Aaron Perlut, who has preferred to be called Dr. Perlut since bestowing upon himself a Ph.D. in nuclear mustachology, has been a mustache advocate for several years now.
American Mustache Institute Chairman Aaron Perlut
It is not an easy task.
As chairman of the American Mustache Institute, a group he founded in 2006, Perlut campaigns against anti-mustache discrimination across the land--he's saved jobs from threatening employers and high school careers from anti-mustache deans--and generally tries to revive the 'stache as a prominent element of American male fashion. He seems willing to go to any length to preserve and advance what he calls the Mustached American lifestyle.
Find below an interview with Perlut, 39--who runs a public relations and social media firm in St. Louis when he's not actively campaigning for mustaches--about trends, styles, possibilities, and the State of the American Mustache.
Why do you like mustaches so much?
Honestly, I think that's the first time anyone's ever asked me that, in that way.
As a young man I grew up surrounded by mustaches in my family, but I was always intimidated to grow them, even though I could from a very young age, because of the public pressures against it--because they weren't cool, they weren't hip. There was a certain stigma attached to people with mustaches, that you weren't professional or intelligent, and I committed myself to working for an organization that battled against that.
What does your group hope to achieve?
Very simply, an equal playing field for people of Mustached American heritage. I got off the phone earlier today with a gentleman who told me he was told that he could have a job that he wanted, if he shaved his mustache.
Yeah. We recently saved the job of a young man who was a college student working at a restaurant, whose employers told him that he would either shave his mustache or lose his job that he was using to pay his tuition at the University of Georgia in Athens. There is a pattern of discrimination against people who are different from whatever the norm might be at the time in this country, and facial hair is no exception.
Have you done that many times, where you make a call and talk to an employer or save someone's job?
Yeah. Most often we use social media tools, quite frankly. Sometimes we lobby directly. There was an interesting case ... a young man named Sebastian Pham, who was 16 at the time and grew a mustache and was removed from his high school class because of a policy against mustaches, and we lobbied on his behalf and were able to ultimately have the policy changed within the school district. It's called the Royse City school district in Royse City, Texas, right outside of Dallas. But ultimately we were able to have the policy overturned, and he became kind of a cult hero among his classmates.
What percent of your followers, would you say, take this seriously, lightly, or both at the same time?
I would say that probably about 30 percent of our followers take it seriously, and the rest simply enjoy the show. We purposefully try to use a great sense of humor in promoting the mustache, because ultimately our goal is to bring the mustache further back into popular culture, and if humor is the vehicle that we use to get there and it's ultimately successful, then we are still pleased. We've still accomplished our goal.
Can you tell me a little bit about the 'Stache Bash?
Really kind of a circus, an annual celebration of the Mustached American people and lifestyle, where we try to have a tremendous amount of music and fun, and essentially it's a five hour festival, and we also award the Robert Goulet Memorial Mustached American of the Year honor, which is voted upon on our site.
Are there any early frontrunners or darkhorses for The Goulet in 2010, even though you've just opened up nominations?
Yeah, there's a couple that I can think of. One would be [Minnesota Twins pitcher] Carl Pavano. Carl Pavano grew a mustache this year and has had one of the best seasons of his career after being thought of as washed up and, really, soon to be out of baseball. It's really once again demonstrated that the ultimate performance enhancer is indeed the mustache on the athletic playing field. I would say another would be Dr. John Yeutter, who is a professor at Northeastern State University in Oklahoma. He's a finance professor, in fact he wrote our tax white paper...so those are two. He actually came in second last year to Clay Zevada.
You know, I haven't heard a lot of rumblings about [U.S. Attorney General] Eric Holder again, but I think he's still a very viable candidate, if only because he's the first Mustached American attorney general since 1946--Francis Biddle, I believe.
What are the trends in mustaches these days?
They're definintely going up still. We started to see a slow rise just in the last ten years, whereas in 2000, only about 17 percent of American males wore mustaches. Now we are in the low 30s--33, 32 percent--and a lot of it is fueled by a couple things. One of them is millenials looking for a new way to express themselves instead of a tattoo.
What about style? What mustache styles are popular now?
You see a pretty broad array. The Chevron style, which is often seen on police officers--in fact, 98 percent of all law enforcement agencies issue them along with badges and guns and things like that--but you've seen a lot of times Chevron style, but accentuated by other aspects, like a little bit of chin coverage, so you've seen kind of a broad array of styles. And we're also seeing the Fu Manchu come back a lot.
Are there any regional divergences on mustache style or growth rate?
You definitely see the Chevron style ... more often in the South. And you tend to see more Goatees on the coasts.
Is there a leading country or world region in mustaches?
Germany tends to be very strong. Europe is much stronger. The Handlebar Club is based there. But Americans have really come back in facial hair in recent years. The U.S. beard and mustache team has done extraordinarily well in some of the world beard and mustache games, but I think Europe has generally been much stronger. You also tend to see them in the Middle East. To a man, if you look at a picture of Middle Eastern men, generally 90 percent of them have mustaches.
Are we talking mustaches or beards?
Generally mustaches. If you look--especially Iraqis. Look at Saddam Hussein's Cabinet before he was taken out of office.
You brought up Germany.
Hitler had a mustache.
Was that almost the end of mustaches?
Not mustaches, but it was interesting how it coincided with a change in American culture as well, because in the early part of the 20th century, up until World War II, mustaches were very popular in the U.S., but World War II was, unlike some wars, a very popular war, because it wasn't a war of aggression ... we were defending ourselves after being attacked. So when soldiers came back from the war, very clean cut obviously because they had been as soldiers, in the '40s and '50s that kind of became part of the cultural norm, where American men had short, trimmed-cut hair with very little facial hair.
Now, as we started getting into the hippie movement of the '60s, that slowly started to change, but the way that it happened to coincide with Adolf Hitler's infamous mustache and soldiers coming back from the war, and generally being clean cut, has always been rather interesting and a transitional period for facial hair in the U.S.
The voicemail message of the American Mustache Institute references the sexually adventurous lifestyle of the Mustached American. Is there a one-to-one correlation between mustaches and sexual adventurism?
There is a sexual dynamic between people who have entered the Mustached American lifestyle and the pleasure that they are able to provide to their partners, that only the Mustached American is capable of, and those that are not capable of living a Mustached American lifestyle, or are unwilling for some reason, can never quite understand that dynamic, but again it goes beyond our sexual proclivities and more to a full, broad lifestlye.
What is your personal favorite mustache of all time?
I would say that I believe the most influential mustache of all time to be Walter Cronkite, because he influenced a decade of mustache fashion in America, and when he left, the mustache essentially was on life support in this country. I also have great admiration for Dr. Martin Luther King, who really inspired black America to be very consistent with its support of a Mustached American lifestyle to this day, dating back to when he was a civil rights leader, as well as someone like Burt Reynolds, who has really been a stalwart in our community.
Do you have a personal favorite mustache aesthetically, apart from historical significance?
I have always been a big fan of former major league pitcher Al Hrabosky. Al, when he was playing, wore a Fu Manchu mustache that was so intense that it could strip paint, lead paint, off a windowsill, and he had a personality to match it, and I have always been kind of taken by old photos of Al's mustache. I would also say Robert Goulet is also a personal favorite, which is one of the reasons we named the Robert Goulet Mustached American of the year award after him.
Have you noticed that one of your Mustaches that Changed History, Ron Burgundy, was basically Will Ferell's impression of Robert Goulet? He did it on Saturday Night Live, and he basically rolled that impression over into Ron Burgundy in the same way that he rolled over his George W. Bush impression into Talladega Nights.
It was kind of an amalgamation of Robert Goulet and some of the old school newsmen of the '70s, and as a former journalism student, I was very aware of what he was trying to accomplish and achieve in that role, so I was always very taken by it and very impressed by it.
Do you think that a mustache would improve President Obama's approval rating?
I think so. I think that it would really help bridge the gap with some of the more moderate Republicans, and even some of the Tea Party Republicans, in that they would understand the intensity of his resolve to come a little bit further to the right to find that middle ground that right now our political system is so sorely in need of.
What needs to happen for the mustache to make its emergence or reemergence into mainstream fashion, and when do you think that will happen?
I think we've seen inklings of it when celebrities, sadly, have donned mustaches. People like Brad Pitt and George Clooney, because we tend to be a very celebrity-driven culture, and when celebrities take on an aspect of fashion, we tend to follow it in great numbers. I think millenials were already kind of flocking to the Mustached American lifestyle, and then you had people like Daniel Day Lewis, who became the first mustached Best Actor award winner in 11 years when he won for Daniel Plainview [in "There Will Be Blood"] in 2007, immediately followed by George Clooney and Brad Pitt wearing mustaches.
Then we had some political mustaches enter the fray with David Axelrod and Eric Holder, so I think we had leaders and celebrities who had adopted a mustached lifestyle that were very much in the forefront of the media, and I think it began a very strong movement along with organizations like ours and Movember [see here] that encouraged mustache growth or mustache growth for philanthopy, so I think organizationally and from a celebrity perspective we've started to see that sea change coming, but we're not there yet.
More specifically, I do think it's going to take one of those cross-generational personalities--who somehow has touched both grandfathers, fathers, and college students--to adopt a Mustached American lifestyle that's really going to start to push us more fully in what we would consider to be the right direction.
What are the biggest geopolitical factors affecting mustaches right now?
There is still the perception that leaders cannot have mustaches. At least in the U.S., there are less than 30 members of Congress that wear mustaches, and unfortunately some of the people that have been deemed by Americans to be tyrants or evil, such as Saddam Hussein, have been heavily mustached. So I think that there is a perception still that Mustached Americans are incapable of leading, are incapable of being role models, are incapable of living a just life by certain sectors of our culture.
Republicans are split on how to balance broad participation against the efficient functioning of the institution.
In 1910, the Republican Party was in crisis. Ray Stannard Baker posed the question, “Is the Republican Party Breaking Up?” in the pages of The American Magazine. Baker described a struggle between the “most unyielding of the Regulars” and those the party leaders dismissed as “a factional disturbance to be crushed out … mutineers.” Locked in mortal battle, the Republicans fractured in 1912, losing both the White House and the Congress to Democrats.
It would seem from watching the current maelstrom within the House Republican Conference that history is repeating itself. As Yogi Berra might have put it: “déjà vu all over again.”
“We should be fighting the Democrats—not the Republicans,” Tea Party leader Raúl Labrador declared. “We shouldn't be fighting each other.” But the rebellion against House Speaker John Boehner, the inability to legislate, and the unanticipated implosion of Kevin McCarthy all suggest a party wracked by division and self-doubt.
Before it became the New World, the Western Hemisphere was vastly more populous and sophisticated than has been thought—an altogether more salubrious place to live at the time than, say, Europe. New evidence of both the extent of the population and its agricultural advancement leads to a remarkable conjecture: the Amazon rain forest may be largely a human artifact
The plane took off in weather that was surprisingly cool for north-central Bolivia and flew east, toward the Brazilian border. In a few minutes the roads and houses disappeared, and the only evidence of human settlement was the cattle scattered over the savannah like jimmies on ice cream. Then they, too, disappeared. By that time the archaeologists had their cameras out and were clicking away in delight.
Below us was the Beni, a Bolivian province about the size of Illinois and Indiana put together, and nearly as flat. For almost half the year rain and snowmelt from the mountains to the south and west cover the land with an irregular, slowly moving skin of water that eventually ends up in the province's northern rivers, which are sub-subtributaries of the Amazon. The rest of the year the water dries up and the bright-green vastness turns into something that resembles a desert. This peculiar, remote, watery plain was what had drawn the researchers' attention, and not just because it was one of the few places on earth inhabited by people who might never have seen Westerners with cameras.
Science says lasting relationships come down to—you guessed it—kindness and generosity.
Every day in June, the most popular wedding month of the year, about 13,000 American couples will say “I do,” committing to a lifelong relationship that will be full of friendship, joy, and love that will carry them forward to their final days on this earth.
Except, of course, it doesn’t work out that way for most people. The majority of marriages fail, either ending in divorce and separation or devolving into bitterness and dysfunction. Of all the people who get married, only three in ten remain in healthy, happy marriages, as psychologist Ty Tashiro points out in his book The Science of Happily Ever After, which was published earlier this year.
Social scientists first started studying marriages by observing them in action in the 1970s in response to a crisis: Married couples were divorcing at unprecedented rates. Worried about the impact these divorces would have on the children of the broken marriages, psychologists decided to cast their scientific net on couples, bringing them into the lab to observe them and determine what the ingredients of a healthy, lasting relationship were. Was each unhappy family unhappy in its own way, as Tolstoy claimed, or did the miserable marriages all share something toxic in common?
No defensible moral framework regards foreigners as less deserving of rights than people born in the right place at the right time.
To paraphrase Rousseau, man is born free, yet everywhere he is caged. Barbed-wire, concrete walls, and gun-toting guards confine people to the nation-state of their birth. But why? The argument for open borders is both economic and moral. All people should be free to move about the earth, uncaged by the arbitrary lines known as borders.
Not every place in the world is equally well-suited to mass economic activity. Nature’s bounty is divided unevenly. Variations in wealth and income created by these differences are magnified by governments that suppress entrepreneurship and promote religious intolerance, gender discrimination, or other bigotry. Closed borders compound these injustices, cementing inequality into place and sentencing their victims to a life of penury.
The standard conception of the disorder is based on studies of "hyperactive young white boys." For females, it comes on later, and has different symptoms.
When you live in total squalor—cookies in your pants drawer, pants in your cookies drawer, and nickels, dresses, old New Yorkers, and apple seeds in your bed—it’s hard to know where to look when you lose your keys. The other day, after two weeks of fruitless searching, I found my keys in the refrigerator on top of the roasted garlic hummus. I can’t say I was surprised. I was surprised when my psychiatrist diagnosed me with ADHD two years ago, when I was a junior at Yale.
In editorials and in waiting rooms, concerns of too-liberal diagnoses and over-medication dominate our discussions of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD. The New York Timesrecently reported, with great alarm, the findings of a new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study: 11 percent of school-age children have received an ADHD diagnosis, a 16 percent increase since 2007. And rising diagnoses mean rising treatments—drugs like Adderall and Ritalin are more accessible than ever, whether prescribed by a physician or purchased in a library. The consequences of misuse and abuse of these drugs are dangerous, sometimes fatal.
Is there anything inherently “doggy” about the word “dog”? Obviously not—to the French, a dog is a chien, to Russians a sobaka, to Mandarin Chinese-speakers a gǒu. These words have nothing in common, and none seem any more connected to the canine essence than any other. One runs up against that wall with pretty much any word.
Except some. The word for “mother” seems often either to be mama or have a nasal sound similar to m, like nana. The word for “father” seems often either to be papa or have a sound similar to p, like b, in it—such that you get something like baba. The word for “dad” may also have either d or t, which is a variation on saying d, just as p is on b. People say mama or nana, and then papa, baba, dada, or tata,worldwide.
When M.S. was 13, her math teacher at Edison middle school in Los Angeles invited her to be friends online. Soon the 8th grader was receiving sexually explicit messages. That winter, she was called into a classroom and told to shut the door. The teacher, Elkis Hermida, kissed and hugged the student. In March, he drove M.S. (as she’s referred to in court records, to protect her privacy), then 14, to a motel, where they had sexual intercourse. Another time, he rearranged furniture in his classroom and had sex with the girl right there.
When they had intercourse a third time, at a motel, Hermida told M.S. that they were not in a relationship—they were just having sex. At that point, M.S. “wanted to stop having sexual intercourse with Hermida, but did not feel that she was free to do so,” a California appeals court stated. At their next encounter, the teacher wanted anal sex. M.S. objected. “Hermida inserted something into her anus anyway,” the court said.
An influential journalist who supports the presidential candidate offers an unusually naked defense of her ends-justify-the-means approach to public life.
An influential progressive writer published a blunt assessment of Hillary Clinton this week, declaring her unusually willing to transgress against civic and legal standards.
“From her adventures in cattle trading to chairing a policymaking committee in her husband's White House to running for Senate in a state she’d never lived in to her effort to use superdelegates to overturn 2008 primary results to her email servers,” Matthew Yglesias declared at Vox.com, “Clinton is clearly more comfortable than the average person with violating norms and operating in legal gray areas.”
He goes on to flesh out those examples and to offer still more:
There was no winnable Senate race for her to enter in Illinois or Arkansas in 2000, so she ran in New York instead. Barack Obama forbade her from employing Sidney Blumenthal at the State Department, so she employed him at her family's foundation instead. Sandy Berger faced criminal penalties for destroying classified documents at the National Archives, but that didn't stop Clinton from informally employing him as an adviser on sensitive Middle East peace negotiations.
She decides what she wants to do, in other words, and then she sets about finding a way to do it...
American politicians are now eager to disown a failed criminal-justice system that’s left the U.S. with the largest incarcerated population in the world. But they've failed to reckon with history. Fifty years after Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s report “The Negro Family” tragically helped create this system, it's time to reclaim his original intent.
By his own lights, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, ambassador, senator, sociologist, and itinerant American intellectual, was the product of a broken home and a pathological family. He was born in 1927 in Tulsa, Oklahoma, but raised mostly in New York City. When Moynihan was 10 years old, his father, John, left the family, plunging it into poverty. Moynihan’s mother, Margaret, remarried, had another child, divorced, moved to Indiana to stay with relatives, then returned to New York, where she worked as a nurse. Moynihan’s childhood—a tangle of poverty, remarriage, relocation, and single motherhood—contrasted starkly with the idyllic American family life he would later extol.
Why Millennials aren’t buying cars or houses, and what that means for the economy
In 2009, Ford brought its new supermini, the Fiesta, over from Europe in a brave attempt to attract the attention of young Americans. It passed out 100 of the cars to influential bloggers for a free six-month test-drive, with just one condition: document your experience online, whether you love the Fiesta or hate it.
Young bloggers loved the car. Young drivers? Not so much. After a brief burst of excitement, in which Ford sold more than 90,000 units over 18 months, Fiesta sales plummeted. As of April 2012, they were down 30 percent from 2011.
Don’t blame Ford. The company is trying to solve a puzzle that’s bewildering every automaker in America: How do you sell cars to Millennials (a k a Generation Y)? The fact is, today’s young people simply don’t drive like their predecessors did. In 2010, adults between the ages of 21 and 34 bought just 27 percent of all new vehicles sold in America, down from the peak of 38 percent in 1985. Miles driven are down, too. Even the proportion of teenagers with a license fell, by 28 percent, between 1998 and 2008.