September 15, 2011

Alistair Horne

Alistair Horne

GSTAAD–This is the worst news I’ve had since the surrender at Stalingrad. The Spectator’s deputy editor has become engaged to a former advisor to my favorite minister, Iain Duncan Smith. But how can this be when the deputy editor is already engaged to me? If true, what does it make her—words fail me—a bigatrothed? All I know is that I’m flying to London so I can investigate. If worse comes to worse I am going to hit my rival so hard he’ll have to look up to tie his shoelace. Enough said.

I can also sue, but it ain’t my style. Although I’ve heard rumors that my rival is a habitual user of body wax, I will not get personal. The deputy editor’s actions have probably much to do with my aging looks, something that I cannot help or do anything about unless I go under the knife or use Botox, but I’d rather be a cuckold than look like Lily Safra. They say that being good-looking is useful in so many ways, such as not losing one’s fiancée to a younger man, but life is, after all, unfair.

“Although I’ve heard rumors that my rival is a habitual user of body wax, I will not get personal.”

In fact, one Daniel Hamermesh, an American professor, has written a long and boring article in The International Holocaust Herald Tribune, the European version of The New York Holocaust Times, about ugliness. He says it’s unfair. That’s quite a discovery, even for a professor. Hamermesh claims that workers who are among the bottom one-seventh in looks earned 10 to 15 percent less per year than those assessed to be in the top third where looks are concerned. In a lifetime, this translates to an average of $230,000 in losses. Gee, that’s a lot of moolah to lose for being ugly. Paraphrasing Trotsky, every man has the right to be stupid, but Hamermesh abuses the privilege. The prof claims that good looks help attorneys pleading cases, politicians seeking votes, and teachers trying to get their theories across to students. This leads me to believe that Hamermesh’s being steered toward an academic career early on constitutes a shocking case of child abuse.

He keeps the best for last: His solution for helping the ugly cope with a world that prefers beauty—you’d never know it by looking at British TV—is to offer legal protection to the uglies. He writes:

Ugliness could be protected generally in the United States by small extensions of the Americans With Disabilities Act….We could even have affirmative-action programs for the ugly.

Eureka! He admits that there could be objections, as many people might choose not to classify themselves as ugly. But with a chance of obtaining extra pay and promotions amounting to nearly a quarter-million big ones, there are large enough incentives to do so.


Sign Up to Receive Our Latest Updates!