Men's Attire

James McClure:

The T-shirt and jeans have killed men's clothing.  The traditional variety and style in men's clothing has died.  At this point if you don't wear jeans and a T-shirt, maybe a sweater, people constantly think that you over dress.  Slacks, a button down shirt, and a weather appropriate jacket should never be overdressed.  That should be the casual standard.  If you choose to wear jeans and some variation of a non-collared shirt, then you are dressing down.

Recently my brother gave me a hard time because I wore a sweater vest under a jacket.  He said, "The life vest prevents you from drowning, the bullet-proof vest prevents you from being shot, the sweater vest prevents you from getting laid."  While I agree that sweater vests are far too frequently used as part of an outfit that does not include a jacket (blazer or suit), they still have function: they prevent you from having over-stuffed-sausage arms in your sport coat.  When worn under a jacket the missing arms are not noticeable and the outfit actually looks better.

Ties are another thing.  Why is 75% of the American male population allergic to ties?  Why am I made to feel like a pretentious ass hole if I choose to wear a tie to an event where a tie is not required?  Men have very few places to add personal touches to their outfits.  The tie is the primary place where color, pattern and design can be added to personalize a look.  Rather than embracing this piece of formal men's clothing, most men do not know how to tie a half-Windsor knot.  I'm not saying that we need to give up our casual clothing, just we need to adjust our view of casual, and adjust our view of what is appropriate to wear to what occasions.  

Frank Leyland:
Is the "weather appropriate jacket" line a shot across Arthur Fonzarelli's bow? I'm not sure if it is smart of us to alienate the Fonzi Fan Club.

It's sunny and 75 outside Fonzie,
you don't need the jacket

Mr. Payne Stewart is a sharp dressed man (cue ZZ Top)

Sweater vests are only appropriate while wearing a jacket to hide the fact you left 2/3rds of the sweater at home. The problem is once you commit to the sweater vest you cannot, under any circumstances, take the jacket off, not even to hook up. This is similar to the "granny-panty conundrum" presented in Bridget Jone's Diary. The only place you should ever see a jacket-less sweater vest is on a golf course. But those guys also try to pull off looks like this, so they might not be the best judge of fashion. 


Last I checked, stores like Brooks Brothers are still turning a profit, so let's not give the suit and tie a standing 10 count just yet. I have a hard time understanding where exactly you want to draw the jeans and T shirt (J&T) line. I am going to assume your largest complaint resides in the bar scene because most office attire is regulated and you couldn't possibly be crazy enough to suggest that I should wear a tie while pumping iron. 


The truth of the matter is the bar scene is no man’s land for attire, especially the later into the night you hang around. If you want to assure yourself that all bar patrons meet your ridiculously high standards of clothing, visit a cigar bar on a Friday evening. Otherwise, just be happy that Ed Hardy makes T shirts incredibly easy to spot, making it possible to avoid all of the crazies looking to black out and punch each other.

It's got Rhinesontes and it's only $85! What a Deal!

James McClure:

There is no reason for grown men to wear bedazzled T-shirts at any time.  The is also no reason for a bedazzled T-shirt to cost $85.

This is the problem.  Guys think that because they are wearing $150 tennis shoes, $200 jeans, and a $85 T-shirt that they can wear this outfit to a nice restaurant or to a reasonably formal event.  What they miss is that the cost of the outfit does not morph if from being jeans and a T-shirt.  Bottom line, comb your hair - even if spiky is cool it is not appropriate - put on a collared shirt, own a pair of semi-casual dress slacks, put on leather shoes and look like a respectable person.  

Look how far we've fallen.  This picture was taken in 1960. It shows Pitt Students watching a world series game from the top of a university building.  You would never see that attire today.

Best seat in the house

Frank Leyland:

I totally agree that it's entirely inappropriate to under dress for nice occasions. However, I don't get offended by the clothing choices of J&T people, because it makes them easier to avoid. I actually would like to shake their hands for sparing me the 5 minutes of conversation I would have had with them before realizing they are the type of person that thinks a J&T outfit is totally acceptable anywhere. There are all kinds of people in this world, and I think the easier it is to identify them before I talk to them the better. 

James McClure:

I don't agree.  The fact that people find it appropriate to dress like that has been created by being afraid to ever offend anyone.  The truth is that 60 years ago someone would have the balls to say that you can't get a seat in the restaurant wearing tennis shoes, and that if he wanted to come back he'd have to comb his hair, put on a jacket and collar, put on slacks, and cover his tattoos.  The truth is that if you want to dress like that it is fine, just don't expect everyone to put up with your stylistic choices.  We should be able to set expectations and demand that people conform to them if they desire to join.

Ed Rendell put it perfectly: "We are a nation of Wussies."

We are so afraid that we may offend someone that we have given up all rights and ability to set reasonable expectations.  

Frank Leyland:

Set inside the back of a trash truck,
New York's hottest night club is... REALLY!?!

Money is the only thing required to enter most places. If you have enough cash to spend $132 on a T shirt that looks like this, then you certainly have enough money to blow on a Surf and Turf dinner at Ruth's Chris. I don't know many companies that make a habit of turning down customers money, no matter how 'fashionable' they are.  

I love the Ed Rendell line. Classic Rendi. 

James McClure:

That is just insane.  Ed Hardy is gluing glitter to tie-dyed T-shirts and selling them for 150% the cost of a Brooks Brothers dress shirt: 

$65 for a whole shirt, sounds too good to be true 

I don't think that I ever want to talk to the man who chooses the Ed Hardy over the Brooks Brothers.  It just doesn't make any sense.  But then again what do I know.  I'm just some antiquated jerk who thinks that jeans should be prohibited on a golf course and that you should have to wear a collar.  I guess that the jean-shorts and wife-beater's (sometimes shirtless) crowd was right the whole time.

Frank Leyland:

I totally agree with you. What passes as acceptable men's clothing these days is appalling. I just don't think there is anything that can be done about it.

I am worried that we generally agree on this issue. Based on my experiences with reality TV, people prefer drama, even if it totally fabricated, much more than high fives.

James McClure:

I think that we're done here.

Frank Leyland:

Agreed.

Now can you compose an email inviting some of our friends to preview this anti-non-un-blog thing before we waste any more of our time. 

Wiccans

Frank Leyland:

Why are witches mad?

The link (under the picture) is to an article discussing the anger the Wiccan community has over a beer label that depicts a 16th century witch burning. I am sick and tired of having to listen to small groups of people complain about nothingness that I am seriously considering moving to the Mariana Trench. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariana_Trench 

I get that we live in a PC world (or country at least, no need to lump North Korea in with us) where we constantly try to understand others points of view. And, in fairness, I think this is a very noble idea that demonstrates high level social behaviors, the most notable of which is compassion.  However, we have ventured so fair into understanding that we, as a society, now reside in the realm of compliance. We are literally forced to support everyone’s thoughts and ideas no matter how inane or insane they are. We have forgotten that you can understand where someone is coming from and still tell them they are wrong. Sucking someone’s dick for every asinine opinion they have doesn't make you compassionate, it makes you a whore. Incidentally, it makes them, fat, lazy, and overly self-assured, which encourages even more absurdity... leading, of course, to more BJs. 

Look, you can go ahead and believe in witchcraft, I'm cool with that. In fact you can go ahead and believe in anything you like as long as it doesn't involve throwing virgins into volcanoes or pouring good wine down the drain (there are too few of both). But you can't have way outside the box beliefs and then expect me to take you seriously. That is the compromise. I leave you be to wander around in the fantasy land that is your mind, and you don't force me to listen to you. When you start spouting off your demented ideas you have broken the treaty, so don't expect me to nod my head and pretend I think you are logical. 

James McClure:

Well here we go, off into topics that have the potential to alienate giant chunks of our audience.  While losing the Wiccan community is hardly a problem, the core issues here are far-reaching and split our country nearly in half.  The fringe of both sides look like idiots in the extremes, but in the middle there is a lot of philosophy, emotion, and misunderstanding.  

The battle for respect for other cultures is not a new topic and is likely discussed and argued so frequently because it is both nearly impossible to achieve and is at the bedrock foundation of our nation and its goals.  Further, this difficult topic has forever been caught in the middle of a war of words.    A war where semantics are everything and actual discussion is not only discouraged, but often placed somewhere out-of-bounds.  These issues exist in a number of areas (typically: ethnicity, religion, gender, and sexual orientation).  Each of these topics presents issues and road-blocks that are caused by misunderstanding, emotion, lack of empathy, hate, and fear.  Many of the underlying issues are considered so taboo that you can't even discuss them, and many politically minded people like that because it creates layers of signaling, coded language, passive-aggressive stances, and stalemate.  You don't have to look too far.  Catch-phrases like "family values", "urban decay", "progressive", "educated" and a list of others that can be heard daily on CNN, FOX News, and MSNBC are caught-up in this battle.  I would typically avoid a topic like this, but if we are going to take it on, let's take it on.

While the Wiccan community seems to be crazy, remember that they are living in a culture where most people believe that a man lives in the sky.  That he knocked-up a virgin who gave birth to a son, which is actually him.  That he created all of existence in a short run of thousands of years.  That he buried fake dinosaur bones to make us doubt and test our faith, and that he will return with his pet ghost to destroy all of creation and take the "true believers" body and soul into the sky to live in his big cloud house.  Religious persecution is real and while you don't have to respect the Wiccan outrage over beer bottle art, you do have to listen to it.

Talking about the Wiccan outrage over negative portrayals of their religion is not a simple issue that can easily be seen as ridiculous.  While it seems to be nonsense, how would we feel if the label referenced the Spanish Inquisition, Holocaust, Slavery, The Trail of Tears, or another atrocity carried out upon a group by a majority?  In the end I don't see why our view of this depiction is different simply because Wiccans are a smaller, more fringe population.  

Frank Leyland:

First, where did this side of James McClure come from? Looks like the week long plague you just survived took all the fight and anger out of you. I might like this guy better, but you are coming dangerously close to turning our argument into a hippy-style love-fest. 

I agree that it is a bad idea to glorify atrocities of the past, no matter the number of people affected.  In this particular situation, however, there are several reasons why we should tell the Wiccans to shut the fuck up. First, the last witch burning on record occurred in 1693, so we are  approximately 16 generations removed from the depicted event.  I can assure you no one alive today (of non-witch decent) was also present in Salem in 1692, so let’s stop pretending this is anything other than a historical event. Besides, I thought it was good to be reminded of awful things society has done in the past (e.g. Slavery, Inquisitions, a Paris Hilton reality show) so we don’t repeat them.

Second, none of the 13 women who were burned were witches. If they were they would have failed the flame test. The fact that a bunch of witches are defending the memory of a group of women who were falsely accused of, and killed for, being a witch is not only ironic, it is insulting to their memory. They died because you assholes believe in witchcraft, something they, themselves, did not believe. 

Finally, and probably most relevant, the label makes no claim as to the correctness of witch burning. If the label had a title like: "A burned witch a day keeps the doctor away" or "I love the smell of burned witch in the morning", then yes, it might be inappropriate (although it would also be funnier). As it is this label is simply a piece of art. And as we all learned in 2nd grade, and relearned while walking through a post-modern 'art' exhibit, the meaning of art is in the eye of the beholder. So anyone who looks at this label and wants to burn some people was already mentally deranged.  

James McClure:

I think that we will have to agree to disagree on this one.  I'd be hesitant to purchase this beer just as I would be hesitant to purchase a bottle of wine with a stylized swastika on it, or eat at a restaurant that referenced slavery images in its title, or buy a car with a dying Jesus on the hood.  It's just not necessary or appropriate.  

I think that you don't respect Wiccans' beliefs, so you think that you don't have to respect their feelings and rights.  How would you feel if over 70% of the people in this country were Wiccans?  What if it was a large minority; like Mormans?  What then?  How willing would you be to offend them?

It's just a better policy to err on the side of reverence when you are dealing with or referencing someone's religion.

Frank Leyland:

Find Lost Abbey

Your absolutely right that I don't respect their beliefs, but I do respect their rights to have those beliefs. That is a huge distinction. I had no problem with the Wiccan community until they started bitching about a label on a seasonal beer made by a microbrewery that currently distributes to parts of 8 states 

Yes, I get that the label might not be politically correct, but it's just a painting. Are you suggesting we remove everything from or society that makes mention of witches and the burning thereof? I don't want to live in a world where this clip doesn't exist; 

All I'm saying is how about we wait until there is actual danger before we start screaming bloody murder. And the only way that this beer bottle posses any real danger to witches is if, thought some form of witchcraft, the painting comes to life.

I seriously can't believe that you are pandering to their asinine complaints...

James McClure:

I'm quite sure that your youtube video is subject to copyright.

Are you saying that if the beer was distributed more evenly across many states that it would be more offensive?  Or that because you can only be offended in 8 cities that the aggregate offensiveness is less?  Or is it a combination of so few Wiccans times the small amount of exposure equals a tiny little bit of offensiveness.  I'm just not sure how to add up the offensiveness of the offensive depiction.  I forgot that the beer is only produced for a few months of the year.  Which months can we say offensive things about Russians?  How about Canadians?  I'm looking forward to those.

You can still lampoon the idea that we once burned witches.  What you can't do is use these traditional depictions to stir up images and stereotypes about what and who witches are.  It would be like calling an invasion of the Middle East a Crusade, or a Holy War

Frank Leyland:

I'm saying that it is a piece of art on a beer bottle, not the "Common Sense" pamphlet or the "95 Theses". Relax.

The Anti- Martin Lawrence

        

What a Paine

Plus the people of Salem never burned witches. They just dressed their neighbors up in costume and murdered them. 

We are now arguing in circles, which can turn into pentagrams if we aren't careful.

ps. we still need a name for this so was can start a website...

James McClure:

Art for art's sake

I like how I'm stretching on this one, and you're the one calling the label of a beer bottle art.  With the exception of Eastern philosophies that consider everything that each person does an artistic expression, I can't imagine many people think that this is "art":

I think that once we figure out what this is, we'll have an easier time naming it.  So far your suggestions (left on red and other rants, and across the line to grandmother's house we go) have been terrible.

Frank Leyland:

[I think we are done here. Solid work. It's your turn to pick a topic, I look forward to discussing something girly.]

George Michaels

James McClure:

I heard Father Figure today and it got me thinking:

1. What do you think about the 1980's music revival that we have been experiencing recently? I feel like Hall and Oats may end up with another #1 hit in the next year or so.

2. What happened to George Michaels? I went back and looked at some videos. He used to be the man. He had tons of models and sex with models in the videos. He was the man. How did he become the punch line for every anonymous-homosexual-hand-job-in-the-park joke?

Frank Leyland:

Wait!!! There is a 1980's music revival... Get the car fired up Donny McDork, we're getting the hell out of here!

I think the more interesting question is why did all forms of art suck in the 80's. My theory: The Personal Computer. There has always existed a nitch in our society for people who are commonly referred to as 'nerds'. Up until the mid 80's, this nitch was relatively small and powerless, as most jobs required strength and/or personality. The creation of a 'cheap' computer in the early 80's totally changed the skill set required of the successful American worker, drastically increasing the power of the 'nerd nitch'. People who understood words like "floppy disk" and "DOS" suddenly had more (or at least as much power) as those who were just handsome and charming. It was Darwinism at its finest. My theory (as I wasn't old enough to really experience the 80's) is that nerds, with their newfound power, invaded all forms of life; music, art, clothing, etc. Since they don't have any taste, everything suffered.

Not George Michaels?

Finally, George Michaels became the punch line for "anonymous-homosexual-hand-job-in-the-park jokes" because he got an anonymous homosexual hand job in the park. I think that falls under the category of "you are what you eat". Also, everyone who was born after 1986 confuses him for this guy...

James McClure:

I think it's even worse. I'm pretty sure that he was giving the hand-job.

Dude, I'm loving the holiday music. I'm blasting Last Christmas right now. I don't think that anyone else in the office appreciates this.

Frank Leyland:

It is after Thanksgiving so no one can really bust your balls about the music choice until New Years day. That being said, I'm not sure 'blasting' is the appropriate volume for a work environment unless your job takes place in one of the following settings: "Stadium/Arena" "fishing ship" or "Stage w/ or w/o pole"

Let's bring this conversation back to the 80's (and not the 1880's when half of your lame Christmas music was written). Don't you have any opinion on my Nerd Nitch theory?

James McClure:

Well, I would have to agree that the computer gave power to the nerds. Although, it also took power away from true nerds:

The computer has made tedious, number-crunching, accuracy and precision based tasks relatively easy. This has allowed more people to perform the tasks traditionally dominated by nerds. It has produced the effect of making more people "nerds", and the true, hardcore nerds less marketable.

Frank Leyland:

Yes, and yes. I totally agree that because our generation grew up with computers any advantage 'real nerds' had over everyone else has disappeared. Everyone is a 'nerd' now in the sense that they can work a pc, understand the internet, and even use it to create something awful (i.e. this anti-blog thing). I would point to our friend, Censored, as a great example of this. He definitely fits the strong and personable category and had he not grown up in the 90's (or later) would have never touched a PC. Instead he now crunches numbers for a large bank, essentially stealing a job only a 'true nerd' would have been able to perform in the 80's. He is better suited for this job because he has all of the technical skills a 'nerd' does without all of the awkwardness of a 'true nerd'.

This means that, ironically, the increased power of the 'nerd nitch' that the PC created in the 80's also caused the destruction of said nitch by the 90's, as everyone in our generation became a 'nerd'. As proof of my thesis I would like to point out that the destruction of most forms of art (interpretive dance still sucks, see video) was promptly reversed by the mid 90’s.

James McClure:

This has gone too far. You're up there making the rise and fall of the nerd sound like it fits into some Buddhist cycle. Look, it's simple. The computer is three things: 1) a giant filing system, 2) a giant calculator for complex calculations, 3) a communication device. Its widespread distribution is has replaced a good many things: people who add up numbers in neat rows, secretaries, the calculator, the typewriter, print news, shorthand, and comming soon - network/cable television, and radio.

There is a reason we no longer send telegraphs.

P.S. Was interpretive dance ever popular; worthwile; anything more than a reason for your gay friends to ask you to come to an event?

Doggystyle

Frank Leyland:

Wait, you're saying that Lewbowski's landlord was gay? That thought had not occurred to us dude.

You forgot to mention porn in your list of pc uses... unless giant filing system is your lame code for rub one out.

James McClure:

I'll concede that: the internet is the most penis-friendly invention since doggy-style.

Frank Leyland:

That was a great album...