The Prostitutional Promise of Presidential Promises
Did you know that some people think it’s naive to expect a presidential candidate to keep his/her word? I promise you, this is true! I’ve been called it right to my face. By no small coincidence the person doing the speaking was one of the most monumental douchebags I’ve ever met. And no, he wasn’t even my boss. He wasn’t quite that bad.
As we gather our collective will, about to commit ourselves to the task of voting, I’m here to ask: What is a presidential promise? Why are they made? Do they even matter? Should we even care? And what, if anything, should happen when they are broken?
Consider this: If it is naive to expect a presidential candidate to keep his/her promises, then what’s the bloody point of it all? If that’s the case, what selection criteria should go into your vote? Why not just vote for the candidate you “like” the most then, when he/she’s all legit, expect him/her to do whatever the hell he/she wants?
Take Romney, for instance. Part of his platform is officially “get me in there and then I’ll fill you in on the rest of the details later.” Some might call that refreshing. Some might call it straight up. At least he’s not trying to fool the naive folk, right?
On the other hand, he does make his share of promises, too. The biggest one I can think of is: “I’ll create 12 million new jobs.” Now that’s a promise. Never mind that a bunch of economists predict that the U.S. will create those jobs either way, over the next four years, regardless of which of the two choices we select in 2012.
Hey, I’ve got a promise for you, too. The sun will come up tomorrow. I promise. If it actually happens, does that mean I’m brilliant? That I had anything to do with it? And what if it doesn’t? What happens then? Well, we’ll all be dead and there will be no one around to give a shit.
It’s a classic win-win.
Some Eistein smartypants will no doubt say, “Whatever. A president doesn’t have ultimate power. He’s not a dictator. Not unless we’re talking about Obama, of course. A president can’t just do anything he wants. He needs help from Congress and stuff. He can’t go it alone.”
True. And precisely because of that fact, I’ll tell you how, in my opinion, promises should matter.
Continue reading →
Lie Hard II – Lie Harder: How The Presidency Was Won – Obama Edition
This is part two of my pseudo-scientific examination of truthiness in presidential politics. It was prompted by this vague feeling of dread that Romney and Ryan were lying a lot. I was desirous of quantification (and hopefully confirmation) of my feelings. So like any good empirical scientist, I set off on an expedition to prove what I already felt was true. I found me a data source and produced some pie charts.
Methodology: I did an existing data study to produce the pie chart graph shown on the right. The data set consisted of the last 20 “Truth-O-Meter” responses to statements by Barack Obama as evaluated by PolitiFact.com.
I did not “cherry pick” the source data. I merely used the 20 most recent statements by Barack Obama at the moment I happened to look. I then counted each type of rating and produced the chart.
Additional analysis and source data is provided after the jump.
Continue reading →
Mitt Romney – Slave Driver
The Romney quarter-zip sweatshirt. I’m holding out for the FULL zip but only if it covers his whole face.
This is part two in our exclusive and ongoing series of Mitt Romney investigative reports. You can read our exclusive exposé of Mitt Romney’s hidden age here.
Clear your head of all the distractions of this presidential campaign. The Bain Capital years. Reverend Wright. The Super PACs. Dog Gate. Birth certificates. The price of gas. Heck, even try to forget about Donald Trump’s hair – The Coiffure from Another Entrepreneur.
This election is about the economy. It’s about jobs. Therefore, it is fair to ask, “What would Romney do?”
Thanks to the investigative efforts of the Abyss News Team, we will deliver the answer to that question tonight at 11 on Action Central News. If you “believe in America” you’ll catch our team coverage tonight. What you don’t know could kill you. Stay tuned.
Fair notice: Some mathematics will be required.
Continue reading →
Oh Willard! Where Art Thou?
Age of presidents when assuming office approximately follows a bell curve (mean age marked by red line). Source: Wikipedia
Psst. Don’t tell anyone, but I know a little something the Mitt Romney campaign doesn’t want a lot of people to know. And, unlike them, I have no scruples about sharing it.
The cat is old.
I don’t mean “old” in the sense that it’s time for the rockin’ chair. I mean “old” in presidential terms.
Willard Mitt Romney was born March 12, 1947. He’s 65 years old.
Look at the clues. Fact #1: His name is Willard. Normally at this point I’d say, “I rest my case.” But I want to blather on for a bit more.
Exclusive: Abyss scientists have calculated that the first name “Willard” ranked 124.8 in popularity in the United States during the years 1880 through 1946. Mitt’s parents, by selecting the name Willard, simply went along with a trend of the times.
Since Mitt was born, however, the name has taken a beating. The first name “Willard” has dropped in popularity to a whopping rank of 491.2. (Based on years 1947 through 1989, the last year for which data is available.)
No wonder he goes by the name Mitt. He single-handedly made the name uncool. (See below for the graph I made. The higher the bar, the less popular the ranking of the name.)
Keep reading for much much more exclusive presidential election coverage from the Abyss. Did I mention this coverage is exclusive? No one else would think up shit like this.
Continue reading →
2012: Logo Obama vs Logo Romney
It’s winner take all in this battle of the presidential wannabe logos:
 Barack Obama |
 Mitt Romney |
Obama wins by a landslide!
I’m being unbiased and open-minded as hell when I declare Obama as the winner in this battle of the logos! I mean, come on, Mitt! What the fuck is that thing?
Tom’s Law #42
A logo similar to one I could make myself is a failure.
I was racking my brain. Where in the name of Zeus’ butthole have I seen that logo before?
Aquafresh
Oh yeah! That’s where. It doesn’t feel very “presidential” to have a logo that’s reminiscent of toothpaste, but maybe that’s just me. Mitt is minty fresh! “Minty Romney.” Yeah, I like the sound of that.
Dubya, Barry and Minty. Sounds like a freak presidential version of the Pep Boys.
But wait. There is still some other nagging feeling about that logo. What could it be?
Carnival Cruise Lines
Oh yeah. That’s it.
“Okay, Mitt. Here’s the deal. We came up with a bunch of logos for you to choose from. Remember, this is critical. Which one do you like?”
“I’m rather partial to the one that looks like a blurry, pathetically fat ‘R’. R is for Romney. Get it?”
“Oh, God.”
If the logo is any indication of Romney’s decision making skills, I can guarantee we do not want him to be president. Ever.
Other Wannabe Logos
Note: I visited the websites of some people who have campaigns and attempted to locate their “logos.” The images I found (shown below) may or may not officially be “logos.” It’s not like they offer them up on a silver platter as an easy download for my convenience. I apologize in advance for any logo misrepresentation. I did my best!
Sarah Palin – As a candidate who hasn’t announced yet, she’s still a no show in this department. When it finally does pop on the scene, I’m sure it will have eagles and mountains, amber waves of grain, and be fruited all across the plains. It may also have a book, crosshairs, helicopter and/or a bus.
Rick Santorum
Meh. Not much to see here. Yes, it does have an eagle, but the colors are off and I could have made something even better. Take one letter of your name and substitute it with something that looks like that letter. That is so Google.
Ron Paul
Another eagle. The colors are better, and it has a more official look. Meh. Use a fancy thing known as a “font” and flourish up a single letter. Now that is what I call design.
Jimmy McMillan
The graphic designer costs must also be too damn high! This is actually my favorite. Go, Jimmy, go!
Tim Pawlenty
This one feels so deco. And just a hint of American flag. That is subtle and works on levels. Also, he boldly explores the seldom used red, white and blue color scheme. That is daring and shows outside-the-box thinking. Personally, though, if I was running for president I’d go with green and blue.
Newt Gingrich
This logo was actually designed to Newt’s exacting standards. “I want red, white and blue.” (Of course.) “Also, put a wavy red thing and a star somewhere.” Also noteworthy: No last name. Newt thinks he is on par with Cher, Madonna and Sting. Ego much?
Michele Bachmann
I’ve actually seen signs for city council that far surpassed this one. The only interesting thing here is that the “H” is trying to flash us. Another example of single-letter-flourish “design.” No eagle, either. Is she anti-American? Perhaps she could add a turkey to set herself apart. That was Benjamin Franklin’s choice for our national bird, after all.
Did something happen?
Rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated
I fired up my internet this morning and immediately noticed something was askew. I logged into my favorite forum and was blasted with frothing post after post about the Constitution and quotations from our founding fathers.
“The Constitution has been killed!”
“The Constitution is now tissue paper!”
“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams
Uh oh! Something must have happened. Gee. Whatever could it be?
Was it the Patriot Act? Is that up for renewal? The same Patriot Act that my bank claimed prohibited the act of signing over a check to a new payee, something I had done since I was a wee small child?
Hmm. Nothing in the news about the Patriot Act right now. Gosh golly gee whillikers. I am so befuddled on this one.
We all know the real reason for the decidedly ramped up fever pitch I encountered this morning within my first 30 seconds of using the internet without really looking: The House of Representatives voted and approved the health care reform bill last night.
The patient has money? Good catch, nurse! Go ahead and triple his bill.
Is the bill perfect? Hardly. But it estimated that when it goes into effect approx. 95% of Americans will have health care. Jeez. And that’s supposed to be the best we can do?
Personally I’ve worked full time since the day I turned 16 and I currently have none. Convicted repeat felons in prison have better access to health care than I do. I am the wretched refuse. Changing jobs shouldn’t mean putting your life at risk.
So, for me, the big question now is: Just how hard will I have to work to maintain my uninsured status. Because you can bet your ass when the dust settles I will somehow be one of the lucky five percent. I like to be special.
The AMA signed off on health care but that hardly meant the nation was in agreement. In recent weeks I’ve heard both sides claiming that they held that hill. “58% will be angry or disappointed if Congress stops working on health care reform,” claimed one side. “Americans overwhelming oppose the plan,” said the other. It was hard for a loyal and true American to know which end was up.
I think it was safe to say our country was and still is “divided” on the issue. So how will this pan out? We’ll have to wait and see. But it’s also safe to say that other major pieces of legislation in our nation’s history, like Social Security, Medicaid and welfare reform enjoyed more bipartisan support than what his enemies disdainfully refer to as “Obamacare.” That makes the way health care reform came into being somewhat unique.
A plethora of news stories tell us that “most” Americans know there are serious problems with the current system. Unfortunately it seems we are incapable of deciding what to do about it. I’m just glad we did something.
Nobody, not even Obama, thinks this is a magical solution. Now we will see the acrimony ramped up to record levels of froth. We will hear lies. There will be more protests and more tasteless and offensive signs. There will be lawsuits. And, over time, hopefully the system will begin to incrementally make things better for most of us. No doubt it can be tweaked and improved to work out some of the current flaws.
Good luck, health care reform. You’re gonna need it.
Politics ad hominem as usual?
An idea has been percolating in my head for some time and the other day it finally went off like a light bulb.
It’s this notion of what I’m calling “personal attack politics.” A lot of people are spending a lot of time and effort to convince me that:
President Barack Obama is a bad person.
Eye catching, isn’t it? I guess it isn’t too surprising that some would be out peddling a message like this in our fast-paced, talking point, sound-bite culture.
Imagine, if you will, that you are the teacher for a debate class. Two of your students are given an assignment called The Great Food Debate: One student is pro-hamburger and the other is pro-hot dog. This is going to be one interesting debate! 🙂
Hamburger kid goes first and talks about the popularity of hamburgers, how round patties are more efficient than cylindrical-shaped meat, says that hamburgers had better condiment containment, and even has data and graphs to illustrate his points.
The other kid, however, doesn’t talk about hot dogs at all. He starts off by saying that his opponent’s father is an alumni and donated money to the school and that’s the only reason he’s even in this debate. He talks about how “everyone” on campus considers his opponent to be a super nerd and makes fun of the way he’s dressed. And in his closing argument he says that anyone who votes for his opponent is a big nerd, too.
After watching this “debate” and as the teacher of the class, would you feel proud if your students voted the hot dog kid as the winner? I don’t think so.
Personal attacks do little to further understanding in a debate. Nothing that the hot dog kid had to say offered any information or rebuttal regarding the factual claims about hamburgers made by his opponent.
Personal attacks have been around for a long time. In Latin they are known as ad hominem.
So what are some of the personal attacks against Obama:
- He uses a teleprompter.
- He’s an empty suit.
- He’s too smooth.
- He came from the Chicago “machine.”
- He bowed to someone, or he shouldn’t have bowed, or he bowed too deeply.
- He’s a socialist.
- He wants to destroy America.
- He’s a “militant racist.”
If you need more examples of ad hominem (and sometimes not-so-veiled threats of violence) against Obama, just look for the most offensive signs at tea party rallies and such:
- I didn’t vote for the socialist – you can keep the change
- Fire Line Do Not Cross: If Brown can’t stop it a Browning can (includes picture of a handgun)
- We came unarmed (this time)
- One Big Ass Mistake America
- You Can’t Fix Stupid – But You Can Vote It Out – Change Is Brewing
- Freedom Will Be Defended
- Revolt Against Socialism
- Obama is a Very Bad Man (link)
- Obama’s Plan: White Slavery
These are the same signs that, when singled out after the fact for criticism, we’re told, “Oh, that sign doesn’t represent the movement.” Yet, somehow, the people holding those signs are never asked to leave or take down their signs by the other tea party protesters all around them. I’ve never heard a single story about an offensive sign being removed from a tea party event. Those signs being allowed to remain represents the tacit consent of those in the vicinity and the movement itself.
In the interest of fairness, I just googled up one example of a sign ejection. Yeah! A guy who is a tea party activist and runs a tea party web site and claimed to be a tea party “founder” was apparently kicked out of a Houston tea party event last year for an offensive sign. I won’t bother to repeat it here.
Politics can be murky and messy. “A tax cut for the wealthiest among us is the best way to help America!” That’s what Bush said (and did) in early 2001. Agree with it or not, at least it is a “factual claim” that can be debated.
I believe that if we want what is best for our country we need more discussion of the issues and less time spent on personal attacks. Keep an eye out for the personal attacks on Obama. If you filter those out, you might be surprised how little those that are throwing the attacks really have to say.
Shouts from the Abyss 
Recent Comments