Some years ago, I reached that awkward age at which I had mixed feelings about gray hair.  On the one hand it was gray, but on the other, well…, it was hair.  I soon learned that America was unfair to those with no hair.  Hirsute guys got more respect, better jobs, and prettier women.

So, I decided to do something about it.  After some research, I discovered a statistical anomaly: an area of the country in which the percentage of bald men was well above the national average.  I moved there, set up a business, and became active in politics.  Within a few years, I was elected as the U.S. Congressman for Dome County.

Five years later, after a lot of hard work, deal-making, and arm-twisting, my bill, The Americans With Hair Disabilities Act, was put into law.  The act prohibited discrimination on the basis of follicle density.  Lightly sodded gentlemen would no longer suffer the indignity of being called “baldy,” “skinhead,” or “chrome dome.”  Instead, they were to be referred to as “follically challenged.”  Offenders would be sent to sensitivity training and made to wear skin wigs for a period not less than three months.

More importantly, follically challenged (or “FC”) men could not be fired or laid off without a court hearing to ensure that prejudice was the not cause of the separation.

Within a few years, however, it became clear that something had gone terribly wrong with the law.  FCs who had “retired on the job” had benefited since they couldn’t be easily fired, but everyone else had been badly hurt.  Those with jobs had run into a “glass ceiling,” since employers were reluctant to promote anyone who couldn’t be demoted or let go if he couldn’t handle his new position.  Those attempting to switch jobs found that they were locked into their current positions since no company wanted to hire a potential lawsuit.  Unemployed FCs were hurt worst of all with no jobs and no chance of getting any.

Naturally, I felt bad that my bill had back-fired so horribly, but my campaign manager pointed out that it would be political suicide to admit that I’d made a mistake.  In order to get re-elected so that I could fix the problem, I couldn’t back down.  Instead, I decided to sharpen my rhetoric.  Rising unemployment among FCs, I said, was proof that America was even more prejudiced than even I had imagined.  Stronger measures were needed.

My new bill, The Hairless Restoration Act, was quickly enacted.  It required that companies with more than 50 employees have workforces that follically “looked like America.”  The day after the bill was signed, demand for credentialed FC employees shot up.  A college-educated FC with work experience could write his own ticket.  The flip side, however, was that the only chance that those without credentials had of finding a job was to emigrate.  Prematurely balding young men with only a high school diploma and no work experience were shut out of the system.

There have been other unintended consequences of the Acts.  One is the surprising number of “wannabares” – men who shave their heads in order to benefit from the laws.  Some of the consequences, though, aren’t so benign.  Real anger and resentment have been generated between FCs and “hirsutes;” there have been a few knifings and any number of fistfights.  Someone once said that we have to discriminate in order to end discrimination.  I used to believe that; sort of like Columbus sailing West to get to the East.  But now I realize that that only works when you’re going in circles.

The Acts have become entrenched partly due to the extreme rhetoric that I used to get them passed.  After all, no one wants to be labeled a “follicle fascist.”  Mostly, though, the Acts survive because the benefits and the beneficiaries are easily identified, while the bad effects are harder to see.  Moreover, the beneficiaries have far more influence than those who are hurt.  But even the uncredentialed FCs who are locked out of the system by the Acts support them.  Perhaps they hope to profit from the Acts someday, or perhaps they just see a set of laws that purport to benefit them and that’s enough.

The net effect of all my work in Congress has been to help people who need help the least at the expense of those who need it the most.  Naturally, I can never admit that.  After all, I have to continue to get re-elected so that I can keep helping Americans.