Tuesday, December 23, 1975. Going metric.

In baseball:

December 23, 1975: The Reserve Clause Is Killed

President Gerald R. Ford signed into law the Metric Conversion Act. The country should have carried through with it, but abandoned it in 1982 when Ronald Reagan was President, the point at which, in the long history of the evolution of things, the country began its slide into idiocy, although it was hardly evident at the time.

CIA Station Chief in Athens Richard Welch, his identify recently exposed, was gunned down by terrorists in Athens.

Last edition:

Monday, December 22, 1975. Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Labels: 1970s, 1975, Christmas, Comedians, Gerald Ford, Growing up in the 1970s, J. Edgar Hoover, OPEC, Personalities, Petroleum, Terrorism

 

‘Don’s Best Friend’: How Epstein and Trump Bonded Over the Pursuit of Women

Friday, December 14, 1945. Tragedy and ethnic Germans, the LDS and conscription.

As its copyrighted and I don't have permission to post it, I'll merely note it, it was of German women in their children, formerly of Lodz, waiting for a train in Berlin with hopes of going to the west.  One of the children is sick, and died during the photo session.

The First President of the LDS issued a postwar statement on the draft to Utah's Congressional delegation.

Press reports have for some months indicated that a determined effort is in the making to establish in this country a compulsory universal military training designed to draw into military training and service the entire youth of the nation. We had hoped that mature reflection might lead the proponents of such a policy to abandon it. We have felt and still feel that such a policy would carry with it the gravest dangers to our Republic.

It now appears that the proponents of the policy have persuaded the Administration to adopt it, in what on its face is a modified form. We deeply regret this, because we dislike to find ourselves under the necessity of opposing any policy so sponsored. However, we are so persuaded of the rightfulness of our position, and we regard the policy so threatening to the true purposes for which this Government was set up, as set forth in the great Preamble to the Constitution, that we are constrained respectfully to invite your attention to the following considerations:

1. By taking our sons at the most impressionable age of their adolescence and putting them into army camps under rigorous military discipline, we shall seriously endanger their initiative thereby impairing one of the essential elements of American citizenship. While on its face the suggested plan might not seem to visualize the army camp training, yet there seems little doubt that our military leaders contemplate such a period, with similar recurring periods after the boys are placed in the reserves.

2. By taking our boys from their homes, we shall deprive them of parental guidance and control at this important period of their youth, and there is no substitute for the care and love of a mother for a young son.

3. We shall take them out of school and suffer their minds to be directed in other channels, so that very many of them after leaving the army, will never return to finish their schooling, thus over a few years materially reducing the literacy of the whole nation.

4. We shall give opportunity to teach our sons not only the way to kill but also, in too many cases, the desire to kill, thereby increasing lawlessness and disorder to the consequent upsetting of the stability of our national society. God said at Sinai, “Thou shalt not kill.”

5. We shall take them from the refining, ennobling, character-building atmosphere of the home, and place them under a drastic discipline in an environment that is hostile to most of the finer and nobler things of home and of life.

6. We shall make our sons the victims of systematized allurements to gamble, to drink, to smoke, to swear, to associate with lewd women, to be selfish, idle, irresponsible save under restraint of force, to be common, coarse, and vulgar, all contrary to and destructive of the American home.

7. We shall deprive our sons of any adequate religious training and activity during their training years, for the religious element of army life is both inadequate and ineffective.

8. We shall put them where they may be indoctrinated with a wholly un-American view of the aims and purposes of their individual lives, and of the life of the whole people and nation, which are founded on the ways of peace, whereas they will be taught to believe in the ways of war.

9. We shall take them away from all participation in the means and measures of production to the economic loss of the whole nation.

10. We shall lay them open to wholly erroneous ideas of their duties to themselves, to their family, and to society in the matter of independence, self-sufficiency, individual initiative, and what we have come to call American manhood.

11. We shall subject them to encouragement in a belief that they can always live off the labors of others through the government or otherwise.

12. We shall make possible their building into a military caste which from all human experience bodes ill for that equality and unity which must always characterize the citizenry of a republic.

13. By creating an immense standing army, we shall create to our liberties and free institutions a threat foreseen and condemned by the founders of the Republic, and by the people of this country from that time till now. Great standing armies have always been the tools of ambitious dictators to the destruction of freedom.

14. By the creation of a great war machine, we shall invite and tempt the waging of war against foreign countries, upon little or no provocation; for the possession of great military power always breeds thirst for domination, for empire, and for a rule by might not right.

15. By building a huge armed establishment, we shall belie our protestations of peace and peaceful intent and force other nations to a like course of militarism, so placing upon the peoples of the earth crushing burdens of taxation that with their present tax load will hardly be bearable, and that will gravely threaten our social, economic, and governmental systems.

16. We shall make of the whole earth one great military camp whose separate armies, headed by war-minded officers, will never rest till they are at one another’s throats in what will be the most terrible contest the world has ever seen.

17. All the advantages for the protection of the country offered by a standing army may be obtained by the National Guard system which has proved so effective in the past and which is unattended by the evils of entire mobilization.

Responsive to the ancient wisdom, ‘Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it,’ obedient to the divine message that heralded the birth of Jesus the Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the world, ‘. . . on earth peace, good will toward men,’ and knowing that our Constitution and the Government set up under it were inspired of God and should be preserved to the blessing not only of our own citizenry but, as an example, to the blessing of all the world, we have the honor respectfully to urge that you do your utmost to defeat any plan designed to bring about the compulsory military service of our citizenry. Should it be urged that our complete armament is necessary for our safety, it may be confidently replied that a proper foreign policy, implemented by an effective diplomacy, can avert the dangers that are feared. What this country needs and what the world needs, is a will for peace, not war. God will help our efforts to bring this about.

Respectfully submitted, GEO. ALBERT SMITH, J. REUBEN CLARK, JR., DAVID O. MCKAY, First Presidency.

I actually ran across this on Reddit, where it has been posted by an unhappy former Mormon.  It might be noted, of course, that at that age a large number of Mormons go on missions, which is an effort to consolidate them in their faith, so there was no doubt some reason for Mormon's to be concerned.   While I've heard it claimed that there's no pressure for them to do so, as a demographic, by my observation, they tend to marry young as well, which relates to one of the things noted in the letter, maybe more than one.

Still, the points made are interesting, and not necessarily invalid.  Indeed, almost every point raised in this letter is correct.

There is actually a lot to unpack here, and my own views on this have changed back and forth over the years.  In 1945, when this letter was written, there had only been a single instance of conscription into the Federal Army during peacetime in U.S. history, and that came right before World War Two. There was a history of mandatory militia service, but that had fallen by the wayside after the Civil War.  

Also of note, the National Guard, in peacetime, still did not receive Federal basic training in 1945.  Entry level soldiers were trained by their units by older NCO's delegated that task.  Given this, the nature of the training was always local, but it obviously varied in other ways depending upon who was delivering it.  In the case of this letter, the author could be assured that enlisting young men would have been trained by older soldiers of a like mind, with therefore much of the societal dangers noted avoided.  I'm not sure when the training system actually changed, but I suspect it was by the very late 1940s or certainly by the 1950s.  By the time I was in the Guard the Guard was incredibly integrated into the Regular Army, which is even more the case today.  Enlisting men received regular Army basic and advanced training, and were in the Army when they received it.

When I was younger, I held the view that conscription was a bad thing, save in times of war, as it forced a person to serve against their will.  That's a less developed point than the set of points noted above, but there is a point to it.  Having said that, what I don't think I appreciated earlier is the dangers of a large standing Army, which is why the US had a militia system for defense in the first place. We're seeing a lot of those dangers come into fruition now.  That's not directly related to conscription, it might be noted, but it somewhat is as we have a large, all volunteer, armed forces, which inevitably leads to a sort of military class.  Armed forces with conscripts are much less likely do to that, and therefore they make a much more democratic force that's much less likely to act as praetorian guards for a would be dictator.  

Additionally, as I've grown older I've noted that there's a distinct difference between people who served when asked, and those who avoided it.  Our narcissist in chief in Washington D.C., who avoided serving due to shin splits, is a good example. Donald Trump would have benefited enormously from two years as an enlisted man in the military.  But it's not just him, I've noted this in a lot of men who found a way not to serve.  Their characters would have been better off if they had.

Last edition:

Thursday, December 13, 1945. Crimes against humanity.

Labels: 1940s, 1945, Crimes against humanity, Nazi Germany, War Crimes

A Holy Day of Obligation Plea for the Common Man, and some other thoughts.

Today in the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, a Holy Day of Obligation for Catholics.

Almost every weekday Catholic holy day I think about posting something like this, and then never do.  But on this occasion, I'm going to.

I don't resent the holy days, and indeed, it would be wrong to do so.  But, in this very localized post, I don't like the way that the parishes handle scheduling Masses for them, or at least I'm whining about it.

Indeed, as this one follows a Sunday, I was hoping the feast had been transferred so there would by no obligation, but it wasn't.

Catholics are required, under the pain of mortal sin, to attend a Mass for a holy day of obligation, assuming that it's possible to do so.  What I think is the case is that sometimes the Church doesn't take into account the daily lives of Catholics, at least here, to make it a bit more easier to fulfill that obligation.  Or maybe it figures that it being difficult is part of the point, I'm not sure.  

Anyhow, what the situation is, is as follows.

Like a lot of Catholics in this region, I worked on Saturday.  I took time out of my work day, however, to go to confession.  I went, and then went back to work.  The confession schedule at the Church I normally go to makes getting to confession very easy.  There's confession on Saturday mornings at 8:00 a.m. On First Saturdays there's a Mass at 9:00 a.m., although I don't attend it.  There's confession again at 1:30 p.m.  The two other parishes have confessions at 3:00 p.m. on Saturday.  One parish has confession on Sunday at 4:00 p.m. and again on Wednesday evenings, and the big across town parish has confession on Thursday evening.  So every parish is making it easy to get to confession.

It's easy to get to Sunday Mass as well.  One parish starts its vigil Mass at 4:00 p.m. on Saturday.  The other two are about 6:00 p.m., I think.  Masses resume at the big parish at 8:00 and run them through the day with two of the three concluding with Masses in the evening, with the earliest being 5:15 p.m.

So far, so good.

All the parishes have weekday Masses, which is where this begins to break down in my view.  

One parish has a morning Mass at 6:30 a.m., way early.  Another one has daily Masses at 9:00 a.m..  Not so early.  Another has one at 8:30, but today, on the holy day, that's been moved to 9:00 a.m.

I used to attend daily Mass. . . at noon. The downtown parish, which has a morning Mass at 6:30, had one at noon as well.  It was well attended in relative terms.  It was also quite short, as the two Priests who conducted the Masses (they now have one) knew that almost everyone there represented foot traffic from downtown.

Okay, so what is the problem?

This is.

I could have made the Mass last night, the vigil Mass.  I thought about it.

But I also attended Mass at 8:30 in the morning, and then headed out to look for elk on my one day off.  It's not so much that Mass twice in one day is too much, but for people who have a single day off, and that's a lot of people around here, what that effectively does is to devote the entire day to Mass.

There is something charming about that, and I think some people do that very thing.  But for a feral person like me, bookending the day that way means that pretty much the rest of the day is lost.

To add to it, while I did bet back in town in time, on this day, like a lot of Sundays in the fall and winter, that would have put me in Mass wearing tiger stripe cargo pants. . . which would look a bit odd.

It might be possible for me to make a 6:30 a.m. Mass, but it would be pretty difficult.  I'm usually still downing coffee at 6:30 a.m. and my days are really long.  If I did that, particularly because of that location, I'd be at work before 7:30 and therefore be putting in a default 12 hour day with no break, most of the time.  

And when I had school age children here at home, it was an absolute impossibility.  When we still had a dog here, which we did until quite recently, it would have been as well, as my long suffering spouse, who has the temperament of a grizzly bear if she's awakened early, and who is not Catholic, would have had to been poked awake. 

And 6:30, frankly, is absurdly early.  Is there a reason this can't be 7:30?  A 6:30 Mass will draw people, but it will tend to draw the retired elderly who don't have much else to do at that hour and who have given up sleeping, as the elderly tend to do.  I know that, as in spite of my whining here, I'm always up early.

I have, I'll note, attended that Mass when I had no other choice.  I frankly was darn near asleep, but it was interesting as I sat right behind two young women who were friends, one of whom was a trad, sort of combining a mochila with a leather skirt, and the other who was wearing street clothes.  My guess is that they were on the way to high school or community college, probably the latter.

I'll also note that when I made that 6:30 a.m. Mass it was before they were worried that I might have intestinal cancer and then thyroid cancer.  My stomach has never been the same and mornings is generally where that shows it.  Enough said.

I'm grateful that there are two parishes with evening Masses I can make, although I with the one that has 5:15 Sunday Masses still had a holy day mass at that time.  Now it does not.  It's 6:00 holy day Mass is a Spanish Mass, which is also fine, so I suppose the time was moved to accommodate Spanish speaking Catholics on their way home from work.

What I really wish, however, is that one Parish had a noon Mass.

Any Mass after 8:00 on a weekday really isn't very well scheduled to accommodate working people, or students, in this region.  When I was a student, I was nearly always at school by 8.  I'm nearly always at work by 8, if not 7.  By the end of the day, I'm nearly always beat down and just want to crawl home (a coworker who occasionally does the "let's go get a beer" nearly always gets the reply "I just want to go home).  I'll make one of the evening Masses, but I'll be pretty worn out by that time.

A noon Mass would be ideal. And not just for me, but for others like me, who work in town.  The downtown noon Mass was great, as I could and did walk to it, but I could drive to any of them.

I know, in no small part due Fr. Joseph Krupp's podcast, that Priests are grossly overburdened, so I shouldn't be complaining at all.  But I am a bit.  Masses at 8:30 or 9:00 can only be attended by people, for the most part, who aren't working, and who don't have children.  Masses at 6:30 will probably only be attended by the elderly and the other very early risers, who can accommodate getting something to eat thereafter.

For most working people these just don't work.  Noon won't work for everyone either, but it'll work for some who might otherwise have a difficult time going.

*************************************************

While waiting for Confession to commence on Saturday, I was stunned to find a large crowed of people in the Church.  It soon was obvious it was a Baptism, and had just concluded.

Quite of few of the men were wearing hats, with at least one wearing a cowboy hat. This is inside the church.

I've grown used to declining clothing standards, and frankly I'm not exactly that well dressed most Sundays.  But wearing hats indoors was something I was taught to never do as a child.  In the service it was normally absolutely prohibited.  "Is your head cold?" was a question addressed in the form of a snarl by sergeants to enlisted men who forgot to remove their hats.

Now people wear hats indoors all the time.  I don't like, and I still don't.  I never see Catholics do that inside of a church, if they are men (and for that matter its pretty rare with women), so my presumption is that these were people who were largely unchurched.

************************************************

In looking for Mass times, I looked to see what was offered by the by The Ukrainian Catholic Church's mission to Casper.  I suspect they don't have a service today, but looking up their information is always a problem.  I don't know if its because its a small community and they know what they're doing, and therefore don't feel that they need to publicize it, or if its something else.

The Eastern Rite churches of the Catholic Church are growing, and it'd behoove them to at least make the dates and times of their services known, I'd think.  So far they've also been holding services in non Catholic buildings, which I also don't get.  I don't know what's up with all of this, if anything at all, but here I wish that they'd make use of one of the Catholic Churches and make it easier to find out when they're holding services.  

***********************************************

It's interesting, at least to me, to note that the word holiday obviously comes from Catholic holy days.  Most of the original holidays were in fact holy days and in Catholic countries, that's still very much the case.

This is a Protestant county.

That gives rise to part of the problems noted.  The US has a hardcore Protestant Work Ethic pounded into the culture by the Puritans, who got it from Calvin.  It's part of the crappiest aspects of Americans culture.  It doesn't add a day to our lives, probably shortens them, and makes them a lot less enjoyable. 

Calvinism, from which that comes, really has threads of steel throughout the culture.  John Calvin was a fun sucker, but he believed in work in a major way.  He also believed that being well to do showed that you were probably amongst the elect.  The Puritans themselves were big on the marital act, but by the time of the English Civil War prominent Calvinist in England figured that if they were well to do, that was proof enough they were amongst the elect, and so pick up a mistress on the side was okay.  

You can see a lot of that in the culture today, particularly amongst those in power.  People don't mind the concept of telling you to work harder while the engage in serial polygamy.  It's strong in the American Civil Religion and some strains of Evangelicalism as well, where some "faith leaders' who have had morally dubious lives see nothing particularly disturbing about that.

The culture lost a lot in the Reformation. 

**************************************************

Finally, this is not only holy day, it's a feast day.  The difficulty of getting to Mass will take away from the feasting aspect of it, as will the fact that in a Puritan Protestant county we're not supposed to be feasting on a Monday.  Everyone has to be at work again, bright and early in the morning.

Froma Harrop: Who Even Remembers Why We Should Dress Respectfully?

 

Who Even Remembers Why We Should Dress Respectfully?

The Golden Age of Travel Starts with You

The Secretary of Transportation has taken a lot of flak for this, and I'm not fan of the Trump Administration, but you know, I don't think the message here is wrong by any means.

And, fwiw, I hate seeing people in pajamas in public, whether its on an airplane, or Walmart.

While Trump defenders insist that the new e-mails don’t “prove” Trump wrongdoing—besides multiple examples of Epstein claiming he was “dirty” and “knew about the girls”—they definitively prove the corrupt, chummy, sex-and-money chasing culture of elite American men.

 

While Trump defenders insist that the new e-mails don’t “prove” Trump wrongdoing—besides multiple examples of Epstein claiming he was “dirty” and “knew about the girls”—they definitively prove the corrupt, chummy, sex-and-money chasing culture of elite American men. To see journalists and financiers and academics at best gossiping with Epstein and at worst providing him care and counsel is to see how the #MeToo movement never went far enough.

Joan Walsh, The Nation.

Erika Kirk, and J.D. and Usha Vance.

I'm not going to link it in, as I think it's shallow on the solution, but pundit Ezra Klein has a current segment of his vlog in which he discusses how the Democratic Party is in such a mess, in spite of people really not being all that keen on Donald Trump's Fascist Roadshow, because they're really lost touch with average people at the street level.  I've been saying the same thing now for what's approaching a decade.

Well, actually more like two, or more.

Anyhow, yesterday I ran this item which was sparked by liberal/center left blather about J. D. Vance hoping that his wife Usha become a Christian:

Lex Anteinternet: Religion, J.D. and Usha Vance.: Because this blog is steadfastly horrified by Donald Trump and his administration, it'd be easy to assume that it's run by a rampagi...

One of the things this event shows, quite frankly, is the degree to which the left holds religion in contempt.  The fact that they so obviously hold religion in contempt is part of the reason that people who are serious about their faiths, and that isn't limited by any means to  Christians, do not trust the Democratic Party and, as long as it continues, aren't going to trust the Democratic Party.  As I warned would occur, this is leading to a massive exodus from the Party by Hispanics, who are largely Catholic.  If you demonstrate contempt for people's existential beliefs, they're not going to vote for you even if you promise all kinds of nifty social programs.

They also are not going to vote for you if you show childish glee over a made up sense of morality over an event that doesn't mean anything.

As people who stop in here know, I really don't particularly know what to make of the late Charlie Kirk.  I've expressed my views on that elsewhere and I'm not going to back into them here.  As little as I know about Charlie Kirk, and that's not much, I know even less about Erika Kirk.

The widowed Erika Kirk has been in the news a lot recently, as she's sort of taken up the mantle of her late husband's organization, Turning Point USA.  In that role, she's been very public and is making public appearances.  She's drawn criticism for that alone, as apparently those generally on the left feel, even if they don't, that she should be dressed in widow's weeds and moping around the house or something.  Quite frankly, if she was a figure on the left, the same people would be praising her for her bravery.

And now comes the embrace with J. D. Vance.

Vance was speaking at some Turning Point USA event.  He's probably a good choice for that, as Donald Trump is 750 years old and most Turning Point members aren't.  The populist right has to keep in Turning Point's good graces, moreover, as it's part and parcel of the Evangelical embrace of Trump, albeit one that wasn't initially certain about Trump.

Anyhow, Kirk made some comment about Vance and her late husband being similar.  I don't see that at all, quite frankly.  And then she went on to hug him after introducing him.

This is a big non event.

Indeed, if you see the whole video, the entire thing lasted just second from beginning to end.  You can only really make it a big deal, if you desire to, by screenshotting the whole thing as if it was an endless romantic embrace.*

Nonetheless, the left has reached out in shock and horror, certain after Vance's recent comments about hoping his wife converts, that he's about to ditch her as Kirk and Vance are now a couple.

Oh horseshit.  

This shows once again the degree of contempt for conservative views that people on the left hold. There's no evidence at all that Erika Kirk is happy that her late husband was murdered and has now moved on to Vance. There's no evidence at all that Vance would betray his wife.  Indeed, as he is a Catholic, and is expressing a Catholic view on his desire that she also convert, the better evidence is that he'd never do that.

This is, again, the very sort of thing that causes people on the right to regard the left and contemptuous and mean.  And that doesn't win votes.

Footnotes:

*FWIW, as an Irish American (and genetically, I'm more Irish than many Irish), with some Westphalian heritage, I'm in that category of people who abhor hugs from people I'm not extremely close to.  By that I mean I'll accept hugs from my wife and children, and I'm uncomfortable with them from anyone else.

This is a real northern European thing.  We aren't a touchy people, and any kind of physical contact of this type is an unwanted intimacy unless its a wanted intimacy, in which case, you're contemplating marriage.  Out in society, however, this just ain't so.

I've known people, almost invariably women, who are very touchy and it means nothing at all.  And for some reason, in recent years, it's become increasingly common.  I used to work with somebody, for example, that would do this routinely, particularly if you were at any sort of a function and she's had a drink.  She's latch on to an arm and not let go.  I took up using my wife as sort of a shield to avoid that.  Another female lawyer I know invariably will make physical contact.  There I am sitting at a hearing when all of a sudden there's hands on my shoulders so that I'll say "hi".  Couldn't you have just said hi?

To make matters worse, I'm 5'6" tall and that puts me way down torso wise on any woman who is inclined to hug me for some reason.  If they're short too it's okay, but if they're not, it's really awkward.

Anyhow, a flap like this reinforces my desire to avoid that sort of thing.  The irony is, the people complaining about this probably aren't bugged by hugs at all, and a lot of them probably aren't all that concerned about personal or sexual morality either.

Ezra Klein looks at the state of the Democrats. . twice.

The Ezra Klein show recently ran two really interesting vlog episodes on why the Democratic Party is in the dumpster, even as the Republican Party makes the entire country a raging dumpster fire.  They're instructive, but in the case of the first one, not for the reason the guest likely hoped for.

It wasn't all that long ago, we should note, that political scientists had declared that the GOP doomed to demographic extinction.  It was, and is, a small tent party.  The party needed to reach out, it was told, and bring in all the people in the Democratic camp.  Long time readers here, of which there are likely very few, will recall that I predicated that some of the demographic  analysis was flat out wrong, and that Hispanics in particular would start moving into the Republican Party.

I was right.  

Now we live in the opposite world.  People hate the Republican Party but they hate the Democratic Party more.  Really a new party is needed, one that doesn't see global warming as a fib but which opposed abortion, for example, would have a lot of appeal.  But that's a post for some other time.

Let's look at what the experts have to say.  First, as it was first in time, is the interview with  Suzanne Mettler, a political scientist at Cornell and co-author of the new book “Rural Versus Urban: The Growing Divide That Threatens Democracy"

The interview is here.

I could tell in listening to it that Klein thinks the book is wrong, and while I haven't read it, I know it is, if it espouses the same views that Mettler did in her interview.  She looks at everything economically and that's about it. Social issues don't mean anything.

Well, I lived through this and saw a Wyoming that had a large, but minority, Democratic Party almost completely die.  Most of the major active Democrats in the party started to move to the Republican Party during the Clinton Administration and that trickle became a flood.  All sorts of respected "traditional" elder Republicans in Wyoming were once Democrats.  They left as it increasingly became impossible to be a centrist or conservative Democrat.  There's no room for a pro life Democrat, for instance, in the party anymore.  Once homosexual marriages, transgenderism, and showing up at rallies with blue hair became the norm, the normal largely dropped out and won't come back.

That's what killed the Democrats in the West.

This interview with Jared Abbott, the director of the Center for Working-Class Politics, is much better as Abbot is realistic and not hopelessly clueless, as Mettler seems to be:

Abbot actually admits that he isn't sure if the Democrats can come back from political exile in rural areas, but the examples he gives of people running from the outside are excellent.  Nebraska equivalent of Wyoming's John Barrasso, Deb Fischer, provides an interesting example as she nearly went down in defeat to independent Dan Osborn.

Osborn's race is really instructive as he wasn't a Democrat, but called bullshit on a lot of Fischer's politics.  Osborn himself is a working man, and he's pretty conservative.

And there's the real lesson.

Democrats right now can't get any traction in rural areas as frankly nobody can stand to vote for anyone they are putting up, most of the time, and then when they do put up a good candidate, the party's platform kills them.  The Democratic Party became, quite frankly, the Transgendered Vegan Party, and that's going nowhere.  It not only became that, it can't get away from it.  Look at any protest of Trump's policies that's a public one, and you'll see the usual suspects.  If there isn't a hugely overweight middle aged woman with blue hair, you just aren't looking hard enough.

Indeed, this has become so much the case that that left wing protests that are popular now are sometimes all Republican.  In Natrona County the recent Radiant Energy No Nuke protests were lead by Republicans including a Wyoming Freedom Caucus member of the legislature.  Chuck Gray came up and lead his support, sounding like he was Chuck Gray from Greenpeace.  If Democrats can't own that issue . . . .

There seems to be a little waking up, but only a little.  Public lands is what did it.

Back in the 1980s, when I switched from the Republican Party into the Democratic Party (I left the Dems with the great flood of us who couldn't hack the weirdness), public lands and attention to environmental issues is what did it.  People worship Ronald Reagan now, but James Watt, his Secretary of the Interior, was an Evangelical Christian zealot in favor of ravaging the land now, as he was certain that the Second Coming was going to be very soon.  That land ravaging instinct remains very strong in the GOP and recently came out in spades.

Wyoming Democrat Karlee Provenza picked right up on that and came out in front.  The Democrats need to do more of that.  Land issues are near and ear to Wyomingites and the Republicans are very vulnerable on them.  That issue alone might, if really exploited, bring the Democrats back if their campaigns were really strategic.  

Some of that strategy has to be getting really personal.  Sure, Hageman is for turning public lands over for sale. . she's from a "fourth generation" ranching family, and the ranchers always believe they'll get the land, even though they won't.  Same for Lummis  Sure, Dr. John is for it, he's a Pennsylvanian not a Wyomingite.  Did you every see him at your favorite fishing hole?

But one issue alone is a risky proposition. What they also need to do is dump the weirdness.  Being lashed to transgenderism is a completely losing proposition.  A Democratic candidate is going to be asked about it . . and could really make hay on it.

But only if they're willing to fight dirty, which the GOP definitely is.  But they're not prepared for the same.

For instance, if a public lands Democrat was running for the House, and asked about this issue, we would expect the usually milk toast fall in line answer they normally give.  But if they said, "oh gosh no, that's a mental illness and it needs to be treated that way, and women's sports and role in society needs to be protected. . . " it'd leave the Republicans flat footed.

They'd be on their heels, however, if it went further.  If you added "and by the way, I constantly hear our GOP talk about being pro family.  I don't know how pro family you can be if you are jacking up their cost of living and particularly their insurance rantes, but what about that family stuff?  Hageman's been married for years and she ain't got any children. . nephews and nieces aren't the same thing, and Chuck Gray is 36 years old and unmarried. . .what's up with that?  Why I think a decent man ought to marry a decent woman young and have some kids. . . and when that doesn't happen that's because they aren't focused on families, darn it".

Yeah, that's nasty, but how do they reply?  It is the case that Hageman and her husband have never had children.  Maybe there's a medical reason, but maybe it was a focus on careers and using pharmaceuticals to avoid it.  If so, that ain't very populist Republican.  And Chuck Gray is 36 years old and unmarried.  I know that he's a Mass attending Catholic, and I'm not accusing him of any intimate immorality, but I will note that by age 36 men are usually married, or in our current society, living with some female "partner".  Gray doesn't appear to fit either of these which is odd, as it demonstrates something about his character, perhaps simply an unlikeable character, that's keeping it from occurring, unless he just doesn't want to get married, which is unlikely.

FWIW, as I'm a bit connected, I know that Gray dated women while living in Casper.  Obviously those relationships didn't work out.  I'm not claiming he's light in his loafers.

I will say, however, that once you get out there, there are die hard right wing Republicans in this state who are subject to some unwelcome attention on their personal lives.  Is that fair?  Well, if you are calling for suppressing certain groups, and you are part of them, you owe people an explanation.

Which gets back to the inevitable question that comes up now, "what about gay marriage".  Again, it's easy for a Republican to say "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman".  A Democratic coming back with "so do I, and I believe that union arises once. . . what do you think about that Dr. John. . . and is that why you abandoned your original faith?".  

Nasty.  But Dr. John wouldn't have a very good answer for it.

Abortion is always going to come up.  Abortion is the issue that ultimately drove a lot of us out of the Democratic Party, including me.  The Democrats should simply abandon a position on it and let candidates stake out their own ground.  There remain a few pro life Democrats out there, and to be one shouldn't be an anathema. 

And, indeed, if that was allowed, it allows uncomfortable questions to be asked.  Republicans claim to be pro life, but now their massively in favor of IVF, which kills most of the embrioes that it creates.  Current Democrats can't really ask about that without hypocrisy.  A pro life Democrat could.

Can the Democrats do all that?

Probably not.

A series of Sunday reflections, not all of which are appropriate for the Sabbath.

This morning, I left the house early, although I had slept in.  Sleeping in for me means it was 4:30 a.m.  

The prior morning I had awaked at 2:00 a.m. and felt like crap all day.  Part of that was because I worked, and the office was cold.  

It's worse today.  My arms are still and sore, from my shoulders to my wrists.

Anyhow, it wasn't in the morning. Sleeping in until 4:30 was nice.  I actually got up about 3:30, took my thyroid medicine (which makes me angry every day) and went back to bed.

I shaved this morning.  I don't most Sundays, or Saturdays.  If was retired, I'd grow a beard.

I left for 8:30 Mass early, as I needed to get gasoline.  The Jeep was on "E".  I pulled into the nearby mega station and the pump didn't work.  I figured it hadn't been turned on, so I ran into the store to direct the attention to the clerks.

I've only been in the station itself once.  It was a few weeks ago early in the morning and there was a middle aged thin guy and a friendly, but not so sharp, young guy working there.  The middle aged guy was a hoot.  I brought up my snacks for the day, which included some pink "sno balls" and he noted how they used to make blue ones.  He thought they had been removed as "blue balls" wasn't appropriate, but was hoping they'd bring back "blue balls". The young guy never got the joke in spite of his repeated efforts to explain it, without explaining it.

"Blue balls, man!"

Oh well.

He wasn't shaved that day either.

Today,. when I went in, the clerks were two enormously fat young women.

Now, that sounds rude, but they were.  It's not a crime to be enormously fat, although it sure isn't good for you.

Both of them had all kinds of fishing tackle affixed to their faces. Piercings, as they say.  

Now, in a second, or third, rude observation, having piercings if you are enormously fat doesn't make you attractive.  Having piercings all over your face never makes you attractive, but having them if you are fat is a really bad look.  It's similar to having tattoos if you are enormously fat woman.  It makes you look worse.

Having said that, having piercings and being very thin makes you look like a meth addict.

When I came in, I noted right away "the pump needs to be turned on". They both informed me that most of the pumps weren't working. Indeed, they were very helpful on that point.

It was extremely cold, and very windy.

I noted they might want to post a sign on the pumps in that case.  I was grumpy, unreasonably so.

They noted they hadn't had time as they'd only been there since 5:00 a.m.. 

It was 8:00 a.m.

Three hours?

They did have time to make an enormous pile of fried chicken.  It was freaking huge.  I can't imagine how many chickens had died to make it.

The two men who were there a couple of weeks ago had not done that.

Who buys fried chicken at 8:00 a.m.?

It did smell good, as it was fresh fried chicken.

It reminded me of the song "Sunday Morning Going Down", which mentions fried chicken.

I hate that song.

Oh well.  I hope their lives are happy, and I hope too they get in shape a bit.

I went to Mass.

The Priest, on the way out, called me by name.  It's not my parish, but I've been going there for months as I live the Priest's homilies'. They don't pull any punches..  I was surprised he knew my name.  He's a very good Priest.  I'll have to be a less severe sinner.

I'm often surprised when people know my name, as I'm an introvert.  Frequently, people do.

On the way home, I stopped at a different gas station.  I had to stretch the hose as the person inf ront of me, who was not filling up, and wasn't there, hadn't left enough room.  As I was finishing up she showed up.  She looked considerably older than me, but probably wasn't, and was wearing pajama bottoms.

People who wear pajama bottoms outside of their houses should be exchanged for Syrian refugees immediately.  It's sloppy in the extreme and means you don't give a rats ass how you look.

We don't want to see you in your pajama bottoms.

I ran in the store to get some outdoor snacks.  She came back i with some loud drama about how much she had paid, or not, for prepaid gas.

Seriously, even if you have a nearly new truck, if you go to the gas in your pajamas, we really don't care about your over, or under, payment. Put on some trousers.

I went out for ducks.

It soundly have been my dogs first time, but he died about a month ago, poor puppy.  He was so lively, too much dog for me really.  

I miss him. I'm not getting over his death, even though he was just a dog.

I hope dog souls, and cat souls, go to Heaven.

There were ducks, but the hurricane force winds frustrated me.

On  the way out, I had to stop as a horse trailer was blocking the road and the driver, a cowboy, was yapping it tup with a hunter while parked in the middle of the road..  Off to the side, another cowboy was helping a young Native American woman mount a horse.  The horse was calm, but the poor woman, about 20 years old, clearly didn't know how to mount it. Frankly, a greener horse would have been dangerous.

As it was, it was charming. The cowboy was concerned and helpful.  They managed it, as I drove on, she was on the horse, proud but embarrassed.

Not all that long ago, her grandmother would have known how.  That knowledge is lost quickly.

But then, not all that long ago, the grandfather of the cowboy wouldn't have helped.  He did.

The whole time, a very young boy stood there with a horse.  He's probably ten times the cowboy I ever was.

Lex Anteinternet: Monday, September 10, 1945. Eh? (Additional Labels)

Lex Anteinternet: Monday, September 10, 1945. Eh?: Post war news items were getting a bit weird. Mike the Headless chicken was ineffectively beheaded, and would go on to become sort of a frea...

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 96th edition. The Epstein Files.

“In brief, my lord, we both descried

(For then I stood by Henry’s side)

The Palmer mount, and outwards ride,

Upon the earl’s own favourite steed:

All sheathed he was in armour bright,

And much resembled that same knight,

Subdued by you in Cotswold fight:

Lord Angus wished him speed.”

The instant that Fitz-Eustace spoke,

A sudden light on Marmion broke:

“Ah! dastard fool, to reason lost!”

He muttered; “’Twas nor fay nor ghost

I met upon the moonlight wold,

But living man of earthly mould.

O dotage blind and gross!

Had I but fought as wont, one thrust

Had laid De Wilton in the dust,

My path no more to cross.

How stand we now?—he told his tale

To Douglas; and with some avail;

’Twas therefore gloomed his ruggéd brow.

Will Surrey dare to entertain,

’Gainst Marmion, charge disproved and vain?

Small risk of that, I trow.

Yet Clare’s sharp questions must I shun;

Must separate Constance from the nun—

Oh, what a tangled web we weave,

When first we practise to deceive!

A Palmer too!—no wonder why

I felt rebuked beneath his eye:

I might have known there was but one

Whose look could quell Lord Marmion.”

Marmion, Sir Walter Scott.

The reason that late procurer Jeffrey Epstein remains in the news is that the Republicans made the "Epstein files" a big deal.

That's the only reason.

I don't believe that Trump had Epstein murdered.  I don't believe the really bizarre conspiracy theory that the Clintons did either.  Even at the time that was asserted, however, I thought that it made a lot more sense that Trump would have offed Epstein than the Clintons, but I don't believe that either happened.  

Epstein and Trump knew each other, and that association (I don't know if Trump has any actual friends at all, I somewhat doubt it) was more than casual.  Epstein claimed to know that Trump liked to screw the wives of Trump's "friends" and that he first had carnal knowledge of Melania aboard the Lolita Express.  At least based on what is out there, Epstein never claimed that Trump dabbled with the underaged.  Trump did claim that Epstein like women "on the younger side", which can mean a variety of things.  Author Michael Wolff  claimed that Epstein claimed he had photos of Trump with topless "young women" sitting on his lap, which again doesn't mean they were underaged.

There have been, however, some accusations, and that's what they are, accusations, that went beyond that.  "Katie Johnson" claimed that she was raped by Trump in association with Epstein.  Was she?  How would we know, the suits were never advanced, and the allegations are so extreme that there's plenty of reason to question them.

And other women claimed they were abused by Trump, while teenagers, on Epstein's island.

But still, all of this may just prove what we already know.  Trump can be proven to be a creep, but that doesn't mean he's a pedophile, if the women's claims are disregarded (which generally, we tend not to do with accusatrices).

Having said that, there's the smoke and fire matter.  People related rumors about the Hefner mansion for years before the full truth of its horrors were told after his death.  Hefner was a rapist, under the current definition, based on what one of his female house guests related to have witnesses in terms of compelled sex.  James Brown was violent towards women there.  Bill Cosby, who turned out to be a rapist, frequented it.

Can you really have an island dedicated to sexual trafficking and not descend into rape?  Can you really circluate underaged girls and not have them compelled into sex? 

During Biden's administration, the populist far right, which got ahead of Trump in its conspiracy theories, whipped itself into a frenzy with the belief that Democrats were a secret cabal of pedophiles, and that the Epstein Files would reveal a vast number of important Democrats who were involved .  As soon as the files were released, we were told, the lid was going to be off this horrific discovery.  Trumpite figures adopted releasing the Epstein files as one of the things they were going to do.

After the election, Pam Bondi did in fact release part of the FBI files on Epstein, which is seemingly now forgotten even by Bondi.  She claimed she had an Epstein client list on her desk that she was reviewing, with the information set to be released.

Now the list is lost, or maybe never existed.

Hmmm. . . 

Well, if a list existed, it's being hidden, and given the way the Trumpites approached this, there's real reason to wonder why.  They cried for the information, it didn't get released if there was a list, and it should be.  Is it lost?

If it is, how did that happen?

We're also told a list never existed, and it might not have.  That would have been smart for Epstein, and Epstein was no dummy.  How much of a list would he have needed?

Well, maybe some sort of list.  Knowing the high rollers being supplied with teenage girls would, I suppose, perhaps be easy enough, but you'd think you'd write this stuff down for self protection if nothing else.

All of which fuels more conspiracy theories.

Chances are there was no client list.  Epstein probably packed a list of perverts around in his head.  Probably most of the girls he supplied were young, but not underaged, probably. 

But now, we'll never really know.

What we do know is that somebody was lying.  Bondi, for example, either had a list and "lost" it, or she never had one.  Others who suggested there was all sorts of smoking gun material that would come to light, if they didn't lie, were in the neighborhood of lies.

But then, Trump has lied so often that people have become numb to it.

Gary Hart had to drop out of the 1988 Presidential election when an affair he engaged in, involving a boat called Monkey Business, came to light.

My, how our standards have fallen.

Last edition.

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 95th edition. Making us a more barbaric society.

Labels: Barbarians, Crime, Immigration, mehr Mensch sein, Modernity Is Barbarism, Sudan, The Second Trump Administration, Zeitgeist

Appearance. Shape and being in shape and women (men will come next).

Donna Reed as a Yank centerfold.  Reed was well known actress by this time, and is perhaps best known for her role in The Best Years Of Our Lives.  Her actual last name was Mullenger but as she started acting during World War Two, her studio changed it to Reed over her objection.  She became a peace activist during the Vietnam War.

Some time ago we received a comment here from a reader, and the reader emailed me after the recent item on fashion, and reminded me that I said I'd do a threat on the topic.

So here it is.

The threads were these ones:

Francis Anna Camuglia and Cynthia Blanton.

The life of Fran Gerard/Francis Anna Camuglia. Was Francis Anna Camuglia and Cynthia Blanton.

The comment was this one:

Anonymous said...

I read this, and your other post on Fran Camuglia. Wow, what a sad life.

I have an observation that I wonder if you would comment on that your post seems to illustrate. The pretty girls of the 50s and 60s looked different than they do now. They were beautiful, but softer, and more natural looking. Even the real dolls like Camuglia, with their exaggerated features, were softer and prettier. Think Marilyn Monroe.

I don't know what's changed it, but maybe the emphasis on "working out" has. Seems like you have really fit girls, and then really out of shape girls, and not much in between.

My replies were:

Thanks for your comment. Her life was tragic.

On your observation, people do indeed look different at different ages in the past, but I haven't really thought of it in this context. Having thought of it now, a little, I think there's something to your observation. As a minor personal observation, "working out" was not really a thing, as you note, in the 70s when I was growing up. Thinking back to high school I can't really think of any overweight kids at all. I'm sure there were some, but it must have been really rare. It seems to me that high schoolers now look older than we did when we were there, but oddly kids of my fathers vintage, who graduated high school in the 40s, looked much more mature. Nobody looked bulked up, or "ripped", or whatever.
This might be worth a post on the site, after I ponder it a bit.

By the way, while I've already noted it in these posts, her life being tragic isn't unique in terms of Playboy centerfolds. Quite a few of their stories are pretty grim, and Playboy contributed to that. In this case, quite frankly, she was off to a really bad start as it was, as she was married absurdly young, divorced very rapidly, and objectified forever when still in her teens.

I noted that it might be worth a post at the time, and then I went on to other things.  The email reminded me of it.

Well, in thinking about it, and I have no real scientific way to discuss this, my observational comment is, on this question, while I think there are some morphological changes we can observe in women, there aren't really that many.

That's probably surprising.

Let's start off with a couple of things, the first being that the first part of our discussion necessarily references young women.  That's important, I think, for reasons that will become clear.

The second observation is that time period and method of illustration matters.  We're not really going to get, for example, very accurate depictions of women, or men, at a certain point in our past.

Let's start with that.

A lot of comments like this, and I've seen them before, are based on photographs.  I.e., in this case, somebody is looking at a photograph of a Playboy model from 1967 and drawing conclusions from that.  But can we?

Probably not.

 Young couple, 1920s. By their dress, this couple was probably at least Middle Class, if not well to do.  Ages, again, are hard to place in photos but even the caption of this photo regards this couple as "young".  My guess would be upper 20s, and that would have been a fairly common marriage age for a couple with means, in this era.

Most early photography was in the category of portraiture.  Old portraits give us a much more realistic idea of what people looked like than "published" photographs do.  And certainly better than pornography does.   Indeed, that's one of the fundamental destructive aspects of pornography, which we'll get into later.  

Anyhow, cameras had to develop for quite some time before snapshots or the like appeared.  In the meantime, illustration really developed and that gives us a pretty good idea of what standards of beauty were up to at least 1920.  Illustration made use of models, who were chosen for their physical appearance, but they rarely strayed massively from the mean. The first real "standard" was Florence Evelyn Nesbit, who became the Gibson Girl.   She was pretty, to be sure, but didn't depart from the mean in a massive fashion

This was equally true of lesser known models, and indeed, it was mostly true for early movie stars as well.

Movies began to take over from illustrations as the bearers of standards in the 1920s and certainly had by the 1930s.  Female movie stars began to be more and more chosen for their beauty as well as their acting talents by the late 1930ss, which did result in an exaggerated standard in the sense that not every woman you meet is going to look like a movie start.

Teenage girls with cameras in the 1930s.

Actress Susan Hayword as a Yank centerfold.

But, nonetheless, while they were pretty, only in very rare instances were they somebody whom you might not meet, appearance wise, at the Piggly Wiggly.

Lauren Bacall as a teenager.

It wasn't until the 1950s that this really began to change.  

Starting in the 1950s, and I'll place the date as 1953 when the first issue of Playboy came out, the beauty standard became emphasized and highly exaggerated in terms of physical features.  The first Playboy centerfold was Marilyn Monroe, against her will, and her features in some ways became the standard.

Or rather her imagined features.

Playboy emphaszied the supposed "girl next store" with teh concept htat she'd lost her moral compass, was sterile, stupid, and very top heavy.  Marilyn Monroe's early movies, indeed the bulk of them, portrayed characters just like that.  The funny thing is that Monroe's own early modeling photographs didn't depict her in taht fashion at all

The photos above, from the 1940s, show a young Monroe as an actual sort of girl next door.  Her physical features were no doubt the same as they were in her earliest movies, but they weren't being emphasized.  Soon after these photographs they would be, and in movies like Gentlemen Prefer Blonds, they were on display.

Playboy,. as noted, arrived in 1953.  The 1950s gave us a host of actress that were Monroe knockoffs, some with even more exaggerated features. By the early 1960s a wave of Italian and other European actresses hit, all of whom were very topheavy, although they weren't portrayed as dumb.  Playboy and its followers kept on keeping on and if anything exaggerated things more.  Camuglia comes from that era.

Indeed, it was so notable, it made up one of the comedic lines in 1963's It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World:

J. Algernon Hawthorne: I must say, if I had the grievous misfortune to be a citizen of this benighted country, I should be the most hesitant at offering any criticism whatever of any other.

J. Russell Finch: Wait a minute, are you knocking this country? Are you saying something against America?

J. Algernon Hawthorne: Against it? I should be positively astounded to hear of anything that could be said FOR it. Why, the whole bloody place is the most unspeakable matriarchy in the whole history of civilization! Look at yourself, and the way your wife and her strumpet of a mother push you through the hoop! As far as I can see, American men have been totally emasculated. They're like slaves! They die like flies from coronary thrombosis, while their women sit under hairdryers, eating chocolates and arranging for every second Tuesday to be some sort of Mother's Day! And this positively infantile preoccupation with bosoms. In all my time in this wretched, godforsaken country, the one thing that has appalled me most of all is this preposterous preoccupation with bosoms. Don't you realize they have become the dominant theme in American culture: in literature, advertising and all fields of entertainment and everything. I'll wager you anything you like: if American women stopped wearing brassieres, your whole national economy would collapse overnight.

In a lot of ways, we're still in it.  It's what's given us plastic surgery and a host of other horrors.

So, overall, what I'm saying is that actual physical appearance didn't change that much, but rather the publicized standards did, to women's detriment.

So what about the gym?

When Camuglia appeared in Playboy in the early 1960s "working out" wasn't a term.  Indeed, gymnasiums were around, but their atmosphere wasn't quite what it is today.  In a lot of places the gym was the YMCA.  Indeed, in this locality, it was for years, before, some time in the 1970s, private gyms began to appear.  

Early gyms really had all the features of moder nones, they were just less used and sort of used by a clas sof urban people who was unusually into physical fitness, save for weight lifters, who are a different class entirely.

Having said all of that, women have been involved in athletics, if not working out per se, for decades.

Australian female Olympic swimmers, 1932.  These women look pretty darned fit.

Girls basketball team, 1907.  Playing basketball while dressed like this must have been a huge pain.

Indeed, nobody was "working out", really, until the 1960s. There wasn't much of a need to.

That doesn't mean that people weren't physically active, however.  Women were involved in Olympic sports right from the onset, for example.  And as late as the 1970s, at least, an incredible number of women engaged in some sports, such as tennis and golf.  My mother, who grew up in the 1930s and 40s, was an avid golfer at one time, and a real fan of tennis. She also constantly rode a bicycle, and she swam nearly daily up until her final decline.  Yes, she's an unusual example, but not that unusual.

Her mother, I'd note, was also a tennis player.

There's sports, of course, but there's physical work.  And everyone engaged in a lot more physical activity by necessity.

Which catches us back up, sort of, to the 1950s.  As we've discussed here before, domestic machinery really came in after World War Two, and with that, a decline in physical activity.  This meant more women went into office work.

The 1950s also brought the country the "cheap food" policy, and we still live in that era, and that's where things really begin to change.  This was noted the other day on Twitter in a post by O.W. Root

O.W. Root@NecktieSalvage

Currently there are two extremes that didn't really exist en masse before.

1 - Extreme obesity

2 - Extreme gym culture

Maybe one day those extremes will fade and a more  traditional historic norm will replace them.

That pretty much nails it in a way, other than to say lots of people are neither part of a gym culture or obese.

A lot of people are taller, however.  That's been well noted.  It's a nutritional thing, but here's one area where people, including women, have a different morphology than they once typically did.  Contrary to what people tend to think, however, its flatted out since the late 1970s after having really gotten ramped up, around the globe, in the 1890s.

Now, here's one more thing that's changed.  Women in particular used to at one time very much "age" once they hit their 40s.

Contrary to what people think, people don't "live longer" than they once did. Rather, premature mortality has dropped way off.  But people did "age" more quickly.  If you look at photographs of married couples the appearance of women over 40 is often shocking in comparison to now.  Now, for various reasons, women in their 40s are not regarded as old or even middle aged, but often if you go back to mid century they'll have a much older appearance.  I"ve seen photographs of women in their 40s whom you would easily guess were in their 60s.

That's probably all due to the stress of life and hard work.

So, all in all, I don't think the evidence supports the assertion there's been much of a change at all.  I do think that an emphasis on a certain look, or a series of appearances, has changed over time, but more recently its broadened back out, which is a good thing.

Iceland girl delivering milk.

Mexican women in festive dress