Believe it or not, fashion does not just exist in a vacuum. Among other things, it serves as a good segue.
In the recent edition of Esquire Magazine, my friend and UNC student, Tate Helms, is photographed at the Democratic National Convention wearing what the caption says is an expensive suit, vest, shirt (a $350 shirt . that's almost 60 of those Carolina Athletic Association UNC T-shirts) and tie.
In the article itself, Tate is portrayed as a youthful "beanpole" pie-in-the-sky idealist, almost out-of-touch, who "hasn't been told" that voting, preparing for law school, etc. doesn't matter.
If you ever talk to him, you would realize this is about as far from the truth as you can get about Tate, who is maybe one of the nicest, most concerned - yet realistic - people you will meet.
That image of Tate does not really fit into the fashionable image of the youth in politics today. Mostly they are out-of-touch; either out-of-touch with the rest of America with Ralph Nader's "Children's Crusade" of a campaign - or out-of-touch and in politics for their own personal gain.
I have even come under fire by this sort of critique. No, I am not talking about my reference in the Carolina "Review" as being shallow.
If you read alternate publications like The News & Observer of Raleigh, you may have noticed an article that mentioned Young Democrat Matt Jones and myself. We were over at N.C. State University handing out information while Rock the Vote was there registering voters. (Their efforts were not especially great, but I equate this to the lack of pictures on the voter registration applications.)
The article commented that I was a "student politico" hellbent on trying to convert people that were not particularly interested in what I had to say.
Was Tate really just a fancy-suit-wearing idealist? Was I really just grasping at straws on N.C. State's campus?