The Suit

by Patrick Appel

The Economist traces its history:

If the precise moment of inception is vague the point of victory of the lounge suit over its forerunners as the standard battledress of the office worker is clearer. According to Christopher Breward of the Victoria and Albert Museum the tailed morning coat finally gave up to the lounge suit with the rise of American business culture at the end of the 19th century. By 1890 the American office worker wanted both the informality of the lounge suit, with its sporting heritage, and a snappy, modern and efficient look that its military antecedents gave it.

Satirical Videos Gone Stale

by Conor Friedersdorf

I'm sure that Dish readers can use the free Xtranormal movie making software to make satirical videos that are funnier than this one:

And I hope you do! Because I'm getting awfully tired of every one I see denigrating at length some American profession or other as a terrible way to waste your life. I don't expect the world to embrace my very particular sense of humor. But if every Xtranormal movie trades on relentless negativity the conceit kinda loses its edge. 


The Atlantic Archives: Historical Inquiry And The American Idea

by Conor Friedersdorf

In their 1857 statement of purpose, The Atlantic Monthly's founders declared that the magazine would "honestly endeavor to be the exponent of what its conductors believe to be the American idea." So began an enterprise defined early on by its abolitionist arguments. As the decade turned, the publication partially reinvented itself as a Civil War journal, with Nathaniel Hawthorne filing battlefield dispatches. More than 150 years later, Ta-Nehisi Coates and occasional guests on his page are using the blog format to delve into the same era, expounding on the American idea through historical research and reflection. Learning along with TNC is a pleasure, as is watching how he connects slavery, its ripples, and the America we inhabit. Efforts like his show how the spirit of the magazine infuses even its Web era.

It also exemplifies the sort of historical study that Paul Gagnon argued for in his November 1988 cover story "Why Study History?" The piece offers a powerful opening brief:

The answer goes back to judgment, which requires more than knowing where the tools of self-government are and how to wield them. Judgment implies nothing less than wisdom–an even bigger word–about human nature and society. It takes a good sense of the tragic and of the comic to make a citizen of good judgment. It takes a bone deep understanding of how hard it is to preserve civilization or to better human life, and of how these have nonetheless been done repeatedly in the past. It takes a sense of paradox, so as not to be surprised when failure teaches us more than victory does or when we slip from triumph to folly. And maybe most of all it takes a practiced eye for the beauty of work well done, in daily human acts of nurture. Tragedy, comedy, paradox and beauty are not the ordinary stuff of even the best courses in civic and government. But history, along with biography and literature, if they are well taught, cannot help but convey them.

It also summons urgency with this passage:

The truly tough part of civic education is to prepare people for bad times. The question is not whether they will remember the right phrases but whether they will turn words into practice when they feel wrongly treated or fear for their freedom and security, or when authorities and the well-placed, in the public or private sector, appear to flout every value taught in school. The chances for a democratic principles to survive such crises depend upon the number of citizens who remember how free societies have responded to crises in the past, how free societies have acted to defend themselves in, and emerge from, bad times. Why have some societies fallen and others stood fast?

All this is preamble to an extended critique of history as it was taught circa 1988 in American high schools. There is far too much material for me to provide even a fair summary here. It is nevertheless worth looking at one example:

We have taken to teaching it by itself, as though it were rooted nowhere – as though the American past, by which David Donald's students hoped to understand themselves, reached back only to Columbus, rather than to Noah and before.

The plain fact is that American history is not intelligible, and we are not intelligible to ourselves, without a firm grasp of the life and ideas of the ancient world, of Judaism and Christianity, of Islam and Christendom in the Middle Ages, of feudalism, of the Renaissance and the Reformation, of the English Revolution and the Enlightenment. The first settlers did not sail into view out of a void, their minds as blank as the Atlantic Ocean. They were shaped and scarred by tens of centuries of religious, social, literary, and political experience. Their notions of honor and heroism were learned from Greco-Roman myth and history, from the Bible and the lives of the saints of the Church, from stories of knights and crusaders, explorers and sea dogs of the Renaissance, soldiers and martyrs of the wars of religion. Those who sailed west to America came in fact not to build a New World but to bring to life in a new setting what they treasured most from the Old World.

One lesson I take from a lot of TNC's blogging is that too often, upon interrogating race in America, we treat the subject as if it began in the Civil Rights era, if we even harken back that far. But if we want this country to be intelligible to us, and to be intelligible to ourselves, it is necessary to look back much farther than that.

Digital Sit-Ins?

by Patrick Appel

Evgeny Morozov debates the morality of distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks:

What I find amusing about the present situation is that the same people who often lament the fact that the Iranian government denies freedom of assembly to the Green movement almost reveal themselves as crypto-conservatives when they are forced to think about the digital equivalent of protests and demonstrations in democratic societies.

He feels that common punishments for DDoS attacks are unjust:

I think that the current laws that criminalize DDoS in liberal democracies – some with up to 10 years in prison – are in for some major revision as well. No one blocking access to a physical building or even tinkering with some corporate infrastructure without causing it much damage would receive 10 years in jail. This doesn't mean we need to de-criminalize DDoS altogether but I think that we do need to think about proportionality here.

Horton Hears A Hooters

by Chris Bodenner

Tracy Clark-Flory thinks through the National Organization for Women’s campaign against Hooters on behalf of children:

Hooters is marketed as a family-friendly restaurant. It offers a kid’s menu, high chairs, booster seats and all sorts of merchandise for little tykes — like a BoobromperMED Hooters” T-shirt, an “I’m a boob man” onesie and a “Your crib or mine?” bib.

We could argue over whether Hooters has a healthy impact on a kid’s developing view of women and sex, but I tend to think entertainment and dining decisions should be left up to individual parents. More important, that isn’t the issue at hand. In this case, NOW (which hasn’t always been a model of moderate thinking) has taken the exceedingly reasonable position that Hooters shouldn’t be allowed to have the best of both worlds: Either it functions exclusively as an adult venue, and continues to protect itself (somewhat) from sexual discrimination claims, or it’s held to the same standards as any ol’ family restaurant and gets to keep on serving the kiddies tater tots and creepy onesies.

Beating A Lame Duck

by Chris Bodenner

Despite the Dems' last-minute legislative wins, Pareene insists that the Senate is still broken:

First of all: All of these things should've been taken care of before the election. As Dave Weigel said, "twenty years ago, things like the food safety bill, which passed on a 75-23 vote, would not have been punted to the lame duck." There was no good reason — beyond Democratic infighting and incompetence — to delay the tax cut vote. (It might've been politically useful to hold a vote on the 9/11 first responders healthcare bill before the election too, come to think of it.) But nothing that passed was particularly controversial (not even "don't ask, don't tell") so all of it could've been taken care of long before a last-ditch lame duck. Before the days when every routine bit of legislation required 60 votes to even be considered, this entire lame duck docket could've been taken care of on some random week of the regular legislative session, with time enough left to confirm a few dozen uncontroversial presidential nominees.

John Judis is far more optimistic.

The View From Your Recession

by Conor Friedersdorf

In The Awl, Luke Mazer writes:

The worst kind of job interview is over the phone. Who calls whom? Is my phone working? What if a creditor calls at the same moment the interviewer tries? Will the call be bounced? Will the recruiter leave a message? If they don’t call right away, how long should I wait until I call them? Do I even understand how my phone works? Do I even understand how interviews work? Should I shave?

In-person interviews, at least, have rules. Brush your teeth. Don't swear. But phone interviews? Once, a recruiter called me five minutes before the time we had set the interview. This really rattled me: I hadn’t gone to the bathroom yet, or re-filled my water, so I’d have to do both while talking to her. But when I answered, she just asked if she could push back the interview until tomorrow. That I was great with, because interviews make me nervous, and why do today what you’re getting permission to do tomorrow? I still haven’t been offered the job. Maybe she just keeps re-scheduling the day she is supposed to call back?

The way to ace a phone interview is to take the call in a very epic location, CSI Miami style. Seaside peninsulas, the helicopter pads atop glass skyscrapers, and beneath the religious statue that towers over Rio De Janero are specific examples I recall. Assuming you get reception there, how could the majesty of your surroundings fail to fire you up?

Instead I've foolishly spent past phone interviews pacing in the driveway of my parents' house, because the reception inside is awful, only to have someone turn on the inevitable leaf blower, forcing me to negotiate the precise spot on the threshold of the front door that would minimize gardening noise but still maintain reception.

Paying The Experienced Hand Less, Ctd

by Patrick Appel

Continuing the thread, a reader writes:

I am a patent lawyer with a background in biochemistry. Most of the business people at my clients don't understand what I do, what the technology is that I am working on and generally look at us as being lawyers with "propeller" beanies on our heads and pocket protectors in our shirts. They can't judge me on what I actually do for them, generally, in the legal sense. No one can really judge the proficiency of my work product at the time it is delivered – it has to "bake" for many years before any actual decisions are reached at the US Patent Office. They can – however – judge how "good" something looks. Do I use correct grammar and punctuation? Do I use words that they can understand? Do I format my letters and applications in a clear manner that screams "organized and authoritative"?

They judge me not on what I obtain for them through my legal skills – they judge me as a copyrighter or a graphic designer. It is the hardest thing for me to teach my younger associates that they should spend as much time on their grammar and punctuation as they do on their legal research and brilliant legal positions. In the end – we get judged by our attention to detail more than our legal acumen.