My hubby and I reached a similar conclusion last winter when we saw the exhibition commemorating the 200th anniversary of the Louisiana Purchase at the New Orleans Museum of Art.

The most interesting display was Thomas Jefferson's office chair--plain wood, tall back, simple arms--next to Napolean's, which was an eyesore of gold, gilt, jewels and ornate woodcarvings.

I'm so thankful I live in Thomas Jefferson's America.

Fabulous. He looks so much like Mel Brooks in that picture, I thought at first it was a photoshop. (An observation which I imagine would please him not at all...)

Just compare to the US uniforms in WWII. Very simple. Caps that just sort of hung on the wearers, simple fatigues, with a few exceptions (Patton, the king of chicken-s**t, comes to mind). The Nazis, the French, and Russkis had wonderfully tailored uniforms - look what it got them.

There's a long held semi-toungue-in-cheek way of assesing ( by real military analysts, wear gamers, and so forth) which of two armies is going to win:

The fancier uniforms lose, the lower down the ranks the fancy uniforms go the more badly they'll lose.

His face looks like a cross between Mel Brooks and Mr. Whipple.

You know, that picture does look remarkably like a doorman for a swanky hotel ...

There's a name for this: the Sukholimov effect.

If my memory is correct Marshal Suhkolimov was Chief of Staff to Czar Nicholas, and one of the most splendidly-attired officials that ever lived. As to his competence, you need only look to how Russia did in WWI.

So, like Tom and Fred observed, the armies that have the snappiest uniforms (the Nazis, the Confederates, et. al.) generally lose. The dudes in the bus-conductor uniforms generally kick butt.

But the real story here, I think, is how the good General is liable to have to explain himself before a court of law. That's pretty darn sweet.