Will there be an astronomical shift in fashion?

[Del Snizz]

I don't need to start screwing around with my eyesight again. I already spent some worthless childhood days wearing an eye patch

Wearing an eye patch would certainly cause visual difficulties, though it is well known that with proper training, a skilled pirate can use this seeming impairment to gain the use of a far more powerful sixth sense. Eye patches aside, a properly-fitted monocle could only enhance your vision. If you by some mistake obtained a monocle not suited to your eye, wearing it would still give you a great deal of prestige, as most monocle wearers are known to have especially refined taste.

The monocle is clearly a sign of being a greedy robber-baron. Another less decieving form of 'greedyvision' are the mini-glasses, popularized by <a href=http://www.iwillteachyoutoberich.com/archives/mcduck.gif>Scrooge McDuck</a> and his arch-rival <a href=http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/0/06/300px-CartoonGlomgold.jpg>Flintheart Glomgold.</a>

Interesting point. We should note, however, that the pince-nez was favored by the trust-buster himself, <a href="http://rooseveltinstitution.org/images/bio_teddy.jpg">Teddy Roosevelt</a>. It is true, of course, that McDuck and Glomgold did not in fact wear a true pince-nez, as neither has a <i>nez</i> to <i>pince</i>, but it is also the case that ducks do not have pinnae on their ears. These facts concerning the anatomy of anatids should give us pause when we attempt to draw conclusions about their choice of corrective eyewear. Perhaps all ducks who wear glasses of any kind are wealthy capitalist parasites. I'd say the jury is still out.

What's more important about Patrick, however, is that he can play the xylophone...

You have no idea how much this pleases me. <i>No idea</i>.

Yeah, I'm with Spiff here. When were monocles not the in thing?

Clearly, the men of Bob Schieffer's generation and nearby cohorts, who have been dominant in politics, industry and the media for some time in the United States came to develop an irrational bias against the monocle and continued to promote anti-monocle sentiments in successive generations. Perhaps this latest incident will make more people realize that they've been the victims of a cruel lie and once again accept the monocle on its own merits rather than on prejudice.

I live in the states and have never once seen a person wearing a monocle ... maybe its cause they would get beat up for being "Fruity" or what not but, i don't know.

I have to go with no >.<
I wouldn't wear one be cause both of my eyes need a lense and that would look very very very not right (2 monocles).

Once again, the tide is turning. The chains with which the antimonoclistas have bound our culture are being broken, and we will soon be free once again to wear monocles without fear of the taunts of small-minded men.

As for the possibility of a dual-monocle apparatus, I must admit it is most unorthodox, but adding some redundancy to your visual acuity enhancement system would certainly have its advantages. For instance, if you lose your glasses, you will be completely without a visual corrective, whereas the loss of one monocle will still leave you with some normal visual capability. We should also remember that contact lenses are essentially a form of dual-monocle.

Let the record show that I liked Sir Patrick Moore before he was cool.

It is so noted. Let me be the first to salute your foresight and independent spirit.