As IF Times

link Hoodies evolution from fashion mainstay to symbol of injustice – CNN.com.

People can say what they want, but appearance counts.  It’s amazing how people still think that their manner of dress expresses their ‘individuality’, when in reality, it is the exact opposite.  For most people, what they wear is mainly a function of how they wish to fit into mainstream society, or at least to the subgroup that they find important to them.  In other words, it’s all about individuality…in a me too kind of way.

The entire foundation of the fashion industry is predicated upon the notion that the consumer is a ‘certain kind of person’ if only they wore that particular company’s goods.  They base their message on the universal frailty that is human insecurity.  Fashion is seldom about utility, it is always about conveying an implied message to others.  Let’s face it, if it was about utility, we’d all be wearing togas.

Instead we have millions of people willing to pay sometimes hundreds of dollars to buy …jeans.   As if wearing a $300 pair of jeans will confer to the wearer any more prestige than would a $20 pair of Costco jeans.   What it really says is that someone is dumb enough to pay $300 for some cotton denim that a laborer in a third world country made for $2.  The same applies to running shoes.  We see instances of kids who can’t possibly afford the latest Nikes but somehow manage to get them.

The ubiquitous hoodie has come into the spotlight recently because of events surrounding the shooting of a teen in Florida.  All of a sudden, the wearing of a hoodie is a political statement, even more than it was before.   Hoodies have been around for quite a while, long having been the favorite garb of monks.  Monks were supposed to be ascetics, so by definition, their clothing had to be the simplest of garb.  The hood served a couple of purposes: one, it eliminated the necessity of wearing hats, an extra cost item and two, monks tended to live in colder climates so a hood was useful to keep off the damp cold.

In the past 20 years, despite the onset of global warming, the hoodie has become quite the fashion item, found in the closets of probably most people, especially the younger crowd.  No doubt, the popularity of this ‘half snuggli’ has been pushed by many in the entertainment space who are often seen wearing them in their delightful music videos.   And because their artistic heroes wear them, the fan base emulates them as well.  This is all fine and makes sense unless you happen to not live in Detroit, Chicago or New York.  In places like Florida or LA for example, wearing a hoodie is as practical as a fur parka.

Instead, it’s a fashion statement much like wearing a ball cap sideways or pants below crack level.  It implies membership in a culture that glorifies all that is associated with that manner of dress.  Sixty years ago, this would have been the black leather bike jacket as kids identified with the outlaw persona of Brando or Dean.  Without question wearing a black bike jacket was meant to convey a message to others, that you were somehow this outlaw guy, a message that is of course desired by the wearer.   Similarly today, unless you’re a monk, wearing a hoodie with the hood pulled over your head is not just a fashion statement, it’s a message sent to others about who you are and your values.

Unfortunately, that manner of wearing hoodies is popular among bank robbers, gangsta rappas and other unsavory types.   So when otherwise normal kids copy that style, they are unwittingly lumping themselves in with this group.  Like it or not, the wearing of head covered hoodies has negative associations in our society.  They may as well be wearing striped crew necked shirts with eyemasks like the Hamburgler.  It has nothing to do with freedom of attire.  It has everything to do with identifying yourself as part of a segment of popular culture.   Unfortunately, this particular aspect of popular culture carries with it connotations of thuggery, no different than a mohawk haircut.

You can’t tell people what to wear, but people should not complain if what they choose to wear elicits responses from others that are not sympathetic.  People have the right to appear unsociable and all gangsta, but it’s axiomatic that others have the right to treat them appropriately as well.  If you don’t want to be chased by cats, don’t dress like a rat.

link More than half of Americans back Obamas Koran apology | Reuters.

When you first read this headline, the natural response is, HUH??  That is until you read further into the article and find out that sample size is a whopping 1143 people…online.  That’s not even a population size large enough to cover Sandra Fluke’s activities at Georgetown.  The average person will not figure this out.  The headline will stick with them and before you know it, the narrative is that half of the population of over 300 million people in the U.S. are supportive of Obama’s apology for the burning of someone’s religious books.   This is the same crazed logic that brought us Climate Change, (nee Global Warming) because someone thought some penguins were missing.

Reuters has not historically been a dubious news source, but when they print outright laughers like this story, it casts skepticism on all of their news stories.  It is unclear when they made the decision to move into the tabloid business.  I guess this particular headline sells more than “Insignificant sample of online geeks think Obama apology is a good idea”.   This headline is the political equivalent of a “Lindsay Lohan Goes Wild” story in the entertainment hype pages.  This so called conclusion cannot even be characterized as a leap of logic, it more closely resembles someone being fired from a cannon into the next county logic.

If statistics are to be deployed in support of some conclusion, then the authors should at least be bright enough to use some valid ones.   Or at least have more respect for the intelligence of their readers.   Interestingly enough, during the 2008 Presidential election, a convincing 96% of Black voters pulled the lever for Obama according to Politico.   This same survey showed that 54% of young white voters also voted for Obama.  To this day, many will deny that these statistics are any indication of racially influenced voting.  I suppose there’s always that 4%.  This same leap of logic is being used to characterize the Occupy Wall Street crowd as the “99%”, a narrative that some math challenged people actually buy.

We conclude then, that journalism schools do not have a mandatory introductory course on statistics as part of their curriculum.   If ‘journalists’ insist on quoting statistics to support their arguments, this should be a minimum requirement.  Otherwise, just stick to telling stories using creative writing skills.  At the very least, there should be disclaimers at the end of stories similar to what you see attached to the end of pharmaceutical commercials wherein all the possible risks are listed.  In the case of news stories, they can say something like, ” statistics quoted may or may not have any connection to the intended conclusion, they are only added to imply validity”.