Great Moments in Utterly Stupid Proposals for New Stupid Laws

This time, we bring you “let’s make it illegal to call anybody ugly!

It never ceases to amaze us how much spare time professors have on their hands to come up with insane idiocies like what’s about to be Fisked good and hard, but it does suggest to us that maybe somebody ought to give them something actually useful to do with their time. Like, perchance, work?

BEING good-looking is useful in so many ways.

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.

Actually, boyish charm, stratospheric levels of intelligence and a .45 strapped to your hip are much more important factors.

But we’ll grant that our dashing looks haven’t hurt us either.

But enough about His Imperial Highness.

Beauty is as much an issue for men as for women. While extensive research shows that women’s looks have bigger impacts in the market for mates, another large group of studies demonstrates that men’s looks have bigger impacts on the job.

This, of course, is utter bovine fecal matter. If that were true, Chris Tingles Matthews would be making a living licking maggots off corpses and, well, so would Janeane Garawfulho. Chris has been known to change the migratory pattern of birds just by staying out in the sun for more than 5 minutes at a time, the birds lucky enough to not puke themselves to death that is, and Janeane has no discernible talent other than that of looking moderately attractive if she would only lose the glasses and wash her hair more than once a year.

Unless, of course, you wish to argue that Chris got his job because of his Cary Grant-like looks and Janeane got hers because of her razor wit. In which case, please do make your case in the comments. We positively implore you.

But other than being utter goat shit, those studies are spot on.

How could we remedy this injustice? With all the gains to being good-looking, you would think that more people would get plastic surgery or makeovers to improve their looks. Many of us do all those things, but as studies have shown, such refinements make only small differences in our beauty. All that spending may make us feel better, but it doesn’t help us much in getting a better job or a more desirable mate.

So, other than you having just demonstrated that good looks do absolutely nothing on their own to help you get a leg up in life, you still persist in your inane argument? Must you do all of our work for us, proving that you’re an utter pea brain? You just said, within a few paragraphs and allow us to paraphrase that a) Good looks are everything and b) improving your looks doesn’t help at all.

You’ve got an F so far, but we sense potential for downwards movement in your grade.

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?

Why not indeed? Imagine all the fun that thousands of overpaid, underworked government employees can have sitting around defining Ugly™. Sounds like a shovel-ready project to us, much like our current “president”, SCOAMFOTUS.

What this country really needs is a government-established definition of Beautiful™ for the rest of us uneducated plebes to try, unsuccessfully, to adhere to.

Of course, the only president likely to go with such a monumental display of idiocy is SCOAMFOTUS, which means that we’d end up with definitions of male beauty requiring ears that would make Dumbo look like a polished rock and female beauty that would require a mandible large enough to serve as a dry dock for a Nimitz class carrier.

We actually already do offer such protections in a few places, including in some jurisdictions in California, and in the District of Columbia,

And why are we not surprised?

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.

Bloody brilliant! We can’t wait to see the mile-long lines of people queuing up to be defined “ugly enough to make a train take a dirt road.”

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.

So your suggestion is that people, prior to seeking protection under the Americans With Looks That Would Make Helen Thomas Look Like Afrodite Act™, would have to line up before a panel of twits to be scored on a scale from 1 to 10?

You might reasonably disagree and argue for protecting all deserving groups. Either way, you shouldn’t be surprised to see the United States heading toward this new legal frontier.

Alright. At this point we have to, have to assume that the writer is being satirical and, if he is, he’s actually not at all unsuccessful in his endeavors. Because to assume otherwise, we would have to suggest that he should be placed under the protection of the upcoming Americans So Fucking Useless That They Ought To Be Used For Chicken Feed Act.

And, unfortunately, we suspect that he is, indeed, being satirical, because we would be not at all surprised to see a law as stupid as he’s suggesting being passed by the terminally brainfucked blatherskates of the Potomac.

Thatisall.

17 comments

  1. 1
    YGBSM growls and barks:

    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. True. But everybody agrees when it comes to ugly.

  2. 2
    LC Draco growls and barks:

    Damn…no wonder I get job offers walking down the street!! I am sexy as hell!!

    (Waits for the street walker comments!!) :em05:

  3. 3

    Sire, you just HAD to make the Helen Thomas and Janeane Garofalo comment?

    BC! PAGING BC! You have an emergency ShopJob Alert!

  4. 4
    Boryon growls and barks:

    Mostly OT, but on the subject of depressing laws:

    As we saw in Stoke Newington, riots don’t need to happen if the rioters represent a small minority of the people present at the incident, and the majority decide to chase them off. The public are rightly concerned that they will be arrested if they intervene, well, post-Tomlinson, so are we.

    Nicked from the Inspector Gadget police blog.

  5. 5
    Lc ORWN engine builder for Rottie Racing growls and barks:

    YGBSM says:

    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

    I always thought it was ” Beauty is in the eye of the BEERholder”

  6. 6
    The Irish Dragon growls and barks:

    Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes all the way to the bone… :em07:

  7. 7
    LC Light29ID growls and barks:

    Lc ORWN engine builder for Rottie Racing @ #:5

    Or as the the adage goes…”Nobody’s ugly at last call”

    And does this mean the term “Coyote ugly” would be considered hate speech?

    Or can somebody sue for discrimination if they don’t get that 500k CEO job even tho they’re not even qualified to run a lemonade stand?

    To bad we don’t have the ability to determine the whether or not a person will grow up to be a normal, sane individual or a Libtard. We could then throw them into a deep ravine so they won’t grow up and destroy the republic from within.

    Worked for the Spartans.

  8. 8
    Samsapeel1 growls and barks:

    TAX the UGLY!

  9. 9
    Mattexian growls and barks:

    If it falls under the ADA, does that mean all these ugly Fockers get to park in the reserved spaces too? First it was the cripples, then the pregnant chicks, then folks with whiny sick brats, now the fuglies? At the rate it’s going, I’ll be parking all the way across the street, as they’ve made everything else a reserved spot! :em08:

  10. 10
    LC Ogrrre growls and barks:

    Well, gee whiz, NYSlimes! Will you next be advocating for men with small penises and women who are flat-chested to be covered under ADA? How about the government pay for “male enhancement” pills and breast augmentations for those people? Can’t get a job because you’re ugly? Then how in hell do you explain Robert Reich, Hillary Clinton, Helen Thomas, Ear Leader, Al Sharpton, Don King, Hissyfit Matthews, et al, getting where they are today? They are all uglier than home-made shit, yet they seem to be successful … success being defined as above average in wealth. Perhaps, instead, the NYSlimes should shop around for healthcare insurance that pays for treatments for recto-cranial inversion. :em08:

  11. 11
    Veeshir growls and barks:

    I just wish they’d pass useful laws like making pi=3.0000000

  12. 12
    Lc ORWN engine builder for Rottie Racing growls and barks:

    Samsapeel1 @ #:

    What the hell did I do to you?

  13. 13
    YGBSM growls and barks:

    Lc ORWN engine builder for Rottie Racing @ #:
    Speaking of beer and ugly, how’s the old saying go? – A woman that is a 2 at 10pm is a 10 at 2am?

    And…..”I never went to bed with an ugly woman. Woke up with a few though.”

  14. 14

    Well obviously this is just another ploy to give Liberals/Progressives another hand out. Most of the uglies are on their side anyway. I can just about bet Helen Thomas started this crap because she can’t get hired in the red light district downtown after getting sacked from the White House Press Room.

    Hell most of the Code Pinkers have such hairy armpits they look like they have Buckwheat in a head lock.

    All I’ll say about dear Janeane is that I’ve come across decomposed bodies less offensive than she is.

  15. 15
    Draven32 growls and barks:

    I guess the writer of this got their job (apparently a professor of economics) through Equal Opportunity Employment for the Stupid.

  16. 16
    lc purple raider growls and barks:

    Lady M-ITT™-Imperial Sniper G.L.O.R @ #:

    That there is so accurate, it’s scary.

  17. 17
    The Lone Haranguer growls and barks:

    All that is missing is a hyphenated American label. I suggest Uglo-Americans.* :em07:

    *term coined by Rush Limbaugh