Where are the Ramones when you need them?

there's a good, if morbid, answer to that question...

Disgusting article. Maybe, you know, maybe the headline and first article, on the front page no less, should have been about remembering the 1.1 million who died.

Then perhaps, A-15 or maybe even in the Style section, they could have put this disgusting article.

F***ing disgusting and an insult to the memory of the victims who wouldn't have cared shit what Cheney was wearing. This is such an elitist euro mindset, I can't even fathom the tastelessness of promoting fashion criticism over a discussion of the reason why it's important for our leaders to be present for such a commemoration.

But for some, it's all about irrational political hatred and having any excuse to exercise it. Memories of the dead be damned.

F***ing sick.

That was a stupid article. Usually the Style section in the Post is actually pretty good.

Most amateur quote:

"There is little doubt that intellectually Cheney approached the Auschwitz ceremony with thoughtfulness and respect [insincere compliment to set up for the dig at Cheney next]. But symbolism is powerful."

Who's letting the interns write the front-page Style articles?

Who's putting Style articles on the front page?

By Robin Givhan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 28, 2005; Page C01

This seems called for on the front page of the style section, no?

And the beginning of the final paragraph is overwrought, but this seems like a fair question: "Would he have dared to take the oath of office with a ski cap on? People would have justifiably considered that an insult to the office, the day, the country."

Oh, wait, I see now — front page the Web site.

Well, good, poor taste all around.

Front page of the Style section, i.e. C1.

Givhan's been polluting the Post for years on Friday mornings, front and center of the style section, receiving valuable column inches to write fashion stories that don't stick to fashion as a matter of style but instead try to insinuate political, cultural, and psychological significance into fashion with disastrous results like the Al Gore 'earth tones' thing* or the Winona Ryder 'accused shoplifters should dress a little more ghetto for trial' thing. Just because she trounced an unpopular Republican for a change doesn't mean her column serves any purpose whatsoever. In fact, it was more like skeet shooting in this case, because it's a third-grade-level exercise to predict what a Wyomingite will wear to an outdoor funeral in January. So let's give Givhan the Blind Squirrel award for the week and resume ignoring her pointless writings.

*I know she didn't start it, but this is the type of thing she tries to start every single week.

I didn't think anything could ever make me feel sorry for Dick Cheney, then along comes this article, with the forlorn little photo and it actually made me want to give him a hug.

Oh GOD HELP ME.

J. Scott--

I know you wouldn't show up at a family funeral wearing a Hawaiian shirt. That's an insult. I'm going to assume that you really didn't try to speak for the victims of the Holocaust regarding whether or not Cheney was wearing the appropriate attire to honor their memories.

As for this being important--you bet. When one leaves college, one learns that how one dresses is tremendously important--it demonstrates respect for the situation and the persons involved. I expect the Vice President to properly represent this country at solemn events. I can't think of a place and time where appropriate behavior and dress are more important.

scott, you're full of it. tell me that if john edwards had showed up at this memorial wearing an olive ski jacket and a ratty old knit cap you would have just bitched about the NYT style section rather than raising the appropriate amount of hell that this insult deserves.

perhaps cheney should have dressed down for the inauguration as well, hm? it was about as cold there and he was able to scrounge up a black suit somehow. god knows americans couldn't care as much as auschwitz victims, not being elitist euros and all.

fuck dick cheney. of course it's important for him to show up. it is also incumbent upon him as a representative of our nation to demonstrate the proper measure of respect for an occasion as solemn as this one.

call me an elitist euro, but i damn well expect people to show up dressed appropriately to funerals, and the Auschwitz memorial holds a hell of a lot more gravity than any funeral. if someone showed up to my funeral in jeans and a t-shirt because they didnt have anything better to wear, or didn't know better, i wouldn't care. but if they showed up like that as a sign of disrespect, then fuck them.

dick cheney knows better. his handlers know better. if we couldn't be bothered to send the president, then we should have at least send someone besides this insolent cocksucker. it's analogous to english princes dressing up as nazis. it's stupid and childish and dick cheney doesn't have any excuse, because he's not 18 years old. he knew full well what he was doing, and so you know what? fuck him.

*sent someone besides this insolent cocksucker

also:

This is such an elitist euro mindset, I can't even fathom the tastelessness of promoting fashion criticism over a discussion of the reason why it's important for our leaders to be present for such a commemoration.

just because they didn't discuss what you wanted to dicuss doesn't mean it's not relevant. i didn't know that the "why dick cheney should go to Auschwitz" article was in direct competition for the front page of the Style section with this one.

however, i would speculate that this might be because he was already there, which was appropriate, and that the problem was that while there, he acted like a fucking jackass, which wasn't.

Seth, I'll respond to you because I know you actually operate with both halves of your brain, unlike another commenter in here.

The Vice-President was wearing formal clothes and had a poor choice for an overcoat/hat that I suspect was a last minute decision by a staffer that I would upbraid, believe me.

You are pre-programmed to see Cheney as "insolent" so you're going to see this the way that best fits your world view. No, if Edwards had done the same thing, I wouldn't have mentioned it and if I was an editor I wouldn't have put a style writer on the front page. I would have liked to have seen substantive coverage of the event, you know, some actual reporting.

Poor choice by the VP, sure. "...as a sign of disrepect", no.

Dan Kervick at MY's place:

Cheney touches on the theme of liberation, then pointedly calls attention in his words to how cold it was at Auschwitz. He connected that rhetorically with the indifference and lack of conscience of "men with a high opinion of themselves — some of them well-educated and possessed of refined manners" from Europe - the "very heart of the civilized world." I would be interested in learning of the response of some of the aging Holocaust survivors in attendance. No doubt many of them were rather more practically dressed than the dignitaries speaking before them, and it is reported that many were "huddled under blankets". Cheney, huddled in a practical military-colored parka, more reminiscent of the uniforms of the soldiers who liberated the camp than the smart attire of the European diplomats who failed to prevent the Holocaust, and surrounded by more elegantly attired European gentlemen, may have been trying to send a message to those in attendance and viewing from afar: In this cold world, America is and has been the country doing the hard hands-on work of liberation - our soldiers are doing more to prevent future Holocausts than the nattily-attired men "with a high opinion of themselves" sitting around me.

http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2005/01/parkagate.html#comments

Matt says:

Cheney probably wore the parka because it was cold, and parkas are warmer than formal overcoats. I note also the following wrinkle. A good hat does a great deal to keep you warm. It's been widely noted that Cheney definitely does own a proper overcoat. What he probably does not own, however, is the sort of fur hat (see Israeli President Moishe Katsav in the photo next to Cheney) that is both warm and considered acceptable for formal events that one tends to see in the colder parts of Europe but not in, for example, the United States where such hats are regarded as comical. Now shouldn't Cheney have just bit the bullet and shivered a bit, or else bought himself a Polish hat? Yes. But on the other hand...

jScott, i appreciate the compliment. i disagree with your somewhat inconsistent suggestion i'm preprogrammed. i would hope -- fervently -- that i'd get equally livid at kerry or edwards if they were to do something like this.

however, i'll put the hypotheticals aside and i'll address it like this, because i think that my "worldview" is actually quite flexible:

first of all, i don't think that you can have it both ways -- this can't be a mistake on cheney's part and simultaneously a symbolic declaration of the pioneering, freedom-lovin' values of the united states.

i think that the comment you quote is very likely correct -- that this was a calculated message on cheney's part and that it was intended as a snub to the european leadership. that is, i agree that it was intentional. (i find it difficult to believe that someone didn't mention the possible faux pas to cheney at some point or that hey couldn't scrounge up appropriate attire in time. given this administration's affinity for PR, i consider it extremely unlikely.)

as you can no doubt guess, i think that even if that were the case, it was a dumb idea, but i can see how you and cheney might see it as a positive message. so, fine. i don't fault either of you for that and i certainly see your point of view, wrong though i think it might be. i'm perfectly flexible on that.

what i don't approve of is cheney using this particular venue to give the finger to the european leadership that he no doubt despises. if he wants to dress down while visiting a summit or to bring his colorful language from the Senate floor to the United Nations, so be it, and i hope that we don't suffer the consequences of his diplomatic ineptitude.

BUT. not showing the proper decorum at the Auschwitz Holocaust memorial is simply not acceptable. as a representative of our nation and as a human being, it's not acceptable for Cheney to behave in that way, particularly given that he was dressed formally at the almost equally cold inauguration ceremony. if he wants to snub, he needs to snub on his own time, and i really do think that it's pretty pathetic that he clearly didn't care to recognize the real gravity of the situation. then again, i guess i'm not too surprised. frankly, the guy's an asshole.

incidentally, he knew how to not dress like a slob back when he was Secretary:

http://members.aol.com/mgregorp/private/cheney.htm

guess his wardrobe really must have gone downhill since then.

man, guess i'm totally behind the curve -- kevin drum points out that cheney even had appropriate attire with him. and has a picture of said attire. so much for the last-minute-wardrobe-malfunction.

yup, he's just an asshole.

I didn't mean to imply that he intentionally did this as any sort of symbolic gesture. I'm just saying it was a poor choice. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. But these are my last words to this thread. Peace.

--s

j. --

maybe i misunderstood -- you said that you found kervick's comments "useful," which i took to meant that you agreed, and the whole crux of his argument is that 1. it was appropriate because of the venue and 2. cheney did it intentionally. i disagree with both points.

i'm still not sure what in that quote supports your central contention that he did it unintentionally, although i certainly do see it in matt's quote. if what you meant was that kervick's argument resonated with you, then i understand that as well, despite disagreeing. i don't think that you were being all that clear in any case, but, no harm, no foul -- i think i got what you meant now. i'm done, too. :)

JAJA, UPYACHKA! UG NE PROIDET, BLYA!

Beauty is not just about the hair and face, but also the nails and other parts of the body.

To find everything you need to know about hair extensions you've come to the best place.

Eyelash extensions are an entirely new method of enhancing the length and thickness of eyelashes.

A great resource - many thanks!

A great resource - many thanks!