pop singer who is extremely popular and your daughters worship her as an idol. You happen to find out from private sources that this pop singer has been to bed with more than a hundred men and loves to do drugs.

Would you rather the pop singer be honest about her lifestyle and promote it on TV, or to hide it and assume an air of innocence?

I'm pretty sure most parents would choose the latter.

The fact is that all of us exert some influence on the general moral standards around us. Our circle of influence may be big or small, strong or weak, depending on our position vis-a-vis others and our standing in society. Nevertheless the influence is there.

Now the effect of our influence is partly caused by what we say, and partly by what we do. Over an extended period of time, with people who know us well, I have no doubt that the "what we do" part has a stronger influence on their moral standards. However if the period of time is short and the acquaintenceship is not that deep, what we say would probably have a stronger influence, assuming we are half-decent in covering things up, which most people are.

The crux of the matter is that, say on the general moral scale most people behave at a 5, but talk at a 7 or 8. The "accepted general moral standards" of society would then be roughly at a 6, but since we all cut ourselves some slack quietly we still behave at a 5.

Say we behaved at a 5 and talked at a 5 as well. The accepted moral standard would then fall to 5, then we would actually behave at a 4. This would obviously be detrimental to society as a whole.

Now, some people may say that our dislike for hypocrisy, despite its social necessity, springs from a distaste of people who maintain hypocritical standards in public and succeed because of this. I do agree that this distaste is deserved. However I also feel that the majority of successful people in society succeed not because of their sterling moral character, but instead other elements such as charisma, looks, intelligence, etc. I am not maintaining that successful people tend to be bad, just that whether a person is successful or not has not much connection to whether he is good or bad.

When a person is successful, the chance to be selfish is increased. Rich people can spend more money on immoral acts, attractive people have more chances to cheat on their partners, powerful people have a greater capacity to bully others, smart people have more chances to cheat people in general. The resulted hypocrisy in covering up these acts is then not due to a lower moral character than the average person, merely due to a greater opportunity to be selfish.

So when we criticize such people for being hypocritical, we are in a way being hypocritical ourselves.