Hair Today, Gone Tomorrow

I was watching a top political consultant on TV the other day. His head sported two tufts of over-achieving dryer lint above each ear, loosely connected by a few desperate strands across his bald-pated tundra. It looked like the top part of a bad Halloween mask. His job is to advise future presidents of the United States while being unaware of what’s happening atop his own head.

This leads me to the story of presidential hopeful John Edwards and his $400 haircut. In the interest of equal time, let’s throw in Mitt Romney’s recently reported $300 haircut. Apparently the reason these haircuts are “news” is that rich men might be out of touch with the common person’s issues.

I have a different take.

First, you can’t complain about $400 haircuts and also complain that the rich don’t pay enough taxes. The people who cut hair and mow lawns have taken matters into their own hands. Something tells me that when Mitt Romney buys a cup of coffee and a doughnut at the local diner, it costs him $900.

Second, what’s wrong with being out of touch with the common person’s issues? If our president had all the problems the common people do, he’d be so busy itching and crying that he’d have no time to run the country. All things being equal, I prefer a president who has read an article about leprosy but doesn’t have it.

Third, anyone who can’t afford a $400 haircut doesn’t get my vote. While it’s theoretically possible that the guy working the French fry station at Burger World would make the best president ever, it’s not a chance I’m willing to take. That guy has a lot of explaining to do. No, I want a president who is so rich he can pay $400 for a haircut and pay another $300 to the pedicurist to fluff him while he’s there. I want a president who knows how to make money and isn’t afraid to use it.

Fourth, any candidate that doesn’t understand the importance of good hair is too dumb to lead the country. Just because Fred Thompson can pay $8 to get his head Turtle Waxed, that doesn’t make him presidential material. The men and women of this country have just two questions of our potential leaders:

Men: “Would I want to be him?”

Women: “Would I do him?”

A good head of hair goes a long way toward answering both of those questions.

Comments

[Sniper Paintball Guns]

Lol, I saw the episode of the simpsons and laughed my but off. Homer, doh

[Sherri]

As a 25 year hairstylist and salon owner...I loved this post!

:)Sherri

[Adarsh Bhat]

Why is it that everyone wants hair where it won't grow, and doesn't want hair where it does?

[gautam]

Scott, your blogs are more appealing to me than the comics!
Thank you

[anuja]

Men: “Would I want to be him?”
Women: “Would I do him?”

Wow, you've totally assumed that choosing potential leaders is about choosing between men!

[DA]

Hello you, who said that americans are better off than citizens of any other country. First of all, I don't know what your education is, but if you are from USA, your spelling is bad for a native english speaker... or maybe not, since I have seen very bad spellers from USA. Something wrong with the education there?

Maybe it's nice to be an american, if you are rich. But I'm not, and I live in a country where everyone gets free medical treatment, free education (that is rated amongst the best in the world), free university studies (actually, students get PAID for studying), I can walk at town late at night with no fear, I can leave my house unlocked etc...

I'm not saying your country is trash, I'm just saying I'm very happy where I am. Thank you.

[charlie]

No, I would not do HER.

[skelman]

I think it's funnier if you switch the words turtle and head in your sentence:

Just because Fred Thompson can pay $8 to get his turtle head waxed, that doesn’t make him presidential material.

[Cathy]

>>Women: “Would I do him?”>>

Women, in general, don't think in those words. That idea is only part of a very complex evaluation. These words are male thoughts and adolescent ones at that. As for hair, men with a lot of hair think it gives them an edge. Mmmm.. think Sean Connery, Bruce Willis, Patrick Stewart. Who wants a guy that's so into himself he spends time thinking about his hair? A woman wants a man who thinks about HER.

I do get the idea that you want someone that is used to handling money. That's the point. Do you think his hair LOOKED like $400 hair? No. He wasted his money. No one would have noticed had he spent $40 instead. He'll likely waste our tax money as well.

[Tim]

So you are automatically asuming the president has to be a man? Unfortunately, being English I don't get to vote in American presidential elections, which seems unfair when you consider that the outcome affects the whole world. Still, If I could I'd do Hillary. I mean, vote for.

[some body]

Sadly, your entry doesn't account for the possibility of a woman president.
Maybe that doesn't matter to you, being a man, but it matters to me, being a woman.

[DarthMommy]

Cynic wrote: I know intelligence isn't a requirement for a president, but perhaps it should be."

That's a nice idea, and I would support that, but in my personal experience, it's better to be lucky than smart. So maybe we should be concentrating on which candidate seems to be luckiest?

[jeffrey H]

Women: “Would I do him?”

I think more men then women think this. Although strait women out number gay men, we think of sex a bunch more than women do. For example, there are may more naked guy picture magazine for men then women. Playgirl being the exception.

(although i must think even playgirl has a large male reader base as far as midwestern boys who cant get anything better)

[KD]

To me, the only difference between a guy who gets a $12 haircut and one that gets a $400 haircut is the second guy is willing to pay through the nose for a lower chance to be around poor to middle class people when he's getting his hair cut and for vanity's sake: he can spend $400 dollars getting his hair cut so he must be better.

The issue I have with Edwards doing that is that his campaign is being based upon helping the poorer people and the two americas, but he doesn't want to lead by example. For example he could get an $80 haircut, still have bragging rights, and donate the other $320 to habitat for humanity or some other charity that helps poor people. I don't want a skinflint in office either (but someone who knew not to overspend would be nice) but I also can't vote for someone who doesn't put his money where his mouth is.

In response to the several posters who took up an issue with scotts last question writing off female contenders:

All I have to say is it is rare for anyone to be president before they hit their mid-forties and by then, unless there has been a lot of plastic surgery done, us guys are gawking at the newer models and would rather do Penny Pornstar or Sally Supermodel.

I'm not going to say it would be impossible for a woman to be elected president, but I will say that aspect of the election would be a negitive to overcome.

[bradmaas]

Scott, I gain a great deal of insight from your blog posts. They are usually manifested from imaginary dialogues in my head, but that works out for the best. However, when I try to explain it to someone, I find that they form an ignorant opinion about the subject faster than you could think of a funny analogy for this sentence. I guess that's something for Roger and me to work on.

Sorry that this comment isn't on topic, but I figure you could use a break.

Brad

[shia]

the questions are ofcourse taking for granted tht only men will be presidents...which also brings me to the question: wld u feel the same way abt a woman candidate who cared so much abt her hair? wld u still feel she can run the country well?

[Ivan]

Some people say Berlusconi made Italians poorer because he is rich an only interested in increasing his wealth. Well, in Venezuela we have a guy that entered in the Army to play BaseBall, was a failure as an officer, never understood anything about business and was, until he became president, a person without much money. Now we are poorer, the country is sinking, and we are the laughing stock of any civilized country. So, poor or uneductated people don't make good presidents either. Maybe you should look for their previous on the job experience, like Giuliani or Bloomberg in NY, or McCain as senator. Anyway, why are you gringos complaining? In one year your country will get rid of Bush, and even if your new president turns out to be an idiot, your country will continue to be a great place to live. I can't say the same of mine.

[Alejandro]

In response to Cynic's comment on my post:

Well, right, first of all, sorry for actually "responding" to a post on my post.

It's kind of like opposing mirrors, isn't it?

I promise not to do it again, really.

Firstly, then:

I'm not in favor of blind equality. I don't believe Communism has ever or could ever work in theory or practice.

Socialism, perhaps.

But sure you must have the chance to achieve economic prosperity in life according to your capacities. That's pure common sense.

I agree that freedom and equality cancel each other and of course we cannot all be literally equal.

In reference to "being equally attractive", however, I guess this is a notion too subjective to ever agree on the matter, so nevermind.

The thing is:

When I say poor, I mean poor as in "starving to death, no education, no shoes in winter" poor.

Is that kind of poverty healthful? I fail to see how.

Me, I'm doing fine, I'm strictly middle class and I'm pretty much at peace with the idea of a genius making more money than I make.

Then, the feedback between the people and the media does exist. "Cynic" is quite right there.

I'm pretty sure, though,at this precise moment in history, that the media creates a necessity of insignificant information more than responding to a people's request for it.

Maybe it didn't start like that, but the media is run by some clever fellows.

My one and only point is:

Hey, do you really think the unbalance between the rich and the starving is healthful?

Nevermind if it was always like this and it probably won't change, anyway.

I think it's way off healthful.

But I appreciate the respectful tone of Cynic's response to my post and I acknowledge his will to argue intelligently.

[Trish]

What kind of world are you living in where you pay over twice as much for coffee and a donut as for a haircut? $900 compared to $400. I guess you are getting haute cuisine coffee and donuts, but are getting your hair cut at the local beauty college. But most of middle America pays about 10 times as much for a haircut as coffee and donut, which should make your light breakfast $40.

[Amit]

Scott.. If all voters are in sync with your views, i think i should start my haircutting saloon. I have started jotting down the plans to attract all the candidates to me. B'cas each one would be ready to spend more than what the earlier guy has already done. No wonder then i will even earn $1000 for a single hair cut. And the candidate's biodata will read on this line "Money Spent on head of hair: $200 in May 2006, all time high of $1500 in June 2007 etal"

By the way, also thinking to start a store of wigs which will gain highs in case a bald candidate decides to enter the presidential race. What say? :D

[Diana W]

In response to the statement "Most of the world's population is poor or approaching poverty." Cynic responded:

>>That will always be true.
And it is healthful that it should be this way.
...Wealth in any society follows a statistical distribution.

If by statistical distribution you mean a bell curve, then your response makes no sense. In a healthy economy, there is a bell curve, so only a minority are very rich or very poor, and the majority are middle class. To say that the majority should be in or near poverty and that this is healthful is absurd.

[Dave]

neopolitan...

Interesting post there. Just a few counterpoints -

Americans have discontentment in our DNA - that is why our forefathers left those other shitty countries and came here, although in most cases their lives harder after they got here. People in socialist countries are often just happy with their gifts from the state and their 35 hour work week. Phooey. Americans know that no progress is made from satisfaction. That is why you wear our clothes, eat our food, watch our movies, speak our language and play with our toys.

Second, people vote with their feet and if we had a sane immigration policy in this country, we could be (and should be) conducting a massive brain drain on the rest of the world. If we stated that we wanted to take in 50M immigrants a year, we could do it easily - no other country can do that.

Third, we aren't perfect, and we know that. But at least we have high ideals that we often fail to live up to, as opposed to most other countries taht can't be bothered. We think it is more admirable to aspire to greatness and fall short whereas most other people just aspire to being left alone.

[jakesdad]

actually the '08 presidential election has already been decided:

Oprah is officially backing Obama - game over...

honestly, I'm o.k. w/it...

[Bill]

Your conviction that the President is the same thing as a God-Emperor is disturbing. The President's looks shouldn't matter much, because the President shouldn't matter much.

[ehyche]

Apparently *several* women have answered in the affirmative to the second question:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1977478.ece

[jane]

Edwards has my vote- 'cause I'd simply love to do him. :) But I won't go there since he's married and all...sha!

[DF]

I think Scott just secretly wants a fluffer himself, he is mentioning them a lot lately...

[Anna from italy (... no more in capital letters...)]

... and you missed Silvio Berlusconi's hair transplant a few years ago! The amount of the surgical operation is a national secret... obviously paid with our taxes...

[Bsquared]

How about a good wig? It worked for Washington.

[spike17]

What do you mean you can't complain about $400 haircuts and that the rich don't pay enough taxes.....you've done both the the past week.

Most liberals think people can't remember what they've heard just a few months ago.....dude, you think we forget what you've talked about a few days ago......

c'mon....give me a break.....

[Cynic]

First: I am not rich. I make a wage that is about at national average.

>>Rich people most likely get rich making other people poor, one way or the other.
Narrow thinking. The American Economy is NOT a zero-sum game. New wealth is created hourly. And I don't mean because the f---ing Fed prints more. I mean that new technological vistas and new ideas create jobs and opportunity. If wealth WERE a zero-sum game, the wealthy would have you eating cardboard every night and thinking it better than the alternative.

>>Why would a politician work on solving problems like the unfair distribution of wealth when the solution would lose him money?
See above response, but sometimes, yes. It can easily serve a legislator's best-interests to help a company maintain a monopoly, for instance.

>>He's doing fine as it is, he can afford a $400 haircut, for Christ sake!
That $400 might buy him the presidency. Regardless of you may think, most people (not just Americans) are too stupid to know that they vote for the most attractive candidate.
$400 sounds like a good investment.

>>Then again, yes, the media does pay way too much attention to minor details.
Wrong again... PEOPLE pay too much attention to INSIGNIFICANT details. Minor details are often very important, and sorting out relevant details from irrelevant details is a good metric for intelligence.
The media is a reflection of the lowest common denominator driving human attention. Blame the stupid people around you. Not the media. I still can't decide if television makes people dumb, or if dumb people are attracted to television. Whatever the case, there is a correlation.

>>Most of the world's population is poor or approaching poverty.
That will always be true.
And it is healthful that it should be this way.
Equality and freedom are mutually exclusive states. People are naturally born unequal (height, attractiveness, intelligence, etc) and forcing a state of equallity on everyone is not only bound to fail (are you going to make everyone equally attractive?), but it takes away the freedom to fully exercise your natural gifts.

Wealth in any society follows a statistical distribution. Paradoxically, the more a nation attempts to narrow the standard deviation of wealth, the wider the rift becomes, and the more corrupt the leaders become.

>>Electing rich leaders doesn't seem reasonable.
Think of it as a rite of passage. You can only lead others to prosperity if you know what prosperity looks like first hand. I have a problem with "old-money" being leaders for this reason. Having a purchased degree from Harvard should be a big red-flag on election day. I've met Texans who didn't graduate high-school and could properly pronounce "nuclear".
I know intelligence isn't a requirement for a president, but perhaps it should be.
And if intelligent people are those that function best in their environments, it should be natural that they are wealthier than the proles. If for no other reason than that they are less replacable.

[Rack]

By and large there are two ways to make a lot of money.

1) Inherit it.

2) Be incredibly evil and use your talents as a total weasel to steal it from other people.

As long as we continue to elect people based on their financial success we can hardly complain when they turn out to be corrupt weasels or totally inept.

[Anthony Garza]

What is it with u and fluffers?? Are you lacking in the fluffing department. This is about the fifth time u mentioned aforementioned fluffer. Are you a little jealous of people who have fluffers.

btw I want a fluffer. How much do they cost and where can I find one.

[Dane Brammage]

Jack Lord for President!

[raquel]

Those final questions implie that "our potential leader" is alway a man and not a woman?

[Tarun K Juyal]

The study found that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays. Some researchers had also suggested that the latter might influence global warming because the rays trigger cloud formation. I am find a blog which give some useful information on Global Warming.

[Bruce]

Men: “Would I want to be him?”

Women: “Would I do him?”

Yoo-hoo, Scotty, this clearly shows that you're ignoring your massive gay fanbase here.

*Flicks wrist*

[F. Ho]

-----------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
I have just read through all he comments here. I find it endlessly amusing to find people posting from other countries using your blog to attack or insult or otherwise put down our country. The funny thing is we all know we are not perfect but we also realize no matter what country they are from we are better off then them.

Posted by: djh | July 18, 2007 at 11:01 AM
----------------------------------------------------------
Funny that day I was just talking to my fd about that all Americans are self-centered, egoistic and boastful bastards and bitches (which my fd heartily agree), thank you I do not have to look elsewhere to find another blatant example like this!
For us non Americans, Paris would be a great US president coz the only difference is that we get free next-to-porn on TV instead of a monkey face. Pleasant enough. :)

[Borjan]

About Fred Thompson: you forgot his voice. He has a second or third most recognizable voice (not counting foreign Senators), not far behind James Earl Jones (Darth Vader and CNN) and Whatshisname guy who does all the previews for the Hollydumb movies.

It would be fun listening him give a speech every single time. If you agree with him, you get the desire to go and pound his opponents. If you don't, you would be to intimidated by his bass to say anything against it.

Fred Thompson: "America is great and You will do what we want you to do."

Any foreign country leader: "Yes, yes. Anything. Just don't raise your voice or my heart will explode. And please don't look at me with that assured-of-yourself crazy gaze!"

I don't agree with him, but I think the whole UN building would tremble when he gives a speech there...

[Ian]

What's the story with Trump?

[D-pak]

Right said friend...and a hairless head guarantees u a women free life unless u have a giant sense of humour (low IQ women kind) to compensate for it. Did u just guess where I am coming from?..

[Young Mr Grace]

The men and women of this country have just two questions of our potential leaders:

Men: “Would I want to be him?”

Women: “Would I do him?”

I assume you've written off Hillary's chances with the overt gender bias to those Q's......

[Marxist]

DON'T have a hair cut.

[neopolitan]

djh wrote:

"I have just read through all he comments here. I find it endlessly amusing to find people posting from other countries using your blog to attack or insult or otherwise put down our country. The funny thing is we all know we are not perfect but we also realize no matter what country they are from we are better off then them.

Posted by: djh | July 18, 2007 at 11:01 AM "

I also read through the posts, and there really was nothing more than a couple of very tame criticisms of the US. One guy said that he almost felt sorry for America because of the two year long media circus you call "Presidential Elections" that you are so often afflicted with and a French person said that he found it amusing that to see Americans defending "the rich against idiots".

The biggest criticism was from your own turf where an American stated "we truly are cattle".

What your post makes me wonder is, why are you so paranoid djh? You can't accept any criticism of your own country by foreigners and then happily state that, in fact, your country is demonstrably better than any other other, in that no one living in another country has it as good as those in the US.

Have you actually ever lived in another country? Even if you have done so, do you realise that not everyone holds the same values as you? Do you understand that the opening of a new Wal-Mart around the corner is not something that would make us foreigners cream our jeans? Is is possible for you to conceive that some nations like the fact that they don't have to have an enormous police presence to maintain order, or dozens of intelligence agencies to keep track of enemies? Has it ever occured to you that being a rich country (person) is not equivalent to being a happy country (person)? You might be interested to see where the US lies in the contentment stakes - the only nation where "pursuit of happiness" is written into the constitution! (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_hap_net-lifestyle-happiness-net is the link, note while where I come from is largely irrelevant because I am not saying the three nations I could call home are the best in the world, they are all above the US in contentment. Also note that "happiness" is not the be all and end all, there are other indicators)

For some reason, not all of us aspire to living in a country with a crippled social security system, a crippled public health system and constant attempts to further cripple the public education system (Intelligent Design anyone?) along with rampant fundamentalism.

Yes, you are not perfect. No country is. But very few countries are jam-packed with people willing to overlook all their faults and claim that they have it better than citizens of every other country in the world. I assure you that I also think that excessively patriotic citizens of similarly jingoistic countries are also ignorant morons, it's nothing personal about you.

cheers,

neopolitan

[Calman]

I am in full support of your hair policy, but I'm wondering how it applies down here in Australia. Our current leader John Howard has very little hair on top of his head and is also rather short. Do you think his famously bushy eyebrows are compensating?

[Zeth]

This fluffing thing iss getting out of hand...
I'm waiting for the first fluff inside a Dilbert Comic. Or did I miss one?
To the president-problem: No matter what haircut, I'm sure america is getting the job done to elect again the wrong one.
To your defense: Probably there are only wrong ones to choose from...

[venky]

On an unrelated note why do i get a "403" forbidden error when i try to access dilbert.com Has the url changed or something?

[SJ]

You self hating bald-ist!!

[AusLisa]

djh said: "I have just read through all he comments here. I find it endlessly amusing to find people posting from other countries using your blog to attack or insult or otherwise put down our country. The funny thing is we all know we are not perfect but we also realize no matter what country they are from we are better off then them."

Ha Haa HaHaa HAAHAAA HAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Ipso facto.

[Andrew]

You Americans are so lucky. You're actually discussing which of your political leaders you'd have sex with and it doesn't sound completely, bat-humping crazy. In Australia our political leaders are ulgier than shit-on-a-stick. Would you have sex with shit-on-a-stick? I doubt it as you Americans just have too much self-respect and actually have high standards of decency. Oh. I feel a bowel movement coming on. Now where's my stick?

[rd]

sure your presidents with or without hair is not my business at all
i'd like just exercise my psychic abilities and predict who will be the finalists - Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani
just because i know their names
which means most people know them and would vote for them
but who will win actually only stars know, i mean star alignment of the day
who are others - i have no idea, and that Obama guy seems though promising, just a little too young, may be the next pterm he'll win

[ooiittee]

I must say that when you see movies with actors playing the president take notice of the hair and then take a moment to think if this guy is convincing in the part. I have seen a number of bad played presidential roles in movies, and I am sure that they all have unpresidential hair.

Here is some thinking material....

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-actors-who-played-president-of-the-united-states

[Mokkery]

I have a friend who works at an auto repair shop. Wealthy people always pay a premium price for repairs at this shop. They double the price for doctors, lawyers, businessmen, cartoonists...

Oops...

I’ve said too much.

[KiwiAtaahua]

Do those two questions still apply when the candidate is Hillary?

[D. Mented]

My good friend Jon Orbits said this, and it's tragically true:
"Americans take a good look at the candidates' track records and stands on important issues, and then, after careful consideration, elect the guy they'd like to go to a baseball game with."
These days, it costs more money than a private island or a bout of cancer (whichever you get first) to convince the Average American that they'd really rather go to that baseball game with you than those crying pussies (the Democrats) laughing bullies (the Republicans) total losers (all Independants) and so forth. That's still the one criterion.
Myself, I think baseball is slightly less boring than watching paint dry, and the candidates are far less honest than the local crack whores (and more destructive)and my candidate of choice for all but one election since I was old enough to vote (yes, that happenned AFTER they invented the wheel) has been "none of the above", which isn't even counted in many states, although legally, it must be considered an option If a majority voted for "none of the above" or "none of these candidates" they would be required to hold a new election with all new candidates. If it ever happened once, the candidates would rethink their hypocricy and to whom they need to keep their campaign promises (currently only to sponsors and delegates)
D. Mented

[CPB]

The problem is anybody who can afford a $300-$400 haorcut should not be claiming that he understands being poor.

[natalie]

Would I do Bush? Hell no! Would I do Obama or Edwards? Hell Yes! Looks I was following your criteria and didn't know it.

[Adrian D.]

"Third, anyone who can’t afford a $400 haircut doesn’t get my vote."

If you are to be believed, no one gets your vote. You have stated before that you don't cast one.

Me, I actually concern myself with issues. (I may be in the minority here.) If I think the policies a candidate advances are good, I don't care he looks like Frankenstein's monster married the creature from the Black Lagoon.

[Tutu]

With respect to your last two questions...

I guess for the gay vote, they would be reversed?

[Zarna]

What's with all the references to fluffers lately?

[Marcus]

Is "itching and crying" a typo of "bitching and crying" or are you just trying to make me think? I hate thinking.

[Sean]

Considering it supposedly takes $100 million dollars to run for president, one should think at least a little bit of money will get pissed away.

Besides, if I were an American I think I would vote for Edwards because of the haircut; not because of the reasons you list today but because it means he may have read "The Dilbert Future". (and as such is much smarter than the other losers)

[Nate]

I woudn't necessarily vote for a man who can afford to spend $400 on a haircut. Sure, some who can are wealthy from their own business ventures and good sense - They would get my vote for that. On the other hand, some could be total morons with very little business sense (and little sense of any kind) who happened to have wealthy progenitors and/or other family members. Just look at the current office holder, who has had numerous failed business ventures but a massive reserve of wealth sustains him.

[DWH]

I will always vote for the bald guy, just because he will be more productive.By cutting thirty minutes off of every morning washing and styling his hair, he can get more quality time in at the oval office.Plus the taxpayers do not have to pay for haircuts!

[Avi]

A good head of hair...You're right!

Think JFK.

(I now omit my Clinton joke, because someone already did it.)

Reagan was old, but he did have good hair.

[gr8hands]

Scott,

You wrote: "I want a president who knows how to make money and isn’t afraid to use it."

Sorry, but bush doesn't know how to make money. Every business he touches either goes bankrupt or otherwise totally down the crapper.

He isn't fearless about spending money, he's clueless that his decisions cost a bunch of other people's money. That's the problem with having daddy get you jobs and bail you out when the going gets tough.

[Torrey]

I found it funny/interesting that one or more posters took this opportunity to point out that you, Scott, are rich...you bastard. You are trouncing the middle/low income earners into the ground without any remorse! (It's fun to call rich people bastards)

I have run into this often. Without regard for personal background (I myself grew up dirt poor) they assume that you are the enemy because you are self-motivated and a hard worker. The end result of which is to make your life better (happier, more comfortable, richer in general).

These people are normally non-motivated complainers who like to blame the world for their sufferings instead of getting to a better position in life where you can "really" help others.

Frency fry guy at burger world or someone who has been motivated to make their family's life better by achieving success and leading from the front? I'll take the $400 haircut guy every time. Unless he inherited the money...then he can rot in hell. :)

[Tom Foster]

Again with the fluffing!

[Irwin]

"First, you can’t complain about $400 haircuts and also complain that the rich don’t pay enough taxes. The people who cut hair and mow lawns have taken matters into their own hands..."

So, the fact that the rich spend that kind of money on trivialities is supposed to be an indication that they're being taxed enough? Why not just cut their taxes entirely, so they get twice as rich and contribute twice as much to the economy?

Sorry, but that kind of reasoning seems silly to me.

[daniel...]

awesome "head-start"... killed your credibility with gender stereotyping at the end....

although it's naive and idealistic, i'm almost 30 and still more in the 'america is fucked up' camp than the 'either get rich or do your 9-5 and stfu' mentality -maybe my nail is still sticking up and hasn't been thoroughly hammered down yet

if i were an 18 year old and just joined the army because it was the best i could do.... and had to choose whether my life would be in the hands of a guy w/ a $400 haircut or someone who knows what it's like to work at burger world... would not be a tough decision.

[Texas Toast]

Check the facts next time. Romney spent $300 on "make-up consulting", not a haircut.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/4982.html

[DarthMommy]

Well, have any of you even heard of Ron Paul? Here's a man in his 70s and he still has *great* hair. It's not even receded that much! Can you name any other candidate with better hair? I don't know how tall he is, but if he's the tallest candidate, then, well, you know, it'd be a shoo-in.

[FREE IPHONE]

I thought spending $35 dollars for a "salon" haircut was expensive. That's ridiculous. My hair looks darn good for $14 at SuperCuts.

[Milkman Dan]

Scott, you should run for president. You are exceptionally wise and honest. Hows your hair btw?

[olie]

No doubt about it -- when you're right, you're right! :)

[dipy911]

Poverty Tour? Ever hear of it? Someone on a poverty tour should get $400 haircuts.

[Mike D]

Edwards has apparently had $1,000.00 haircuts, too. It was in the Washington Post so it has to be true.

Mike D.

[Alejandro]

Well, I have to disagree.

Rich people most likely get rich making other people poor, one way or the other.

Why would a politician work on solving problems like the unfair distribution of wealth when the solution would lose him money?

Is he crazy?

He's doing fine as it is, he can afford a $400 haircut, for Christ sake!

Then again, yes, the media does pay way too much attention to minor details.

All in all, if your worst fault in the world is the money you spend on your hair, that's no big deal.

But usually that's not it.

To me it's quite simple:

Most of the world's population is poor or aproaching poverty.

Electing rich leaders doesn't seem reasonable.

Would a calf vote for a Lion?

[Fáránlegt Skilyrði]

Trolling at your own blog again, Adams, or are you just trying to have an original opinion?

[I didn't write this sentence. -- Scott.]

[Nicole]

Lame, sexist tripe.

Fluff this.

[Bruce]

The problem is not so much that Edwards overpaid for a haircut, but rather that be billed it to his campaign thus ensuring it would become public knowledge. Edwards is a trial lawyer worth millions; he could easily have afforded it. But he's risked alienating small-dollar contributers for whom $400 is a LOT of money. Add a heaping dose of irony given that his current shtick is poverty awareness.

As to the question of whether $400 is worth it, well, maybe it is. Maybe it's a question of risk. I mean, suppose a $40 stylist can produce a haircut every bit as good 90% of the time, but the $400 guy can do it 99% of the time. Would you chance it given how high the stakes are?

[DL from Heidelberg]

Sadly, you're right. But I believe the issue with the Edwards haircut was that he used campaign funds (donations) as opposed to his own money. If I donate $200 to his campaign, I would rather that it went for a first rate hooker than a clip job.

[Andrew]

What’s the difference between a good haircut and a bad haircut? About a week...

Don’t you think it’s about time the USA got its self a parliament and stopped this presidential silliness? Sure, having a decision maker at the top, ready to fly in the face of the majority would have been a great idea when the country was young, with plenty of fightin’ an’ shootin’, when it took days, weeks, for news to get to the ends of the states, for decisions and orders to be sent out, and when the population was made up of illiterate immigrants. Then yes, have one guy ready to react and decide in the Now. But with communication in a blink, and people being able to read the blog of any fool, why would you want one person at the top with so much power and responsibility? Why not settle down a little and get yourselves a PM and a Parliament? That would take the celebrity out of you politics, a little at lease, and free up your time for some quality fightin’ an’ shootin’, no?

[car free since '93]

Funny blog, but you don't get "woman-think" at all. You've put "man-think" into a woman's head. This is probably what men HOPE women think like, though.

CFS '93

[@Rob]

What is the deal with the hair again? How much conversation is there, really. You have it or you don't. You take care of it or you are a man who is not rich.

[Larry Stickletodd]

I think I'd rather have an actor as president, even with bad hair. At least I know he/she is a trained liar and that any time he/she opened their mouth, it was most likely a lie. Politicians are not trained liars. Most of them do it very poorly. Fred Thompson, at least, you can trust, because you KNOW he is an actor and by the very nature of their business, they lie.

[techguy]

Like many of your fellow hair-challenged, you continue to be obsessed with the haired. It's not as important an issue as you think, especially to Democrats. You are correct that Republicans always nominate candidates that remind them of the idealized father-figure, but not so Dems. And the democrats sometimes win.

[RPK]

We've been choosing our Presidents based on things like hair for far too long. (BTW, how did Ike get elected without hair?)

I think we need a new system. Instead of never-ending campiagns, with their mud-slinging advertisements that take up so much air time and cost a fortune, why not just institute a lottery?

Anyone who would like to be President could buy lottery tickets and the winner, drawn at random on the first Tuesday in November, would win the job. This would still favor the rich, who could afford to buy a lot of tickets, as opposed to the poor, who currently buy a lot of lottery tickets. But anyone could win, which is not the case now. And the money raised could be used to run the government, instead of the absurd tax system we now have in place.

With the money we save on taxes we could afford one of those $300 fluffers.

[Mark]

"While it’s theoretically possible that the guy working the French fry station at Burger World would make the best president ever, it’s not a chance I’m willing to take. That guy has a lot of explaining to do. No, I want a president who is so rich he can pay $400 for a haircut and pay another $300 to the pedicurist to fluff him while he’s there. I want a president who knows how to make money and isn’t afraid to use it."

I'm willing to take the fry chef at Burger World. Do you really want the obnoxious prig who cheated his or her way to class president? Who's so obsessed with power they're willing to do anything for it? Think Tracy Flick.

Better yet, I'm in full agreement with you about Florida's Bob Allen. Offer me $20 and a bj and I'm in.

[Deanj]

The amount of a haircut doesn't bother me. It's the guy going around the country saying there are "two Americas" out there, and we need to fix it.

Lead by example, not the "do as I say, not as I do" rule.

[Aditya Simha]

Ha ha! A 400$ haircut sounds nice! I bet it's actually 12 bucks, but then when these presidential candidates come along, they just bump up the price!

[dejapooh]

Where do I go for that $8 turtle wax job?

[mrjimm]

You totally missed the point about John Edwards' $400 haircut - it was never about it costing $400; it was the fact that HE CHARGED THE COST TO HIS CAMPAIGN.

So a whole bunch of hard-working supporters sent in $25 or $50 checks for a good cause (?), and Edwards, a multi-millionaire, felt it beneath him to pay for those haircuts with his own (hard-earned?) money,

[djh]

I have just read through all he comments here. I find it endlessly amusing to find people posting from other countries using your blog to attack or insult or otherwise put down our country. The funny thing is we all know we are not perfect but we also realize no matter what country they are from we are better off then them.

[Dixon]

FAYI (For All-Y'alls Information) -- Women can be leaders but Scott's rules do _NOT_ get reversed. Seriously, Margret Thatcher was great, but I wouldn't touch her with yours. This is why there are so few female leaders in democracies. When judging if a woman will be fit to lead you need to take into account her qualities (not physical), where she stands on the issus, etc ... In the end, it's just easier to vote for the dude that your wife thinks about when your not satisfying her.

[Skyy]

You last question isn't politically correct, Scott. It should probably have read:

The men and women of this country have just two questions of our potential leaders:

Men & Gay Women/Women & Gay Men: “Would I want to be him?”/"Would I want to be her?"

Women & Gay Men/Men & Gay Women: “Would I do him?”/"Would I do her?"

[Joel]

So what's your offical prediction regarding the election, and which candidate would you be most likely to vote for if you were to vote?

[Matthew Kovich]

Fluff?

As in... the pornographical film term?

touche, Mr. Adams, touche

[eclecticdog]

The rich are already running this country into the ground at the expense of the middle- and low-income earners. You want more of this!? Oops, I forgot, you're one of them now.

[Krissy]

Hang on. I'm sure that the rest of this post is great and all, but I just can't get past the $400 hair cut. I mean, like...$400? Really? Even from a celebrity stylist in LA, I can still get a haircut cheaper than that. Where did he get this haircut? Wait, is it a military thing? Did he get a military haircut? Cause that would explain things.

[Tuzo]

Some posters have mentioned the gender issue at the end of the post. I don't think "reversing" it would help men make a decision since the answer would almost always be the same:

Women: “Would I want to be her?”
Men: “Would I do her?”

[just_human]

Unless I'm mistaken, to 'fluff' someone is to perform sexual acts to keep them aroused in between takes while making a porn movie. What on earth does that have to do with being a pedicurist?

Wouldn't it have been funnier to say "and pay his doctor $500 to fluff him after his next physical."?

[Isabelle Dolce]

Boskolives,

Wouldn't you, or have you already, 'done' Paris? Perhaps you would prefer to do Hillary? In any case, I am glad you agree with me that the only sensible choice is Paris for President if we take Scott's criteria seriously.

So please, sign the petition! Link to the campaign site! Buy the t-shirt!

Isabelle

[blueU]

"I want a president who knows how to make money and isn’t afraid to use it.'

Hmmm. Knows how to make money. Interesting. First, exclude those that have been given hugely preferential treatment in life. Oh wait, no can't do that, there would be no-one left.

But suppose there was. Haven't you yourself said that success is often about good fortune? I mean, would Dilbert not still have been Dilbert regardless of whether UM picked it up? Would it have been less funny if only your coworkers at a bland corporate office got to see it?

The guy who works 50 hours a week, raises a family, obeys the law and contributes to his community - that's the guy that deserves a vote, and precisely the type they will never allow to be elected.

[DD]

So the Brits voted in Maggie Thatcher, no wonder the scary school headmistress features so much in the movies. Punish me, I have been a bad boy.

[jackjumper]

Apparently Laura Bush's hair costs $700 to do...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2984219

[Leo]

I neither want to be or do Hillary Clinton

[Sonrisa]

I believe that Sex and the City wisdom is applicable here. From the episode "Politically Erect:"

"The country runs better with a good-looking man in office. Look at what happened with Nixon. No one would screw him, so he screwed everyone." (Samantha, I think)

Okay, so maybe it's not verbatim, but close enough.

[vasco]

@colton
those haircuts of
kim jong ill
are awesome
ROFL

-----------------------
http://href.hu/x/2sv1

[David]

I'm wlling to bet that a guy who can afford a $400 haircut has already used up most of his alotted luck, and would destroy the country.

[Dan]

And that explains my problem with H Clinton, despite being a fan of her husband.
I don't want to be her... and do her? Thats just sick.

[Tim]

Jeez, past American presidents and current candidates. You ought to know that the rest of the world thinks of American presidents (and the whole campaigning/voting shebang) as ridiculous - almost makes me feel sorry for Americans. I said almost ;-)

[jerry w.]

Isabelle Dolce wrote:

"Paris Hilton has lots of money, fabulous hair and everybody would 'do her.'

Did you mean to write "......and everybody HAS done her"?

With a track record like that, she'd win by a landslide. Her re-election campaign motto could be "I'll get down on my knees and earn your vote the old fashioned way, I'll work for it."

What shows her (sorry, no pun intended) "conviction" most is that tattoo just under her fabulous hair line, the one that says "Don't grab my ears, I know what I'm doing".

With most of the other candidates doing at best a ho-hum job, she'd be seen in the press daily as an outstanding "Ho" doing a great "Hum"-Job.

http://boskolives.wordpress.com/

[gm]

I don't think I would ask myself whether or not I would sleep with a presidential candidate, but I do think we judge people more on looks than most would like to admit.

[Penethra]

There is a LOT of overlap between the spa industry and prostitution. It's why I wear my hair long and curly. LOL! I get _seriously_ creeped out by it all!! And you damned well bet I don't want MY TAX MONEY going into some creep's hand job! Creepy creepy creepy!!! Euuuwwwwwww!

[Marco]

"First, you can’t complain about $400 haircuts and also complain that the rich don’t pay enough taxes."

Are you suggesting that redistribution of wealth is accomplished by expensive haircuts?
(When pondering this question, please bear in mind that the people who successfully charge $400 for haircuts are also rich.)

[Mike]

re: the ending..
Interesting assumption that everyone is straight, and that every 'potential leader' is male...

[Bob]

Fred Thompson: Would I want to be him?

Have you seen his wife? Yeah, I'd want to be him...

[pakman]

EEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWW Hillary EEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWW
Hopefully your criteria holds and we won't have to look at Hill in the White House again!

[ScottM]

I kind of perfer a president with interesting hair. The hair makes the man, in my opinion, or the woman, as the case may be. I didn't vote for Reagan, even though he had by far the most interesting hair of any recent president.

On the other hand, I would feel better about my desire to vote for Obama if he had Reagan hair, even though he would become nearly indistinguishable from Eddie Murphy in a Gumby suit.

[Brad K.]

Why is it that Fred Thompson's lack of hair never seems apparent? There are many bald and toupee'd guys that make me think immediately of 'Fish' on Barney Miller, decrepit, or the parking customer in 'Police Academy' (the 'Wig! Wig!' guy), in denial.

I see Fred as following in the footsteps of venerated Ronald 'Ronnie Ray Guns' Reagan, only with a lot more talent and presence.

[Stoker]

I agree. Now get Joe Biden & his hair plugs out of here. And he can take McCain, Kookcinoich (he's not just a mamber ...), Hill-Dog (What is SHE coming over). For superior hair, we have to vote Duncan Hunter.

[Enough Wealth]

Several people already commented that someone would could afford to pay $400 for a haircut but chose the $40 one that was just as good would make a better leader - otherwise you get one that thinks "Defence System X is the best, we deserve the best, lets boost the defence budget another 10%" - so I won't repeat the comment ;)

I'm not sure that the two questions:

Men: “Would I want to be him?”

Women: “Would I do him?”

are really valid - otherwise we'd be electing young academy award winners to office rather than old political hacks.

Regards
http://enoughwealth.com

[Joshua]

The problem with a $400 haircut isn't that the guy is "out of touch" is that the guy has no idea what to do with money. Even $200 is 10-20 times the cost of an average haircut (for men). Give that guy a trillion to spend, we'd have $1000 street signs on every corner and a deficit.

Don't get me wrong, if I were rich, I'd probably stop going to SuperCuts, but I can't imagine every spending $400 on a haircut. Eventually there comes a point where then next $100 isn't improving that haircut by much. I want a president who knows when that is.

[jake]

So Mitt would pay $900 for a cup of coffee and a doughnut and then throw away the coffee, effectively purchasing a $900 doughnut. Now THAT's a guy I could get behind!

[K...]

Though I won't dispute Paris Hilton's hair and doablity, IIRC she won't be old enough to be Prez until 2016. It's a little too early to start campaigning for that now...

As for Hillary, as a guy, there are times I think she's doable...

[George]

"I prefer a president who has read an article about leprosy but doesn’t have it."
Well said, Scott.

Also, I believe it was Stendhal who said in The Red and The Black: "Women want him, men want to be like him."

[Sevesteen]

Over the years, candidates spending habits are often news, from haircuts to Kerry's custom bicycle.
At a certain level of income, it makes more financial sense to pay what mortals would consider outrageous prices, rather than spend the time searching for deals. There's also other factors--If a prominent person gets a haircut at the mall, chances are pretty good his hair will wind up on Ebay.

Scott: What do you spend on haircuts?

[Rachel]

My grandad liked to tell a story about being out jogging one day, and up off the side of the road hops this happy little bunny that starts crossing the street. It gets half way across the street and BAM! hit by a car. The driver stops, and she and my grandad went to go see if the rabbit was alright. The driver is hysterical, she's an animal lover, you see, and can't stand the thought of having killed one of the cute ones.

Well, my grandad was not only smart and crafty, he was prepared, and he takes this little vile out of his fanny pack (back when it was okay for an older gentleman to carry a fanny pack while jogging), and he opens the rabbit's mouth and pours in the contents of the vile. He massaged the throat of the rabbit to make sure the tincture got into its stomach and thus blood stream, and what would you know, a few minutes later, the rabbit starts moving again.

Within minutes, the cute little bunny gets up and starts to hop away. It stops, turns and waves at them, then hops away some more. Stops, turns and waves, again. The rabbit does this four or five times before the woman asked my grandad what he gave the little creature.

"A hare restorer with a permanent wave."

(My grandad told the best and the worst jokes.)

[Wilson Patton]

I'm sure there are side bets between the candidates on who will win. What I want to see is the loser gets to shave the winning president's head. The president would have to maintain a shaved head for the length of their term. Then he/she could get to work and stop worrying about their $400 haircut. A shaved head always makes you look meaner too. That's always good for the kind of foreign relations we like to engage in. I'd 'really' like to see that if Hillary wins.

[Jerry]

Ah, Scott - nobody gets your vote. You don't vote. Although... Maybe in a sneaky way, you just did...

[Earl]

True! I still remembering growing up and seeing Ronald Reagan on his TV broadcasts. I don't pay much attention to what he was saying, but I would think, "MAN! I hope my hair looks that good when I'm his age!"

[ShaunL]

Whilst G.W Bush may look attractive to his fellow monkeys, in no way would I either want to do him or be him.

[richard]

anyone paying $40 for a haircut is still getting hosed. i get a great haircut for $10. Some people are so crass and shallow that looks is what they look at in an elected official. that and a##-kissing smooth talk. that's why we have too many lawyers in congress and so many problems with the country. it is a serious conflict of interest in having lawyers write the laws.... no other profession gets away with that. as for hillary, she already did 8 years running this country into a mess, she shouldn't have a second chance to do a worse job of it. "it takes a village....." was her mantra. personally, i don't want the village idiot helping to raise my children (when the wife and i start a family).

[Slinga]

I'd rather have a poor person than a rich person in charge any day. We've had nothing but rich white men in charge, and look where it got us. If someone is stupid enough to pay $400 for a haircut, that's their problem, but as someone who gets his hair cut maybe once a year, it's not something that makes me likely to vote for him/her.

Men: “Would I want to be him?”

Obama or Kucinich, but the rest of them I wouldn't be caught dead being.

[Ray]

"You really do have a rather low opinion of the American voter, don't you."

Individually, I suspect he doesn't. Collectively, however...that is a different story. We truly are cattle.

[Sara]

Last fall in my high school government class our teacher had us research the two candidates running for one of PA's senatorial seats. For some reason, many of the students were fixated on Bob Casey's hair loss. The teacher couldn't fathom it. When we had to make posters for or against candidates, anti-Casey posters ended up with "Bob Casey: Loses More Hair Each Day."

He ended up winning the seat, but you do seem to have a point there...

[Fox]

Way to be so incredibly serious and shallow with this post. I'm really mad about how irresponsible you are. I want you drug tested before you vote. Oh, I know you are typically a sarcastic, tongue in cheek cartoonist, but this blog entry clearly shows your true colors. Shame on you for basing your political opinion on haircuts and sexual prowess.

I swear, some of the reactions from people on this blog from a contemporary humorist make me wonder how many of your readers take the "short bus" in the mornings.

[Yak Boy]

You certainly don't want a PHB in the White House.

[Francesco Orsenigo]

A man who is filthy rich is usually great at doing HIS interest, not the country's.

In Italy lots of people made your very reasoning and voted Berlusconi.
In his 5 years of government, we become poorer and he doubled his wealth....

[dmcbass]

Preciseley how Bill Clinton got in to trouble. A nice head of hair, a $900 cup of coffee and totally 'doable'.

Sorry, twounicycles, the "would I do him" question has crossed my mind. For the record, Bill & JFK are at the top of my presidential 'doable' list.

dmcbass

[CDriK]

I like how you defend the rich people against the idiots.

In France, we're so much smarter that we elected a president who isn't handsome (Nicolas Sarkozy).

I must confess that the media propaganda isn't for nothing in his election but anyway, he won against a girl more beautiful than him.

BTW, long live to French fries !

[hatmaam]

You didn't finish the thought:

"I want a president who knows how to make money and isn’t afraid to use it."

Meaning, that we don't want a president that can spend $300-$400 for a haircut, we want the guy/gal who can successfuly *charge* $300-$400 for a haircut and get away with it to be president.

After all, those who actually spend that kind of money on a haircut without giving it a second thought doesn't have a first thought to begin with...haven't we had enough of that in the oval office over the last 20 years?

[Colton]

I have to say I agree. Kim Jong Ill is a perfect example of what happens when hair isn't a considered important.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/04/10/kim_jongil.jpg

http://home.blarg.net/~wayule/graphics/kim_jong.jpg

http://mensa-barbie.com/bloggerimages/captap_kim_jongII_ILL_LOOKING

[Eric]

Scott, are you sure you should capitalize the "f" in "french fry?" It doesn't look right to me. Just thought I'd mention it, as I've noticed it in your writings. I'd want you to point stuff like that out to me, in my writings, so I assume you won't take offense.

[Jon]

... and people bitched about Nancy Reagan's upgrade of the Whitehouse dinnerware...

[Dalebert]

I take issue with this notion of a single guy who "runs the country". There are 300 million individuals in this country working with each other every day just fine. There is not some proverbial steering wheel somewhere that needs someone turning it to keep us functioning. I'd take that burger flipper for president if we had the chance and I'd pay him the same $300k a year plus expenses to just go to work and cook french fries and stay out of our lives. Do less damage that way.

[niCk(MemBeth)]

This is America. Looks are more important than wisdom, intelligence, or productivity.

We'd have some pretty ugly people running the country if we voted on experience and competence.

Keep America Beautiful.

[Isabelle Dolce]

Paris Hilton has lots of money, fabulous hair and everybody would 'do her.'

Clearly she is the strongest candidate.

Please sign the petition for her candidacy at:
http://www.isabelledolce.com/index.php?entry=entry070627-075443

[Patrick]

Wow. You really do have a rather low opinion of the American voter, don't you. You also apparently assume that all Presidents must be male, and that no gay people ever vote. Or maybe gay people are smart enough to vote on issues, and heterosexuals base their votes on incidentals?

[Yuriy]

[The men and women of this country have just two questions of our potential leaders:
Men: “Would I want to be him?”
Women: “Would I do him?”]

So, what would that say about the men and women of this counter if Hillary Clinton wins?

Hmm....

[Mark]

Your question for the women to ask assumes the potential leader is a male. I'm sure someone else already commented that, but who has time to read all your comments?

[FryGuyRocks]

Scott wrote:
[While it’s theoretically possible that the guy working the French fry station at Burger World would make the best president ever, it’s not a chance I’m willing to take.]

Yeah, me either. But damn that would be good TV.

Loomis... congratulations. You are now the most powerful man in the world.

Please follow me for your presidential haircut and fluffing.

[House of Payne]

Plus, Mitt has to throw the $900 coffee away because he's a Mormon. So he's really losing out on that deal.

[bob]

There was an excellent Simpsons episode where Homer conned the company health plan into paying for "Dimoxinil" to treat his baldness, grew a full head of hair... and became a rising star in management.
Just before he was to unveil his grand vision for the corporation, Smithers and Mr. Burns discovered his fraud and cut off his supply hair tonic. His hair fell out and his scalp re-appeared; he started his brilliant presentation before a packed conference room... and everybody walked out on him because he was "just some bald guy."

[twounicycles]

Winston Churchill did a good job. So did...erm. Perhaps in a time of war you need someone to actually do something, so you don't care about the hair. The rest of the time, when you just want to get on with your life, appearances are more important.

[Southpark]

Sorry, "would I do him" has never entered into my list of criteria for selecting a candidate to vote for. yuck

[Mel]

Itching and crying? By chance did you mean bitching and crying? Maybe you meant exactly what you typed - the visual for the former is much more entertaining.

Arrrgh- You want them to be able to afford the $400 haircut but I want them to be SMART ENOUGH to see when something is a waste of money. Unfortunately it looks like another 4 years with $1.2 million hammers and 500billion dol