[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
LEFT WING LOONS Title: Uglo-American Affirmative Action Many of you in Kansas City and in Sacramento will remember that one of the things I did as a highly trained broadcast specialist that established me as a great thinker was a commentary entitled, "Ban the ugly." I first did this on radio station KMBZ, to much consternation, and then ultimate praise when people figured it out. Ban the ugly from the streets in the daytime so as to speed up the economic recovery. And people said, "Well, how do you do that?" Well, the first thing we try is make it voluntary, the ugly know who they are, and if that doesn't work, then we gotta take more drastic steps. I revived and modified it when I later went to Sacramento, and then it showed up in various elements of this program starting in 1988, revisions of the 35 Undeniable Truths of Life. The term "Uglo-American" created by me and used on this program, cutting edge of societal evolution. There was a story in the New York Times over the weekend: Should Ugly People Get Affirmative Action? I kid you not. There was an economist, Daniel Hamermesh, author of a new book, Beauty Pays: Why Attractive People Are More Successful, said in the New York Times, "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. Why this disparate treatment of looks in so many areas of life? It’s a matter of simple prejudice. "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?" I'm not kidding you, this was in the New York Times on Sunday, affirmative action for ugly people. "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." New York Times in 2011. I, El Rushbo, first broached this subject in Kansas City in 1984. I kid you not, folks. Affirmative action for Uglo-Americans. Now, they don't deal with defining the ugly. I had the courage to do that. They don't make it voluntary. The New York Times over the weekend: Should Ugly People Get Affirmative Action? And the economist, Daniel Hamermesh, I got a picture of the guy, it raises a question, who's ugly? He does not define it. How do we define ugly? Who gets to do that? One person I can think right off the top of my head would be Michelle Obama. And don't misunderstand me on this. She said that for the first time in her life she was proud of her country when her husband was running, so she's got an idea, you know, of who's ugly and who isn't. Now, where did this run? It ran in the New York Times. The New York Times is oriented toward what? Liberalism. Socialism. The left. Which tells me that the New York Times thinks that there are more ugly liberals than there are ugly conservatives, otherwise they wouldn't be concerned about it, and they wouldn't be concerned about affirmative action for ugly people. It's obvious here that they think there are more ugly liberals than there are conservatives. If not, there'd be no effort to give ugly people some legal protection. So it pretty much acknowledges the abundance of ugly people among liberals. Now, that is empirical evidence, as I say. Here you have the newspaper of record and the left worried about affirmative action for ugly people, and they're obviously concerned. Now, what kind of anecdotal evidence can we find to support this? I would submit to you cable news networks. I don't think there's any doubt. Hey, the New York Times brought this up but they didn't go far enough. They did not define it. If you're gonna sit there and say the ugly should get affirmative action, who are the ugly? Now, when I first courageously tackled this problem back in 1984, I said a very compassionate first step was to make it voluntary on the theory the ugly know who they are. They get up and look in the mirror, they know. But then I worked with a guy who had one of those 1950s duck-style swept back bouffant hairstyles and wore two-tone green leisure suits purchased at Kmart. He thought he was cool. He thought he was a style maven. He was very ugly. But he didn't think so. So I began to think maybe my voluntary program won't work. Maybe the ugly don't know who they are. If you go to a bowling alley you can quickly see the ugly tend to marry each other. But it's a tricky, tricky thing. (interruption) Oh, you want to go back to cable news networks? Well, I don't want to mention any names here, but simply compare on the female side your average Democrat strategist or Republican strategist. Fairly obvious. (interruption) Well, anchors? It's a little tougher call there, but I still think that the citation holds. Folks, look, I'm simply reporting here what was in the New York Times over the weekend. If ugly people are gonna get affirmative action, don't we need to know who they are? And I think the New York Times by definition is telling us that there are more ugly liberals than there are ugly conservatives, otherwise they wouldn't be concerned with affirmative action. Now, some might say, "Well, beautiful people are the ones who get to decide who's ugly." Do you think beautiful people know that they're beautiful? Do you think a beautiful woman, for example, gets up, looks in the mirror and says, "Yeah, I'm hot." Think that happens? Dawn is shaking her head "no." It doesn't happen? It doesn't happen? Whoa. Now, that's fascinating. (interruption) Who has self-esteem issues? Are you telling me that the beautiful have self-esteem issues? Beautiful women have self-esteem issues? This is our noted female expert, Snerdley, saying this, you can't hear him, but he's the one proffering this opinion. Well, it's out there now. In '84 I got it out there. Now affirmative action. And the thing is, folks, you're laughing, but this is not going to go away. This is now an official mission of the left. It's in the New York Times. I don't know how this gonna manifest itself in the future, but it is now going to become something that the left will pursue. It's another excuse for expanding government, more spending, creating more dependency, sympathy, victims. I mean it's all built in here with a brand-new category of people in need, and that would be the ugly.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|