Yesterday, the A-block of The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell featured four individuals, two males, two females, to start, dye heads all, two more were added, one head, not dyed, of multi shades of hair dye, creating a kinda rainbow presentation, which has led me to propose a strict ‘uniform of trade’, and if that is too hard to fathom, given the preferences of individual taste and style, I’m prepared to alter the requirement to a standardized wig, much like what is warn in the United Kingdom’s court of law, a special type for program host, another for guests. This will enable television viewers to be able to separate, at a glance, host from guest without anyone speaking. At this point you may ponder, there is no need for such uniformity of dress, and I will answer by stating you are wrong, with my proposal, host or guest need not spend hours in the station make-up chair, or days and hours away from the studio in hair dye prep, since they are going to dye their hair anyway, most times, appearing in competing shades, clashing with another guests choice of color, one day on Morning Joe, there was three males in their standard black top hair dye, who was host, whom was guest?, with my proposal, they just need to arrive at the studio and put on a uniformed wig, now instantly ready for a broadcast appearance, simple.
Is it me, or did Rachel Maddow’s television make-up tonight, look just a little too trashy? And or, will we ever see the blond year book Rachel on this television cablecast? A many hope, not in this life time…
Excerpted from “The Phrase Finder” on line.
“Posted by Capable wingnut on December 11, 2001
In Reply to: Putting on the dog posted by Maggie on December 11, 2001
: What’s thy origin and what’s it mean?
Put on (the) dog is an expression that means ‘to make a display of wealth or importance, especially by dressing stylishly and flashily’. It’s similar in meaning to the later expression put on the ritz.
Put on (the) dog dates back to American college slang of the 1860’s and is recorded in Lyman H. Bagg’s Four Years at Yale : “Dog, style, splurge. To put on dog is to make a flashy display, to cut a swell.” At about the same time, the related adjective doggy was a popular slang term meaning ‘attractively stylish; costly; fancy’.
I only offer the above as an explainer, to support, as to why some females appearing on Judge Judy, on television, for the very first time, seeking redress in law, may appear, shall we say, ‘overdressed’ in appearance, mainly for the benefit of the folks back home.
Now, I want those females that read the news to us, anchoring the news on television to look their very best, but I’m sure that does not include the look of, like a ‘street hooker’, in over dyed hair and in extravagant make-up schemes. Even the male news personalities are all ‘now’ beginning to look like recent high schoolers, not the old and once trusted men of televised journalism. So, how did we get to this point in time, in a word, ‘marketing’, someone is trying to sell us on a young appearance as more marketable than old and experienced, and we are buying into it, “hook, line, and sinker”. When choosing the presidential candidates to run in 2020, if they dye their hair, no need to ask, “what’s up with that”, know its marketing, kindly stay far away from these empty dye heads, with heads as empty as the marketable thoughts they will be expressing, if not convinced yet, just look around, with eyes of regrets.
When they say, “expect more”, they really mean, more, hair dye and make-up, along with empty heads piled high on streaking hair dyes, along with that all too familiar look of the unexperienced, in all most everything except the marketing of themselves, of which they have become expert.
Everyone is looking around, asking, who are going to be the Presidential candidates running in 2020? I have no idea, but will only predict this, whom ever it is, will not dye their hair, having perceived it as some sort of an advantage by so doing, we currently have that kind of phoneyness living in the White House, looking like some tinhorn dictator, and don’t like the look of it one bit. I voted for a slate of candidates that ran in the mid-terms that dyed their hair, held my nose before so doing, the smell of their stench still stains and singes my nose hairs to this very day. With every viewed anchored newscast, of dye head fraudulent news readers, turns my stomach, as I try to ignore their appearance, concentrating only on the presented stories instead. Their dye head appearance, like a television ad, is supposed to be the sugar that makes their pretentious presentation more palatable, it does not, only exposes the insult they entertain to one’s intelligence and sense of a normal reality, there are no such hair shades or streaking color schemes in nature. Returning to the choice of a Presidential candidate, the American people deserve one that has a sense of normal human character, that are comfortable living in their own skin, not some made-up marketing extravaganza designed to do one thing, present a more pleasing appearance and win votes, in short an empty head of no ideas, but long on advertising in the market place as if a Hollywood type film personality, that just happen to be running for President, thank you, but no thank you, not again, we have seen this movie before, know all too well how it will end, looking very nice, but ending in an overpriced disaster, with America falling off a cliff into doom and gloom, for how many generations?, who knows?, we are still in that progression before the ending afterlife of the current incarnation of just such a happening.
A female political leader that does not dye her hair, unheard of, then there was Golda Meir and Indira Gandhi, but they were not American, yes, that’s right, Americans are so much shallower for anything remotely like a female national candidate like them ever being elected, not by electors, engaging in a full head of dyed hair too, the dyed hair has, or should I write, fast, becoming the new normal in appearance fakery, practiced at the first sign of any aging, now by both genders in earnest.
I’m currently reading a book entitled, Five Days in Philadelphia: The Amazing, “We Want Willkie!” Convention of 1940 and How It Freed FDR to Save the Western World by Charles Peters. In this book it explored the thinking of the then popular columnists, Drew Pearson and Robert Allen, who published a lead item in their Washington Merry-Go-Round column for the Record, reported that, in part, former President Herbert Hoover pointed out to the assembled Republican delegates, Roosevelt had been staking everything on an Allied victory. But now, it was no use, the United States may go down to defeat. He suggested, Hitler was going to rule the world and the United States would have to do business with him. What the country needed was a man in the White House who had not alienated Hitler and who had contacts in Germany. Was Hoover describing Dewey, Taft or Vandenberg? None, according to Pearson and Allen. “It was obvious he had himself in mind”. I site the above events from this book, from a time before WW2 was won, as it was not totally unusual for a politician to stake out a position of a perceived winning hand, in advance, before a game is over. As I read the above accounting the other day, the seemly self-interests of the current American President came painfully to mind, much like, as if his personal financial interests would be very much at risk if he was not able to arrange a favorable bias playing field for the House of Saud, as far as its current relations with the United States is concerned.
I DVR all my news programing, admittedly sometimes I fall way behind, during a recent catchup, was shocked and appalled by the long lines and waiting times some had to endure to simply vote in the mid-term elections. After viewing one story, I was deeply ashamed, by how I felt, huffing and puffing, by the five babbling, trivialized voters ahead of me, wasting fifteen minutes of my valuable time, before I was given a chance to cast my all too important one vote. My shame was finally realized by the picture of the masses, standing in long seemingly endless lines, sometime up to two and three hours to vote, or for those whose voting stations had been moved way out of their town and unavailable. My fifteen minutes was a trivial price for me to pay in view of the enormous price others payed in time and patients, to cast their all-important vote, in exercising their rights of citizenship, in this participatory democracy, that is ours, in this America.
The A-block on this morning’s Morning Joe cablecast, took all of some thirty minutes to run, had its co-hosts, Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough, along with John Heilemann, Noah Rothman, Steve Rattner and Katty Kay, all to a person can be said to have hair issues, I define a hair issue as involving a little hair dye, oh, wait, I have to leave John Heilemann out of this equation simply because Mr. Heilemann has so little hair to dye. It may seem that I am signally out this cablecast once again, for what I am about to write, that may be true up to a point, you see, this cablecast is extremely representative of all television news shows, in that everyone that appears, can owe their appearance, their career, if you will, to hair dye, without it, they would proberbly be out on the street selling yellow pencils, earning a lot less money. So, let us ‘hair’ it for a little hair dye, the prime enabler, making it possible for all these age deniers and masqueraders, to find and keep making a decent living working in televison, leaving the street pencil selling to those without the need to dye their hair for their employment, out on the street where they belong…
How do I turn off that ‘breaking news’ banner? I’ve had my irritated fill with all those red ‘breaking news’ banners, all news is braking news to somebody, no? Last week one banner ran almost all day for the same news story.
Hey, you just said that, so why am I now reading it too?
As a news hound, I watch a lot of televised news programing, the only information I want to read on the screen are a person’s name, title and organizational affiliation, anything else is just a noisy annoyance, especially if it has already been stated by the anchor or reporter, and about those news crawls, which is the main cause of screen clutter, does anybody really pay any attention to that moving text? Hats off to the budding ‘clean screen’ movement, long may it hail…