policy with pop

The Torkelsons: Dress Matters

One of the most endearing shows in history is The Torkelsons. You’ve probably never heard of the show as it only lasted one season. The Torkelsons follows an Oklahoma family that has little money but a lot of heart and quirkiness. The most relatable character on the show is Dorothy Jane.

Dorothy Jane is a dreamer’s dreamer. She’s the smart, responsible girl, who’s an outsider. She wishes to be part of the in-crowd. She dreams of escaping her small town life for one of metropolitan sophistication and romance. She pines for the older, boy-next-door Riley Roberts. Essentially Dorothy Jane wants what she cannot have (don’t we all?), and it’s really touching and funny. 

The second episode, The Cotillion, is one of my favorites. Dorothy Jane has a school dance to attend. With no money for a new dress and with hopes of going with Riley, will she have the dance of her dreams? Or will it be a hilarious disaster? Watch:

When Riley steps in and tells Dreama that no one would look better in Dreama’s donated dress than Dorothy Jane, CLASSIC. And when Dorthy Jane declares it her “reincarnated” fall cotillion gown, that was… too cheesy.

This episode made me think of a high school incident I had. But my incident has nothing to do with a dance or any crush. In fact, by recounting this (ancient) story, I will be confirming that I am a bit of a… nerd (shock!), but here goes.

One of my best high school friends – let’s call her “Allie” – loved to shop and dress in trendy clothes. I believe she shopped at Macy’s and Forever 21. One day I wondered if she would be willing to wear clothes from a thrift store or from K-Mart or Sears. So I asked her.

Allie immediately responded, “Hellz no!”  I tried to sweeten the deal. I told her I would pay for an outfit from K-Mart, if she would wear it to school. The answer was still “no.” I then told her I would buy her whatever outfit she wanted from K-Mart and she could tell our schoolmates it was from Macy’s. Yeah… that didn’t work either. She refused to be associated in any way with any thrift store, K-Mart or Sears clothes (apparently she hadn’t seen the softer side of Sears).

This incident and The Torkelsons episode got me thinking. By wearing “cheap” clothes, do we signal to others that we are “poor?” Does it matter?

Apparently it mattered to Dorothy Jane and my friend, Allie, who were both high school girls and came from working class families. Would it be different if they were older? Younger? Male? Richer? Out of school? Working?

Do clothes make a statement about the person wearing them? Should it? Is it superficial to judge people by their clothes? Or is it an important method to analyze people?

Aaron Schock the Republican Party?

Where are the young Republicans at!?! Anyone?  Anyone? No really. Polls indicate that the GOP is losing the younger demographic between 18 and 29 years old. Apparently the party of “old white men” doesn’t appeal to the youngsters. But there is one Republican under 60…

His name is Aaron Schock and he is the youngest congressman at 27. With his good looks, he has been dubbed the "Brody Jenner of Congress." (I’m not sure who should be offended, Representative Schock or Brody?) Even liberals have taken notice of Schock, voting him the “hottest freshmen” congressman. And even Stephan Colbert has a man-crush for the Schockster. 

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Better Know a District - Illinois' 18th - Aaron Schock
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Gay Marriage

Anyway, Congressman Schock is being heralded as the savior of the Republican Party since he’s young, handsome, articulate and media savvy. In fact, he has reached a new audience that the traditional GOP politician has not, with Schock’s TMZ outreach.

Wonder how many new votes that picture earned Schock and the GOP…  So does he represent the new wave of Republicanism? Or is he just a pretty face?

In terms of voting, the boyish congressman has not schock-ed the House. Schock has been a consistent traditional-Republican vote. No to the stimulus package.  No to stem cell research. No to the Lilly Ledbetter Pay Act. No to the expansion of environmental protections.

Not to be outdone by the boy wonder, the old guard of the Republican Party launched a “listening tour.”  Apparently, they will listen (and talk) to the people, but rest assured their party ideals will not change from these town hall events.

To thrive as a party, do Schock and the Republicans need only present their party principles in a fresh manner? Or do they need to overhaul some of their positions (à la pro-gay marriage and pro-sex ed. Megan McCain) to win over younger voters (or voters in general)?

Essentially how does the Republican Party win elections in the future?

Taylor Swift: Taking Names and Exposing Heartbreakers

I admit it. Taylor Swift is absolutely brilliant. She combines heartfelt, teenage angst with catchy pop-country music. Her songs, which she writes, are refreshing, young and meaningful. The 19 year old   knows how to make great music (Are you listening, David Archuleta?).

I’m digging her latest spunky single, “You Belong with Me.” Watch:

Part of Taylor’s appeal is her honest lyrics, but it cuts both ways. As she put it in her album liner, “And to the boys who inspired this album [Fearless], you had fair warning.” In addition to her love songs, Taylor has also written about guys who done her wrong and the heartbreak they caused her. In fact, she wrote “Forever and Always” based on the cold shoulder her ex-boyfriend Joe Jonas gave her, leading up to their breakup.

Forever & Always - Taylor Swift

Is it okay to for those wronged to publicly express their feelings and expose those who inflicted the pain? I mean people blog everyday about their personal lives, often revealing the people in their lives to the world (wide web). But does this violate some sense of privacy for those exposed by the blogger or celebrity?

The law does restrict people’s speech when it comes to others. It is called defamation. Defamation requires a defamatory statement, publication (communication to a 3rd party), identification of the alleged defamed party, damages, and falsity. (Thanks, Tort class.) I don’t think Taylor’s breakup songs constitute defamation, since they usually fail to specifically ID the heartbreaker or fail to meet the falsity requirement.

Besides 1st Amendment and defamatory issues, are there any social consequences when private, personal interactions can readily be put in the public domain? Does it create a sense of uneasiness or suspicion?

Conversely, should we deny people a creative outlet to express their feelings? What are the repercussions? Would we be denying a meaningful, emotional outlet? Or would we be censoring artists, like Taylor, from creating inspired music and thus deprive the world of beautiful works?

It’s time for you to blog/post about your thoughts. Oh and would you ever date Taylor Swift or a blogger that would publicly write about your faults?