Friday, July 20, 2007

Who are you wearing? Who cares...

Story time! Back in the 1980s, shortly after Sandra Day O'Connor had been approved as the first female Supreme Court Justice in U.S. history, my mother had the great fortune of meeting her at some kind of event. I don't remember what exactly it was, it's not important. Anyway, after meeting Justice O'Connor, my excited mother related the momentous event to some of her friends. The first response she got? "What was she wearing?" I shittest thee not. A historic moment, a great step forward for womankind, and they wanted to know what she was wearing.

That's what I thought of when I saw this.

Frankly, I could give a good golly fuck what Hillary Clinton wears. Or John McCain for that matter. Certainly George W. Bush. Dammit, if the person with the most sensible policies and most honest demeanor likes to wear pink shirts with purple polka dots with plaid pants, I'm still gonna vote for him or her.

I've been saying this for years. Clothes don't make the man, or the woman. Clothes mean nothing. One of the smartest people I know frequently wears shirts with ducks on them, for pete's sake.

But some women, apparently, care about what the first serious female contender for President of the United States wears. And I find that sad.

Oh, and in case you missed it, the White House is yet again claiming it is above the law. Jesus Christ, did you people go to eighth grade Civics class? Checks and balances has nothing to do with your bank account.

UPDATE: I have to admit this is pretty damn amusing.

Song lyric of the day:
"Make me believe
No more left or right
Come on, take my side"
- Foo Fighters, No Way Back

7 Comments:

Blogger Ben said...

Well, in the Washington Post's defense, it was the Fashion section. I don't exactly expect deep analysis of the issues from the Fashion section...I expect analysis of fashion.

If this were, say, a Newsweek story about Clinton's "likeability gap" (actual story)...then I would be annoyed.

July 22, 2007 10:51 AM  
Blogger Mike said...

I didn't notice which section it was in -- but when I first saw it online, it was one of the top 5 headlines. So I guess I could lament that fact, or the fact that one of the top newspapers in the country even has a Fashion section.

July 23, 2007 8:52 AM  
Blogger Ben said...

Hey man, as long as they got substantive news as well, I don't care what else they do to sell newspapers.

I mean, somebody out there might lament that top newspapers have a Movies section. Those people deserve to be shot without access to habeas corpus, but they might have such an opinion. One person's love is another person's crap.

July 23, 2007 5:53 PM  
Blogger Mike said...

Fair point. I guess I need to remember that some people consider clothing "art" the same way I consider movies and music "art". Of course, as my trip to the modern art museum in Paris once taught me, some people consider a tin can glued to blue construction paper "art".

July 24, 2007 9:51 AM  
Blogger Ben said...

Hey, if you've got something against my 1st grade art project in Paris, come right out and say it, buddy! ;)

By the way, it's pretty damn cool that your Mom met O'Connor.

July 24, 2007 9:51 PM  
Blogger Jeff said...

"Habeas corpus" just means "have the body" in Latin. So after you shoot someone, you pretty much automatically habeas the damn corpus.

July 25, 2007 11:01 AM  
Blogger Jeff said...

Quack.

August 02, 2007 1:45 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home