20th Jan 2012 | 1 note

How Would Darwin Rank Our GOP Candidates?

With the South Carolina primary only a day away the pool of remaining GOP candidates has finally whittled itself down to the final bunch of contenders, albeit at the speed of sloths waiting in line at the DMV, or you know, a more apt metaphor for something that moves really really slowly. (Not that I’m complaining guys… Hey wait, why are you leaving? Oh stop it, you know I didn’t mean it like that).

But anyway moving on. Where once there proudly stood eight, there are now sadly, only four. We were sorry to see them leave (especially you, Michele Bachmann) but it was time for them to be on their un-merry little ways.

With all its theatrical plot developments, it should come as a surprise to nobody that the ongoing battle royal—which has now taken up our prime-time viewing attention for an unheard of seventeen debates—has gotten serious media flak for pandering to America’s unhealthy obsession with competition-driven reality shows.

It’s impossible to completely deny this claim or ignore the fact that there’s an obvious link between the escalating drama of the debates and the high TV ratings they’ve managed to pull in. But maybe we need to dig deeper, and by deeper I really mean less deeply. Because maybe the answer is a lot simpler. Maybe what we’re watching is just classic Darwinian survival of the fittest disguised in charcoal business suits and American flag pins and uncomfortable TV grins.

Which is why I propose the immediate implementation of a new framework for assessing the strength of our final candidates: genetic fitness (props if you already guessed it!) We’re not going to get too sciencey here, since, well frankly I’m a liberal arts major with a practically made-up degree and am laughably underqualified to talk about science or really anything outside the realm of pop-culture.

But let’s just think back for a minute: could undesirable biological determinants possibly have underwritten the early departures of two of our beloved GOP hopefuls??(e.g. Michele Bachmann’s barely existant eyebrows, and Herman Cain’s predilection for wearing glasses in public and even less existant eyebrows) I say yes! And furthermore, if genetic fitness is at work here, even among aging candidates like Ron and Newt (oh, Newt) which traits will prevail?!

Let’s examine the battlefield. In terms of the ability to procreate, all of our candidates have proven themselves quite admirably. In fact, if we’ve learned anything from the GOP debates, it’s that despising Barack Obama and having staggering amounts of children seem to go hand in hand well.

Rick Santorum is currently leading the remaining pack in number of offspring with a whopping 7 products of successful impregnation, compared with Ron and Mitt’s respectable 5 children apiece, and Newt Gingrich’s paltry 2 (no shocker there). But let’s not be too hasty to overvalue the importance of offspring since we’ve already witnessed the departure of the single biggest spawn-generator: Jon Huntsman.

Physical attractiveness is another major force behind presidential electability. Now I’m not saying that it’s the most important factor, but I’m subtly insinuating it. Call me superficial if you dare, all I ask is that YOU be honest with yourself. Americans don’t want an unattractive Commander in Chief, and why should they? We sacrificed physical attraction for Richard Nixon, and look how that turned out.

Now the real key here (and I urge you to be objective) is that American voters care about looks, but less about youth. In fact, much like the stereotypical trophy wife, American voters tend to seek out an older, worldly, wealthy man, who has perhaps ripened past his prime but still displays a glimmer of his radiant youth. Which leads me to declare (drumroll, please)… Ron Paul as the clear winner in this field, with Mitt Romney in close second!

If you’re stumped, I’ll spell it out more clearly: it’s not what our future President looks like now that matters, it’s how hot he was when he was in his prime!

If you’re still skeptical, I present to you exhibit A.

Young Ron Paul, circa his days as an Air Force Captain. Just look at that smile, and try to tell me you’re unaffected. If you can, well you can just stop reading my blog because no asked for your opinion. I’d also like to take this moment to point out that Ron distinguished himself as a 220-yard dash state champion during high school, another reason not to overlook him just because he’s old now.

Moving on, I think we’ve all recognized Mitt Romney as the (currently) handsomest GOP candidate. What Mitt may lack in adorableness, he more than makes up for with a jaw that was probably chiseled out of marble. After careful consideration of early photos, I think it’s even fair to say that we can forgive his unibrow for the moderate likeness to Don Draper.

I give you Exhibit B.

In light of all these facts and the evidence before us, Santorum and Gingrich are lagging so far behind in the looks department that it seems slightly cruel to even include them on this list, yet I persist in the name of journalism.

Please see Exhibits C and D, or as I think of them, painfully intense and downright unfortunate.

Now readers, I know you’re not hard-hearted people. I can feel your courage withering beneath you, your sympathy rising like the bile in your throat, but I must urge you not to feel too sorry for these men. After all, Rick Santorum has somehow managed to father seven children despite his slanty nose, and Newt, well where do we even begin with Newt. I’d rather begin nowhere, suffice to say rest assured he’s done better than he probably deserves.

According to my estimates Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are locked in a tight battle: they’re tied for children, and neck-in-neck for hotness in their prime years. In spite of his many eccentricities Ron Paul has won a reputation for himself as the most politically earnest candidate of the group (no but really, his actual middle name is Ernest!), but still suffers from what newsy people call a lack of electability, and which Mitt Romney is said to have the most of.

I leave you then, to come to your own conclusions until the next cut is made! What are your thoughts? Who do you like the best or hate the least?

30th Dec 2011

Thursday December 29, 2011

Today the New York Times published a front-page story that I think is emblematic of what’s wrong with a lot of NYT reporting. The article was titled “Instead of Work, Younger Women Head to School: Upgrading Their Skills Rather Than Settling for Low Pay” by Catherine Rampell.

The problem with it, as usual, wasn’t that it wasn’t well-researched (it was brimming with statistics), or cogently-written (the author makes a persuasive case that yes, more young women these days are using the economic downturn as an opportunity to go back to school instead of working crappy, low-paying jobs). The problem is that the NYT seems to fundamentally downplay the importance of actually talking to the people they’re reporting on.

The article had solid evidence for what the news was: the economy sucks, good jobs are scarce, statistics are showing that a disproportionate number of young women are dropping out of the labor force.

But it also had a truly staggering, almost insulting, number of expert voices. In total four experts were interviewed, including not one but two economists, a research director at a Chicago think thank, and the president of a community college in North Carolina. And what was the cumulative conclusion of their insights? The shocking revelation that (wait for it….) more young women are enrolling in college. Why we needed four separate experts and a comprehensive info-graphic to confirm the obvious fact that young women departing from the workforce has coincided with young women enrolling in school, is quite frankly beyond me. But thank you NYT for being so thorough.

If only if they could have been equally thorough in their coverage of real live women who are actually affected by this change. In contrast to the experts consulted, only one woman undergoing this transition (a Master’s candidate named Lauren Baker, who recently quit her job at Starbucks to go back to school) was actually interviewed for the article.

As a reader, I found this a little offensive. I understand the importance of experts, and I’m reassured to know that the New York Times has such knowledgeable sources at their disposal, I really am. But if the decisions of young women are only discussed and conjectured about at length by outside experts, while the women themselves are not being given their own voices, this is, in the words of Kate Zambreno, “a huge fucking problem”, (especially given that the subject matter of this article so obviously intertwined with complex feminist issues).

For shame, NYT.