Teeing off my previous post on suits, it's come to my attention that some women don't know the meaning of business casual. We allow our clerks and secretaries to wear business casual. I see all kinds of crazy shit. Don't be the woman everyone giggles about behind your back.
What is Business Casual?
1. Dressy pants, not lowrise enough to show your entire buttcrack when you bend over to get a file. Try this in the fitting room. Trust me, no one wants to see it.
2. Sweaters and cardigans.
3. Button down shirts with no more than the top button unbuttoned.
4. Skirts and dresses no more than two inches above the knee.
5. Closed toe shoes. While the females in the upper realms may wear peep toes, you should not. They've earned it; you haven't.
6. Tops, shirts, and dresses with sleeves. Sleeveless is not appropriate unless you are wearing a cardigan or blazer over it. Dressy t-shirt type tops are fine, as are a lot of the cute tops you see out these days, provided they aren't low cut.
7. Blazers are always welcome.
What IS NOT Business Casual
1. Flip flops.
2. Mules.
3. Low cut shirts. No cleavage, please. V-neck can be fine, provided it is high enough.
4. Almost anything you would wear to a club. There are obviously some exceptions, but generally business casual and club wear do not go hand in hand.
5. Sleeveless tops or spaghetti string tops or one shoulder tops. I don't care if it's 100 degrees out; those of us above you are wearing suits, so suck it up.
6. Capri pants. See above.
7. Sandals. Again, your toes are not appropriate for work unless your company advises you otherwise.
8. Mini skirts. More than two inches above the knee is not work attire.
9. Jeans. I don't care if they are dark washed and cost $200. Don't wear them.
10. Jean jackets. See above.
11. Concert t-shirts. T-shirts can be fine if they are nicely cut and plain, and paired with a nice skirt or pants.
12. Sling backs. No.
Can You Wear What Women With Higher Ranking Than You Wear?
This depends on your company. In my opinion, no. Dress for the job you want, not the job you have. The women at the top tier of wherever you work have put in years and years of professional attire, and they are in a position to wear peep toes or a sleeveless dress on occasion if they feel like it. They aren't going to get reprimanded for a dress code oversight. You will. They might even come in one day after a long night of work wearing flip flops and jeans. Don't think this is your in to wear whatever you want. Dress appropriately. No matter where you work, people gossip and talk. It's not hard. One day, you too will be able to flaunt the dress code on occasion. For now, be a professional.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Business Casual: Women's Edition
How To Buy Your First Suit: Women's Edition
My younger sister is graduating from college -- finally, at the age of 30. She and I have had numerous conversations over the past year about professional attire, and in particular, how to buy a suit for a job interview. Since my sister is a Rocket Dogs, jeans, and hoodies type of person, the entire experience was terrifying for her. I started thinking back to when I first bought a suit. I was around 20 years old, and the idea of buying a suit was foreign. I didn't even know where to buy a suit or what I needed. My mom took me shopping, and because she was a high school teacher, she didn't know much about buying suits either. I ended up with a serviceable navy suit from Liz Claiborne, but I never particularly liked it. It did get me job offers, but somehow I think we could've done better if I had known more about the entire process. I'm going to gear this more toward college women who need a standard, professional suit for interviews, since my experience is in corporate and law. If you are interviewing in a more creative field, you may have more leeway to go outside the lines.
What is the Goal?
Don't just run out and buy a suit at the last minute. If you are in college, you will need a suit for interviews at some point. Start shopping early. Try on a lot of suits. You want a suit that is not only professional, but looks good on you and that you are comfortable wearing. The latter will be the biggest challenge, because chances are, wearing a suit is going to initially feel strange because you aren't used to it.
Where Can I Buy a Suit?
If you've never needed a suit, you may not have even paid attention to them. You can find suits at all major department stores, in the suits section. This can be overwhelming. There are racks upon racks of suits that may appear "old lady" to you. Many are "old lady" but a lot aren't. You may have to do a little digging and step out of your comfort zone. Try on a variety of different styles and brands. You can also find suits at stores like Banana Republic, Ann Taylor, Ann Taylor Loft, J. Crew, Marshall's, and T.J. Maxx. The Limited and Express can be hit or miss, but occasionally they also have suits that would work for job interviews. Generally speaking, avoid buying suits from trendy labels, such as Guess or Bebe. These usually are not appropriate suits for job interviews.
How Much Will This Cost?
Unfortunately, suits aren't cheap. However, you should be able to find a nice suit for $300 or less. If you are lucky enough to find your dream suit at Marshall's or T.J. Maxx, or on sale, you may spend less than $100. You don't need to spend $500 or thousands on a suit. If you start early, you can scope out the sale racks during the major sales and get a deal.
What Type of Suit Should I Buy?
This is a matter of personal preference. It's no longer a requirement for women to wear skirt suits to job interviews, although you may prefer a skirt suit over a pants suit. Either is fine. Remember that you can get pants and skirt lengths and cuffs tailored if they are too long off the rack. As far as skirt length, don't go shorter than an inch or two above the knee.
There are many different cuts and styles to the pants, skirts, and jackets. You should try on a lot of different styles to see what looks best on you. With jackets, there are many different cuts -- shorter, longer, boxy, tapered, double breasted, single breasted, etc. Determine what looks best on your body shape. (As an example, I'm a pear, so I liked skirt suits with a single breasted jacket that hits around mid-hip.) This may take awhile, especially because different brands are cut differently also. Try different styles across different brands.
You can (and will!) find a suit that is flattering on you, and that you are comfortable wearing. Don't view this as a miserable process. Consider this as your attempt to redefine yourself. Suits can actually be fun. (And let's face it -- they are easy to wear. Your entire outfit is picked out all in one shot.) And after all, you do get to go shopping...
What Color Suit Should I Buy?
It's a job interview, not a party. You need something neutral. My favorite interview suit color is a mid to dark charcoal gray. It's neutral, not too harsh, you can wear black heels, and have a variety of options for the top you will wear under it. I prefer darker suits, but if you live in a place like Florida, a light gray suit can also work.
Other safe bets are black, navy, or chocolate brown. Just beware that black can at times be a little harsh, so you'll need to lighten it up with the top you wear under it. Navy can be very difficult to match with shoes, tops, and bags, and I feel is a little dated. (I don't know any women who regularly wear suits who have a navy one hanging in their closet. Navy is such an "interviewing only" color. But don't let me dissuade you if the suit of your dreams only comes in navy -- it is a perfectly fine choice.) Chocolate brown has become a more popular color in recent years and can work, but make sure the color doesn't look too feces-like.
You can branch out a little, depending on the color and shade. For example, I wore a dark olive green suit when I interviewed for law jobs. Although it was green, it was still very neutral. There are no hard and fast rules, so use your best judgment. If in doubt, go with gray, black, or navy.
Do not buy a suit for interviewing that is red, bright blue, pink, bright green, orange, or any pastel color. This may sound obvious, but I interviewed a woman last year who wore a "smurf blue" suit to the interview. It was odd, to say the least.
What About Patterns?
Thin pinstripes are fine, as are occasionally some types of plaid. Again, however, think neutral, job interview, not party. While you want to invoke your style into this process, this is not the time to get too trendy. There are some beautiful plaid wool suits, but many would not be appropriate for job interviewing, although they would be perfectly fine once you have the job. If in doubt, go with plain or thin pinstripes only.
What Do I Wear Under It?
Once you've bought the suit, you have to find a top to wear under it. This is where you can get a little creative. Your choices essentially are a button down shirt with collar, or a collarless shirt in knit or silk.
The easiest option is the collarless shirt, because then you don't have to worry about how the collar will lay either underneath or on top of the collar on your jacket. It should go straight across your neck. No v-necks or anything low cut. I have a number of short sleeve, knit shirts in varying colors and patterns that I wear under my suits. If you buy a collared shirt, be sure to try it on with the suit to make sure it lays correctly and doesn't look awkward. Do not do this the morning of your job interview. You don't want to be worrying about whether your collar is bunching up during your job interview. Some women can really pull off this look; others can't. If in doubt, go with a collarless shirt.
This is where you can add some color or pattern, but nothing too garish. In fact, this is where you should add some color or pattern. Again, don't do anything too bright. Stay away from red and orange. Pastels here are fine. For example, I like light blue and light purple a lot with charcoal gray and black. Avoid a plain white shirt with a black suit; you'll look like a waiter. Navy suits can be slightly hard to match, so keep that in mind when you are picking out your suit.
Whatever type of top you buy, be sure that if you take off your jacket it looks good with your skirt/pants. While chances are you will not have to remove your jacket, you never know. Don't buy a skin tight knit top that makes your chest look enormous without cover of the jacket.
If you are buying a skirt suit, I hate to break the bad news, but you need pantyhose. Do not ever go to a job interview in a skirt without pantyhose. The good news is, there are some wonderfully sheer pantyhose now, where it barely looks like you are wearing them, but still gives that smooth, clean, line on your legs. Find the shade closest to your skin tone. You may have to try out some different brands and colors to find the right one for you. Look for the type labelled "sheer" or "ultra sheer" with names such as "barely there." Do not wear tights or patterened pantyhose.
What Shoes Do I Wear?
I'm not a fan of flats with suits. I'm also not a fan of four inch heels with suits. Find a somewhat neutral pair of leather (or fake leather) heels with a 1-3" heel. You really cannot go wrong with black, unless your suit is brown. However, you do not need to buy a boring, unadorned shoe. This is an area where you can let your personal style shine through, although don't go too crazy. There are many cute Mary Jane style, and shoes with a little bit of bling and style that are perfectly appropriate. Buy a closed heel, closed toed shoe. While peeptoes are adorable and trendy, it is not appropriate to show your toes at a job interview, nor does anyone want to see your heel in a slingback. No mules.
What Purse/Bag Do I Need?
Don't forget that you are going to have to carry your things into the job interview. If all you have are canvas messenger bags and backpacks, you might find yourself in a panic on interview morning. You likely have a black, leather folder that contains your resume, transcripts, a pen, and a pad of paper with your questions. You can either bring a purse and carry that along, or go with a larger bag that serves as your purse and a bag for your folder. Either is fine. A simple black leather (or pleather) purse or bag, over the shoulder or handheld, is all you need. In my opinion, Coach level is the most expensive purse or bag you should bring to a job interview. Don't show up with a $2,000 Gucci or Louis Vuitton bag.
What About Jewelry?
Avoid the dangling earrings. All you really need are diamond or cubic zirconia studs. A simple necklace is fine, if you've chosen a solid, plain shirt, but not necessary. A watch. That's about it. If you are married or engaged, you can certainly wear your engagement and/or wedding ring, but don't wear more than one ring. If you are single, you can wear a simple ring, if you are a ring wearer.
Weather
If you are interviewing in the winter, consider what type of coat you will be wearing over your suit. Do you have an appropriate coat? Even if you do, does it fit well over your suit jacket? I basically buy all of my work coats a size bigger to accomodate for suit jackets. They take up more space than you might think.
A plain wool coat works best, length depending on whether you have a skirt suit or a pants suit. (Shorter is fine with a pants suit, longer can work with either pants or skirts.) Black is always a safe option, as is charcoal gray. Think ahead on this, because you can often buy very cute wool coats during after season sales for $50 or less. Remember that you don't need the warmest, most quality coat there is. You just need something that looks nice and professional, and that can get you through interview season.
There may be rain or snow. Make sure you have a black umbrella. You might even want to have one of those plastic headscarves you can buy at the drug store handy. (Set aside your ego -- better to look good in your interview than on the way to the interview. If it is pouring rain, you might be thrilled you bought this. Just take it off before you walk into the office.) If it is snowing, avoid at all costs having to wear snowboots in to your interview that you have to change out of. This is awkward. Park as close as possible and change out of the snowboots in your car.
I think that about covers it. Hopefully this will help someone. Never fear -- you will find the perfect suit! And look at it this way -- when you need Suit #2, you will know which brands and styles work for you, so the entire process will be that much easier.
What is the Goal?
Don't just run out and buy a suit at the last minute. If you are in college, you will need a suit for interviews at some point. Start shopping early. Try on a lot of suits. You want a suit that is not only professional, but looks good on you and that you are comfortable wearing. The latter will be the biggest challenge, because chances are, wearing a suit is going to initially feel strange because you aren't used to it.
Where Can I Buy a Suit?
If you've never needed a suit, you may not have even paid attention to them. You can find suits at all major department stores, in the suits section. This can be overwhelming. There are racks upon racks of suits that may appear "old lady" to you. Many are "old lady" but a lot aren't. You may have to do a little digging and step out of your comfort zone. Try on a variety of different styles and brands. You can also find suits at stores like Banana Republic, Ann Taylor, Ann Taylor Loft, J. Crew, Marshall's, and T.J. Maxx. The Limited and Express can be hit or miss, but occasionally they also have suits that would work for job interviews. Generally speaking, avoid buying suits from trendy labels, such as Guess or Bebe. These usually are not appropriate suits for job interviews.
How Much Will This Cost?
Unfortunately, suits aren't cheap. However, you should be able to find a nice suit for $300 or less. If you are lucky enough to find your dream suit at Marshall's or T.J. Maxx, or on sale, you may spend less than $100. You don't need to spend $500 or thousands on a suit. If you start early, you can scope out the sale racks during the major sales and get a deal.
What Type of Suit Should I Buy?
This is a matter of personal preference. It's no longer a requirement for women to wear skirt suits to job interviews, although you may prefer a skirt suit over a pants suit. Either is fine. Remember that you can get pants and skirt lengths and cuffs tailored if they are too long off the rack. As far as skirt length, don't go shorter than an inch or two above the knee.
There are many different cuts and styles to the pants, skirts, and jackets. You should try on a lot of different styles to see what looks best on you. With jackets, there are many different cuts -- shorter, longer, boxy, tapered, double breasted, single breasted, etc. Determine what looks best on your body shape. (As an example, I'm a pear, so I liked skirt suits with a single breasted jacket that hits around mid-hip.) This may take awhile, especially because different brands are cut differently also. Try different styles across different brands.
You can (and will!) find a suit that is flattering on you, and that you are comfortable wearing. Don't view this as a miserable process. Consider this as your attempt to redefine yourself. Suits can actually be fun. (And let's face it -- they are easy to wear. Your entire outfit is picked out all in one shot.) And after all, you do get to go shopping...
What Color Suit Should I Buy?
It's a job interview, not a party. You need something neutral. My favorite interview suit color is a mid to dark charcoal gray. It's neutral, not too harsh, you can wear black heels, and have a variety of options for the top you will wear under it. I prefer darker suits, but if you live in a place like Florida, a light gray suit can also work.
Other safe bets are black, navy, or chocolate brown. Just beware that black can at times be a little harsh, so you'll need to lighten it up with the top you wear under it. Navy can be very difficult to match with shoes, tops, and bags, and I feel is a little dated. (I don't know any women who regularly wear suits who have a navy one hanging in their closet. Navy is such an "interviewing only" color. But don't let me dissuade you if the suit of your dreams only comes in navy -- it is a perfectly fine choice.) Chocolate brown has become a more popular color in recent years and can work, but make sure the color doesn't look too feces-like.
You can branch out a little, depending on the color and shade. For example, I wore a dark olive green suit when I interviewed for law jobs. Although it was green, it was still very neutral. There are no hard and fast rules, so use your best judgment. If in doubt, go with gray, black, or navy.
Do not buy a suit for interviewing that is red, bright blue, pink, bright green, orange, or any pastel color. This may sound obvious, but I interviewed a woman last year who wore a "smurf blue" suit to the interview. It was odd, to say the least.
What About Patterns?
Thin pinstripes are fine, as are occasionally some types of plaid. Again, however, think neutral, job interview, not party. While you want to invoke your style into this process, this is not the time to get too trendy. There are some beautiful plaid wool suits, but many would not be appropriate for job interviewing, although they would be perfectly fine once you have the job. If in doubt, go with plain or thin pinstripes only.
What Do I Wear Under It?
Once you've bought the suit, you have to find a top to wear under it. This is where you can get a little creative. Your choices essentially are a button down shirt with collar, or a collarless shirt in knit or silk.
The easiest option is the collarless shirt, because then you don't have to worry about how the collar will lay either underneath or on top of the collar on your jacket. It should go straight across your neck. No v-necks or anything low cut. I have a number of short sleeve, knit shirts in varying colors and patterns that I wear under my suits. If you buy a collared shirt, be sure to try it on with the suit to make sure it lays correctly and doesn't look awkward. Do not do this the morning of your job interview. You don't want to be worrying about whether your collar is bunching up during your job interview. Some women can really pull off this look; others can't. If in doubt, go with a collarless shirt.
This is where you can add some color or pattern, but nothing too garish. In fact, this is where you should add some color or pattern. Again, don't do anything too bright. Stay away from red and orange. Pastels here are fine. For example, I like light blue and light purple a lot with charcoal gray and black. Avoid a plain white shirt with a black suit; you'll look like a waiter. Navy suits can be slightly hard to match, so keep that in mind when you are picking out your suit.
Whatever type of top you buy, be sure that if you take off your jacket it looks good with your skirt/pants. While chances are you will not have to remove your jacket, you never know. Don't buy a skin tight knit top that makes your chest look enormous without cover of the jacket.
If you are buying a skirt suit, I hate to break the bad news, but you need pantyhose. Do not ever go to a job interview in a skirt without pantyhose. The good news is, there are some wonderfully sheer pantyhose now, where it barely looks like you are wearing them, but still gives that smooth, clean, line on your legs. Find the shade closest to your skin tone. You may have to try out some different brands and colors to find the right one for you. Look for the type labelled "sheer" or "ultra sheer" with names such as "barely there." Do not wear tights or patterened pantyhose.
What Shoes Do I Wear?
I'm not a fan of flats with suits. I'm also not a fan of four inch heels with suits. Find a somewhat neutral pair of leather (or fake leather) heels with a 1-3" heel. You really cannot go wrong with black, unless your suit is brown. However, you do not need to buy a boring, unadorned shoe. This is an area where you can let your personal style shine through, although don't go too crazy. There are many cute Mary Jane style, and shoes with a little bit of bling and style that are perfectly appropriate. Buy a closed heel, closed toed shoe. While peeptoes are adorable and trendy, it is not appropriate to show your toes at a job interview, nor does anyone want to see your heel in a slingback. No mules.
What Purse/Bag Do I Need?
Don't forget that you are going to have to carry your things into the job interview. If all you have are canvas messenger bags and backpacks, you might find yourself in a panic on interview morning. You likely have a black, leather folder that contains your resume, transcripts, a pen, and a pad of paper with your questions. You can either bring a purse and carry that along, or go with a larger bag that serves as your purse and a bag for your folder. Either is fine. A simple black leather (or pleather) purse or bag, over the shoulder or handheld, is all you need. In my opinion, Coach level is the most expensive purse or bag you should bring to a job interview. Don't show up with a $2,000 Gucci or Louis Vuitton bag.
What About Jewelry?
Avoid the dangling earrings. All you really need are diamond or cubic zirconia studs. A simple necklace is fine, if you've chosen a solid, plain shirt, but not necessary. A watch. That's about it. If you are married or engaged, you can certainly wear your engagement and/or wedding ring, but don't wear more than one ring. If you are single, you can wear a simple ring, if you are a ring wearer.
Weather
If you are interviewing in the winter, consider what type of coat you will be wearing over your suit. Do you have an appropriate coat? Even if you do, does it fit well over your suit jacket? I basically buy all of my work coats a size bigger to accomodate for suit jackets. They take up more space than you might think.
A plain wool coat works best, length depending on whether you have a skirt suit or a pants suit. (Shorter is fine with a pants suit, longer can work with either pants or skirts.) Black is always a safe option, as is charcoal gray. Think ahead on this, because you can often buy very cute wool coats during after season sales for $50 or less. Remember that you don't need the warmest, most quality coat there is. You just need something that looks nice and professional, and that can get you through interview season.
There may be rain or snow. Make sure you have a black umbrella. You might even want to have one of those plastic headscarves you can buy at the drug store handy. (Set aside your ego -- better to look good in your interview than on the way to the interview. If it is pouring rain, you might be thrilled you bought this. Just take it off before you walk into the office.) If it is snowing, avoid at all costs having to wear snowboots in to your interview that you have to change out of. This is awkward. Park as close as possible and change out of the snowboots in your car.
I think that about covers it. Hopefully this will help someone. Never fear -- you will find the perfect suit! And look at it this way -- when you need Suit #2, you will know which brands and styles work for you, so the entire process will be that much easier.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Out of Control Political Correctness -- A Chink in The Armor
It's been all over the headlines that a writer from ESPN, who used the headline "A Chink in the Armor" to describe the effect of 9 turnovers by Jeremy Lin on his team's loss, has now been fired.
What?
I've heard the phrase "a chink in the armor" many times in my life. The Dictionary describes a "chink" as a "crack, cleft, fissure" or "narrow opening." It's pretty clear what the writer was trying to convey. This isn't a phrase that is uncommon or rare.
However, because Jeremy Lin is Chinese, everyone jumped to the conclusion that the writer was being a racist jerk. It's kind of like not being able to use the phrase "that's so gay" anymore, because someone might get offended. Or "retarded." Can't use that anymore either. Guess now we can't use "chink in the armor" unless we are referring to a white person.
This country is out of control. I feel horrible for the writer who lost his job. I don't believe for one second he was trying to be offensive or racist toward Jeremy Lin in using that expression. It's a common expression. It was everyone else who jumped all over him who are the racists, getting offended over any word -- even a word with an innocent definition that fit the situation. I'm really getting tired of people seemingly searching for ways to be offended over anything anyone says. This does not bode well for our country.
What?
I've heard the phrase "a chink in the armor" many times in my life. The Dictionary describes a "chink" as a "crack, cleft, fissure" or "narrow opening." It's pretty clear what the writer was trying to convey. This isn't a phrase that is uncommon or rare.
However, because Jeremy Lin is Chinese, everyone jumped to the conclusion that the writer was being a racist jerk. It's kind of like not being able to use the phrase "that's so gay" anymore, because someone might get offended. Or "retarded." Can't use that anymore either. Guess now we can't use "chink in the armor" unless we are referring to a white person.
This country is out of control. I feel horrible for the writer who lost his job. I don't believe for one second he was trying to be offensive or racist toward Jeremy Lin in using that expression. It's a common expression. It was everyone else who jumped all over him who are the racists, getting offended over any word -- even a word with an innocent definition that fit the situation. I'm really getting tired of people seemingly searching for ways to be offended over anything anyone says. This does not bode well for our country.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Strange Things About the Grammys
I haven't watched the Grammys in years, and only tuned in last night because L.L. Cool J. was hosting and to see what they would do about Whitney Houston's death. Honestly, it was a fairly entertaining show. I didn't hate it, and I was thrilled that Adele swept the awards. She deserved it, and her simple, no gimmicks performance was a welcome relief in light of Katy Perry, Rihanna, and Nicki Minaj's backup dancers, dancing, costume, and craziness. I also thought Jennifer Hudson's tribute to Whitney was nice, considering she had less than 24 hours to prepare.
But...a few things were strange:
1. Why didn’t Lady Gaga perform or present an award? It seemed odd to me that she was there, she released a new album last year, she is the “darling” of the music world, and yet she sat in her seat the entire time.
2. Why did Paul McCartney, Chris Brown, and Foo Fighters all perform twice? Was there a lack of people who wanted to perform? Couldn’t the Grammy planners have picked someone else who was nominated, or even a lesser known band?
3. Why is everyone acting like Chris Brown isn’t a felon who beat the crap out of Rihanna?
4. LL Cool J must have superpowers to have been allowed by the powers that be to actually read a prayer on national television.
5. Why weren’t Etta James and Don Cornelius included in the Memoriam montage? I realize they were mentioned at other times during the night, but it still seemed strange to not include their picture on the screen.
6. Why did Dave Grohl basically slam electronic music and then show up half an hour later performing with Deadmau5?
7. Why is Nicki Minaj popular? Her desperation was seeping through my television.
8. Why is Coldplay singing with Rihanna? What the hell, Chris Martin?
9. Since when did the Grammys become so countrified? I haven’t watched them in years, but I don’t remember country playing such a big role in the past.
10. Why did no one point out that Bruce Springsteen or Paul McCartney are older than dirt and should hang it up, like so many people were saying about Madonna prior to and during her Superbowl performance? Double standard, much?
But...a few things were strange:
1. Why didn’t Lady Gaga perform or present an award? It seemed odd to me that she was there, she released a new album last year, she is the “darling” of the music world, and yet she sat in her seat the entire time.
2. Why did Paul McCartney, Chris Brown, and Foo Fighters all perform twice? Was there a lack of people who wanted to perform? Couldn’t the Grammy planners have picked someone else who was nominated, or even a lesser known band?
3. Why is everyone acting like Chris Brown isn’t a felon who beat the crap out of Rihanna?
4. LL Cool J must have superpowers to have been allowed by the powers that be to actually read a prayer on national television.
5. Why weren’t Etta James and Don Cornelius included in the Memoriam montage? I realize they were mentioned at other times during the night, but it still seemed strange to not include their picture on the screen.
6. Why did Dave Grohl basically slam electronic music and then show up half an hour later performing with Deadmau5?
7. Why is Nicki Minaj popular? Her desperation was seeping through my television.
8. Why is Coldplay singing with Rihanna? What the hell, Chris Martin?
9. Since when did the Grammys become so countrified? I haven’t watched them in years, but I don’t remember country playing such a big role in the past.
10. Why did no one point out that Bruce Springsteen or Paul McCartney are older than dirt and should hang it up, like so many people were saying about Madonna prior to and during her Superbowl performance? Double standard, much?
Friday, February 10, 2012
Please Let Me Have A Plain Chicago City Sticker
There’s a been a big flap this week about the winning Chicago city sticker design. Every year the city allows kids to submit their artwork based upon some chosen theme. The city then narrows the submissions down, and the public votes on the finalists. The winning kid gets $1,000, and their artwork is put on the city sticker that every person with a vehicle registered in the city has to buy and place upon their car. It’s a feel good kind of thing. The winner gets their picture taken with the Mayor and everything.
This year was no different, except that after announcing the winning design, the city realized that it might have some gang symbols on it. Oops. This year's theme is "heros," and this is what the winning design looks like:
According to the argument, the upreaching hands are flashing a sign used by the Maniac Latin Disciples. Oh, and the heart is also a symbol used by the Latin Disciples.
The student who created the design, a 15 year old, has sworn up and down that there are no gang signs on this sticker. I really have no idea whether this is true, but the city has decided to pull his sticker (while still giving him the $1000) and use the second place finisher's design instead on the . Oh yeah, and Second City Cop stumbled upon some fascinating information, which hasn't caught any airtime on the mainstream Chicago media sites. The student's Facebook page (now taken down) had photographs of him flashing gang signs as recently as a month ago, and discussion threads mentioning gang life, drugs, and the Maniac Latin Disciples. Huh. Seems like the city might have a valid reason for questioning his motives.
Of course his mother showed up (who also has quite a Facebook page of her own), and gave the usual "he's turning his life around" and "he's a good boy" arguments that we always hear. And of course the family already has a lawyer and is threatening legal action against the city.
A lot of people are angry that this "poor child's" success has been taken away from him, and are calling for a petition to reinstate his sticker. I can say that I don't want this sticker on my car. I don't know the first thing aboug gang signs, but it looks awfully suspicious to me, the shape of those hands. It's not a natural hand sign I've seen anyone do. If the hands were truly reaching out to the hats, the natural shape would be much different. I can't link directly to the page for some reason, but NBC Chicago has a neat slideshow of the colors, hand signs, etc. of Chicago gangs. The Maniac Latin Disciples is at slide 33. Decide for yourself. It sure looks like a gang sign to me, and given the other information about this kid dredged up by Second City Cop, I'm willing to let another student have the glory.
So, this is what we get:
Ugh. I wish I could just get a plain city sticker that didn't have some kid's artwork all over it.
This year was no different, except that after announcing the winning design, the city realized that it might have some gang symbols on it. Oops. This year's theme is "heros," and this is what the winning design looks like:
According to the argument, the upreaching hands are flashing a sign used by the Maniac Latin Disciples. Oh, and the heart is also a symbol used by the Latin Disciples.
The student who created the design, a 15 year old, has sworn up and down that there are no gang signs on this sticker. I really have no idea whether this is true, but the city has decided to pull his sticker (while still giving him the $1000) and use the second place finisher's design instead on the . Oh yeah, and Second City Cop stumbled upon some fascinating information, which hasn't caught any airtime on the mainstream Chicago media sites. The student's Facebook page (now taken down) had photographs of him flashing gang signs as recently as a month ago, and discussion threads mentioning gang life, drugs, and the Maniac Latin Disciples. Huh. Seems like the city might have a valid reason for questioning his motives.
Of course his mother showed up (who also has quite a Facebook page of her own), and gave the usual "he's turning his life around" and "he's a good boy" arguments that we always hear. And of course the family already has a lawyer and is threatening legal action against the city.
A lot of people are angry that this "poor child's" success has been taken away from him, and are calling for a petition to reinstate his sticker. I can say that I don't want this sticker on my car. I don't know the first thing aboug gang signs, but it looks awfully suspicious to me, the shape of those hands. It's not a natural hand sign I've seen anyone do. If the hands were truly reaching out to the hats, the natural shape would be much different. I can't link directly to the page for some reason, but NBC Chicago has a neat slideshow of the colors, hand signs, etc. of Chicago gangs. The Maniac Latin Disciples is at slide 33. Decide for yourself. It sure looks like a gang sign to me, and given the other information about this kid dredged up by Second City Cop, I'm willing to let another student have the glory.
So, this is what we get:
Ugh. I wish I could just get a plain city sticker that didn't have some kid's artwork all over it.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Did Warren Buffett's Secretary Pay Millions In Taxes?
I absolutely hate it when President Obama makes statements that can't be fact checked, one way or the other. I practically spit up my drink on Tuesday night when he said this during his State of the Union speech:
This may have been a misspeak, but I find it incredibly hard to believe that Warren Buffett's secretary paid less in taxes than he did. She may have a higher tax rate, since his income may be majority capital gains. But paid more in taxes in dollars? No way. The President repeatedly fails to discuss why capital gains are taxed lower. It is because investments can be risky and they want to encourage people to make investments. You could lose all of your money. Also, nevermind that they money you are invested was likely already taxed the first time you earned it.
Let's look at Mitt Romney, who also gets most of his income through capital gains. He paid around $3 million in taxes last year. Warren Buffett is worth way more than Mitt Romney. The guy is worth billions. I'd bet my life that he paid more than $3 million in taxes. Buffett has publicly stated that he paid 19% of his income ($46 million) in 2006 in taxes. That's $8.7 million in taxes in 2006. Are you telling me that his secretary paid more than that? I seriously doubt it. And if she did, then I really don't feel sorry for her, because she is clearly worth many, many millions of dollars. Already people are trying to figure out what her income might be. It wouldn't shock me at all to find out she is making $200,000. She's been working for Buffett for a long time, and he is a rich man. Good secretaries are indispensable to people like him.
Other than that, we can't fact check any of this. Her tax returns are private, as are Warren Buffett's. We will never know how much money in dollars he paid, versus how much money in dollars she paid. Finding that out would ruin the rhetoric. Can you imagine if people saw that she paid, say $40,000 in taxes and Warren Buffett paid $10 million? That would destroy the story, wouldn't it? So I will just continue to get infuriated that the President keeps marching her out as some kind of a symbol of class warfare. Frankly, people like Mitt Romney pay enough in taxes. Why should he pay $3 million and someone else pays $0? How is that "fair"?
Anyway, that's all I have to say about the State of the Union address, other than that it was hilarious how President Obama kept using Ford's tagline "Built to Last." Ford, of course, being a company that didn't require any sort of bailout from the government.
Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.Of course he is referring to Warren Buffett and his secretary, who was seated in the First Lady's box and has become the poster child for the big, evil rich not paying their "fair share."
This may have been a misspeak, but I find it incredibly hard to believe that Warren Buffett's secretary paid less in taxes than he did. She may have a higher tax rate, since his income may be majority capital gains. But paid more in taxes in dollars? No way. The President repeatedly fails to discuss why capital gains are taxed lower. It is because investments can be risky and they want to encourage people to make investments. You could lose all of your money. Also, nevermind that they money you are invested was likely already taxed the first time you earned it.
Let's look at Mitt Romney, who also gets most of his income through capital gains. He paid around $3 million in taxes last year. Warren Buffett is worth way more than Mitt Romney. The guy is worth billions. I'd bet my life that he paid more than $3 million in taxes. Buffett has publicly stated that he paid 19% of his income ($46 million) in 2006 in taxes. That's $8.7 million in taxes in 2006. Are you telling me that his secretary paid more than that? I seriously doubt it. And if she did, then I really don't feel sorry for her, because she is clearly worth many, many millions of dollars. Already people are trying to figure out what her income might be. It wouldn't shock me at all to find out she is making $200,000. She's been working for Buffett for a long time, and he is a rich man. Good secretaries are indispensable to people like him.
Other than that, we can't fact check any of this. Her tax returns are private, as are Warren Buffett's. We will never know how much money in dollars he paid, versus how much money in dollars she paid. Finding that out would ruin the rhetoric. Can you imagine if people saw that she paid, say $40,000 in taxes and Warren Buffett paid $10 million? That would destroy the story, wouldn't it? So I will just continue to get infuriated that the President keeps marching her out as some kind of a symbol of class warfare. Frankly, people like Mitt Romney pay enough in taxes. Why should he pay $3 million and someone else pays $0? How is that "fair"?
Anyway, that's all I have to say about the State of the Union address, other than that it was hilarious how President Obama kept using Ford's tagline "Built to Last." Ford, of course, being a company that didn't require any sort of bailout from the government.
Are 50,000 Protestors Coming to the G8/NATO Summits in Chicago?
The G8 and NATO summits are in Chicago this May.
As if that isn’t going to create enough chaos, Adbusters – the group who “founded” Occupy Wall Street – has issued a proclamation to all “redeemers, rebels and radicals.” (Sounds sweet, doesn't it?)
In part, they had this to say:
Occupy Chicago has apparently rented a space in the middle of nowhere on the south side for around $5,000-6,000 a month, paid for by an anonymous benefactor. The address to this place is nowhere to be found on the front page of their web site, even though it is where they are purportedly gathering for General Assemblies and teach-ins. Nor are there any directions on how to get there. You can see how well organized they are. I would love to know who was dumb enough to sign the lease, and why on earth they decided against a storefront in the Loop, which would not only have been easier to get to, but would have potentially attracted more attention. It gets better. The place they are renting is in the same building as a guy they kicked out of the group because he made people feel "unsafe." (People not feeling safe is a big issue in the various Occupations.) Yes, out of all the vacant buildings in the entire city, they picked the one where this guy lived to set up their headquarters. From the outside, the group appears to be in slight chaos. People are fighting on the website about the cliques, leaders, anarchists, and radicals who are taking over. There is suspicion over the finances. Other people are trying to figure out how to get involved, much of the time to no response other than to "come on down!" (They haven't grasped yet that not everyone wants to or can trek down to the south side every night for their General Assemblies.) Other people want to know generally what is going on, usually to no response. Even though they have a website, most seem to prefer the more private "Google Groups" to discuss the movement. (Indeed, there is very little discussion at all that happens on the website, and very little updating. Most posts go unanswered. Even the official Twitter account doesn't relay much information.)
The best part is that rumor has it Adbusters didn't even tell Occupy Chicago about the big May 1 announcement before they did it, even though they've got "Occupy Chicago" all over the announcement. This has fueled worries inside Occupy Chicago that it will interfere with Occupy Chicago's "Chicago Spring" launch on April 1, which they planned back in October or so.
But back to Adbusters. Although Occupy Chicago repeatedly tries to remind people that they are "nonpartisan," and "nonviolent," the Adbuster's call to arms seems to call that into question:
This is going to get interesting. If they mess with my commute, I'm not going to be pleased.
As if that isn’t going to create enough chaos, Adbusters – the group who “founded” Occupy Wall Street – has issued a proclamation to all “redeemers, rebels and radicals.” (Sounds sweet, doesn't it?)
In part, they had this to say:
On May 1, 50,000 people from all over the world will flock to Chicago, set up tents, kitchens, peaceful barricades and #OCCUPYCHICAGO for a month. With a bit of luck, we’ll pull off the biggest multinational occupation of a summit meeting the world has ever seen.I'm not sure who these 50,000 people are who are going to "flock" to Chicago, but I have one question for any of them: Have they met Rahm Emanuel? If they think he is going to let 50,000 people set up tents, kitchens, and barricades (peaceful or not) around the city, then I've got some beachfront property to sell them in Oklahoma. Oh, and on top of that, Rahm has been pressing the city to increase fines on protestors during the G8 and NATO summits. It hasn't happened yet, but just wait. If there is one thing Rahm has made clear, it is that he will not put up with any bullshit from the Occupiers. He's certainly not going to let them set up tent cities in Chicago. He had them kicked out of Grant Park twice last fall, and after that they gave up. Although they have shown up to yell and scream at him at City Hall occasionally since then, he's definitely kept them quiet. They are such a nonissue in Chicago that I have to dig deep to find anything about what they are doing.
Occupy Chicago has apparently rented a space in the middle of nowhere on the south side for around $5,000-6,000 a month, paid for by an anonymous benefactor. The address to this place is nowhere to be found on the front page of their web site, even though it is where they are purportedly gathering for General Assemblies and teach-ins. Nor are there any directions on how to get there. You can see how well organized they are. I would love to know who was dumb enough to sign the lease, and why on earth they decided against a storefront in the Loop, which would not only have been easier to get to, but would have potentially attracted more attention. It gets better. The place they are renting is in the same building as a guy they kicked out of the group because he made people feel "unsafe." (People not feeling safe is a big issue in the various Occupations.) Yes, out of all the vacant buildings in the entire city, they picked the one where this guy lived to set up their headquarters. From the outside, the group appears to be in slight chaos. People are fighting on the website about the cliques, leaders, anarchists, and radicals who are taking over. There is suspicion over the finances. Other people are trying to figure out how to get involved, much of the time to no response other than to "come on down!" (They haven't grasped yet that not everyone wants to or can trek down to the south side every night for their General Assemblies.) Other people want to know generally what is going on, usually to no response. Even though they have a website, most seem to prefer the more private "Google Groups" to discuss the movement. (Indeed, there is very little discussion at all that happens on the website, and very little updating. Most posts go unanswered. Even the official Twitter account doesn't relay much information.)
The best part is that rumor has it Adbusters didn't even tell Occupy Chicago about the big May 1 announcement before they did it, even though they've got "Occupy Chicago" all over the announcement. This has fueled worries inside Occupy Chicago that it will interfere with Occupy Chicago's "Chicago Spring" launch on April 1, which they planned back in October or so.
But back to Adbusters. Although Occupy Chicago repeatedly tries to remind people that they are "nonpartisan," and "nonviolent," the Adbuster's call to arms seems to call that into question:
And if they don’t listen … if they ignore us and put our demands on the back burner like they’ve done so many times before … then, with Gandhian ferocity, we’ll flashmob the streets, shut down stock exchanges, campuses, corporate headquarters and cities across the globe … we’ll make the price of doing business as usual too much to bear.What a great idea. (And the reference to Gandhi is precious.) Let's shut down the stock exchanges, colleges, and businesses. Let's flashmob the streets and annoy the 99%. None of these things affect anyone's jobs, lives or money, do they? I swear, four months along into this Occupy movement, and I still don't understand what the point of it is. Are they all just going to protest and complain forever? Why not actually try to get some candidates in to Congress who support their views? I can't figure out what they expect to happen. Do they think that the 40 or so people who generally show up at General Assemblies here in Chicago speak for the rest of us in the city? Because they don't. All I can see is that the Occupiers want to create chaos. They seem to welcome it when the police have to do their jobs and rope them off or kick them out of places where they aren't supposed to be. They also seem to all be under the delusion that the 1st Amendment has never been interpreted or limited by anyone, much less the Supreme Court.
This is going to get interesting. If they mess with my commute, I'm not going to be pleased.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
