I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
fuck cheney !
Don't forget Al Gore's "earth tones."
.
Just because there exists an example of similar treatment of a man, does not, in and of itself, imply that it's not sexist in the case of Miller.
Well, Miller has made herself a media celebrity, no doubt. And I wouldn't mind seeing such commentary about Cooper. I think they reason we don't is because he's less of an admin waterboy and we like him better.
By the way, I was first, but I got one of those messages.
i like givhan's columns and her deconstruction of projected images. and i think she's in a category all her own and think the cjr piece is a kneejerk reaction. keep in mind, givhan's also taken her keen eye to condoleeza's dominatrix look and cheney's fieldandstream look honoring concentration camp victims.
And I've always maintained that Bolton clings ferociously to his 70's swinger style.
I agree the media give this treatment to women much more than they do so for men, but judith miller is a rather silly case with which to make this point.
Givhan is the best thing going in the WPost style section. She is a fashion reporter and it is her business to talk about style.
Moreover we send signals by the way we dress. It is useful to have a public figuire's personal appearence deconstructed in a way we can learn from their example.
This is sophisticated fashion commentary, not some idiot idiotvich parotting Republican talking points on earth tones.
70's swinger style.
NYMary
god, he just reeks 70s porn doesn't he. what do you want to bet he's got a collection stashed away.
She's beating Bolton's sartorial and tonsorial imperfections into the ground. They serve as a useful synecdoche, but that's it. I'd be less annoyed if the article ran: "His apparent lack of concern for his appearance in a formal setting reflected his oft-expressed disdain for the institutions under discussion and before which he was testifying," and then proceeded to move to more substantitive fare. The former simply isn't important except as it reflects the latter. A different person with a bad haircut would simply have a bad haircut.
Givhan is a style columnist, for crying out loud -- what do they expect her to write about? There's no question that women are still judged far more on their appearance than men, and that the media still feeds that with disproportionate commentary on how their female subjects look and what they're wearing, but sniping at someone whose job it is to write about style is a bit silly.
OT: Fox News slammed over 'callous' line
The Guardian have published their article on the Faux news lines.
Those were not the clothes I suggested that Judith wear to court that day. She argued with me over this for hours. After the judge sentenced her to jail, I looked at her and said, "I was proved fucking right! I'll see you on visiting day."
Moreover we send signals by the way we dress. It is useful to have a public figuire's personal appearence deconstructed in a way we can learn from their example.
This is sophisticated fashion commentary, not some idiot idiotvich parotting Republican talking points on earth tones.
Certainly read like that to me - the emphasis is on the externals proclaiming the internal attitude and I see nothing particularly sex-related to it at all. Remarking that Bolton is deliberately unkempt in order, apparently, to insult the protocols of the establishment in which he is petitioning to serve is equally acceptable.
Misunderstanding the purpose of such analysis is pretty shallow and far more indicative of a poorly understood and poorly assimilated political agenda to me.
It's true that appearance sends lots of messages but I worried more about the substantive problems with Bolton. Think if he got a haircut they'd approve his nomination? Hope not! By the by, in addition to Bible study, dumbya allegedly requires a dress code; how do you think Bolton slipped through?
Just wait until Givhan starts writing about your grey turtlenecks!
I would extend this argument further. When there are cases of clergy, teachers, or political figures perpetrating crimes and ethical violations, they generally give it full-court-press coverage. The argument, which is correct in my opinion, is that the public needs to have faith that the members of these professions are ethical, upstanding people. It goes to the credibility of their jobs and work.
Now, excepting Armstrong Williams and his fellow payola whores, when was the last time you saw a journalist who had committed some actual crime given the perp-walk treatment? I believe the exact same arguments can be made for exposing corrupt or criminal journalists. And you know damn well they exist.
Might her attire be the least of her problems right now?
Reporters really do think they're special, don't they?
The Guardian have published their article on the Faux news lines.
Moonbootica
Well, YAYYYY!
The Fox News media relations office had not responded by the time the Guardian went to press yesterday.
Wait 'til O'Lielly hits the airwaves. (Is he even on on Saturday?) That'd be almost worth watching. I expect their airheads will go NUTS.
Doc makes a good point. It was one of the reasons I was anonymous while I was teaching. Certain professional jobs have an implied "public person" component which makes your "fair game" for the press.
Might her attire be the least of her problems right now?
Indeed. Wearing only an orange jumpsuit makes getting dressed in the morning a trivial thing. Her most pressing concern is how many packs of smokes she needs for protection and how to make a shiv.
emphasis is on the externals proclaiming the internal attitude
Did we not go round and round about Cheney's dumbass parka choice?
It is tempting to note that Givhan's account of the semiotics of Notlob's grooming seem to describe--implicate?--the very traits which make his appointment to any FURTHER official duties so (to say the least) problematic...to say nothing of the hints and insights his demeanor and haberdashery cast upon his employer/overlords...
.
Did we not go round and round about Cheney's dumbass parka choice?
And his boots. Don't forget the boots he wore in Poland!
Miller being hauled off by US Marshals, thinking she was above the law, reminded me of F. Lee Bailey several years ago in a contempt of court issue. The leg irons pretty much clash with whatever outfit you're wearing, no matter how stunning.
There's probably some truth to that, women are always considered to be more "fair game" for this kind of thing.
Not necessarily, anymore.
Didn't we hear like four months of the press grunting "Earth Tones!" at Gore? Didn't the entire press corps collectively flip a shit that Wesley Clark wore a turtleneck sweater?
I guess I get annoyed by style commentary, and that's my failing more than hers. I certainly don't see sex/gender bias here.
I don't do propagandistic journamalism -- it causes me to break out in handcuffs!
.
Givhans' a style/fashion writer? Um, clothing is a topic writer's like her actually cover.
And no, it wasn't catty, which is really easy to do in that type of writing. Much ado about nothing.
And you know damn well they exist.
Doc -- 11:36 am
pretty much the entire roster of FauxNews would likely endorse the accuracy of your assessment, Doc...
NTodd- Oh, you're wearing hats now! I can't even get one of these darn things up and some of you are on your tenth choice! I can get to the rated part and that's only cos my kid showed me how to do that, but for some reason (well, yeah, I know the reason-I'm technically challenged) I can't get the darn thing to show!!!
I think, as Dan and others pointed out, that the playing field for commenting on style issues has been leveled quite a bit so that the press does review hair cuts and clothing that men in the news are wearing.
This reporting takes the place of substance - all reporting is just magnified gossip anymore. It always was to some extent, but now it's complete. CNN sits there and gossips 24/7 on camera. It's ridiculous and we got here because the press no longer cares about what is true and what isn't. If they aren't going to pursue the truth, then they've got to fill up the screen, the page, and the time with something. So we get fashion commentary. Whoopee.
Robin Givhan's columns are more often than not snide, catty, and misogynistic. Her writing lacks true wit and cleverness, so she resorts to 7th-grade level ridicule in order to make her point that...what? People dress like idiots? She doesn't like how they look? She's a waste of column-inch. And she does this to women way, waaay more than she does it to men. I personally found her description of Condoleeza Rice as dominatrix to be immature, spiteful, and pointless. Again, just like 7th grade.
When I started teaching I didn't pay much attention to what I wore or my grooming at first. I've been ever grateful to a supervisor who called me in and pointed out what I was doing, then steered me towards "Dress for Success". The point that hooked me was that, if you dress as though you respect yourself, your audience, and the situation, you get more credibility and what you say is deemed more important. I don't expect anyone to respect what I say just because I wear a tie, but if I look as if I take the situation seriously my students are more likely to do the same. I always make this point to my student teachers before they go out into the field.
That's as vital for a diplomat as a teacher.
footloose -- you have to put your e-mail address in the e-mail box (the same one you used when you registered.)
remember when Cheney went to Auschwitz wearing his skiing parka? It was inappropriate attire which was roundly criticized. I see nothing wrong with excoriating Bolton for everything including his wardrobe.
I think the point where clothes become an issue is when a person's wardrobe and grooming choices make a statement about the events they are participating in. Hence, the three paragraphs on how Bolton's unkept appearance reflected his contempt for the committee.
And the description of Judith Miller's clothes, showing her as a New Yorker on distinctly different turf, sartorially. I, for one, noticed the highly chic attire she wore, the perfect bob and dark glasses and thought it a clear sign that she was not going to be intimidated or flustered by the court.
Honestly, folks, the woman is in her fifties. You aren't that pulled together without a huge investment of time, money and determination. Pointing this out is valid journalism.
'Style' is political, of course.'
Clothing and grooming, manners and protocol have always served as class markers.
i like it when people writing about socially relevant (i.e., will-we, nil-we, consequential) phenomena situate their remarks/analyses in the larger contest which the phenomena implicate...
jis' sighin'
.
Tena-- I think it's largely part of the "infotainment" approach in general. It places the same value on substantive information and Who Wants to be a Hilton. As you say, because they have 24 hours a day to fill, and because it's not about the quaint, old-fashioned notion of public service, it's about ratings and profits.
Family values!
Evangelist Billy Graham's daughter was arrested and charged with domestic abuse after witnesses told police she choked her husband in a parking lot, authorities said.
No word on what she was wearing at the time, alas.
Clothing and grooming, manners and protocol have always served as class markers.
Yep. Hell, we're only a few centuries past sumptuary laws for god's sake!
"It is tempting to note that Givhan's account of the semiotics of Notlob's grooming seem to describe--implicate?--the very traits which make his appointment to any FURTHER official duties so (to say the least) problematic..."
Actual distribution of such forays by gender notwithstanding, I agree that both Bolton and Miller are practically begging for a treatment of their projected selves along these lines. Miller's cadence when she makes statements about her pending incarceration suggested nothing more than a minor Shakespearian tragic figure, and her haircut has that neo-Elizabethan quality. If a politician can wear plaid shirts to project that he's folksy, a good way to sane is to mock his uniform, no?
OT
SCARBOROUGH (7/7/05): And now my final thoughts on the attacks. You know, unfortunately, friends, too many of us are not serious about this war on terror. And how long must we sing this song? Americans and its allies are attacked. We promise dramatic measures to repulse the enemy. And, in the case of the Nazis or the Taliban, we do just that.
Then, contentment sets in. We stop listening to the warnings of the Churchills and the Bushes and, instead, we focus on speeches by rock stars and by Hollywood actors. When our world leaders get together, they focus on global warming and the causes of the moment, instead of fighting the war of our lifetime.
But while the rock stars preach, our enemies scheme. While movie stars practice politics, suicide bombers plan on how to kill the most innocent people with a single blast. You know, our leaders may ignore antiterrorism at G8 conferences these days, but, of course, that suddenly changes when the first reports of explosions come in. Then, suddenly, “that idiot Bush” starts looking a little bit better than the likes of the Chiracs and the Schroeders standing next to him. And Tony Blair, well, he suddenly seems to have a more realistic grasp on global realities than, say, Bob Geldof.
Now, I`m sure many Americans would like to believe that this attack will awaken world leaders. But I doubt it. We live in a silly age, the age of Hilton, the age of Teddy, the age of Chirac. We`re not a serious people. Some concern themselves more with terrorists` rights than civilization`s future. Reporters work overtime demeaning the very troops who protect our land. And rock stars replace grim Cassandras like Bush and Churchill as the prophets of pop culture. The results are almost always disastrous. And, today in London, they were deadly.
So there you have it.
It's all Bono and Geldof's fault.
Now back to missing white women.
No word on what she was wearing at the time, alas.
hee-hee
Virginia - I agree, mainly, but it's gotten out of hand in the last few years. I don't give a shit what some commentator thinks someone's haircut or outfit says about the events they are involved in. The link is so tenuous that it really is largely manufactured.
And vapid, and boring and dumb.
Goddamn media is creating more stupid for this country by the second.
I started dressing up to teach once I stopped being a grad student. I'm a small woman (5'2") and was teaching at a sports school where some of my students were Very Large. I needed all the authority I could get. Even now, I rarely wear patterns, never florals, almost always darker colors.
It's easy enough to see what her characterization of Bolton implies, but what does her characterization of Miller imply? That is, if we're assuming some sort of inner/outer parallel.
And vapid, and boring and dumb.
The media? No way!
ATRIOS - "it isn't as if Givahn is going through Miller's trash "
From what I've learned about Miller, this might not be such a bad idea.
"I'm just trying to rid the world of all these fevered egos that are tainting our collective unconscious and making us pay a higher psychic price than we imagine."
-- Bill Hicks
I'm surprised Judith didn't wear a prim little dress with a lace collar and sensible shoes.
does anyone else get different gravatars on different computers? I swear I do. On the main machine, Atrios's is a colored Bat-bat, on my laptop, black and white (and no, it's not a black and white screen). Hell, I think my own gravatar is different machine to machine.
I started dressing up to teach once I stopped being a grad student. I'm a small woman (5'2") and was teaching at a sports school where some of my students were Very Large.
Yah, I always go in in power suit, well shaved and such, early on in the semester. Gradually, depending on the tenor of the class, I revert to my normal self......
And women teachers definitely have to do this sort of assertion more than men. My wife was actually threatened by a fucking football player once...
does anyone else get different gravatars on different computers? I swear I do. On the main machine, Atrios's is a colored Bat-bat, on my laptop, black and white (and no, it's not a black and white screen). Hell, I think my own gravatar is different machine to machine.
NYMary
Yep. Well, not me, but I've been told that my own gravatar changes for different folks. Something to do with clearing out the cache, so as to be able to see the new gravatar, or something...
It's too bad Monica Lewinsky wasn't wearing an LL Bean flannel shirt when she orally fixated on the clenis. Would have changed the image altogether.
While movie stars practice politics...
ya think he intended RonRaygun as the referent for this?
Every, and any correspondence with that dickwad ought to contain a reference to Lori Klausutis.
It's only fair...
.
I agree with ProfWombat, on this and in other recent posts. I'm of two minds about style commentaries: I grudgingly recognize what WGG refers to as the semiotics of style or personal appearance, but I don't get worked up about it.
Just yesterday I had a conversation with a friend who attended an unemployment compensation appeal hearing for a disputed claim. My friend was outraged and appalled that the employer representative wore a tank top and flip-flops there, "as if she thought she was going to the beach". It told her all she needed to know about the person's character. I sympathized, but didn't feel compelled to draw the same conclusions.
I further congratulate the Prof on his/her/its excellent timing.
All week I have been out of sync in the mad whirl of posts. It's like trying to board a rapidly-spinning carousel.
I either get flung off and wind up lying in the dust watching all the pretty horses (and a few piles of troll-horsemanure) merrily spin by, or I catch hold only to realize that the ride is winding down, or has stopped altogether. The brass ring is either taken or out of reach.
Damn.
If Monica had worn a plaid flannel shirt when engaging the Clenis™ she might have been mistaken for Gore.
Now that would have been a story...
I didn't know Miller was one of the anthrax letter addressees. There's some question whether that letter actually contained antrhax, or whether it was a copycat fake. Anyone know?
Tena, wouldn't the mistake only be made if she was wearing an "earthtone" plaid flannel?.....
If Monica had worn a plaid flannel shirt when engaging the Clenis™ she might have been mistaken for Gore.
More like Lamar Alexander or Red Green.
I have like two sets of clothes. One set for just mooching around the house and another set for going out.
Yep. Hell, we're only a few centuries past sumptuary laws for god's sake!
rorschach - Which is howcome my doctoral outfit's got elastic at the cuffs and a master's gown's got nothing. The markers are still there.
I did like the impeccable snideness delivered by noting that the object was to ensure that Miller not be mistaken for a Chicago matron. Ooooooooh noooooooo! Helen Thomas, we're talking about you, girl!
We stop listening to the warnings of the Churchills and the Bushes and, instead, we focus on speeches by rock stars and by Hollywood actors.
Churchill is rolling over in his grave at having the worthless cowardly deserting sack of pigshit mentioned in the same sentence as himself.
rorschach - Which is howcome my doctoral outfit's got elastic at the cuffs and a master's gown's got nothing. The markers are still there.
Okay, now that is fucking hilarious.
In re: Judith Miller--our buddy Grand Moff Texan has an extensive takedown of her long career of shilling...
rorschach, it's all about pockets, after all...
I loved the irony of George Will commenting on Clinton's marital problems when he apparently had an ugly bitter divorce.
(with scenes of him on the front yard screaming to high heaven with his belongs strewn all over the grass...according to the "chat" inkers)
Given a certain nominal gravitus accruing with advancing age, and my fondness for face-hair, i never paid much attention to that shaved and shorn aspect of 'appearance.'
i did dress sharp, though: Pressed shirt and creased pants, polished boots, cool (usually ironic) tie, classic jacket...always removed the coat, right off; during classes (some were three hours), i'd loosen the tie, unbutton the collar, and roll the sleeves...
i always carried a Lexus key on my key-ring, too; which i conspicuously flashed occasionally--i drove a dodge pick-up; the last ex-mrs/prof/wgg drove the lexus--cuz a lot of the children of privilege (who are STILL the largest single group on most flagship schools) regard public employees (even professors) as 'hired help.'
.
When I talk about dressing well for teaching, I'm not really talking about authority or social class so much as I'm talking about what I show my students about how I feel about them and what we're doing. Yeah, there's probably authority and class involved in all of that, but truthfully, if I had gone to the unemployment seminar and seen the person dressed as she was, I would have felt that she had little respect for what she was doing and less for me.
My students know damn well how much I make, and anybody who thinks that the average student today sees a teacher as occupying some high social stratum isn't paying much attention.
i always carried a Lexus key on my key-ring, too
But did you wear an olive branch in your buttonhole?
In an interview with AJR, she insistently defended every aspect of her reporting, saying again and again how proud she is of her exclusive stories. What she remembers is how hard it was to talk her way inside a highly secret unit of weapons hunters, and then to bivouac with those troops in the Iraqi desert, sandstorms blowing, wild dogs howling, sometimes exposed to the elements without rain gear or sleeping gear, with little more than the personal effects she had crammed into her "little blue backpack from the Gap." Plus, she says, someone sat on her computer and broke it.
After overcoming all that--and after having to fight repeatedly with a commanding officer who didn't want her there in the first place, "because he was not comfortable with my access to the information"--it galls her to be attacked by fellow journalists. "I think we beat everybody in the field," she says, referring to her competition, "and what we're getting now is a lot of sour grapes."
http://ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3057
I'm all for replacing Steve Lovelady with Andre Leon Talley.
Interesting. Miller and Broad were reporting that the US Army was producing weapons grage anthrax in December 2001, presumably following up on the post 9/11 anthrax attack.
In May, Miller had another scoop, this one concerning two mysterious trailers found in Iraq that were equipped with high-tech gear. Miller and William J. Broad wrote on May 21 that U.S. intelligence had concluded the trailers were mobile units for producing germs as weapons. The article said intelligence analysts had reached a consensus after analyzing and rejecting alternative theories about the trailers' possible use. Miller and Broad wrote that U.S. officials expected the trailers to "become a centerpiece of their argument that Iraq had a well-concealed germ weapons program." Sure enough, one week later, President Bush declared in a television interview:
"We've found the weapons of mass destruction! You know, we found biological laboratories."
I think we beat everybody in the field," she says, referring to her competition, "and what we're getting now is a lot of sour grapes."
http://ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3057
BP | 07.09.05 - 12:21 pm | #
this is what technical rationality looks like when corrupted to elide, obscure, and/or obfuscate issues of ethics...imho
.
Bolton looks like an evil brother of Ned Flanders.
I don't have access to Lex/Nex so I can't dig. I'm trying to find reporting on Miller getting an anthrax letter, and whether the powder was real or not.
The AJR piece really makes her reporting look bad, however. I'm amazed she's still on the NYT payroll having been so consistently wrong.
When I talk about dressing well for teaching, I'm not really talking about authority or social class so much as I'm talking about what I show my students about how I feel about them and what we're doing. Yeah, there's probably authority and class involved in all of that, but truthfully
Of course, the means by which one demonstrates respect are thoroughly shot through with markers of class and authority...
Okay, from 10/15/01 Larry King
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../15/
lkl.00.html
KING: We now welcome to LARRY KING LIVE Judith Miller, who has been helping us over the past five weeks report on this story, and who has written a best-selling book, way up on the list, "Germs: Biological Weapons and America's Secret War." But now, she becomes part of the story herself with a scare herself.
So, Judith, take it from the top. What happened? JUDITH MILLER, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Well, it was a Friday, which is always a busy day at "The New York Times," because you are closing not only your daily stories, but your weekend stories. And I was on the phone talking to my colleague about the story we were going to write that day. He was in Washington.
And I was going through the mail, kind of only paying attention to every kind of -- just seeing what the first sentence would say of the letter. And I wasn't really paying enough attention, because the one envelope that I opened had no return address. And it was postmarked Florida. That wouldn't have struck me as odd, but the lack of a return address might have.
But I opened it anyway because I was busy talking about the article. And out came this powder, a little bit on my face, on my hands, and on my clothes. And even that, Larry, did not alarm me. It is disconcerting, but it didn't alarm me until I got a call just then from someone who informed me about what had happened at NBC. And, at that point, I realized that the letter that I had gotten might actually be similar to the letter that had been sent to NBC. And that point, I became more concerned.
KING: What's the first thing you did?
MILLER: I called our security department. And I saw that my colleagues noticed that something was wrong, because I had kind of cried out. And I told them to stay away, because one of them had rushed to me. And I wanted her to take off my headset so that I didn't have to touch it. That is a very human reaction, to rush to the aid of a colleague. In a potential biological situation, it is the wrong reaction. And I think we all learned a great deal at "The New York Times" from this, fortunately, false alarm.
KING: What did it turn out to be?
MILLER: Well, we don't know yet exactly what it was. We do know that the preliminary testing suggests that it is not anthrax. And my initial instinct, when I smelled that smell, was baby powder. And I don't know whether we will be told exactly what it is, but I think what it is not is more important in that situation.
I dare say, Steve Lovelady is a putz. And a wimp. And a whinner. And he is ill-suited for his position.
He ought to just admit that all of his connections and friends at the Times make it impossible for him to be anything but a knee-pad-wearing, knee-jerk worshiper of the former paper of record. They can do no wrong in his eyes. Okrent was a hero to him. Now he whines that Judith Miller, the most discredited journalist in America, is subject to unflattering descriptions of her attire.
Steve, go jump in the lake.
Interesting paradox. On the one hand you have people targeting party leaders in the Democrat led senate with real weapons-grade anthrax while at the same time Miller, one on the bigger neo-con advocates against Iraq, is being targeted with fake anthrax.
BP-That' not a paradox, that's a clue.
spinoza: Well, I don't want to be too hasty.
What's particularly interesting is there's little gap between the date of the mailings. It's like, "you get the real and you get the fake."
Anyone know if the handwriting comparisons match? Of course, the truly sinister wouldn't overlook such details. If you didn't want to create that connection, and more than one person was involved, you'd use two different sets of handwriting to obfuscate the source, etc.
It tends to paint Judy, Judy, Judy and a useful idiot, or worse. Given her ties to the neo-con Brunhilde, you've got to wonder.
Hadn't thought about that regarding Miller, but, yeah, she's not only cultivated the celebrity, but she's made a lot of money on it -- best-selling books, appearance fees and I'm sure the Times pays her better than it pays most. And while I think she's going to jail for principled reasons, she is going to make some scratch off of this when it's all over as well. So... what's wrong with a joke about her clothes?
I mean, by December she reporting on the Army making it long after they were said to have stopped, but before you know it she's off on Iraq, including her "embedded" reportage from the "front," which functions more as an conclusion in such of an explanation.
(which could be said of this line of inquiry as well 
Whatever. All I know is poor Judith's hair is gonna have some serious gray roots when she gets out of the pokey, bless her heart.
I'm all for replacing Steve Lovelady with Andre Leon Talley
Me too! Just not Julia Reed, please . . .
Actually I remember Atrios complaining quite a bit about the attention paid to the MS trial...
Givahn is an excellent fashion reporter. She does her beat of Paris or Milan fashion shows quite well, and occasionally she goes off-beat to do personal fashion stuff on people in the news. She is an equal opportunity take down artist, doing both men and women.
She did Winona Ryder during her shoplifting trial, Martha Stewart, Condi Rice, Janet Reno at 9/11 commission hearings and so on as well as Bolton, Cheney, Powell. She always hits the right note, without being too cruel.
Steve Lovelady doesn't know a thing about Givahn's writing. She is perfecting her writing. I have never known a fashion reporter that can write so well and with humour.
That may be so, because she is the only fashion reporter I have ever read.
What ecoast said, quite intelligent really, and imparting a certain amount of dignity to each (more than Miller deserves).
.
Did Givahn describe Rice's attite as that of dominatrix? I love this person (a man, a women? as a liberal, I do not care!)
On the other hand, Bolton's mustache
deserves a column as a separate topic. To me, it conveys a persona of homicidal maniac, although it would not be out of place on a country vet, or a Gepetto-like artisan.
camp cupcake
Comments about someone's personal appearance or hygiene are petty, unless they appear in a column in the 'personal appearance/hygiene' section of the newspaper.
Bill Gates allegedly lacked good daily habits before marriage (maybe even still, I don't know). Paul Wolfowitz licks his haircomb before using it (maybe even YOUR comb if he borrows it). Lots of public figures have bad teeth, but don't seem to care. I'm sure even more have terrible breath.
But for chrissakes, if you can't find something more important to write about people like Bolton et al., just go home and blow your brains out.
Or start a blog and keep it to yourself and like-minded others.
What Frank Rich wrote:
Mr. Fitzgerald made his bones prosecuting the mob," intoned the pro-Bush editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, "and doesn't seem to realize that this case isn't about organized crime." But that may be exactly what it is about to an ambitious prosecutor with his own career on the line. That the Bush administration would risk breaking the law with an act as self-destructive to American interests as revealing a C.I.A. officer's identity smacks of desperation. It makes you wonder just what else might have been done to suppress embarrassing election-season questions about the war that has mired us in Iraq even as the true perpetrators of 9/11 resurface in Madrid, London and who knows where else.
Just exactly who was it that outted Valerie Plume - does Karl have journalist do his bidding - certainly it seem that Judith did what the administration told her too.
As Frank Rich points out this too:
Judy Miller herself was one of two reporters responsible for a notoriously credulous front-page Times story about aluminum tubes that enabled the administration's propaganda campaign to trump up Saddam's W.M.D. arsenal.
And notice how NYT Chief Editor Keller sent a memo out inform staff to write more "conservative" type articles after have coctails with Carl Rove. WHY would a Chief Editor tell his staff to write "slanted" news.
What doe the Washington Post know about journalist have in outted Valeria Plums name - did Rove have them on payroll - just like how Al Capone owned judges and police - the Bush administration buy reporters - we already know Bush does.
We going to need to subpoena more journalist a lot more often in the future since it seems some reports see nothing wrong with helpping Karl practice criminal activity. It was a perfect criminal because journalist have always been untouchable in past - but not anymore.
I don't want American lawyers doing criminal acts without having to answer for it - I don't what journalist doing criminal act either will be untoucable. Here is betting that Judity Miller got paid to do what she did - and the much of her money didn't just come from her paycheck at the NYT. And I have to wonder if the NYT Cheif Editor Keller is also on Karl's payroll.
That thing on Bolton's head looks like a nest made by a drunken barn swallow.
The conclusion of Givhans's article says it all:
"Miller has made it clear that she is going to jail to make a point -- she will protect her sources. And so her style plaintively cries out: The news is not me; it's the principle. But that smile and those sunglasses -- don't celebrities always wear sunglasses when they're pretending to hide? -- suggest an unavoidable truth. It is about her as well. Of course it is. She is the one ducking the cameras. She is the one who will sit in jail. She is the reporter whose stature will be elevated in the eyes of her fans for defending a source's anonymity.
Jones was wrong to lie and Miller may or may not be right to stand her ground. But both of them sent all the right messages to their supporters. And both of them may well be rewarded."
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
