A statistically improbable polymath's views on politics and culture.

 
The New York Times has created a monthly style magazine supplement, "T", which reads like a short version of Vogue with a slightly higher content-to-ad ratio. (It still took me 68 pages to get to actual editorial content--perhaps in line with fashion magazine standards, but rather disconcerting for the Times.)

The magazine does, however, feature an interactive component: Step-by-step hair styling, something I remember most from . Informed of the way to create the new rockabilly-inspired pompadour in vogue (one which the magazine assured me was "the look that scored at Tuleh's fall 2004 show"), I took my brush and a few bobby pins and got to work taking the front part of my hair, twisting it, pushing it forward, and pinning it. Result: An imperial-looking face and front--surrounded by improbably casual hair. The New York Times had given me a mullet.

I pinned up the rest of my hair in a French twist, and the style came together in excellent Gibson Girl/Madame X fashion. But what of the poor women who will keep the rest of their hair down, as the Times suggested? And what will David Brooks have to say about this convergence between Red America and Blue America?

(Speaking of Brooks, wasn't that NYT Magazine column of his almost a precis for a New Democrat economic policy? Eliminate the call for vouchers and the DLC would swoon; put in a few words toughening labor policy and giving more help to the homeless and I'd swear he'd stolen a Barack Obama policy paper.)

posted by Maureen at 10:45 PM