History At The Auction Haus

Yesterday, a series of paintings and sketches allegedly created by Adolf Hitler collectively fetched $220,000 at a British auction.

For most people, the very concept of "Hitler art" - much less a Hitler art auction - is distasteful. Yet it may be worth reviewing some of the work exhibited at this event, if only to gain further insight into the mind of history's most notorious mass murderer.

So let's look briefly at Hitler the painter.



This is The Church of Preux-au-Bois, a Hitler landscape which received the largest bid at Tuesday's auction. It's a fairly standard painting of its type; the kind of thing that - give or take a few minor touches - could hang on the walls of any hotel in America. Yet there is something haunting about it. I can't figure it out. But I'd say that behind the vivid colors in this piece is a distinctly Teutonic gloom.



This is another painting in much the same vein. I couldn't find a title for it online but I understand the major Hitler art collectors call it Kitten in the Woods. The art style is a little more realistic; you have to (grudgingly) admire the sense of perspective. Again, there is something disturbing here, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Maybe it's just too hard to separate the work from its creator.



Ok, this one is a little different. It's a still life - the kind of thing every art student is asked to put forth at some point. Nothing too impressive here. Though there is something pleasing about this piece - something that despite what I know of its origins somehow makes me feel welcome.

That, apparently, is rare for a Hitler.

Regardless, I think it's fair to the say the Great Dictator was mostly a Great Mediocrity when it came to expressing himself on canvas.

My Chat With Chertoff

Yesterday, authorities in London arrested twenty-four men suspected in a terrorist plot. While a direct link to Al-Qaeda has yet to be established, this is no doubt the biggest victory for British intelligence since the closing scenes of Moonraker. Earlier, I spoke with Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff about Thursday's developments.



LOMBAIRE FAN: Hello, Mr. Secretary.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: Hello, LF.

LOMBAIRE FAN: From what I've seen, you seem very pleased with this week's news.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: Yes, LF. With the knowledge of how well our security agencies can work together, even across the Atlantic, I'm almost glowing.

LOMBAIRE FAN: Haha, I noticed. But I thought maybe it was your new aftershave.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: I'm sorry -- I don't find that humorous. Aftershave is one of the elements that can be used to create a liquid bomb. If you have any on your person right now, my agents will have to confiscate it.

LOMBAIRE FAN: But we're not flying.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: Oh. Better safe than sorry -- that's our motto.

LOMBAIRE FAN: I understand. So you must be pretty serious about this ban on liquids?

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: Yes. No liquids of any sort. Or potential liquids.

LOMBAIRE FAN: Potential liquids?

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: Yes, LF. Every human being has within their body the potential for creating dangerous fluids. So we're going to have to lay down some hard-and-fast rules: women retaining water will not be allowed to board flights. The same restriction will also be applied to men who've just ingested a large beverage, such as a Big Gulp of some kind. Before boarding, they will be asked to relieve themselves in an airport restroom or a wastebin. Those unfortunate few who have difficulty with this procedure, such as the elderly, will be aided by security. As I understand it, this has already occured a few times in the last twenty-four hours; the process has even been named in my honor, "Shaking hands with Chertoff." I couldn't be more proud.

LOMBAIRE FAN: As anyone would be. Now, how closely did the US government - and Homeland Security in particular - work with the British to uncover this plot?

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: Very closely. In fact, our involvement was essential, if I do say so myself.

LOMBAIRE FAN: Could you elaborate?

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: Well, without going into too much detail, we provided leads on one of the suspects, who just happened to be an American citizen living in a British flat. He's a recent convert to Islam, but not of Arab descent. And he's very cleverly disguised himself as a typical Englishman.

LOMBAIRE FAN: I believe you have a photograph.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: Yes, LF.



I think you can tell from his face that he's spent an awful lot of time experimenting with explosives. Yet an average person, without an eye trained to spot terrorists, might see him as your typical, twinkly-eyed, song-in-his-heart, Cockney-accented chimney-sweeper. Even with all my years in law enforcement, sometimes the sheer deviousness of men like this "soot bomber" truly astounds me.

LOMBAIRE FAN: I think it astounds all of us. Anyway, congratulations on your pivotal role in this successful apprehension. I think all of us rest a little easier knowing that Homeland Security is on top of these incidents.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: Thank you, LF, but I really don't want to minimize the danger. On behalf of my colleagues in the Bush Administration, I'd like to say that all Americans of voting-age should rest easy but not too easy.

LOMBAIRE FAN: That's a useful reminder. By the way, what's that smell?

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: Well, I just flew here and -- do you have any deoderant?

The Royal Wedding



Well, Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles have made it official: even a three-hour funeral mass conducted mostly in Latin gets higher ratings than the second marriage of England's future king. But the long-awaited union of these two adulterous aristocrats was still the subject of much curiosity. Unfortunately, I couldn't go myself; my celebratory kilt was still at the cleaners. But before the wedding, we did speak to Lomblog's official royal watcher, Ronnie Jove Montley. Ronnie is the host of the upcoming syndicated program Access: Buckingham, and a distant relation of both Lord Mountbatton and Lord & Taylor. Here's our conversation:

LOMBAIRE FAN: Ronnie, you've covered the royal family for a long time now. Many people on Saturday will probably think back to the day Prince Charles wed Lady Diana Spencer back in 1981. Can the current royals ever hope to match the excitement of the Charles and Di reign?

RONNIE JOVE MONTLEY: No, LF. Diana was a once-in-a-lifetime figure. She was both good copy and good television. She was glamourous, youthful, lively, elegant, graceful, poised and - sometimes - interesting.

LF: And how does Camilla differ?

RJM: Camilla differs in almost every respect.

LF: Sounds like it'll be a real challenge for royal-watchers like yourself to find things to talk about.

RJM: Certainly. Sometimes it'll be a challenge just keeping our eyes open.

LF: But surely, there will be some continuity. Diana was known for her charity work; won't Camilla - or the Princess-Consort, as she'll be known - carry on in the same vein?

RJM: Yes, LF. I believe that Camilla will be involved in several charities that are near and dear to her. In fact, I believe that over time, the Princess-Consort will emerge as the primary spokesperson for a number of causes, involving people who have been displaced, dispossessed, wounded, injured.

LF: Injured? Like land-mine victims?

RJM: No, LF. Each year, millions of people in Great Britain and throughout the world, are injured - by falling out of the "ugly tree" and hitting every branch on their way down. In everything she does and says - simply by her very being - Camilla will be a champion for these unfortunates.

LF: That doesn't sound like much of a cause.

RJM: Oh but it is. And there'll be other causes.

LF: Such as?

RJM: Well, in addition to her work on behalf of the homely, I believe the Princess-to-be will also advocate for those who have been ostracized, mistreated, beaten --

LF: Beaten? Like political prisoners? Battered wives?

RJM: No, LF. Millions of people, almost from the moment of their birth, are beaten - beaten with an "ugly stick". Beaten, and beaten so severely, it almost hurts to look at them. The Princess-Consort will bring their cause to the forefront because, let's be candid here - she has the kind of face that could stop Big Ben.

LF: That's very cruel.

RJM: Yes, it is cruel, when you consider the plight of those who have both fallen out of an "ugly tree" and been beaten with an "ugly stick", not to mention those who were so ugly at birth, the doctor slapped the mother --

LF: I'm sorry, but I find this very distasteful. Your "reporting" is simply recycling old jokes at the expense of the Princess-Consort! I mean, if Charles loves her, what does it matter what she looks like? And frankly, I don't think Camilla Parker Bowles is really that unattractive.

RJM: Ah. I see what you're saying: put a bag over her head and she's still a monarch, is that it?

LF: I did not say that. You know, you're awfully crude for a man who claims royal lineage.

RJM: Crude? Interesting word for a man who's all but admitted he'd like to trade places with Charles and mount the Windsor hobbyhorse -

LF: Stop putting words in my mouth -

RJM: Sorry. Just feel the need to liven things up around here.

LF: Understandable. Now, before we wrap up, can you explain to us why Camilla will be called the Princess-Consort? Why has she taken that title?

RJM: It's because of the controversy surrounding these two. Many Britons are uncomfortable with the idea that a divorcée who played a role in the break-up of the Prince's last marriage could someday be queen. Of course, there were other titles she considered. Such as "the Princess-Escort" and "the Princess-F*#@-Buddy". And this was not completely one-sided. Prince Charles also considered changing his title.

LF: Really? To what?

RJM: The Prince-Tampax.

LF: Honestly?

RJM: Yes. You may remember the controversy some years back in which secretly taped phone conversations revealed that the Prince would like to be reincarnated as Camilla's tampon. Calling himself "the Prince-Tampax of Wales" was just the kind of sentimental gesture you'd expect from a man so clearly besotted with his new bride. Fortunately, he was talked out of it.

LF: By the Queen?

RJM: No - by the Buckingham legal team. British libel and slander laws are very strict, you know.

LF: I'm not sure I understand.

RJM: Well, there was concern that a major tampon-manufacturer would feel itself slandered by an association with the British royal family.

LF: Thank you for clearing that up. Just out of curiosity, where do you go from here?

RJM: Believe it or not, I'll be following Prince Harry to a NASCAR rally in Spartanburg, South Carolina. Should be interesting, as I hear he's romancing the daughter of former white supremacist leader Tom Metzger. Oh, and though it's a bit outside my purview, I'm also heading to Monaco in the hopes that Prince Albert starts dating someone sightly.

LF: Thank you, Ronnie. I hope you'll find time to chat with us again. Until then, happy royal-watching!