Toes - Spuds and Otherwise

Daphne Guinness in Alexander McQueen Armadillo Shoes

I am always amazed at what gets the attention of the American public.

You might recall that I “ranted” in an earlier blog about not knowing who LeBron James was and where he was headed. That question, at the time, was the subject of great debate among the news mongers of the US.

For the record, he wound up in Miami with “The Heat.” While Miami is warmer than a large part of the rest of the country, the “heat” is a professional sports team. (I do not remember the variety – but it is not croquet.)

Today’s debate is even of less consequence.

Should the President of the United States of America expose his toes?

We have seen Presidential chests and some Presidential scars, but no toes!

That is, until now.

To begin with our leader is not walking about Washington inflagrante. Also, to my knowledge, President Obama has not been photographed with a zoom, relaxing on the Truman Balcony with his bare feet resting on the railing, while watching the sun at play on the Washington Monument.

He has, however, been photographed on a recent vacation to his native state of Hawaii, wearing flip-flops while at the beach purchasing ice cream for his two girls. His knees were also showing since he was wearing shorts, but the concern is about the exposed toes not knobby knees.

I am more relieved that he was not wearing his Hickey Freeman with flip-flops.

To begin with, I am not a fan of flip-flops, not even the bejeweled kind that the Jackie O generation wore on Saint-Tropez. While my children, now 40 and 32, both attest to the comfort of this type shoe, I am now and have always been radically opposed to them.

I used to teach a very popular humanities course at a college in Florida. It was always held in a large teaching auditorium which had tiered seating. The downside was that I faced hundreds of “flip-flopped” feet at each lecture.

It was unpleasant! Had I taught Religion, I would have probably insisted upon the re-enactment of foot-washing at each lecture.

I considered putting something in the syllabus about “no exposed feet” but then worried that I would be the subject of much conjecture. I am far too Southern to handle that much free thought about my person.

So I faced the feet.

The foot is not an attractive extremity – well, maybe on a newborn, but certainly not past puberty. So, to give the foot the minimal cladding of a strap and a sole held in place by gnarly toes offers far more than should be viewed.

Yet, at each lecture, there were hundreds of them looking back at me as I extolled the virtues of modern architecture and Paul Klee. It all seemed so inappropriate – so inconsistent with good learning. That is not to say that learning can only happen in an environment of Mary Janes and wing-tips. A “Bass Weejun” here and there is not a threat. Sperry’s in leather or canvas are fine. But a room full of flip-flops – never! Ah, where are those saddle oxfords when you need them?

Scholars, and others, cover your ugly feet! I don’t expose mine, so I don’t wish you to expose yours.

Now, I also am not interested in the strange cartoon-like inventions called shoes that have been unveiled by couture designers and find their way onto the feet of the likes of that Guinness girl - the one that makes the five perfect white shirts for ladies who need perfect white shirts. Daphne, your McQueen Armadillos are over the top. But, so are most of her clothes.

But, back to Presidential flip-flops. (The apparel variety, not the reversal of previous statements of policy.)

It seems nobody has ever seen the Presidential toes.

Back in 1992, Vice-Presidential “toes” were exposed and found sadly wanting when Mr. Quayle corrected the spelling of a spud by a young William Figueroa and created a national sensation. Some say that branded Dan as “less than a rocket scientist.” By 1992, that shipped had sailed.

Well, King Julien of Madagascar fame would well understand this thing about the "lower ten." His edict is forthright. “Do not touch the Royal Feet!” While Mort is obsessed with his feet for reasons that are never revealed, King J must have surely understood that the foot represented vulnerability and Mort was to keep his distance.

Remember the Achilles’ heel? Heel, toes – it’s the same geography.

Are we now less safe since we have seen the President’s “little piggies?”

There will be some conjecture, I feel certain, that at the next encounter with a hardliner like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad there will be the fear that he will say, “Don’t take that tact with me, I have seen your toes!”

The only recourse at that point will be to flash him the sole of the foot.

I have no opinion on the Presidential toes only that it is “much ado about nothing.” Perhaps to avoid any future controversy, Mr. Obama should only appear at the beach in a pair of LeBron James “Ambassadors.”

Speaking of “much ado about nothing,” the GOP representatives are reading aloud the Constitution on the floor of the House.

Is there an amendment “afoot?”