It's not often I read an op-ed in the New York Times and confuse it with an article from The Onion.  But, I did just that Sunday with Daniel Hamermesh's piece calling for government protections for "The Ugly."  At first, I thought it was written tongue-in-cheek, but, no, the University of Texas economics professor is completely serious.  He says ugly people earn between 10 and 15 percent less a year than their attractive counterparts, and thus, deserve protection. If that's the case, should film companies have to pay out money to ugly actresses who didn't get the part?  Should the government subsidize studios who lose money because -- fearing legal action -- they hired an ugly actor and actress and didn't make as much money on the film?  What about ugly strippers?  Should they be given a subsidy because they're not as successful as attractive strippers? If so, being ugly could prove a boon for the less fortunate looking.  One could just apply for...(Read Full Post)