ByKat Hours Updated
Comments 138 Comments

Coffee Break: Fabric Collar Button Belt

·
Sophie Theallet Fabric Collar Button BeltWhen I posted the Sophie Theallet circle skirt in this same fabric, I liked the belt then; that's a rarity with me because I never like the belt things come with. It turns out, The Limited likes the belt so much that they're selling it by itself. It's $49.90, available in sizes S, M, and L. Sophie Theallet Fabric Collar Button Belt (L-2)

Sales of note for 12.5

And some of our latest threadjacks here at Corporette (reader questions and commentary) — see more here!

Some of our latest threadjacks include:

138 Comments

    1. I’m surprised the belt costs more than half the price of the skirt with the belt.

      1. It may be the same or similar fabric, but it defintely is not the same belt as the one on the skirt…look at the buckles.

    2. Yep, I’m the same one from the post last year.

      I couldn’t stop thinking about the skirt after Kat posted it, so I drove to a Limited to try it on yesterday. Comments:
      1) The belt on the skirt is definitely not removable. It doesn’t even go all the way around- its only a 1/2 belt. The ends are stitched to the sides of the skirt. I wasn’t expecting top quality, so the belt wasn’t a deal breaker.

      2) Skirt is unlined, but the fabric is good. I usually don’t shop at the Limited because of the low quality, but I would have purchased this skirt if not for…

      3) The fit. This skirt is good for someone with no curves who wants a more interesting shape— especially someone thin to very thin. I was hoping for a nicely draped skirt, but my aforementioned bubble butt caused the fabric to stick out like a poodle skirt. Not good. But if your butt won’t get in the way of the nice draping, go for it. It’s a great price for a professional but not boring skirt.

      4) Sizing. I have a 29.5-ish” true waist and found the 6 too snug. The 8 was very comfortable. I usually get a 6 in J Crew pencil skirts (but get the waists taken in a few inches) and a 4, 6, or 8 from similar brands depending on vanity sizing and fit (4 in extra generous vanity sizing, 6 usually, and 8 with the waist taken way in).

      1. Thanks for posting this. I have what can be described as the same body type that you do, and in general, these kind of skirts do not work for me. I always want them to, but the “sticking out like a poodle skirt” effect gets in the way. Pencil skirts are safer I guess.

  2. Has anyone tried Jockey’s new bras and the sizing system? I saw it over the weekend while shopping for some Skimmies online. Basically, they send you a bunch of breast-shaped plastic cups and you use them to size yourself, along with a tape measure that is calibrated to their sizing.

    It seems either genius or strange. I’m leaning towards genius but wondered if anyone had a testimonial. I’m not sure when they introduced them, so it might be too brand new to know.

    Link to follow.

  3. Ok, so sizing at ASOS: is it usually really far off from their posted measurements? I purchased a dress and a skirt last week. Ordered both in a 12, and according to the measurements on the dress, it should have been too small in the waist, but I decided to give it a shot because the 14 was sold out. Fast forward to when I got the dress, and it’s easily 3 sizes too big. The measurements in the bust were off by 10 inches, and the waist was off by about 8. The skirt fits perfectly. This was my first order with them, and I’m hesitant to go back if the sizing is so crazy!

    1. I don’t really go by measurements (I really should get around to doing that . . .) but I have found ASOS to run a little bit small. So if I’m usually a 6, I would order an 8. That’s worked for me generally. I’ve never ordered anything from there that has been way too big like you describe. But, like I said, I don’t go by their size chart.

    2. Did you buy something ASOS brand or another brand through ASOS? Because they use the same size chart for every brand so there is definitely going to be variation. I haven’t ordered from ASOS in a but the only time I ever had a fit issue was when I ordered a bikini top (way too small). Unfortunately, as with any website that offers multiple brands and any online shopping, there will be some misses, but at least they have a good return policy.

      1. Both were the ASOS brand, which is why I thought it was really weird that the dress was so far off!

    3. So, I’ve only purchased one dress from ASOS (another is on the way) – but I found that the sizing was pretty spot on on that one. A size variation that substantial seems like it has to be a problem with either that particular dress or just something that went wrong with manufacture. I don’t know – but I don’t think you should view it as a testament to the sizing of ASOS as a whole.

    4. I usually shop in the Curve line, but there I find the sizing to be all over the place. It is almost always too big though.

  4. I know we’ve talked about guns on here a little in the past and I am curious to hear what others think about the Washington Post’s article “Colombian company exports bulletproof backpacks to the US” (link to follow)
    Personally, I don’t like guns and would rather nobody had them.. but that is a completely unrealistic view and I can recognize it as such. That being said… what is proposed here seems equally unrealistic. (And yes I know this is a few manufacturers not the government at large but still…) This might protect a kid from someone behind them walking but otherwise they are still very exposed.

    Am I foolish to think that policies like a background check or limiting the types of guns available (no automatic rifle types, things generally used by the military etc. as opposed to hunting guns) would help stem the need/desire for things like this?

    Isn’t there a better way that both sides of the debate can agree on? (preferably without it being sensationalized by the White House or NRA)

    2. I actually think most Americans would agree that we should keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people who are seeking to own weapons in order to harm others. I think polls have borne out that most of the US is in favor of increased background checks and mental health fitness tests, but that a small and loud minority of people oppose this, which is what leads to the controversy.

      I don’t think bulletproof backpacks will help kids, and can really only imagine them being useful if the kid is an assassination target or something, ie, there’s a real compelling belief that someone will be shooting at them. I suppose they could be useful in a mass shooting, but really, only by luck, and such events are very rare.

      1. I’m not sure most Americans are actually in favor of mental health fitness tests prior to purchasing a gun. That is pretty intrusive, and if you believe in gun rights, you most likely think that crosses the line and gives the government the opportunity to delve into all sorts of personal and political matters before you are authorized to buy a gun. Personally, I would support limiting the types of guns available before I supported a mental health test.

        Background checks are different though. I agree that most Americans support that, as do I.

        1. I do support thourough background checks (including checking into any documented history of mental illness), but I definitely don’t support mental health “fitness tests” requirements in order to purchase a firearm.

          1. That was poor wording on my part – I meant what you were saying “checking into documented history of mental illness” as something most Americans would support.

            However, I personally would have zero issue with requiring some sort of a compos mentis clearance from a professional before purchasing a gun.

          2. Would you include a diagnosis of depression or generalized anxiety disorder as a history of mental illness? What about someone seeking treatment, say, after the death of a loved one (but without receiving a diagnosis — or, even with one since I believe the new DSM no longer has a bereavement exclusion for depression diagnoses)? If this sounds combative, I really don’t mean it to be. I’m a lawyer and this is how we’re trained. I’m honestly asking how you deal with these questions. After the Newtown shooting, I heard interviews with several mental health professionals who said that it’s very hard to tell who may become violent. Do you then exclude everyone from owning a gun if they’ve had mental health treatment? Or only for some illnesses? If only for some, how do you decide which ones? How would you handle the chilling effect this might have on people who would otherwise seek treatment? i.e., Some people who would otherwise seek help from a mental health professional may decide not to if they believe it would impact their ability to own a gun. What about a victim of domestic violence who wants a gun to protect herself from her ex, but who has a diagnosis of a mental illness from years of abuse? Or what if she decides not to seek treatment because she wants the option of getting a gun to protect herself?

            I agree that there are people with bad brain wiring who shouldn’t have guns. I think we need a serious look into mental health issues as part of the post-Newtown debate. I also think it’s an incredibly complicated area, with lots of competing interests, meaning that any proposed legislation needs very careful thought and lots of input from people with expertise in all of these areas.

          4. TBK, excellent post, but I have a question.

            “Some people who would otherwise seek help from a mental health professional may decide not to if they believe it would impact their ability to own a gun.”

            I was totally floored by this statement. Would some people really put their ability to own a gun before their own mental health? Or are we only talking about really unstable people here? I am just baffled because this is so very far from my own belief system that I can’t fathom it. Are Americans really that serious about their ability to own guns? I don’t mean to be combative – I am asking sincerely.

          5. Yes, I think that is very true. If you already have a CHL, meaning you took hours worth of classes, passed a test, etc., because you live in a rough neighborhood, or because you just want extra protection, or for whatever reason, and you are likely to lose it if you seek mental help; would you be more likely to consider a mental health problem little or insignificant? Yes, I think you would. You’d think, “Yeah, I’m kind of depressed, but I’m sure I can handle it. It’s not that bad.”

          6. There is no way my husband would ever seek mental health treatment if it meant he had to give up his guns. He’s an avid hunter. He hunts deer around here and his dream vacation is to go on an elk hunt. He hunted with his dad and has very fond memories of hunting trips growing up with his dad. He now owns many of his father’s guns (his dad died a few years ago) and they’re very precious to him. He also loves his own guns. He goes to the range to shoot once a week or so. He also participates in shooting competitions. The men he grew up with (his friends, their fathers, his father’s friends, and his father’s friends’ sons) are all gun owners. They go to the range together and talk guns together. He likes the fact that he could protect me and himself if anyone broke into our house. Being asked to give up his guns would be unthinkable to him. It’s a huge part of his identity. And he’s not alone. There are a lot of people in the U.S. like him. They just don’t live in the cities, on the West coast, or in the northeast.

          7. Well, they do live in Texas cities and probably other big cities in the south. I live in Houston and know tons of people just like TBK’s husband. People act like Houston doesn’t count, but it’s the fourth biggest city in the country, has one of the best economies in the country (if not the best), etc. Dallas too. And there are tons of people who feel this way.

            (And I would guess there are people in Chicago who *wish* they had the right to feel this way.)

          8. Nonny, many DOCTORS don’t seek mental health treatment because of the stigma attached to it. They don’t want it on their record. So they remain untreated. I’m sure there are many lawyers who also don’t receive mental health treatment for the same reason. It’s not just guns. There’s something really effed up with the way mental health is viewed in this country.

          9. Sorry guys, there’s a lot of things that are good about your country, but this is just plain WEIRD.

            Come and join me in Canada and you can all get mental health treatment without stigma.

          11. Nonny, are you really saying that in Canada, there are consequences both professionally and personally to getting mental health treatment, but there is no stigma? I just have a hard time believing that. It seems like human nature to be embarrassed about something that is going to make a doctor lose his medical license, for example. I know our country needs to be way better about this issue as far as availability, insurance coverage, etc., but I have a hard time believing the stigma doesn’t exist elsewhere too.

            Yes, I’m a bit defensive of my country. :) I do think people are quick to criticize us (not you specifically, Nonny, just in general).

          12. Well, obviously I wouldn’t want to generalize too much, but I certainly haven’t seen a stigma. I know both doctors and lawyers (including one very senior lawyer who is well respected in his field) who have diagnosed mental health issues and are receiving treatment, and no-one bats an eye, that I’ve seen.

          13. No, there is definitely a stigma in Canada with regards to being diagnosed with a mental health issue (says the spouse of someone who has been diagnosed with depression and the mom to a son who is very, very high functioning on the autistic spectrum and two sons who have ADHD – all of which I consider to be mental health issues).

            Nonny – I hope your experience with mental health issues has been different than mine.

            TBK brings up some very excellent points.

          14. That screenname right there tells you what you need to know about stigma in this country. Thanks in part to encouragement here, I was recently diagnosed with and am getting treatment for major depression. I decided the professional consequences were worth it, but it absolutely was part of my calculus.

            No, I haven’t told family, friends, or co-workers, and I don’t plan to.

          15. I would agree with Nonny for the most part in Canada – I think depression/anxiety/bipolar/Aspergers/ADHD/eating disorders are pretty well accepted, but I do think there is a stigma against many other forms of mental illness (e.g. schizophrenia). Maybe it’s just the people I know in this city?

            I think it’s even more accepted in Canada’s more liberal cities, I can definitely see some people where I am just being judgemental regardless of the mental illness. I wouldn’t care if my doctor or lawyer had one, so long as they provided good service and generally had it under control, and in some cases, like with my doctor, I’d think it would make them more empathetic, and possibly a better care provider.

            And it’s true, you can get sweet free treatment here, but the waitlist is years for a good psychiatrist in many Canadian cities, so it’s not all sunshine and unicorns and roses re: mental health here. It’s actually one of my biggest pet peeves that psycholgists aren’t covered under the provincial health plans (well, in the three provinces I’ve lived in…who knows what the rest are up to), because there simply aren’t enough psychiatrsts, and really, for non-drug related treatment, a psychologist is a pretty good place to start.

          16. I have avoided seeking any mental health treatment for years, because in college I was told that could impact your ability to be admitted to the bar. Finally an aunt convinced me to go with her to one of her appointments and pay cash, and I was SO glad I did because we finally figured out that it was something called delayed sleep phase insomnia, which basically means my body clock is out of sync with normal hours. It means my peak sleep time is between about 2am and 8-9am, which is when I need to be at work! You should have seen my grades skyrocket when I stopped trying to force myself to be on everyone else’s schedule.

            TBK – great, GREAT post.

          18. 2013, why do you believe that? Are you concerned about suicide? There are many people who have suffered depression (including me) who have never been suicidal. Prohibiting people with documented depression from owning a gun will result in more people failing to seek treatment for depression than being saved from suicide.

    3. This honestly reads like a trolling post. No one is suggesting bulletproof backpacks as equal to background checks. The article you posted has nothing to do with the gun debate.

      1. manomanon is a fairly regular poster here and not a troll. Speaking for her, I believe she wanted to use that article as a jumping off point for a broader discussion of guns and gun control. Wanting to start and have a civil conversation on a controversial topic is not trolling.

        Also, if you’re genuinely worried about trolling on this board, how about not posting as anonymous?

        1. Thanks Lynnet,
          It wasn’t meant to troll Anonymous, though I can see if on its own it could come off that way. It started me thinking about the whole scenario again when it popped up on the Post’s homepage.

          And while the idea that these could prevent deaths is a little out there.. one of the things implied in the article is that this is the mentality people have, certainly the people who are creating and marketing these products.

          I thought it was an interesting piece no matter what- it certainly gave me a different aspect to think about, and I was wondering if it would give others the same.

        2. Agreed. I don’t know why everyone is so worried about trolls. It seems to me that you’ll know one when you see one (aka E l l e n), so we can stop questioning.

          1. Totally agree. Plus, I like the trolls. They make things fun. Then again, I’m a monster, so I would like the trolls.

        3. I am not saying she is trolling, I know she is a regular poster. I am saying it is such a false equivilant that it reads like trolling. It would be like saying I just read that americans are now buying millions of dollars worth of hand santizer a year. Wouldn’t a better solution be just washing your hands?

          I don’t think bullet proof vest are much help, but if people want to buy them they will. the fact that exist and individuals can buy them is not about the gun debate or congress at all. Its like saying people are buying gun safes, shouldn’t we really be focused on background checks? Yes we should. But in the mean time, individuals can make buying choices they like.

          And i just forgot to re-fill in my name, I didn’t purposely post as anonymous.

        4. hmm I got moderated- but I tried to reply that I was trying to make it clear that I wasn’t saying you were trolling, but that the comparison was so off that it read like a trolling. I was just saying I think the way it was phrased did not read like you were trying to start a thoughtful discussion. I thought the comment was so off the mark as to read as being purposely off the mark And I did not mean to post as anon, but I have been having trouble posting comments lately

    4. I never cared about guns one way or the other until I met my husband, who’s a very strong advocate of gun rights. The argument he made that won me over to his position (or to most of it — his is still stronger than mine) is the argument that guns equalize people’s ability to defend themselves. You say you think it would be better if no one at all had them. In the pre-gun world, a 120 lb woman never had a real chance to protect herself against a 200 lb man. Nor did an elderly person, nor a person with physical disabilities. People’s ability to protect themselves was entirely dependant on what kind of body they were born into. With a gun, they’re all equal. That’s huge for me. Sure, a gun could equally be used to coerce me to do something I don’t want to do, or to threaten or kill me. But I’d rather have something that gives me a chance.

      The other argument that won me over (and that, rumor has it, is the reason that Condi is pro-gun) is that guns help protect disfavored minorities. While I’m skeptical that guns in the hands of citizens could keep our armed forces in check if our government went berserk one day, we have plenty of examples of the government in the form of police officers failing individual Americans throughout our history. African-Americans helped protect themselves against fellow Americans with guns when the police were unwilling to help them. There are still plenty of parts of our country today (especially in the predominately minority lower income parts of our cities) that the police fail to adequately protect. I think those people deserve to have the ability to defend themselves against bad people in their neighborhoods (true, if no one had guns, the bad guys wouldn’t have guns, but then the strongest people would still be able to bully the weakest).

      As for restricting certain types of guns, I think this proposal is often a knee-jerk one. It sounds great, but the truth is that many of the “scary” guns (e.g., AR-15s) have nothing that makes them more dangerous than any other type of gun. Many hunting rifles are semi-automatic. (This is not the same as a machine gun — it just means the next round goes into the chamber without you having to do anything; you still just shoot one bullet at a time. Machine guns can be owned by private citizens, but doing so requires an extensive process to get a special license and so very, very, very few people have them, and those that do have them have been thoroughly checked out by the government.) What people like about AR-15s is that there are different pieces you can swap out and it’s very customizable. So, for example, many people with disabilities like them because they can adjust them to accommodate their disabilities. There is also no evidence that restrictions on these types of guns decreases gun violence. In the time that the “assault weapons ban” was in effect, violent crime of all kinds went down. We’re actually living in a bit of a golden age of non-violence (I believe violent crime rates are down to 1960s levels — when you consider the underreporting of domestic violence during that time, my guess would be we’re even lower than that.)

      1. I think my husband wishes he had married you. :) He’s in law enforcement, is a country boy who grew up hunting, and enjoys customizing AR-15s and other guns for fun. His main argument is protection, but I still can’t get behind it. I’ve never had my home (or vehicle) broken into and I’m still not convinced that in an emergency I wouldn’t dial 911 and hide instead of dialing 911 and grabbing the pump action shotgun I’ve been trained by him to use. Likewise, I am unconvinced of my ability to use a concealed weapon in an emergency or that a 200 pound man couldn’t wrestle one away from me and use it on me.

        Personally, I support licensing and registration of guns much the way we do with cars (and yes, I understand that cars are not constitionally protected). I just think you should have to take a basic safety course and pass a written and practical test before you can use a firearm just like I had to do in order to be licensed to use a vehicle. It probably won’t prevent mass shootings, but it could prevent the many gun accidents that do happen on a daily basis. As properly designed and used, a car doesn’t kill anyone. As properly designed and used, a gun does, especially if we’re talking about using it for personal protection.

        As for preventing mass shootings, I agree that assessing someone’s mental health and where to draw the line is really difficult. I do think there should be some better reporting though. In many states, civil commitments and similar things are already required to be reported, but they often slip through the cracks, especially when people are going state to state.

        1. This is already true for handguns in CA. You have to have a “card” to purchase, which means you have to demonstrate to the test administrator that you can load/unload the gun safely, and you have to pass a test on basic safety and gun laws.

      2. I hate getting involved in these sort of arguments on here but…I can’t help it. So here goes.

        As for the first one – every research study some for years has shown that guns in the home are much more likely to harm someone in the house then an intruder (accident, suicide, assault whatever). And the truth is, just because an 110 pound woman has a gun doesn’t mean the 200 poun guy doesn’t. What has really decreased crime in our society is increased affluence and an overall decrease in violent crime throughout society.

        As for the minority communities, this is great in theory – except that the majority have guns too. It’s notable that in American history the most successful civil rights movement was non-violent. Again, having guns doesn’t do all that much if the other people have guns too.

        Look – I’m not one who says “no guns ever gaaaarre” but I will say this – I value the lives of the kids dying everyday in cities all over this country more than I value junter’s need to hunt with semi-automatic weapons rather than regular guns. As a society we have to make value decisions – and that the one I think we should make.

        1. I think making this an argument of children’s lives versus type of hunting rifle is a bit of a strawman. Yes, hunting is part of it. And, yes, another part of it is culture (see my post above re husband’s reluctance to give up guns — it’s a core facet of many Americans’ identity). But the real argument is SoCal’s, below. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right to own guns. Yes, the language is tricky (you can’t just read the militia part out of it, yet I’m not buying Scalia’s arguments about us all being militia, but the arguments about the historical context in which the Amendment was written — i.e., that the Framers had experiences with unpopular minorities having their weapons confiscated — is compelling), but if the Supreme Court continues to be our source for constitutional interpretation, and it is, then the argument is about how much our rights can be infringed in the interest of protecting lives.

          I believe the First Amendment provides us with very robust rights. And yet there clearly have been words that have caused harm or encouraged violence. I would rather live in a country where I take that risk than have the government tell me what I can and cannot say, or can or cannot write or believe, or what my god has to look like, or with whom I can associate. The argument is about the extent to which the government can dictate how you can protect yourself and how much force it can keep for itself while depriving its citizens of the same access (I’m no tinfoil hat type, but the government is not always your friend — see, e.g., Soviet Russia, modern Syria, Romania under the Ceausecus, Nazi Germany).

          Also, even if you don’t think the Second Amendment is an important right, consider how inviolate you want your Constitutional rights to be. If there’s yards of leeway before we get into “infringement” territory for one right, we likely have yards of leeway before other rights are determined to be constitutionally “infringed.” Whatever you think of the Second, you also have to keep the First, Fourth, and Fifth in mind as well. I like those rights and want to keep them robust.

          1. I don’t see how you can possibly claim that we have robust 4th Amendment rights when you can be stopped and frisked just for being a black man, when furtive movements are enough to detain you, and when the plain view doctrine means that you have less privacy in a crowded studio than in a McMansion.

            And I think your husband is the problem- how are you going to both safely store a gun in a locked safe with bullets separately so that you don’t have a risk of accidental discharge, and use those weapons for self-defense? What about when you have kids?

            And I think the minorities argument is BS- like the rest of Americans, minorities are much more likely to be killed by a gun than use one in self defense.

            Delude yourself if you want, but don’t lets pretend we need guns. The people of Australia are perfectly safe without them.

          2. Please don’t attack my husband. This has been a very measured and thoughtful exchange until now. Your accusations against my husband bring nothing valuable to the conversation.

            As for your arguments about the fourth amendment, you’re absolutely right. I hate how diluted our protections have become. I also worry about the fifth. Our public defenders are underfunded and overwhelmed and many criminal defendants aren’t given basic rights like the ability to have a private conversation with counsel. It’s disgusting.

            We don’t store the self-defense gun separately from the bullets. We store it in a biometric safe behind a locked door with a keypad lock. The safe is built into the wall, at a level that an adult can reach but not a child. My husband, like many, many American children, grew up safely in a house with guns. We plan to have children and I am no more worried about guns than I am about cleaning solutions, swimming pools, cars, and medicine cabinets.

          3. I’m sorry TBK, you’re absolutely right. Props for responding to my sub-par post with class. And I will be reminding myself of personal freedom restriction- no drunken posting. Doesn’t help anyone.

          4. TBK – this is where, once again, we differ (though I have to say, this has been a largely civil and stimulating discussion and I really appreciate it.)

            The Supreme Court did recently rule that the right to bear arms was individualized (leaving aside whether I agree with that), what that metes and bounds of that decision are is going to take years to figure out. Some scholars out there believe that the court may examine gun control laws under the “strict scrutiny” level of review, requiring a finding of a compelling government interest for the law limiting the rights of the person effected. There certainly is an argument that the state does have a compelling interest in limiting access to guns, especially guns that can be highly destructive or are used in many types of street crimes because of the number of deaths the guns facilitate each year.

            I understand your desire to compare the First Amendment to the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. But there is in fact a limitation on the First Amendment barring speakers from using language seemingly designed to incite immediate and likely violence (again, I believe under the compelling government interest test – but I don’t remember. Been a few years since 1st year Con Law). Nonetheless, the truth is, words simply cannot kill – they can perhaps provoke a fight or provoke a crowd into a frenzy – but they can not kill on their own. Guns on the other hand, can kill (though they do need a finger to pull the trigger – hence background checks and some sort of mental health check).

            I am very glad that you keep your guns locked up safely and away from children. Unfortunately, policy makers have to think about more than just one example of the proper behavior (of someone who can afford biometric safes etc.) Plenty of guns are not kept in nearly as safe a location in the home and they end up in the hands of children or teenagers who might bring them to school or, worst of all, just those intruders the gun was intended to protect against. And since there is no way, as of right now, to require that someone have a secure storage location in their home for the gun (let along that they use it), we once again hit the wall of safety and whether the majority of gun users in fact use them in a safe way.

            For a very short summary about some of the concerns with guns in the home see this article: http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home

            Okay…sorry I write novellas on this subject…its just an issue near and dear to my heart and its fun having someone cordial and interesting on the other side to have a spirited debate with!

        2. In my mid-size city, which has a high minority population, the guns are largely used by minorities to kill other minorities. Even the minority community has come out with a very public campaign to stop the killings. They are either gang/drug related or people who are shot accidentally by one of the first two categories. I generally agree with TBK but the statement about minorities having guns to protect themselves because the police don’t always do it is ludicrous.

    5. I feel about bulletproof backpacks about the same way I feel about arming teachers or principals (most of whom can’t shoot a gun well enough to hit a barn door let along a highly mobile, armed target) at schools. Its like sending a man to war with a musket and bayonet when he’s going to be fighting tanks. I suppose its *possible* that a backpack could catch a stray bullet here or there, but they are small targets at best and that is if you rely on a child to know to use it in an efficient way (are we going to do bulletproof backpack drills in school now?) And in many schools, kids leave their backpacks in the locker during the day – thus completely negating the target.

      And Newtown isn’t the most tragic (or at least the most deadly) thing happening with guns in this country. Everyday thousands of our teenagers and young adults are being shot on the streets of our cities, for no reason. Some are just bystanders, some have gotten mixed up in the wrong things, but the punishment for that shouldn’t be death. And that’s not even counting the number of kids and adults who use the gun in their home for suicide.

      Then again, I’m also fairly rabidly anti-gun/pro-gun control. Have been since a guy up the street from me as a child had his gun stolen by a friend who then used it to kill himself and his entire family. In fact, all the stats on handguns in the home for protection show that they are MUCH more likely to cause harm to a person living in the home (via accident or suicide) than they are to actually protect against an intruder. I mean, you want to own a rifle for hunting, fine, I really could care less. But you don’t need an uzi or an AK to do that. You don’t need silencers or hollow-tipped bullets. And you can sure as h*ck wait 48 hours to get your darn rifle.

      Sorry – I usually try to be more tempered in my opinions about stuff on this blog. Its just that this gets me riled up.

      1. How does a 48 hr waiting period or restricting access to silencers prevent gun crime? (Serious question. Tone is so hard to do in this format.) On the waiting period, are there any statistics on how frequently someone buys a gun and commits a crime with it immediately? There’s clearly a point at which, if it’s effective, a waiting period would be worthwhile. But there are trade-offs. For example, my husband has been looking for a very particular kind of hunting rifle. We were on a trip out of state recently and he finally found one at a store there. If there was a waiting period, he couldn’t have bought it. So if there’s a clear link between a waiting period and crime rates, I can see the value, but it’s silly to pile on red tape just for the sake of adding red tape.

        1. Waiting periods, if they are universally applied to *all* none black market sales prevent the sale of guns to people with criminal records and could, theoretically, prevent the sale of guns to people with mental illnesses (though that is admittedly more complicated.). Is it 100% effective? No. But I would be more effective if the rules and laws were more consistently applied across states so that people couldn’t simply acquire guns outside the background check system by leaving the state or going to a gun show (and then easily enough spreading those guns into the black market of their home state.). These risks are why many gun safety advocates would like a national gun registry, but that has always been a no go.

          The silencer issue is another matter entirely – silencers, especially those meant to be used on hand guns, are a serious problem especially in fighting urban crime. If we can’t ban them entirely, at least we should make them expensive an hard to get. There was a comedian (Chris Rock?) who said, screw the guns – lets tax the bullets. All I’m saying is that it seems reasonable that we should be able to place fairly substantial limitations on use of silencers or certain types of bullets without actually infringing the basic right to bear arms. But pro-gun lobbyists rarely see these shades of gray.

        2. Unrelated to crime against others, but I believe that guns purchased to commit suicide are used quickly after purchase. A waiting period very well could save that person’s life for just long enough to realize you need to seek help or attempt it with a method less likely to succeed.

          1. All of the ranges here in southern CA have a rule that, unless you are a member, you can’t rent a gun and go shoot alone. Suicides from rentals / at ranges actually is a problem, and making people go in with someone else or go through the paperwork to be a member seems to really cut down on that.

          2. SoCal – thanks for the explanation. SO and I were wondering. He was practicing to qual for the pistol range and went to a private range to shoot and he couldn’t rent a gun without a second person (he is out of ammo for his personal one). We couldn’t figure out why and they didn’t explain.

          3. SoCal, thanks for mentioning that. I didn’t know that, but it makes sense.

        3. In CA, it is 10 days. After waiting 10 days, you have a 30 day window to pick it up, or you have to start all over. The 10 days is mostly to give the DOJ time to respond to the background check / ping to make sure you are allowed to purchase. Does it reduce crime? CA seems to think it does. In reality? Probably not, because I get the feeling most of these crimes are comitted with guns that are stolen or found in relatives’ houses.

    6. A few things- thank you to everyone who responded- I learned a lot more about the pro-gun arguments as well as the basis many people have for them than I have other places (primarily because I’m from the northeast and everyone I know thinks the same things for the most part)

      The hunting argument has always made more sense to me than anything else, primarily because I feel, and know others who feel, that I would be safer with a metal baseball bat that I could leave standing in my bedroom or some other easily accessible place than a gun I had to remove from a safe load aim etc. in the dark preferably at top speed and silently while half asleep (or even fully awake running on adrenaline)

      The difference in stigmas related to mental illnesses being diagnosed in Canada is intriguing, because it seems that while different commenters have had different experiences they are a little more positive overall than US experiences.

      I am sorry this read as a trolling post- I was and am genuinely curious about this and have been learning more from various news sources etc but those are often very, very biased in one direction or another. I wasn’t trying to equate the level of protection, but rather the fact that the state of affairs here is such that multiple companies feel the need to provide bulletproof backpacks as an option to US based customers.

      1. Interesting. Our 2A right has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, but with defense. Would a handgun be an effective defense in a high stress situation? Well, if you have a bedside safe that opens with biometrics and keep it with a magazine nearby and a round in the chamber, absolutely.

        Lots of misconceptions about the actual mechanics of firearms out there. Lots of the things legislators seem to want to ban, (ARs, AKs, etc) that are “semi-automatic” still only shoot 1 bullet at a time. The only difference is that you don’t have a lever to pull back, it is fed with a spring. Last weekend I shot a revolver, rather than a semi-auto, for the first time, and that could hold 6 rounds and you didn’t have to pull the hammer back after each shot either. As far as speed of shooting, there is no difference in my shooting speed with a traditional revolver and a semi-auto handgun. I was much less accurate with it because it is different than my normal semi-auto, but I’m sure with practice I would be fine with that too. So that was a new revelation for me.

        I think most people in the US are for background checks, but not for registering and compiling databases of who owns what.

        My husband and I are relatively new gun owners, although we both grew up with them in the house. My grandparents raised 3 kids, and then me, with guns in the bedroom closet. We all knew where they were there, and were raised around them and knew better than to touch them. Today, I think if there were going to be kids in the house, I would lock them up in a safe, but I still feel like excellent parenting and supervision would prevent a lot of these accidents.

        There have already been instances of guns being confiscated for “suspected” mental health issues. There is a show on the discovery channel, Doomsday Preppers, that featured a man who was significantly overweight. After the show (which unwisely displayed his arsenal for the nation to see) he went in to his doctor, and his doctor basically told him he might need to have a pacemaker installed, or he could have a heart attack and end up on a ventilator. The man’s response was that if it was his time to go, it was his time, and he didn’t want to be kept alive by a ventilator and feeding tube, and he had a DNR. The doctor decide the guy was a suicide risk and put him on a 72 hour hold, and the state then confiscated all of his firearms! I think that is really the worry many of us have…who is to decide which mental illnesses are “ok to own firearms” and which are not? Does the fact that I’ll take .25mg of xanax before a big trial make me unfit to own a gun? Hopefully not…

        If it is really the case, as the Supreme Court has discussed, that the 2A is just as protected a right as the 1A, then how much can we really limit it? If you think about blogs, wouldn’t it be weird if you had to pass a background check and register with the government before publishing anything? That’s maybe exaggerating, but in Heller while the SC talked about the 2A right of an individual to posess and carry weapons, they also expressly reiterated the prohibition on felons and the “mentally ill” owning firearms. It’s a balancing test, for sure, and we don’t really know where the outer limits are. The 1A isn’t unlimted either – you have your classic example of yelling “fire” in a theater – but I think that has been more well-tested and the boundaries are more clear. We’ll just have to wait and see, I guess!

        To the OP – I don’t know that they feel the NEED to provide bullet proof backpacks. I think they see the opportunity to make money. I think one of those could be quite handy for the backpacking trips that I take into hunting country! Also, don’t forget that the US is a huge consumer society. Even if you would never need it, it is a new gadget and there will be a market for it.

        The entire topic is interesting. After living in Oakland (a not good part of Oakland) as a kid, and averting my apartment being broken into (and maybe me being kidnapped and..?) because I knew how to use the handgun my mom kept in the house, the necessity of being able to defend myself with a firearm, if necessary, is one that is pretty immediate to me. (It was a night-time home invasion, I was alone (I know, 10 year old alone in Oakland, not smart), and when I called 911 the response time was going to be about 8 minutes. I yelled out that I had a gun, and the guy broke the front window anyway. In response, I shot a round into the floor, and the guy ran off before he could get into the house.) I can credit my backcountry tree shooting with doing something for me!

    7. I am pretty liberal and I would never support mental health checks for gun ownership. The truth is that kids die in cars every day but we aren’t banning them or doing mental health checks for people to drive. Kids get hurt in agricultural accidents and many other ways. I don’t want cops in school and I don’t want mental health checks. The end.

      1. We had a designated police officer when I was in high school. He had an office on campus and everything. It was a very good school, and I thought it was great at the time.

        I’d be interested to hear why you are against cops in school? I don’t think I’ve ever actually heard an argument against that.

        1. My public high school had a couple officers assigned to it too. It was really great to have them there. They got to know the kids, kept an eye out for trouble, detered troublemaker non-students away from our campus, deterred troublemaker students from doing stupid things like bringing drugs or weapons to school, and were a non-school-administration related ear for problems. One year I heard secondhand how the female officer saw signs of a potentially abusive relationship and was able to offer the victim support and assistance in a way the school couldn’t. Their presence walking around campus was especially important given that there was only one guidance counselor for 3,000 kids, and he was involuntarily chained to his desk all day meeting with student after student for various reasons.

          1. Interesting. I’ve always been opposed to having police at schools because I felt it raised normal kid misbehavior to the level of a criminal offense too quickly. But I had never considered the positive impact (I went to a small private school so never had police anywhere nearby).

          2. Actually, I think it had the opposite effect. One of the reasons principals bring the hammer down so hard is, I am guessing, because they need to maintain control and assert that They Are The Law in the school and the hammer helps them with that control because they really have no backup. But having police around means there’s already a hammer lurking, so the principal doesn’t feel the need to Assert His Authority as much to expel a kid for doing something stupid. Plus kids are doing fewer stupid things because there are cops around. And the officers probably also help the principals realize that throwing a kid out of school is just going to result in a vicious cycle that really doesn’t help the kid. And for some kids, interacting with an officer on campus may be the first time that the kid, or maybe anyone that kid is related to, has interacted with the police in a positive way, not just as the enemy or the bogeyman. Maybe that kid is more willing to report a crime because he knows Officer Smith from high school and trusts him. The right officer assigned to a school can be an incredibly positive addition to the campus and the students.

        2. My high school also had an officer on campus. I never really thought much about it. We also had 2 security people who were not police officers. I think it was the same at the other high schools (even pre-Columbine) in my district too, although it didn’t prevent a school shooting at one of the schools. In the end, it wasn’t the officer who took down the shooter but some of the students charged him when the had the opportunity. Ultimately, I don’t know how useful it is to have officers at schools but I don’t think it hurts to have them around.

        3. SoCal, what argument do you need against putting a kindergartner in handcuffs because she talked back to the teacher, arresting kids who have temper tantrums, taking kids out of school in the back of a police cruiser? Those things are happening to everyday kids, not for things like knife fights or drug dealing, but for everyday misbehavior that any teacher ought to be prepared to deal with. Criminalizing misbehavior is just simpler for the teacher if there is a cop on campus, student’s future be da’ned (and it is)

          1. Wow, really? I hadn’t heard about this so it’s an argument I wouldn’t have known about. That’s scary.

          6. I should probably make it clear that I’m not saying these kids’ actions were appropriate. That’s part of being a kid–not knowing where the boundaries are, or how to handle yourself. But that’s part of the job of a teachers, as well as other people who work with kids. Arresting them is not the answer to their misbehavior.

          7. I’m one that hadn’t heard about that at all. If the police presence is being used unreasonably, then yes, that issue should be addressed. If the police presence has the potential to be so positive, as was my (and others’) experience, maybe there is a way to alter policy to get the police officers assigned the the school to have maybe a slightly different policy than they would say, during a traffic stop.

            I was sure glad to have our officer on campus, and it seemed to help, and he never arrested anyone for doing something stupid like in those articles. He might give them a “talking to,” but nothing like that. That’s why I asked, because I genuinely didn’t know about that happening.

      2. I’m absolutely liberal and I do support background and mental health checks. How do you define “pretty liberal’? On political blogs I often read posters who write that they are a democrat or a liberal and then state positions that make it clear that that just ain’t true.

        My DH and I have had many spirited debates over the years (aka arguments) about gun control. He’s a born and raised proud Republican. But now he feels his party has moved too far right and he says he’s an Independant. He’s a gun owner, former marine, and recently, literally tore up his NRA card. He’s moved to my position on gun control, but if you ever called him a liberal, he’d VIGOROUSLY disagree. He also believes that only police and military should have certain weapons that are now easily available to the public.

        I live in Hawaii where we have strict gun control. Very few gun murders, zero home invasions, one public shooting range and many private ones. We do pretty well here and most of us feel a baseball bat by the door is a much better option.

        1. The above was written in response to Maribel. Don’t know how it got here!

      3. Kids die in cars every day, but cars are highly regulated, you have to pass vision, written and driving tests, get a license, which can be taken away on the advice of your doctor, you have to have insurance, etc. And that’s not even getting into carseat safety requirements, also legally regulated. And with all these regulations, far fewer children die in auto accidents, even with more miles driven. I think car regulations are a really good reflection of where gun laws could go, and I think that would be a positive change. Really, in our society today, being able to drive a car arguably has a much bigger impact on your personal freedom than owning a gun, yet everyone accepts that it is highly regulated. Why isn’t there a National Auto Association advocating against car registrations and driver’s license tests?

  5. Has anyone here ever been diagnosed with cholestasis during pregnancy? I just found out that based on symptoms, I might have this – won’t know for a couple more days. If so, I’ll need to be induced at 37 weeks or so. All I can think right now is 1) don’t freak out and 2) pack you hospital bag asap. But looking to hear from others – did you have it? were you induced early? any tips to calm down and/or prepare in case the diagnosis comes back positive? Thank you!

    1. I’ve seen your posts today, and I’m sorry no one’s responded. I’ve never even been pregnant, so I can’t give you any insight, but I hope the diagnosis turns out to be not cholestasis, and that whatever medical decisions are made, you have a fast, easy, and low-pain birth, a healthy baby, and a speedy recovery.

    2. Anon32, so sorry to hear about the possible cholestasis. I wish you peace and serenity and – if needed – very good cholestasis doctors for you and your wee one.

  6. I realize this question comes up with some regularity, but I was wondering if any could chime in on the Pippa Modalu. In particular, I was wondering if anyone could comment on the versatility of the Toffee versus the Shark, and whether this would be a good everyday work bag for that price range. I’ve previously only carried bags from Target, including the cute white-and-black number from Jason Wu’s last collection that is what I usually carry (it’s a bit small for my needs).

    Also, if anyone’s interested in selling theirs (or has some insight into when there are sales), please let me know!

    (apologies for any double-posting)

    1. I have the Pippa Modalu in Toffee and love the color. I think it’s a great structured bag for work, but it depends on how much you’re carrying (can’t carry too much) and whether you like to put your bag over your shoulder (it may be difficult).

    2. I love the Pippa! I have it in black but I have another bag in grey that is the exact same shade as Shark and I’m amazed at how versatile the colour is. I think it’s a good everyday bag because it has compartments so you can be really organized but sometimes you can’t put too much in, which may be a problem if you carry a lot back and forth.

    3. Hi, I have a brand new with tags Pippa Shark, in the longer handles that I scored a good deal on, and would love to sell it to you if you’re in NYC ($200). I can send you photos if you like.

      My friend carries her Shark Pippa to work/brunch/etc. My other friend has it in red and uses it for work, etc.

      Their love for it convinced me to get it, but then as soon as I ordered it, I was kindly gifted a similar (double zip/pockets) Prada…so then the Pippa has never been used.

      I love the shark color, but I really cannot justify having two almost identical shape/design purses so have been looking to sell it (without going ebay route).

      1. Unfortunately I’m in the Midwest… would that be a problem for you? I’d still be interested in taking a look at the pictures.

      2. long time lurker, this has prompted me to post :) if shipping it to the Midwest doesn’t work out for Kate I’d love to take a look and potentially buy it if it fits my laptop (dimensions on the website look like it would work but you never know with these things…) Let me know.

        1. I don’t know why my email didn’t post above, but if you’re interested, please email me at ms kim math at gmail.

          Kate –if km does not take it, we can try to work something out. I’d just prefer to deal locally instead of paypal/check; but I can send pictures anyway!

    4. I have it in toffee, and LOVE it. I think the versatility would vary based on the main colors in your wardrobe.

    5. Am carrying my Pippa in Shark today. Have had it for a year and a half and love it. It can hold a lot and looks quite chic doing it. I’m happy with the Shark as it also has the shoulder strap, which I don’t think all colours do.

    6. I have a Modalu Pippa in toffee with long handles that I love but don’t use much and am interested in selling.

      It’s a great bag and I get lots of compliments, but it is much smaller than my former kitchen-sink bag. I bought it thinking that if I had a smaller bag, I’d be motivated to pare down my daily load and not strain my back with a huge bag. Unfortunately bad habits are harder to break than I thought and I just found myself carrying two bags for a while, then eventually reverting back to my huge bag. Sigh.

      I should clarify, I don’t think it’s a small bag from other people’s perspective — you can easily fit documents, a flattish tupperware, a wrap, and a kindle at the same time. It just wasn’t massive enough for me and my I-need-my-walking-flats/two tupperwares/water bottle ways.

      Hope that helps with your question re:the bag generally, and if anyone is interesting in purchasing mine (I bought it in April 2012, lightly used, have cloth bag), email me at brooklyng6 at gmail.

      1. garh, that should have been “if anyone is interestED”

        also, by cloth bag, I meant the cloth storage bag it comes with, the handbag itself is obviously leather :)

  7. Hey, guys. I’ve been reading and commenting here for years (I used to post really regularly/too much under a different name then disappeared for a while after a kerfuffle and then came back under this name about six months ag0). I just started a new maternity fashion blog that focuses (is going to focus – I’ve barely started) on work wear. You can get to the site by clicking on my name, and I will link to the blog in the reply. I promise I am not going to turn into a shameless self promoter, but y’all are part of what encouraged me to start this blog, so I wanted to share.

    I’d really appreciate any comments/ideas for future posts/feedback/thoughts/visits/questions/etc., especially as I’m just getting off the ground.

    Thanks, friends.

      1. Oh, y’all are so great. This whole thing has made me feel way more insecure than I was expecting. It’s kind of odd. I feel like I’m just totally putting myself out there! But I really do think this is something we working women need, so I’m just swallowing my insecurities and hoping it can become something good.

        Anyway, I really appreciate your kind feedback. :)

        1. I sent the link to a former colleague who’s in London & expecting a baby in Aug.

    3. What a great site! I’m not pregnant but those pink and pink Kate Spade shoes are gorgeous.

      1. Oh man, occasionally I find stuff that makes my strict vegetarianism hard… those shoes are one of those things.

      2. You don’t have to be pregnant to wear them. :) Buy away! They seriously put me in the *best* mood every time I wear them.

    4. You look fantastic in that nautical outfit! I would wear the non-maternity of that outfit in a heartbeat.

          1. I think folks on this site have been rude enough to that woman that it’s highly unlikely she’ll come back around, unfortunately!

            Preg anon, the site looks good. Are you recruiting models? You said you’re stockpiling pix, but after a while even those will run out.

          2. That’s a great idea or have a section on the web site where people submit their own photos (not sure how you vet).

    6. Is this someone formerly from NYC?? If so I have missed you and congrats on your pregnancy!!

    7. Super belated so you probably won’t see this – but congrats on the baby AND the blog (which is like a baby…but without the pain or diapers or sleep deprivation unless like me you choose to blog at 2 in the morning!)

      I don’t know who you are…though I could probably make some guesses … but I miss our former posters around these parts and am glad that you’re out there having funs on the internets!

  8. Don’t know how many eyeballs this will get, but here goes.

    I am trying to apply for government legal or related positions. I am not currently employed by a firm but do project based work.

    What are my chances of even being considered for a position?

    I also do not have any contacts in any of the departments I am applying for. Say for example, if the job location is in DC, but I am not- would it make sense/help at all to try and find any connections; go to DC etc? Does that even make any logical sense?

    Sorry, typing on a phone.

    2. Unless you have unlimited time and fund’s, I can NOT imagine goeng to DC to start meeting peeople in the goverment agencies about a job. Unless thing’s have changed radically since I was a law student at GW, nearly all of the peeople who work in the goverment law department’s are faceless bureaucrat’s with absoluetely no authority to do anything execept mabye call a supervisor, who can call another supervisor ,who then can have a meeting. When I worked there, nothing new got done, and it was nearly impossible to get rid of a guy who onley looked out the window at women all day. I say they should have fired him, but they onley reassigned him to an office in Maryland. FOOEY! Now the women in Maryland are getting rated, and I am sure that doosh is goieng to get a pension from the goverment that my DAD says he is payeing for. FOOEY!

      I had a wardrobe issue today walkeing to work. I stepped in poopie on 3rd Avenue, and could not get it out of my Nike Air shoe’s by the time I got to work. So I had to walk in and leave it in the bathroom soakeing in the sink with some water in it. Frank came in and got mad b/c it made the sink dirty, but what else could I do? The manageing partner said I should have used the bathroom in the hall, but I did NOT want to leaave 1 shoe in the bathroom. He said he would have b/c no one would steal one shoe, but he does not know the mainenentce peeople who ALWAYS stare at me. I am sure they would take my shoe and hang it up somewhere, b/c then they could control my walkeing. So I said I would do it again if I had to and the manageing partner told Frank not to be to sensitive to the smell, b/c he makes his own smell in there. DOUBEL FOOEY! Frank is still mad at me but I can NOT do anything about that. YAY!!!!

    3. If federal, yes, connections would really, really help. I’m the worst networker, so I don’t have specifics, but really work any and all connections you have. If you can connect with someone in the group you want to work with (even friend of a friend of a friend would help), it greatly increases your chances of even getting an interview.

      When you get to the point of filling out the application, think very highly of yourself when you do it. Score yourself as high as possible on as many points as possible (don’t actually lie, but a little exaggeration…). The first screen is done either by computer or by HRbots who don’t know much about the actual position. So, to get your resume in front of people who actually have a clue about the job, you need to make it past those screens.

      My comments always get moderated and I probably won’t be back to this site tonight, so I probably won’t be able to respond further. I’m sure there also are sites out there that can give you advice on applying for federal jobs.

      No idea about state level jobs.

    4. I think it is almost always a good idea to find connections to a place where you applied. That is especially true if you are applying to federal jobs. Having a connection could be the difference between your application being considered and your application being lost in the black hole that is usajobs.

      I would not recommend just showing up to any potential employer, but there are some markets that tend to be more difficult to get into if you’re not local. If you really want to be in DC, it might be worth exploring ways to move to DC for a bit so you have a local address and can easily meet people for informational interviews or have more flexibility to interview.

    5. USA jobs is a black hole.

      But I got hired from USA jobs without connections. Just saying it happens, so don’t refrain from applying because you don’t have connections. Apply anyway.

  9. My SO has his annual review at work today. I anticipate him receiving a good, but not great, review. Even if he had been perfect every single day, his office/industry would only be cautiously positive out of some belief it will motivate employees to work harder. My SO tends to take criticism to heart and will likely be ‘down’ tonight. Any tips for being understanding and supportive of his need to process and respond (when all I will really want to want to do is yell ‘you are great, ignore those jerks!’)?

    1. It sounds like you already know what to do. Just let him talk. If he asks for your opinion, you can yell YOU ARE AWESOME AND THEY SUCK, RAWR! But otherwise, just let him vent. Maybe some comfort food is in order?

    2. What’s his favorite movie? (Shawshank? Godfather? Secretly 10 Things I hate About You?). Queue it up, order his favorite take-out, get a six-pack of beer, and maybe don’t bring it up until he does. Those activities could be celebration or commiseration and you can give him time to come to you about actually venting or voicing his anxiety. Plus you get pizza, beer, and a movie. Ain’t nothing wrong with that.

    3. If he wants to talk, let him talk. If he doesn’t want to talk, be prepared with his favorite foods or things to do. FWIW, I work for a company where a good means I’d be a great/walk on water practically anywhere else, so it really is important to know your office/culture/rating scale. And yes, I normally do the “you are great – remember when you did this, this, and this?”

  10. I am ready to buy my first nice leather bag, and I picked out a Marc by Marc Jacobs bag I like. Link to follow. I was wondering if any of you have advice for how to get the best deal on it. Are there any Friends and Family sales coming up that will include this bag? Should I wait until it goes out of season?

    3. Cute bag!

      In my experience, MbMJ bags are almost always included in F&F sales. I’ve had good luck with purchasing MbMJ bags at Bloomingdales & Saks F&F sales.

Comments are closed.