"More than three-quarters of [University of Georgia 46 freshman girls'] rooms were decorated in... a 'LoveShackFancy Southern mishmash.'"

"(The luxury brand LoveShackFancy’s dorm decor includes a $225 shower curtain and a $115 heart-shaped throw pillow.) [The resident assistant] said she hasn’t seen professional interior decorators on the halls, but she watched in awe as parents took three to four hours to set up their daughters’ rooms.... The flouncy decorators, she said, are typically extroverts who plan to be a part of Greek life on campus, and they come to college to befriend similar people. A minimalist decorator, on the other hand, is 'maybe doing a major that is a little bit more analytical, or is into more niche activities.' She added, '... they really won’t interact, even on the floor.'..."

From "The over-the-top world of luxury dorm decorating/Wallpaper, custom headboards and $469 mattress toppers aren’t the norm in college rooms. But they are everywhere on TikTok" (WaPo).

This is how it looks on TikTok:

"Michelle Pfeiffer and Jonathan Majors look like crap. Usually, they’re two of the most radiant, dermatologically exceptional people in the world."

"But right now, they’re decrepit husks of themselves, their faces so drained of color that they could pass for cadavers. I’m watching Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania — in which she plays Ant-Man’s girlfriend’s mom, Janet van Dyne, and he plays time-traveling villain Kang the Conqueror — at the AMC Empire 25 near Times Square.... [T]he image onscreen is so dim that it’s hard to make out much of the movie’s action and all of its glamorous stars have been turned dark gray."

 
I'm reading "Bad Projection Is Ruining the Movie Theater Experience/Multiplexes are failing at their most basic function: delivering a bright, sharp image" (NY Magazine).

"While I am not prepared to defend bouts of 'She-Ra doesn’t give me boners anymore' extremism..."

"... I can see the kernels of the argument that sexuality shouldn’t be in diametric opposition to capability. There’s no reason female characters can’t be glamorous and sexy and also battle-ready, smart, and compassionate. It’s not unlike the ongoing debate about Wonder Woman’s appearance and whether her revealing uniform ultimately undermines her feminism. I’d argue that the most important thing about women superheroes in skimpy clothes is agency — what matters is that their costumes aren’t designed primarily for the sake of someone else’s erotic thrill."

From "The Fight Over She-Ra's Netflix Redesign, Explained/Some men are mad she isn’t sexier," by Alex Abad-Santos.

Cartoons are complicated!

Here's the old and the new She-Ra to help you understand:

The new She-Ra looks like Tom Holland. 🤔 #SheRa pic.twitter.com/DTN4phQJHN

— Liam (@TribalSpaceman) July 14, 2018

I had to look up Tom Holland:



Apparently, he's Spider-Man these days. I think of Spider-Man as being that other guy, what's-his-name. Anyway, is Spider-Man's costume not in "diametric opposition to capability"? There's so much suspension of disbelief in the watching of superheroes, something I've just about never done — I've seen a few of the "Batman" movies — but a huge proportion of the world's population seems to love to do. What is the role of the costumes? It's nothing like If that was my work, that's what I'd wear to get my work done. I'm not even sure the extent to which the costume itself is magic. Does Superman fly because of the cape or is the cape kind of like those ribbons people attach to house fans to add drama to the wind flow?

But I do love this scene in "Batman Returns" where we see Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer) putting together her costume for the first time:

"For his senior thesis, he turned the Bill of Rights into a play. 'I made each amendment into a character...'"

"'The First Amendment is a loudmouth guy who won't shut up. The Second Amendment guy, all he wanted to talk about was his gun collection. Then the 10th Amendment, the one where they say leave the rest for the states to decide, he was a guy with no self-esteem.'"

From the Wikipedia article on David E. Kelley, the TV writer and producer (who made "Ally McBeal," "Boston Legal," and a lot of other shows). The play in question was written while he was an undergrad at Princeton. He later attended Boston University School of Law and was a lawyer before he branched out into TV writing.

How did I end up on that article, of all articles? I got there from the page on Michelle Pfeiffer (who happens to be his wife), and I was reading about her because we were talking about the movie (which I love) "The Witches of Eastwick," which we were talking about because the Susan Sarandon character in that movie is an elementary school music teacher who has some scenes with the band that are reminiscent of the school band scenes in "The Music Man." (Sarandon is inspired by the Devil, and the Music Man is a bit of a devil, a trickster palming off a fake system for kids playing musical instruments.)

And we were talking about "The Music Man" because Meade was singing "'Til There Was You" as a consequence of my asking for more examples of songs about nature seeming to express the feelings of the singer, such as "Close to You," which begins "Why do birds suddenly appear every time you walk near." I rejected "'Til There Was You" as an example of what I was looking for, since it's not a fantasy about nature, but a true statement of the singer's increased awareness of the beauty of nature. "There were birds in the sky/But I never saw them winging/No, I never saw them at all/'Til there was you."

The "Close to You" fantasy is really the same idea, expressed subjectively. The birds seem to appear because love has heightened the singer's awareness of the existence of birds, but she doesn't seem to understand, as does Marian the Librarian (the lovely Shirley Jones, whom you can cause to suddenly appear if you click on that last link, above). The "Close to You" singer (let's pick Karen Carpenter) presents herself as baffled by the phenomenon. She asks "why?" Marian/Shirley is the fully/overly rational woman, the librarian with book-learning of the existence of birds, and she too has some fantasy — the notion of never having seen birds at all before the arrival of love. She means: I never really saw them. Or perhaps: Seeing without the emotional lift of believing that the birds are about this love of mine is not really seeing.

So continue this long train of thought with me as we circle back to the Bill of Rights and talk about the infusion of human emotion into that which is not human. Do you picture the rights as human entities with feelings and motivations, and if you do — or force yourself to do it — is the 10th Amendment a guy with no self-esteem?

I am outraged at the disparagement of the character of the 10th Amendment!

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The man who knows the scope of the job he's been hired to do and doesn't spread himself thin taking over things that other workers have been doing for a long time — and know how to do better — isn't a sad sack. It's the guy with the inferiority complex who feels he's got to take over everything. Mr. 10th Amendment is smart and competent. He knows he's got plenty of important work that needs to be done well, he sticks to that, he has the integrity to resist seeking brownie points for doing extra work, he's not a jerk who can't trust the other workers to do things well enough, and he's not an egomaniac who thinks he's got the one right answer that must be applied to everyone regardless of the different ideas they might have and good experiments they might like to try.

I know you need a villain to pump some drama into your play, but I think in a theater piece about the Bill of Rights, the villain should be the federal government. The rights are all heroes. In my play.

"Palin's book might not be just the simple, unvarnished truth about what went on..."

Writes Tom Smith, addressing me:

Perhaps Palin has chosen not to share all of her thinking and calculations with the reading public.

Perhaps? But of course! Or she's a blithering idiot.

She is obviously in part trying to even the score with Katie Couric ("I was just trying to help her because she was in the dumps over her faltering career," says the rising star to the declining one) and Nicolle what's-her-name ("she was disloyal to W, i.e. a complete bitch, had I but seen it at the time"). Palin is portraying herself as a lamb among wolves. This does not necessarily mean she really was or is in fact a lamb, except in the sense that she is a lot cuter than her critics.

The question isn't whether she's posing/whitewashing/slanting/lying. She's doing something like that, and the current product, the book, gives us evidence of the extent of her political intelligence. Is saying I was a lamb smart now? That's a separate question — and one my post addressed — than saying was it smart to be a lamb then, assuming she actually was a lamb. Breaking the issue down that way, I'd say she was at least either dumb then or dumb now. But maybe you think posing as a former lamb is savvy politics. Or is that only because you think she's cute? Because I don't think being thought cute and inspiring male protectors is the way to get yourself elected President.

Consider how an accurate memoir would read: "I miscalculated. Early on, I understood the McCain campaign was unlikely to win, but I thought I could use it to promote my own career as a national conservative voice and perhaps as future presidential candidate. I had little expertise in dealing with the national media, so I thought it best to rely on the McCain people for that, reasoning they had no incentive to feed me to the wolves. etc. etc." The reader would think, why that Machiavellian bitch!

A first-rate Machiavellian bitch wouldn't say that in exactly those words. But she would say that. Elegantly, seductively — like a real Machiavellian. And I would be inspired: There is someone smart and sophisticated enough to deserve a major party nomination for President. I want that Machiavellian bitch on our side.

... [T]he question is not, is the woman Palin portrays qualified to be President, but rather, is a woman who would decide to portray herself as Palin has decided to do in her book, qualified to be President -- a very different question.

Yes. That is what I think too. I attempted to convey that in my "Sarah Palin is dumb" post, but in case I didn't make it clear enough, I am restating it here. A political memoir has a political strategy to it. If it told the whole truth, it would probably be only because for some odd reason the absolute, unspun truth best served the author's interest or — does this ever happen? — because the erstwhile politico has transmorphed into a literary artist.

***

Now, I wrote this whole post before I noticed that Tom Smith never linked to my post! He does begin with "Regarding Professor Rappaport's post immediately below" — Lord, what a boring first clause! — not that he links to Prof R's post — and Prof R does link to me. But that really is bad form, and then there's also the very weird fact that the one link Smith does have is to a YouTube video of Michelle Pfeiffer singing "Making Whoopie" (and writhing on a piano in a tight red dress). Why was that apt? It went with:

[J]ust because Palin says she was a lamb among wolves does not mean she is in fact a lamb.  I sort of like the idea of her singing "I'm a poor little lamb who's lost my way" along the lines of Michelle Pfeiffer in the Fabulous Baker Boys, but that is of course an unrelated point.

I kind of think it is related. And no woman like that is going to make it to the presidency, though she may win a lot of admirers and protectors. Lord have mercy on such as we... baa... baa... baa...

***

Those lost lambs are so much sexier than Pfeiffer's embodiment of male fantasy, I will say.