Having a libertarian outlook as I do generally makes it easy to decide where I stand on issues regarding the relationship of the government to its citizens. My attitude might be summarized as follows: the government should stay out of our business unless it has a very compelling public-interest reason to intervene in our affairs.
That way of thinking makes it easy to take a position on many issues. I’m a strong proponent of our Second Amendment right to own firearms, for instance. Of course I don’t believe that people should be allowed to build up a stockpile of military-grade automatic weaponry, or that they should be allowed to use firearms in an unsafe or irresponsible manner. But generally speaking, law-abiding citizens should have the right to own and use guns for protection and sporting purposes as they see fit, as long as they are not threatening other law-abiding citizens.
And I am generally a big proponent of the “laissez faire” concept when it comes to government’s relationship to the business world. Unfortunately I’m swimming against the tide of modern thinking a little more with this one. I believe we’ve gone down the wrong path with laws that dictate who businesses are allowed to hire and fire, laws that regulate smoking in bars and restaurants, and others that define what businesses must pay their employees. I don’t see this trend reversing any time soon, but I’ll strongly object when the government tries to pass even more laws that meddle in the affairs of the business owner.
But sometimes the black and white turns to gray, and the rights of individuals and businesses may overlap in ways that make it a little more challenging to find the libertarian high ground. Such is the case with one issue that is sure to be the source of hot debate in the Georgia legislature this year, one that pits gun owners’ rights against those of business owners.
With the assist of a very high profile lobbying blitz by the NRA, a bill will be soon be debated in the Georgia legislature that would prevent business owners from limiting the right of their customers and employees from keeping loaded firearms in their vehicles while on that business’s property. It is a huge issue for the NRA, and none other than the organization’s president Wayne LaPierre has spent time in Atlanta recently to pressure lawmakers to enact this legislation.
So there you have the basic conflict – the right of law-abiding citizens to keep their firearms inside their locked vehicles wherever they go versus the right of business owners to prohibit firearms from being brought onto their premises if they so choose. What’s a poor rugged individualist to think about all this?
The answer is not quite so complicated if you ask the right question. The issue is not whether or not it is ultimately wise to allow people to keep guns in their cars, the issue is whether or not the government should pass a new law that dictates what rules a business owner can lay down for people who voluntarily choose to work for or patronize them.
If a citizen disagrees with a business’s limitations on their behavior (restrictions on carrying weapons, dress codes, bans on smoking or alcohol consumption, etc.) they have the option to refuse to associate with that business. There is no need for the Georgia legislature, much less the NRA or any other special interest group, to lay its heavy hand on the shoulder of the business owner and tell him what people may do and not do while they are on his property.
The verdict from this libertarian: Georgia needs to butt out and let employers decide for themselves whether or not they want to allow people to bring guns into their parking lots. They should table this nonsense and move on to slightly more pressing matters, like keeping us all from dying of thirst.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Thursday, January 3, 2008
A sobering dream to start the New Year
I had a dream the other night, and when I woke up I was quite upset. Let me tell you about it.
In this dream the 2008 presidential election had concluded and the new president had just been sworn in. Oddly enough, I couldn’t see the new president’s face as he (or she) began to speak, so I couldn’t tell who had won. You know how dreams can be.
Anyway, the inauguration speech went something like this.
“My fellow Americans, what I am about to say will undoubtedly shock you. The issue I am going to address today is a very troublesome one, and any remedy that we may devise for it will necessarily include pain and sacrifice for many of our citizens. For that reason, politicians and bureaucrats have all but ignored the problem for decades. They may have extended their careers in doing so, but they have also done the nation a grave injustice.
As of today, we will stop hiding our heads in the sand and confront this issue head on. For the next four years, my highest priority will be to ensure that tangible progress is made in arresting a financial crisis that looms before us. I am talking about the alarming budgeting shortfalls on the near term horizon for the popular entitlement programs known as Social Security and Medicare.
Many of you are aware that as members of the Baby Boom generation begin to retire and collect their benefits through these programs the proportion of workers paying into the system is going to be overwhelmed by the number of people collecting benefits. Many of you are also aware that there is in reality no “trust fund” put away to deal with this imbalance. Over the years, any money that was left over after current retiree benefits were paid out has been spent on other things.
So we have placed ourselves into a crisis situation, and it grows worse by the day. If things keep on their current track, your government will eventually have to raise taxes or slash spending on other vital programs just to meet its obligations to these programs. And eventually even that won’t be enough, and outright financial ruin on a scale we can scarcely imagine becomes a frightening possibility. I simply cannot stand by and let that happen.
I want to make my next statement very clear so that there are no misunderstandings, and I want every member of the United States Congress to listen very closely. I will not, WILL NOT, sign off on any budget that does not deal in a clear and effective manner with the financial problems facing these entitlement programs. If I have to shut this government down to force action on the issue, that is exactly what I will do.
This will not be a pleasant experience for me, for the members of Congress, or for the nation. The solution to this problem will undoubtedly involve tax increases, cuts in benefits, or some combination of the two. It will be a difficult undertaking, but we will do it because the price of further inaction will be much greater.
Now let’s get to work.”
As the speech concluded I slowly made my way back into consciousness, and as I did I felt as if a great weight had been lifted off my shoulders. Finally, I thought, we have a president who is more concerned with doing what is right than with the political fortunes of himself and his party.
Then I realized it had all been a dream. I realized that the next president, whoever it turns out to be, is unlikely to have the spine to confront the entitlement nightmare in a realistic manner. And that’s when my mood changed for the worse.
I realized that the monster is still out there, getting bigger every day, while we pretend that everything is fine.
In this dream the 2008 presidential election had concluded and the new president had just been sworn in. Oddly enough, I couldn’t see the new president’s face as he (or she) began to speak, so I couldn’t tell who had won. You know how dreams can be.
Anyway, the inauguration speech went something like this.
“My fellow Americans, what I am about to say will undoubtedly shock you. The issue I am going to address today is a very troublesome one, and any remedy that we may devise for it will necessarily include pain and sacrifice for many of our citizens. For that reason, politicians and bureaucrats have all but ignored the problem for decades. They may have extended their careers in doing so, but they have also done the nation a grave injustice.
As of today, we will stop hiding our heads in the sand and confront this issue head on. For the next four years, my highest priority will be to ensure that tangible progress is made in arresting a financial crisis that looms before us. I am talking about the alarming budgeting shortfalls on the near term horizon for the popular entitlement programs known as Social Security and Medicare.
Many of you are aware that as members of the Baby Boom generation begin to retire and collect their benefits through these programs the proportion of workers paying into the system is going to be overwhelmed by the number of people collecting benefits. Many of you are also aware that there is in reality no “trust fund” put away to deal with this imbalance. Over the years, any money that was left over after current retiree benefits were paid out has been spent on other things.
So we have placed ourselves into a crisis situation, and it grows worse by the day. If things keep on their current track, your government will eventually have to raise taxes or slash spending on other vital programs just to meet its obligations to these programs. And eventually even that won’t be enough, and outright financial ruin on a scale we can scarcely imagine becomes a frightening possibility. I simply cannot stand by and let that happen.
I want to make my next statement very clear so that there are no misunderstandings, and I want every member of the United States Congress to listen very closely. I will not, WILL NOT, sign off on any budget that does not deal in a clear and effective manner with the financial problems facing these entitlement programs. If I have to shut this government down to force action on the issue, that is exactly what I will do.
This will not be a pleasant experience for me, for the members of Congress, or for the nation. The solution to this problem will undoubtedly involve tax increases, cuts in benefits, or some combination of the two. It will be a difficult undertaking, but we will do it because the price of further inaction will be much greater.
Now let’s get to work.”
As the speech concluded I slowly made my way back into consciousness, and as I did I felt as if a great weight had been lifted off my shoulders. Finally, I thought, we have a president who is more concerned with doing what is right than with the political fortunes of himself and his party.
Then I realized it had all been a dream. I realized that the next president, whoever it turns out to be, is unlikely to have the spine to confront the entitlement nightmare in a realistic manner. And that’s when my mood changed for the worse.
I realized that the monster is still out there, getting bigger every day, while we pretend that everything is fine.
Who is Ron Paul?
You’ve probably seen the signs - they’ve been popping up all over the place. Some are quite large, almost billboard-sized, while others are much smaller. Some were obviously made professionally, while others appear to have been cranked out in someone’s garage with some stencils and a few cans of spray paint. But they all demand your attention, and they all say the same thing.
“Ron Paul for President 2008.”
And unless you’re a real political junkie who takes the time to get familiar with all the presidential candidates (both great and small) at election time, your reaction is probably something along the lines of “Ron who?”
How can a guy be getting this much love from an obviously motivated segment of the voting public yet be virtually unknown by so many people at the same time? Welcome to the wacky, unpredictable world of Ron Paul, folks.
Ron has represented Texas in the House of Representatives for many years and he’s one of the less-publicized candidates running for the Republican nomination in 2008. This is actually not his first run at the presidency. He ran as the Libertarian candidate in 1988, although he maintained his membership in the Republican Party while doing so.
As you might imagine, that did not endear him to members of his own party, and indeed Ron has always acted more like a Libertarian than a modern Republican. He is proud of the fact that he has never voted for a tax increase, and if he had his way the federal government would be greatly scaled back and operate on a balanced budget. That kind of thinking has, of course, become something of an anachronism in today’s Republican Party, and Ron’s name isn’t too high on their VIP list.
Predictably, the mainstream media hasn’t paid a whole lot of attention to his long shot campaign. Some of his views are so far outside the mainstream within his own party (he wants us to withdraw immediately from Iraq, for example) that his campaign has had something of a sideshow air to it.
But a funny thing is happening to Ron Paul on the road to obscurity. His campaign has experienced a surprising groundswell of what the political hacks like to call “grassroots” support over the last few months. Largely thanks to the Internet and his performance in recent debates, the 72 year-old congressman has caught fire among people who believe that the government is too big, too invasive, and generally out of control. And it turns out that there are a lot of people who feel that way.
They aren’t just putting up signs, either - they are opening up their wallets as well. In the last quarter Ron raised $5.2 million. John McCain, one of the “legitimate” Republican candidates barely beat him with $5.7 million. He is also the only candidate whose contributions have been steadily increasing as we get closer to the primaries. The crowds he speaks to when he puts in an appearance have also been growing steadily larger. And his standing in the polls, especially in the early battleground states of Iowa and New Hampshire, has been rising as well.
The odds against him winning the nomination, given his outsider status in his own party and the general public’s fear of radical change, remain long. The likelihood that he will make some noise in this election season, however, has already been decided. He has a committed, energized, and largely young following, and they have already ensured that he will not be marginalized as the Republicans would no doubt prefer.
Here’s the thing I like most about Ron Paul’s candidacy. When people talk about his campaign, they aren’t talking about who he’s married to, or what church he goes to, or how he styles his hair. All the talk about his campaign is centered on his ideas, his view of the government’s place in our society, and what he wants to do as president.
Talk about a breath of fresh air. Thanks, Ron, and good luck in Iowa.
“Ron Paul for President 2008.”
And unless you’re a real political junkie who takes the time to get familiar with all the presidential candidates (both great and small) at election time, your reaction is probably something along the lines of “Ron who?”
How can a guy be getting this much love from an obviously motivated segment of the voting public yet be virtually unknown by so many people at the same time? Welcome to the wacky, unpredictable world of Ron Paul, folks.
Ron has represented Texas in the House of Representatives for many years and he’s one of the less-publicized candidates running for the Republican nomination in 2008. This is actually not his first run at the presidency. He ran as the Libertarian candidate in 1988, although he maintained his membership in the Republican Party while doing so.
As you might imagine, that did not endear him to members of his own party, and indeed Ron has always acted more like a Libertarian than a modern Republican. He is proud of the fact that he has never voted for a tax increase, and if he had his way the federal government would be greatly scaled back and operate on a balanced budget. That kind of thinking has, of course, become something of an anachronism in today’s Republican Party, and Ron’s name isn’t too high on their VIP list.
Predictably, the mainstream media hasn’t paid a whole lot of attention to his long shot campaign. Some of his views are so far outside the mainstream within his own party (he wants us to withdraw immediately from Iraq, for example) that his campaign has had something of a sideshow air to it.
But a funny thing is happening to Ron Paul on the road to obscurity. His campaign has experienced a surprising groundswell of what the political hacks like to call “grassroots” support over the last few months. Largely thanks to the Internet and his performance in recent debates, the 72 year-old congressman has caught fire among people who believe that the government is too big, too invasive, and generally out of control. And it turns out that there are a lot of people who feel that way.
They aren’t just putting up signs, either - they are opening up their wallets as well. In the last quarter Ron raised $5.2 million. John McCain, one of the “legitimate” Republican candidates barely beat him with $5.7 million. He is also the only candidate whose contributions have been steadily increasing as we get closer to the primaries. The crowds he speaks to when he puts in an appearance have also been growing steadily larger. And his standing in the polls, especially in the early battleground states of Iowa and New Hampshire, has been rising as well.
The odds against him winning the nomination, given his outsider status in his own party and the general public’s fear of radical change, remain long. The likelihood that he will make some noise in this election season, however, has already been decided. He has a committed, energized, and largely young following, and they have already ensured that he will not be marginalized as the Republicans would no doubt prefer.
Here’s the thing I like most about Ron Paul’s candidacy. When people talk about his campaign, they aren’t talking about who he’s married to, or what church he goes to, or how he styles his hair. All the talk about his campaign is centered on his ideas, his view of the government’s place in our society, and what he wants to do as president.
Talk about a breath of fresh air. Thanks, Ron, and good luck in Iowa.
Working hard to beat Alzheimer’s
Did you hear about the big new breakthrough scientists have made in the area of preventing Alzheimer’s disease? It’s not a new kind of medication. It’s not a special diet. And it’s got nothing to do with how many miles you walked today.
If you really want to stave off the effects of that dread disease as you move into your golden years, scientists say, perhaps you just need to be more conscientious.
That starling news was reported in a study published in a recent issue of Archives of General Psychiatry that tracked the personality traits and mental capacity of a thousand elderly Catholic priests and nuns over a 12-year period. The study found that participants who had highly conscientious (hard-working, organized, and goal-oriented) personalities had a remarkable 89 percent lower risk of developing Alzheimer’s than their less ambitious counterparts.
Even more astounding was the fact that autopsies revealed that some of those conscientious folks who had shown no signs of dementia before they passed away had lesions in their brain that generally indicate the presence of Alzheimer’s. Although no is sure yet why the ambitious types seemed to be relatively immune to the disease, one theory is that the mental activity associated with their personality type might strengthen neural connections that ward off the decline of mental faculties.
In any case, the message is clear: if you want to keep your wits about you as you get older, don’t get too complacent. Always have goals and actively work towards them.
But what kind of goals can you expect someone who is in the twilight of their life to have, you ask? Haven’t you pretty much accomplished as much as you’re going to accomplish by time you reach retirement age?
Nonsense! Of course you aren’t going to have the same goals when you’re 70 as you did when you were 21, but that doesn’t mean that your life is any less meaningful. If you still have a pulse, you still have a purpose.
Positive people see problems as challenges and enjoy finding ways to navigate through life’s difficulties. Try to view aging as an opportunity to meet new challenges rather than something to dread and give in to. For example:
- Think of things you can do to compensate for the physical limitations you must deal with as your body ages. Maybe you need to rethink the way your house is laid out. Maybe you can invest in and learn to use some new gadgets that help you get around and get things done. And don’t be too proud to use your powers of persuasion to get younger folks to assist you when you need help. They probably need the exercise anyway.
- Speaking of the younger generation, don’t you think they would benefit from the wealth of experience you’ve gathered during your time on earth? Of course they would, and you ought to carve out some time each day to get them to open up about their problems so you can help them untangle the mess they’ve made of their lives. I’m sure you know some young people who could benefit from your time-seasoned problem-solving skills. Of course, they may be resistant to listening to your sage words of wisdom at first, so figuring out how to get their attention might require some extra mental effort. Bonus!
- If you really want to swing for the upper decks ambition-wise, try dating someone at least 20 years younger than yourself. Don’t think you have enough on the ball to play in that league? Well if you think that way my friend, you don’t! Be daring, and remember it is the effort that matters, not the results. However, I don’t recommend this one for married people. It is probably true that having a relationship with someone younger than yourself requires even more ambition, effort, and planning if you are married than if you are single, but that course of action may result in a premature death, which sort of defeats the purpose.
If you really want to stave off the effects of that dread disease as you move into your golden years, scientists say, perhaps you just need to be more conscientious.
That starling news was reported in a study published in a recent issue of Archives of General Psychiatry that tracked the personality traits and mental capacity of a thousand elderly Catholic priests and nuns over a 12-year period. The study found that participants who had highly conscientious (hard-working, organized, and goal-oriented) personalities had a remarkable 89 percent lower risk of developing Alzheimer’s than their less ambitious counterparts.
Even more astounding was the fact that autopsies revealed that some of those conscientious folks who had shown no signs of dementia before they passed away had lesions in their brain that generally indicate the presence of Alzheimer’s. Although no is sure yet why the ambitious types seemed to be relatively immune to the disease, one theory is that the mental activity associated with their personality type might strengthen neural connections that ward off the decline of mental faculties.
In any case, the message is clear: if you want to keep your wits about you as you get older, don’t get too complacent. Always have goals and actively work towards them.
But what kind of goals can you expect someone who is in the twilight of their life to have, you ask? Haven’t you pretty much accomplished as much as you’re going to accomplish by time you reach retirement age?
Nonsense! Of course you aren’t going to have the same goals when you’re 70 as you did when you were 21, but that doesn’t mean that your life is any less meaningful. If you still have a pulse, you still have a purpose.
Positive people see problems as challenges and enjoy finding ways to navigate through life’s difficulties. Try to view aging as an opportunity to meet new challenges rather than something to dread and give in to. For example:
- Think of things you can do to compensate for the physical limitations you must deal with as your body ages. Maybe you need to rethink the way your house is laid out. Maybe you can invest in and learn to use some new gadgets that help you get around and get things done. And don’t be too proud to use your powers of persuasion to get younger folks to assist you when you need help. They probably need the exercise anyway.
- Speaking of the younger generation, don’t you think they would benefit from the wealth of experience you’ve gathered during your time on earth? Of course they would, and you ought to carve out some time each day to get them to open up about their problems so you can help them untangle the mess they’ve made of their lives. I’m sure you know some young people who could benefit from your time-seasoned problem-solving skills. Of course, they may be resistant to listening to your sage words of wisdom at first, so figuring out how to get their attention might require some extra mental effort. Bonus!
- If you really want to swing for the upper decks ambition-wise, try dating someone at least 20 years younger than yourself. Don’t think you have enough on the ball to play in that league? Well if you think that way my friend, you don’t! Be daring, and remember it is the effort that matters, not the results. However, I don’t recommend this one for married people. It is probably true that having a relationship with someone younger than yourself requires even more ambition, effort, and planning if you are married than if you are single, but that course of action may result in a premature death, which sort of defeats the purpose.
Do we want a president, or a Weasel-In-Chief?
I can’t understand why anyone would want to run for president. Who in their right mind would willingly open himself up to the kind of scrutiny and criticism that a person has to endure just to compete for what is probably the most difficult, stressful job in the world?
Obviously some people do covet the position badly enough to try and run that bruising gauntlet because every four years a number of high profile politicians throw their hats in the ring. I guess we should be grateful that is the case, but it’s painful just to watch the process chew people up and spit them out sometimes.
You have to wonder if Barack Obama has started to have any second thoughts yet regarding his decision to enter the 2008 race. The media’s love affair with the Democratic wonder boy experienced some turbulence this week when his self-admitted drug use in his younger days became fodder for his opponents both inside and outside of his party.
Apparently he published a book some years ago, long before he entered politics, in which he admitted using illegal drugs when he was in high school and college. No doubt Hilary’s army and Republican candidates who were waiting for the Golden Boy’s halo to slip danced a little jig when this juicy bone became available to wave under the noses of their attack dogs.
C’mon guys. You’re going to have to do better than that. America, elect a president who is a former drug user? Could such a thing actually happen? Well, let’s see.
Candidate Bill Clinton, did you ever use drugs? “I experimented with marijuana a time or two, and I didn’t like it. I didn’t inhale.” Help yourself to two terms, sir.
Candidate George W. Bush, how do you respond to allegations from people who knew you during your youthful rebellious period who claim that you not only drank to excess back then (which you admit) but also that you used cocaine? “When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible.” Hey, that non-answer was an even more weasel-y response to the drug question than Slick Willie came up with. Ah, what the heck, you look like a two-termer as well.
And now people actually want to suggest that a man might not be fit to be president because he used drugs in his distant past? Are you kidding me? That would be like saying that we can overlook past drug use, but we just don’t have the stomach for unflinching honesty. If that is the case we might as well change the job title from President to Weasel-In-Chief.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not endorsing Barack Obama. I don’t know enough about any of the candidates yet to say who I might or might not vote for. And if Obama is (as I fear) just another big government liberal with a lot of charisma he won’t get my vote.
But I certainly won’t rule out voting for a candidate who has made mistakes and is willing to own up to them. I don’t expect any candidate to have lived a perfect life, but it would be a refreshing change if more of them just admitted their mistakes and then just got on with their business.
I know, I know – that’s not the way the game is played. In politics, any past indiscretion by a candidate is used as fodder by his opposition to paint him as a degenerate who is unfit to walk the streets, much less hold a position of public trust. So you admit to nothing that can’t be conclusively proven and equivocate wherever possible.
That’s the way you win elections these days. But that doesn’t make it right.
Obviously some people do covet the position badly enough to try and run that bruising gauntlet because every four years a number of high profile politicians throw their hats in the ring. I guess we should be grateful that is the case, but it’s painful just to watch the process chew people up and spit them out sometimes.
You have to wonder if Barack Obama has started to have any second thoughts yet regarding his decision to enter the 2008 race. The media’s love affair with the Democratic wonder boy experienced some turbulence this week when his self-admitted drug use in his younger days became fodder for his opponents both inside and outside of his party.
Apparently he published a book some years ago, long before he entered politics, in which he admitted using illegal drugs when he was in high school and college. No doubt Hilary’s army and Republican candidates who were waiting for the Golden Boy’s halo to slip danced a little jig when this juicy bone became available to wave under the noses of their attack dogs.
C’mon guys. You’re going to have to do better than that. America, elect a president who is a former drug user? Could such a thing actually happen? Well, let’s see.
Candidate Bill Clinton, did you ever use drugs? “I experimented with marijuana a time or two, and I didn’t like it. I didn’t inhale.” Help yourself to two terms, sir.
Candidate George W. Bush, how do you respond to allegations from people who knew you during your youthful rebellious period who claim that you not only drank to excess back then (which you admit) but also that you used cocaine? “When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible.” Hey, that non-answer was an even more weasel-y response to the drug question than Slick Willie came up with. Ah, what the heck, you look like a two-termer as well.
And now people actually want to suggest that a man might not be fit to be president because he used drugs in his distant past? Are you kidding me? That would be like saying that we can overlook past drug use, but we just don’t have the stomach for unflinching honesty. If that is the case we might as well change the job title from President to Weasel-In-Chief.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not endorsing Barack Obama. I don’t know enough about any of the candidates yet to say who I might or might not vote for. And if Obama is (as I fear) just another big government liberal with a lot of charisma he won’t get my vote.
But I certainly won’t rule out voting for a candidate who has made mistakes and is willing to own up to them. I don’t expect any candidate to have lived a perfect life, but it would be a refreshing change if more of them just admitted their mistakes and then just got on with their business.
I know, I know – that’s not the way the game is played. In politics, any past indiscretion by a candidate is used as fodder by his opposition to paint him as a degenerate who is unfit to walk the streets, much less hold a position of public trust. So you admit to nothing that can’t be conclusively proven and equivocate wherever possible.
That’s the way you win elections these days. But that doesn’t make it right.
Manly beauty not in the eyes, but in the jawline
It seems like the world of scientific investigation provides us with important, life-altering developments on an almost daily basis. And, as an added bonus, it also provides us with other information that may not be quite so earth-shaking but is interesting in a “how ‘bout that?” sort of way nevertheless.
Add to the latter category new research reported this week at the web site livescience.com (a great source of readable scientific stuff, both earth-shaking and otherwise) that links male facial features to preconceived notions women carry with them when sizing up potential mates.
In the study researchers digitally altered head shots of various male subjects to emphasize or minimize what are generally considered to be masculine facial features. To “man up” the photos they emphasized strong, square jaws and prominent brow lines and they minimized the same features to make the faces appear more feminine.
Women who looked at these retouched photos tended to prejudge the more masculine faces to be guys who were more likely to take risks, get into fights, challenge authority, cheat on their spouses, and show little interest in parenting. The same women thought that the more feminine-faced dudes were more likely to be the nurturing, dependable, supportive types.
This facial stereotyping tendency in women appears be an organic reaction that is based on solid biological principles. The facial structures of guys with heavy brow lines and jutting jaws are usually influenced by high levels of testosterone, and we all know what high levels of testosterone leads to – aggression, ambition, and the need to chase skirts.
When asked about the desirability of the men in the pictures as potential mates, the answers were, perhaps, also predictable. For a quick fling the ladies preferred the square-jawed bad boys, but when it came to choosing a long-term companion they preferred the sturdy, sensitive, testosterone-challenged dudes.
If you’re a guy, like me, only one thing comes to your mind when you hear about this research – what does my face tell women about me? When they look at me, do they see a manly man, a rogue who is to be desired but not necessarily trusted? Or do they see safe, dependable, and “sweet”?
I think I speak for most guys when I say I would much rather be thought of as the risk-taking lady-killer type, even if the events of my life don’t support such a characterization. Most guys want to be James Dean and not some poetry-quoting Romeo.
So of course I spent some time studying my own picture. You can see it there at the top of the column. What do you think?
I couldn’t come to a definitive conclusion. The brow line looks fairly prominent, but the chin is neither ominously prominent nor squarely-shaped. So where does that leave me, with a split decision?
I’m afraid that may be the case, and my personality traits may bear out such a duality. I seem to have just enough testosterone to think about taking crazy chances, but in the end I tend to stay on the safe side of the street, live up to my responsibilities, and stay off of other people’s toes.
I’m sure a lot of guys can relate to this situation. Deep down you feel like John Wayne is dying to get out, but the little Alan Alda on your other shoulder keeps you home with the wife and kids most nights and restrains you from punching out your boss when he passes over you for that well-deserved promotion. Such is the fate of those of us who testosterone is destined to trouble, but not control.
Well, cheer up guys. You aren’t Brad Pitt, but neither are most of the highly testosterone-saturated dudes out there. I bet a lot of them probably end up in jail at some point. Sometimes a little balance ain’t a bad thing.
Add to the latter category new research reported this week at the web site livescience.com (a great source of readable scientific stuff, both earth-shaking and otherwise) that links male facial features to preconceived notions women carry with them when sizing up potential mates.
In the study researchers digitally altered head shots of various male subjects to emphasize or minimize what are generally considered to be masculine facial features. To “man up” the photos they emphasized strong, square jaws and prominent brow lines and they minimized the same features to make the faces appear more feminine.
Women who looked at these retouched photos tended to prejudge the more masculine faces to be guys who were more likely to take risks, get into fights, challenge authority, cheat on their spouses, and show little interest in parenting. The same women thought that the more feminine-faced dudes were more likely to be the nurturing, dependable, supportive types.
This facial stereotyping tendency in women appears be an organic reaction that is based on solid biological principles. The facial structures of guys with heavy brow lines and jutting jaws are usually influenced by high levels of testosterone, and we all know what high levels of testosterone leads to – aggression, ambition, and the need to chase skirts.
When asked about the desirability of the men in the pictures as potential mates, the answers were, perhaps, also predictable. For a quick fling the ladies preferred the square-jawed bad boys, but when it came to choosing a long-term companion they preferred the sturdy, sensitive, testosterone-challenged dudes.
If you’re a guy, like me, only one thing comes to your mind when you hear about this research – what does my face tell women about me? When they look at me, do they see a manly man, a rogue who is to be desired but not necessarily trusted? Or do they see safe, dependable, and “sweet”?
I think I speak for most guys when I say I would much rather be thought of as the risk-taking lady-killer type, even if the events of my life don’t support such a characterization. Most guys want to be James Dean and not some poetry-quoting Romeo.
So of course I spent some time studying my own picture. You can see it there at the top of the column. What do you think?
I couldn’t come to a definitive conclusion. The brow line looks fairly prominent, but the chin is neither ominously prominent nor squarely-shaped. So where does that leave me, with a split decision?
I’m afraid that may be the case, and my personality traits may bear out such a duality. I seem to have just enough testosterone to think about taking crazy chances, but in the end I tend to stay on the safe side of the street, live up to my responsibilities, and stay off of other people’s toes.
I’m sure a lot of guys can relate to this situation. Deep down you feel like John Wayne is dying to get out, but the little Alan Alda on your other shoulder keeps you home with the wife and kids most nights and restrains you from punching out your boss when he passes over you for that well-deserved promotion. Such is the fate of those of us who testosterone is destined to trouble, but not control.
Well, cheer up guys. You aren’t Brad Pitt, but neither are most of the highly testosterone-saturated dudes out there. I bet a lot of them probably end up in jail at some point. Sometimes a little balance ain’t a bad thing.
A retirement plan for Bush and his crew
Every great career eventually comes to an end, and when you’re the president of these United States, you only get 8 years (at most) to accomplish everything you set out to do. Then you’re an ex-president for the rest of your life.
I’ll bet that ex-presidents, like most retired people, find it to be something of a shock to have all that time on their hands when they leave the working world.
So they find things to do. They work on their memoirs. They build libraries. They give speeches. They support their favorite charitable causes.
But what about our current president? His term will be up before he knows it, and then it’s back to private life. I’m afraid the transition will be especially difficult for Dubya. He is a man of action, and I worry about how he’ll adjust to a life out of the spotlight.
I think that we, as a nation, owe Mr. Bush more than the customary parting gifts of an enormous pension and round-the-clock Secret Service protection when he leaves office. I think we can do better for him. I think we should put him to work, and I know just where he ought to go. Iraq.
There is no question that Iraq will be the legacy of President Bush’s tenure, and there is also no doubt that there will still be a lot of work to do there when he leaves office. I believe we should allow Mr. Bush an opportunity to stick with the job even after his term expires.
The next President should appoint George W. Bush to be a special envoy to Iraq and charge him with the responsibility to oversee all American interests there, advise the new Iraqi government, and maintain the morale of American troops who are carrying out the war effort.
The position should be a permanent one, and he would not leave until the “hard work” of helping Iraq to establish a working democratic government has been accomplished. Or until he leaves this mortal coil. Whichever comes first.
But I do not believe Mr. Bush should go to Iraq alone. He needs some trusted advisors by his side at all times, and the first two names that immediately spring to mind are Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. These men have been instrumental in the planning and execution of the Iraq campaign from the beginning, and I can only imagine how much more effective their work could be if they were onsite 24/7 right where the action is, getting their hands dirty in the cause of spreading freedom to that dark corner of the world.
I know this assignment would be dangerous. The three senior freedom fighters would be huge targets for the forces of evil in Iraq, and there is a real possibility that one or more of them might meet with an untimely demise in that chaotic environment. But as Mr. Bush has reminded us time and again, the price is high but our cause is just. Freedom is not free.
I expect that all three men would be ready and willing to undertake their assignments in the battle zone despite the extreme danger they would face. This would be a chance to show the world that they are willing to put their own lives, and not just the lives of others, on the line for what they know to be right.
So let’s start a campaign to send the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld team to Iraq in 2009. They deserve the opportunity to “finish the job” in Iraq, and I think that the sight of the three of them tooling around the streets of Baghdad in a lightly armored Humvee would do a lot to improve the morale of all Americans.
I’ll bet that ex-presidents, like most retired people, find it to be something of a shock to have all that time on their hands when they leave the working world.
So they find things to do. They work on their memoirs. They build libraries. They give speeches. They support their favorite charitable causes.
But what about our current president? His term will be up before he knows it, and then it’s back to private life. I’m afraid the transition will be especially difficult for Dubya. He is a man of action, and I worry about how he’ll adjust to a life out of the spotlight.
I think that we, as a nation, owe Mr. Bush more than the customary parting gifts of an enormous pension and round-the-clock Secret Service protection when he leaves office. I think we can do better for him. I think we should put him to work, and I know just where he ought to go. Iraq.
There is no question that Iraq will be the legacy of President Bush’s tenure, and there is also no doubt that there will still be a lot of work to do there when he leaves office. I believe we should allow Mr. Bush an opportunity to stick with the job even after his term expires.
The next President should appoint George W. Bush to be a special envoy to Iraq and charge him with the responsibility to oversee all American interests there, advise the new Iraqi government, and maintain the morale of American troops who are carrying out the war effort.
The position should be a permanent one, and he would not leave until the “hard work” of helping Iraq to establish a working democratic government has been accomplished. Or until he leaves this mortal coil. Whichever comes first.
But I do not believe Mr. Bush should go to Iraq alone. He needs some trusted advisors by his side at all times, and the first two names that immediately spring to mind are Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. These men have been instrumental in the planning and execution of the Iraq campaign from the beginning, and I can only imagine how much more effective their work could be if they were onsite 24/7 right where the action is, getting their hands dirty in the cause of spreading freedom to that dark corner of the world.
I know this assignment would be dangerous. The three senior freedom fighters would be huge targets for the forces of evil in Iraq, and there is a real possibility that one or more of them might meet with an untimely demise in that chaotic environment. But as Mr. Bush has reminded us time and again, the price is high but our cause is just. Freedom is not free.
I expect that all three men would be ready and willing to undertake their assignments in the battle zone despite the extreme danger they would face. This would be a chance to show the world that they are willing to put their own lives, and not just the lives of others, on the line for what they know to be right.
So let’s start a campaign to send the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld team to Iraq in 2009. They deserve the opportunity to “finish the job” in Iraq, and I think that the sight of the three of them tooling around the streets of Baghdad in a lightly armored Humvee would do a lot to improve the morale of all Americans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
