Friday, August 30, 2013

It's Fashion Friday!: Animals Died So You Could Do WHAT?!

            I love fur outerwear. I’m not a vicious, animal-hating, evil, barbarian. I like to be warm. I am cold 99% of the time. I’m the person you see wearing a hooded sweatshirt inside when it’s 95 degrees out. And when the temperature drops below 20 degrees, I will have to have on about 5-6 layers of clothing to regulate to a normal temperature. Putting a fur layer in there cuts that in half. It’s practical. Down filled quilted garments are also warm, but it is somewhat easier to walk around in a fur vest than it is to walk around in a sleeping bag. Not all fur garments are created equal. And I certainly wouldn’t want to look like a drowned rat or a CGI wolf from the Twilight trilogy that happened to get caught in a Tsunami. I still want my fur “whatever-it-is” to be fashionable. There are lines, however, that shouldn’t be crossed, if… I don’t even know how to end this sentence.
Chanel. Blue mink helmet.
           GAH! EGADS! What the hell is that?! Exactly. Whatever you’re thinking. Yes. That’s it. BOOM. Joan of Arc just became a Smurf, took an acid trip, flew to the moon, watched the Gladiator movie, and had John Galliano mold her a helmet out of a blue foam yoga block! Actually, it’s Chanel and it’s mink. Poor, poor, mink. I know they’re mean little creatures, but this seems unjust posthumous treatment even for them. I think I saw somewhere these things cost about 3g’s. Karl, what were you thinking?

Fendi. Photo by Filippo Fior.
This is EASILY a $15,000 coat. 
I wish I were joking with that number.
            Next in the lineup, we have the amazing cracked out Technicolor Millipede that Joseph found in his Dream-coat after not having it dry-cleaned for a long, long time. Or is it a crustacean? Regardless of what kind of bug it most resembles, Fendi put it there. And, oh what a surprise, Karl Lagerfeld had a hand in this too. There were a few covetable pieces in this line, but after reviewing the still shots of the Fall 2013 looks I can only advise Mr. Lagerfeld of one thing. Buddy, really, YOU HAVE A GAS LEAK IN YOUR HOUSE.
Creative Recreation. $190 a pair at Barneys.
            I got this email from Barney’s about one of their newest favorites from Creative Recreation. These promotional emails are often comical. Having once been on the other side of the counter I realize that they probably bought pretty heavily into this “new favorite” and are now thinking, “Wow, we better get people to buy these.” My question would be, “Did the Smurfs become a significant marketing target sometime in the last year and I missed it?!” I can’t decide if these are worse in the blue or the white calf hair, probably the blue. The white looks a little less, uh, hairy. Can I think of a single male I have ever come in contact who would wear these? Yes – one – dirty feet thought he was going to get a fresh pair after he left his nasty dry foot gunk on the suede footbed of the pair he tried on sandal guy from my S Ferragamo days. That is not a whopping endorsement, Barneys. Good luck with those. 
Each one of these mittens
is larger than her ENTIRE ass.
Is it a Rorschach? Is it bird flock
excrement? Or just a weird
design? I don't know.
 Some designers are more interested in sustainable fur. So instead of killing animals that haven’t been treated well, they’re just using road kill in their designs. That’s not true, but tell me that THING doesn’t look like a boxing glove made out of a dead skunk. What is that? Can she drive a car with those on? She certainly cannot grip an ice cream cone. I doubt very much that she could button/zipper a coat or pick up a Birkin. Even Cruella De Vil was smart enough to wear sleek gloves so that she would have access to her cigarette holder. Altuzarra does have Cruella’s coat for you as well, if you’d prefer that to the skunk mittens. Supposedly, it was the most Instagrammed coat at Fashion Week (back in February). Isn’t it amazing that people would get so riled up about something that’s been done before, and by Disney, nonetheless? Maybe they were just happy to see something that wasn’t as ugly as Mick Jagger.  

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Who Let That Kid Out Of The House?

I would feel bad for the people around me if
I left the house in these without anything over them.
They are, however, awesome for Garbha Pindasana. Get some.
      I am an adult. If I choose to leave the house in my “last resort workout shorts” a.k.a. “didn’t have a chance to do laundry before I ran out of the shorts that I feel are comfortably long enough to cover my entire butt when I am in precarious yoga postures shorts,” it is on my shoulders; I reap the consequences. This RARELY happens, but for argument’s sake, let’s say I did go out dressed so inappropriately. Possible negative outcomes of this action are staring, laughing, rude comments, whistles, or even groping (which would be unfortunate for that jerk because I have a punching/slapping/kicking reflex). All of these things, while out of line and unacceptable, I would knowingly shoulder as risk because I would be the responsible adult dressed like a fool. What happens when the fool is a child?
      Who let’s a kid leave the house dressed like that? Who let’s a kid in the house dressed like that? Who let’s a kid dress like that? Who is RESPONSIBLE for the maybe 12 year old girl I saw in Starbucks today wearing white jean shorts that DID NOT cover her bum? She was NOT an adult. She IS A CHILD. And the world is FULL of pervs. Ask Olivia Benson. I am not a parent and I already spend a great deal of time worrying about who is taking care of all of these kids! It doesn’t seem like a great deal of parents are actually paying attention.
            Okay so some people would say, “Oh well she dresses one way and then she changes her clothes at school or her friends’ houses.” I’ve already discussed with a friend how if that were to happen to a child of our own, those clothes they brought to school to change into wouldn’t even BE in the house. It’s a very simple thing to fix. You go into the kid’s room, with them, and you get all of the inappropriate garments. Then you get in the car together and drive to the closest dumpster. Then, the child gets to watch as you throw ALLLLL of the strumpet’s things IN the dumpster. SIMPLE SOLUTION. Your child does not need to own clothing that makes her look like she’s practicing to become a ho.
so your kid wants to look like this? well, i
wanted spandex biker shorts in 1987.
my mom said no. GOOD JOB, MOM!
            I hear Miley Cyrus did something foul on the VMA’s this weekend. For once I FINALLY missed something. I hope to keep it that way. Trash like this young female does not have to be the role model for your child. In the words of Nancy Reagan, “Just Say No.” Don’t let your kids watch/listen/read that shit. Maybe it’s difficult for you, the parent, but who said being a parent was easy? Didn’t you ever hear the about the sentiment that sometimes the right thing to do is the hardest? Have you thought about the fact that in five or so years when your daughter is in high school or in college and she no longer looks like a child and someone stares, laughs, makes a rude comment, whistles, or worse, attacks her, that the responsibility for these consequences is now on YOUR hands – YOU – THE PARENT. I’m not saying that whoever commits a crime or indecent act is beyond reproach. No, no, no. Put the blame where it is due.
If the world were perfect, people could wear what ever they wanted and stay out of harm’s way. What I would like to point out is that we do not live in a perfect world. We live in a world full of sick ducks – to quote autocorrect. Look at that jerk mayor of San Diego! Do you think he would look the other way if your teenage daughter went to his office on a school field trip wearing her best pair of short shorts? I think not.
            A difference between a 3 inch inseam and 0 inseam is not going to make a child suffer heat stroke. Watching your child walk out the door to see what they’re wearing may make you late for work, however. Wouldn’t you rather be late for work today than have your daughter taken advantage of tomorrow? 

Friday, August 23, 2013

It's Fashion Friday!: I've Mulled It Over and Mullets Are OVER.

There's a reason this BCBG
travesty is on sale for $28.31.

           It’s not the hockey hair of the eighties that pushes my buttons. It’s not that almost-mullet-Mrs. Brady-hair-that-sort-of-gives-me-nightmares that’s making me cringe. It’s the dreaded “Mullet Skirt.” I think it became a universally accepted opinion that the mullet as a hairstyle conjured images of all things redneck and was not “chic.” So, why would you emulate that in a garment?
            I understand the practicality of having a skirt be somewhat longer in the back than in the front. Most people have more distance to cover from waist to knee in the back than the front – that whole ass thing can get in the way. Yet, that is just a calculation to be made so that the skirt is the same length in the front as in the back without daily tasks such as picking up the chocolate you dropped on the floor (which you are going to eat because it takes a good 30 seconds for germs to transfer from one surface to another) becoming R rated for those around you. I do not understand the desire to have the back of the skirt reach the Achilles tendon while the front of the skirt barely grazes the knee. Will someone please explain this to me?
Urban Outfitters Fail. 
            If anything, I would have thought that an asymmetrical skirt would have been long in the front
and short in the back. I like my calf muscles a lot better than I like my knees. “Hey look, everyone! Here are my knees and shins!” That’s what the mullet skirt says. So sexy. Low cut shirt – boobs. Daisy dukes – ass. Peep toe shoes – pedicure. KNEES?! Who wants to look at knees?! I don’t want to meet the sicko with a knee fetish. I don’t want to meet any sickos, actually, but I can only imagine what kind of weird person goes around fixating on people’s knees.
           Ugh, I just found a Vogue Daily article touting the things because so many people are wearing them on the streets. A lot of people get gum stuck in their shoes too – that doesn’t mean you should do it. The article goes so far as to call this Urban Outfitters number a "stunner." Maybe like a stun gun.  It’s the color of a Band-Aid and looks like it was cut right off the bolt at the JoAnn Fabrics.
Here's an ugly red one from Macys.
Can you just picture a small
animal or child pulling on the back?
           Really, I'm starting to think that the mullet hairstyle is a better idea than the mullet skirt. Were the designers of these skirts overtaken by the hairstyle fad? Is it like the moustache thing? There's another one I just do not understand. Why are there moustaches all over everything now? Who decided that was hip and what am I missing? It's not like people really want men to have moustaches. Most men who sport a lone moustache end up looking either like Hitler or a pedophile, and I wouldn't want to be friends with either. I can think of only one strapping fellow, by the name of Erik R. who has been moustach-ing since long before it was a thing. I'm keeping his name confidential because I don't want any vagrants bothering him trying to be his friend because he is cooler than the moustache fad. Anyways, between the random hair-trends, I've really had enough. At the risk of sounding like a Mennonite, cover your knees please. Or here, maybe this is better. Show me your calves! Just fix the damned skirt so it's the same length on both sides. You mullet skirt people look like you were in some sort of losing battle with a really agressive puppy and it's just sad. 

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

When You're Outshone by Putin, You Know You Suck At Your Job

           One of the most astute things I have heard in a long time came out of the mind of my dear Egyptian friend… I will paraphrase. “If you get in a fight with your mom it doesn’t make any sense for me to come and say, ‘Get out of the way. I’m going to take care of this for you,’ and then fight with your mom in your place.” You can’t argue with that. Can you? So WHY is the primary basis for US foreign policy to do EXACTLY THAT?
            That’s what we do, like it or not. Iraq? We went in and took out Saddam. Afghanistan? We’re fighting the Taliban. Pakistan? We’re droning the bejezeesus out of N Waziristan – any man who is old enough to hold a weapon and carry a conversation with someone who might join a militia is at risk. Somalia? Somalia is like instead of fighting with mom we’ve decided to have an ear flicking fight with the younger brother. That’s just a huge disaster – you know we’re droning camels and farmers there, right? Syria, there we just watch – they don’t have anything we want.
            It’s always about what you want from the other side. All weekend foreign news sources have been surmising what it is the US wants from Egypt that they would continue to give them money despite the so-called “military coup that wasn’t a coup.” People in Egypt were hearing that the US had stopped funding. Everyone here was being told the opposite. It seemed suspicious. Turns out, the Obama Administration was lying to the American people. I can’t say that I’m surprised. Make a speech that says you will continue funding while you actually go ahead and suspend the funding. That’s classy. So now we must ask the appropriate question, “What does Obama administration want from the Muslim Brotherhood?” You know something is very wrong when Vladimir Putin is making better decisions than your own president. I wanted to give him a Scratch ‘N Sniff sticker for giving Edward Snowden asylum. If he weren’t on his way to becoming the world’s next Hitler or Stalin I’d say get that man a kitten. I want to know why people condemn the Egyptian military’s actions to protect non-Muslim Brotherhood members as human rights violations, but still don’t condemn the White House’s decision to drone drone drone anyone they want (peace prize my ass). I can’t take it anymore. It makes my blood boil.