Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
New at Reason
Henry Payne brings this edition of Friday Funnies, which you can read for free - or for $400, if you're a Democratic presidential candidate.
|5.4.07 @ 7:49AM|#
Oy, such a cheap shot! Johnnie's haircut cost $400 because the
guy came to him! Totally different! Totally! So lay off!
And where the heck can a guy get a haircut for eight bucks in this
town? Will someone stop the madness, huh? Please?
Untermensch|5.4.07 @ 8:03AM|#
Johnnie's haircut cost $400 because the guy came to him!
Andd if my barber came to me, it might cost all of $25...
ed|5.4.07 @ 8:05AM|#
Madness? I'll give you madness: The cost of my haircut has gone up 25% in two years, and yet I have 15% less hair to cut. Big Hair is gouging me, and I want satisfaction!
Guy Montag|5.4.07 @ 8:08AM|#
And where the heck can a guy get a haircut for eight bucks
in this town? Will someone stop the madness, huh?
Please?
I forgot what a haircut cost at the PX/BX but I think it is more
than $8.
My new barber in Crystal City is around $12 for a really good flat
top. I think the Hair Cuttery (or whatever that chain is called)
out here was more. Same plase reason's favorite Sec. Def.
was getting his hair cut when he worked out this way.
stephen the goldberger|5.4.07 @ 9:12AM|#
the most shocking thing about john edwards' haircut costing $400
is that it's so shitty.
he looks like a ten year old with it.
|5.4.07 @ 9:13AM|#
Isn't a $400 haircut just another man's $80,000 car, some time
at a $2000 a night spa, a $2000 suit, a $12,000 watch, a $600
hotel, a $350 dinner, or an $18,000,000 home? Or a second or third
version of all of the above?
John Edwards is a rich man. He can afford a haircut at that cost,
it's scheduling was convenient for him, and he probably was okay
with the way it looks. And I haven't heard John Edwards or his
campaign suggest that rich people should have to drive Toyota
Corollas or Chevy Cavaliers, live in small apartments, go to
Supercuts, wear only digital watches that come with Happy Meals,
and sleep on park benches while on business trips.
Disclaimer: I do my haircuts for free myself or get them for cost
of a few drinks from my friend who runs a hair salon.
|5.4.07 @ 9:16AM|#
I think the only good thing to come out of the Edwards Expensive
Haircut story is that the myth of the Liberal Media can pretty much
be put to bed.
It says a lot that this non-story has gotten more play that the
billions of dollars that have disappeared in Iraq. Not spent, just
vanished.
|5.4.07 @ 9:18AM|#
John Edwards is a rich man. He can afford a haircut at that
cost, it's scheduling was convenient for him, and he probably was
okay with the way it looks. And I haven't heard John Edwards or his
campaign suggest that rich people should have to drive Toyota
Corollas or Chevy Cavaliers, live in small apartments, go to
Supercuts, wear only digital watches that come with Happy Meals,
and sleep on park benches while on business trips.
The amazing thing is that if Edwards had gone to Great Clips the
media would have been all over his phony attempt to "try to pass
himself off as a regular guy".
jgray|5.4.07 @ 9:23AM|#
seriously who cares about this shit
so edwards is a fag...big deal
why i am even wasting my time typing this?
|5.4.07 @ 9:40AM|#
"...the myth of the Liberal Media can pretty much be put to
bed."
As scientific as your "I seen a bad story 'bout a Dem'crat once"
approach is, maybe you could reconsider in light of numerous
studies, starting with:
http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm
or:
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664
Is it the bugaboo the Right claims? No. Is it there? Yes.
|5.4.07 @ 9:56AM|#
Yes, I'm familiar with the UCLA study that found even the Drudge
Report to be liberal.
Actually, I'd say that there is no point in attempting a
"scientific" study on something as subjective as political
bias.
|5.4.07 @ 10:04AM|#
The amazing thing is that if Edwards had gone to Great Clips
the media would have been all over his phony attempt to "try to
pass himself off as a regular guy".
While Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards, and their families were having a "lite" lunch at Wendy's in the Town of Newburgh Friday, drumming up local support right after the national convention in Boston, their real lunches were waiting on their bus.
A member of the Kerry advance team called Nikola's Restaurant at the Newburgh Yacht Club the night before and ordered 19 five-star lunches to go that would be picked up at noon Friday. Management at the restaurant, which is operated by CIA graduate chef Michael Dederick, was told the meals would be for the Kerry and Edwards families and actor Ben Affleck who was with them on the tour.
The gourmet meals to go included shrimp vindallo, grilled diver sea scallops, prosciutto, wrapped stuffed chicken, and steak salad. The meals came to about $200.
The entourage had also expected to stop at the Alexis Diner at Route 9W and North Plank Road in the Town of Newburgh. In fact, the Kerry advance team had ordered 125 lunches for the team and supporters. Their buses drove right by the diner on I-84 and proceeded straight to Wendy's.
Kerry may still have the vote of Wendy's manager John Garrett. "I'm for anyone who comes in and likes double cheeses", Garrett said. "I'm a big supporter of anyone who orders our food."
|5.4.07 @ 10:12AM|#
I got too cheap to pay $12 for the 10 min. crew cut. One pair of trimmers and some instruction to my wife, and I've been golden for about 5 yrs now (and the barber is up to $18 last time I checked).
|5.4.07 @ 10:14AM|#
John Edwards is a rich man. He can afford a haircut at that
cost, it's scheduling was convenient for him, and he probably was
okay with the way it looks
joe,
He didn't pay for the haircut. He charged it to his
campaign.
A believer who had sent him, say, a $25 check might question
whether this was a legitimate campaign expense.
As you point out, John Edwards is a rich man who can afford to pay
for his haircuts with his own money.
|5.4.07 @ 10:16AM|#
To add alittle snark:
A believer, [from the other America] who had sent him,
say, a $25 check might question whether this was a legitimate
campaign expense.
|5.4.07 @ 10:16AM|#
A believer who had sent him, say, a $25 check might question
whether this was a legitimate campaign expense
Why? Who doesn't think that a big part of running a modern campaign
is keeping up the candidate's personal appearance?
|5.4.07 @ 10:24AM|#
Believe it or not, Dan, that's a good answer. And something I
considered.
However someone from the other America might not
agree.
They may think that his platform of truth and justice speaks for
itself.
On the other hand you might be right that they are just airheads
impressed by personal apperarance.
|5.4.07 @ 10:29AM|#
"Actually, I'd say that there is no point in attempting a
'scientific' study on something as subjective as political
bias."
Then how on earth can you suggest that a fluff non-story about a
haircut put the whole matter definitively to rest?
And don't dismiss the UCLA study as if it were the only one.
|5.4.07 @ 10:35AM|#
Modern politicians are the new televangelists. They panhandle millions of dollars from starry-eyed dopes under promise of salvation, and spend it on $400 haircuts. It's not just John Edwards' problem.
|5.4.07 @ 10:36AM|#
Then how on earth can you suggest that a fluff non-story about a
haircut put the whole matter definitively to rest?
I'm just saying that a liberal media wouldn't have made this
non-story a two-week controversy. And it's not the first "John
Edwards is rich" story.
|5.4.07 @ 10:41AM|#
"I'm just saying that a liberal media wouldn't have made this
non-story a two-week controversy."
Right. One anecdote and the case is closed. Numerous studies,
though, are irrelevant because it's subjective. Do you see my
frustration with this line of reasoning at least?
|5.4.07 @ 10:58AM|#
Right. One anecdote and the case is closed. Numerous
studies, though, are irrelevant because it's subjective. Do you see
my frustration with this line of reasoning at least?
Well, I mean if the corporate-owned media was liberal, wouldn't
they do everything possible to get liberal politicans elected? But
yet they made sure Bush was voted into office twice.
I sort of feel like the whole "media bias" idea is basically a
technique to discredit unfavorable news. There's no scientific way
to measure "bias" since bias is not a scientific concept. I mean,
if a newspaper writes two positive stories about Democrats and only
one about Republicans, does it indicate bias or does it indicate
that the Democrats are doing more positive things?
Depends on where you sit, I guess.
Oh yeah, regarding the UCLA study:
None of the outlets that reported on the study mentioned that
the authors have previously received funding from the three premier
conservative think tanks in the United States: the American
Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI), The Heritage
Foundation, and the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and
Peace.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220003
|5.4.07 @ 11:08AM|#
Media bias, to me, is a subconscious transference of ones own
worldview into self-proclaimed "objectivity" (showing up in
headline-writing and selection of relevant facts, for example) not
deliberate and insidious, so no, I dont think a liberal media would
do everything possible to get liberals elected. That's not bias,
that's conspiracy.
On another note, kudos for your continued even-keeled demeanor
around here in the face of such little concurrence. You give
gadflies a good name.
|5.4.07 @ 11:12AM|#
Also,
"None of the outlets that reported on the study mentioned that the
authors have previously received funding from the three premier
conservative think tanks in the United States: the American
Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI), The Heritage
Foundation, and the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and
Peace."
So? Is this guilt by implication or is there evidence they were
influenced?
|5.4.07 @ 11:24AM|#
On another note, kudos for your continued even-keeled demeanor
around here in the face of such little concurrence. You give
gadflies a good name.
Thanks. Good trolling means that you can't let the anti-trolls get
to you. :)
|5.4.07 @ 11:28AM|#
So? Is this guilt by implication or is there evidence they
were influenced?
I think it indicates that there may have been bias in the bias
detectors.
|5.4.07 @ 2:25PM|#
I bought a Flowbee 14 years ago. I've gone through 3 vacuum
cleaners, but the Flowbee keeps cutting and it gives me the cut I
want every time. The Flowbee paid for itself in less than a year,
and I have saved over $1500.00 by cutting my own hair (Using the
$20 I used to pay.)
I've had cosmetology and barber students compliment my haircut,
wanting to know who cut it. But, I have also received some teasing
a la Mike Meyers' Wayne's World skit ""It's sucking my will to
live."
|5.4.07 @ 2:35PM|#
Interesting, NoStar. On the other hand, I am clumsy and my barber since I was 12 continues to only charge $10, so...
|5.4.07 @ 2:58PM|#
Eric the .5b,
I too am known for a certain lack of dexterity, but the spacers
will not allow hair to be cut shorter than what you want. The
tapered spacer does a great job on the sides and back of the head,
although you do need to hold the cutter vertically.
You can always ask a friend to help.
The cost has come down from the $90 I paid from a TV informertial.
I saw one at Wal-Mart for under $45. Five haircuts and you are in
the black.
|5.4.07 @ 5:25PM|#
Isn't a $400 haircut just another man's $80,000 car, some
time at a $2000 a night spa, a $2000 suit, a $12,000 watch, a $600
hotel, a $350 dinner, or an $18,000,000 home? Or a second or third
version of all of the above?
John Edwards is a rich man. He can afford a haircut at that cost,
it's scheduling was convenient for him, and he probably was okay
with the way it looks. And I haven't heard John Edwards or his
campaign suggest that rich people should have to drive Toyota
Corollas or Chevy Cavaliers, live in small apartments, go to
Supercuts, wear only digital watches that come with Happy Meals,
and sleep on park benches while on business trips.
Yes, Edwards is a rich man. He can spend his money however he
wants. However, the point of the cartoon is that his spending what
most Americans would consider to be ridiculous sums of cash on
minor luxuries makes his populism seem insincere. He talks
socialism while living bourgeoisie.
This particular story is doubly bad for Edwards, as it also
reinforces his reputation as somewhat, ahem, effete. Which is
apparently not a trait Americans appreciate in presidential
candidates.
|5.4.07 @ 8:19PM|#
Dan T.
Regarding this incident as evidence against liberal bias in the
media.
If the media were criticizing his policies not celebrity gossip
items like expensive haircuts you might have a point.
They aren't and you don't
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245