To the Polo Snoot.

It always seems to be those who struggle with their own individuality that have the most to say about what other's are doing; Case in point, Polo boots

A third of Philadelphia is in Uggs, another third in Nike, and the final third is in polo boots. Don't get me wrong, (I made up those statistics) and had made my fair share of jokes until the day that I actually picked up a ranger boot and then looked down at my own feet.

At the time I had been wearing a pair of Palladiums and after tracing my finger over the Polo's boots leather, then my leather, putting both shoes side to side and noticing too many simialarities, I thought, "The only difference is the label and price". Naturally the Palladium were cheaper, the Timberland's on the feet of the guy beside me were also eerily similiar to both, AND $150 as well.

The only eyeopening difference? The polo boots were the nicest of the three pairs.. Ignore the man on the horse, ignore "polo" on the heel and what do you have? A boot that will keep your toe armed warriors looking chic and snug in the cold. So tell me, if Kanye West hadn't worn his timberlands to the BET awards last year would you have seen your local blipster in a pair? If complex magazine hadn't showcased palladium how many people do you think might actually consider them? If 3 males on your bus (that's transporting at least 30 people) weren't wearing the same model of Polo boots..Would you really cast your nose up?

EVERY male on the bus also undoubtedly owns a white tee (hanes) like the one that you have at the bottom of your laundry basket. What justified that white tee but scares you away from the "cookie boot"? Your white tee is better than their white tee for some reason, right? And your space jams, aqua's, and three's.. I bet they're better than everyone else's for whatever reason too.

$175 (or more) for a sneaker that might be worn three times this year (twice to difference sneaker events, once in your bedroom). I bet that all of your so called "sneakerhead friends" will have them also..Or $150 for a pair of attractive boots that you might also see on strangers around the city but are much, much more comfortable than your timbs that you now proudly stomp around in (but were dissing a year ago)?

"Ha, I'm not in that unoriginal category. I wear clarks". I hate to wipe the smile off of your face but yes, you are., Brilliant choice in terms of style but the $55 that you saved doesn't compensate for your wet & frozen toes when winter laughs at the fact that your boots were made for the desert (and not the snow ridden streets of Philadelphia) or the fact that some of us saw the same "NOBODY has these" crepe soled boot on Sidney Lo (ska Skidknee) years ago.

And unless you are a worker in the 1920's, your red wings were showcased in a room, thrown unto a catwalk, and caught the eye of someone who would later spoon feed the idea to you, for more than 2x the cost of retail in 1920.

Yet you're better than the 14 year old in polo boots, hm. How is it that his "extended middle finger and grimace" picture is any more unoriginal than your "creative dslr and squinted eye" picture that you took in the mirror? A lot of "artsy & original" people seem to have those also.

None of this is to call you (nor I) posers. It's more like, uh..How do you figure? Why is your neighborhood "lo head" a copycat when he's only a copycat of his immediate environment? Most things that most people are wearing would throw them into the copycat grouping as well if looked at in depth.

The ONLY thing new under the sun is individual distinction, the same distinction that might seperate your hanes tee from his (or hers).

In short, don't diss the polo boot, Either A: own up to the fact that you wouldn't be able to find a way to unassociate your choice of winter footwear with the city's latest trend,B: go to The Ralph Lauren store and see what the fuss is about, or C: Say nothing at all.