MetaChat REGISTER   ||   LOGIN   ||   IMAGES ARE OFF   ||   RECENT COMMENTS




artphoto by splunge
artphoto by TheophileEscargot
artphoto by Kronos_to_Earth
artphoto by ethylene

Home

About

Search

Archives

Mecha Wiki

Metachat Eye

Emcee

IRC Channels

IRC FAQ


 RSS


Comment Feed:

RSS

22 October 2008

Weak you know what I think? I think if I had $150k to spend on clothing...[More:]
(and I will! someday) I would soooo not go to Saks and Neiman-Marcus who's wit me? They're like the Wal*Mart of upscale fashion. The true high end is stuff that can be 10x cheaper (or 5x more expensive) but is sold in boutique stores and/or is custom made for you. In a way you'd have a sense of who on earth the designer is, what their traditions are, maybe even talk to them.. in a way I guess I'm arguing that high class clothing inherently requires a bit of savvy about who does what and how they're regarded and what's sold where. With a lot of plane-hopping and getting in queue for your custom work to be delivered involved. Fuck Saks.
and job creation!
posted by Lipstick Thespian 22 October | 21:13
I think if I had $150k to spend on clothing

I'd just buy a lot more band t-shirts and jeans and sports jerseys. I'm not that concerned about what's high-end or not or who the hell the designer is. Leave that shit to Mr. Blackwell.
posted by jonmc 22 October | 21:19
When I saw this yesterday, I could not help but to be glad for her. At first I was outraged (How in the hell do you spend $9K at Macy's? Most things are $100 bucks or less). Then, I was glad for her and actually said aloud, "that is awesome!"

There is no time to get custom. She must snatch up those fashionable blazers in a hurry. I read she bought a $2500 Valentino blazer. I'm sure it's beautiful.
posted by LoriFLA 22 October | 21:24
I'd get everything custom made to fit *my* body. And *my* feet. Everything would be comfortable yet stylish. And I'd budget into that laundry and/or drycleaning, to be picked up, delivered back, and put away.
posted by Stewriffic 22 October | 21:25
Ha! You're my kind of guy, Firas. $150k on clothes for the most famous woman in the country right now? That's not really all that much.

What I really love is that apparently a woman who has styled Paris Hilton helped with some of Palin's shopping. If you can dress both Paris Hilton and Sarah Palin, you are very good at knowing your audience.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero 22 October | 21:29
LoriFLA, I agree there's no time, I'm just ruminating. To be honest I always think these retail high fashion places have price tags that are massively inflated.. Frankly neither the material nor the design on any article of clothing should put its price at above $10k.

I don't get it jonmc. By buying band t-shirts and jeans and sports jerseys (and more illuminatingly, not caring about the rest of the expanse) you're making just as strong an identity statement as Bible Spice going to Saks or me wanting to be beyond Saks. This is why, in an odd sense, your band shirt is just like Palin's thigh high patent high-heeled boots (can we get any more cliche than either?)
posted by Firas 22 October | 21:30
Leave that shit to Mr. Blackwell.

Can't :-(
posted by ThePinkSuperhero 22 October | 21:30
I could stay clothed for three or four hundred years on that budget.
posted by octothorpe 22 October | 21:33
I don't get it jonmc.

I'm saying that worrying about what's 'high-end' or who's name is on the label is silly and vain. I wear clothes that are comfortable and in the case of sports jerseys or band t-shirts, show off my fandom of something. And if you're trying to create some kind of wierd equivalence between me and Sarah Palin, you're barking up the wrong tree.
posted by jonmc 22 October | 21:36
Yeah, I guess she didn't have a lot of duds to go campaign in hanging in her Alaska closet.

When I saw her she was in a black and white ensemble that fit her quite well. She looked really nice in it-it was basic classic wear though. Glad to hear it all goes to charity afterward but I'd hope they'd let her buy back a couple of pieces, anyway.
posted by bunnyfire 22 October | 21:37
Hey, jonmc, at that point you are paying for fit and styling and quality stitching. (along with the name, but whatever. ) To a point those things are worth paying for particularly if it is a garment you can wear for ten years or more. Which old money definitely does.
posted by bunnyfire 22 October | 21:39
Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich go to the Pinko Dry Cleaners, where you can get your suit rumpled, your shoes scuffed and your hair uncut (this line is stolen from P.J. O'Rourke).
posted by box 22 October | 21:44
I think if I had $150k to spend on clothing...

...I wouldn't. I wouldn't know how.

If I can somehow work the cover charges onto the receipt, I'll go with jonmc's plan, and just go to a ton of gigs I wouldn't have gone to otherwise, and then buy all the merch.

But seriously, $150k on clothes? How warm does one need to be?
posted by pompomtom 22 October | 21:44
Don't get hung up on the Sarah Palin angle. I'm saying showing your fandom is an identity signal exactly like worrying about the designer is an identity play. You want the designer's gear, you get it, you're caught in a feedback loop where you love what the designer does for your appearance and you thus love the designer, making the affinity even stronger. Think of crocs fans for a non-high-end example of this at work. Sports teams and bands definitely count as projecting identity and taste!
posted by Firas 22 October | 21:45
Second Hand Clothes
posted by lysdexic 22 October | 21:45
Glad to hear it all goes to charity afterward

That part seemed weird to me. Was that really the plan all along? Or did they just say that once they thought it was what people wanted to hear? I don't care if she keeps the clothes (although I suppose the IRS might, and paying taxes on clothes somebody else gave you would be a pain).
posted by ThePinkSuperhero 22 October | 21:47
I agree that worrying about the label is silly in the end (especially because you can't tell the difference between a $50 shirt and a $500 shirt often) but I don't think worrying about what's high end is silly. There's a whole culture and mechanism of taste built around fashion just as there is with art, music, cuisine.. a social construction for sure but dismissing it out of hand is probably more stubborn than sensible.
posted by Firas 22 October | 21:48
She doesn't buy from Nordstrom because it's headquartered in Seattle, and that's not part of the Pro-America Real America.
posted by qvantamon 22 October | 21:50
Sports teams and bands definitely count as projecting identity and taste!

Yes, in sports teams and bands, not in the clothes themselves. Nobody makes Misfits designer sports jackets or NY mets fitted trousers. The garment itself is about comfort and convenience.

a social construction for sure but dismissing it out of hand is probably more stubborn than sensible.

I dunno. I've more or less been dressing the same way since I was a teenager. Seems the smart thing to do is just ignore all the surrounding noise and do what you like.

Think of crocs fans for a non-high-end example of this at work.

Crocs remind me of hospital shoes.
posted by jonmc 22 October | 21:52
If I were a big-name politician, I'd probably, at nearly every moment of my life, have to be much, much better-dressed than I would prefer to be. Bunch of tailored suits and red and blue ties and whatnot. That stuff's expensive.
posted by box 22 October | 21:53
I think all of the big fights in this household start during discussions of Sarah Palin.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero 22 October | 22:23
I'm just in awe that she dropped so much on off the rack. For that amount of cash she might not have been able to get true couture, but she could certainly get a respectable bespoke wardrobe.
posted by kellydamnit 22 October | 22:37
Oooh, I know, I could get a legit Wallabies jersey, to replace the knock-off I bought in KL.

Suppose if I were a pollie, I'd need to have the legit jersey.
posted by pompomtom 22 October | 22:38
My two takes on it are 1) it seems like it should be possible to spend far less than that and still get enough nice clothes to last you for six weeks.

2) It also seems like a bad idea to spend that much of your party's money on clothes when you're running way behind the other party in fundraising.
posted by drezdn 22 October | 22:44
Of course, she could have just made a leather coat out of moosehide or something.
posted by jonmc 22 October | 22:47
All of this talk of what "she" spent is a little misleading- it doesn't sound like she did much of this shopping at all.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero 22 October | 22:50
Wait! Wallabies, pompomtom?? And you're a Victorian??

I didn't know anyone in Victoria followed any sport other than Aussie Rules and Cricket!
posted by jonathanstrange 22 October | 22:56
Nobody makes Misfits designer sports jackets

Somebody doesn't snowboard.

Jon, I'm sure if khakis and button down shirts with little aligator logos became cheaper than T-shirts you'd switch right over, right?
posted by small_ruminant 22 October | 23:30
I would totally be able to spend $150k on clothes, and it would all go to my seamstress friends.

I don't think I could manage it in such a short amount of time, though. THAT'S the impressive part.
posted by small_ruminant 22 October | 23:31
"Jon, I'm sure if khakis and button down shirts with little aligator logos became cheaper than T-shirts you'd switch right over, right?"

They ARE LOTS cheaper than "sports jerseys or band t-shirts"!
posted by arse_hat 22 October | 23:37
All of this talk of what "she" spent is a little misleading- it doesn't sound like she did much of this shopping at all.

Well I've certainly always suspected she was incapable of dressing herself.
posted by Lentrohamsanin 23 October | 00:01
Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,
But not express'd in fancy; rich, not gaudy;
For the apparel oft proclaims the man...
posted by TheophileEscargot 23 October | 00:03
That part seemed weird to me. Was that really the plan all along? Or did they just say that once they thought it was what people wanted to hear?

Goes back to Nancy Reagan's dresses, I believe.
posted by stilicho 23 October | 00:22
$150,000 is crazy excessive, but she certainly doesn't have the private income to afford to dress for campaigning, and the McCain people needed to figure out a way to deal with that without using contributor funds. I find it yet another proof of their failure to think their decisions through or anticipate the inevitable. They make quick, flashy choices, then live to regret them - on every level.

Knowing that every detail of her wardrobe/hair/makeup was going to be scrutinized and picked apart (because that's how it is for women in positions of importance - unfairly so), they took steps to make sure she shined that way - yet, they never once thought that anyone would be looking behind the closet door to see what the price tags were, and where that money was coming from? These people are so, so bad at their jobs.

I read a comment from a McCain supporter making $45,000 a year, describing in some detail how they scrimp and save to make ends meet, yet contributed $150 to the campaign - and they were furious. I don't blame them. The issues are that 1) a person like this was so blithely overlooked in this spending spree - did not occur to the McCain camp at all, 2) it's about the economy, stupid - now, of all times, this is just one of the worst errors to make, 3) they had a couple of common-sense requirements: Palin has to look good, the money shouldn't come from the campaign; is that too complex and difficult? Don't run for President if you can't solve a problem like that, or can't hire people capable enough to handle it.

A smart move would have been to turn the wardrobe thing to her advantage, buying from American designers, showing up at American manufacturing plants, etc. I don't know how sharp Cindy McCain is, but it would have been a good project for her to oversee, if she weren't so disassociated from such things as dressing on a budget.
posted by taz 23 October | 01:42
Cindy is sleeping it off right now. IOW, she's, uh, busy.
posted by trondant 23 October | 02:20
Her fan base is strictly off the rack.
That works on so many levels.
posted by ethylene 23 October | 06:21
A smart move would have been to turn the wardrobe thing to her advantage, buying from American designers, showing up at American manufacturing plants, etc.

I read a comment somewhere that probably correctly pointed out that she wouldn't even have had to buy from American designers - they would have supplied her with clothes for the celebrity exposure.
posted by gaspode 23 October | 06:51
i don't think a lot of them would choose to clothe her if they had the choice.
posted by ethylene 23 October | 06:58
Speaking of fashion: would this sweatshirt make me look like I liked Christian heavy metal or something?
≡ Click to see image ≡
posted by box 23 October | 08:09
Possibly.
posted by ethylene 23 October | 08:10
One minor complaint with this story, is that it's taken attention away from the fact that she was billing Alaska for things it shouldn't have to pay for (her kids travel expenses on trips they weren't invited to, for one).
posted by drezdn 23 October | 08:36
she wouldn't even have had to buy from American designers - they would have supplied her with clothes for the celebrity exposure.


She'd still have had to pay taxes on their fair market value. Candidates can't accept gifts of over $25 in value and those must be declared.

Now, if I had $150K for clothes I would get:

1. four or five pairs of awesome cowboy boots...lookout, Ariat
2. Some custom-made jeans and custom-tailored crisp white shirts
3. A big pile of vintage Western wear
4. Some updated Asian-style shiny things for special

...and the rest would go for other things, because I couldn't live with myself paying $150K for clothes. That's ridiculous no matter who you are, it really is.

Not to mention, a bizarre example of Republican fiscal policy on wise spending. Your campaign donations at work!

Today's relevant Bible moment:

Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?...Why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?
posted by Miko 23 October | 08:59
Speaking of fashion: would this sweatshirt make me look like I liked Christian heavy metal or something?

That wouldn't be my gut-reaction, but the logo does look awfully, um, phallic.

That said, I'd give you the black zip-up hoodie benefit of the doubt. I'm wearing one myself right now.

Pretty sure I'm gonna buy this one for my best mate's upcoming 30th birthday. Coffin Bass *is* cool.
posted by ufez 23 October | 09:28
Why is it more ridiculous than oh, paying $150k an year for renting a mansion, $150k to buy a business that eventually fails, $150k to bankroll a political run, $100k on a car.. they're all vanities in the end; just because some things cost more as principle doesn't justify spending more on them, because they're still discretionary choices.
posted by Firas 23 October | 09:34
I don't know. 150K on clothes, a year in a mansion, a car, seem ridiculous/frivolous to me.
150K on clothes should cover your entire life.

150K on a political run might be corruption, or vision, depending.
150K on a business might be your dream livelihood, or a tax writeoff, depending.
posted by DarkForest 23 October | 09:41
I'd buy a McCain t-shirt and a star-spangled iron-on "US," and then apply the decal right after McCain's name, so it read "McCainUS" (a certain kind of joke just floats my boat).

Then I'd spend the rest on several hundred copies of Heather has Two Mommies for the Wasilla library.
posted by Hugh Janus 23 October | 09:52
I'm just saying I don't connect with the moral-failing part of that idea. Let's face it, we all have structural benefits that make us a couple hundred times richer than a huge portion of the planet yet we don't stop buying groceries and watching television and going to movies. Another thing coloring my perspective on this is that I really don't think $150k is a big chunk of money when you get to a certain social level (not mine, to be clear) and then just maintaining your standards there (homes, cars, gadgets, clothes, social life) requires pumping out enormous sums of money. I'm not saying that you don't have a *choice* of opting out; but I don't think it's disgusting/ridiculous/whatever.
posted by Firas 23 October | 09:53
My favorite Christian Rock Tshirt had the motto: "Get On Your Knees And Fight Like A Man!"

Showed some muscular G.I. Joe type on his knees praying with your standard embattled city behind him. There was a cross in there somewhere, I'm sure.

But, no, box, I wouldn't immediately think of Christian hard rock. :) I'd think S.C.A.

I've been trying, but I just can't make myself care about this. About the only thing we get out of this is that the RNC is footing the bill because McCain took the federal finance funds. I'm kinda glad that the R's are spreading the wealth, y'know? Pulling together in times of need.

It might have been nice if she'd bought American, and maybe visited a textile factory where the workers are paid decent wages. Another good spin would have been "hey, we're supporting free trade". I don't know. After the whole lipstick thing, I just can't bring myself to care. This is not why we're supposed to be glad there's a woman on any ticket.

posted by lysdexic 23 October | 10:00
I don't think it's inherently disgusting/ridiculous/whatever; I *do* think it's disgusting/ridiculous/whatever when you're using your supporters' campaign contributions to do it.

She wants to spend her entire yearly salary on clothes? Have at it. She wants to spend other people's political contributions on clothes? She better be paying attention to price tags.
posted by occhiblu 23 October | 10:04
A lot of money goes missing around that woman.
posted by ethylene 23 October | 10:05
I mean, it's not like top lawyers or businesspeople or whoever charge their *firms* for their wardrobes. Or their families' wardrobes. I assume Oprah is not buying clothes from money that people send in to her foundation.
posted by occhiblu 23 October | 10:08
she wouldn't even have had to buy from American designers - they would have supplied her with clothes for the celebrity exposure.
I may not be a fashion insider, but I can be pretty sure that most of the designers are going to be very opposed to doing anything to help her win. Particularly the gay ones.

Like oh, Valentino's good enough to make your jacket, but you still don't think he deserves the same basic human rights as you? charming.
posted by kellydamnit 23 October | 10:52
Someone buy jonmc a $100 pair of underwear and a $200 T-shirt, the super-quality, last forever, soft and snuggly, perfect fit kind, and he'll be talkin' out the other side of his mouth.
posted by StickyCarpet 23 October | 10:55
I don't think it's inherently disgusting/ridiculous/whatever; I *do* think it's disgusting/ridiculous/whatever when you're using your supporters' campaign contributions to do it.

She wants to spend her entire yearly salary on clothes? Have at it. She wants to spend other people's political contributions on clothes? She better be paying attention to price tags.

I can get behind that, occiblu. Except that this is true of most of the other politicians. They get comped for stuff or have stuff done for them so they can concentrate on what they're doing. You might could make the argument that willful ignorance shows a lack of judgment, though.

Most of the difference is scale, and that's because she can't wear the same blue suit every day; she has to be the peacock, as it were. So it's this look one day, another look the other. God forbid she go around in a bunch of pantsuits. And wearing the shoes out? Not even. Her feet would wear out before those heels.

I tried to get a breakdown of the donors to the RNC, and there's a bunch of big corporate givers, so I can't feel too sorry for them. I do feel sorry for the small donors who give when the can't really afford to, because they believe in a cause. I just think that the venom is misdirected. It's not her so much as the advisers, and it's not so much that as the belief that well, we've got to do it this way because that's what the voters (consumers) and customers (donors) want.
posted by lysdexic 23 October | 11:05
Hmmm, let me see if I understand the new GOP math:

$150,000 wardrobe
bought with campaign contributions = Good

$400 haircut
paid for with your own money = Bad

(But everything would have been okie-dokie if Edwards had donated his left-over hair clippings to charity?)
posted by Atom Eyes 23 October | 11:11
Why is it more ridiculous than oh, paying $150k an year for renting a mansion, $150k to buy a business that eventually fails, $150k to bankroll a political run, $100k on a car.. they're all vanities in the end; just because some things cost more as principle doesn't justify spending more on them, because they're still discretionary choices.

I pretty much think most of that is excessive and ridiculous. The exceptions would be buying a business and running for office, because each of those is done in the hope or expectation of creating more social value for the dollars invested. I see running a business and running for office as much less of a "vanity" than purchasing houses and clothing that far exceed the basic standard of living in the context of your nation.

Our needs for living even a very comfortable, good life with luxuries included are so very small. Of course $150K isn't a lot of money to the very rich, but it's more than 94.16% of Americans make as an annual wage. Regardless of what this money is worth to the rich, the majority of us are not rich, and the value of $150K is quite a bit clearer in terms of purchasing power to people who will never see that in a year's worth of work.

And the argument that it's discretionary doesn't make a lot of sense to me. For one, this is not somebody's personal discretionary income - it's campaign donation money. The only discretion is whether to use that money for radio and TV ads, rallies, renting phone lines for your campaign offices, printing handouts, empowering your volunteers with more resources...or dressing your candidate. When you make a campaign donation, isn't your assumption that it will be spent wisely on campaign activities?

But for another, what people's discretionary spending includes tells you a lot about that person's values. It's certainly within the right of the affluent to spend their money any way they see fit. But it's clear from how it's spent what is important to them. So, even in private life, if someone I knew were spending $150,000 on their clothing, it would be reasonable of me to come to certain conclusions about their values, goals, and beliefs.
posted by Miko 23 October | 11:24
this is true of most of the other politicians. They get comped for stuff or have stuff done for them so they can concentrate on what they're doing.

I'm not sure about this. The law is pretty clear about them not accepting comps and paying fair market value. When candidates visit somewhere and purchase something - even a cup of coffee - their handlers follow along behind and either settle the bill or provide a donation receipt:

Gifts:

Personal gifts to public officials are highly regulated. In some instances they are completely banned except for gifts from immediate family members (See 47 C.F.R. 1.3002). The general rule for executive branch officials is that a gift of less than $20 may be received (but never solicited). 5 C.F.R. 2635.204(a). Senators or their staff may accept a gift if it is worth $50 or less and if the total amount of such gifts from the same giver does not exceed $100 in a calendar year. Any gift of $10 or less does not count toward either the $50 or $100 gift limit. In practical terms, this means that a Senate staffer may accept a lunch or dinner from a lobbyist twice per year if each meal costs more than $10 and less than $50. Meals of $10 or less do not count at all.

In 2007, the House instituted a rule that prohibits Members and staffers from accepting gifts from lobbyists or entities that retain or employ lobbyists. For others, the gift rule in the House is the same as described above for the Senate.

There are exceptions to these general rules on gifts. For example, executive branch employees may accept a meal valued at over $20 if it is part of a widely attended event at which the employee participates in his or her official capacity. Id. 2635.204(f). House and Senate personnel may also attend similar functions and accept other types of gifts such as mementos, plaques, and products from their districts or states. House Rule XXV, cl. 5; Senate Rule XXXV, cl. 1(d).

In addition to these rules of conduct, criminal statutes may apply to certain gifts. A gift of any sort may not be given or received as a quid pro quo for official acts. These are bribes. 18 U.S.C. 201(b). Moreover, gifts may be illegal gratuities if they are given with the expectation of favorable action by the public official on pending or future matters. Id. 201(c).


They definitely get stuff done for them - everything from dry cleaning to house cleaning to travel arrangements to babysitting to grooming and shopping -- but they pay for that too.
posted by Miko 23 October | 11:31
It's not her so much as the advisers

Yes, this is true; she didn't hold the RNC up at gunpoint and demand couture, I assume, but, the important thing is that a leader isn't pulled around by a ring in their nose by their advisers. A leader says, "whoah, guys, not a good idea - let's figure out another way to approach this" and if it wasn't Palin, it should have been McCain, and if it wasn't McCain, it should have been the super sharp, super observant, stickler-for-detail person he hires to make absolutely sure mistakes like this don't happen. That whole campaign is constantly running around like chickens with their heads cut off, and it does not impress.
posted by taz 23 October | 11:41
I agree that not everyone has that much to spend on anything, much less clothing. I'm just not seeing this as out of character for the Republican elites, which Gov. Palin now belongs to, like it or not. This is more of the same disconnect, and really ought to be dismissed as such.

We know they're just in it for the power, and that they could care less for Joe Sixpack/Plumber/Hockey Dad. We know they're going to find a way to declare this legal, or try to say "who do you believe, her or your lying eyes?"

And on preview, taz, definitely.
posted by lysdexic 23 October | 11:47
So, an innocent question here. . .

Assuming that Hillary's pantsuits are not that cheap, and all the hair and makeup issues are the same, or possibly more intense than Palin's (due to age), would it have been reasonable to take her to Penney's or Talbot's or somewhere less exclusive, and still had her be presentable on the campaign?
posted by danf 23 October | 12:07
Not Penney's, but Talbot's? Yeah, definitely. There's plenty of OTR stuff that's a lot more affordable and still very, very presentable.
posted by Miko 23 October | 12:11
It might be hard for Sarah Palin to find stuff that fits off the rack since she's so small. I would think the kind of stuff she needs- really plain, conservative stuff good for the campaign trail- might be harder to find in her sizes.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero 23 October | 13:09
It might be hard for Sarah Palin to find stuff that fits off the rack since she's so small.

Seriously? She could have had an aide fly to Asia, then, and buy her clothes there - far cheaper, and US size 4 is giant. Would have cost her a lot less than $150k, even for expensive pret-a-porter.

But - seriously? She would have trouble finding clothes in her size? She doesn't look that teeny on TV.
posted by goo 23 October | 13:25
Well, I don't know, it was just a thought- I'm probably somewhere around her size, and I often find that women's size in stores that cater to grown woman (and not that weird 15-30 stage that a lot of stores are going for, as though I want to wear the same things I wore when I was 15) are really large on me. Like at NY&CO, a reasonably priced store that has a lot of the kind of stuff that might look good on Sarah Palin, I'm too small for some of their clothes.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero 23 October | 13:44
Saks and Neiman Marcus, etc. make free alterations.
She's an ex beauty queen, i'm sure she's use to being dressed and made up by people want to make sure she looks like a proper lady in skirts and remembers to vaseline her teeth.
Blowing that amount isn't a big deal except large sums of money magically disappear around her all the time.

Did all the Joe Plumber stuff not pan out or does no one care? Why are they still using Joe the Plumber? Man, i hate that guy.
posted by ethylene 23 October | 13:56
vaseline your teeth? Is this for photos? Or an all day, every day thing?
posted by small_ruminant 23 October | 13:59
For easy smiling. Your lips don't stick to your teeth no matter how dry your mouth from spouting meaningless drivel about saving the world and where the Middle east is.
posted by ethylene 23 October | 14:01
I just tried it, and now I'm a smiling fool. ::
posted by ThePinkSuperhero 23 October | 14:22
I love all the brouhaha about how Obama gets his shoes resoled.

Isn't that the whole point of high end shoes? Getting them resoled?
posted by Firas 23 October | 14:28
Do you dream of getting to place your lapels just so and notching then just right?
posted by ethylene 23 October | 14:35
I think if I had $150k to spend on clothing...

I would have someone make me a three-piece suit out of microscale chain mail made of pure rhodium and liberally encrusted with gems.
posted by ROU Xenophobe 23 October | 14:47
For easy smiling.
Did you remember that from the Lisa is Little Miss Springfield episode of the Simpsons, too? (or is that just me...)
posted by kellydamnit 23 October | 15:23
$150k? It's all about kevlar, babe!
posted by small_ruminant 23 October | 15:42
tangent: I loved the first couple Terminator movies and Firefly, and therefore tried to love The Sarah Connor Chronicles.

Alas, I was without success, but one of the first episodes had an excellent throw-away scene in which the cops assigned to investigate Sarah's most recent, completely shot-up residence wonder aloud where she managed to get kevlar reinforced easy chairs.

And so finally! we have an explanation for why hiding behind furniture in a firefight might be a good idea!
posted by small_ruminant 23 October | 15:51
I quite enjoyed the first few episodes, s_r, but that is long gone now. i thought Summer Glau did rreally well as a Terminator, though, and kevlar furniture is a great idea!

Aye, TPS, I know. I always thought shops didn't have my size because they'd sold out, because they have to make my size, right? It's standard, if small, so I just miss out every single time by being late, right? But larger women are always complaining of never finding anything that fits too, so...I think oftentimes it's just Murphy's Law - when I set out to go shopping there will be nothing nice available in my size, and this is the rule as it applies to all women, at any time, anywhere.

But go shopping in Asia! It's the only time I feel really enormous - trying on an XL and it's too frickin small.
posted by goo 23 October | 16:22
Screw the furniture, i want the kevlar bustier. It's armor, anyway, and oh so stylish.
posted by ethylene 23 October | 16:37
Totally. Be careful though- what was that body armor they idiotically shipped to Iraq that absorbed sweat and disintegrated? I forgot, but it was a bad idea, whatever it was.
posted by small_ruminant 23 October | 18:21
TheBudgetFashionista put together a wardrobe for Sarah Palin for less than $2500.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero 24 October | 13:29
Pffffhhhhtt. And it looks it.
i'm glad they dressed her decently in the way i wish someone had done Tonya Harding's hair for the Olympics.
It's the Olympics for fucksake, can't help a girl with her sad braiding skills?
posted by ethylene 24 October | 13:35
I really don't think $150k is a big chunk of money when you get to a certain social level

The problem is that she's at one social level and pretending to be at another. Ms. Main Street Hockey Mom spends a lot of time and money on Fifth Avenue. She's simultaneously denigrating elitist and acting like one. Joe the Plumber makes $44,000 a year, so she's spend over three years worth of Joe's salary on clothes.
posted by kirkaracha 24 October | 14:26
i fucking hate that Joe Asscrack guy.
The next mention of him in another ad may be the final straw.
posted by ethylene 24 October | 14:37
eth, what lapels?
posted by Firas 25 October | 04:24
I wanted to leave work a while ago but now I am procrastinating || BeTheChangeYouWantToSeeInTheWorldFilter: LT Signs Up For PollWatching!

HOME  ||   REGISTER  ||   LOGIN