It's astounding how much importance this culture places on LOOKS.

[bertha katzenengel]

It doesn't matter if a woman is fat or thin, ugly or pretty, leathery or supple, flat-chested or stacked, or a blonde, brunette, redhead or long since gone gray.

Period.

This is politics, not Miss Freaking America. Judge people by their politics and leave physical appearance out of it.

[Modem Butterfly]

1. Yeah, so anyone making fun of W's chimpy good looks needs to STOP!

:evilgrin:

I kid, I kid. W looks like a chimp because he really is a chimp!

[LeftNYC]

2. or Bolton's mustache...nt

[Modem Butterfly]

7. Hey, I wasn't making fun of Bolton's mustache!

I was just stating a fact: John Bolton's mustache is white because he subsists on a diet of nothing but raw white kittens:

[prodigal_green]

10. Mmmmmm (Homer Simpson style)

white kittens...

[Modem Butterfly]

12. They're what's for dinner at John Bolton's house

That's not a mustache, that's a tail!

[Snotcicles]

3. Can we pick on them because of there first names? n/t

[bertha katzenengel]

11. Oh, hell, why not. Let's make fun of user names too.

;) :hi:

[pitohui]

4. what brought that on

all cultures judge based on looks

the entire animal kingdom judges based on looks

we are unlikely to overcome our animal programming in the next few minutes sitting at the computer

[bertha katzenengel]

6. I can't tell you without calling out.

I'm unlikely to overcome my loathing of judging by looks anytime soon, too. ;)

That it's pervasive doesn't mean it's right. It's wholly illogical.

[pitohui]

17. ok don't want a call out

i actually think it is logical

the good-looking animal is the healthy animal in the wild, only the ill and injured look different

these old instincts did exist for a reason other than making us all miserable about our bodies

logical is not the same as correct or moral, looksism is immoral and unfair

but perfectly logical really

[TahitiNut]

15. Yes ... a fact that made Ted Bundy so 'successful.'

:eyes:

[ironman202]

5. you are absolutely correct in every way

nevertheless, good luck reversing 3 billion years of human evolution.

[bertha katzenengel]

8. as pitohui pointed out

and doubtless others will, too.

As I said: It's illogical. This is politics, not a game of musical chairs at second grade recess.

[ironman202]

16. listen, I'd vote for any troll of a democrat before any underwear model re

but the "logic" of it is that beauty was naturally selected for because it's beneficial from a reproductive point of view. You're young, you're healthy, you'r3e beautiful, you're genes get passed on. If you're old, feeble, sickly and encrusted with carbunckle, you're less likely to pass your genes on... Don't get me wrong here, I fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down. But don't go saying it's illogical. It's perfectly logical.

[bertha katzenengel]

20. choice of beauty in natural selection makes perfect sense

Choice of beauty in politics makes no sense.

I'm talking about politics.

[w8liftinglady]

23. not exactly...

anorexic covergirl= poor breeding stock
"full-hipped" working girl = good breeding stock
"beauty" can be defined many ways

[w8liftinglady]

9. I agree

We were trying to find a positive,esthetically average role model for my friend's daughter,who is really struggling with the whole body image thing.It is very difficult.When I was a girl,my political idol was Barbara jordan....Very average in appearance,but a beautiful woman and politician.

[Stephanie]

13. I don't know - sometimes appearance is revealing >

[w8liftinglady]

14. LOL..Ok-we can make an exception with *

[SammyWinstonJack]

18. He didn't coordinate is Cowboy pimp costume very well.

:puke:

[Psephos]

19. I'm with you most of the way...

However, judging people based on their politics is not so different from judging them based on their looks. As a number of studies have shown, politics is also determined in part by genetics.

Here's an article in the New York Times that discusses it in lay terms.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/21/science/21gene.html?ex=1277006400&en=dde7d8feedd2f87f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

The proportions of conservative and liberal mindsets are stable across large populations. Apparently, Nature has established these ratios because in the past, human group survival (and in turn, individual survival) was enhanced by having this mix of personality types: some who are cautious and hold to the tried and true; some who prefer to solve old problems with new approaches. My guess is the social need for both types is as valid today as in the past. However, because libs tend to marry libs, and RWs look for RWs, the genetics are becoming more partitioned.

We're all made differently. It seems to me we get into a lot of trouble by judging those different from us to be inferior (especially, morally inferior), or in extreme cases, subhuman or not deserving of basic respect. I see that happening all the time these days in politics. Taken to the limit, it leads to war.

Peace.

[Inland]

21. Here's ONE book you can judge by the cover.

Chairhunk Dr. H. Dean.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

22. Let me introduce you to my two cousins:

Would you believe that one works at MIT dealing mostly with quantum physics (a little string theory here and there), while the other shovels hog shit?

Guess which one is which. Go on guess.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

24. Conversely, why, with all the choices people have, such as rocket science,

do they continue to choose modeling or spend billions of dollars on vanity products and procedures? The more things change, the more they stay the same.