And now, a recessionista moment.

I've been thinking about doing this for a while but this article in the Times pushed me. I've been doing the second hand thing for a long time, not so much because I have to but because it's always been a favorite sport of mine. "See what I got? Guess what I paid?" It doesn't have to be second hand, necessarily, I get the same satisfaction from a good sale. From the number of people telling me how put-together I look, I'll assume that no one would assume that I'm getting this stuff practically for nothing. So let's run down the look on this random Monday:
Banana Republic wool v-neck, bought second-hand, $4.99
Theory french-cuff shirt, bought second-hand, $7.99
J.Crew lined wool pants, bought second-hand, $8.99
Gap leather belt, bought second-hand, 1.99
Silver and gold fleur de lis cufflinks, bought second-hand, $1.00
Christian Louboutin shoes, $415 reduced to $40 at the Barney's Warehouse Sale 5 years ago.

This recessionista moment has been brought to you by the shitty economy.

Et tu, Bill Cunningham?

If a picture's worth a thousand words, then why, oh, why does the Times insist on doing these god-awful "audio slide shows?" I can barely stand to read the articles, what with the sloppy writing and editing and typos all over the place (of course, I'm talking about the online edition. I wouldn't blacken my fingers with the actual paper copy), what makes them think that I want to hear their reporters uh-ing and um-img their way through a story?

Saturday mornings I rush to the Fashion and Style section to see Bill Cunningham's "On the Street" column, a collection of photos of whatever fashion trend he's seen a lot of in the past week. Now they've fouled that up by turning it into a "multimedia feature," having Mr. Cunningham narrate the slide show. It's a slide show! I want to see the pictures, and I don't need someone, not even Bill Cunningham, who I love, telling me that what I'm looking at are weird and really unflattering pants.