As affirmative action programs go, at least this one comes with a stigma for applying.
Besides, I’ve already got the rallying cry ready: We’re here and we can stop a train with our hideous, hideous faces, get used to it!
Be a shame to pass up something that catchy.
Do I qualify if one of my grandparents was ugly? Or is the ugly then too diluted?
Off topic: Jeff this is right up your alley, on Clarence Thomas and (in the second part of the piece) the effectiveness and wages of his originalist approach . . .
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/08/28/new-blue-nightmare-clarence-thomas-and-the-amendment-of-doom/
Finally, a special-interest group that’s aimed at me. I can hardly wait until I get my free money.
Completely understandable.
That’s a weird link:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/opinion/sunday/ugly-you-may-have-a-case.xml;.w5?rec=t
It wants me to open a file. I refuse.
Revisionism is a stinkassed word for what Thomas is doing, since he’s doing nothing of the sort. But whatever, he’s doing it, which counts everything to me.
Boy howdy.
Now if we can just get “stupid” and “venal” classified as disabilities, Waxman will REALLY be in the gravy…
Huh, I’ve been the constant victim of prejudice and stereotyping because of my extreme good looks.
The grass only looks greener on the other side of the fence buddy…
Venal is one of the greatest words ever.
What, no Fishbone?
Ya know I’m not a handsome man, but I ain’t no al gore.
Dude’s ugly in his very soul. Ask tipper.
Alternate rallying cry:
Don’t call us ugliest, ugly-ist!
Ugly people rule the world and always have. Just look at the Habsburgs.
I’m too sexy for your handout
Just look at the Habsburgs.
And their crowning achievement, Carlos II of Spain, the walking genetic trainwreck.
Seriously. This is the Habsburgs’ idea of “the Handsome.”
For those of you not using a mobile device, here’s the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/opinion/sunday/ugly-you-may-have-a-case.html?scp=1&sq=ugly&st=cse
Whoa! On the charles thing. On second thought, call me Rock.
I’m so glad I’m not in book publishing or something. Ugly people make the work day feel longer.
[…] FROM: https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=30241 […]
this part is fun
Link
What we really need is to make protected classes of people based on ugly features–toes, noses, etc. Just “ugly” isn’t specific enough.
Finally, a special-interest group that’s aimed at me. I can hardly wait until I get my free money.
Not so fast handsome. I, being truly hideous, have first dibs. And I’m fat. So there. A twofer.
Never even registered on the give-a-shit-meter.
Guess I’m all done wasting eyeballs and eardrums on garbage like that.
This is why, if I ever decide to commit suicide by leaping in front of a speeding freight train, I’ll have to do it at night.
It’s also the only method that counts as “interpreting,” if by interpreting we mean interpreting — that is, trying to understand the signs left us for purpose of outlining what the social contract is as dictated by that very document.
Without such an idea — for instance, textualists will tell you that the document exists by itself, and that we must read it without an appeal to original intent — what you have is a perversion of linguistic logic and a transference of the grounds for meaning to the reader/receiver.
As I’ve said a million times now, intentionalism just is. That we write our legal texts to adhere as closely as possible to the common vernacular — to convention — is itself a legal convention that acknowledges the need for clarity and ease of unpacking. But as Thomas points out implicitly is that what “reasonable” people may see today as the “plain meaning of the text” may not at the time have meant any such thing to the framers, and so is antithetical to the intent — and thus, to the text, and so the law as they decided upon it.
At any rate, there’s a reason why I’ve always been a Thomas fan. And note, too, that he points out that it takes effort and scholarship often times to try to reconstruct intent. That is, we look at things like historical situatedness; inter- and intratextuality, conventional vs legal usages; punctuation; etc., — all as a way of doing one thing: understanding the signs marked by the signifiers we’re engaging with. That is, interpreting.
This is the scary part…
At least we don’t have nishibot detailing the bell-ugly curve, and how to slice out unworthy swarthy people to achieve her eugenically-structured nirvana.
That said, anyone see Lady GarGoyle last night? Proves that The Ugly can and DO succeed!
we really should stop playing this game:
Link
and
Link
<i.We’re here and we can stop a train with our hideous, hideous faces
Damn. All I can do with my face is stop a clock.
I haven’t tried stopping a train with my face, but I learned the hard way that stopping a taxi works better with a hand waving money.
Harrison Bergeron, call your office!