​Aesthetics seem to be the layman’s understanding of the motor industry. Install the most impressive and latest technologies in a vehicle and you will impress a seasoned connoisseur. But the average consumer will appreciate only the visible craftsmanship and reliability. Understand that with the state of present technology, to build an unreliable car is embarrassing. Thus, appearance remains. Buyers demand a certain type of craftsmanship and art in the car they seek. Boring or safe designs will no longer do. Advancements in mass production allow companies to produce exotic looking vehicles without too much extra concern for cost. Why, then, do car manufacturers continue to make unattractive cars?

​First of all, for a car to seem exotic, there must be a normal. If Ferrari is to succeed in becoming a unique build, there must be a Honda Accord to compare to. If all production cars looked like doppelgangers of the beautiful 458 Italia, Ferrari would have no business asking for $200,000 for a vehicle. Exclusivity is incredibly important when making an expensive car, especially in house. Take the new, obsequious Dodge Dart, for instance. If it did not appear so bland, then the Dodge Viper would carry far less significance. If the Dodge Dart were as attractive, it would be as though Angelina Jolie had a twin sister. Sure, the world would be better off, but Angelina would wind up with far fewer roles. However, exclusivity is not the only factor to take into consideration. Sometimes, poor judgment simply overwhelms technological capability.
​Take the Ford Escape, for instance. It looks as though the designer took a snapshot of an explosion, cut it in half, and made it symmetrical. It does sound exciting, but, in practice, it is a confusing, disappointing mass of shiny plastic. The front end is gaping, the sides do not give a clear sense of direction, and the rear end expands like a bloated carcass. The Porsche Panamera and Hyundai Veloster suffer the same pitfalls. Some developers take too much liberty with the powers of radical design and forget that there is such a thing as too many lines. Unfortunately, sometimes the opposite affliction takes hold.
​The Dodge Challenger is an excellent example of combating progress. The muscle cars of the sixties and seventies were indeed glorious, but they were of the sixties and seventies. The old Mustang was simple and brutal because that was the only design possible with sheet metal. Now, most cars are made with plastic, and morons can bend plastic in their basements with hairdryers. It is an incredibly pliable material; yet, the American car companies continue to produce dinosaurs for the sake of nostalgia. The new Corvette Stingray is a fantastic step in the right direction for GM; hopefully they can bring the Camaro up to date as well. My advice to classic car fanatics: buy a classic car. The Charger may appeal to your old school sentimentalities, but stop looking for a modern production of old classics. Satisfy yourselves with the genuine article.

In most works of fiction, the most interesting characters, whether villain or hero, are the most powerful ones. They dominate their scenes and captivate readers and viewers. They force audiences to imagine the limits of their capabilities. And, if so inclined, such characters possess the ability to alter the courses of the worlds they live in. The plot of each story hinges on their willingness to act.

Edmond Dantès, in “The Count of Monte Cristo,” stops at nothing to build an empire with the resources to bring Hell to his enemies. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s criminal mastermind, Professor James Moriarty, employs intellect and ruthlessness to engineer a bafflingly massive illicit enterprise. Moriarty’s only formidable obstacle is Sherlock Holmes and his unabashed talent.

Do not wonder why, besides an outstanding performance by Heath Ledger, the Joker is such a striking antagonist. Even before Nolan’s “Dark Knight,” the Clown Prince of Crime was an intriguing persona. He is a man with unbelievable proficiency in the art of destruction. That devastating strength impresses the viewer. It enraptures them. We would have been disappointed if the Joker was defeated in the second act of “The Dark Knight,” knowing that he did not reach his true potential.

There are two indications that help reveal the greatness of a character. First, the character does not lie to himself. He is aware of his own desires and endeavors to reach them. He lays his cards on the table and plays his strongest hand without the impairment of false pretenses. Second, the character can only measure his strength against the strength of a worthy adversary. Without one such as Moriarty, Holmes would never have been pushed to the limit. In “Inglourious Basterds,” Hans Landa is the only character with the cunning to reduce Aldo Raine’s bold assassination attempt to failure. Without him, Raine would have easily ended World War II, without suspense or revealing his true colors.

While on the topic of World War II, I must mention Winston Churchill. I must mention Erwin Rommel. And last, but certainly not least, I must recognize General George Patton. These gentlemen prove that, throughout history, powerful individuals described in the realm of fiction exist in real life too. They, all three of them, fought to win. And all three of them shared many things in common. They were capable, and they were willful. Erwin Rommel mobilized a German force efficiently and was able to spread his armies far wider than many would think possible. Churchill braced his country against the chilling blows of the Nazis. And General Patton commanded an army of men that knocked on the demon’s door and terrorized the indomitable aggressors. Do not wonder why so many films are centered on World War II.

And now, in the present day, a new antagonist looms. His name is Vladimir Putin. He is deceitful, tyrannical, brutal and dangerous. But he will succeed. He takes what he wants, whether it is the presidency of Russia or the liberty of free men. He has not yet reached his limit, because no worthy adversary has met him. President Barack Obama insists on compromise and placation, but Putin ignores diplomacy of this kind. Putin will respond out of necessity, not antiquated ideologies of peace. He will continue to abuse every leniency shown to him. He will remain in power, and he will jeopardize the freedom of his country’s neighbors as long as no one stops him. What rational person would believe that Putin will compromise out of his sense of charity and mercy? And why should we compromise?

It is time for our leaders to take serious economic or political action against Vladimir Putin, for he will only take serious action seriously. Remember, the character that wins at the end of the book is not the good guy; it is the one who has what it takes to succeed.

Ritz crackers may be the most infuriating product in the world. Their primary flavor consists of toast and salt. Yet, the company has decided the best representation of that flavor is red. The box is a misleading hue of bright red. This misrepresentation leads the common consumer to believe that the alluring box contains the delightful substance that is Cheez-Its. At least Club crackers, whose flagship color is green, allows the layman to identify its product. When I purchase Club crackers, I am aware that I will be receiving no cheese flavor whatsoever.

Volkswagen, however, follows the same technique as Ritz.  It manufactures cars that fool the consumer into believing it is a class that it is not. The Jetta guides the uninitiated into thinking their car is sporty. Unfortunately for the consumer, the Jetta is made out of German tissue paper and saliva. Admittedly, the Jetta is light, but it is not capable of winning the Monaco Grand Prix. The Touareg is the same. Not only is its spelling unbelievable, its functions do not fit the description of “SUV.” It is ugly, slow, and incapable of tackling the same physical terrains as a Range Rover.

Such advertising is a common practice. Subjective qualifications allow a producer to boast merits that can only be evaluated in the eye of the beholder. Chevrolet can sell the fuel efficient Volt, which may be valuable to some. But others may realize that that the Volt cannot save them as much money as a similarly sized diesel. The safe conclusion to derive is that companies will advertise the feature that makes their product seem the most desirable. Do not perceive such representation as dishonest, only as exploiting advantages.  You do the same for yourself.

As an interviewer for a job, you list reasons why you are a worthwhile employee. Sure, you may not have the necessary experience, but you can learn it. You advertise yourself as the most advantageous asset possible in hopes of becoming employed. Companies realize that interviewers are venturing to shine themselves in the kindest light. They understand that a person can demonstrate their qualities in misleading ways. Understand this yourself. Every product has its pitfall. Every convenience requires sacrifice. The Volvo may be safe, but it is not very fuel efficient. The Ritz cracker may be flaky and buttery, but there is no cheese. The worker may be intelligent, but he is not efficient.

Therefore, evaluate individuals based on merit. Yes, he may understand calculus, but he cannot interact with people. Yes, this car may reach 60 miles per hour in under four seconds, but can it protect your children? Yes, a cracker may be cheesy, but does it carry the buttery flavor that I seek? Understand that companies and individuals will always highlight their strongest features while ignoring their weakest. It is your responsibility as the consumer to identify the qualities that are valuable to you. McDonald’s will boast that it is the greatest food source without informing you that it is unhealthy. Take responsibility as the possessor of capital to make an informed decision. Saab may be designed from jets, but does that necessarily mean that they are the most advanced? Perhaps the company used the worst features of a jet. Informed decisions and self-motivated pursuit are the two most important factors of purchasing decisions.

“Beauty is only skin deep,” goes the old adage. It implies that far more important qualities lie within a person. Character is an immensely more important aspect than attractiveness. It is wrong to condemn an individual based on looks if their personality is radiant. Attractiveness of the mind should be enough to win the heart of the woman of your dreams, even if your physical features are more homely. This is an ideal that many in our society praise but few bother practicing.

What inane, platitudinous, utter babble. I consider myself thankful that we live in a world that recognizes aesthetics.

First of all, beauty is not skin deep. Bone structure and muscle tone, which are beneath the layers of the epidermis, are vital components of beauty. Splendorous complexion can do nothing to salvage the form of someone who has allowed their fitness to evaporate in a cloud of cheese puffs and couch dust. The skin can be the pinnacle of perfection, but if it is stretched across a frame that shapes it into a likeness of the Adirondacks on one’s face, the skin is irrelevant. Therefore, beauty is, at the very least, as deep as the skeleton.

Biological inaccuracies aside, the phrase can have dangerous societal implications. “Beauty is only skin deep,” argues that one should overlook physical flaws in favor of metaphysical merit. However, it could also be viewed as ignoring a vital facet of a person to focus only on one trait. That, by definition, is just as shallow as the action the saying argues against. When it comes to companionship, it would be masochistic to choose a partner that you are not attracted to because she is kind and funny. That might guarantee that she is pleasant to socialize with, but it may cause technical difficulties when procreation is concerned. In this case, choosing a partner whose facial hair may be off-putting is irresponsible to the human race.

And, accepting every single being regardless of looks rewards the unkempt and disheveled and is unfair to the person who spends time and effort in grooming. Why should Miss America be a slovenly, dull-haired, unwashed, overweight spinster who afforded five minutes to don a pair of sweatpants? Why, because she is nice or has an excellent singing voice? That is preposterous. That is analogous to awarding the title of best car to a Scion because it is safe to drive, even though it is slow, ugly and has unpleasant steering. Discounting Miss America’s looks makes it impossible to choose an overall best recipient.

Finally, the problem with this sentiment of universal acceptance manifests on the scales beneath our feet. Children, who are told to be proud of the way they look, are more likely to forsake the jungle gym for a video game. They know that nobody has the right to ridicule them for their overweightness. We protect self-esteem at the expense of health. We sacrifice truth for political correctness. There are no social reprisals to teach them to focus on exercise. This forces them to learn the hard way, through diabetes and cardiac arrest. If we continue to omit appearance when we evaluate others, we will continue to enable people to endanger themselves.

The inconvenient truth is: it can be difficult to maintain a pleasing display. But just as a good sculptor works hard to give his project a beautiful form, a good person must endeavor to cultivate an appealing presentation for himself. Shower, clean your clothes, stay fit and take care. Then you may hold your head high, knowing people are judging you positively. This is your reward, and it is significant because it is not unconditional.

Overwhelming consensus dictates that a college education is a necessity for a fulfilling career. That is, our society expects a university degree as immediate proof of an individual’s value. An engineering firm hires an engineer certified by a college degree based on the fact that the degree offers confirmation that the person is a worthwhile investment. The degree is a useful tool for businessmen; it allows for them to seek suitable employees and for qualified professionals to seek appropriate employment. The assumption that a person’s degree is a viable representative of that person’s merit saves time and money for both employers and potential employees. However, the possession of such a degree does not entitle its earner to employment. No man is entitled to anything that comes at the expense of another. No employer is obligated to hire any man solely on the principle that he has a college education. If the college degree does not reflect anything valuable to the hirer, it implies that the holder of the degree is not worth the investment.

In essence, the degree acts as objective evidence of an individual’s marketability. A good businessman does not hire a worker because the worker needs a job; he hires a worker because he requires a certain job to be carried out. If the inverse were true, incompetence would plague the workforce. A hospital hires a doctor to diagnose and heal so that the hospital can process more patients and earn more money. It does not hire the doctor because he needs a job; the hospital owes nothing to the unemployed. And it certainly owes nothing to those who are unemployed due to incompetence. If one’s resume, including education credentials, shows that he is capable of performing and producing, a company will hire him to gain a profit from his employment. If a person expects a job simply because he deserves a wage, he also expects that the company providing the job is willing to lose money on an incapable prospect.

Capability is relative. A person trained as an engineer is of no use in a pediatrics facility. Each industry will hire a uniquely qualified person based on his capability to fulfill the tasks that the industry requires. The college degree allows companies to identify suitable candidates. If a man chooses a subject in college based on the demand for people studied in the discipline, he will increase his chances of being hired. He is a commodity that has more value when demand is high. If demand is low, his college degree is worth less. Eventually, it is not worth the paper that the degree is printed on. Admirable though the pursuit of knowledge may be, it is wise to choose a field that companies value. If there is no demand for anthropologists, anthropology majors will not be hired. If a man believes the world owes him employment merely because he obtained a degree, he is mistaken. Who owes him a wage? Should a car manufacturer sacrifice profit to pay for an anthropologist it does not need? Should a hospital or bank sacrifice their profit? Should every working individual sacrifice profit so that a government agent may hire the anthropologists for studies that will not benefit them? The answer is a resounding no. No man or business should be required to adopt to a system that guarantees employment to a person.

Because of this, a college graduate who complains about his unfair unemployment is unrealistic. He remains unemployed because nobody found him worth paying for. A manager expects an employee who works for the benefit of the company; this is why the company hires him in the first place. A business that does not fire the man who cannot produce enough to earn more than his wage will fail; it practices the habit of producing at a loss. And if a man’s college degree is in an inappropriate field for a particular industry, it precludes him from being capable of earning a profit in that industry, and he will not be hired in that field. If his degree has no value, and if no industry can profit from his expertise, he will not be hired professionally.

In America, New England in particular, there is a network by which we are all connected. It is not the Internet, but the Internet’s analog cousin. While both support massive amounts of traffic and both are vital to commerce and social interaction, the road system handles transfers in a much more literal sense. And because each person actually physically shares the road space, there are a few considerations every driver should make.

The most common highway complaint I hear concerns the left lane. The passing lane is perpetually monopolized by someone who does not have the courtesy to allow the faster car behind him or her to pass. Two weeks previously, I suggested the implementation of mortal duels into the court system. Unfortunately, Congress has not acted on this suggestion, so apparently there is no way to quickly solve this passing lane conundrum. The only temporary solution is to urge as many drivers as possible not to employ this selfish practice. The reality is that there is no method of effectively eradicating self-entitled drivers from the roads.

And therein lies the core problem. Self-serving drivers are not only responsible for the poor left lane habits we are so familiar with; they also pull out into oncoming traffic at intersections, text while driving and flatten schoolchildren with their inattentiveness. Imagine if every person on the road possessed a handgun in their glove box and were permitted to eliminate transgressors. Each driver would be fearful of being the cause of road rage. Travel would move more smoothly; there would be fewer accidents and fewer waiting periods as union workers removed wreckage from the pavement. Again, I am having trouble convincing legislators to enact such a policy. I wonder what they have against schoolchildren — probably their inability to pay taxes.

Sometimes, you can even identify self-centered vehicle operators by the cars they are driving. Often, Toyota Prius occupants feel that their green purchase provides them with the right to dominate the freeway. As a tangent, I truly believe that the Prius is more destructive to the environment than a diesel Ford F350. Tangents aside, if you see a “baby on board” bumper sticker, I advise you to park your car on the side of the road and run. Because the sticker loosely translates as “I will wield my vehicle as an instrument of terrorism, and it is your responsibility to secure safety for both of us.”

But we continue, as a society, to condone this behavior. We may react by shouting obscenities into our steering wheel and stomping on the floor panel, but we never take action against these technically legal maneuvers. And that is understandable, considering there is no legal action we can take. We can report bad drivers, but no repercussions will precipitate for them. In conclusion, I cannot recommend that responsible drivers take justice into their own hands by running bad drivers off the road. Nor can I advocate any forms of vehicular homicide, including, but not limited to, brake line tampering.

Please, be safe and respectful of the law when it comes to retribution. I can only offer one piece of advice: Do not be that selfish driver. The next time you contemplate not turning your high beams off, remember the inconvenience you will cause to your fellow man, and give him the courtesy of not blinding him.