HAIR PART THEORY DEBUNKED: Left side hair part for men or right side hair part? Which is better?

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/_YGz8o6wwks

Left Part or Right Part [for men]

I’m not saying the argument that there is an advantage in life for “left side” hair part (for men) is necessarily wrong.  There might be something to that theory, although it seems to me that the evidence is mainly anecdotal.

In the spirit of free discussion and open debate, I offer some counter arguments and counter examples to show that the right side part for men may actually be the superior part. 

·      In 1976 Jimmy Carter parted his hair on the right side and won the Presidential election. In 1980, Carter switched hair part sides and was parting his hair on the left side.  The result:  he lost the election in a landslide to Ronald Reagan, who parted his hair on the right.

·      Ronald Reagan, famously parted his hair on the right side.  He won 46 out of 50 states in the 1980 Presidential election (defeating newly left hair-parted incumbent President Jimmy Carter).  In 1984,  right side hair-parter President Reagan won 49 out of 50 states against the left side-parter, Walter Mondale, one of the biggest landslides of all time.  This seems to me to be a powerful counter-example to the “left side hair part is better” theory.

·      In the 2000 Presidential election, Al Gore (right side-parter) lost the election but won popular vote.  The retort is Gore should have even won MORE votes than he did but the right side part cost him votes. Huh?  That’s pure speculation.  What everyone concedes is that Gore, the right side hair part candidate, got more votes than his opponent, George W. Bush, the left side hair part candidate. Anything else is mere speculation.  If you are going to speculate – and you shouldn’t --you could even argue that if Gore were a left side hair parter he would have received much fewer votes. The irrefutable fact is, Gore, the right side hair-parter,  got more votes than George W. Bush, the left side hair-parter. REPEAT:  The right side hair-parter,  got more votes than the left side hair-parter. 

·      Much of what matters with hair part has to do with your face.  In my opinion, men with larger noses might actually look better with the right side part. I note that Bobby Kennedy (right side parter) had a larger nose than his brother, JFK (left side parter).  The right side part drew less attention to Bobby’s large nose. 

·      Right side parters have been very successful:  For example---  Frank Sinatra; Cary Grant; the aforementioned Ronald Reagan; Dean Martin; Bobby Kennedy; Gary Cooper; Paul Newman; Gregory Peck; the late actor Steve McQueen; Warren Beatty;  Matthew Broderick; Dustin Hoffman (e.g., "The Graduate"); Laurence Olivier; Bill Clinton; the poet Robert Frost; Steve Martin; the young Ryan O'Neal; Spencer Tracy; Peter Lawford; Rock Hudson; John Wayne (see"Reap the Wild Wind"); Orson Welles (see Citizen Kane) and Clint Eastwood were all right side parters.  Sometimes Ryan Reynolds sports a right side part. Sometimes, in his early career, Peter O’Toole had a right side part. It didn’t hurt their careers and nobody shunned them.  The argument that you have to be tall and handsome for the right side hair part to work doesn’t follow: see the not unhandsome but definitely not tall John Major (right sider), below. In 2014, Matt Damon was sporting a right side part, and Mr. Damon -- while handsome -- is not particularly tall.  

·      Former British Prime Minister John Major – and right side parter -- did not come from a wealthy background and was said to have lost a job opportunity because he was short of stature.  Nevertheless, despite lack of social status and stature, this right side parter made it all the way “to the top of the greasy pole” (in the phrase of Benjamin Disraeli) and became Prime Minister of Great Britain.  Hardly an example of someone being “shunned.”

·      Depending on one’s degree of baldness, the right side part can do a lot to make you look like you have more hair. I think as a man ages, parting the hair has more to do with which side of his hairline is receding more.  Hence, if the right side hair part covers the baldness better, men choose the right side. In my personal case, I notice that with my right side part, my head is fully covered with hair and it looks like I have a nice, thick head of hair.  This coincides with the theory that “thinning hair” looks the absolute worse;  better to shave your head and go with the completely bald look than walk around with thinning hair.  So, a right side part that makes you look like you have lots of hair is superior to a thinning hair look.  This might explain why Rush Limbaugh used to be a right side parter in his youth.  His hair was thinning and parting it on the right side made him look like he had more hair.  Eventually, he went bald.

      In conclusion, there are too many counter-examples to support the theory of an overall advantage to the left side part.  Perhaps back in the day the left side was considered better in stodgier times but in today's hip, tattoo loving, modern society there may be, if anything, a slight advantage to the right side hair part for men.  The right side parters give off the vibe of being a tad bit more individualistic; more of the "entrepreneurial" mindset; a bit more daring.   

I object to the reposting of my De Pretto book review on websites that I find highly objectionable and which I denounce

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/_YGz8o6wwks

As previously posted on this blog, I, Michael Falotico, wrote a book review some years ago about a book which purported to show that Olinto De Pretto was a precursor to the formula E = mc2.  The book was written in the Italian language by a mathematician, Professor Bartocci of Perugia, Italy.  This book was widely reported on by the British press but was rather unknown outside of Great Britain.  Professor Bartocci has since issued a clarification on his book which makes the De Pretto connection to the famous formula more murky.

Sadly, some other websites, of which I have NO CONNECTION and which I DENOUNCE, have re-posted this simple book review and have made comments that I think are, in my view, invidiously prejudicial and highly offensive against Albert Einstein and his ethnic background.

Again, I have NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER to any such website/websites and I object to my review being posted on those websites.  Indeed, I have found such website horrible and highly objectionable.

 For the record, I am a strong supporter of the country of Israel and I admire Albert Einstein enormously.  I merely wanted to cast light on where his ideas may have originated and I was taken with this book. Since the book was written in the Italian language,  I thought that the book should receive more attention among English speaking people.  Albert Einstein had a strong affinity for Italy. He could  read and speak Italian as "The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein" show; Einstein occasionally published reviews of articles he read in Italian physics journals which demonstrate his extraordinary strong command of the Italian language. Indeed, Einstein's father is buried in Milan.  My point was only to review a book by Professor Bartocci that made these Italian connections explicit and possibly shed some light as to the origin of the famous "E=mc2" formula.  Since his book's publication, Professor Bartocci has backed off a bit regarding whether De Pretto can truly be a precursor to Einstein.  Hence, my book review is dated and, perhaps, obsolete, given new information from Professor Bartocci.

What is terrible, terrible, terrible, is that some strange websites, which I abhor, would re-post my simple book review of a fairly obscure Italian book (written in Italian) and make scurrilous comments about Einstein.  I have no connection to such websites.  I find them completely and utterly horrendous.  Sadly, I cannot control what gets re-posted on the Internet and by whom.  Again, I admire the genius Albert Einstein enormously,-- indeed, I am truly in awe -- especially now that new information has come to light from Professor Bartocci demonstrating Einstein's preeminence in physics.
Michael Falotico

Einstein -- the greatest! Professor Bartocci review (plus clarification) of book about Olinto De Pretto

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/_YGz8o6wwks

I am Michael Falotico, an attorney.  Years ago I wrote a review of an Italian book by Professor Umberto Bartocci about an early 20^th century Italian physicist, Olinto De Pretto.  In that book it was theorized that De Pretto was a true precursor of Albert Einstein.  The book purported to show that the famous equation “E=mc2” was published by De Pretto first.  The science is complicated and, indeed, over my head.  Yet, it seemed pretty clear that Professor Bartocci was on to something.  Since the first publication of his book, Professor Bartocci has issued a clarification  (in Italian) found here:

http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/st/DEPR-003.htm

In light of this clarification, it can only be safe to say that the precursor status of De Pretto is more murky than originally thought. 

I do believe, however, that considerable more research needs to be done on Albert Einstein and his Italian connections, which are deep.  In this way, light may possibly be shed on where his astonishing ideas originated.

May I also say that I am in no way responsible for the reposting of my review of Professor Bartocci’s book, which has appeared on some website which I disapprove. 

Finally, for the record, there can be no question that Einstein was a brilliant, brilliant man, perhaps the smartest person of all time.  He was also, I believe, the greatest person of the 20^th century and one of the greatest, wisest persons of all time.  I admire him deeply and I am in awe of his genius.  I wrote my review only to encourage further delving into where his fantastic ideas originated.  

 Could Einstein really have done so much? Where did his ideas come from? What did he read? What did his first wife do to help his work, if anything?

I pose the issue, “Is it really possible for one human being to have been this smart?” It seems so staggering that it is understandable one could have doubts.  But as evidence accumulates, these doubts dissipate.

Windsor vs. U.S. a great decision; Death Tax a travesty

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/_YGz8o6wwks

Windsor v. United States   was a great decision for many reasons.  Among those reasons, it brought justice to a lady who would otherwise have been unjustly forced to pay a tremendous sum in estate taxes she shouldn't have had to pay.   The reality is, the so-called "Estate Tax" is really a Death Tax that cheats small businesses and farmers out of their respective businesses and land so that rich, faceless, arrogant corporations can snap up the businesses and land at fire sale prices.  The little guy/gal ---who has worked his/her whole life to build a business and make it a success --- dies one day.  That day, his/her heirs find out they owe a fortune to the federal government in Estate Taxes.  The heirs have no money; the money is tied up in fixed assets, i.e., the farm land or the business itself.  In order to pay the huge estate tax, the heirs are forced to sell the business.  Who buys it?  

The large corporations, of course.   The corporations pay no Estate Tax or Death Tax because a corporation never dies.  Only human beings die.  And because the heirs are forced, at a moment's notice, to pay the tax, the heirs have no negotiating power.  The tax must be paid immediately and the heirs had not expected the family member to die when and how s/he did.  So the corporations snap up the family farm land at fire sale prices.  Or the corporations put out of business the small, family owned business thereby eliminating competition.  

The Estate Tax is designed to help corporations put small businesses out of business.  That is its only real purpose.  

The Estate Tax generates very little revenue and affect only a limited number of people.  But just because only a few people are treated unjustly by the Estate Tax does not mean it is a just tax.  Even if the Estate Tax only hurts a minority, that minority is being unjustly treated and unjustly hurt.  An injustice is an injustice regardless if it affects a minority of folks or if it affects everybody.  

The only purpose of the Death Tax is to help corporations takeover small businesses.

Check out this site:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/57775/gay-or-straight-we-re-all-getting-screwed-by-the-estate-tax

Estate Tax wipes out small businesses so rich corporations can buy them up at fire-sale prices

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/_YGz8o6wwks

The estate tax is unfair. It is designed to wipe out small business owners so that large corporations can buy their businesses or property at cheap prices. 

 1.) The so-called "rich" are really small business owners or long time, multi-generational property owners who have seen the overall value of their business or property go way up over the decades. They die and the heirs cannot pay the estate tax so the business or property must be sold immediately to pay the estate tax. Corporations know that they can then snap up the property at fire-sale prices. 

 2.) The so-called "rich" have already paid income tax throughout their lifetimes. The estate tax is just another, extra tax levied on those who happened to have worked hard and been, yes, a little lucky. These folks want to pass the home or the business to their children but cannot because the estate tax must be paid. Hence, the home gets sold or the business must be given up. 

3.) I reject the whole crazy argument that "only a few people pay the estate tax" so therefore there is nothing wrong with it. That's like saying, hypothetically, there's a new rule that says someone will be randomly executed by the government but don't worry because very, very few people will actually be randomly executed. "What's the harm? Very few are affected." It's not very fair to the person who is randomly chosen to be executed, however. So, just because a few people are treated unjustly doesn't justify the tax. 

4.) the estate tax is a windfall to the insurance companies because to have the money on hand when you die to pay the tax you must buy expensive life insurance premiums so that your heirs will have the life insurance proceeds to pay the tax when you die. Insurance companies love the estate tax because they get these high premiums.

How to subtly insult people and get away with it [ UPDATED! February 2014 ]

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/_YGz8o6wwks

I have found that advertisers have finally picked up on some phrases that I discovered well over 30 years ago. These are ways to subtly insult someone, or denigrate them or disparage their achievements, and get away with it.                                                             


1.) In 1980 the famed actor and movie star Jimmy Cagney was asked what he thought of President Jimmy Carter. "He tries," said Cagney, "he tries." Now, aint that a wonderful way to put someone down? "He tries". The implication is that he tries but doesn't succeed. He tries and fails. Talk about damning someone with faint praise. Yet nobody could sue you for saying, "He tries." It's a true statement, after all. All successful people "try". Yet saying, "you tried" implies both that you didn't succeed and also that nobody really expects too much from you. You tried.                                   
   2.) I heard Clint Eastwood say this in his address to the Republican Party convention 2012: "They're not always hotdogging it." Now there's an expression you can use to denigrate anyone's accomplishments. "You're hotdogging it!" For example, a hypothetical: Somebody beats you in a foot race. This runner crosses the finish line first, well ahead of you. Instead of being polite and congratulating him/her for winning the race, you say, "s/he is always HOTDOGGING IT." Admittedly, that is an extreme example. It works better with more minor accomplishments, e.g., someone does the dishes you left in the sink. So you say, " I could have done the dishes myself; you're always HOTDOGGING IT." This is also a good excuse for your own failures. Why didn't you get good grades in school? Answer: "I wasn't hotdogging it."                                                                                                                                                                  
    3.) Use the word "even" to subtly insult people. I got this from the book "The MacIntosh Way" by the brilliant Guy Kawasaki. [NOTE: This is NOT plagiarism as I have attributed my source and cited the originator of this insight: Mr. Guy Kawasaki. I have quoted with attribution and given credit where it is due.] You can use the word "even" to make a trivial lapse sound like a grave offense. An example: "He didn't EVEN take out the garbage." "He didn't EVEN fill the gas tank." Again, these are minor offenses but by inserting the word "even" it makes them sound like major crimes.           
               a.)  A subset would be to use the word "yet" which is, in some ways, similar to "even." For example, "He has yet to master the basic grammar of Spanish."  This implies that there is something wrong with the student. He can't figure things out and is none too smart.  Using "yet" as a variant of "even" allows you to not over-use the word "even."                                                                             
    4.) Use the phrase "good sport." The phrase "good sport" implies that the subject is a loveable loser who everybody picks on but who stoically accepts it because it is just his lot in life. Example: "Well, Sean, it was nice having you in class and you've been a good sport." Calling someone a "good sport" implies that s/he is a LOSER because you don't call someone who just won the Super Bowl a "good sport."                                                                                   
    5.) Another way to get away with a put down is to use the word "opportunistic" or call someone "an opportunist." After all, everyone is looking for an opportunity; it is not false or defamatory to say someone is "an opportunist". Just ask them under oath, "Would you seek out a good opportunity? You would? Well then, you're an opportunist!" The word connotes undue ambition and a certain grasping, grabbing quality.                            
    6.) I've added another one: use the word "unironically." Note, I said, "UN-ironically" not "ironically". I got the word "unironically" from the novel "Infinite Jest" by David Foster Wallace. Using "unironically" is a sly way to take back a compliment. For example, you could say, "That's a very good looking necktie you're wearing, and I mean that unironically." [The necktie wearer thinks to himself/herself, "Wait a minute. What's IRONIC about saying my neckite looks good?"]  Or another example, "You know, you're a very intelligent man, and I mean that UNironically." Again, what's ironic in the first place about calling someone intelligent? It slyly takes back the compliment. One can go on and on: "You're a good writer, and I mean that unironically"; "you're looking quite svelte, and I mean that unironically",  etc.
  7.)  Here's another:  When someone tells you where s/he lives, you respond with the question, "Oh, is that because of your work?"  The implication is that nobody would willfully live in such a lousy neighborhood unless s/he absolutely had to.  Hence, you are subtly insulting them (and getting away with it!) by implying they live in a lousy neighborhood. If one lives in a really nice neighborhood, like Beverly Hills or Malibu, you would never say s/he lived there only because they had no other choice.  But with some other place, asking, "Oh, do you live there because of your work?" implies that nobody would want to live there unless their work demanded it.

Franco Zeffirelli --- a friend of both Magnani & Callas

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/_YGz8o6wwks

A salute to the immensely talented director Franco Zeffirelli. Any man who was friends with both the great Anna Magnani and Maria Callas is indeed a marvelous man. Ti saluto, Honorevole Zeffirelli!