The Gray Lady (heh!) this morning runs a full column on how her attire may affect her outcomes, at trial. R-i-i-i-i-i-i-ght.
Me? I think she's guilty -- with a diaper bag, in court -- or with a Hermès bag, out of it.
Here's that truly trivial bit -- from the pages of the NYT:
. . .By the time opening arguments began in September, the new look had been perfected: a no-name skirt suit (or dress and jacket or pantsuit) in a color so banal as to practically fade into the background. Her hair was set in loose waves around her face, like Christie Brinkley or a contestant on “The Bachelor.” Her face masks were light blue and green — the colors of nature. There was not a power heel or a power shoulder in sight. The only part of her outfit that was branded in any way was her diaper bag backpack (her son was born in July), which was from Freshly Picked and costs around $175.
That’s not cheap, but it’s nothing like the Hermès bag Martha Stewart carried during her 2004 trial for insider trading, which prompted let-them-eat-cake comparisons and became a classic example of what not to wear to court -- especially when you are charged with mishandling funds. (On the other hand, when Cardi B appeared in court with her Hermès to reject a plea deal in a misdemeanor assault case, the high-end bag served as a symbolic riposte to the idea that the rapper was a street brawler.)
The net effect of Ms. Holmes’s makeover was middle manager or backup secretarial character in a streaming series about masters of the universe (but not her! uh-uh), with the diaper bag functioning as an implicit reminder of her maternal status. . . .
Now. . . smiling. . . bring me. . . that guilty verdict -- on all counts, for an early Christmas present, to honor justice!
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment