it would be, “Why did you apologize for using metaphors?”

In an article in the latest edition of FT Weekend, Simon Schama reviews Andrea Wulf’s new book, The Founding Gardeners: How the Revolutionary Generation Created an American Eden. In the review, entitled in print “The Seeds of Democracy“, Schama writes the following:

“The link between botany and liberty was already commonplace by the time of the American Revolution. It had germinated (sorry about these metaphors) in 18th-century readings of Pliny and Cicero, with their evocations, at once poetic and stoic of the Tusculan Villa — the place to which patricians would repair to shake off the contaminations of the vicious city and muse on the industriousness of bees.” [emphasis added]

Another metaphor:

“[S]he unpersuasively pushes the indispensable centrality of botanising to the shaping of American politics. In practice this means the presentation of potted episodes of political history alongside genteel botanising as if the former was conditional on the latter.” [emphasis added]

I’ve never read one of Simon Schama’s books (though I’ve bought at least one copy of nearly everyone of them for the male members of my family) so I won’t presume to know the motivations behind his apology, mostly because the directions are so vast. Does he think metaphors are a cheap trick? That they are detachment from reality? Is he unworthy of them or vice versa? Is he a believer first and foremost in utility and, begrudgingly, finds the metaphor to be the most adequate tool to convey his tongue-in-cheek response to Wulf’s thesis?

But why does he not apologize for the personification of the city as something vicious or the alliterated presentation of potted political history?

Thus, Simon Schama, unless you are covertly admitting to be solely responsible for intertwining the lexicons of botany and nation building (unlikely), I want to know what is so wrong or embarrassing about a little metaphor here an there.

Monday morning, as I was taking in some of those mesmerizing Anna Dello Russo pics posted by Ems, I looked above my computer screen to see Valerie Jarrett, senior advisor to president Obama and steadfast sporter of the Jackie-O collar, on Morning Joe (favorite of this blog) proclaim that women-owned small businesses were key to America’s economic recovery…as I looked back down at Anna, dressed for Beowulf’s wedding, I got to thinking, how do women fit into the business of fashion?

A quick look at NYMag’s dutiful coverage of the S/S2011 shows, and you’ll see significantly more men than women in the designer listings… brining it a little closer to home, visualize your most recent stroll through a Saks, Nordstrom, or Macys … first 5 women’s designers that come to mind…go!

…

I got Marc Jacobs, Calvin Klein, Diane von Furstenberg, Roberto Cavalli, and Ralph Lauren….

Regardless of who you came up with, I’m willing to bet that we have in common a distinctly male-heavy list.  Funny, no? – apparently there are proportionately far more men than women who know how to dress… women?  well… either Kinsey’s estimates were WAY more conservative than we’d thought….or men do actually dominate women’s fashion…

The astute fashionista would say… “but Andrew – think Anna Wintour or Carine Roitfeld: notoriously dominant women & arbiters of the fashion world.”  But remember from the internationally popular documentary “The September Issue,” even icy Wintour’s purse strings are controlled by male publishers.

So…where are we headed?  Is Valerie really facing down the fact that my mud-soaked soccer-playing nephews honestly have a better shot at publishing a September issue than your be-glittered, Barbie-dressing daughter?

If those recent S/S2011 shows are any indication, women may very well be taking back their image, and the business behind it.  NYC fashion editor Cathy Horyn wrote with smart optimism about the impressive shows put up by Stella McCartney, Celine’s Phoebe Philo & Chloé’s Hannah MacGibbon, while in the same breath dismissing as unfulfilling the efforts of Riccardo Tisci (Givenchy) and Giles Deacon (Ungaro).  When read with the economic trends highlighted by Jarrett, Horyn may be recognizing Barbie’s fighting chance for Ken’s control of the design studio.  Economists have recognized a trend – even in 2005, 28% percent of small businesses were controlled by women and these businesses produced $2.32 trillion that year.  Women, in fact, were responsible for a majority of the start-ups in the country, as well (55%).

The new Athenas of fashion, though, aren’t the Nordic-goddess impersonating Anna Dello Russo (though she is undoubtedly a popular force in the fashion world).  They are unassuming hard workers – There’s a good chance you might walk by Hannah MacGibbon on 5^th Ave – but I dare you to walk by one of her dresses without trying to clandestinely remove it from the unsuspecting upper East-sider allowing it to wear her … But they are also producing eminently wearable clothing that WILL SELL – This week I have heard 23, 37, and 62 year-old women all speaking of how many people they would kill to get a hold of one of the Chloé  pieces – interestingly, the acceptable felony price seems to increase with age.  These designers understand what the industry needs in this economy, and while every art form needs its Anna, it also needs its money makers…who seem, increasingly, to be women.

I’m having way too much fun.

Don’t worry, I have a Synergy meeting soon. So I’ll disappear for an hour.

I heart Grey’s.

[New York, February 11. Image via Bauer-Griffin]

I know I’ve been a bit MIA lately. I’ve been caught up in my final Italian project, my last days of Tango and Ballroom Dancing and a shit of a cold. I hate being MIA. I missed Gov Sibelius’ reaction to the State of the Union. Hell, I even missed the State of the Union. I missed Hillary’s Loss/Win in Florida. And I nearly missed Edward’s dropping out. (*slaps own wrist*) And alas, I “regret” to announce that I shall be taking a short haitus once again.

In less than two hours I leave for NYC and then on to Dominica (that’s DOM-IN-EEEKA) with my roommate (it’s her home) and three other friends.  It’s true, I am escaping from the quagmire that is filled with Hillary supporters and sympathizers (because there are so many at Middlebury) and making my bi-annual trek to look in on my offshore accounts (I have so many).

So, ciao carissimi amici. I will see you all in February, though hopefully with a brief appearance on Mardi Gras, affectionaly known to us Dems as “SuperTuesday.”

-Em

Holy hell. CNN just projected Obama that winner of the SC Primary. Granted, I’m excited. This is good. But the polls have been closed for a whole 6 minutes. Hell, some of the people haven’t even left the parking lot.

Wait for the News Tomorrow: CNN will have their projection for who our next president will be. And the next one.

Bastards.

-Em

Coming up: Why I think people are stupid.

UPDATE #1: CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and hell, even Fox have all called it for Obama and we’re only 15 minutes out of the church. And here I thought it was going to be a late night.

UPDATE #2: I can’t sit still.

UPDATE #3: I’m cool. I’m live-blogging with updates. Somebody shoot me in the morning.

UPDATE #4: Obama is up by over 44,000 votes. By george, when he wins, he WINS.

UPDATE #5: Read this article and all will be illuminated (well, not really, but it will make your mind explode).

UPDATE #6: I swear, I really do have *normal* things to do tonight other than continuously update this post: I’m going to Prom.

Stalone vs. Norris. Hillary vs. Obama.

The heat is on.

Who will win?

What impact will the NY endorsement have on either?

Speaking of which, here is the essence of their entire article: “The sense of possibility, of a generational shift, rouses Mr. Obama’s audiences and not just through rhetorical flourishes. He shows voters that he understands how much they hunger for a break with the Bush years, for leadership and vision and true bipartisanship. We hunger for that, too. But we need more specifics to go with his amorphous promise of a new governing majority, a clearer sense of how he would govern. ” – NY Times . They end by saying that, despite all this hunger, all this admiration, Hillary has more experience and is more prepared for the presidency. Fuck. I didn’t know having some sort of title for 10+ years means you have experience.

This is what I do. Every Monday and Wednesday. In heels.

It’s fantastic.

Once again, I missed the debate last night. I was otherwise occupied learning the Rumba and how to shake my hips ‘appropriately’ (gasp!). However, due to overwhelming amount of comments about last night (i.e. one person) and an overwhelming desire to avoid Italian homework, I just watched it on YouTube.

First thoughts: It was actually a debate! (Well, at least the first part, when the candidates were standing behind 25th century robots.) The candidates, however, did manage to rise above the whole question and answer thing. They got nit-picky and defensive and almost belligerent about their policy positions. Now, let’s face it, when it actually comes to policy, none of us really know what the hell they’re talking about. Who are we to decide what rates, ceilings, restrictions and houses are best for people? All of our excitement is completely signaled by changes in tone, volume and inflection of voice (something Hillary has surprisingly recently been able to adopt).

As far as Hillary goes, this is not the same woman who cried for NH voters three days before the primary. This a slimy, mud-slinging candidate who wants to act like she’s still the underdog. On the whole, I thought she was articulate and firm and I was impressed. You have to admit her policies are strong. However, she benefitted from being on her own news network. Blitzer (who was, by the way, a decent moderator) let her define things like Health Care and then forced Barack and Edwards to respond. She also has this nasty habit of talking in the collective “we.” Who does this “we” refer to? The Democratic Party? The assumption that she’s going to be president and we are all her people? Our her campaign double, Bill? All possibilities are equally annoying.

Edwards did a good job of playing the roll of the Little White Man. I personally feel that we are not looking at the same candidate as 2004. Sure, maybe he believes the same things. But I saw no fear in him in the debate. I saw only patience mixed with the desire to be allowed to speak. I don’t feel his comments on policies were very clearly presented and he’s dropped the comradarie with Obama. However, he clearly demonstrated that he has nothing to lose, and he shows that by demonstrating that he has no problem letting Barack and Hillary taking the spot-light by eating at each other’s throats. Will he pull a Mike Rounds and beat out the two front-runners?

Obama really does not do as well at debates then he does at rallies or fundraisers. (Watch his speech from Monday at MLK’s church. It was Obama at his finest.) He doesn’t show that much warmth. His tranquility and assurance that he’s doing the right thing are frequently interpreted as arrogance. He also can’t really throw globs of mud that well. His sense of humor is much more sardonic than jolly (man after my own heart). However, he can defend himself and has a way of making his accuser look like an idiot. Notice how Hillary only really attacked him once (albeit for an extended pariod) at the beginning and then didn’t try again.

I think two things were important about this debate. First of all, the race is no longer about experience. When you have three strong candidates all vigorously defending their own and attacking each other’s policy, there is no room to argue about experience. That’s refreshing. (I want to point out, however, Hillary’s comments about her healthcare plan. She mentions that she has a plan that will mirror Congress’ program. She explains how, because it is based on a program in existence, it is a proven plan and it is one that will work. I thought we were talking about change though. I thought we were talking about bringing in new ideas and fixing the problems created by Bush. If that’s the case, then any new program brought in by Barack has just as much validity if it has yet to be proven. Double standards, Hillary. Double standards.) Secondly, the Democratic Party has come along way just since the campaign started. Last January, all we could talk about was the war. In September even, all we could talk about was the war. However, at last night’s debate, the majority of the time was spent on the economy (over an hour, I believe). By the time Iraq came up, everyone, including the audience had tuned out (I tried on some clothes I just got in the mail). The words ‘troops,’ ‘surge,’ and ‘combat’ mean little to us anymore. Are we jaded or are we actually making progress towards fixing real problems?

So who won the debate? Rolling Stone favors Clinton. Others lean more towards Obama. Most are reluctant to say anything Edwards because he’s otherwise not a winner. Honestly, though, I don’t know. Hillary was on fire. Edwards proved that his actions do not reflect the fact that he has yet to come in even a close third. This is probably one of Obama’s better performances, though it was overshadowed by the fact that everyone had a good performance.  I think it’s DailyKos who put it best. “Let’s face it….we have 3 damn good candidates.” Man, I love the Democratic Party.

PS: As for this Joe guy who was half-moderating, I think he’s Ben Stein in disguise. Seriously. Turn on YouTube. Open up another Firefox Tab and do something else while you listen. You’ll swear it’s Ben Stein. Further proof that even everyone’s favorite monotone conservative can’t resist the Dems this time around.

- Em

PPS: Shout out to Dave Chapelle in the audience.

PPPS: I just got an email from Richardson. He’s not endorsing anyone.

PPPPS: This is one long fucking post.

Has anyone else noticed that Clinton News Network seems to be skimming over the fact that Obama, using the magical delegate numbers CNN loves so much, actually won Nevada?

On top of that, there’s this story. I have no words. Really. Just read it and then smash your computer screen.