To be honest, flag-motif t-shirts are kind of garish and not ‘real American’

I have no doubt I’m going to see more than my share of people Thursday clad in t-shirts bearing the red, white and blue colors – if not depictions of the U.S, flag itself.

A symbol of our national pride

To be honest, a part of me is going to be shuddering at the very sight.

BECAUSE I HONESTLY think that it’s kind of tacky and garish, if not quite unpatriotic, to have to see someone wearing the U.S, flag, particularly if they’ve let the image get all faded and wrinkly.

Or worse yet, if it’s a hot, humid summery-type day and they’re covered in sweat.

How disrespectful to the image of our nation to reduce it to an article of dirty laundry.

To be totally honest, I’d find it more respectful if they were to literally wrap themselves up in a real flag – which technically would be an act of desecration. U.S. flags are not to be used for clothing!

WHICH I’M SURE every single one of the ninnies who are going around on this Independence Day will be able to shout out at maximum volume to everyone who manages to offend their sensibilities of what is appropriate.

 

Bordering on skanky

When in reality, I’d argue it is their choice of attire that ought to be considered bordering on desecration.

And as far as any women who choose to wear a skimpy bikini in a pattern of the stars and stripes, all I’d have to say is that is nothing but skanky. How cheap to reduce a field of blue stars to the bikini bottom that covers up the part of her that prevents an arrest for indecent exposure from being made.

It never fails to amaze me whenever I walk into a clothing store of any type and see the assortment of red, white and blue themed shirts or articles of clothing. Meant to be sold to people who think they’re showing off just how “real” of Americans they truly are.

People most offended by sight of this … 

WHEN IN REALITY, I’d argue that they’re showing a level of gaudiness that probably illustrates just how little they truly comprehend what “patriotism” truly is and what “America” is truly all about.

The ones who probably think the day is solely about a summertime barbecue and watching a pyrotechnics display come the evening hours.

Or maybe you’ll get into a local municipal parade that is bound to have somebody clad as “Uncle Sam,” and probably far too many people wearing their “Make America Great Again” caps in bright red.

Which amuses me because I’m sure many of them are old enough to remember the meaning of the phrase “Better dead than red.” Now, they can’t get enough of the color.

BUT BACK TO the t-shirts, most of which are usually in patterns so tacky that I’d be embarrassed to wear one. Which is why I don’t actually own one.

The only red, white and blue banner I possess is an actual U.S. flag – which actually is one of those flags that is certified to have once flown over the Capitol building in Washington, D.C.

 

… might well be proud to wear this

Yes, I realize its moment of being the actual “Old Glory” on Capitol Hill may only have lasted a few seconds long. But it somehow seems like more of a legitimate gesture of patriotism than wearing a t-shirt being an assault rifle image superimposed over a U.S. flag. (No, I'm not kidding. You really can find them for sale on the Internet).

Even though I suspect the kind of people who’d actually wear such a shirt are probably the grand-children of the ones who, a half-century ago, got most offended when activist Abbie Hoffman wore his American flag motif shirt in public. Now, such a garment likely would only be worn by someone of the “far right.”

  -30-

A hoodie for Bobby? Or a different type of ‘hood’ for his political opponents?

I have to confess; I have never understood the difference between a “hoodie” and a hooded sweatshirt. As far as I can tell, they’re essentially the same thing – except that the “hoodie” will have some sort of brand name that retailers will use to justify charging significantly more money than just a regular sweatshirt.

RUSH: A revolutionary, again?

In fact, I view the idea of a “hoodie” the same way that a certain generation views the idea of drinking bottled water – why buy it from the store when you can get it “for free” (although not really) from the tap?

SO THE IDEA that the “hoodie” is now becoming some sort of symbol for justice and freedom from persecution is incredibly laughable to me, and the idea that it can be offensive to some is so pathetic.

Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., (who I must admit is my member of Congress) shows us that even though he has suffered a stroke and is 65, he still has a touch of that “revolutionary” spirit that once inspired him to wear a black beret and claim to be head of the Illinois chapter of the Black Panther Party.

For a really funny story, you should hear Rush himself explain to you just how he happened to come by that title.

But for a pathetic story, you should consider what happened to Rush when – on Wednesday – he chose to wear a “hoodie” on the floor of the House of Representatives while getting into the mood of making a speech in memoriam to Trayvon Martin – who was killed by a neighborhood-watch type in Sanford, Fla., last month while wearing a similar hood.

SOME MIGHT SAY that Rush’s actions were a lame gesture of protest. On a certain level, I’d agree. There’s nothing revolutionary about a “hoodie.” Particularly when pro basketball sensation (and local guy done good) Dwyane Wade can wear one on a basketball court last week and be regarded as "heroic."

Yet the political opposition certainly took it as revolutionary. It was Rep. Gregg Harper, R-Miss., who brought up the point of order that a hood was not a part of the official dress code of the House of Representatives. Although if you ever saw the way some political people dress,  you’d realize that a “hoodie” is far from a fashion offense.

HARPER; Matching the stereotype?



When Rush tried proceeding with his speech despite the Harper nonsense rhetoric, he ultimately got removed by force -- as in being escorted off as though he were some intruder, instead of a two-decade member.

What is it about a “hoodie,” which in a certain fashion sense looks stupid, that can get people so worked up? I ask that particularly since it seems that “hoodies” are truly a multi-racial garb of clothing. It’s not just a black “thing” any more. Anybody who seriously thinks of it in that way is being foolish. And I use that word deliberately.

FOR IF ANYONE is going to come across looking foolish because of this incident, it is Harper. It is such a gross over-reaction.

If anything, he has confirmed for all of us to see the concept that a certain segment of our society makes irrational assumptions when they see the “hoodie.”

This incident on Wednesday became something that will gain national notoriety because of Harper. Had he just kept his mouth shut and Rush had been allowed to continue his rhetorical ramblings, chances are this moment would have received no more than a few seconds of mention on a few broadcast news programs – before the public attention moved on. It might have even warranted a “Daily Show” laugh at Rush’s expense.

It certainly would not have become a moment that likely will gain significance in the Bobby Rush life story as a time when he stood up for the people and against irrationality and prejudice, and a reason for Jon Stewart to take off on Harper.

IF SOME PEOPLE have ideological hang-ups that will cause them to believe that Rush is forevermore a radical and subversive (and as one who lives in the Illinois First Congressional District, I am aware of the extent to which that attitude exists among a few of its residents), then I’d argue Harper played down to the stereotype of a Mississippi politician.

He certainly didn’t “do right” by the people who elected him to Capitol Hill.

He acted like a buffoon, and now we’re going to have to wonder what is wrong with the people of the Mississippi Third Congressional District that they would give this guy two terms in Congress – and likely a third after the Nov. 6 elections.

He turned what should have been a trivial, even laughable moment on Rush’s part into a controversy.

HE GOT ALL worked up over a hood, which I’ll be honest I don’t like to wear just because I don’t like the feel of it over my head (I don’t care much for hats, either, to tell the truth).

And for those who want to claim that the gesture Rush was trying to make by wearing a “hoodie” is somehow offensive to those with a law-and-order mentality, at least I’d say he was wearing his hood in public.

Unlike certain other people who have served in the House of Representatives during its history who chose to wear their “hoods” (you know what I mean) after hours in the presence of a lit cross when they thought nobody was watching.

  -30-

Being cautious? Or careless?

There are times when I’m not sure whether to think that our government officials are being cautious and protective of the tax dollars they’re spending – or if their unwillingness to rush into something is just evidence that they don’t have a clue as to what they’re talking about.

That was definitely the impression I gained Tuesday from watching the Cook County Board in action.

THE ISSUE OF the moment was approving an item that would have allowed the county to seek bids for, “the purchase of uniforms and clothing for various county departments.”

When I first read that on an agenda, my gut reaction was to wonder, “What departments?!?”

So it was with a jolt of excitement that I heard county board member Deborah Sims start off debate on this issue by asking the very blunt, and straightforward, question.

“What departments are we talking about?”

GEE. A GOVERNMENT official wanting to have a clue as to what is going on. In fact, a government official refusing to just cast a knee-jerk vote in favor of something – even though it really was just a procedural step in the whole purchasing process.

But before you start using e-mail to send me all your horror stories about Sims and her past government actions, this commentary isn’t about to become a piece praising the county board member from the Far South Side and surrounding suburbs.

In fact, it’s not a piece that will make anyone happy – except for maybe the malcontents who like to complain about government and get their joy from watching our public officials screw things up.

I don’t, because I realize it ultimately harms our interests and reflects badly upon us. After all, we voted for Sims and all the other members of the Cook County Board. Her gaffes are our gaffes.

WHAT ENSUED IN response to Sims’ question was a back-and-forth in which the bureaucrats who handle government purchases for the county government tried to avoid giving a direct answer.

“Various departments” was the initial response. Upon some pushing by Sims, one such department was identified as the sheriff’s police.

Which led to some confusion since the sheriff’s deputies and other law enforcement personnel are required to purchase their own uniforms – with eventual reimbursement for their expenses, provided they don’t get carried away with their sartorial demands.

After much more squabbling, it eventually came out that what was being considered here were those deliberately-hideous jump suits that inmates at the Cook County Jail and other facilities are required to wear so that they stand out in a crowd of people.

WHAT THIS IS about is seeking bids from companies to sell the county the khaki clothing that inmates must wear.

But county purchasing agent Maria de Lourdes Coss said, “we do not want to limit it,” because there’s also the chance that they may include bids for uniforms worn by the civilian personnel who work for the sheriff – such as the janitorial staff.

It was a lot of squabbling over what should have been a very straightforward issue. We do, after all, have to clothe those inmates while they are in the custody of the county. It’s one of those dreaded, but very necessary, expenses.

And Sims was legitimate in her indignation upon finally being given a straight answer, saying of the written description provided to county officials, “this doesn’t tell us anything,” adding later, “you’re not telling us who these departments are.”

AGREEING WITH HER was county board member Robert Steele, who said, “we want to be quite aware of what we’re voting on.”

In fact, Sims at one point tried to postpone a vote on this measure (which is just about seeking the bids, it’s not about actually awarding a contract) until a future meeting.

Yet that is where Sims goes from being the good-government aggressive-type to being the official who probably didn’t have a clue what she was being told.

Because when she was finally given the explanation, she ultimately voted for the measure to seek bids – even though she admits she’s still upset about the lack of details provided.

“I THINK THEY should give us a better explanation, but this will suffice for today,” she said in backing the measure. Was this just a backing-down to cover up her confusion? It sure seems that way.

So in the end, the routine measure got a routine vote of support – everybody said “aye.” If anybody opposed this measure – which seeks bids for a one-year contract to sell the county inmate uniforms, with three one-year renewal options – they kept it to themselves.

Which in the end means this was county business, as usual.

That may be the real key to comprehending the way government at any level operates. Something does not have to be illegal in order to be bad. Sometimes, it’s the most innocuous moments that are the most cheesy in character.

  -30-

When is a U.S. flag shirt disrespectful? And when is it just downright tacky!

I couldn’t help but think of the late Yippie activist Abbie Hoffman on Sunday. It’s too bad he’s no longer on this planet, because I can’t help but wonder what kind of racket he would have tried to stir up in response to the past few days.

I’m referring, of course, to the national frenzy by which we all try to pay tribute to the memory of what happened a decade ago at the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon.

IT CREATES THE mood in which the conservative ideologues who most thought of Hoffman as a subversive element are in their element – being able to demonize their opposition and wrap themselves in “the flag.”

Literally, it seems.

Because in the course of my work on Sunday, I covered a few events that were tributes to the misery of Sept. 11, 2001, I couldn’t help but notice how many people came dressed up in their “flag” shirts.

I don’t just mean a t-shirt with a U.S. flag logo printed somewhere on it. I’m talking entire shirts meant to make it look like someone was wrapped in a banner.

ONE OF THE several incidents in his lifetime that made Hoffman a controversial character was a time he wore a proper, button-down long-sleeved shirt made in the motif of the U.S. flag.

The far right denounced him for doing that – saying he was desecrating the flag; literally. There were those who tried to see if they could have him prosecuted for violating the federal laws that prohibit flag mutilation.

Now, some four-plus decades later, a shirt with a flag on it seems so routine. I literally saw people who think a flag shirt is appropriate attire to attend a Sunday church service.

I must admit to being caught off-guard. Something about using the symbol of the flag and all it represents seemed a bit inappropriate.

THEN AGAIN, MAYBE what really left me disgusted was the fact that the bulk of the men who persisted in wearing their “flag” shirts had beer bellies – making it look as though the “stars and stripes” was pregnant and about to give birth to a miniature flag that a child would wave during a parade.

Or perhaps those flag pins that so many political people persist in wearing in the lapels of their suit jackets.

Would Hoffman and his once-controversial attire now completely fit in during the 21^st Century? Or was all the past rhetoric about Abbie all a bunch of nonsense that should never have been taken seriously?

I am keeping in mind that many of these men who wore those flag shirts on Sunday were of a certain age that they would remember first-hand the racket that arose when Abbie wore his shirt.

SO PERHAPS FLAG shirts have merely come of age.

Then again, I suspect that the people who wore those shirts on Sunday were not among Hoffman’s allies back in the 1960s. They may well have been the types who still go around complaining about “damn hippies” whenever they see anything that isn’t exactly like themselves.

So I don’t really know what to think.

Personally, I would rarely be inclined to wear a flag shirt – mostly because I have a tendency to sweat profusely in anything even close to resembling warm weather.

GOING AROUND IN public in a sweat-soaked shirt would strike me as being disrespectful to the image of the U.S. flag. Then again, we’re casual enough today that a sweat-soaked flag wouldn’t have been the tackiest image in existence.

Scouring around the Internet, I literally found flag shirts designed for women in which the stars and stripes are printed in a pattern meant to accentuate the female bosom. The Jessica Simpson collection, I believe.

And as for men, too many of the shirts on the market these days would make me want play “drill sergeant’ and test their wearers to see if they ever served in the military.

“Suck in that gut! You’re disgracing the flag!!!!!!!”

  -30-

“Hicks in suits?” Blagojevich may be proof

I remember one of my former reporter-type counterparts who, when in one of his pissy, denigrative moods, decided to bad-mouth Chicago by saying the Second City was nothing more than a batch of “hicks in suits.”

“They dress a little nicer, but aren’t any different from the rest of the Midwest,” this person told me.

AT THE TIME, I wrote off his comment, based in part on the fact that he was a native of the St. Louis metropolitan area, which I figured put him too close to people of a Southern mentality to know any better.

But now, I hear all about now-impeached Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s wardrobe and the money he spent on fine clothes for himself and for first lady Patti Blagojevich, and I can’t help but think if my “pal” (whom I haven’t seen in over a decade) may have been on to something.

Personally, I always took Blagojevich’s very vocal love of Elvis Presley as evidence that his tastes didn’t exactly make him the most sophisticated of people. I would have thought with that hair that he was a “Beatles person” at heart.

But it did come as a shock to me to learn that the Blagojevich wardrobe had so much thought put into it.

BECAUSE MY DEALINGS with Blagojevich never gave me the impression of someone who considered himself a “beau brummel.” If anything, his physical appearance made me think more of someone who had moved up from wanting to be clad in denim and sweatshirts all the time to someone who didn’t completely mind wearing a tie.

Not that the ties I remember seeing him in appeared to be all that special. I wouldn’t have figured them for something bought at a gas station. But I truly was shocked by recent news reports that told of just how much money had been spent on them.

If anything, the Blagojevich I remember had the same appearance as many other local politicos – trying to dress a part that their personalities never were truly cut out for.

I realize that part of the key to being truly fashionable is not to be gaudy – which is a mistake that many people working their way up the economic ladder make. Flash is not synonymous with good taste.

TRUE FASHION OUGHT to be more along the line of clean and presentable, rather than garish. Illinois’ former governor always looked more nondescript, other than his hair – which was garish.

Blagojevich, in appearance, always struck me as someone who had moved up one step from the type of person who looked like an unmade bed, no matter what he wore. I would think that for the kind of money he was spending on his wardrobe, he would have moved several notches above that level.

Then again, perhaps some people just have their innate sensibility come through regardless of what they wear.

What brought up all this wardrobe speculation was the fact that federal prosecutors looking to put Blagojevich away in prison managed to bring it out during testimony in his government corruption trial about the nearly $400,000 (about half of his take-home pay for the six-year period he was governor) that was spent on clothes for Illinois’ one-time first couple.

IT WAS MEANT to make Blagojevich appear to be out of control, and out of touch with people who have to work for a living for incomes that would never allow them to afford certain brands of clothing, particularly the Oxxford suits that appear to have been Milorod’s preference. (A personal disclosure: my suits and jackets came from either “The Mens Warehouse” or “Burlington Coat Factory”).

I agree with those who claim that it truly is irrelevant, and is little more than a cheap trick on the part of the prosecution. Make certain elements that already are petty enough to want to dump on Blagojevich for any reason possible get all envious of his clothes, and it makes them even more willing to suspect that he must have done something wrong.

It is not a crime to dress well, or spend excessive amounts of one’s on-hand cash on their wardrobe. I wish this were a fact that could be ignored, although some people are bound to be influenced by it.

What gets to me is the way Blagojevich is taking all this.

HE SEEMS TO be proud of the fact that the fancy status of his wardrobe is now public information. How else to explain his wisecracks to reporter-types covering his trial, asking them on Tuesday “how’s the suit?”

I guess he figures now we know he was a fashionable high-roller, even though many of us never would have guessed it merely by looking at him. The Blagojevich persona managed to overcome the appearance. We knew we weren’t in the presence of a true fashion palate.

If anything, we sensed that we were in the presence for a few years of the ultimate Elvis-loving “hick” in a suit.

-30-