Thursday, October 18, 2012

Cheaters Always Win, or, Can Anyone Tell Me How One Might Launder My Drug Money?

I know I bitch about jobs and the economy a lot. I mean, being barely employed and dealing with my bank puts me in a mood.

But today amidst my post-bank-conversation bitterness, I got to thinking, I'm trying to do this the right way. I don't spend money frivolously, I work hard when there is work, and only spend the earnings on bills and my once-a-week sanity maintenance regimen of beers and politics.

But the bank couldn't forgive this fee, or release that check, because I went to Starbucks last week and bought a small coffee, which clearly means I'm irresponsible.

Fuck You bank. Fuck you lots.

Stomping around Center City I had an "Office Space" moment: I thought, "I've done things right so far and I'm still getting shat upon. So why not cheat? Why not break the rules? Why not steal and embezzle and con my way through life, because it seems that is the only way to survive these days."

Then I realized that I don't know a thing about crime, or embezzlement, and would likely look up "How To Rob A Bank" on Yahoo Answers and get arrested immediately (I wonder if there's some sort of correspondence course on Pyramid Schemes).

Just so you know this isn't all about me (60-40 me?), I've been thinking along these same lines regarding the Republican candidate for awhile now.

Mitt Romney leaned on the accomplishments of his parents, risked other peoples money to invest and stood on the shoulders of workers, (more accurately laid off-workers http://bit.ly/OTnC7r), and is rolling in dough. Rather than working the system and earning his place, he gamed the system and he won his place.

He never committed a crime, but it sure as shit was immoral.

The idea that cheaters always win has become a commonplace strategy. Karl Rove outed a CIA agent, Voter ID Laws are being passed and Planned Parenthood is being gutted.

All this because the right can't justify a war's legality, they can't get votes because they alienate most of the country, and they can't make abortion illegal. So they cheat to get their way.

Mitt lies on stage and wins a Debate.

Ryan barges into a non-profit soup kitchen, pretends to clean dishes and leaves after fifteen minutes. All so he can appear compassionate http://huff.to/VfigGb.

The facade of truth doesn't even matter anymore, because both dudes will come out looking golden.

The idea that someone can start out as a bag-boy and end up the CEO of grocery is a myth. Maybe once this was possible, but that was when the Middle-Class was strong and the government supported it's citizenry with job and retirement programs.

Another Republican touted myth I hate hearing about is the so-called "Meritocracy." Mitt didn't merit his wealth, and the idea that only by hard work and determinism can one earn the American Dream is extremely rare, or just a myth propagated by those who are justifying their immense wealth.

(Put this in your pipe and smoke it: Republicans care more about tax-breaks than earned income tax credits. See what I did there?)

Mitt's style of Venture Capitalism is a perfect example. He doesn't make anything, at best he makes money of of what someone else has already made. At worst, and the majority of the time, he profits off of their dismantling.

And what's more, he can say he is agains't big government, like the Auto Industry Bailout, while simultaneously profiting off of it http://bit.ly/U9a092. You would think that he would support the bailout as he benefits from it. But if he did he would have to admit to gaming the system. Cheaters don't often like admitting that they cheat.

One interesting but related side note, many people who decry the Federal Deficit profit off it by buying very reliable US Bonds which have a solid rate of return http://wapo.st/uQ8DNP. Including people who increased the US Debt like George W Bush (can't find the link saying Bush invests in US Bonds, but buying US Bonds is a common practice among Hedge Funds, because it's such a safe bet http://bit.ly/RzSHxz).

All that said, I know for a fact that the Obamas earned their place, they may have relied on family or other external sources for support but they never cheated to get where they are. And a little Affirmative Action does not mean they didn't earn their degrees http://huff.to/T3H6an.

I'm also sure they benefited from Nepotism at some point, but who doesn't? It's what you do with it, and whether you come out the other end with enough respect to look yourself in the mirror the next day.

Mitt, obviously hires someone to shave him and brush his teeth, so he has never had the chance to look himself in the eyes. Or maybe he is a Vampire, either way he doesn't deserve to win... come to think of it Ryan does kinda look like two well known Vampires....hrmmm


Thursday, October 11, 2012

Obama Won the Debate, or, Spot the Sly Stallone Movie Reference and I'll Buy You A Drink.

Despite Obama's supposed loss to Romney during the first debate, it was incredibly fun to watch Chris Matthews lose his shit over Obama's debate performance. By MSNBC's reaction you would have thunk that it was election night, Romney wins, and after  being sworn in he removes his mask to reveal he was George W. Bush in disguise the whole time (so that's where he's been).

"Hey ev'rybody! 'Meber me! I had Carl Rove kill Mittens 4 years ago! Hey ev'rybody, who wants to invade Iran!"

So why does everyone think that Obama lost so badly? Expectations. What we expected was to see a blundering, bewildered gaffe-ridden Romney get spanked by one of the greatest orators in Presidential history.

But according to the All-Day Opinion Generating Media Machine what we saw was was a gestural and aggressive Romney laying a beat-down on the contained and weak Obama.

What actually happened was two carefully thought out campaign strategies played out, and I don't see any other way they could have played out.

Romney had to be aggressive because was losing ground in the polls and needed to catch peoples attention, especially after looking so inept so frequently on the campaign trail http://bit.ly/RYsYPe.

Obama's campaign expected this, and wanted to counter his aggressiveness with the cool, calm and collected demeanor that worked so well in '08 against Clinton and a spastic and tense McCain.

(Obama also has an attack-dog in Biden, whom, as we will hopefully see on Thursday, will demonstrate the aggressive side to the ticket http://bit.ly/P94sFe.)

I will admit that after re-watching the debate in it's entirety I was disappointed that Obama didn't counter Romney on any of his factual errors (and there were plenty of opportunities to do so). He spoke only to his rehearsed talking points, and didn't expect to or plan to respond to Romney's assertions on the fly, which was his mistake.

He may have been expecting the media to do the fact-checking for him, using his own points as stand-alone proof that he is the better choice, admittedly not the best task to trust them with.

Then again the week since the debate the media and fact-checking organizations have done a decent enough job sifting through Romney's bullshit http://bit.ly/ReD61Y.

And if you had paid close attention, Romney did exactly what I ranted about last week, he shook the Etch-A-Sketch and completely erased the narrative he established during his campaign. Which only demonstrates the campaign strategy he has deployed before; "shake up" his opinions based on what he thinks will best get him elected.

A strategy that has worked against him and will continue to do so.

So enhance your calm, dear liberal drinkers. In my possibly naive optimism I think Romney's debate bump to be temporary, and that the facts will play out to Obama's favor http://bit.ly/SMIjmq.

Let's just let things play out over the next couple of debates, expect to see both candidates alter strategy post-debate, and look forward to Biden doing what he does best on Thursday night http://on.fb.me/UPV4Iw.

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Romney, former Governor & Sears Portrait Photographer, or, Who Broke the Etch-A-Sketch

Quick question, wasn't the Romney campaign supposed to shake their candidate up like an Etch-A-Sketch to erase his far-right opinions that carried him all the way to the nomination?

Weren't those extreme policies purposed to position him in on par with Pawlenty Santorum and Bachmann?

And once he was the nominee, wasn't he supposed to return to the center to appeal to a larger electorate? Erase the lines carved from the surface, drawn so far to the right he was barely recognizable as the former Governor of Massachusetts?

Wasn't the plan to shake the newly minted nominee and reset his image now that he doesn't have to compete with others for the love and acceptance of a small group of costumed crazy-people occupying the lunatic fringe, carrying poorly spelled and often racist signs?

Their Etch-A-Sketch must be broken, it's knobs stuck, only able to go to the right, the drawing moving slowly in circles down and to the right, down and to the right, down and to the right.

It must have been handled by a three year old, who aggressively and clumsily carved into the image the simplified drawings only a child could conceive.

A child who can only repeat actions, mimic what they see creating simple and rudimentary imagery over and over again. Easily distracted by the people dressed so fantastically on the loud and colorful television.

Romney is now permanently stuck on a stylus handled by a clumsy campaign, easily losing the attention of most of the country and trying to hold the attention of a bunch of toddlers who require flash and color and simple words and actions, like a photographer at Sears trying to get a 2 year old to stop screaming.

In the words of Barney Frank, Romney has crossed a line from "independent into incoherent," http://nbcnews.to/QJzlEh and has very little time to fix the Etch-A-Sketch, shake it up and get back to running for the Presidency of the entire country. But it's not looking good, which will be fun to watch at tomorrow's debate.