From what I understand, JFK was responsible for men not wearing hats anymore. At least, he was blamed. He didn’t wear a hat to his inaugaration, and men stopped wearing hats very soon afterward.
It was apparently taken in the 1920s, so the etiquette was likely well-known and generally followed at the time. Assuming that it wasn’t a staged photograph, it’s possible that it was just considered an informal, or maybe a “public indoors,” location: the Emily Post article notes that in “indoor public places” like airports and public lobbies (or, in that era, train stations), it’s acceptable for a man to keep his hat on (though there’s still the “you take your hat off at the table” bit of hat etiquette).
It’s also possible that there just wasn’t a place for men to put their hats at that crowded lunch counter. It’s certainly difficult to say for certain without further context.
I just figure it was the 60s and the counterculture took over by the end of the decade.
That’s my take on the situation. Unless there were these under the counter — in which case the hat would likely be crushed by the customer’s knees — there was simply no place to put it.
ETA: I do see one man on the left without a hat. Maybe the establishment had a hatrack, but it filled up.
And I do, especially when I’ve had a haircut, because I went without one (bare-headed) in the hot sun one time when I was working with my brother and late father, and got a real bad sunburn on my head (that’s what resolved me to, anytime outdoors, be like that; I am also like that in non-eating places when away from home, while in restaurants or other people’s homes, I do take it off for the duration).
but, but, but he played one in the movies! Don’t know if he stayed in Holiday Inn
and now Ruth Chris Steak House has new dress code which includes this:
Hats: All hats should be removed when entering the restaurant
Newsom’s $787 Million Fox News Defamation Lawsuit Advances
Judge Sean P. Lugg let the lawsuit advance in Delaware’s Superior Court, calling it “reasonably conceivable” the conservative news network knowingly aired false statements
They just thought it would never come back to bite 'em.
Life is so unfair.
I don’t think I’ve ever read something like that (a judge denying a defendant’s motion to dismiss). From my reading of that, I’m of the opinion that the judge is siding with Newson. Does it just read like that because he’s siding with Newson on this particular matter and, as such, he makes a lot of pro-Newson points or are all those pro-Newson points representative of how the judge feels regarding the actual case?
I didn’t read the initial motion or Newson’s reply, but I’m guessing this covers most of what was in both of them.
When I first started reading it, it seemed like Newson’s case was pretty flimsy. I originally had the feeling it was, for lack of a better term, a publicity stunt, but the further I got, the stronger I felt for Newson’s side. I wish more people who have the money/lawyers/courage/ability would sue Fox for these types of statements.
I also liked, and I guessing it’ll be a big part of the defense’s case, that the judge shot down their ‘I’m just asking questions’ (cough Tucker cough) defense. ISTM he made it pretty clear that they were not, in fact, ‘just asking questions’.
I think it boils down to “reasonably conceivable the conservative news network knowingly aired false statements." Which is a more polite way of saying “Fox News Channel is a bunch of lying fucks”
Mostly A, with B being undetermined (at least by me). If a judegerules in favor of one side, theruling is necessarily going to include the points the winning side made that the judge found convincing.
I was curious how Fox News is reporting on Trump’s $1.8B tax payer funded slush fund. I’ll be damned if I can find it on their website. If an orange tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, did it happen?
Media Matters for America watches Fox News so you don’t have to.
Fox’s Sean Hannity said the Department of Justice “rightly agreed to set aside the patriotic amount of $1.76 billion to settle other claims like this.”
On Fox’s Special Report, guest anchor Trace Gallagher admitted that “who gets the money and where it comes from is a bit unclear.”
Special Report’s reporting on the topic also included clips of Sens. John Kennedy (R-LA) and Jerry Moran (R-KS) asking for clarity on where the money is coming from and “the legality of creating a fund that Congress hasn’t had anything to say about.”
Why in hell are they questioning it now? They knew what they were getting when they supported him in 2016, and 2020, and 2024. Did they think the grift would be more subtle? Are they finally realizing that making more money isn’t worth destroying the very foundations of this nation?
Nah, they aren’t that introspective. They’re merely afraid it’s going to derail the gravy train.
The leopard is chewing on their faces.
Trumps $1B crypto shenanigans are being reported on every news agency except for one. Can you guess which one? As of right now, I cannot find a peep of it being reported on Fox News. They are too busy covering the breaking news that a Republican was booted from a state house chamber (not the US House) for wearing a stupid state flag suit.
Big news day for Fox “News”.
If you mean their news organization as a whole, they’ve reported on it. This article is from a couple of days ago.
They even brought up the possible conflict of interest from this.
White House spokesperson Anna Kelly dismissed conflict-of-interest concerns in a statement to FOX Business and said that the administration’s crypto policies are aimed at promoting U.S. innovation and economic growth.
Not saying this shows that they are fair and unbiased on the matter, as this might be buried on their site somewhere. (I am not going to waste my time or inflict damage on my brain by browsing their web site’s main page.) And it might not be getting much airplay on television. (Again, not wasting my time there.) But it’s not the case that they are completely ignoring it either.
Wow, good find. It was not in their top few hundred leading “news” articles, and it wasn’t shown in the new aggregators. I also see it is Fox Business with no commenting available. I think they “reported” on it but failed to leave any bread trail to it. I still cannot find it using their search tool at foxnews.com searching for “trump cryptocurrency”. It’s only at Fox Business.
I got in the habit of regularly slumming on the Fox news website back in the days of Doge when I was afraid to be seen looking at any other news site on my work computer.
Regarding the Trump corruption, the most relevant article I saw on their front page was this article about how Trump was going to sue the New York Times for Libel. This is the way they handle most bad news stories. They publish the spin or reaction to it rather than the news itself.
So rather than say “report indicates that shutting down USAID will kill millions” The headline will read, “Expert shreads biased study produced by socialist professor.”