Originally Posted by Adder (Post 460406)

One of the jezebel writers, with Elizabeth Hasselbeck of all people as a jumping off point, argues that Chris Christie's weight "problem" would have been an even bigger obstacle for a female politician. As evidence, she notes the Palin, Bachmann, Pelosi and Nikki Haley are thin.

Okay, those four are. But the piece mentions GGG's fantasy girlfriend, who while never truly fat, hasn't always been "thin." Same for Hillary. Barbara Mikulski, at the risk of being disrespectful, is in fact fat.

Female politicians are undoubtedly unduly judged for their appearance. But I'm not sure there is a gender fat gap. Fat politicians are relatively rare in either gender, because, shocker, being attractive is a definite plus for a politician.

Originally Posted by Fugee (Post 460407)

Are you kidding? Mikulski is a total exception

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 460408)

You think so? Why?

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 460406)

One of the jezebel writers, with Elizabeth Hasselbeck of all people as a jumping off point, argues that Chris Christie's weight "problem" would have been an even bigger obstacle for a female politician. As evidence, she notes the Palin, Bachmann, Pelosi and Nikki Haley are thin.

Okay, those four are. But the piece mentions GGG's fantasy girlfriend, who while never truly fat, hasn't always been "thin." Same for Hillary. Barbara Mikulski, at the risk of being disrespectful, is in fact fat.

Female politicians are undoubtedly unduly judged for their appearance. But I'm not sure there is a gender fat gap. Fat politicians are relatively rare in either gender, because, shocker, being attractive is a definite plus for a politician.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 460410)

Fat people are generally rare in positions requiring a decent amount of brains and public appearances because thinking people realize being fat is bad (See: Whole Foods shoppers v. Wal Mart)

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 460409)

Because women, more then men, are judged and evaluated by their appearance.

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 460409)

Because women, more then men, are judged and evaluated by their appearance.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 460411)

Hm. Seems to me there is some stereotyping going on here. Which I say as a someone who shops at Whole Foods (less frequently now that there isn't one on my walk home from work) and never at Wal Mart. And who undoubtedly qualifies as fat, although thankfully not as fat as Christie.

Then again, perhaps I am not a thinking person.

But I do think fat people are less common in things involving public appearances because the public likes their appearance less.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 460412)

Well, yes, I guess what I'm pondering is whether that necessarily holds for fat people. Like, perhaps fat men are as judged on their appearance as women?

That doesn't sound right either though.

I'm sure I mentioned before, two of my former colleagues, both female, one a member of The Elect, were talking about Kagan's (also not "thin") nomination over drinks. I think they both had her as a law professor. But they both felt the need to mention how she isn't attractive, which I found disappointing. I think I said Justice Stevens is a hottie, but I should have said Scalia.

Originally Posted by sgtclub (Post 460413)

Absolutely. Good looking people have an advantage over not so goodlooking. Tall over short. That is a fact of life.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 460417)

Not so much in a digital age. We're all the same via email.

And the pretty still have to have a resume demonstrating competence to get past the initial gatekeepers.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 460410)

Fat people are generally rare in positions requiring a decent amount of brains and public appearances because thinking people realize being fat is bad (See: Whole Foods shoppers v. Wal Mart) and busy organisms don't fatten as easily (See: Hummingbirds v. Veal calves).

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 460418)

Is "a resume demonstrating competence" a euphemism for "blow job lips and a ready willingness to use them"? Because if so, I TOTALLY AGREE!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Fugee (Post 460416)

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 460420)

I know in minnesota you have no one that checks the credentials of those that claim to be itamae, does the government also ignore workplace sexual harassment?

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 460421)

Holy crap is that a journalistic mess. Gee a personal trainer says it's important to be fit while interviewing.

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 460423)

Um, I'm not sure that is correct. But hopefully Sebastian will rip you like your tenth new asshole this week. Because he is in asshole-ripping mode!

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 460422)

You should visit us in Minnesota. The raw tuna is great. There's decent sushi, too.

Thank you very much, I'll be here all week!!!!!!

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 460417)

Not so much in a digital age. We're all the same via email.

And the pretty still have to have a resume demonstrating competence to get past the initial gatekeepers.

Originally Posted by Fugee (Post 460416)

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 460395)

I appreciate and concur with that general proposition (with limitations and conditions explained below). That's subsumed in my support of infrastructure spending.

I disagree with the suggestion this sort of spending can be divorced from employment, the necessary aim of all stimulus.

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 460409)

Because women, more then men, are judged and evaluated by their appearance.

Originally Posted by sgtclub (Post 460413)

Absolutely. Good looking people have an advantage over not so goodlooking. Tall over short. Rich over poor. That is a fact of life.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 460431)

Were you being obtuse or provocative?

Originally Posted by sgtclub (Post 460432)

Honest.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 460434)

I wasn't trying to change the subject. The argument is absurd if it doesn't take employment into account. To just borrow when in staggering debt already simply because money's cheap is lunacy, however wise the investment made with the money.



See above. (Except in the case the projects has a huge positive effect on employment, even if temporary.)



No. This makes sense from the perspective that adding to a monstrous debt burden to build anything without getting added value in the form of employment in this climate is doubling down on the hope of a future ability to service the debt which is anything but a likelihood.



The borrowing costs may be so low that it does. And the argument, "What's another half billion?" has heft to it. But it's still insane to do so without also maximizing the employment side of the equation. No debt should be taken on now that doesn't create a huge bump in employment in the near term.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 460410)

With Christie, the concern isn't merely cosmetic. A 50 inch waist is a red flag in terms of heart attack risk.

Fat people are generally rare in positions requiring a decent amount of brains and public appearances because thinking people realize being fat is bad (See: Whole Foods shoppers v. Wal Mart) and busy organisms don't fatten as easily (See: Hummingbirds v. Veal calves).

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 460435)

That was very clear. And yet you either completely missed RT's point or were trying to provoke her with your response.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 460389)

If you look back at the start of this string, you will see that it started not with a Summers plan to solve the employment crisis, but with a Delong suggestion about the wisdom of government investment when bond rates are so very, very low. Set aside the employment picture for a moment. Delong's fundamental observation is that investors are so very, very afraid of other investments that they are willing to lend the government money at very, very low rates. Accordingly, he suggests that it makes sense for government to borrow money at these very, very low rates and invest it in something that has real return, i.e., infrastructure. He does the math to show that this is a rational thing for the government to do.

I understand that you don't see private investment coming back. But that's really not a response to what Delong is saying. He is saying that it's a wise use of public funds right now to issue bonds and invest in investment, given that bond rates are so very, very low. Wise on its own terms, when you look at the costs and benefits.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 460439)

but we don't trust the Dems to spend the money. whether or not we should spend it isn't really the question, it's who is spending it and with what you guys did 2008-2010 you showed a lack of judgement or concern for fair play.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 460440)

You would prefer a new war waged via no bid contracts for KBR and Bechtel?

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 460441)

for us to need a new war we'd probably need 8 more years of ignoring terrorist build up. But Obama isn't ignoring the terrorists, he is killing them and in the process likely throwing out all of our personal liberties.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 460442)

You can't hear the neocon war drums beating for an invasion of Iran by president Cain in 2013?

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 460444)

I can hear the drums! They're much funkier than I expected.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 460445)

They aren't coming from Occupy Minnesota, which is pretty quiet and filled with old people so far. Do these people not know that I need some entertainment outside my office window?

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 460445)

They aren't coming from Occupy Minnesota, which is pretty quiet and filled with old people so far. Do these people not know that I need some entertainment outside my office window?

Originally Posted by Fugee (Post 460452)

No zombies? Those are my favorites from the NYC protests.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 460435)

That was very clear. And yet you either completely missed RT's point or were trying to provoke her with your response.