Party On Dems!!!

Tonight, I followed my usual routine. I was at work, feeling all bitter about my life. I knew it was time to go home, but not before complaining to one of my colleagues about how awful free trade has been for the Midwest's economy. Then, I stopped by Chipotle. Not only did I grab a burrito bowl with black beans and spicy red sauce, I also let the Hispanic people in the burrito assembly line know that if I didn't get the appropriate amount of guacamole, they'd be in for it. I felt a little less bitter, but not completely healed. So I rushed home and held my family at gunpoint until they all read their scriptures. Farewell bitterness, aloha naive complacency.

Okay, so I made that whole thing up (except I did get a burrito bowl at Chipotle, but it was yesterday and it was at lunch and it didn't have guacamole--I'm trying to cut back). But you see where this is going. His hopefulness, B. Rock Obama lost a little bit of shine over the past month. That was apparent by the fact that he got rocked in the Pennsylvania democrat primary. Hill Rod beat him by over two hundred thousand votes. And he outspent her by a 3 to 1 margin. (Thereby making good on his promise not to let monied interest determine this election).

So, let's recap the night's winners and losers

Winner number one: Fox News. With no Republican primary candidate to fawn over, the Fox crew actually seemed objective. It's still weird to see Fred Barnes lauding Hillary Clinton's determination.

Loser number one: MSNBC. It sounded like a death march. David Gregory almost cried as he explained how Hill Rod has almost pulled even in the total number of democrat votes casted. Howard Finneman appeared as if someone had licked the red off of his candy cane.

Winner Number Two: John McCain. If you need me to explain this one, then I'm not sure why you're still reading because you haven't understood anything in the post so far.

Loser Number Two: Hope. Change. Audacity. A more perfect union. And, of course, unions.

Winner Number Three: Barack Obama. What? Are you nuts? Yes, I am nuts, but his hopefulness may have been paying attention when Ronald Reagan was busy spending the USSR into the ground. Like the Soviet Union in the 1980s, Hill Rod is short on cash. By dumping so much money into PA, his hopefulness forced her to respond in kind, leaving her campaign coffers full of jack nothin'. If she doesn't raise some more cash soon, she won't be competitive in North Carolina or Oregon, and may lose Indiana as well. That would wipe out her gains from the past month.

Loser Number Three: Me. It's almost midnight. I've still got work to do. And I'm blogging on a blog that is read only by my wife's friends. At least it's fun. (And I love my democrat friends in Kansas and Florida---I know you've been reading!!!!).

P.S. I plan to respond to the comments on this blog in the near future.

Creative Discounting

In abiding the spirit of optimism that permeates this blog, I'd like to quickly complain about discount ads. Now, I'm not against discounts per se, but if you're a retailer, and you're advertising a Nine-Bazillion Percent Off Sale, please don't put an asterisk (visual aid: "*") next to the percent sign. The asterisk's apparent purpose is to notify the would-be discount shopper that a "few" items might not qualify for the Nine-Bazillion Percent Off Sale discount. For example, Bed, Bath and Beyond is currently having such a sale. And we all know how excited men who hate, hate, hate shopping get when they see a BB&B flyer. To my dismay, there was a smug little * right on the front page of the ad.



So, after spending forty-five minutes looking for the corresponding "*" that would let me know the discount's boundaries, I found it in microscopic print in the bottom right-hand corner of the fourth page of the ten-page brochure. It delicately informed me that the following items were not subject to the discount:

• Tempur-Pedic (Sorry oldsters);
• Margaritaville (Sorry drunkards);
• Tommy Bahama (Sorry middle-aged men having identity crises);
• kate spade (why don't you capitalize the first letter of each name, Kate);
• Nautica items (I'm sure BB&B shoppers always go in looking for Nautica);
• Vera Wang (no joke here, Vera Wang rocks my world);
• iJoy;
• Waterford;
• Lenox (Lewis?);
• Nambe;
• Swarovski;
• Plastic Things;
• Metal Things;
• Paper Things;
• Wooden Things;
• Beds;
• Baths; and
• Beyonds.

That leaves us just one item eligible for the discount, and here it is:

It's a digital grilling fork. Now, I concede that digital watches are far, far superior to sundials, but a digital grilling fork? It'd better be on discount. (By the way, it's ten bucks cheaper on the BB&B website than it is in-store, even after the discount).

Rational Thoughts

As a bank lawyer, I get a lot of legal questions that are completely unrelated to banking law. I want to share two favorites. The first one always involves someone's hypothetical friend who was unjustly arrested for driving under the influence. Despite the fact that it was definitely the friend and not the questioner got arrested, the "friend" of the alleged drunk driver will spend thirty minutes explaining to me that the cops were just lying in wait all night for the friend to leave the bar, that the friend was most certainly not weaving and most definitely had his headlights on the whole time, and that there's no way you can blow a .15 on a breathalyzer after drinking just three coronas. Given the obvious injustices, I'd be the meanest lawyer ever if I didn't share the sure-fire secret for obtaining a not guilty verdict at this person's upcoming trial, which the friend just happens to know starts tomorrow. Well, here's the secret: don't drink and drive, moron (of course, I mean that the friend is a moron).

Now to the second question, which is a little stranger. Whenever people are about to fly somewhere (especially if they're almost to the airport), they call and ask me about doing a will over the phone. When I tell them that a will can't be done over the phone, they try to jump that little legal hurdle by telling me who they want to get what property in case "something happens to them." Apparently they didn't understand the part about not being able to do a will over the phone. But that's not the strange part.

The strange part is that air travel is what sparks the inquiry. Statistically speaking (as opposed to other forms of speaking), it is much safer to fly out to Vegas than it is to drive to the grocery store. Yet, no one calls and says, "hey mr. bank lawyer, I was on my way to the grocery store when I realized that my chances of dying right now are much greater than they will be later this month while I'm flying to Fiji. I need to get a plan in place in case something happens. . . . Oh you can't do a will over the phone. . . . How about I just tell you what I want to happen? . . . Oh, I didn't realize that. . . . How about I come down to your office?"

The More I Hearey, The Less I Likey

To: The Obamination

From: Partisan Observer

Re: Obama's Candor

I've got a few preguntas for my liberal amigos. It concerns Mr. Obama, the person most likely to win the democrat presidential nomination and unapologetic champion of change.

1. He's airing a commercial in Pennsylvania touting how he's never accepted money from oil companies. Big woo. It's been illegal in the United States to accept donations from corporations since 1907. He has, however, accepted almost $300,000 from oil executives. Is that . . . audacious?

2. He's complained long and loud about how "The People" are tired of "the same old politics." Yet one thing "The People" hate about politics is mischaracterization of an opponent's statements. Well, the junior Senator from Illinois has sharply criticized Sen. McCain for saying that we'll be fighting in Iraq for 100 years if necessary. The only problem is that McCain didn't say that. He said that troops may have to remain in Iraq for 100 years, if necessary--much like we'll be in Germany for 100 years as a result of World War II. I think that one worked out okay. So, is Mr. Obama not engaging in the "same old politics?"

3. He has promised to restore our international credibility. He hasn't said what that will entail, but I think that it means France will like us more if he's president. It apparently doesn't mean honoring the North American Free Trade Agreement, which has benefitted all parties thereto, especially Canada, the United States, and Mexico. It also doesn't mean giving an honest assessment of the situation in Iraq when and if he takes office. He's withdrawing troops regardless of progress on the ground and regardless of any destabilizing effect it would have on Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran, or Israel. (Pay no attention to the progress behind the curtain.)

4. He wants to restore "hope." Thank heavens. I've been looking for more hope and I can't wait until he signs the "Thou Shalt Be Hopeful Act of 2009" into law. (And hopefully, he'll repeal the "Beat Up Poor People Acts 2001-08.") What other hopeful ideas do you think he'll hope into law?

5. Finally, he wants to take back the economy from "Corporate Greed." Apparently consumer greed is okay, and individual responsibility will not be required. But corporate greed must go. As a manifestation of his war on "Corporate Greed," he has proposed doubling the capital gains tax. What does that mean? Well, it basically means that if you're dumb enough to invest in something, increase its value, and then sell it at a, gasp, profit, then you're going to pay twice as much tax on that profit under the Obamination administration than you would under the current administration. The result: either people won't invest or they'll hold onto investments they would like to sell. That will slow the economy. Even Sweden understands this; the Swedish capital gains tax is already lower than the one his hopefulness is proposing. So on what planet does his proposal make sense?