FROM THE ALOTT5MA STRIKING FACIAL HAIR TRENDS DESK:  Kim and I couldn't quite find the words to describe Adam Lambert's striking new look.  Other than striking.

In other news, do not click on this gallery of examples of the monkey tail beard if you have trouble unseeing bizarre things which hipsters are now doing.  (HT: Glark.)

ALOTT5MA FRIDAY GRAMMAR RODEO:  I think there's something that we need to discuss.  According to the NYT stylebook:

that, which. Use that, not which, in a restrictive clause — a clause necessary to the reader’s understanding of the sentence: The town that the pitcher calls home is tiny Hawley, Pa. (The sentence serves no purpose without that the pitcher calls home.) Note that there are no commas around the clause. In a nonrestrictive clause — one providing added information, not essential to understand the sentence — use which, preceded by a comma: Hawley, Pa., which the pitcher calls home, is tiny. (The sentence is understandable without which the pitcher calls home.)

Claims "Grammar Girl": "A quick and dirty tip (with apologies to Wiccans and Hermione Granger) is to remember that you can throw out the 'whiches' and no harm will be done. You use which in nonrestrictive clauses, and if you eliminate a nonrestrictive clause, the meaning of the remaining part of the sentence will be the same as it was before."

CMOS basically agrees, though conceding that "Some people use 'which' restrictively, which is more or less okay (and popular among writers of British English) as long as no commas are involved."

Here's a challenge that you can take, which is a nice test of this distinction. Does it matter?

Survey SAYS! "The difference between 'that' and 'which' is something that I ..." care about and get right (44%), care about but get wrong (33%), or ignore (21%).

A PARADE OF SILLY HATS:  We join this Royal Wedding, already in progress.  Snark (or gape) away.

AS A PERSON WHO BUYS A LOT OF EROTIC CAKES, IT JUST FEELS GOOD TO BE REPRESENTED ON ONE:  What I can say about tonight's episode of The Office without spoiling is that it was manipulative, predictable, and still deeply affecting.  And funny. I (or someone else) will have more to say in a bit; it's a little dusty in here.

AMERICA VOTED: You know the drill.

ONE TWO THREE FOUR, ANYONE WATCHING ANYMORE?: So, we start by booing the Commish. And I like it.

And the "ESPN Insider" guy's eye makeup has him looking like a besuited refugee from an Adam Ant video. And I LOVE it.

And the Panthers start it all off by picking Cam Newton, who, given his history and the dismal state of the Carolina team, is sort of a Schrodinger's Quarterback, a Jamarcus Elway, if you will, and --

And is anybody else watching this absurdly over-hyped and labor-relationally strained pseudo-event this year? Thoughts?

OUR BALLS ARE IN YOUR COURT:  Obviously we need to talk about Michael Scott today, and Alan has a nice piece on his evolution "from barely-tolerated nuisance to the kind of guy whom everyone in that office will speak of fondly for years to come as they recall all the good, bad and ridiculous things he did." His timeline places well the key moments of that transformation as Scott went from screaming, pouty five-year-old desperate for attention to somewhere around 8-10, where at least he's got some concept of the needs of others and can take advice on occasion.

And, okay, maybe we can counter his list of Growth Moments with Michael At His Worst (Phyllis's wedding, Scott's Tots), where the comedy of discomfort was truly squirm-inducing (the dinner party) ... but, hell, Steve Carell invested so much awesome into this character that I just want to remember the good stuff today  (Also, I have strong confidence that they'll hit the right notes tonight.)

Below the fold, two clips which y'all know are favorites of mine: