Amour-Fou♥Net

I know I just cut off 11 inches of hair, but I’m really annoyed with the length it currently is. Partly that’s because it seems already to have grown out like an inch in the past 2 weeks (is that possible??), and also I think I wanted it shorter originally but was too scared to cut more off. To be fair, 11 inches is a lot. But anyway, now I’m thinking I’d like it to be more slight-below-ear-length than slightly-above-shoulder-length.

This is what I want:

I know it’s probably not EXACTLY possible with my hair (which, as Noelle points out, is much thicker than that chick’s), but a girl can dream. And a girl can also bring a photo to an expensive haircut appointment when she goes home after school is over and beg for her “stylist” to try and replicate it.

48 years later, this remains a super-fucked up ad.

Luckily for me, though, watching this and other old campaign ads actually constitutes research for my Politics & the Press paper (20 pages, aaaahh…) on media coverage of political advertising. Which has proven surprisingly easy to research. (Thank god for ProQuest.) Tonight I spent a couple hours searching for old news articles about campaign ads that ran in 1952, 1956, 1960, & 1964, and I actually found a few really interesting things. (Okay, so most of those were about the “daisy” ad, aka the one I embedded above, but still.) For example: During the 1952 election, there was an ad-related controversy at Columbia! (Surprise.) I think that the most interesting article I found was definitely this one (PDF alert!). Click if you’re interested in reading a long-form piece about ad agencies dealing with candidates & vice versa, and the scandalous ads that resulted, in 1964.

The thing of it is: I’m just really happy that I actually got some work done on a paper that isn’t due for a week. So unlike me!