What does one call the wedding of a thrice-divorced man in his late fifties to the oldest looking 33years old since mankind left the cages?
For heaven's sake, THAT a "trophy wife"? In his debauched, bloated way Limbaugh has aged well and certainly doesn't look 26 years older than his armpiece.
Of course, the oh-ing and ah-ing over the wedding pictures of that gruesome twosome is disgusting. Of cause that man is a disgrace of grotesque proportions to any "conservative" cause. (Lawrence Auster is, as so often, well worth reading.) So what else is new. But did nobody notice how unlovely and hard-as-nails, albeit handsome, immaculately groomed and made up, that woman looks, with or without fake breasts? Are American men really that emasculated that they think a polished piece of tungsten carbide with some silicone attached to its front is something to boast of or to compliment somebody on? Or are American women really that greedy and attention whorish that they will marry a bloated out, physically repulsive old man with a questionable claim to fame and a execrable personal attitude? Oh well, forget the women bit.
Which leads me to another American wedding, Chelsea Clinton's.
And no, I neither like the Clintons, nor is this an endorsement of their politics. I am just observing that Chelsea, who is whopping 3 years younger than the fourth Mrs. Limbaugh, looks as if the age gap between them were somewhere near 25 years. Why that is, I have no idea. Maybe, but that is pure speculation, because Chelsea does not, different from Kathryn Rogers, "like her men well-seasoned". (And no, the latter was NOT a disparaging remark, quite the contrary. How disgusting can American hacks get?) "I grew up so differently, travelling around the world, that I'm sometimes not able to relate to the average person my age," Rogers simpered nausea-inducingly in 2008. And: "Rush has such amazing experience." You bet he has.
And while I'm at it, just a couple of remarks about the fashion aspect of the Clinton wedding:
I take back with the expression of utmost contrition my wish that Hillary Clinton would sometimes wear a skirt. Her MoB outfit by Oscar de la Renta is so incredibly ugly on so incredibly many levels that even I am speechless. Chelsea's miles of ruched lavatory paper by Vera Wang are nothing much to write home about either, but at least it's not butt ugly. Wang is the most singularly uninspired wedding dress designer, at least among the top echelons of that trade. Her dresses are either boring or irritating or, as in Chelsea's case, both. I can only assume that the Clintons are trying to emulate, or to top, the Obamas in sucking up to third-world-chic. Everything not to appear too European, classy and, dare I say it, "white". But at least de la Renta and Wang do not cater for the drag queen market, at least not intentionally.
By the way, the dress of grandmother Rodham is, as far as one can tell, very nice, formal, goodlooking and dignified, perfect for a woman of that age. She looks nice, too, and not a day more than 35 years older than the current Mrs. Limbaugh.
What amazed me were the many media reports that spoke of a black tie affair. Dear Americans, yes, the men we saw in the official pictures, the FoB and the groom, wore black ties. But that doesn't make it a black tie wedding. Believe me. I wonder whether so many American hacks simply don't know about what they are writing, or whether the Clintons, only one generation away from redneckia, really announced it as that.
And we even still don't know what one calls the wedding of a thrice-divorced man in his late fifties to the oldest looking 33years old since mankind left the cages.
So many questions, so few answers.