Tuesday, February 24, 2009

You better sweat!

I will be sure to vote Republican going forward.

On May 26th, 1996, Marianna Cook visited Barack and Michelle Obama in Hyde Park as part of a photography project on couples in America.


One half of the couple did not feel the need to put on pants.

I have to admit, part of me like this photo because Michelle reminds me of Debbie Allen in the opening credits of Fame.

"You want fame? Well fame costs. Now's the time you start paying for it. IN SWEAT!"

Monday, February 23, 2009

Strings around heads.

On non tights-as-pants, but equally important philosophical dilemmas:

Dear Mary Kate and the young women of NYU's freshman class,

I ask that you cease and desist tying strings around your foreheads for no good reason. This goes doubly if said string is made of hair. I saw you at the Ghostland Observatory show and you looked retarded.

My mother's high school yearbook (theme: Feelin' Groovy) and Janis of Electric Mayhem want their looks back.


Like, fer sure.

Friday, February 13, 2009

Low Crotch Leggings

Some person named Katie sent me this photo because she hates me. These are called "low crotch leggings".

Great. Now I'm barfing up my Egg McMuffin.

Okay, I see a couple of things wrong with this garment. the first, and most obvious flaw is the "low crotch" part. I'm grateful that I can't see her uterus, but I don't relish the idea that she's just shat herself either. Secondly, is this actually a leotard or something? It goes all the way up under her awful half shirt!

Nice boots, though.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Pants: 101

This blog is dedicated to erradicating the biggest threat to our quality of life in New York City. I do not refer to crime, nor to polution, nor to the rising cost of living. I am referring to the disturbing trend of New York's fairer sex mistaking tights and leggings as pants.

Has the whole world lost its head?

Ladies, let me be clear: tights/leggings are not pants. They are an undergarment and should be treated accordingly. Why then am I seeing scores of young ladies gallavanting about my fair city wearing just a top and no pants to speak of (Donald Duckin' it, as I like to say)? Why am I subjected to a spandex encased beaver shot when I follow certain young ladies up a flight of stairs?

Yes, I am a dandy, and therefore not inclined to give a complete stranger a vaginal exam on my way to work, but I'd like to think the same would be true if I were heterosexual. I wouldn't wear long underwear to go get a latte at starbucks, which is pretty much the male euivalent to woman wearing tights as pants. It would be inappropraite. That said, there are times that tights/leggings are totally appropriate, like if you're at the gym or you're performing in a Martha Graham piece. Dinner at Balthazar's or shopping at Bloomingdale's is not one of those occasions.

Look, I'm no jerk-- I just believe in modesty. My intentions are pure, folks. Put simply, I will work tirelessly to bring pants (and modesty) back to the women of New York. After all, we can't really call this the greatest city of all if half of its citizens can't even remember to put their pants on each morning.

So let's review:





See the difference?