Archive for the 'Politics' Category


The Presidential Race Gets Tasty

They say you have to spend money to make money. Well, sometimes you have to be an asshole to make money.

                                                                      AP Image

Which is exactly what Pizza Put is being accused of after pulling what many reporters are calling a “PR disaster” – the pizza chain offered audience members of yesterday’s presidential debate a free life-time supply of pizza if they asked the White House hopefuls whether they preferred pepperoni or sausage on their pies. Pizza Hut promptly ended the stunt and issued an apology after a media blitz accused the chain of making a mockery of the American democratic process.

But Pizza Hut inevitably won this exchange by having their name emblazoned upon headlines across the country. After all, any publicity is good publicity.

And Pizza Hut is not the only company to cash in on the upcoming election. Cheetos commissioned artist Jason Baalman to create a giant, stupid bust of each candidate’s head made entirely out of Cheetos. And 7-Eleven is asking customers to help predict the election’s outcome by buying soda cups with either Obama or Romney’s logo.

So, as an average dude, what the hell am I supposed to think these days? I’m completely lost here. When I watch Obama speak, am I supposed to approach his proposed budget with a critical eye towards what’s best at reducing the skyrocketing deficit, or should I envision his hairline is made entirely of succulent, cheese tinged Cheetos? Should I give more of a shit about Romney’s lack of a foreign policy or his personal preference for Pizza Hut toppings? Does our country have it’s priorities straightened out?

Answer: Probably not.

                                                           Jack Dempsey/AP

Why not make the presidential debates a hot dog eating contest sponsored by Nathan’s Famous, and just have the candidate who consumes the most franks be the winner? Or let’s have Pepsi sponsor one candidate and Coke the other, and have Budweiser host the debates. You know what, let’s just let food companies advertise everywhere they want. With as much as America loves to eat, maybe some of these ad dollars could help erase the federal deficit.


Why Wealthy, Politically Active CEO’s Piss Me Off (A lot)

I’ve done some serious thinking lately and concluded that my life sucks. Not in a “I was born with elephantitis on my face” type of way, or even in a “half my family died in a tsunami and the other half became mutant freaks in a nuclear meltdown” kind of way, either. No, my life sucks in a uniquely American way, a suckiness that, in reality, doesn’t suck that badly at all. But I’ve been following the presidential election, and it always seems to reaffirm how much my life sucks. Allow me to explain:

Today I read that wealthy industrialist brothers David and Charles Koch sent letters to each of their 45,000 employees urging them to vote for Mitt Romney, because if Obama is reelected, “many of our more than 50,000 employees and contractors may suffer the consequences.” And in a similar yet even more blunt letter to his employees, real estate tycoon David Siegel stated that four more years of Obama and his proposed taxes would leave him “no choice but to reduce the size of this company,” prompting him to retire to “the Carribbean sitting on the beach, under a palm tree.”

“…and then I’ll slither up the walls of my lair, to a nest where an army of reptilian CEO-men are incubating in their shells, waiting to be unleashed upon humanity!”

Now I’m not going to argue taxes because I don’t know shit about them. For all I know, these guys are probably right. I simply have a beef with how they went about making their point. Moaning to their employees and taking them hostage by sending passive-aggressive memos about how they should vote for the candidates their CEO’s conveniently donated millions of dollars to. Why should I feel bad for these guys because they might have to make tough economic decisions regarding taxes and other government policies?

Let’s use me as an example. Absorb the following information with every hole in your face: I made $11,100 last year. That’s it. I am, by every definition of the word, living in poverty. If you look at the numbers, my life sucks! It sucks fantastically! I pay $380 each month for rent. Do the math! I won’t because if I see the actual numbers, I might kill myself.

Or I may pitch my life as a reality show to TLC. That seems to work, too.

But in reality, my life isn’t all that bad. I have a decent apartment, I can afford food, I have nice clothing and access to internet porn – things are fine. Money is tight and taxes don’t help, but I don’t threaten to lay off all my employees as a result. If anything, I should have the right to complain when taxes ruin my future budgetary plans, not those guys.

Griping about taxes is understandable, but holding your employees accountable for it because of their political views is not. What a petty way of collecting a few thousand extra votes, by offering your employees a rather ominous ultimatum? Maybe these CEO’s should try to look at life the way their employees do. To me, the incessant bitching of the Koch brothers and Siegel makes the outright corruption of guys like Boss Tweed look noble.

12 caught amid second plagiarism scandal (sort of)

I learned two interesting facts while browsing the internet today: 1) Soliciting sex from 14-year-olds is widely regarded as illegel, and 2) recently published this blog.

Go ahead and read that blog.  Seriously, click the link and read all of it.  Savor it, take it all in, and then savor it some more.

Now go ahead and read this blog.  Notice any similarities?

Ok, for those too lazy or illiterate to read those links, I’ll sum up my point here: contributor Jon Meacham recently posted a blog explaining the importance of Mitt Romney’s upcoming vice presidential pick, and he used failed VP picks from the past like Thomas Eagleton and Sarah Palin to illustrate his point.  Now that’s all fine and dandy, except for the fact that I wrote the same damn blog all the way back in April!

I see how it is, Mr. Meacham.  What, is the internet just some vast, unregulated frontier where everyone’s ideas are at jeopardy of being stolen and manipulated?  Oh, just because you’re the executive vice president of Random House publishing, a Pulitzer Prize winning political commentator and former editor of Newsweek, you think it’s acceptable to steal some lowly blogger’s idea?

Meacham is seen here describing how to stealthily rob ideas from unemployed WordPress bloggers.

I always knew I couldn’t trust Time.  Despite its name, I learned that carrying a Time Magazine in your pocket is not a reasonable substitute for wearing a watch.  And is it simply “Time” or “Time-Life,” anyway?  And where does the “Lifetime Channel” factor into all of this??  If only they would settle on one shitty name so I could figure out which address to send all my hatemail to.

Even though it’s difficult to type while standing up, I’m not going to take this injustice sitting down.  No sir.  Think of how easy it is to catch plagiarizers with the power of the internet.  Look what they did to Jonah Lehrer – they caught that mofo redhanded.  And who is that other popular columnist that recently made headlines for plagiarism allegations?  None other than Time Magazine’s own Fareed Zakaria!

Zakaria illustrates how to massage the creative teat of anonymous internet bloggers.

That’s right people: Time Magazine has been operating under a culture of theft and lies, and I possess the half-assed evidence to prove it.  While none of my words were technically lifted verbatim by Meacham, my idea can be seen in his writing plain as day.  I’ll let Time sum up their views on idea theft from their statement released after the Zakaria controversy:

Time accepts Fareed’s apology, but what he did violates our own standards for our columnists, which is that their work must not only be factual but original; their views must not only be their own but their words as well.

Now I am no expert on copyright law, but I do know how to jump to conclusions and get angry when I feel that I’ve been slighted.  So, WordPress Nation, reread the aforementioned blogs and tell me if I am justified in feeling slighted.  And while you’re at it, be sure to rereread this blog and relish in its unique blend political commentary and witty humor.


Mitt Romney speaks to Diane Sawyer on wealth, campaign

Mitt Romney, fresh off his domination of Rick Santorum and ready to flex his chops as  the de facto Republican nominee, conducted an interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer today.  When Sawyer asked Romney if he’s “too rich to relate” to the American public, he responded in his usual concise fashion:  “You know, we don’t divide America CLANK based on CLANK success or CLANK wealth or CLANK CLANKITY CLANK….”

Sorry, Mitt, I can’t hear you over all those gold bars rattling around in your pocket.  Just come out and say it, Mitt.  You’re filthy rich!

But seriously, when did being rich become such a stigma in this country?  Isn’t that a part of the American Dream, that everyone has the opportunity to become dirty, filthy, stinkin’ rich?

I mean, I’ve actually been reading news headlines that say “Goldman Sachs CEO gets $16.1” and “Wal-Mart CEO Receives $18.1.”  Why is that news?  Some rich guy’s getting richer – big deal, it’s his job.  And I don’t think the whole Occupy Wall Street movement is doing anything to solve our country’s income inequality.  Protesting a CEO for making tons of money is like protesting a mechanic for fixing a car. Plus, who cares what a bunch of smelly hipsters have to say anyway.

"Forget money. I'd rather just, you know, be authentic and ride bikes and stuff." "Yeah, let's get lattes then ride down to the protests then blah blah blahhhh...."

I can’t even remember through all my rage what the original point of this blog was going to be… so whatever.  Kudos to you, Mitt Romney.  Even if you don’t become president, you’re still rich as balls and have a nice, thick head of hair.


Santorum out, Romney ponders running mate

Rick Santorum is ending his presidential bid because of the recent health troubles of his 3-year-old daughter, Bella.  This fact is making it really hard for me to make fun of Santorum at this time, so on to Mitt Romney.

Congratulations Mitt, you millionaire, Harvard grad and former governor with a “severely conservative” streak.  With Santorum out, every pundit and political analyst in American has put the Republican nomination in your front pocket.  Now it’s time to pick a running mate and take on Obama.

Which really leaves me with little to say.  Gone are the chaotic primary results and daily campaign gaffes that we saw earlier in the year.  Now, as one blogger puts it, “we’re doomed to spend the next four and a half months speculating about Romney’s vice-presidential choice.”  Bummer.

Watching Romney make his VP choice will say a lot about the campaign he wishes to go into November with.  Take, for instance, John McCain’s pick of former Alaska governor Sarah Palin.  McCain tried not to come off as such an ancient living organism by picking the young and vibrant Palin as his vice president.  Little did he and the rest of the nation know that most people living in the mountains of Alaska are painfully out of touch with American politics (and reality).

Note: This image has not been Photoshopped.

And then there was George McGovern, a guy with a decent shot at defeating Nixon in 1972 until it was leaked that his chosen running mate, Thomas Eagleton, had received electroshock therapy in the past to fight depression.  The news of McGovern’s whack-job side kick ran his presidential campaign into the ground.

"Boy, I could really use some kilowatts right about now."

I don’t particularly care if Romney’s campaign goes up in smoke or not, but his recent success is making this whole joke thing difficult for me.  So, please Mitt, make this race entertaining again and pick some nutty maniac as your running mate.

On second thought, it's never too soon for a good Santorum joke.


Romney and the Paul Ryan bump

Things are beginning to look pretty good for Mitt Romney.  He garnered a slew of endorsements from notable Republicans last week, and he currently leads the polls for the upcoming Wisconsin primary. Most notably, House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan announced his support last Friday.

“Who is Paul Ryan?” you ask, “And why should I care that he’s endorsing Mitt Romney?”  I’m going to simultaneously answer those questions and complete my blog assignment in the following space:

Ok, I got nothing, time to make stuff up.

…I don’t know about you, but I don’t trust this Ryan guy.  For one thing, he has a “firsty-firsty:” a first name (Ryan) in place of a typical last name.  Men with firsty-firsty’s generally harbor resent and bitterness for their silly sounding names, and are veiwed as less trustworthy than those with lasty-lasty’s (Harrison Ford = trustworthy).

And everyone thought Richard Kimble killed his wife...

Also, he’s got this weird, man-boy look to him (George Stephanopoul-itis).  Basically, he’s a 42-year-old man that looks like he’d have trouble getting past the bouncer at a strip club.  Men with unusually youthful features are also not to be trusted (E.g. Macauley Culkin, who strangely enough has a lasty-lasty, which, according to my previous paragraph, would make him trustworthy.  Figure that one out for yourself.)

That makes about as much sense as Ryan's budget proposal. Zing!

At this point, frequent readers of my blog (if those exist) may have noticed my political commentaries have degraded to a bunch of made up nonsense, much like the politics our current Congress is engaged in.  Zing again!


Romney fate “etched” in stone?

Last week’s coverage of the Republican primaries introduced a new term into the American political lexicon: “Etch A Sketch.”

For those unfamiliar with fun, an Etch A Sketch is a drawing toy with an erasable screen.  And for those unfamiliar with current politics, an Etch A Sketch is also Mitt Romney.

That’s right.  Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom referred to his presidential campaign as an “Etch A Sketch” because of the plan to wipe away his conservative appeal after the primaries only to go after moderates during the general election.

“Everything changes,” said Fehrnstrom of the November elections.  “It’s kinda like an Etch A Sketch.  You can shake it up and start all over again.”

This metaphor is important for two reasons.  First, it was obviously an unfavorable way to describe a candidate whom was already accused of not standing by his principles.  But second, and most importantly, it marks another household item that could possibly sway an entire presidential election.

You like waffles, right?  Well that innocent, grid-like breakfast favorite single-handedly sank John Kerry’s 2004 presidential bid.  Kerry’s indecisiveness on issues like the Iraq War lead him to be branded as a “waffler” and opened him to relentless internet ridicule.

Porous breakfast treats hold syrup, not truth.

Then there’s the fashion faux pas every politician must avoid during an election: flip-flops.  Like waffling, many unsure politicians have been accused of flip-flopping by altering their opinions.  It was first used as a smear in an 1890 edition of the NY Times, and was also used extensively again in 2004 by opponents of Kerry.

The poor guy couldn't eat breakfast on a hot July morning without imploding from irony.

If history has taught us anything, it’s that waffles, flip-flops, and a little bullying is all it takes to derail a presidential bid.  So watch out Romney, an Etch A Sketch might end up erasing you.

Also, Santorum can throw really, really hard.


Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 473 other followers


%d bloggers like this: