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