It started with African-Americans (at the time we called them Blacks), the Latino community and of course women (who are actually the majority, but I won’t get into that now). After that group it expanded, to Asians, Muslims, gays, lesbians and transvestites.Which was followed by atheists, union members, criminals who served sentences in jail, people who have committed voter registration fraud (ACORN), groups associated with HAMAS such as CAIR, and of course people who are criminals because they came into the country illegally. Thanks to liberalism gone mad it seems that everyone is now a protected minority. Well its not everyone but just the minorities whom the liberals decide need the protection.
But the liberal’s latest try at establishing a protected minority has gone too far. Now some liberals want to have affirmative for a new group—the terminally ugly. Yep now we have to protect people who are so ugly, when they were born the doctor slapped their mothers.
On Hurricane Sunday, the NY Times published an editorial called Ugly? You May Have a Case. In the piece Daniel S. Hamermesh, a professor of economics at the University of Texas, Austin, explained that ugly people do not make as much money as good looking ones(I guess that I am the exception to the rule).
In addition to whatever personal pleasure it gives you, being attractive also helps you earn more money, find a higher-earning spouse (and one who looks better, too!) and get better deals on mortgages. Each of these facts has been demonstrated over the past 20 years by many economists and other researchers. The effects are not small: one study showed that an American worker who was among the bottom one-seventh in looks, as assessed by randomly chosen observers, earned 10 to 15 percent less per year than a similar worker whose looks were assessed in the top one-third — a lifetime difference, in a typical case, of about $230,000.
Maybe that’s why rich people are sometimes called “the beautiful people.”
According to this economics professor, a woman’s looks helps them pick better mates, but it is the physical looks of men that impacts jobs and money.
Why this disparate treatment of looks in so many areas of life? It’s a matter of simple prejudice. Most of us, regardless of our professed attitudes, prefer as customers to buy from better-looking salespeople, as jurors to listen to better-looking attorneys, as voters to be led by better-looking politicians, as students to learn from better-looking professors. This is not a matter of evil employers’ refusing to hire the ugly: in our roles as workers, customers and potential lovers we are all responsible for these effects.
Then he starts getting crazy
A more radical solution may be needed: why not offer legal protections to the ugly, as we do with racial, ethnic and religious minorities, women and handicapped individuals?
We actually already do offer such protections in a few places, including in some jurisdictions in California, and in the District of Columbia, where discriminatory treatment based on looks in hiring, promotions, housing and other areas is prohibited. Ugliness could be protected generally in the United States by small extensions of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Ugly people could be allowed to seek help from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other agencies in overcoming the effects of discrimination. We could even have affirmative-action programs for the ugly.
The mechanics of legislating this kind of protection are not as difficult as you might think. You might argue that people can’t be classified by their looks — that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That aphorism is correct in one sense: if asked who is the most beautiful person in a group of beautiful people, you and I might well have different answers. But when it comes to differentiating classes of attractiveness, we all view beauty similarly: someone whom you consider good-looking will be viewed similarly by most others; someone you consider ugly will be viewed as ugly by most others. In one study, more than half of a group of people were assessed identically by each of two observers using a five-point scale; and very few assessments differed by more than one point.
For purposes of administering a law, we surely could agree on who is truly ugly, perhaps the worst-looking 1 or 2 percent of the population. The difficulties in classification are little greater than those faced in deciding who qualifies for protection on grounds of disabilities that limit the activities of daily life, as shown by conflicting decisions in numerous legal cases involving obesity.
This guy is serious. Maybe there could be some sort of sliding scale were the uglier one is the more help they get. The government could start out with something like “unconventional looks, aesthetically challenged, or forever virgin” and then move on to other terms as a persons looks got worse:
- got a great face for radio.
- look like they fell out of the ugly tree, hit all of the branches on the way down and got tangled up in the roots!
- coyote ugly
- Alan Colmes
- beat with the ugly stick
- double coyote ugly
- 4 drink minimum
- OMG so fugly I want to puke
I am sure the liberals can come up with their own terms. The way things are going soon there will be protected minority called “People who are not in a minority.” Maybe its time to stop this nonsense and understand that maybe if we stop trying to make excuses for why people succeed or not, more people will have the confidence to do their best and try and succeed.
At least that’s the position of this fat, bald, very good looking Jewish guy, who hasn’t had a full time job since Barack Obama became President (not that I am blaming anyone).