The Department of Homeland Security is employing the cast of Sesame Street to indoctrinate America's littlest citizens in the nuances of societal distrust and paranoia. This makes sense because Sesame Street is a Leninist television program produced by the socialist government and dating back to the height of fiscal crisis brought about by the reckless expansion of the welfare state to whose beneficiaries Sesame Street was engineered to placate.And the Department of Homeland Security represents the biggest expansion of government since the New Deal!

"Forget Anna Wintour, famed editrix of Vogue," begins a story in Forbes today. Why, we'd love to but she runs the most profitable print publication in U.S. America! But not forever, Forbes warns, in a story about Vogue's sorry internet presence and uncertain future that makes a pretty good case for the notion that Wintour's influence at her boring fashion magazine is receding. Which is good for anyone who still gets Vogue, because the magazine reached a new level of inanity in its October issue, come look!

Did the internet just cause Sarah Palin to destroy evidence? The potential Veep is in a bit of trouble for conducting state business using her personal, unarchived email address (gov.sarah@yahoo.com) instead of her official account (which is, of course, subject to laws requiring the retention of government records). Emails from that Yahoo account are already being sought in connection with the Troopergate investigation. Now comes word that Anonymous, the fun-loving Internet trouble-makers based loosely around the message board 4Chan, gained access to another Palin email account: gov.palin@yahoo.com. It looks legit! The offending posts, screenshots, heretofore unseen family photos, and emails have all been deleted from Imageshack and 4Chan. But we have them. You want to read Sarah Palin's email? Ok, sad thing first: a good Samaritan reset the password and tried to alert Sarah. But he also posted the new password, causing multiple people to try to log in at once, freezing the account for 24 hours. And now, the account has been deleted! Which is, as we said, maybe destruction of evidence? So for now this is, we think, all we'll get to see from this email account (if anyone finds evidence of saved emails, let us know.) The full timeline of events, with corroborating evidence of the legitimacy of these screengrabs, is here. Here's why it all looks convincing:

Tatiana Boncompagni is a total socialite. How do we know? Because she's related to an Italian princess, her husband is the Hoover vacuum-cleaner heir, she's friends with uber-socialites Tinsley Mortimer and Fabiola Beracasa, and because she just wrote a socialite novel and works at a magazine. (Magazine jobs were lost ago lost to the rich. As such, Boncompagni pens a column for Conde Nast's Cookie, the magazine about children.) The Daily Intel interviewed her recently. Example: does she give money to panhandlers? "Double strollers don't push themselves. So no, not usually." You're probably excited about the book, Gilding Lily. So we excerpted it by doing a search for the required keywords: Jimmy Choo, Louboutin, Bergdorf and Birkin—all the ingredients for a chick-lit society tome!

Greta Van Susteren scored an interview with Todd "First Dude" Palin last night — he actually came from a smaller town than Wasilla?! — that will give you a better idea of what everyone wants to know about Sarah Palin, which is to say "what she was like in high school." The answer is not Tracey Flick! Mysteries still remain: he claims she was "shy" but does that mean "shy" in an aloof popular way or "shy" in a "it is actually conceivable that she conceived Track the night she lost her virginity" way? Also: Sarah Palin looked exactly like a character on the cover of a Sweet Valley High book. Anyway, Todd seems generally sweet and if not exactly conveying of a towering intellect he at least seems to appreciate the value of diplomacy: when asked about his wife's high school basketball career he says: "She wasn't a player who you would see in all of the stats, but she was a valuable part of the team."

Last night was the night the lights went out on Broadway, as the Gossip Girl kids (and the adults too) were cast into darkness. There was a New York City-wide power outage on the teen soap, a time for furtive sexual dealings and sad, quiet truths to be whispered to lovers, safe from the harsh light of electricity. But, because this is Gossip Girl, it was also sort of a metaphor for erectile dysfunction. Our story began with a heatwave, the sort of sweltering New York late summer day that drives me (and Chuck) to drink. But apparently these young people prefer to work hard! at their fashion internships, and suck mug in vestibules, and try to seduce their floppy fish wet blanket British lord boyfriends. Yes, Dan and Serena were still making kissy and sexy and Chuck was drinking away the blues and Blair was trying to get Lord Foppington to hoppington into the sack. Alas she was foiled because he wanted it to be special. Because that's what most 20-year-old boys are like. Though Derena were shagging like mad, they still hadn't Talked About Their Issues. You know, that kind of supreme emotional baggage often associated with high school seniors. Serena cooed softly and cocked her head in that pigeon way of hers and Dan grimaced a lot, like Garfield without his lasagna, and somewhere an old Amish man sat slowly weaving on a spindle and it was somehow more exciting than this crazy/boring couple. Though it was kind of terrific when those three little girls, all be-Blaired in Central Park, gave the couple a rundown of their own relationship as they understood it from the popular gossip website GossipGirl. So fun to see the website used again! And it was a bit of an "aha!" vague wagging of a finger at some general idea of the internet on the writers' part. "Take that... computers." Meanwhile Nate continued to give the blocks to Jessica Tandy, much to his chagrin. You see he'd been made something of a gigolo, though he really wanted to be with his sexy Brooklyn Latina goddess Vanessa. Maria Vanessa seemed equally interested in Nate, but why is quite unclear. Their little cutesy interactions involved Jessica Szohr puckering her face while, inside Chace Crawford's head, that Amish man's spindle turned and turned and turned. But whatever it is they're feeling, they believe it to be love. Too bad for them that Old Lady Witherspoon caught them canoodling on the street. Evil machinations ensue! And then there's poor Chuck, who is drinking and smoking himself into oblivion because, erm, he he hasn't got any wind in his sails. His rocket's outta fuel. Um... other... euphemisms. Yeah, he can't get it up and the only way he thinks he can is if he "cleans the pipes" with Blair one last time ("emotional sexual Drano," Serena calls it). Thus the scene is laid for yet another party, this one supposedly for Polly Penington's Private School for People seniors and their parents. Things that happened at the party: Chuck groped Blair and said "make love" (because that's what 17-year-old boys say) then he whispered something dirrrty in her ear. Blair shook him off. Vanessa caught Nate holding hands with the naked old lady from that one horrible scene in The Shining and was totes grossed out. Then the power went out! Meanwhile Dan and Serena were trapped in an elevator. The only interesting thing that happened was that Dan fell down. Dan fell down in the elevator and I laughed a lot. Probably too much. And then they broke up. Hooray! Meanwhile back at Little Lord Fauntleroy's Poopie Prep senior mixer, Blair demanded bonage from Foppington, telling him to meet her in her room. Chuck went instead, they commenced making out, then the lights came back on and everyone was sad because Foppington now knew the wicked truth. Downstairs the pile of ancient dust wearing a wig was telling Vanessa to skedaddle lest she reveal Nate's dad's secret location to the FBI. Again, everyone was sad. I suppose things happened with little J-sephina, but meh. I'm not going to cover her boring and silly plotlines (15-year-old has an internship at a major fashion house! no!) until they bring back her little queer counterpart. I kind of hate shows that have a gay following, tease a little bit about a gay story, thinking they've satisfied everyone! fabulous!, and then sweep it back under the rug. Not to be uppity, but it rankles. Anyway, this initially flaccid episode definitely perked up when the blackout gave it a big ol' shot of Viagra. Things got exciting, everyone got excited, even ol' man Humphrey got a date. All the lights eventually came back on and in the end Dan and Vanessa gazed out at old Manhattan glittering there across the river and then there was music and then the rest was silence. Much like sex. The sex that Blair and Chuck didn't have. Yet.

Okay, GOP. I was there the first time you lambasted the deep-rooted sexism pervading our media and culture to score political points with women. I was there the second and fourth and 59th time too! I didn't think it would work initially. Aren't Democrats the party of abortions and birth control and the Equal Rights Amendment? Yes, the Obama campaign's purported misogyny got Geraldine Ferraro steamed enough to threaten supporting John McCain, but surely that had to be an isolated case of post-menopausal hysteria! (Joke.) But then you unearthed so many disgruntled white Hillary supporters Fox News began to look like a Barnard reunion.* And the Sarah Palin nomination was brilliant! The media is still vomiting up all that bait you set. Yeah okay but, you are done for now. You just invoked the S-charge against the socialist babykilling maggots for the very last time! Because you can level it at pretty much anyone — me included yes! — but not freaking Tina Fey.

One thing that is difficult about capturing the pathos of this Lehman crisis, aside from the obvious fact that media people are to the prospect of unemployment as Michelle Duggar is to the prospect of having to wet nurse something, is that Lehman employees seem so intent on having a good time. Ten thousand or so bankers (like the photogenic London based couple pictured here) will lose their jobs, and already there are like 296 Craigslist ads up now offering casual sex to be performed on/by them. And none of the ads seem clever enough to be fake! (And we even adjusted our creativity expectations downward in accordance with industry norms; for instance, if this guy asked if you wanted to get licked like, say, a hamburger, we might be suspicious.) Then there are these guys…

All morning we have been totally fixated the minutiae of the Wall Street Meltdown. And all morning the business media has been desperately scrambling to answer our Big Pressing Questions. Did Hank Paulson do the right thing by letting Lehman fail? Paul Krugman sure hopes so! Why did Bank Of America buy Merrill yesterday instead of waiting for its stock to get pounded and getting in at a cheaper price? All morning long the CNBC people have been scratching their heads, wondering if it took some sort of "nudge" from the Fed! Okay, so here is our big problem: what do we care? There are a lot of things we'd like to understand about what the hell is going on a few blocks south of us right now, but "whether Bank of America is doing the right thing for its shareholders" is not one of them. For instance, what the hell happened? And whom should we vilify? For starters:1. Who allowed banks to borrow 40 and 50 times their cash? No seriously, who ? A couple months ago in an online chat a reader asked Washington Post staff writer Zach Goldfarb to what extent is the subprime problem multiplied by derivatives? As the emailer pointed out, "various financial investors have leveraged" their holdings in iffy mortgages by as much as 50 times their underlying value. Replied Goldfarb: "Simple answer: To a huge extent." Well then! And according to this crazy concept I read about in Krugman's column last week, it seems that in times like these, actually trying to pay off your debt while every other financial institution is doing the same thing can result in a fall in the underlying price of everything that actually leaves everyone deeper in debt, because suddenly its collateral has lost value. This totally happened in Japan! And their economy didn't grow again for another like 15 years. But did banks in Japan even tolerate leverage ratios of 40? And if so, what made us think that was a good idea? 2. To whom do they owe all this money they owe? Lehman's biggest creditor is Citigroup, which was apparently just as risk-happy as Lehman was, and generally, the answer I get to this question seems to be alternately "each other" and "the Chinese" and also occasionally "taxpayers." But I haven't seen a great breakdown. Presumably, creditors are the guys who will see to it this doesn't happen again, but are they positioned to fix stuff like the sorry state of salaries at ratings agencies and the SEC? Yeah, probably not, but we'd be interested to hear! 3. Is it true that banks were allowed to underwrite their own insurance? I'm no expert on the matter — and wow, if that isn't an understatement — but a few months back the Journal ran a story on how Merrill Lynch continued to keep peddling those bundles of mortgage-backed securities called collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) after AIG and other so-called "monolines" — not that it kept them out of trouble! — stopped underwriting a type of "insurance" on the securities known as credit-default swaps. They just did it in-house! They even came up with a dorky pet name for the practice based on the nickname of the (totally inexperienced) guy they put in charge of doing it, Ronnie. "Some employees took to saying that if they couldn't find a specialized bond insurer, known as a "monoline," to take Merrill's risk on the deal, they could resort to a Ronoline," the story explained. (Ronnie is now working for Morgan Stanley in Asia.) But here's my question: to what extent was the "risk management" problem here a function of the fact that issuers were writing their own "insurance"? 4. And hey, did terrible short-selling vulture predators make all this happen? How much money could Goldman make off Lehman's demise? Two months ago Jim Cramer wrote that short-sellers, those crafty capitalists who bet the price of a stock will fall, could "wipe [Lehman Brothers] off the face of the earth" if they wanted. The Wall Street Journal reported Lehman CEO Dick Fuld even called Goldman Sachs chairman Lloyd Blankfein to complain that he'd heard Goldman traders spreading scurrilous rumors about Lehman's imminent demise. So did they? 5. What exactly are the regulations that could avert all this stuff? Returning to Cramer, who wrote of his lonely crusade to reinstate some sort of short-selling rule called a plus tick in July, what exactly are the other major regulations that could avert this sort of disaster in the future? Could the SEC maybe administer an annual aptitude test whereby pothead CEOs like Bear's Jimmy Cayne would be forced to define basic concepts like "credit default swaps" and maybe guesstimate the potential losses to a firm if, say, it sold them to insure a $2 billion portfolio of subprime mortgages that had been leveraged 40 times in the case of a housing crisis that precipitated a 13% rate of default? Or maybe we could just cap the potential net worth of everyone in America at $75 million and then no one would try to make it all so overcomplicated in the first place? 6. Why hasn't the credit crisis yet showed up in the rest of the economy? Seriously, we've joked about this before but how long can trashy European tourists fund our consumption sector now that we've blown our stimulus check load buying 3.3% growth last quarter? The financial sector isn't the economy, but it is a huge chunk of it. When can we expect to see this meltdown reflected in our GDP numbers…and if it doesn't, does that say more about the relevance of Wall Street to the economic reality of the everyday citizen, or the relevance of GDP numbers? A Financial Drama With No Final Act In Sight [NYT] Lehman and the End of the Era of Leverage [Asia Times] Crisis On Wall Street [WSJ] Is This The Death Knell For Derivatives? [Guardian] Credit Default Swaps: Derivative Disaster Du Jour [Global Research] Wall Street's Perfect Storm [Business Week] Dealers Plan Swaps Cleanup [WSJ] Financial Russian Roulette [NYT] The Paradox of Deleveraging [Pimco]

Mad Men is collecting dust on my DVR queue. There I admit it. I've fallen like three or four episodes behind. It's not that I don't like it. I do! It's wonderful (if slightly, horribly depressing)! It's just that I have so much television to watch for work. And, unfortunately, Mr. Hamm & co., it's not going to get any better. A spate of reality shows—some old, some new—will soon be tumbling out of the gate and into our living rooms. Many of these shows, sadly, feature layabout socialites like Olivia Palermo and Kelly Killoren Bensimon. I've compiled a little rundown of these shows for you after the jump because, well, who doesn't like a Monday listicle.

Gadzooks: at Bloomberg LP, the financial news company owned by NYC mayor Mike Bloomberg, six dozen women—"about one in seven of the roughly 500 female employees who became pregnant in the last six years"—are now suing the company for being treated unfairly. That's up from an initial plaintiff count of three. It's almost as if there's some sort of unfolding pattern here:

Police have confirmed to Gawker that David Foster Wallace, novelist and essayist, was found dead of an apparent suicide in his home in Claremont, California, where he was a professor at Pomona College. It's been reported that his wife found him after he hanged himself. Foster Wallace, longtime darling of grad students and civilian PoMo lit fans, was often very funny in print (see his famous essay skewering the cruise ship experience, "A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again"), but as his 2005 speech at Kenyon College implied, he was not unfamiliar with the heft of existence:

Being a celebrity is hard work — just ask the Republicans! Though they've long claimed to eschew stars, they now have one of their own in Sarah Palin, and the newly minted veep candidate has so much drawing power that she's even crossed over into the world of celeb-focused tabloid television. That bizarre intersection of politics and Hollywood gossip offers a lot to chew on, and so does today's Dirt Sandwich, packed full of delicious ingredients by our intrepid videographer Molly McAleer. Move over, Matt Damon — stars like Meg Ryan, Eva Longoria Parker, and Annette Bening all want a piece of the Palin action! As for the indomitable Cloris Leachman, she may say she's obsessed with John Stamos, but we can tell that what she really wants to know is, "Did Sarah Palin's husband Todd actually wear a wedding veil?" For the answer, let's go to the tape!

When he's not threatening our tipsters and offering to shove recording devices up our collective ass, scruffy indie actor Vincent Gallo is threatening a female Blackbook reporter at Fashion Week. The Brown Bunny actor offered to "track [her] down and make [her] wish [she] was never born!" (In fact, we've also heard from other gal reporters who have interviewed Vince that received threats along the same lines.) Maybe Vince loves women so much he hates them. Because he would be rakishly handsome if not for all this anger. Hey Vince! You can track me down and make me wish I was never born—I'm just crazy enough to win. I'm in the office at 210 Elizabeth Street most weekdays (so call first.) Bring it. (And who the fuck is letting him into Fashion Week?) Click for the girl-threatening video![via Blackbook] Click to view

There's an episode of Mad Men (I told you I must relentlessly mine this show to catch up with every other ad writer) in which Sterling Cooper has to come up with an ad campaign for a stimulating "weight loss" machine that actually owes its popularity with women to the fact that it's an undercover vibrator. Cue the euphemisms: "Rejuvenator," "youthful glow," etc. Today, of course, euphemism is dead. The agency would sell the product with "Turn it on and cum!" So it makes us wistful to look back on how they sold embarrassing things in the good old days. (With sexism!). After the jump, classic ads that gently persuaded your grandparents to choose the right brand when they were feeling... not so fresh:

Correct us if we're wrong, but didn't Reese Witherspoon, y'know, win an Oscar just a few years ago? We're pretty sure she did, but you'd never know it from this poster for Four Christmases, the upcoming comedy she stars in with Vince Vaughn. Despite the fact that Vaughn fired UTA and his manager after the star vehicle Fred Claus opened to less than his first $20 million paycheck, the poster still gives him first billing over the Oscar-winning, A-list Witherspoon (and for another Christmas movie, no less!). To be fair, Witherspoon's last film Rendition was a box-office bust, but she wasn't top-billed on that, either: new beau Jake Gyllenhaal was, despite the fact that he's not yet proven himself as a box office draw. After winning the industry's highest award and proving her ability to single-handedly open a comedy with films like Legally Blonde and Sweet Home Alabama, what more does Witherspoon have to do to be called first in the billing block?Is it simply that studios are too terrified to give a woman first billing over a male star, lest people then think the film to be a chick flick? After all, Vaughn's last hit was The Break-Up, the rare romantic comedy with strong male appeal, something that marketing folks might have felt was in jeopardy had costar Jennifer Aniston been first-billed. Four Christmases isn't a romcom but a flat-out comedy, but would it be perceived as the former if Vaughn was subservient to Witherspoon in the billing block? Yes, when compared to Witherspoon, the presence of Vaughn in this film makes us more likely to see it (though still? not very likely), simply because the actor has a track record of enlivening even the most formulaic films with his improvised comic riffs. Still, we wonder just how B- and C-list you'd have to go to find a male costar whom the studio would allow Witherspoon to supplant. In an alternate Four Christmases, could the actress vault over Colin Farrell to claim first billing? Or will she have to settle for a part opposite Freddie Prinze Jr. to claim what, by rights, should be hers?

Crazy old Kanye West, the retiringly modest Best Rapper In the World Ever, has been arrested at LAX. It seems the college dropout said hoof! to some paparazzo's camera, smashing it to the floor like so many California dreams. Other than this being a curious example of an attention hog dissing attention, this isn't exactly shocking, given West's history of getting mad at people. Well, at least he didn't break a damn MacBook Air over some damn hippie's head.

Our office's crystal ball usually tends to function best on Fridays — and even then, as we handicap new releases in our Defamer Attractions column, it can be a tad hinky. But after a few weeks of painstaking inquiry, we think we now have a handle on some of the fall movie slate's biggest revelations to come. Will Brad Pitt backward-age his way to Oscar immortality? Is Twilight really the best investment for your vampire-movie dollars? Can Beverly Hills Chihuahua live up to its exceptional promise? Follow the jump for answers to those and a few of the season's other pressing questions. Feel free to scan your own tea leaves as well; our own oracle shuddered and crapped out the minute we asked about Australia, so any and all input is welcome. Onward!1. Brad Pitt will win an Academy Award. We know the post-Toronto establishment has all but engraved Mickey Rourke's name on this year's Best Actor Oscar (hell, even Rourke has engraved his name on this year's Best Actor Oscar), but taking both The Wrestler (release date TBD) and Pitt's epic The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (12/25) sight unseen, we'll take the aging-backward-on-other-people's-bodies gimmick over the gritty indie comeback 10 times out of 10. Not that it won't be close: Brad Grey will spend more on his old pal's campaign than Fox Searchlight is probably ready to drop on Rourke's, but Rourke will be the more accessible nominee to the media. Look for dark horse Sean Penn (Milk) to split the field late; Focus Features won't settle for another 0-fer in '08. 2. W. (10/17) will tip the election to the GOP. Opening less than three weeks before Election Day, the film will be too muddled to move the Democrats yet irreverent enough to galvanize the Republican base against Hollywood one more time before voting. Oliver Stone will be recognized as the new Ralph Nader. 3. You're going to miss Don LaFontaine a lot more than you think. Otherwise execrable trailers like this one for The Haunting of Molly Hartley (10/31) acquired bittersweet relevance overnight: 4. The Weinstein Company will muscle its way back to prominence. Harvey had a relatively hemorrhage-free summer, closed out by his $16 million-grossing (and counting) Vicky Cristina Barcelona. Meanwhile, Zack and Miri Make a Porno (10/31) left Toronto with goodwill to spare, the LA immigrant saga Crossing Over (10/24) has Harrison Ford, Sean Penn and others channeling Crash, and the company bumped up The Reader for Kate Winslet Oscar consideration. (NB: The Rourke Factor also reportedly inspired Harvey to finally slot his long-shelved Killshot on Nov. 7.) The Weinsteins being the Weinsteins, of course, the operation could crash at any time, but at least the ensuing conflagration promises Hindenberg levels of spectacle. That's our Harvey. 5. Owen Wilson will emerge from, return to hiding after explaining the trailer to Marley & Me (12/25). That is all.

Despite being paced a bit too frenetically for our liking, last week's two-hour debut of the 90210 reboot managed to intrigue us enough to tune in for last night's episode (although it appears that 25% of those first week viewers didn't feel the same way). And while the new brood of West Beverly High School students still can't stop smiling, we couldn't help but find ourselves smiling a little bit during the episode's (admittedly shoehorned-in) plotlines revolving around Kelly Taylor. Suckers for nostalgia, rejoice! Last night, we finally got some details about her mystery four year old son, the product of a one night splash-off with someone who she "had a lot of history together [with] in high school" (but has since left her high and dry). Join us as we investigate the eight likeliest candidates for being the dude whose little swimmers got all up in Kelly Taylor's biznass.

No really, I checked with Jezebel editor Anna Holmes, seriously no one cares this year. I even checked with the anonymous comments left on New York Times fashion critic Cathy Horyn's blog; this is like the most irrelevant-feeling Fashion Week since the terrorists got involved. Why? Well I thought of five good reasons! This guy (pictured) is your first clue…Marc Jacobs is the only designer anyone cares about and, even though his collection was sort of cool this year, his collection has always been sort of a loss-leader funded by his insane diva behavior and that behavior mostly stopped this year. Last September Marc Jacobs started his 9 p.m. show two and a half hours late and everyone had a hissy fit about it, which in turn caused Marc Jacobs to have a hissy fit over how he was an "artist" and people should not be thinking about quotidian details such as whether their dogs had been fed. Then he dyed his hair blue, went insane and maybe also to rehab. Anyway, that is as good as it gets, in fashion. (That should tell you something.) But he is sane this year. It's all about the clothes, and no one really cares about clothes! Everyone who isn't Russian is poor. Times Thursday Styles regular Stephanie Rosenbloom has a story about the nation's thrift stores. This is hugely significant for two reasons: 1. It is actually a story, and last year around this time Stephanie Rosenbloom was writing about horseback riding in the Hampton's, but it turns out she has been hiding out in the Business section lately, getting down to proverbial business. 2. The story is that the demand for other people's cast-off ill-advised purchases has exceeded the nation's supply of ill-advised purchases. Cindy McCain is the new Victoria Beckham. Example: last week Us Weekly decreed Michelle Obama to have hands-down better style than Cindy McCain. This week the selfsame magazine has a whole feature on Cindy's supposed "makeover" and how pretty she suddenly supposedly looks! And that is not even to mention the matter of Sarah Palin's disappearing-reappearing beehive, and Michelle Obama's Thakoon dress and the cool shirt pictured above, which we found on Philebrity. Political fashion icons are the new celebrity fashion icons, and that is bad for the industry because unlike worthless celebrities who are allowed to change outfits as fast as they can spill tequila and Sparks on the ones they were wearing, politicians, at least when they are not wearing $300,000 dresses, have to pretend they understand the realities of working-class Americans busy raiding thrift stores/insurgent safe houses. The must-have item this year is the jumpsuit. Perhaps you heard about the school in Texas that recently decreed that all kids who chose to violate dress code requirements by rolling up their skirts or whatever would risk being forced to don prison jumpsuits for the remainder of the school day. Now, there is always going to be that one group of totally cool high schoolers who make the prison jumpsuits into some sort of "subversive" fashion statement, but bottom line is that high schoolers would not be incurring dress code violations if they did not want to show off their skinny high schooler legs etc. etc. and those high schoolers grow into the adults who consume fashion. So this gives me pause: