He may be the Messiah, but can we expect miracles?

Clyde Haberman, New York Times, Nov. 14, 2008 *


* The online edition reduced the demand a little: "Can Obama Help Kill Baggy Pants Look?"

Click here to read more . . .

Sarah Palin and the Ollie North Effect

I began working in Washington in May 1987, just in time for two major events in American political history: the Bork nomination and Oliver North's testimony at the Iran-Contra hearings.

One could write volumes about the differences between Bork's mishandling of the media and North's success, but I have no plans to do that. I'd just like to refresh your recollection about North's testimony.




If you still don't know what I'm talking about, read the retrospective at Extreme Mortman from last year, regarding the 20th anniversary of North's testimony. A sampling:

More than mere testimony in a scandal that rocked the Ronald Reagan presidency, it was the last great nationwide media event before the Internet changed politics. This was all television, in its purest grand form.

With 60 million people watching, it bumped soap operas. But this was far better than any other daytime drama. This was real life.

In the Washington Post, Tom Shales called Col. North the “television champion.”

And why not? North testified in his military uniform, featuring six rows of medals on his chest. He got emotional and misty-eyed at the right moments, with a to-die-for catch in his throat. The picture of North taking the oath is one of the great political images of the modern era.

And more:

And Time magazine said about North: “He played brilliantly upon the collective values of America, upon its nostalgias, its memories of a thousand movies (James Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, John Wayne in They Were Expendable) and Norman Rockwell Boy Scout icons.”

Even Eleanor Clift dropped her jaw, saying on “The McLaughlin Group”: “I think he touched a chord in all of us. He’s Rocky, Rambo, Patton and the boy next door all wrapped up in one.”

Democratic leader Sen. George Mitchell was smitten, too: “Most Americans are taken by his personality.”

The committee obviously expected to eat North's lunch. They figured North would play the bad guy for them, but the attempt to browbeat him went awry. The public overwhelmingly supported North.

In fact, so popular did Col. North become that men and boys began getting haircuts like his:

THE Oliver L. North craze that has swept the country has swept me along with it in a way you will never believe.

It has taught the barbers I deal with how to give me the kind of haircut I have been battling to get from them for the past 10 years.

That's right. It's the "Ollie" haircut, which I understand has become almost as popular as Colonel North himself.

I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this. Like North, Palin was subjected to politically hostile fire; she's shown toughness and charm in fighting off her opponents; and the public -- or at least a lot of the public -- has been taken with her.

So much so that people are analyzing her fashion statements, and I'm totally not making that up. You really need to read this post from the LA Times "entertainment" section (i.e., the entire newspaper) called "Sarah Palin: Politics of fashion." (via JWF) The post has 14 photos of Palin, with some dead-serious fashion commentary and an accompanying vote (Misses the target / VP bull's-eye / Too beauty queen / Too backwoods). My favorite commentary is not what JWF likes ("the wild woman within"), although that's pretty good. What I like is this helpful advice from a "trend forecaster":

The big question is how she will update her look, as the election draws near and a possible formal inaugural looms? Will she lighten up the dark eyeshadow and too-obvious lip liner?

It’s probably not advisable. Trend forecaster Tom Julian, official fashion voice for the Oscar.com for over a decade, doesn’t think Palin should frouff up drastically. “A complete head-to-toe makeover might make her look more acceptable for the fashion magazines," Julian explains. "But it would also cause voters to doubt her authentic loner image.”

Here's one of the photos.




I say: Don't mess with Sarah, but the fashion writer says "Fastening overkill." (Wait until Robin Givhan of the Washington Post gets her claws into her.)

Finally, just as with Oliver North, people are even getting Palin haircuts, though probably not the women on MSNBC.

Oh, and I should point that The Ollie North Effect can be abbreviated as The ONE. Hmmmmmmm.

Extra: Some diarist at Kos got this connection even before I did.

Click here to read more . . .

Boxers, briefs, or . . . V-Neck tee shirts?

One of the pleasures of not working in a law firm is that I don't have to worry about what to wear. In particular, I don't have to worry about what's appropriate for business casual.

My personal view of business casual is that it's foolish. Either poop or get off the pot. In other words, dress like a man (in a suit), or dress regular casual.

In case you, too, have avoided the farce of business casual, you might not realize what kinds of problems this creates.

Here's an important question (via Above the Law):

Q. My son will be working as an intern in one of the big Wall Street firms this summer. They do not have to wear ties but will be wearing dress shirts. Should he wear a crewneck T-shirt under his shirt, which will obviously show at the neck, or a V-neck? Thanks!

I'm going to tell you the correct answer (my answer, that is). Wear a crew neck shirt with a collar that at most peeks out. Never wear a V-neck tee shirt. The V is not a masculine shape, if you know what I mean. You'll look like a freakin' metrosexual. And, no, you may not skip the tee shirt entirely when you wear a dress shirt. No bare chest for you. Because if you don't wear one, the armpits of your dress shirt are going to look as if your personal glaciers have been melting from global warming. End of story.

I didn't like answer of the columnist who posed the question, so here's a second opinion, also via ATL:

According to Carney, "in some circles it's seen as risqué and trashy not to wear an undershirt." And I'm sure a lot of people would argue the display of chest hair could potentially paralyze an otherwise promising career. However, the case study after the jump demonstrates that for some people, and only if you are sex on a stick like the subject that follows, letting your curly q's stick out can be the ticket to the big leagues. Bow chica wow wow.

And if you click on the link, note the problem with the men in the photo. They have TWO buttons open. Only one, guys. Only one.

Now, in light of the models at the top of the ATL post, and the lustful comment from a German reporter-ess when seeing Barack Obama work out at the gym, I had planned to photoshop the Democratic nominee in various tee shirts.

It turns out that wasn't necessary. I found a site called Dress Up Barack Obama. There aren't tee shirts there, but there are a lot of other clothing options at the site. To play, click on "Let's Get Dressed."

If you want to see what I came up with there, copy and paste this into the appropriate box at the site:

{f:1,mc:_level0.character_mc},{d:5013,c:hat,y:-72.95,x:1.55000000000001,mc:hat003},{d:4011,c:glasses,y:42.5,x:30.55,mc:glasses001},{d:3011,c:shirt,y:111.5,x:15.5,mc:shirt009},{d:2007,c:pants,y:201.6,x:22.8,mc:pants002},{d:1009,c:shoes,y:340.05,x:16.1,mc:shoes003}

Click here to read more . . .

Dress code

I went to law school some years ago. When I was there, professors typically wore dark suits, or at least a shirt and tie. One prof had made waves a few years earlier by insisting on wearing jeans, because he was cool beyond words.

It seems to be different on law faculties these days. I say this based on this blog post at "The Shark" (apparently a blog at Hastings Law School) about an article that a law professor is publishing in a law review, in which he advocates a dress code among the law faculty:

Prof. Jensen (left) accuses denim-clad professors of "trying—unsuccessfully—to look as young as students" and suggests that academics are the "worst-dressed middle-class occupation group in America." Apparently, if professors send a "signal of seriousness, of civility" by wearing a tie or tweed pants or maybe even a robe of some kind "students will pick it up."

Students are a hopeless group themselves, according to Jensen. He indicates that although he can't turn back the clock to a time when students did a better job of covering themselves up, he wishes he could.

Regarding student attire, The Shark's item quotes a student commenting at another law blog:

Whale-tail is no more distracting than attractive classmates in general, both of which are less distracting than web-surfing. Decorum is one thing, but one might as well take it further and get rid of laptops and attractive classmates.

Like The Shark, I had no idea what whale tail meant, so I looked it up. If you don't know, please don't Google it, and if you do, please don't click on "I'm Feeling Lucky."

Anyway, the last thing I want to think about right now is student attire. What I want to think about is student freebies.

Yes, freebies. According to this article in the Business section of the New York Times, colleges are beginning to give out free iPhones or internet-connected iPods to students. I kid you not.

Taking a step that professors may view as a bit counterproductive, some universities are doling out Apple iPhones and Internet-capable iPods to students.

The always-on Internet devices raise some novel possibilities, like tracking where students congregate. With far less controversy, colleges could send messages about canceled classes, delayed buses, campus crises or just the cafeteria menu.

While schools emphasize its usefulness — online research in class and instant polling of students, for example — a big part of the attraction is, undoubtedly, that the iPhone is cool and a hit with students. Basking in the aura of a cutting-edge product could just help a university foster a cutting-edge reputation.

Let me translate this for you. The money you're sending to your kid's college is being used to give the kid electronic equipment you didn't think was worth buying for him yourself.

If you read the article, you'll see various educational activities that these give-aways supposedly facilitate. But the real reason for giving the equipment away is marketing. You have to compete with other colleges to attract students -- and the tuition money that accompanies them.

I guess I'm pleased, curmudgeon that I am, that there are at least a couple of skeptics on the faculty:

The rush to distribute the devices worries some professors, who say that students are less likely to participate in class if they are multitasking. “I’m not someone who’s anti-technology, but I’m always worried that technology becomes an end in and of itself, and it replaces teaching or it replaces analysis,” said Ellen G. Millender, associate professor of classics at Reed College in Portland, Ore. (She added that she hoped to buy an iPhone for herself once prices fall.)

Robert S. Summers, who has taught at Cornell Law School for about 40 years, announced this week — in a detailed, footnoted memorandum — that he would ban laptop computers from his class on contract law.

“I would ban that too if I knew the students were using it in class,” Professor Summers said of the iPhone, after the device and its capabilities were explained to him. “What we want to encourage in these students is active intellectual experience, in which they develop the wide range of complex reasoning abilities required of the good lawyers.”

So here's my compromise: Ban the electronic equipment but spare the attractive classmates.

Click here to read more . . .

Put it on and keep it on

Underwear: Can't live with it, can't live without it.

"Employees counting donations at a popular Hindu shrine in southern India will no longer have to take off their underpants at work after the local human rights commission intervened."

"Officials say visitors to a southwest Ohio jail can't wear plunging necklines, Spandex or see-through garb. The Hamilton County jail said the new dress code also requires guests to wears shirts, shoes and underwear."

And in somewhat distantly related news, you know those unlicensed performance enhancement drugs you bought? Well, you should probably keep your underwear on.

And in even more distantly related news, here's another in our series of stories about the dangers of externomingent acts, this time the canine edition. Dog to lamp post: Take that! Lamp post to dog: Bzzzzzztt! (via Fark)

Click here to read more . . .

Cheap dates

For women who are wondering how to dress for a first date, you can relax. It's very simple: Be yourself.

Assuming that being yourself involves wearing $500 to $1,000 worth of clothing.

(And that seems to be in 2003 dollars, which is when this article, just now peddled by MSN, first appeared.)

Click here to read more . . .

But can you beat me?

No, I don't read Esquire, but there was a link to an article there called "The New Laws of Fashion." And that's fashion for men, obviously.

Me, I try not to look awful. That's my strategy in a nutshell. And when I wear a suit, I want it to fit well, but that's about it. No metrosexual, I.

But I did read this article through to the end, just wondering where I was going wrong. And then I found it here:

45. NOTHING SAYS "JACKASS" QUITE AS WELL AS A CELL PHONE ON A BELT CLIP. You know who you are.

Well, excuuuuuuuse me! I have a cell phone for the rare calls I need to make, and there's no better place for a man to put a phone than on his belt. It's easy to get at it when you need it. Pockets don't work for me; there's enough stuff there already.

When I was in sixth grade, a friend used this line when another kid told him how much better he was at everything than my friend: "But can you beat me?" Which I always found amusing.

And that's what I have to say to the fops at Esquire.

UPDATE: I should have clarified two things about my phone: 1. It's humorously out of date, vintage 2002. 2. I've turned off the ringer and set it to vibrate only. And if I'm still a jackass, the fops at Esquire and I will have to take this outside.

Click here to read more . . .

Tending the lawn

It's a business you probably would want a part of.

It doesn't call for women in bikinis to serve you your morning coffee, but it does offer bikini-clad women to mow your lawn. (There's even a video to accompany the story, though you have to endure a 30-second commercial first.)

The story's a bit old, but the business, Tiger Time Lawn Care, located in Tennessee, is back in the news again: "Backlash against owner of bikini lawn care company." At least one resident is upset with the bikini-clad women tending the lawns, and he's pulling his kids out of the sports league that Lee Cathey, the owner of Tiger Time, is involved in. "'It's an act of perversion,' said Dewayne Lufcy. 'It's degrading to women.'" Cathey responds: "It's no different than going to the beach. It's no different than seeing models on the runway." (There's a video there, too, if you're willing to endure another commercial.)

On a vaguely related topic, we hear what a female attorney has to say about inappropriate attire of women at the office: "What cleavage tells the world about a woman's brain." The point, with which I generally agree, is that women should dress conservatively at the office. But she goes on to make some broader points, and you should take a look at the comments section, where readers are going absolutely nuts, being personally insulted, calling her a racist, and so on.

I don't know about cleavage, but what you write in a comments section definitely says something about your brain.

(both stories via Fark)

Click here to read more . . .

Oy, another linkfest

I'm between two short vacation and things aren't allowing me to work on one longish post, so here's another linkfest. No, no, no. Don't thank me.

1. A man uses an internet florist to send his mistress some flowers and asks that the florist not to send him a receipt, which they do, and his wife sees it. (hat tip: fee simple) As they say over at Fark, hilarity ensues.

2. A followup on the story mentioned in yesterday's linkfest about an alliance between jihadis and Mexican drug gangs. (via HotAir)

3. Does the camera at the dressing room make my butt look fat? (via Mary Katharine Ham) Bonus: A video. Super-bonus: The key shot is here:


4. Tip to women from the NY Times: Eat red meat on your first date to make a good impression on your MAN. (via Alarming News) And fetch him a beer while you're at it. A commenter at Alarming News points out that Sloane Crosley, interviewed in the Times article, wrote a piece for the Village Voice that began, "White girls with big asses, man." Just sayin'.

5. Apparently, NASA has revised downward its temperature data, at least for the United States, because of a Y2K bug. Ace discusses. Also read the post at HotAir and the long post at Coyote Blog. What people naturally are puzzled about is why some of the scientists in this area won't release their data. From Ace: "The bug was discovered by someone who took the time to reverse-engineer Hansen's flawed algorithm...."

6. "Hashem saved me," says a former Yeshiva student in Minnesota who survived the bridge collapse. Dude, if I were you, I'd be asking myself why Hashem hurled me off the bridge in the first place.

Originally, I was sure this item was a hoax. The name of the young man is Roman Koyrakh. That's one external and one internal enemy of the Jews. Korach, who led the rebellion against Moses in the wilderness, died when God opened up the earth, which swallowed him up along with his followers. Hmmmm.

But I was wrong, I think. There is a guy named Roman Koyrakh in the Minneapolis area. (Check the middle photo on page 12 of this pdf.) Sure, he doesn't look like a yeshiva bachur there, but that's a 3-year-old photo, and maybe he's become frum.

Click here to read more . . .

Too sexy for your job

Frankly, I thought this article ("Are you too sexy for your job?") was going to be about me.

But it turns out to be about women who dress inappropriately for work. And by "dress inappropriately," I mean wearing the kind of attire about which Woody Allen wrote, "She wore a short skirt and a tight sweater and her figure described a set of parabolas that could cause cardiac arrest in a yak."

To some extent, these rules are unfair to women, who face more limits on their clothing at work than men. On the other hand, if you're a woman who thinks about practicalities, like being taken seriously not only by men but by other women, you might have figured this out on your own. So please don't complain about the rules. They're based on "science":

Dressing sexy can have negative affects at work especially the higher you climb on the ladder, according to a recent University of Lawrence study led by professor Peter Glick.

The study found that risqué dress on the job is viewed as inappropriate for those in all positions. Managers who dressed provocatively, however, were perceived less intelligent and less competent, while those in lower level positions (like receptionists) were not. The study also suggests that women who wear racy clothing are perceived as using their sexuality to advance professionally.

I'm kind of a traditionalist, myself, when it comes to office attire. And for men, too. The way I see it, people in an office should look as if they've dressed up, not dressed down, much less dressed for a night on the town. I can't really articulate a set of specific rules, but I know it when I see it.

So you'll be happy to know that the article has guidelines for you:

Skirts: Too little is too much. Skirt lengths should be no more than one hand-width above the knee.

Tops: Make sure there is at least one-inch of room between body and fabric and that it is long enough to conceal your midriff. Stomach, breasts, back and shoulders should be covered. Fabric should not be overly sheer and a bra should be worn (with no straps revealed).

Dresses: No halter tops or cleavage-baring necklines. Avoid overly snug fits. Again, hemlines should hit no more than one hand-width above the knee.

Pants: Shun overly tight or hip-hugger pants that expose the midriff. Stick with neutral colors.

Shoes: Heels should be no higher than two inches; toe should be closed. Avoid strappy styles, bright colors and patterns.

Hair: Keep your hair sleek and off your face. Avoid the teased, over-processed look.

Makeup: Keep it clean and natural. Avoid heavy eyeliner or evening lipsticks.

And if you're President of the United States, you should definitely get a legal opinion before you show cleavage. As Susan Roane, a business etiquette expert who's quoted in the article says, "Clothing and appearance are visual shorthand. The point is to be noticed for your business skills, not your short skirts or push-up bra." The same applies to future Commanders-in-Chief.

Click here to read more . . .