[FairfieldLife] Re: Saturday Night In Sitges
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: I just returned from a most instructive pre-dinner drink with a friend before having dinner later with several other friends. My friend is married, and is really just a friend. She's one of those women who are attractive from the inside out, whatever she is wearing and whether she has makeup on or not. And believe me, I'm one of those guys who knows how much of a woman's beauty is due to makeup and the clothes she's wearing, and how much is not. As chance would have it, we sat at a cafe table next to one 50ish American woman and two 60+ American women, and both of us found our conversation segueing into eavesdropping as we listened to what they were saying. They were discussing the news of the day, which on this particular newsday, involved the fact that Sarah Palin has spent $150,000 on clothes and another $11,400 per week on makeup. None of the three women were in any way upset about this. They seemed to think, in fact that it was completely acceptable. And one of them even put voice to WHY. She said, Hey, if I had that much money to spend on clothes and makeup, I'd look attractive, too. Her friends agreed wholeheartedly. They were wrong. Speaking as a man, but with the complete agreement of my woman friend, no amount of money could make any of the three of these women attractive. No amount of money could hide what they are inside. The same is true for Sarah Palin. so are you making a play for the married one? You arrived here too late to meet Edg. You would have liked him -- the two of you have similarly-limited views of two people talking and appreciating each other's company. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saturday Night In Sitges
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: I just returned from a most instructive pre-dinner drink with a friend before having dinner later with several other friends. My friend is married, and is really just a friend. She's one of those women who are attractive from the inside out, whatever she is wearing and whether she has makeup on or not. And believe me, I'm one of those guys who knows how much of a woman's beauty is due to makeup and the clothes she's wearing, and how much is not. As chance would have it, we sat at a cafe table next to one 50ish American woman and two 60+ American women, and both of us found our conversation segueing into eavesdropping as we listened to what they were saying. They were discussing the news of the day, which on this particular newsday, involved the fact that Sarah Palin has spent $150,000 on clothes and another $11,400 per week on makeup. None of the three women were in any way upset about this. They seemed to think, in fact that it was completely acceptable. And one of them even put voice to WHY. She said, Hey, if I had that much money to spend on clothes and makeup, I'd look attractive, too. Her friends agreed wholeheartedly. They were wrong. Speaking as a man, but with the complete agreement of my woman friend, no amount of money could make any of the three of these women attractive. No amount of money could hide what they are inside. The same is true for Sarah Palin. so are you making a play for the married one? You arrived here too late to meet Edg. You would have liked him -- the two of you have similarly-limited views of two people talking and appreciating each other's company. :-) you are reading more into it than I intended- just asking a question.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saturday Night In Sitges
Just a few more instructive drinks post-dinner and the 60-something wenches will look just fine! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: I just returned from a most instructive pre-dinner drink with a friend before having dinner later with several other friends. My friend is married, and is really just a friend. She's one of those women who are attractive from the inside out, whatever she is wearing and whether she has makeup on or not. And believe me, I'm one of those guys who knows how much of a woman's beauty is due to makeup and the clothes she's wearing, and how much is not. As chance would have it, we sat at a cafe table next to one 50ish American woman and two 60+ American women, and both of us found our conversation segueing into eavesdropping as we listened to what they were saying. They were discussing the news of the day, which on this particular newsday, involved the fact that Sarah Palin has spent $150,000 on clothes and another $11,400 per week on makeup. None of the three women were in any way upset about this. They seemed to think, in fact that it was completely acceptable. And one of them even put voice to WHY. She said, Hey, if I had that much money to spend on clothes and makeup, I'd look attractive, too. Her friends agreed wholeheartedly. They were wrong. Speaking as a man, but with the complete agreement of my woman friend, no amount of money could make any of the three of these women attractive. No amount of money could hide what they are inside. The same is true for Sarah Palin. so are you making a play for the married one?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saturday Night In Sitges
Trig got in on the fashion orgy too: Other purchases by the R.N.C. included $98 from Pacifier, a children's boutique in Minneapolis. Hours before Ms. Palin was to speak at the convention on Sept. 3, a woman burst into the store, said Jon Witthuhn, an owner. After she said she needed something for a 6-month-old boy and was doing shopping related to the convention, it began to dawn on him that he might be outfitting Trig Palin, Ms. Palin's youngest. The woman paid for a blue striped convertible romper, a matching monkey-ear hat and socks. Trig Palin appeared on television that night wearing the outfit without the hat. She probably gave the monkey ear hat to one of her supporters who show up at her rallies with stuffed monkeys with Obama pins on them. -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 25, 2008, at 3:36 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: For the first two weeks in October, Sarah Palin's makeup artist was paid $22,800, which officially makes her the highest-paid person on John McCain's staff: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/24/palins-makeup-artist-is- m_n_137513.html Well that sure puts the lie to the whole average or typical (or whatever it was) Wal-Mart Mom, now, doesn't it? Joan Walsh puts all this nonsense beautifully in perspective: The huge sum spent perfecting the already beautiful Palin for the cameras is the less disturbing of the two stories, but I would disagree with some of my Broadsheet colleagues: I think it's a valid topic for reporting, analysis and criticism. It shows the insanely screwy priorities of the McCain campaign. Sarah Palin didn't need the best clothing and stylists money could buy; she needed tutoring and coaching on the issues. (She also needed more vetting in August, and what she really needed was to stay as the governor of Alaska, but we won't go there.) Then there's the class hypocrisy -- the so-called Wal-Mart mom shopping at Neiman Marcus, spending more on clothes in a few days than most women spend in their adult lifetimes. The fact that the highest paid staffer on the troubled McCain team this month is Palin's makeup person is also ludicrous; you can't make this stuff up. No, you can't. http://tinyurl.com/5mbr39 Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saturday Night In Sitges
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip For the first two weeks in October, Sarah Palin's makeup artist was paid $22,800, which officially makes her the highest-paid person on John McCain's staff: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/24/palins-makeup-artist-is- m_n_137513.html What's fascinating is that if a similar cost were found for Hillary Clinton's makeup person, we all know who on this forum would say that it was completely justified. Gee, Barry, that librul New York Times says it's justified *for Palin*: The Caucus The New York Times Political Blog October 24, 2008, 3:43 pm To Look Good, How Much Is Too Much? By Allen Salkin The news that the McCain/Palin campaign spent tens of thousands of dollars on hair-styling and makeup for Sarah Palin may be raising some eyebrows. But experts in the beauty industry say that the $55,000 for about a month of hair-styling and makeup is not unusual if one is an A-list Hollywood celebrity attending a series of red carpet premieres (and the rigors of the campaign trail can be even more demanding.) The campaign finance filings show payments in September and October totaling $36,000 to a traveling makeup artist, Amy Strozzi, and about $19,000 to a traveling hair stylist, Angela Lew. This is what Gwyneth Paltrow would pay if she was doing a junket or going to the Cannes film festival, said Linda Wells, editor in chief of Allure magazine. Bobbi Brown, a prominent makeup artist and cosmetics mogul, said she charges celebrities a $5,000 day-rate [that would make it $70,000 for two weeks, compared to $22,000 for Strozzi--JS] but has never done a long traveling stint. Ms. Brown said the amount Ms. Strozzi is being paid is not surprising. It's a lot but it's what high end artists get paid in the fashion industry. The politics business is new territory for them. There haven't been a lot of women running for high office and it's important how they look, Ms. Brown said. It is really unfair to talk about how women pay too much attention to their clothes or their makeup. Men just put on a suit and shave and they are ready to go. Women really do need to spend time getting their makeup on, and getting the right clothes. The media is very judgmental. It's important to have your best look http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/to-look-good-how-much- is-too-much/ http://tinyurl.com/5fvjmh What's also fascinating is that grown women can actually believe that makeup hides who they are. What's much *more* fascinating--not to mention revealing--is that this is why Barry thinks women wear makeup.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saturday Night In Sitges
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 25, 2008, at 10:57 PM, sparaig wrote: $11,400 is probably for the makeup artist to apply the makeup. IIRC, McCain's cost several thousand$ per gig. I'm guessing they've spent so much on the outside of her head because trying to improve what's inside is obviously pointless. Sal Sal, you're just jealous because she's more beautiful than you are: Sarah Palin Sal Sunshine
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saturday Night In Sitges
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just returned from a most instructive pre-dinner drink with a friend before having dinner later with several other friends. My friend is married, and is really just a friend. She's one of those women who are attractive from the inside out, whatever she is wearing and whether she has makeup on or not. And believe me, I'm one of those guys who knows how much of a woman's beauty is due to makeup and the clothes she's wearing, and how much is not. As chance would have it, we sat at a cafe table next to one 50ish American woman and two 60+ American women, and both of us found our conversation segueing into eavesdropping as we listened to what they were saying. They were discussing the news of the day, which on this particular newsday, involved the fact that Sarah Palin has spent $150,000 on clothes and another $11,400 per week on makeup. None of the three women were in any way upset about this. They seemed to think, in fact that it was completely acceptable. And one of them even put voice to WHY. She said, Hey, if I had that much money to spend on clothes and makeup, I'd look attractive, too. Her friends agreed wholeheartedly. They were wrong. Speaking as a man, but with the complete agreement of my woman friend, no amount of money could make any of the three of these women attractive. No amount of money could hide what they are inside. The same is true for Sarah Palin. so are you making a play for the married one?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saturday Night In Sitges
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As chance would have it, we sat at a cafe table next to one 50ish American woman and two 60+ American women, and both of us found our conversation segueing into eavesdropping as we listened to what they were saying. They were discussing the news of the day, which on this particular newsday, involved the fact that Sarah Palin has spent $150,000 on clothes and another $11,400 per week on makeup. Per *week*?? Come on, Barry, that last figure has to be a misprint. What the hell does she do, take a bath in it? None of the three women were in any way upset about this. They seemed to think, in fact that it was completely acceptable. And one of them even put voice to WHY. Figures. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saturday Night In Sitges
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sallysunshine01 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: As chance would have it, we sat at a cafe table next to one 50ish American woman and two 60+ American women, and both of us found our conversation segueing into eavesdropping as we listened to what they were saying. They were discussing the news of the day, which on this particular newsday, involved the fact that Sarah Palin has spent $150,000 on clothes and another $11,400 per week on makeup. Per *week*?? Come on, Barry, that last figure has to be a misprint. What the hell does she do, take a bath in it? That's what the woman hired to *do* her makeup was paid by the campaign for the first two weeks of October, not what the makeup itself cost. Just another attempt by Barry to mislead readers. Oh, and *Palin* didn't spend $150,000 on clothing; the RNC did.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saturday Night In Sitges
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sallysunshine01 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: As chance would have it, we sat at a cafe table next to one 50ish American woman and two 60+ American women, and both of us found our conversation segueing into eavesdropping as we listened to what they were saying. They were discussing the news of the day, which on this particular newsday, involved the fact that Sarah Palin has spent $150,000 on clothes and another $11,400 per week on makeup. Per *week*?? Come on, Barry, that last figure has to be a misprint. What the hell does she do, take a bath in it? For the first two weeks in October, Sarah Palin's makeup artist was paid $22,800, which officially makes her the highest-paid person on John McCain's staff: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/24/palins-makeup-artist-is-m_n_137513.html None of the three women were in any way upset about this. They seemed to think, in fact that it was completely acceptable. And one of them even put voice to WHY. Figures. It figured, given these women. My friend, who is also American but who is living in Spain married to a French man, made me get up and leave so that we didn't have to overhear anything more that they said. She said, Americans like that make me feel ashamed of being American. When I agreed, she followed up with, Women like that make me ashamed of being a woman. This is why she's my friend.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saturday Night In Sitges
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sallysunshine01 salsunshine@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: As chance would have it, we sat at a cafe table next to one 50ish American woman and two 60+ American women, and both of us found our conversation segueing into eavesdropping as we listened to what they were saying. They were discussing the news of the day, which on this particular newsday, involved the fact that Sarah Palin has spent $150,000 on clothes and another $11,400 per week on makeup. Per *week*?? Come on, Barry, that last figure has to be a misprint. What the hell does she do, take a bath in it? For the first two weeks in October, Sarah Palin's makeup artist was paid $22,800, which officially makes her the highest-paid person on John McCain's staff: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/24/palins-makeup-artist-is-m_n_137513.html What's fascinating is that if a similar cost were found for Hillary Clinton's makeup person, we all know who on this forum would say that it was completely justified. What's also fascinating is that grown women can actually believe that makeup hides who they are.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saturday Night In Sitges
On Oct 25, 2008, at 3:36 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: For the first two weeks in October, Sarah Palin's makeup artist was paid $22,800, which officially makes her the highest-paid person on John McCain's staff: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/24/palins-makeup-artist-is- m_n_137513.html Well that sure puts the lie to the whole average or typical (or whatever it was) Wal-Mart Mom, now, doesn't it? Joan Walsh puts all this nonsense beautifully in perspective: The huge sum spent perfecting the already beautiful Palin for the cameras is the less disturbing of the two stories, but I would disagree with some of my Broadsheet colleagues: I think it's a valid topic for reporting, analysis and criticism. It shows the insanely screwy priorities of the McCain campaign. Sarah Palin didn't need the best clothing and stylists money could buy; she needed tutoring and coaching on the issues. (She also needed more vetting in August, and what she really needed was to stay as the governor of Alaska, but we won't go there.) Then there's the class hypocrisy -- the so-called Wal-Mart mom shopping at Neiman Marcus, spending more on clothes in a few days than most women spend in their adult lifetimes. The fact that the highest paid staffer on the troubled McCain team this month is Palin's makeup person is also ludicrous; you can't make this stuff up. No, you can't. http://tinyurl.com/5mbr39 Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saturday Night In Sitges
On Oct 25, 2008, at 3:43 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: What's fascinating is that if a similar cost were found for Hillary Clinton's makeup person, we all know who on this forum would say that it was completely justified. Just imagine if Michelle Obama, or Biden's wife, had spent a similar amount--or even a greatly reduced one? Can you just hear the Repug chorus? Remember what they did to John Edwards 4 years ago with his haircut...and that was only about 3-4 hundred. A lot, yes, but a pittance by comparison. What's also fascinating is that grown women can actually believe that makeup hides who they are. Well, we're *hoping* it can... Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saturday Night In Sitges
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 25, 2008, at 3:43 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: What's fascinating is that if a similar cost were found for Hillary Clinton's makeup person, we all know who on this forum would say that it was completely justified. Just imagine if Michelle Obama, or Biden's wife, had spent a similar amount--or even a greatly reduced one? One hopes it would be greatly reduced, since they're not, you know, candidates. Can you just hear the Repug chorus? Think it would sound anything like the Democratic chorus currently dumping on Palin? (Sal's afraid to read my posts, so she didn't see the NYTimes article pointing out that it was a reasonable expense for a candidate.) Remember what they did to John Edwards 4 years ago with his haircut...and that was only about 3-4 hundred. Actually that was at least as much the media as it was the Republicans.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saturday Night In Sitges
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sallysunshine01 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: As chance would have it, we sat at a cafe table next to one 50ish American woman and two 60+ American women, and both of us found our conversation segueing into eavesdropping as we listened to what they were saying. They were discussing the news of the day, which on this particular newsday, involved the fact that Sarah Palin has spent $150,000 on clothes and another $11,400 per week on makeup. Per *week*?? Come on, Barry, that last figure has to be a misprint. What the hell does she do, take a bath in it? None of the three women were in any way upset about this. They seemed to think, in fact that it was completely acceptable. And one of them even put voice to WHY. Figures. $11,400 is probably for the makeup artist to apply the makeup. IIRC, McCain's cost several thousand$ per gig. Lawson
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saturday Night In Sitges
On Oct 25, 2008, at 10:57 PM, sparaig wrote: $11,400 is probably for the makeup artist to apply the makeup. IIRC, McCain's cost several thousand$ per gig. I'm guessing they've spent so much on the outside of her head because trying to improve what's inside is obviously pointless. Sal
