Technological Non-Advancement, Part 3

by The Arbiter on May 16, 2012

You need a wrench to drink this.

Beer companies have always been great at pretending they’ve done something to improve their product even though they obviously haven’t.  If you recall, we have Miller Lite’s Vortex bottle and Coors Light’s can that changes color to let you know the beer is cold - Technological Non-Advancement, Part 1.

This is stupid.  Just give me a beer.  Obviously.

Miller Lite has reached incredible new heights.  They’ve introduced the “punch top” can, also known as a can.  It gives you a smoother pour, because as everyone knows, it’s always been hard to get the beer out of the can without some complex tools and some other people.

The problem with this isn’t that it doesn’t work, it’s that it has always worked and everyone knows this.

High tech.

In fact, that’s how people used to open beer.  In the 1960s.

Ok, fine. It's cool.

Don Draper makes it look cool to have to punch holes in cans to drink beer, but for people in the 21st century, this idea is utter bullshit.

If you can’t already drink beer fast enough, you’re just simply not good at drinking beer.  So get better at drinking.  It’s not the can, it’s you.

I know what you’re thinking – not being able to drink beer quickly isn’t a problem.  And you’re right.

Which is why no one needs an extra hole in their beer can and why opening beer like they did half a century ago isn’t progress.

{ 0 comments }

Johnny Pandersticks

by The Arbiter on February 20, 2012

Vote for me! Please.

Mitt Romney released the audio part of the sequel to the infamous Drinking Out of Cups video by Dan Deacon.  Once they get the animated lizard and some awesome backgrounds, they’ll be good to go.

He’s been trying to say everything that he thinks people want to hear for so long that he has no idea who he is anymore.  He’s become completely unhinged and it’s hilarious.

Some…

“I was born and raised here. I love this state. It seems right here. The trees are the right height.  I like seeing the lakes. I love the lakes. There’s something very special here. The Great Lakes, but also all the little inland lakes that dot the parts of Michigan. I love cars.”

At least he’s got the seahorse vote locked up.

Have a look…

Drinking Out of Cups

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skCV2L0c6K0

Romney’s Sequel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHaMqHh5NZ4

 

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Mindless

by The Arbiter on February 1, 2012

 

If you support both of us, you have no brain.

If you voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and you’re supporting Ron Paul in 2012, one of three things must be true:

- You jumped on the Obama bandwagon in 2008 without knowing much about the candidate you supported.

- You jumped on the Ron Paul 2012 bandwagon without knowing much about the candidate you’re supporting.

Or, the most likely answer…

- You jumped on the Obama bandwagon in 2008 and you’re jumping on the Paul bandwagon in 2012 and you don’t know a goddamn thing about the political system or either candidate you’re supporting.

I don’t intend to champion Obama nor to bash Ron Paul’s supporters here.  I only intend to point out how utterly fucking absurd it is to be a supporter of both of them. The only way for this to happen while maintaining any degree of intellectual consistency is to have completely changed your basic core beliefs in a matter of a few short years…and that’s, well, fucking absurd.

You can’t go from voting for a center-left, pro-choice, black guy to an extreme-right libertarian (except of course when it comes to women’s reproductive rights or the expression of one’s sexual orientation) who is a 9/11 truther, conspiracy theorist, religious zealot, and racial bigot. That does not make any sense whatsoever.

I’ve said many times, here and in other places, that I appreciate Ron Paul’s integrity and look at him as one of the most honest men I’ve seen run a political campaign.  He doesn’t pander and he has no qualms with bucking his own party.  Those are great things.

The rest of it though? Not so much.

Most of his policies, if you can call them that, fall somewhere in the range of impractical to impossible to enact. You can’t go from supporting Obama to supporting a guy who thinks it’s possible to disband the Fed and return to the gold standard, no matter how nice he makes it sound. You can’t go from supporting Obama to supporting a guy who thinks disbanding FEMA is a good idea and that people without health insurance should be left to die.  You can’t go from supporting Obama to supporting a guy who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and criminalize abortion.

These aren’t rationally coherent positions to take.

Which brings me back to the original point…you either didn’t know anything about Obama, don’t know anything about Paul, or don’t know anything about either or how anything works.  Most people will fall into the third category, and it’s the most logical and obvious reason why someone would support both candidates for president, since you can’t really support both of them if you’re truly knowledgeable about both of them.

While Obama and Paul couldn’t be further apart on almost every actual policy issue they do have some similarities in what we could call the “ethic” of their campaigns.

Both have a strong appeal to young voters and both have a strong social media presence.  Both embody “hope”, just in different ways.  Obama actually preaches hope of rising to a better sort of politics – post-racial, post-partisan,etc…  Paul embodies the hope of the individual to dictate their own course in life and the idea that many young people have that if they do their best, things will work out.  They’re both able to make very powerful connections to young voters because of this.

This is where it becomes important to note that both of these appeals are generally mindless.  While it’s certainly nice and admirable to support and follow both of these ethics, it shouldn’t be enough to be choosing the leader of the free world on either.

While I fully support Obama’s reelection, I don’t support people who voted for him based on their feelings that he just agreed with everything they believed, apart from any knowledge about his positions.  If you voted for Obama thinking that he was going to immediately withdraw from Afghanistan when he campaigned on a military surge there, or because you thought he was going to legalize marijuana, or any number of other policy positions that people pinned to him without knowing what he was actually campaigning on, you are your own biggest problem.  (You’re also your own biggest problem if you think marijuana legalization is a critical political issue.  Not that I don’t support it, I do.)

And if you’re voting for Ron Paul because he’s the rage-against-the-machine, tear down the establishment, reform Washington guy you think he is without realizing who he actually is, without knowing what stuff he plans to do, and without recognizing what things he plans to do that he simply cannot do, you’re going to be your own biggest problem again.

If you voted for Obama in 2008 and you’re tearing him down right now to build up the candidacy of someone you don’t know anything about, congratulations, because you’re fucking yourself twice.

You just helped elect Mitt Romney.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

So Many Things…

by The Arbiter on January 4, 2012

Sometimes when you win, you're still a loser.

There are so many things wrong with this picture.  Let’s see if we can find them all.

First of all, Mitt Romney won the pointless Iowa Caucus by 8 votes out of 122,255 total votes.  He spent 17 jillion dollars there trying to make Newt Gingrich look bad.  That worked.  But then a guy who spent nothing almost beat him.  Considering what advantages Romney had over Rick Santorum, Santorum kind of did beat him.  Mitt’s been the frontrunner for years now, so winning by 8 votes means that everyone pretty much still hates him.

And he (almost) got beat by someone whose name has come to be defined as something I don’t even want to write…so just Google it.  It’s more fun than me ruining the surprise for you, and it’ll keep it in the top search spot.

Then we’ve got Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and Herman Cain all finishing with less total votes combined than Ron Paul alone which is strange since god told them all to run for president.  Then again, if god can’t make up his mind and he totally lacks the follow through to help any of them win, what does his endorsement really mean anyway?  Besides, he told George W. Bush to invade Iraq, so maybe politics isn’t god’s thing.  It’s almost like it would be a good idea to keep those things separate…

Somewhat unsurprisingly, 58 Iowans actually didn’t realize that Herman Cain left his sexual harassment 9-9-9 campaign of bullshit in the past a few weeks ago.

Jon Huntsman, the only candidate who openly admits to acknowledging the realities of climate change and evolution got 745 total votes.  Literally, the only candidate with enough intelligence and integrity to essentially say that 2+2=4 gets treated like a total non-factor.  There’s so much wrong with that.

But none of that is as wrong and funny as this…

135 people showed up to caucus for “no preference”.

Caucus attendees left their houses for a non-binding vote where they had to mill around for a while and then write a name down on a piece of blank paper…and 135 Iowans spent a few hours of their day doing this to write “no preference” on a card.

That is unequivocally insane.

So congratulations, Iowa.  Your caucus system is still a total sham.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Holy Shit

by The Arbiter on January 3, 2012

Don't let your toilet paper get dirty. Ever.

This commercial is shocking.  Offensive even.

Shitty Commercial

I watched it and for the first 28 out of 32 seconds I thought it was just advertising how terrible relationships can be when you mistakenly choose to spend the rest of your life with an anal-retentive psychopath.

But, nope.  It’s a commercial for a toilet paper cover.  That’s right.  A toilet paper cover.

Cottonelle would like to start the trend of taking your toilet paper out of the plastic cover that it was in since you brought it home from the store and placing it into a plastic cover that you actually had to purchase at the store.

I can’t even imagine the meeting where they decided people were dumb enough to do this.  I swear, this is the best indicator ever to stop dating someone.  If we’re on a date, and I’m back at your house, and I mysteriously just walk out with no explanation, and then you use the bathroom and see one of those Jonathan Adler toilet paper covers, don’t text me, just know it was your fault.

The announcer at the end of the commercial says, “Take care of your toilet paper…” as if there are evil creatures in your house destined to attack your toilet paper so violently that your beautiful Cottonelle will be degraded into public restroom style toilet paper.

Congratulations, Cottonelle.  You just found a way to do the impossible and make germaphobes more miserable and annoying.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }