Who would've thought that a mid-range athletic shoe brand would have some of the coolest designs in eyeglasses? Not me. But as far as bold style that appeals to me, Converse is the top brand out there.
I decided on the Mojave, but I also really liked the Vigilante and the Scoundrel. But honestly the whole collection is pretty appealing. There's not too many in there I would refuse to wear.
I've got another 1-2 weeks before I get my new glasses. But if I like them, I might just be back for another pair soon. The price is definitely right.
In light of recent proposed budget cuts in various countries, I feel compelled to mount a defense of the common sense concept of the government being able to “afford” something:
The pattern is the same again and again and again: the thing that actually costs not too much money is denounced as unaffordable, while the insanely expensive thing is never even questioned. It’s like if I overdrew my checking account and decided I needed to start buying store-brand cereal while never questioning if I can afford that Lexus.
Now, let’s grant that everything I said above is basically true. What would be the reaction if you said this to a politician? At best, you’d get patronized; at worst, you’d just get an icy stare. It’s just like if you point out contradictions in the Bible to a fundamentalist — they’re not going to admit you’re right, because it was never really about the “literal” meaning of the Bible in the first place, it was about some other fight where the authentic truthiness that comes along with adhering “literally” to the Bible seemed like a good method. Similarly, the use of “affordability” as a criteria isn’t literally about affordability, it’s about using rhetorical means to (a) mislead people about the role of government in a modern economy and (b) foreclose certain options by a spurious appeal to common sense.
Both (a) and (b) are served by making people think that the government’s balance sheet is like a household’s — and interestingly, the people who make such appeals are also often the people who are constantly staking a claim to understand “family values” better than their opponents. Engaging with the rhetoric as though it were intended literally simply reinforces the effect of the rhetoric, just as claiming that the Bible can’t and shouldn’t be taken literally shows that you’re a wishy-washy liberal who doesn’t really care about Christianity. These ideological constructions are traps, not arguments — and they’re designed to look like arguments in part because that’s what’s most likely to draw liberals into the trap.
That being said, I don’t know what the solution is.