A couple of anthropologists are suggesting early man was far less the hunter, than the hunted.

At the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association in Washington, D.C., anthropologist Donna Hart of the University of Missouri in St. Louis presented the argument that fossil evidence and the experience today of monkeys and apes, the closest relatives to humans, “supports a ‘Man, the Hunted’ theory of evolution.”

Looking at fossils of early humans more than a million years old, Hart and her colleague, Robert Sussman of Washington University, argue that numerous examples of skulls bearing bite marks, some the kind made by saber-toothed cats and leopards, show up from sites in Asia and Africa. Further, the evidence for weapons — needed to hunt down that mastadon — and control of fire — needed to turn that mastodon into a meal — don’t turn up much later in the archaeological record.

Going back 2.5 to 5 million years ago, Hart and Sussman concentrated on the species Australopithecus afarensis. According to Sussman:

Australopithecus afarensis probably quite strong, like a small ape. Adults ranged from around 3 feet to 5 feet tall and weighed 60-100 pounds. They were basically smallish bipedal primates. Their teeth were relatively small, very much like modern humans, and they were fruit and nut eaters.

…

The predators living at the same time as A. afarensis were huge and there were 10 times as many as today. There were hyenas as big as bears, as well as saber-toothed cats and many other mega-sized carnivores, reptiles and raptors.

A. afarensis didn’t have tools, didn’t have big teeth and wasn’t very tall. He was using his brain, his agility and his social skills to get away from these predators.

…

Approximately 6 percent to 10 percent of early humans were preyed upon, according to evidence such as teeth marks on bones, talon marks on skulls and holes in a fossil cranium into which saber-tooth cat fangs fit.

The predation rate on savannah antelope and certain ground-living monkeys today is around 6 percent to 10 percent as well.

They further assert: many of our modern human traits, including those of cooperation and socialization, developed as a result of being a prey species and the early human’s ability to outsmart the predators.

Could it be if we returned to our pre-predator vegetarian ways we could actually unevolve into the peaceful, cooperative and social animals we may once have been?

I may well have to mull that over my steak tonight.

Hart and Sussman have compiled their research and theory in their book: Man the Hunted.

Footnote: As Jack should be back later this evening and, no doubt, up and posting tomorrow, I would like to thank him for the opportunity to come over here and exercise my brain a bit. Thus, my heartfelt thanks to Jack and his readers for the hospitality.

This is my last guest post for a while. It was a hard decision. Should I leave you with Rebus Puzzles to do? Or perhaps another little story? Or better yet… something to boggle the mind.

Did you realize how many ways the word “Jack” can be used?

   1. often Jack Informal. A man; a fellow.
   2. a. One who does odd or heavy jobs; a laborer.
        b. One who works in a specified manual trade. Often used in combination: a lumberjack; a steeplejack.
        c. Jack A sailor; a tar.
   3. (Abbr. J) Games. A playing card showing the figure of a servant or soldier and ranking below a queen. Also called knave.
   4. Games.
        a. jacks (used with a sing. or pl. verb) A game played with a set of small six-pointed metal pieces and a small ball, the object being to pick up the pieces in various combinations.
        b. One of the metal pieces so used.
   5. Sports. A pin used in some games of bowling.
   6. a. A usually portable device for raising heavy objects by means of force applied with a lever, screw, or hydraulic press.
        b. A wooden wedge for cleaving rock.
   7. A device used for turning a spit.
   8. Nautical.
        a. A support or brace, especially the iron crosstree on a topgallant masthead.
        b. A small flag flown at the bow of a ship, usually to indicate nationality.
   9. The male of certain animals, especially the ass.
  10. Any of several food and game fishes of the family Carangidae, found in tropical and temperate seas.
  11. A jackrabbit.
  12. A socket that accepts a plug at one end and attaches to electric circuitry at the other.
  13. Slang. Money.
  14. Applejack.
  15. Slang. A small or worthless amount: You don’t know jack about that.

Psst, Jack… I hope you had a safe and uneventful trip back to the states.

Jack must have been hitting the scotch pretty hard the other night, because he offered me a set of keys as well! I haven’t posted anything up to this point because my internet access is also limited at the moment. And for some reason, the days seem to have snuck by me this week.

Do you ever have that, where you’re doing your own thing and suddenly you realize, “Holy CRAP! It’s Thursday already!”

That’s the kind of realization I had this morning when I woke up and… somehow… it was Sunday. Now, I understand the natural progression of the days of the week, so I understand that it was Saturday yesterday, Friday the day before, etc., but for some reason it never really sunk in. Well, this week, at least.

But that got me to thinking. No, no… it’s true, despite whatever lack of it this post might indicate.

It got me to thinking about my perception of time. It never seemed to me that time was passing that quickly. As a matter of fact, this week seemed to drag on, and it seemed that the weekend would never get here. And now, lo and behold, it’s Sunday and half the weekend (or more, if you count Friday night) is already gone!

Woe is me!!!

Maybe I’ll go to a nudie bar, just so I can say I’ve done something weekend-ish this weekend. Or does going to a nudie bar even count as a “weekend-ish” activity anymore?

(actually, I was just trying to figure out a way to mention “nudie bar” on Jack’s site without sounding completely depraved - and I’m up to three times already(!), although I’m not quite sure that I don’t sound depraved)

But I’ve gotten off my point. I was talking about my perception of time this week. I suppose one’s perception of anything depends largely on your particular perspective. Since I wasn’t especially interested in most of the activities I was engaged in during the week, I suppose my perspective was one of watching the clock. Therefore, I perceived the passage of time acutely.

This weekend, however, I was busy running errands, fooling around with my computer, and other random activities not worth mentioning, all of which were of particular interest to me - if not to anyone else - but which led to my perspective being one of focusing on those activities, not on the clock, and my perception of the passage of time was greatly diminished.

Anyway, I’m not sure what underlying point I wanted to make with all of this, but I just thought it was interesting to see how my perception of something depended on the perspective from which I was viewing it.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has below its masthead the line, "ONE OF AMERICA’S GREAT NEWSPAPERS." No kidding. How the paper measures the greatness of itself is a bit of an unknown. How many papers have been vetted and found wanting? Or are we in the modern Little League of news organizations wherein all are judged a winner?

I suppose that if the field of greatness is expanded sufficiently, then one could assert with a passable straight face that the Post-Gazette is among the unspecified great. And yet, I wonder.

In today’s Sunday Forum section, where editorials live, the editors sought fit to publish Joe Lieberman’s Wall Street Journal OpEd. From last Tuesday.

Still, there are a very good selection of editorialists at the P-G. Jack Kelly does a great job of countering the whining attitude of the editors. Ann McFeathers writes consistently well. But sometimes, in the midst f making good points, the P-G’s columnists betray a certain, well, bias.

In Dennis Roddy’s column today about some of the more ridiculous activity that passes for Homeland Security, the author (a good writer, generally) can’t allow the story to be told and left for the reader. He has to trump up the bona fides of the woman profiled. Roddy’s story revolves around a woman who was arrested for not giving federal officers her identification:

Guards from the Federal Protective Services marched onto the bus,
took her away and charged her with two counts under the Code of Federal
Regulations — failing to comply with signs and directions and
violating the terms of admission to federal property.

"I caught the next bus that came through," she said. "I got to work. I
was like three hours late." She had to let her children know, including
her son, Dale, who is currently recovering from wounds he received
fighting for the U.S. Army in Iraq.

Now, I would be inclined to side with the woman, Deborah Davis. However, her argument has nothing whatsoever to do with her son’s service in Iraq, for which we all should be grateful. Ms Davis’ son’s injuries give her neither more nor less legitimacy in this case. But Roddy can’t help himself. Ah! The injustice of it all! This woman’s son was injured in Iraq and what thanks does she get? Hauled off to the federal pokey! Cheap Dennis. Really cheap.

In the same M.O. but on a different subject, Dan Simpson (who has done some good reporting from Morocco lately) heads straight for the showers in an otherwise innocuous trifle about the Christmas tree exhibit at The Carnegie.

He starts with a PC apology for being at the exhibit in the first place:

Wherever the fir tree falls in the historical transition in religion
from solar monotheism to other systems, including Christianity, for me
the December holidays have always had to include Christmas trees as an
essential part.

Well, I’m relieved that Dan considers a Christmas tree essential to, uh, Christmas. But I can even forgive him this, if only because it has become so painfully predictable. But near the end, in describing one tree that incorporated cows in the design, Simpson goes a little too near some rhetorical phase out:

The theme of the fifth tree was the man in the moon. It has an enormous
kite, with a dramatic tail, and seven cows under the tree. In addition
to "the cattle are lowing" mythology attached to musical accounts of
Christ’s birth in the manger, cows add a restful pastoral touch to any
tableau. If we could adopt a bovine, cow-like approach to some of what
is going on in the world, we would probably be better off, during the
holidays and in general.

Allow me to highlight the offending sentence:

If we could adopt a bovine, cow-like approach to some of what
is going on in the world, we would probably be better off, during the
holidays and in general.

Um, Dan? I don’t where you grew up or where you lived before Pittsburgh. But even us city folk understand that cows get slaughtered.

I’m wondering what the crappy papers run on Sunday.

This may come as a surprise to some, but our United States Constitution does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution requires:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

As such, state legislatures are given the power and authority to set the time, place, and manner of elections; however, the Constitution does explicitly prohibit discrimination (Amendments XV, XIX, and XXVI) in granting the franchise based on a person’s race, sex, or age.

Amendment XV to the Constitution provides:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XIX states:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XXVI:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Notwithstanding, States and other governments can and do disfranchise individuals and groups of citizens. It would appear, if there is no provable bias, it is Constitutional, despite the guarantee of “equal protection” provided by Amendment XIV :

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Case in point is the disfranchisement due to criminal conviction. According to Wikipedia, there are thirteen U.S. states which deny the right to vote to those serving time for felony conviction; however, the disfranchisement is for the length of incarceration. Texas has a similar law that extends the suspension of the right to vote for a period of two years after release from custody. Thirteen other U. S. states permanently deny the right to vote with Arizona and Maryland imposing perpetual disfranchisement after two convictions. Only two states, Maine and Vermont allow prison inmates to vote unless disfranchisement is meted out as a separate punishment.

Since 1868 Florida has had a lifetime voting ban for felons.

In the case of Johnson v. Bush, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 5945, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 406 (11th Cir. Fla. Apr 12, 2005) eight Florida citizens, representing a class of over 613,000 Florida citizens who have fully served sentences of incarceration, probation, or parole on felony convictions, challenged the Florida Constitutional provision barring convicted felons from voting in the State of Florida.

The case synopsis is as follows:

Plaintiffs contend that this provision violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs contend that: the original provision, enacted in 1868, was motivated by a discriminatory purpose to disenfranchise African-Americans; this provision was reenacted in 1968 with no explanation provided, maintaining the original taint of discriminatory purpose in the 1868 enactment; the disproportionate effect on African Americans; and, the fact that African Americans are less likely to have their rights restored.

On November 14, 2005, the United States Supreme Court, without comment or published decision, rejected the appeal of Florida felons seeking to regain their right to vote, thereby affirming the April 12, 2005 en banc decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in the Johnson case.

That court’s findings have been summarized:

The Court conceded the fact that some provisions of the 1868 Constitution were discriminatorily motivated, but this did not mean all provisions were. The Court, however, went on to state that there was no direct evidence of discriminatory motivation behind the provision in question. Additionally, in 1968, amendments to the Florida Constitution were considered and debated in a deliberative process, and amendments to the provision in question were changed to only include felons, whereas in the past people convicted of misdemeanors were also disenfranchised. No evidence of racial animus was provided, a valid reason for the provision was found, and as such the provision was found to be constitutional. Finally, the Court held that the legislative history behind Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act indicates that, while the section was intended to prevent discrimination in elections, it was never intended to affect a State’s ability to disenfranchise persons convicted of felonies.

Per se, the issue of convicted felons losing their right to vote while incarcerated and during their period of probation is of little interest to me; however, I am not of the opinion the loss of franchisement should be permanent once one has served the requisite time and complied with all probationary matters. Further, I have no problem with some State-instituted process whereby a convicted felon is required to apply for re-institution of the right to vote.

What I find provocative about this topic is the assertion by the plaintiffs in the Johnson case that 10 percent of African-American adults in the state are prohibited from voting under the ban and this percentage does not include those presently incarcerated.

This is further apparent in the Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed by the Johnson plaintiffs with the United States Supreme Court:

Questions Presented

1. Is a permanent felony disenfranchisement provision - like all other voting qualifications subject to challenge under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act on the ground it results in denial of the right to vote on account of race?

2. When a provision as enacted by a state for the purpose of disqualifying otherwise eligible black voters, and it has disenfranchised blacks at twice the rate of others for more that one hundred years, does the state bear the evidentiary burdens of production and persuasion in proving it reenacted the provision for an independent, nondiscriminatory reason sufficient to purge its unconstitutional taint?

As stated above, it would appear, if there is no provable bias, disfranchisement is Constitutional, despite the guarantee of “equal protection” provided by Amendment XIV.

The implications of this extend beyond race, sex, and age.

It’s happening again. On televisions across the country, I suppose - although it’s possible that it’s only in the South, another example of Northern Oppression perhaps - McDonald’s is advertising the Return of the McRib.

It even has it’s own website. To be honest, I don’t know how often the McRib returns. I remember trying one once, and thinking it was maybe the worst sin committed in the name of barbeque since the advent of fire. But I don’t know if the McRib shows up every year, or every couple of years, or on some sort of random basis. It’s just amazing to me that it ever made more than one appearance. Maybe McDonald’s thinks if they just put enough of that vaguely barbequeish sauce on it, they can convince people to buy it. “For a short time only, try the new McDonald’s McBuffalo Chip Sandwich!! It has sauce!” I’ve never heard anyone proclaim a desire to actually get, and eat, a McRib. Someone must, because McDonald’s wouldn’t otherwise try to foist this culinary apostasy off on us. At least, I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t. Maybe there’s some corporate calculation that making the McRib available will cause an increase in hamburger sales, as a grateful nation of consumers decides that maybe the Double Cheeseburger, or the Quarter Pounder, or the Big Mac, isn’t so bad after all. Maybe they have some obscure contract that requires them to buy a couple of million tons of some vague pork-like meat periodically. Or maybe they just figured that a country that just re-elected George Bush as President is ripe for persuading that they really, truly, want/desire/crave a McRib. I figure by this time Jack has probably rowed about halfway across, maybe less if he swung south to avoid Hurricane Epsilon. If he catches the westerlies soon enough, maybe he can reach the shores of our great McNation in time to partake of a McRib. Washed down with a carbonated beverage of his choice, and served with a side of French Fries cooked in partially hydrogenated vegetable oils (may contain partially hydrogenated soybean oil and/or partially hydrogenated corn oil and/or partially hydrogenated canola oil and/or cottonseed oil and/or sunflower oil and/or corn oil, or hell, it might be partially strained Castrol 5W30), it would be just the thing to wipe away the memory of those nasty French meals and French wines that poor Jacques has been forced to consume. So, Jack, keep rowing and don’t fret. After all, you, more than most, deserve a break today.

FOR ALL YOU LOVERS OF WORDS

Those who get too big for their britches will be exposed in the end.

When you’ve seen one shopping center you’ve seen a mall.

Those who jump off a Paris bridge are in Seine.

Marathon runners with bad footwear suffer the agony of defeat.

(Pssst… are you groaning yet?)

It has been determined that the most used sexual position for married couples is a doggie position.

The husband sits up and begs.

The wife rolls over and plays dead.

** vw note: this reverses rolls after the woman hits 35 years of age. :-)
** UPDATE: Do you remember the story of the Rabbit and the Turtle? This is the PERFECT example of it. The Jack Rabbit runs around humping everything in site while young and just can’t make it to the finish line as he gets older… while the Turtle goes slow and easy, winning as she passes the finish line around age 35.

Yaaaa, I know… it’s getting worse. Only 2 more days for me to be posting… now the questions are… which days and how bad can it get? If I can make you smile and groan at least once… I have succeeded!!!

The abortion issue vis-a-vis Roe v. Wade has been something that I have struggled with for many years.

When I was in law school, some eighteen years ago, I believed the issue was not about trimesters or when life actually began. As far as I was concerned, life began at conception. The issue for me revolved around consent, as well as rights versus obligations, and privileges versus duties and responsibilities.

My thinking was very simple, if a woman willingly engaged in an activity that would or could result in the conception of a child, it was her responsibility to have the child, then either rear the baby or put him or her up for adoption.

I believed in personal autonomy. A woman had a right to choose and the choice was not whether or not a pregnancy should be terminated, but whether to have sex in the first place.

In those instances of incest and rape where the woman had not willingly consented, but was violated in the most heinous of ways, then she should have had the right to choose whether to terminate the pregnancy. I did not believe violence should beget violence, but I was not going to force a woman who had suffered at the hands of another to carry, and then bear the child of her attacker.

Further, I had no problem with abortion where the life of the mother was at risk.

I believed that with education of ourselves and our young people regarding sexual activity, as well as personal responsibility, the necessity for abortion would be the exception, rather than the rule.

After all, reasonable, thinking, and responsible individuals did not screw up and get pregnant, did they?

And, if they did, they did the “right� thing, got married, and prepared to bring a child into the world, didn’t they?

During the two-week period between the end of finals my last semester of law school and graduation, I prepared to move from Baton Rouge to start a job elsewhere in the state, take the bar exam, and get married.

When I was cleaning out my apartment, one of my friends from law school came by. She had a great new job lined up with an old and prestigious all-male law firm. She had a new boyfriend and, weeks before, had been very excited about the events in her life; however, on this day, she was upset and crying.

This friend was twenty-five years old and one of the smartest women I knew. She was unmarried and pregnant. She had broken up with the biological father a couple months before. This old boyfriend already had one child from a liaison with a girl in high school.

The friend explained she was scheduled to have an abortion on the following day, but needed someone to drive her to and from the procedure. She said she knew how I felt about abortion, but she did not know who else to ask. The current boyfriend did not know she was pregnant and she wanted to keep it that way.

I struggled with what to do, but eventually decided it was her choice and she certainly had a legal right to have an abortion. I told her I would take her.

The next day, I picked her up and drove her to the clinic. There were dozens of people picketing outside. She covered her head with a sweater. I did not feel as though I had anything to be ashamed of, so I merely walked through the protesters with her. Just before we entered the clinic, I made eye contact with a wizened old man holding a poster depicting pieces of a fetus. He screamed at me: “Abortion does not make you not a mother. It makes you the mother of a dead baby.�

For a long time after that, he visited me in my dreams.

The friend had her abortion and we parted ways. We kept in contact here and there, but the friendship was effectively over.

I have no doubt every time she saw me she thought of the abortion because every time I saw or spoke to her, I certainly did.

Her baby would have been born in September of that year.

He or she would have been fifteen this year.

In a perfect world there would be no rape and there would be no incest.

In a perfect world each of us would think about our actions and take responsibility for who and what we are.

In a perfect world there would be no need for abortions.

Dare I say it? Ours is not a perfect world.

These days I still believe in personal autonomy, the right to choose, and inherent in each right and privilege we have as American citizens are equally important duties and responsibilities; however, while still a conservative, I now firmly tow the pro-abortion line.

If we made abortion illegal, only those who could not afford to travel abroad or pay “private� physicians to secure the procedures would be forced to bear these unwanted children.

Yes, they could give them up to adoption; however, with our current welfare system and programs, these extraneous babies would be little more than meal tickets for their mothers.

Perhaps, years ago, I had even believed and adopted that arrogant elitist stance that some people needed to be saved from themselves, simply because they did not know any better or had not been taught any better. For that is where I believe the concept of legislating morality began.

For the record, I do not believe in legislating morality, despite an acknowledgement it is done repeatedly in this country.

Back in law school I actually thought making abortion illegal would deter women from carelessly getting pregnant because if they knew they would have to have the baby, they might actually consider their actions beforehand, rather than live for years after dealing with the guilt; however, I have learned there are people who are just not that way.

A sister of someone else I know has already had three abortions and she came from an influential upper-middle class family. For her, she simply could not be bothered with taking one little pill every day, if she got pregnant, abortion was the perfect form of birth control for her.

Thus, there are people who can have an abortion and not give it another thought.

It occurs to me that if that is, indeed, the case, do we really want those people forced to have their children? My answer is no, I don’t.

However, for my friend from law school, I have no doubt she has suffered the anguish of her actions and decision.

Notwithstanding, these days, I do not care whether anyone feels guilty about having an abortion or not. I really don’t. It is really none of my business.

We all have crosses to bear. We all have things to regret. It’s part of living, as well as being human. Not all mistakes are equal in their severity or consequences, but mistakes are mistakes. We should have the right to make them. I guess I am Libertarian in that sense.

I would much prefer to see the resources, passion, and energy we have poured into this fight over abortion (as well as other morality issues) channeled and focused into doing things that are positive and might actually make a difference.

There can be a cure for cancer and AIDS in our lifetime.

I would love to see Social Security (particularly the disability and welfare aspects of it) revamped and reformed.

The entire welfare system needs a good cleaning, as well.

The tax code could be made a great deal simpler which would pare down considerably the number of IRS employees out there.

Our education system is in crisis and our most valuable resource in this country is our children; however we treat them as either prizes or consumables.

And, that’s just a start here in this country.

There is so much we could be doing abroad, as well.

My point in all this: We each need to look in the mirror and rather than espousing our virtues and virtuous ways to ourselves and others, get off our collective arses, put our money, brainpower, and effort into looking around and seeing what each of us can do to make our small corners of the world better for all of us.

I guess that’s enough from me for now, I owe my Congressman a letter and I promised cookies for the local fire department’s bake sale…

When I was working at Morgan Stanley, I had a colleague who is one of those guys who can explain what an idiot you are without ever uttering an epithet. He employs an economy of language that I envy and a deceptively simple approach to what is often covered in layers of jargon and shibboleth. Whenever a client would call up and ask him, say, why the market went down that particular day, he would answer “More sellers than buyers.”

The other day, The Paper of Record published a story on the economy that included this gem:

For every encouraging sign, there is an explanation. Consumer confidence is bouncing back from what were arguably some of its worst readings in years. Gasoline prices - the national average is now $2.15, according to the Energy Information Administration - have fallen because higher prices held down demand and Gulf Coast supplies have been slowly restored.

I know that the press considers itself to be the nun at the party, and I don’t think that this article is directed at the current administration. (If Mr. Clinton, or Ms Clinton for that matter, was president, The NYT would likely print much the same article. And partisans would be bitching about the unfairness of it all). It’s merely an illustration of the media mindset that requires it to play Cassandra at every possible opportunity.

However, the graf quoted also betrays a profound lack of understanding vis-a-vis market economies. Allow me to explain.

Prices go up, demand goes down. Demand goes down, prices go down. Prices go down, demand goes up. Demand goes up, prices go up. Prices go up…

Those uncomfortable with the law stated above should reflect on the wicked success of the world’s command economies.

Those unfamiliar with a basic law of economics shouldn’t be writing articles in The New York Times.

I’ve put up a rambling, incoherent post on various stories at Bloggledygook as a way of catching up on my blogging.

For now, I will just send you there and add this bit of obelisk-envy in Buenos Aires. I can’t tell for certain, but this looks like a collaboration between Christo and Xaviera Hollander. But really, what self-respecting man would wear such a color?