A followup to the tie things -- apparently this article was just in the NYT! I've gifted it. You might find it interesting. I was amused by the creative metaphors.

Contrary to the former fashion editor's assertion that there's something deliberate going on with the knot choices, I'd offer that it's more likely that the Windsor is the only knot they know how to tie -- as evidenced by how carelessly they're tying them? Namely that there's no dimple; aside from that it *is* hard to screw up a Windsor knot.

Heck, Trump should probably also be tying a Windsor -- it'd almost certainly look better than what looks like a shitty attempt at a Balthus knot to me. (But admittedly it can be hard to tell: as the article notes, the Duke of Windsor didn't *actually* wear a Windsor knot, but his thicker ties gave the appearance of one.) Trump's ties are also way goddamned too long, and a Balthus knot uses up a lot of fabric -- though it uses less if one's mainly using the thinner end of the tie for the knot as Trump seems to be. I'm confident that with big-and-tall ties and sufficient determination to look like shit -- and that bronzer makeup with negaverse raccoon circles around his eyes do indeed suggest that level of commitment -- one could achieve that length with a Balthus.

Anyway, you might find the article interesting/amusing. Enjoy. 😎

First: if I haven't mentioned it to you, I'm currently in rehearsals for The Rude Mechanicals' latest staging of Much Ado About Nothing! It runs weekends from May 9-17 (with a min $5 pay-what-you-will preview night on May 7) at the Greenbelt Arts Center. Tickets available here!

So last night I came in from rehearsal with an inclination to play with tie knots, since I was casually pondering knots different characters might wear. (Our version of Much Ado is set in a law firm; many of the characters are lawyers or lawyer-adjacent and therefore wear ties.) It's a thing I feel like many productions and media in general overlook -- understandably so; most men really don't put much thought into the knots they tie (if they even know more than one or two knots), so I imagine that knowledge isn't a high priority for costumers -- but I always appreciate when media does take it into account. (Arrow remains the gold standard for this; I also recall the first Ant-Man being noteworthy for the quality if not the diversity of the knots depicted.) (more...)

A question I've been asking myself a lot lately: why are so many online commenters so embarrassingly sycophantic? I've always viewed comments sections as a place to attempt to say something that somehow adds something to the discussion. That needn't always be serious -- though in some instances it probably should be -- but it should go beyond what simply liking a post conveys. There's no need for shallow "I agree with this!" and "Thank God for you, poster!" -type remarks. I mean, I guess they might make the OP feel even better, and probably the folks posting them are motivated by some hope of being "seen" by either the OP or others. And on occasion I'm guilty of these motives as well; I've definitely made empty approval noises on Sirena content and squee'd a little when one of the Sirens gave them emotional reacts. But when they're commenting on the posts of celebrities and popular figures and comments number in the hundreds and thousands -- and when they're not saying anything -- it seems unlikely that their comments will attract any attention whatsoever. So why? But I guess it doesn't take much effort to write, "This was masterful. SO MUCH TRUTH!" so it's not like they're wasting much time shooting their shot for a lil' pat on the head. (more...)

So I'd linked the Vox article and included the accompanying text in a couple of places on social media, but I wanted to make sure I had a record of it here in my own space as well. (While I don't expect I have any regular readers these days who'd be inclined to weigh in, feel free to comment if you come across this whenever and have thoughts!) So here's the link to the Vox piece, and here's a Huffington Post article containing screencaps of the comments that have landed him in hot water. My post intended to initiate discussion and/or opinion sharing is below:

I'm curious to hear folks' thoughts on the Kyle Kashuv controversy. (I've included the Vox link because it gives a fairly comprehensive overview of the situation and includes abundant links to further information and assessments, not because of the particular viewpoint expressed here -- though I am in agreement with the author's sentiments about identity politics.)

For my part, I don't have a strong opinion about Harvard's decision -- I wouldn't have been outraged had Kashuv retained his admission, nor am I pleased that his admission was rescinded. Still, I acknowledge the difficult position in which the university was placed and I can imagine why rejecting Kashuv ultimately seemed like the better option. (Among other things -- and barring some demonstrated growth and insight that I haven't gleaned from reading several months of the kid's Twitter feed -- I don't know how favorably his peers would have responded to him on campus. I imagine at best he would have been a decidedly polarizing figure, and I'm not sure a student like that is a positive addition to a campus community.)

In any case, I'm sure Kashuv will be fine in the long run, and I hope that his stated contention to do better wasn't contingent upon the Harvard situation's resolving in his favor.

So, not a novel gripe, but I continue to be annoyed with people who decry the rise of "identity politics" when they really mean that they're frustrated at being made to consider issues involving people who are not them.

Another not-novel sentiment: I'm really sick of Bill Maher. I admit that I used to kinda like the dude, and in any case I found his show worthwhile -- I mostly could've done without the "comedy" bits (some did land), but his New Rules weren't entirely lacking in insight and the panel discussions were generally informative exchanges. What I especially liked about Maher there, though, is that he often seemed aware that he was the least informed participant in those conversations and therefore served less as an active interlocutor than a moderator whose goal was to prevent the content from getting too esoteric. He'd say something like, "Whoa, this is a comedy show! A little context for the viewers at home," and then the panel members would explain what they were talking about so that the conversation was more accessible to someone who wasn't a policy wonk or a political insider. Since I was really watching the show for those exchanges -- and since during those moments I sometimes found myself confused (and I generally try to keep abreast of political news) -- I appreciated Maher's input there all the more. (more...)