Wednesday, January 25, 2012

All the filthy macabre secrets of the Republican candidates' wives

As they say, behind every strong man there is a strong adviser, and yammering into that adviser's ear is a harpy wife. To better know the women who will never be first lady, I've done some extensive research and compiled a helpful dossier on what the four remaining GOP presidential hopefuls' spouses don't want you to know.

Ann Romney (b. 1949)

Spouse: Mitt (m. 1969)

Pre-politics bio: Ann Messerschmidt Reifenstahl von Hindenberg Romney's Aryan uterus housed and expelled five robosons after chemically compounding with Mitt's battery acid splooge. She was originally a member of the Waspthedist church before converting to the Church of Latter-Day Saints. 

Fun fact: All their children were conceived while watching John Wayne movies, a traditional Mormon practice for turning sexless embryos into boys.

Hobbies: horseback riding, screaming into pillows, and flossing. 

Karen Santorum (b. 1958)

Spouse: Rick (m. 1990)

Pre-politics bio: Wow, this gal has what Dolly Parton in Steel Magnolias called "a past." The wife of the extreme anti-choice presidential candidate had a long-term love affair with an abortion doctor 40 years her senior... who ALSO delivered her as a baby. (No really, I'm not making this up.) There are so many Freudian issues happening here, I need Dr. Leo Marvin and Bob Wiley to babystep me through it all.

Fun fact: none.

Hobbies: crying into bottles of wine, watching old episodes of Days of Our Lives on VHS, and shouting the lyrics to Billy Joel's I Go To Extremes alone in the family station wagon.

Carol Paul (b. 1936)

Spouse: Ron (m. 1957)

Pre-politics bio: Carol's story is really quite tragic. Born in Pittsburgh, she thought she would live the cushy life of a doctor's wife when she married medical student and Lollipop Guild reject Ron, spending his money on diamonds and clothes so the government couldn't get their filthy hands on it. But as it turns out, her man had lower aspirations. When he was elected to Congress, she was forced to remove the trappings of wealth and play the role of pious Libertarian housewife.

Fun fact: She has always had a thing for Bill Murray in Scrooged.

Hobbies: purchasing items on HSN under the name "Michelle Obama," throwing darts at Nancy Reagan cork boards, and writing fan letters to Joan Collins. 

Callista Gingrich (b. 1000 BC)

Spouse: Newt (m. 2000)

Pre-politics bio: This lady has one helluva story, bare with me.

In the 1970s, the popularity of The Brady Bunch's youngest cast member, Cindy, reached fever pitch and the network executives wanted to exploit this for financial gain as network execs are want to do. They partnered with Marx Toys to create the oddly-spelled Sindy doll:

Sunday, January 22, 2012

iSee your lie and iRaise you a toomah!

First: I've been extremely busy the last two months for the seven of you who missed me.

Second: Kindergarten Cop is playing on TBS right now as I write, so if I start referencing toomahs and daddies and Maria Shriver, this is why. As if I need to defend a Kindergarten Cop reference in a political rant. On to the rant!

In light of Newt's stunning South Carolina victory in the state that beget John C. Calhoun, famous political spaz and high-strung egomaniac (you read me?), I decided to interrupt my normal news diet of D Listed and Downton Abbey Tumblrs to catch up with the election on ABC's This Week With George Stephanapolio and on the Times site. Overwhelmingly, everything spoken and written was "How can politicians create jobs?" "Here's what I'd do to create jobs." "Obama isn't trying hard enough to create jobs!" JOBS JOBS GOVERNMENT JOBS CREATE GOVERNMENT JOBS OPEN MARRIAGE.

That last one was to make sure you're paying attention. 

I am here, as a scholar of The Golden Girls, taco carts, and the deadpan comedy of Arnold Schwarzenneger, to break the news that the United States government cannot create private sector jobs in a capitalist economy. It never has and it never will, unless you count the Post Office and slavery. We believe that politicians can produce jobs because America's been the beneficiary of favorable economic circumstances (again, slavery) for the better part of 300 years and we've had more than a few elected officials who've taken credit for that. It's a lie and many citizens, including our President, believe it. But more importantly: it is bothering me.

The best and most recent proof of this exists in a Times article published today: "How U.S. Lost Out on iPhone Work." Short answer: we're not China. But the journalists lead with a telling scene between President Obama and Steve Jobs:

When Barack Obama joined Silicon Valley’s top luminaries for dinner in California last February, each guest was asked to come with a question for the president.

But as Steven P. Jobs of Apple spoke, President Obama interrupted with an inquiry of his own: what would it take to make iPhones in the United States?

Not long ago, Apple boasted that its products were made in America. Today, few are. Almost all of the 70 million iPhones, 30 million iPads and 59 million other products Apple sold last year were manufactured overseas.

Why can’t that work come home? Mr. Obama asked.

Mr. Jobs’s reply was unambiguous. “Those jobs aren’t coming back,” he said, according to another dinner guest.


No, they're not. They've been in China and the Far East for a long time because manufacturers and commerce hos have always gone where labor is cheapest and most profitable since the dawn of time. (Sadface: Jesus' sandals were made in Jerusalem, not Galilee.) No corporation wants to employ more people than absolutely necessary because uhdoi that impacts profits. That our capitalistic, democratic government and its media believes that the federal body can control the global tide of labor is, I feel, extremely detrimental to finding solutions to our real economic problems.

Sure, we can eradicate unions and human rights to lure the bygone steel plants that moved to India back to Democratic-controlled Cleveland, Ohio. That's likely. And of course, states like Alabama can win the contract for a Hyundai plant with cheap tax rates, but every other state competed for those jobs and lost. Business-friendly states are just shuffling the jobs from one place to another.

And our "business-friendly" policies have never ever ever in the history of toomahs (!!) kept a company from moving jobs outside their neck of the woods when they find cheaper places to make goods. Subsidies, tax rebates, deregulation, time, and Milton Friedman's bottled farts haven't kept jobs here, have they? They have not. Twenty-five million Americans are out of work and that statistic is probably generous. To juxtapose this alarming figure with another: the population of Alabama is 4.7 million.

What's also fun about this "No, I can create jobs" GOP shriek-off is that it directly contradicts their ever-present "less government" credo. If you think the government should keep its filthy hands off of the pure "free" market and have an open marriage (just making sure you're still with me), then theoretically that should include job creation too. But in this dour atmosphere, no one's going to put that in a commercial.

Obligatory and tangential side note to the GOP: if you think the government is a great threat to its citizens and it should be as small as possible, why do you want to be in it?

Back to the lie. The most frightening part of it that the Times article reveals is that noted smartie President Obama believes it too. He thinks he can create private sector jobs. As if Steve Jobs would be like, "Yes, Mr. President. I'll move my existing manufacturing and supply chain from China to the United States for a fucking subsidy and tax rebate that Congress will take years to push through." Who is your daddy and what does he do? (!!)

The article continues with cute details about how the people in the Chinese factories who make iPads and iPhones have real shitty lives. Lucky Americans who can afford Apple's stuff, myself included, know the products we love are made at the expense of innocent people's livelihood. We choose to ignore it or stress eat tacos to cope with the guilt. But I don't have to answer to the Chinese government, the one ultimately responsible for shitty iPhone factory working conditions. Btw, I just reached a new level on Angry Birds this week!

But you and I do have to answer to the United States, and because we're not China, the U.S. has to answer to us too. I'm not saying the government shouldn't continue to deficit spend on programs that keep our fellow 25 million unemployed Americans from living in conditions like the poor iPhone factory workers. In the end, I think it's worth it to keep people from living in misery, despite the folks out there who like to use the kindergarten (!!) analogy that a country is like a household and you can't spend more than you earn. Households don't have armies and print money. Back to Mr. Kimball's class, idiots. (!!)

Answers and solutions aren't easy, but they're never going to happen if everyone keeps buying into this false belief that politicians can create jobs or encourage entrepreneurship. No one ever became an entrepreneur because of the government except Blackwater, and those employees have some real shitty working conditions. But I guess the United States government isn't going to admit they have limited powers especially when it's schmoozing with commerce hos like Steve Jobs who write campaign checks.

Unemployment isn't Apple's problem, as hard as we wish the company cared about the American labor market. It's not the President's problem either, though he has to take the blame because that's how capitalist democracies work. It's a global problem with too many rotating, interconnected parts for any one government to control, including China. But there is solace in knowing that Apple makes the products that are opening up lines of communication, knowledge, and freedom to China -- and inspiring cheaper, affordable knockoffs. When the Chinese factory workers have the freedom we take for granted -- protests, strikes, and better living conditions -- then the outputs, supply chains and profit expectations will slow, and Apple and other companies might think about returning to the United States or moving to a place with better human rights. Then we'll all feel better about whatever Apple product is being sold to massive fanfare, probably the iCouch or the iGlass, the lens that lets you see the world in Instagram.

In the meantime, everyone needs to stop yammering about how politicians can "create" jobs and start talking about more important things like open marriage, something we know Arnold Schwarzenneger can get behind. (!!)

Sunday, December 4, 2011

Let's Play GOP Cornhole, Or Why Jon Huntsman Needs To Ross Perot This Shit

It's been awhile since I've engaged in some good old-fashioned GOP cornhole bag-tossin' punditry.

In the wake of Cain's shocking departure (I'd love to see him and Greta Von Steroideron hate-flirt on Fox News), he leaves behind more than a few GOP terd muffins and jagweeds left in the presidential race. Oh the Hermanity...

So as the primaries are soon to kick off, which cornholes are the widest? Let's toss these lumpy bags and see where they land!

1. Walking erectile dysfunction Newt Gingrich. His numbers have been up and down.








Like I said in June, this guy's a hot manopausal mess and I'll be amazed if two women vote for him. 

 2. Rick Santorum, choad breath and spawn of Frisch's Big Boy and Phyllis Schlafly.





With this sparkling brand of charisma, he's got nowhere to go but guest-speaking at Marcus Bachmann's next NAMBLA-awareness convention at Penn State.   

3. Ron Paul, or what happens when the Lollipop Guild rejects one of their own: that little Munchkin grows up bitter at the world and any institutional body who tries maintain order in it.











Honestly, there are so few remaining original Munchkins left from the Wizard of Oz, I'm shocked the movie studio would let one run for president. National treasures all of them!

4. Rouge Nylund, Minnesota's sharpest mind since cousin Rose left for Miami. 












Michele Bachmann is a delight and I wish her well after the election when she and Gayle Haggard appear on "Wife Swap."

5. [BEEEEEEEEEEEELCH] Rick Perry.










America's tipsiest bride! (Why isn't this a show on VH1?) There has not been a recorded performance this good since Molly Ringwald's sister got married in Sixteen Candles. "Love the teapot!"

 6. Mitt Romney, you cold, exotic Robo-GILF...













Donny Osmond wishes he had just one percent of Mitt's finesse. This is also Mitt's biggest problem, when Donny Osmond is the only person who envies him.

Have fun explaining your new giant California beach home to South Carolinian primary voters! 

7. Jon Huntsman. I've called him a lot of things: "Lacrosse Dad" Sweatshirt Collector. CD-Romney, the weaker version of Mitt Romney's hard drive. Granny Osmond. But unlike the other Republican candidates, I've never called him fucking crazy. Plus he speaks Mandarin! He knows shit!

 










Look at this nurturer/caretaker. Whom among the remaining seven candidates can match this?









Sorry, that noise was my uterus singing "Firework."

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Occupy Wall Street Protestor Or Tourist: You Decide!

Here are descriptions of both #OWS protesters and #timessquaretourists on The Social Media (it's not real if you don't hashtag it). See if you can tell which is which. Answer key is after the jump.

1. Enthusiastic but not necessarily focused person willing to spend long periods of time doing nothing; harrasses other people trying to get to work.

2. People that littered ______ like pack mules. I had overstayed my welcome in this overbearing state

3. Hey ____ I've got a great idea. Why don't you just STAND THERE.

4. You'd be surprised at how often one can see _____ buying Jack Links Beef Jerky.

5. You know you're playing Tetris too much when you start seeing ____ as block pieces and begin joysticking it through _______.

6. You know shit is getting real in NYC when ____ are getting mugged in _____.

7. ____ are trapped in ______, surrounded by police

8. There's a lot of pushing and shoving going on right now.

9. I just don't take them seriously. (DISCLOSURE: This one is from Google Chat.)

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Kim Kardashian does not legitimize gay marriage

Gays and heteros who love gays are using Kim Kardashian's 72-day marriage from Kris Humpheries as a usable moment. Lots of people are sharing The Human Rights Campaign's open letter to Kim Kardashian on the Social Media. The comedian Rob Delaney is "suing" Kim and E! for their marriage hoax because it desecrates the sancitity of marriage which is denied to so many people.

Nothing has made me add more "u" sounds to "...the fuuuuuuck?" than when I found out Mormons like to baptize Jewish graves.

I get why smart people are doing this. It's obvious, the connection between these two famewhores' fabricated nuptials and the argument against gay marriage to protect the sanctity of marriage. But it's also dumb, morally untoward and worse, not helping the cause.

No one wants to see her gay and lesbian friends able to get married federally -- not just at the state level -- than this kid. If only because I WOULD LOVE TO PLAN THE SHOWER AND I WOULD MAKE IT RAIN WILLIAMS SONOMA ON YOU GUYS (you know who you are). However, using a using a fake reality starlet to propel a civil rights movement is like building a car out of mashed potatoes. Or a "Walk For The Cure" sponsored by Virginia Slims and Diet Coke.

It's building a very real PR campaign from a PR hoax. Something fake and used for profit cannot motivate a real and just cause, nor will it sway the minds of the opponents. It makes you no better than the hot dullards who "tarnished" that precious institution of marriage that already has a 50% divorce rate. Marriage doesn't have sancity, it has legal rights and tax provisions that make life easier. You're validating their stunt marriage when you protest its demise, which undermines the entire gay marriage argument.

Everyone: continue to make fun of the Kardashians for being hot dullards who were raised by a mother who shills crap in her dead husband's name, but just leave the gay marriage issue out of it. And if I have to watch a clip of Kim Kardashian on Nightline taking credit for ending the ban on gay marriage in three years, I will throw myself into a pile of Ore Idas.

Monday, October 31, 2011

Ms. > Jezebel > Femmebook

Break out the fertility drugs: someone's celebrating her fortieth! 





New York helpfully reminded everyone that Ms. magazine is forty years young with a cover of Gloria Steinem (my next blog moniker will be Schloria) smoking a cigarette Don Draper-style. I do not remember the seventies or the sixties or most of the eighties, so anyone old who reads this just accept that Mad Men is my generation's reference for anything involving shiny furniture, eye-fucking and tar lungs. It's a little too cheesy for my preferred depiction of Santa Gloria La Escritora (halo, Mona Lisa smile, hands together in beatific meditation). 

The editors over there juxtaposed the Ms. article with something else titled "The Rebirth Of The Feminst Manifesto" which basically says this social media = good for ladies who care about ladies' rights. Also it says bloggers love to call each other "lady" unless they're participating in a SlutWalk. Either way, SlutWalks might be good or bad, but no one cares unless you Tweet about it. Btw: I'd happily participate in a LadyWalk if only for the more comfortable clothing. Anyone?

The internet changed everything, in case you hadn't noticed between all the Twilight sagas. It calls out the usual sites for being the trailblazers they are: Jezebel, Feministing, plus a few sites that are run by non-white ladies like Racialicious and Crunk Feminist Collective. It's supercool to read and I'm glad Ms. Nussbaum wrote it, but it does reek a smidge of self-congratulation -- never a good thing when you're in the business of progress -- and um, maybe oldness? The "blogosphere" is the, uh, entire internet. I don't like when "lady blogs" are relegated to a "sphere" of the internet. They are powerful sites that command a lot of pageviews and digital advertising and they also cover a broad range of topics outside from lady issues. Present company excluded!

I've never read Ms. because my gynecologist is only 33. I've read and been bored by Bust because I've seen Sarah Silverman in a teddy before, and I won't read something with a curse word for a title (Bitch) on the subway -- not because of the children or propriety, but because someone might try to talk to me, which is the last thing you want on your ride home from work --  but I can tell you every single one of Jezebel's editors. 

Did I mention I've been excerpted on Jezebel? Call me...

The more interesting posit is not "the internet -- yep, still happening" and "women in their twenties listen to Gaga" but is all the social media sharing of these lady blogosphere pieces working? Unlike Ms. and all print media where no one has to see it if they don't want to, my male Facebook and Twitter friends have to see my links in their feed. And we all read our feed all the time, don't deny it! (Hi male social media friends: Please don't block my posts or unfollow me, for humanity. And if you're reading this, I know you haven't.)

It's not called Femmebook, after all. So are men absorbing what their lady blogger friends and friends of friends are sharing on social media? And isn't that the ever eye-fucking point?