
White House Unbuttons Formal Dress Code - peter123
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29whitehouse.html?_r=1
======
abstractbill
_"I had on khakis and a buttoned-down shirt, and I had to stand by the door
and get chewed out for about 15 minutes. He wouldn’t even let me cross the
threshold."_

We try pretty hard at Justin.TV not to do things that aren't worth our time,
so this really jumped out at me. The (former) _president_ spent 15 minutes of
his valuable time giving someone a lecture on what to wear?!

~~~
redrobot5050
On a saturday, no less. :)

I think the suit-and-tie thing goes back to the neo-conservative's "Turn Back
The Clock 30 years" aspect of their movement. While today most companies don't
care if you're in Khakis and a button down unless you're in front of TV
cameras and/or clients, and most CEOs are aware that workers in casual dress
are productive (or so i've heard).

Bottomline: 30/40 years ago, before women's rights/civil rights/gay rights/gun
regulation, you'd wear a suit if you were going to the White house. Period.

Thank goodness we have a much more modern CEO of the US gov, now. He's at put
sensibility over tradition in some respect.

~~~
sh1mmer
You have clearly never had a maid to do all your laundry, ironing, etc ;)

Seriously though as someone who went to a high-school where a shirt, suit and
tie was mandatory the theory is it inspires a certain kind of behavior. If you
are in formal-ware then it's a sign you are working. You change when you get
home.

Personally I don't buy it though and now I work in the internet industry so I
don't have to, awesome.

------
tdavis
I never thought I'd say this, but... the President seems kinda cool.

~~~
Erwin
Last year, reddit explored just how cool Obama could get:
[http://blogs.sun.com/kevin/entry/cool_cooler_coolest_and_bey...](http://blogs.sun.com/kevin/entry/cool_cooler_coolest_and_beyond)

~~~
tdavis
Yes, the "Coolest-est" entry has made me laugh countless times. Every time I
see it: still awesome!

------
inovica
As someone from the UK, I really hope that Obama really is "the man" to make
change stick. I watched his inauguration speech and I hope that the talk about
more sustainable energy really does happen. He does seem a kinda cool guy
though and from my perspective it sure looks like the right guy got into
office there. Good luck

~~~
Prrometheus
What change? We have a trillion dollar pork bill getting bludgeoned through
congress right now. Essentially the President said to congress "Just make it
big, and make sure we have some token expenditures on energy subsidies.
Otherwise, here's the checkbook. Yes, there's more than a thousand economists
against this, but we're going to ignore them and listen to the ones who are
Democrats."

So far, the new boss looks a lot like the old ones, except being black, young,
and charismatic. _plus ca change_...

Also, sustainable energy is an engineering problem (unless by "sustainable
energy" we mean proven technologies like nuclear, which leftists inevitably
don't). No amount of Presidential hope-rays is going to make windmills or
solar cells more efficient.

Rest assured, however, that we will give more money to corn farmers for
ethanol, despite the fact that it is neither environmentally or economically
sound as an energy source. Obama comes from a corn state.

Yes, I do hope he's marginally better than what came before. But this attitude
that "I hope he's the one to make change stick", I just don't understand.
There's only so much change you can make atop the world's largest bureaucracy.

~~~
FlorinAndrei
> unless by "sustainable energy" we mean proven technologies like nuclear,
> which leftists inevitably don't

Oh wow, stereotyping much?

~~~
jacoblyles
Most of the green lobby is opposed to nuclear, and the "alternative energy"
push is largely a project of the green lobby.

Show me an example of where Obama and the Democrats (excellent name for a rock
band) have promised anywhere near as much money for nuclear development as
they have for "sexy" and ineffective tech like solar, wind, and biofeuls.

So much for "do what works".

~~~
madmanslitany
Isn't Steven Chu, Obama's new Secretary of Energy, pro-nuclear?

From: [http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=reactivating-nuclear-
rea...](http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=reactivating-nuclear-reactors-to-
fight-climate-change)

"Nuclear power, as I said before, is going to be an important part of our
energy mix," said physicist Steven Chu, Obama's secretary of energy during his
confirmation hearing on January 14. "It's 20 percent of our electricity
generation today, but it is 70 percent of the carbon-free portion of
electricity today. And it is baseload. So I think it is very important that we
push ahead." He added: "There is certainly a changing mood in the country
because nuclear is carbon-free, that we should look at it with new eyes."

~~~
jacoblyles
With the money in the stimulus bill, they could have replaced 20% of the
nation's electrical capacity with nuclear (a million megawatts of national
capacity, $5 billion for 1,200 megawatts of nuclear power, round down a bit to
make the math easier). I doubt the actual bill goes towards anything so
useful. I'm not sure what is actually in the slop bucket, but I have heard
that some will go towards subsidies for rather useless, but sexy, green tech.

If they believe in nuclear, they could put their money where their mouth is.

------
ewiethoff
The other day, I saw a photo of the President of France and his wife walking
on a beach in their bathing suits. (!) It occurred to me that here in the
U.S., we don't show the President with bare arms and legs.

Bill Clinton was big on outdoor jogging, and started out his presidency
jogging in gym shorts and a tee-shirt or sweat jacket. But pretty soon,
pressure from the press or a staff person made sure he always wore a spiffy
jogging suit, i.e., no bare arms or legs.

~~~
sgk284
There are pictures of Obama at the beach while he was still president-elect.
The dude is ripped.

This isn't on the beach, but it's the first I came across:
<http://www.tmz.com/2008/12/22/barack-hard-abs/>

~~~
ewiethoff
Upmod for RuPaul link farther down that page. Now, that's Change!

------
whyleyc
You can bypass the registration and view the article directly here:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29whitehouse.h...](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29whitehouse.html?_r=3)

------
lsb
We had a pretty big change with JFK, who made hats seem stodgy. What's next to
fall? Jackets? Ties?

~~~
biohacker42
What's the point of a tie?

Ties and suits are quite literally costumes, costumes for theater.

~~~
gcv
I read somewhere that ties cover up the buttons on a shirt. So while
uncomfortable, silly-looking, and a tool for strangulation, they serve a
purpose. Jackets, on the other hand, are completely absurd. With the lapels
turned outside by the cut, they provide zero warmth in cold weather since they
do not cover the chest area. They also are hot in warm weather. Impractical
and silly-looking, the worst of all worlds.

~~~
TooMuchNick
Still less silly than sweatpants and slippers.

------
miked
Obama during the campaign: "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want
and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times . . . and then just expect that
other countries are going to say OK."

Obama now: (from Axelrod) "He's from Hawaii, O.K.?" said Mr. Obama's senior
adviser, David Axelrod, who occupies the small but strategically located
office next door to his boss. "He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in
there."

Jimmy Carter at least wore sweaters when he demanded lower thermostats.

<http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/01/022681.php>

From another Obama speech: "If you want to change the world, the change has to
happen with you first. I ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the
only way it's been done. in America for two hundred and twenty-one years --
block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand."

------
jonknee
Wow, I never knew GW was such a stickler for formal dress and punctuality.
That kind of goes against his cowboy persona. Interesting though, I love
reading about stories like this. All presidents have interesting quirks.

> "I’ll never forget going to work on a Saturday morning, getting called down
> to the Oval Office because there was something he was mad about," said Dan
> Bartlett, who was counselor to Mr. Bush. "I had on khakis and a buttoned-
> down shirt, and I had to stand by the door and get chewed out for about 15
> minutes. He wouldn’t even let me cross the threshold."

> Under Mr. Bush, punctuality was a virtue. Meetings started early — the
> former president once locked Secretary of State Colin L. Powell out of the
> Cabinet Room when Mr. Powell showed up a few minutes late — and ended on
> time. In the Obama White House, meetings start on time and often finish
> late.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
_meetings start on time and often finish late_

Er. This is an impossibility, right? I mean, if your meeting finishes late,
that means your next meeting must start late too, right?

Sorry to be so picky. Just the logic of that sentence was worrisome. It would
work with only one or two meetings a day, but as president that obviously
couldn't be the case either. If your meetings are ending late, they're also
starting late.

~~~
cconstantine
It's possible that meetings aren't scheduled back-to-back. If there's a 15+
minute gap between meetings it's possible to end one late and still start the
next one on time.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I've seen a lot of different configurations just to address this issue.

In the end, in the real world, if your meetings run late, they start late. 15
minutes doesn't matter that much.

It's kind of like the guy who only smokes at certain times each day -- makes
him feel better that he's doing something about his smoking, but it's just a
mask and has face value only.

Reality is reality. Screwing around with artificial end-times for meetings
rarely ever prevents late meeting people from continuing to run over into the
next meeting.

------
jm4
These NYT articles requiring registration that have been popping up on here
every day are getting annoying.

~~~
swapspace
Just search for the headline on google, and click through that way. No
registration.

~~~
ewiethoff
> Just search for the headline on google, and click through that way. No
> registration.

No, that's not guaranteed to work. It's a cookie issue.

I have have never registered at nytimes and have seldom been able to read its
articles, no matter how I approach the site. Until a few experiments today,
that is.

I reject all cookies by default. NYTimes confronts me with the registration
page when I have cookies disabled. I discovered today that if I go ahead and
allow cookies from www.nytimes.com, I can read the article _without_
registering. Allowing for session does the trick; don't store the cookie
indefinitely. And accepting cookies from wt.o.nytimes.com and up.nytimes.com
is not necessary to read the article.

------
fallentimes
Full text so you don't have to register:

<http://tinypaste.com/pre.php?id=bca86>

Related: [http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/01/28/the-canary-at-the-
new-y...](http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/01/28/the-canary-at-the-new-york-
times-grows-louder-as-internet-advertising-keeps-dropping/)

------
pwim
"Mr. Obama, who hates the cold, had cranked up the thermostat."

So much for the environment and reducing waste...

~~~
andrewf
On the plus side he doesn't drive to work.

------
peregrine
Probably as close to a startup White House we will ever see.

~~~
dfranke
What about Washington? :-)

(Ok, technically Washington didn't live in the White House, but you get my
drift)

------
FlorinAndrei
Bush versus Obama.

Appearance versus substance.

Let's make it seem ok, versus let's actually move things forward.

------
Devilboy
Holy crap it sounds like he really wants to get things done around there!

I hope that's a good thing.

