So we could talk about the State of the Union address, but lets be honest. Everyone else is already talking about it, and judging by the Associated Press’s handling of the thing, it was all a bunch of crap that will never happen, anyway.
One thing did stand out, however. It appears that the foundation of our economic system, it turns out, is entirely dependent on how much the person who answers Warren Buffett’s office phone pays the federal government every year. Which is hilarious, if you consider (1) that she probably makes more in half a day than I do in a year because she’s the personal secretary to one of the richest men in America and (2) we don’t actually know how much she pays in taxes. But if Barack Obama is willing to refer to her, anachronistically, as a “secretary” to drive home the appearance of income inequality, then who am I to argue.
I just wish his wife, champion of the 99% that she is, would stop wearing things that come straight off runways. The appearance of income inequality is obviously only important when you’re not clothes shopping for the First Lady, who last night wore a brilliant blue silk dress from Barbara Tfank’s resort 2012 collection. You can see the dress as it appears in Tfank’s Resort 2012 runway show by clicking the link. She adorned the dress with a stick pin from jewelry-maker Alexis Bittar.
Tfank has dressed the First Lady before, notably in the $2,000 sofa-like dress Michelle O wore to meet the Duchess of Cambridge, who, despite being actual royalty wore a $300 bandage dress by High Street label Reiss.
The dress Michelle Obama wore is probably in the same $2,000 range, judging by similar items on Bergorff Goodman’s website. The dresses from last season are on sale right now for about $600. But at least this time she blew the $2K on designer cocktail attire for the State of the Union and not on a cheap looking sundress for her Hawiian vacation.