Why bother getting dressed?

Just like wearing UGGs with mini skirts, sleepwear as day wear -- or evening wear -- has a nasty habit of rearing its tired head every few years (if the concept ever truly went away).

And per The Washington Post's fashion & style reporter Robin Givhan, designers are once again touting pajamas (or pyjamas) as evening attire. Just don't wear these pajamas to bed. Not at over $1,100 a pop -- or pajama top.

Indeed, Dolce & Gabbana has a whole fashion line titled "Pyjama Party: Underwear as Outerwear Done Right." (Note to Dolce & Gabbana: There is no "right" way to wear underwear as outerwear. Sorry Madonna.)

Now I know a lot of you reading this are thinking, "But J., pajamas are sooo comfy! And it's winter, who cares?" (I'm looking at you, Spouse, and you, Teenage Daughter.)

And I will admit to having run (or driven) to the bakery at 7 a.m. to pick up breakfast pastries in my PJs, albeit with a down jacket and boots over them, on more than one occasion. (It was twice. OK? Happy?) And there may have been a time or two where I drove the teenager to school still clad in my pajamas -- again covered by a down jacket and boots.

But wearing pajamas to a cocktail or dinner party? Or wearing them to work or grocery shopping? No. I do not care if the label says Givenchy or Dolce & Gabbana or pick your chichi designer. Or that you saw Gigi Hadid or Jessica Alba wearing pajamas to some big event.

You want to make America great again? Put pajamas back in the bedroom, where they belong. And get off your lazy ass and into some real clothes.

Next up: Putting the "sweat" back in sweatpants and sweatshirts.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist unless you work at NASA*

Often when I am reading the news or watching talk shows, I wonder if everyone (okay, nearly everyone) has completely lost their minds, or their ability to use some basic common sense.

To explain what I'm talking about, I have provided 11 examples (in no particular order) of simple things that everyone should know, or should be obvious, but too often aren't. (Feel free to add your own examples in the Comments.)

You don't have to be a scientist to read a thermometer, or observe that the weather has become more erratic and extreme.

You don't have to be an economist or an accountant to balance your checkbook. You just have to know how to add and subtract.

Being able to see Russia from your window doesn't make you an expert on foreign policy, just like being able to see the moon from your window doesn't make you an astronaut.

You don't have to be a brain surgeon, unless you want to operate on people's brains. Nor do you have to be a rocket scientist, unless you want to work for NASA or SpaceX*.

If you feel you have no time to do anything, because you've volunteered for too many activities, volunteer less.

If you eat too much, you will gain weight. If you want to lose weight, eat less. Stop with the crazy diets.

Happiness doesn't come in a pill**, or a bottle.

You can't be too rich, but you can be too thin.

If you don't want to get sick, or want to get sick less often, wash your hands before you eat -- as well as before and after meal preparation and after you've used a toilet.

If you don't want others to get sick, cough or sneeze into your elbow or bicep, not into your hand. That's how you spread germs.

Don't text while driving. Nothing, and no one, is that important.

*And even at NASA, and SpaceX, not everyone is a rocket scientist.
** Or maybe I was given the wrong prescription.

"Sexy" sweatpants?

It was 18 degrees Fahrenheit here this morning (probably still is), and I was freezing my tuckus off. So I figured that, since I was working from home and didn't need to go out this afternoon, I'd just throw on my old, gray Gap sweatpants.

Then I hesitated.

The last time I wore my sweatpants (and actually the time before that), the spouse informed me that I looked like I was wearing a big droopy diaper. (I wasn't.) This from a man who thinks flannel pajamas are sexy. So I knew my gray sweatpants must look really bad on me.

Granted, the sweatpants are a bit big on me, having bought them when I probably weighed 20 pounds more. But aren't sweatpants supposed to be a bit big and baggy and comfortable?

Apparently, I didn't get the memo.

Gone are the days of wearing sweatpants to sweat in -- or hang out in. Today's sweatpants must be both fashionable and sexy -- in case you are running out for a gallon of milk and there are paparazzi lurking. These fashionable, sexy sweats can also run you $600 or $700. (I kid you not. Just click on the link.)

Granted, it's always nice to be comfortable and look good doing it. But aren't "sexy" sweatpants, "fashionable" sweatpants, and "skinny" sweatpants oxymorons? When did we go from "sweat" pants to "sexy" pants? Can fleece ever be sexy?

Let me know your thoughts via the Comments. And while you're there, let me know where I can pick up a pair of these sexy, fleece sweatpants for under $50.

Why all the news isn't fit to print

I started my career in magazine publishing, as a researcher/fact checker for a glossy Manhattan-based magazine. Like the narrator in Jay McInerney's Bright Lights, Big City, without all the cocaine or partying.

Back then, in the 1980s, every magazine and newspaper had a fact checker/researcher on staff, often a whole team of them, to ensure that they got stories right.

It was not a glamorous or an easy job. Often you would butt heads with writers (many of whom couldn't actually write), who would play fast and loose with the facts. (One such writer, whom I worked and butted heads with constantly, eventually took his column to The New York Times, where I doubt it's ever been fact checked.)

But fact checking was considered an essential job -- and if you did it well, not only did you feel the pride of saving the publication from a potentially messy, litigious situation, but you would eventually get promoted.

Today you would be hard pressed to find a fact checker at any publication.

Instead, for actually many years now, magazines and newspapers, especially the digital ones, have come to rely on writers, many (most?) of whom are too busy or lazy to fact check (and have never taken a journalism course or been properly trained) to check their own facts. A very scary proposition -- and why we continue to see stories blow up upon closer inspection.

But what about editors, or producers? Shouldn't they be verifying stories before they are published or aired?

Yes, yes, they should. And some do. (Albeit mostly nightly TV news producers, who know their asses will be toast if they screw up a story, especially one having to do with politicians or the government.)

But thanks to budget cuts, a 24x7 news cycle, and the constant need for more page views or higher TV ratings, there is so much pressure on news organizations to spit out the news quickly, especially sensational or breaking news, that fact checking, or in-depth research, goes out the window and door -- or is only done at a most basic level.

The sad thing is, in many (most?) cases, checking the facts doesn't require much, just asking a few questions (albeit the right ones) and requiring proof that something is, in fact, true.

But apparently that is too much work for some publications, even prominent ones, such as New York Magazine, whose story about a Bronx high school student making $72 million trading stocks during his lunch hour was quickly proven to be false (i.e., untrue), after editors and producers at other news organizations asked the teen some simple, basic financial questions, which he couldn't answer, as well as for proof, which he couldn't produce. 

However, lest you think that New York Magazine is the exception, it isn't. Just look at Rolling Stone or The New York Times, both of which have been shown to be negligent in regard to fact checking recently. (Though in the latter's case, it's been going on for some time now. Which may be why you no longer see "All the news that's fit to print" on the Times's masthead, or at least on the digital version.)

And that is why, boys and girls, you shouldn't believe everything -- or even half of what -- you read, especially online, or take it with a grain of truth.

When the obvious, easy, or simple solution isn't

I like to think of myself as a rational, logical being. Someone who values facts over fiction or emotion. Who goes looking for the truth -- and the most obvious or straightforward or simplest solution to a problem.

I'd like to think that I am not alone. But increasingly, I feel like I am alone. A Vulcan among... Earthlings. And I simply don't understand (well, I do, but I don't) the following.

Guns. They are a problem. A big problem. Personally, I think ownership should be highly restricted, as gun ownership is in the UK. That isn't going to happen here in the good ole U.S. of A. But why can't we at least mandate background checks, 24-hour waiting periods, strict (low) limits on ammunition, and severely restrict the ownership of weapons that inflict mass destruction? The only arguments against doing these highly logical things, which, long ago even the NRA supported, is purely political -- and irrational (or emotional).

Healthcare. Everyone should have it. And it should be simple to get and to keep and to administrate. This is not a fantasy. It is totally doable. Except for politics and an irrational fear of government or governance.

Taxes. You like having drivable roads, safe bridges and tunnels, good schools, your mail delivered to your door (or mailbox or post box)? You want to feel protected in case of attack, be it by man, things man-made, or nature's fury? You need to pay taxes. As my late father, a registered Republican, used to say, "If everyone paid their taxes, we'd pay less in taxes." So true.

But the tax code is so frickin' complicated, and changes every year, and there are so many loopholes, it's no wonder people don't like taxes -- and think they are unfair. Is it so hard to come up with a simplified system where everyone pays his or her fair share? (Apparently the answer is "yes." Not because it isn't possible to create such a system but because it is politically impossible to implement such a system.)

Decent-paying part-time work. It's been over 40 years now since Women's Liberation movement and women began entering the workforce in large numbers. And yet the government and business have done very little to accommodate, aid, promote or recognize the changing nature of families or the reality that many (most?) women now work, or want or need to work.

What happened to flexible hours? Telecommuting? Job sharing? Why haven't more (most) businesses created part-time tracks for women and men, or made it easy(ier) for employees to telecommute or work flexible hours?

Btw, I'm talking for men and women here. It's been 40 years, people. We are losing too many good, smart women -- mainly moms (and daughters of aging parents) -- who want to work but don't want to or can't work 50 hours a week at a job an hour or more away. And too often those jobs barely pay for childcare. It shouldn't, and needn't, be this way.

Childcare. Good help shouldn't be so hard, or expensive, to find. Governments, schools, and businesses need to do more to help working families by providing safe, affordable places for children to go after school and during school holidays when or if their parents are working. I know good, or decent, affordable childcare exists in some places, but it needs to be universal.

Climate Change (the condition previously known as Global Warming). The climate has been changing. And not for the better. Things have been heating up (though it often doesn't feel like that here in the Northeast). And we are losing land and lives.

And we humans are not helping. Indeed, we are the problem. Or a big part of it. But we could be the solution. Except most of us are too selfish or self-centered to give up our SUVs and gas-guzzling/emissions spewing vehicles, or to drive less, or to live in smaller houses closer to one another, or reduce our consumption of products that pollute the environment.

Sadly, if everyone just did a little bit -- drove more fuel-efficient cars, turned down the AC just a bit, used energy-saving light bulbs and remembered to turn off the lights and their TVs and other things when not in use, re-used and recycled -- we could slow down climate change.

I could go on, but I won't. I need to conserve my energy.

What happened to paying your dues?

[Alternate title: Hey you kids, get off my job!]

Back when I graduated from college, in the late 1980s, most of us college graduates felt lucky to get a job, any job, especially us liberal arts college graduates who wanted to go into advertising, or marketing, or public relations, or publishing.

We were THRILLED to get a job as an editorial assistant, or assistant media relations buyer, or marketing assistant -- heck even a receptionist or mail room clerk, if it meant we could get our foot in the door at some swanky advertising agency or magazine.

And the pay? Puh-lease. My first job, as an assistant editor (fact checker) at a New York magazine, didn't even come close to the cost of tuition at my private liberal arts school -- or allow me to rent a one-bedroom apartment in Manhattan. But man was I happy to have gotten it, especially after not being able to even get an interview at any of the other places I had applied.

Indeed, all of my friends who were lucky enough to find jobs in NYC and Boston right after school, working for slave wages, living with their parents or several roommates, were thrilled to have a job. Sure, we would have liked to have made more money right out of school, but everyone knew you had to work your way up the corporate ladder -- pay your dues, and in five or seven or 10 years you would be a senior whatever, making a living wage. That's what people did back then.

How times have changed.

Today, actually I would argue since the mid-1990s, youth and chutzpah are rewarded and age and experience are seen as negatives -- with mothers who took a few years off to raise a family and fifty- and sixty-something men and women with years of experience making a fraction of what many (most?) of today's twenty-somethings are making, or commanding, and often being the first to be "downsized" (laid off, fired) when times get tough. Though this may have changed somewhat after the recession of 2008.

I blame it on the rise of the Internet -- the "dot com" phenomenon of the mid/late 1990s -- and social media, the "dot coms" of the mid/late 2000s.

Suddenly, we went from a society or culture that valued age and experience to one where technology was king, and any peasant who could create a dot.com, or website, or code, no matter how stupid or unprofitable the idea, was practically handed a bag of money -- and a big title.

Pity those poor slobs over 30 (like me, and pretty much everyone I knew) who had spent the last eight, or six, or however many years toiling away at this job or that, paying their dues, as they had been told they had to do to get ahead, who suddenly found themselves outranked or outpaid by hordes of twenty-somethings with no experience, no social skills, and in many cases no college degree but who could code or design a website.

Indeed, although I had a job at the time, as an editor, making a decent (for an editor) wage, I remember my husband saying to me that I should learn web design or coding -- and feeling too old at 30.

Though not that long after he made the suggestion, I left my job at the publishing company and started writing about technology.

Fast forward approximately 15 later.

I still write about technology. Only today, now in my 40s, I make 50 percent LESS (and that's being optimistic) than I did when I started out. Even though I have way more experience. But just try finding a decent-paying job when you are a forty-something. (Especially if it involves writing. Apparently a skill no longer deemed important by society.) And it's worse if you are older.

Btw, I'm not the only one who feels this way. Just talk to any forty- or fifty- or sixty-something who has had to look for a job the last 10 years or so, and he or she could probably tell you how hard it is -- and that they lost out to someone much younger. Or if they did find a job, how it paid much less than their last one -- and their boss is young enough to be their kid, or grandkid.

And don't get me going off about social media -- Twitter, YouTube, etc. -- and all of these so-called social media experts and consultants and YouTube stars. (Hey, you kids, get off my computer!)

Granted, age, or experience, or years on the job/at a company shouldn't be the only qualification for a job or a promotion, as it was when I first entered the work world. But surely age and experience should count for something, at least as much as having a cat with a popular YouTube channel or Twitter feed, right?

Why can't people #$?!@!?

I have questions. Maybe one of you has the answers. Or some of them. (Note: Many of these questions are rhetorical. That is, I'm not really expecting an answer.)

Why can't people (other than doctors) turn their mobile devices off (or at least put them on mute) in theaters? Can whatever it is really not wait?

Why do people bring young children to fancy restaurants after 6:30 -- or to R-rated movies?

Why do brunettes who bleach their hair blond wait until they have two (or more) inches of brown roots showing to dye their hair again? And why do so many bottle blonds insist they are naturally blond, or were when they were young?

What is the deal with tattoos? Is there something in the ink that makes tattooing highly addictive? Do people understand that tattoos are permanent (or very difficult/expensive to remove) -- and look ridiculous when you are over 50 (or 40)?

Why do people sign up for classes (or gym memberships), when they know they aren't going to attend -- or schedule appointments at the time of their class?

Why is it so frikkin' hard for people to be on time, especially in this age of electronic reminders? And why do people wait until they are late to notify you?

And speaking of waiting.... Why do people wait until they are actually turning (as opposed to before they make a turn) to use their turn signal? And why do so many people think they don't need to use turn signals? Do you really think other drivers are psychic? (Psychotic, yes; psychic, no.)

Why do people say "Let's do lunch!" when they have no interest in or time to "do lunch"?

Similarly, why do people inform you they will be visiting your town or city -- and then tell you they have no time or interest in seeing you?

Why do people leave the Subject line in email blank? Are we supposed to guess what the email is about?

Why do people send spam email? Do you really think someone is going to wire money to a bank in Nigeria, or buy your penis enlargement pills, or have you find them a slut? (On second thought....)

Why do people forgive the sinner but never praise the saint?

Why is it so friggin' hard to pass strict gun control measures in this country? (This would be an example of a rhetorical question.) Even the NRA was for it... before it was against it. (You want to dramatically reduce the number of gun-related deaths in this country? Dramatically reduce the number of guns.)

Why are so many people afraid of and/or against a single-payer insurance system, like the UK and Canada have? Do people really love their health insurance companies and overspending on health care so much? (Again, this is a rhetorical question. Though feel free to dazzle me with your brilliance.)

I have more questions. But I think that's enough for now.

Feel free to contribute your own question(s) in the Comments section.

Things that really piss me off (short version, in no particular order )

Because kvetching (in moderation) is good for the soul... and the heart... and the gut... : )

Rain. Enough already. Another few days of this and I'll have to trade in my Mini for an ark.

Renaming the Triborough Bridge the RFK Bridge. What the heck was wrong with Triborough? How many of the millions of people who actually use the bridge do you think remember or know that Robert F. Kennedy was a Senator from New York (or care) -- and will henceforth refer to it as the RFK Bridge? (See "Avenue of the Americas.") Which member of the Kennedy clan was blowing Eliot Spitzer?

Getting addicted to a product sold only at Trader Joe's only to have Trader Joe's suddenly discontinue or stop selling it. (God, I miss Gingeroos. Best ginger cookie EVER.)

The sacrifice bunt. I don't care what the spouse says, it's stupid.

Professional sports teams with losing (i.e., under .500) records that make it into the playoffs. What is up with that?

People who don't use their turn signal -- or flip it on after they've come to a screeching halt or are already halfway into the other lane.

Similarly, people who are so effing busy chatting on their cell phones -- without a headset or ear piece -- that they drive right through red lights and stop signs. (One nearly killed me as I was driving to pick up my daughter from camp today.)

Supermarket baggers who haven't a clue how to bag.

Being ignored in a restaurant.

Bleach splash.

People who cut in line.

Traffic, particularly the kind caused by rubbernecking. (Will there ever NOT be construction on I-95?)

Celebrities who piss away their money in lavish style then whine and cry and seem absolutely amazed when it's all gone and the bank is foreclosing on their house.

Reality TV stars. (See also "people who are famous for being famous" and "being blonde isn't a talent.")

Hypocritical politicians (see Mark Sanford, John Ensign, Eliot Spitzer, Newt Gingrich, etc.).

What are some things that really piss you off? Let me know via a Comment.

(Note: Personal attacks and inappropriate comments will be deleted.)