Clothes, clothes, clothes

My mom came to visit me at school the other day. She asked if there was anything she could bring me, and I asked for my hiking boots. I don't plan to go hiking, I just wanted to wear them with skinny jeans to get that rugged feeling. She also brought me a cake and a bottle of Martinellis, which is about the cutest thing you can think of. Isn't it odd, though, that when I think of what it is I want, what comes to mind is a pair of sturdy old boots?

Something that the world may have too much of, in addition to war, famine, disease, taxes, politicians, bad manners and cars, is clothes. There's an awful lot of clothes out there. New York Fashion Week finished a little while ago, and being casually interested I clicked through a few slideshows on Women's Wear. There were some nice things, but on the whole my starting premise was vindicated: still too many clothes.

New York is often called the most commercial fashion week. I don't know what that means; of the major fashion capitals, the only one that isn't commercial is London, since British designers seem more interested in creating outlandish confections than in selling clothes. In my opinion, British designers should not be taken seriously until they start showing in Paris.

New York is different, though: it follows trends rather than creating them, taking inspiration from a host of designers - Rick Owens, Lanvin, a dash of classic Givenchy. Then there's the ever-present ingredients of American fashion: sportswear (not so much of that, unfortunately), the look of East Coast prep schools and the undying glamor of old money - as imagined by second-generation immigrants, unfortunately without any improvement.

Without naming names, then, you know what I didn't like. In my next post, I'll mention what I did.

How easy is 'literary' New York?

Over the weekend, I found myself reading about the story of Jessica Roy, a student who gained brief notoriety for an unfriendly - but quite lifelike - evisceration of a Brooklyn literary-snob party she attended. It's a scene I think we've all visited: the pretentious wannabe who lives with his parents, throws fancy parties and reels in guests with lots of free booze and drugs. Such largesse is gratifying, but you can't help feeling sorry for the sucker.

I've had my own run-ins with the literati, at first courtesy of campus lit mags, then with one of those English-language reviews which is inexplicably headquartered in Paris (maybe the coffee's better?). The lesson learned was that, no matter how refined their taste in matters of punctuation and syntax, the self-styled literati are, with honorable exceptions, useless people.

The party that Roy attended brought her world crashing down around her - everyone she had admired, in reality so fake! So obsequious, ready to kiss up in exchange for a byline. The thought that kept coming back to me was how little any of them had really accomplished.

Those luminaries of which Roy had been in awe, what were their towering achievements? Some of them had founded Gawker, a jeering blog for those stuck in the peanut gallery. Another of them wrote a novel called All the Sad Young Literary Men, by all accounts a narcissistic mediocrity. And others edit N+1, the only one of their endeavors I'm going to qualify as possibly not worthless.

The cherry on top is a letter written by a 17-year-old from Alabama to the New York Times, which some hack at the Observer thought was so important he devoted a column to it (yes, he was another of Roy's idols). The letter's subject? How said 17-year-old is a future literary titan. Apparently, he's now being queried by publishers who'd like to publish him. In this world, it can't be hard to make a splash.

I'd like to suggest that aspiring writers take a leaf out of Hemingway's book: go drive an ambulance, preferably in a war zone. Death, shattered love, drinking problems - these things don't get old. Literary pretensions do.

Rodarte, show us the future!

Reactions to the Rodarte show, held in New York earlier this week, were almost the same as the reactions to last season's, which is not a good thing. The inner circle of fans loved it, while others expressed puzzlement: why don't the Mulleavy sisters try something new? And when will they get serious about making wearable clothes? Rodarte certainly loves doing innovative things to textiles, but they don't seem to be interested in placating their critics.

Rodarte is a tiny company. Because it's privately held, outsiders can only guess at what is going on the inside, but here's what we know: last year, they sold about 1,000 pieces (according to a recent profile in the New Yorker). Given how expensive their clothes are, they might have retail sales of a few million a year. With a business that size, what you get is a studio, a few employees and some bolts of cloth, which is what they have. So despite being a five year old business and having gotten scads of free press, they're still in the almost-broke start-up phase.

What if they don't plan to grow anymore? Rodarte's product is extremely niche, accessible only to a few: you're either buying sweaters that cost $2,000, or you're not buying anything. No diffusion lines and no licenses, except for their ugly collaboration with Target. It could be a fine strategy, but it could also be fiscally dangerous. Furthermore, you have to wonder what will happen to them once the press loses interest. This is a real possibility, given how monotonous their vision has become.

What would happen if the Mulleavy sisters woke up one morning to find they've been forgotten? Would their clients keep buying? It's impossible to say, but Rodarte got lucky with the press from day one, and it's hard to see how they could survive without it. If worst came to worst, they could always start selling on Etsy.

Attention, fashion police

Today I read in WWD that Kimora Lee Simmons - whom I know nothing about, except that she is somehow associated with a line called Baby Phat, which is a revolting name - is planning a new line, to be called Kouture by Kimora Lee Simmons. It's supposed to be incredibly cheap, so people won't have to choose between paying their bills or going shopping.

I'm all for paying one's bills, but I have wonder: at this price point ($40 for a dress), what kind of garbage is Ms Simmons calling couture?

Second, is this broad illiterate? Why would you ever spell 'couture' with a k?

Let's just say that were I licensed to summarily execute people for crimes against good taste, this mangling of French orthography would be a TOBAS* offense.

*Take Out Back And Shoot.

What's to become of McQueen?

After the startling suicide of Alexander McQueen on Thursday, the initial outpouring of grief among fashion followers is starting to give way to the question: what will become of his business? Some have suggested that it "cannot continue" without its founder. However, from the point of view of the brand's owners - as well as the employees who depend on it for their livelihoods - simply shutting the business down is not an option.

Fortunately, the Alexander McQueen business may not have been as dependent on Lee McQueen the man as many thought. Yes, he put on spectacular shows - but fashion shows may not be essential to the immediate continuation of the brand. The commercial collections, the bread and butter of any designer business, were always more conservative, and it's likely that Mr McQueen had only a minimal part in creating them. His design team, then, may be able to carry on without him.

That doesn't solve the house's problems: eventually, it will need a new public face. I think it would be a mistake, however, to hire a new designer with McQueen's death so prominent in the public consciousness. It would serve only to underline the (glaring) fact that, in terms of sheer creative bravado, he is irreplaceable. Instead, the house should work on cementing his reputation by continuing to evoke the memory of the founder. Though the collection he was working on at the time of his death should be presented, if possible, afterwards fashion shows should be eschewed, at least for the foreseeable future.

One first step could be an equivalent to the Balenciaga Edition collection, which consists of couture pieces from the house's archive made new as ready-to-wear. I would suggest culling the McQueen archive for its most iconic pieces, offering clients one last chance to get their hands on a piece of the man's formidable skills. In fact, it would be unseemly to hire a new designer too quickly; it might suggest that the brand's executives care too much about the bottom line, disrespecting McQueen.

The brand should take the space of a few seasons to adjust, continuing the creation of commercial collections by the design team now in place. By then, maybe, a new head designer can be hired - and McQueen's fans might be ready to accept him.

Which party?

I'm researching Spanish politics in the 1930s for a term paper; what strikes me again and again is how many political parties there were, ranging from national parties with a million members to tiny regional parties with just a few hundred. This diverse, fragmented political landscape could have been part of the reason Spanish politics proved unworkable, leading to the civil war of 1936 - 39. But there was a positive aspect as well: it gave people lots and lots of choices.

Out of curiosity, I decided to see what my options for political parties are in California, the state I live in. I visited the Secretary of State's website and discovered that there are six: American Independents, Democrats, Greens, Libertarian, Peace & Freedom and of course the GOP. Off the top of my head, I wasn't sure what most of them stand for, so I decided to find out.

The American Independent Party sounded promising, if only because I sometimes think of myself as a political independent, so I started with them. From their website:

Marriage Between a Man and a Woman
We insist that marriage is between a man and a woman and assert the role of the law in establishing and reinforcing the mutual rights and obligations of that God-ordained contract.

Instant fail: not only is homophobia a central plank of their platform, it seems that everything goes back to God. There's little I detest more than mixing religion and politics.

Then I tried the Libertarians. Upfront, they advertise themselves as socially tolerant and fiscally responsible. It's an attractive combination; unfortunately, Libertarians carry their hatred of government to the extreme. Plus, I discovered this under the Articles section:

There is an attempt now to have the voters decide whether to lower the budget passage requirement to 55 percent. Whether you are in favor of the two-thirds rule depends on whether you believe that an increase in taxes and spending is economic nutrition or whether it is economic poison.

This is a terrible display of cynicism. The main reason nothing ever goes right in Sacramento is that passing a budget requires a 2/3rds majority in the legislature. It's a recipe for deadlock; changing the 2/3rds rule to 50 or 55% would be a big step towards fixing California's dysfunctional government. And the Libertarians oppose this, for the transparent reason that they don't want to pay more taxes.

Now, let me be clear: I hate paying taxes. But wishing continued failure on your state's government out of greed is bad citizenship.

Next up? Peace and Freedom. An advertisement on their homepage asks you to 'Drop $10 on 2010: Fund the overthrow of capitalism.' Not good. Continuing to the summary of their platform, I found:

• Double the minimum wage and index it to the cost of living;
• A 30-hour workweek with no cut in weekly pay; longer paid vacations;
• A Universal Basic Income to alleviate poverty and homelessness;
• Tax the income and assets of the rich to meet human needs;
• Provide full free quality public education through university level. Teach the history of workers' struggles and labor's creation of society's wealth and progress.

I don't doubt that all of these suggestions are made with the best of intentions; unfortunately, most of these proposals are just unfeasible.

I agree that government should provide a minimalist safety net for society's least fortunate but it's unfair to tax the hell out of wealthier Americans so everyone else can have a free ride. And doubling the minimum wage? It would ruin small businesses, many of which are only barely profitable, destroying jobs. A 30 - hour workweek with no cut in pay? Look at France, it hasn't worked out so well.

Next, the Greens. Again, I think their hearts are in the right place but their heads aren't screwed on quite tight enough. Key principles include Ecological Wisdom, Nonviolence, Social Justice, Grassroots Democracy, Decentralization, Community-Based Economics, Feminism, Respect for Diversity, Personal & Global Responsibility and Sustainability. All worthy principles, it just doesn't have the air of good, solid policy.

Finally, the two big ones: Democrats and Republicans.

Democrats in California are joined at the hip to unions, which is a big liability in my book since unions are just another kind of special interest group after taxpayer's money. And the Republicans? Judging from their website, they don't have much of a platform at all (and no, loving Ronald Reagan does not count as a platform).

I wish Republicans would get their act together. In California, what they need to make a comeback is a move beyond hating government to envisioning how (limited) government can make life better, a humane social policy that doesn't alienate gays and ethnic minorities, and a workable plan for balancing the budget and stimulating the economy. Good luck, guys.

What I mean when I talk about a good movie

Last night, boyfriend and I saw The White Ribbon, the Palme d'Or - winning film about evil in a small German town. If you'll excuse the incongruity of praising a German movie in French, it was un putain bon film and if you haven't seen it, get thee to the cinema.

I hope it comes up for the Oscars, but if it doesn't who cares - Hollywood, as far as I can tell, is all animated blue aliens and low morals.

Real clear politics

Thank God my personal life is too scandalous for me to pursue a career in public service; I'd be a terrible politician (I can't keep my mouth shut and love to tell people when they're wrong) and, more pointedly, I hate politics. Though at the same time, I'm addicted to political coverage. What is especially frustrating right now is that, as far as I can tell, there is not one solitary politician in this country who is willing to talk about what actually matters.

Maybe you wonder what I'm referring to. The deficit? Job creation? Health insurance reform? National security? Global warming? Whether the President is, in fact, a natural-born American citizen?

All of those things are important, except for the last which is too silly to bear mentioning. No, what actually matters is entitlements reform: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Plus, our out-of-control military spending.

The deficit, about which the political establishment is now shrieking its empty little head off, has almost nothing to do with the stimulus or bailouts. It exists because of the obligations the government has taken on to pay for the well-being and health care of elderly Americans after they retire.

Unfortunately, there are a lot more elderly Americans today than there were when these programs were designed. And they are what is driving us towards fiscal ruin.

The solution is simple: decrease expenditures by cutting benefits or raising the retirement age, or increase revenue, which means raising taxes. Or do both - for example, by raising the retirement age to 72, the age by which most Americans kick the bucket, and simultaneously raising the Social Security taxation cap for the wealthy.

The health care insurance reform debate is nothing but a shadow-play substitute for a debate over entitlement reform; no one really cares if several million Americans don't have health insurance, since most of them don't vote. The problem is that the government's obligation to pay for Medicare is fast outstripping its ability to do so. Someday in the future, the entire federal budget will be consumed by two things: buying prescription drugs for the elderly, and paying for our enormously expensive military.

Of course, no one has the courage to tackle this problem because, as we saw last summer, the slightest hint of cuts to Medicare bring out crowds of elderly voters, ready to fight anyone who even thinks about cutting their entitlements. And as for cutting military spending? That also looks unlikely.

The weakness of fashion bloggers

"Bloggers are so attractive to the big design houses because they are so wide-eyed and obsessed, but they don't have the critical faculties to know what's good and what's not. As soon as they've been invited to the shows, they can no longer criticize because then they won't be invited back."

-Robert Johnson, a GQ editor quoted in the Independent

I've been skeptical about the supposed power of fashion blogs for a while because of the very problem Mr Johnson highlights above: they're too easy to co-opt. Though to be fair, most of the 'official' editors and critics are similarly co-opted; holding on to one's objective faculties in the face of all that glitz must be pretty hard.

But for fashion bloggers, there's something a little futile in the juxtaposition of their status as outsiders, empowered to write anything about anyone, and their pathetic desire to be part of the circus they critique.