Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
For dignity's sake, Jim Jordan, put on a jacket
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2019/11/13/love-dignity-civility-jim-jordan-put-jacket/
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio): the one who didn't bother to finish dressing. (Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post)
By Robin Givhan
Fashion critic
November 13, 2019 at 4:27 p.m. EST
Of course Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) took his seat Wednesday morning, at the opening of the public impeachment hearings on Capitol Hill, wearing nothing but his shirtsleeves. No suit jacket. That’s how Jordan dresses. It’s his power move. His sartorial chest thump.
All the other members of the House Intelligence Committee turned up in suits and ties or other business attire. But not Jordan. Everyone else was willing to offer at least a symbolic nod to decorous formality, to that old-fashioned notion of civility. Jordan announced himself as the man who was itching to rumble. He was the guy who came not to do as the Constitution demands with measured deliberation but to brawl.
Jordan has a reputation for rarely wearing a suit jacket. A Twitter account is dedicated to his jacketlessness. He’s the man on the dais who refuses to show witnesses the same respect that they inevitably show to him and to the circumstances. Typically, men who are called to testify before Congress wear a suit. They recognize the seriousness of the situation, and they dignify it. Even Mark Zuckerberg, who almost single-handedly made hoodies and T-shirts the uniform of the modern mogul, wears a suit. When comedian Jon Stewart spoke to Congress in support of 9/11 first responders, he wore a suit jacket and tie. When comedian Hasan Minhaj went to Capitol Hill to discuss student loan debt, he also wore a suit.
The extras in the audience as the impeachment drama unfolded were wearing suit jackets. The witnesses were in suit jackets. George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary of state, wore a three-piece suit, no less. He paired it with a genial bow tie and an expression of bemused patience when questioning veered off road. His right eyebrow, with its rise and fall, was a soliloquy on professorial forbearance. Acting ambassador William B. Taylor Jr. was also duly attired in a suit, with a green four-in-hand — his brow furrowing with his efforts to sort the questions from the chaff.
But Jordan, in his role as a representative of the American people, couldn’t be bothered to suit up.
</snip>
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio): the one who didn't bother to finish dressing. (Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post)
By Robin Givhan
Fashion critic
November 13, 2019 at 4:27 p.m. EST
Of course Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) took his seat Wednesday morning, at the opening of the public impeachment hearings on Capitol Hill, wearing nothing but his shirtsleeves. No suit jacket. That’s how Jordan dresses. It’s his power move. His sartorial chest thump.
All the other members of the House Intelligence Committee turned up in suits and ties or other business attire. But not Jordan. Everyone else was willing to offer at least a symbolic nod to decorous formality, to that old-fashioned notion of civility. Jordan announced himself as the man who was itching to rumble. He was the guy who came not to do as the Constitution demands with measured deliberation but to brawl.
Jordan has a reputation for rarely wearing a suit jacket. A Twitter account is dedicated to his jacketlessness. He’s the man on the dais who refuses to show witnesses the same respect that they inevitably show to him and to the circumstances. Typically, men who are called to testify before Congress wear a suit. They recognize the seriousness of the situation, and they dignify it. Even Mark Zuckerberg, who almost single-handedly made hoodies and T-shirts the uniform of the modern mogul, wears a suit. When comedian Jon Stewart spoke to Congress in support of 9/11 first responders, he wore a suit jacket and tie. When comedian Hasan Minhaj went to Capitol Hill to discuss student loan debt, he also wore a suit.
The extras in the audience as the impeachment drama unfolded were wearing suit jackets. The witnesses were in suit jackets. George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary of state, wore a three-piece suit, no less. He paired it with a genial bow tie and an expression of bemused patience when questioning veered off road. His right eyebrow, with its rise and fall, was a soliloquy on professorial forbearance. Acting ambassador William B. Taylor Jr. was also duly attired in a suit, with a green four-in-hand — his brow furrowing with his efforts to sort the questions from the chaff.
But Jordan, in his role as a representative of the American people, couldn’t be bothered to suit up.
</snip>
I'm glad the dope is being called out on it!
33 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimmick_(professional_wrestling)
"In professional wrestling, a gimmick generally refers to a wrestler's in-ring persona, character, behaviour, attire and/or other distinguishing traits while performing which are usually artificially created in order to draw fan interest.
These in-ring personalities often involve costumes, makeup and catchphrases that they shout at their opponents or the fans.
Gimmicks can be designed to work as good guys (babyfaces) or villains (heels) depending on the wrestler's desire to be popular or hated by the crowd. A tweener gimmick falls between the two extremes. A wrestler may portray more than one gimmick over their career depending on the angle or the wrestling promotion that they are working for at that time."....(more)
"In professional wrestling, a gimmick generally refers to a wrestler's in-ring persona, character, behaviour, attire and/or other distinguishing traits while performing which are usually artificially created in order to draw fan interest.
These in-ring personalities often involve costumes, makeup and catchphrases that they shout at their opponents or the fans.
Gimmicks can be designed to work as good guys (babyfaces) or villains (heels) depending on the wrestler's desire to be popular or hated by the crowd. A tweener gimmick falls between the two extremes. A wrestler may portray more than one gimmick over their career depending on the angle or the wrestling promotion that they are working for at that time."....(more)
Double standards, from shallow end to deep end, are the Republicans’ favorite default behavior.
BTW, nice “graphic” on the signboard.
