Sexist, Racist, Anti-Labor Retail Store under Fire for using “Happy Holidays”.

ATLANTA - National retail chain, Arme’s (NYSE: ARS) currently being investigated by the US Justice Department for racist hiring practices, has come under fire for using the phrase “Happy Holidays” in its over 3,000 US stores. 

The Atlanta-based company, facing a sex discrimination suit from over 5,000 former and current female employees, recently made the change that will go in effect this November.

Director of Marketing, Toni Sticks, and currently awaiting trial for insider trading explained, “We are trying to make our stores open and welcoming to all of our 200,000 daily customers, regardless of belief.”

But many see this as yet another store bowing to the pressure political correction.

Head of the American Family Association, Jeremy Arschloch, has called for a boycott of Arme’s, in which fewer than a quarter of employees have any health benefits and over half require public assistance programs to get by. “The censorship of the word ‘Christmas’ by this store is yet another battle in the War on Christmas. The use of ‘Happy Holidays’ is an affront to the good Christian people of this nation. I urge everyone to boycott this store at once!”

“It’s one thing to allow a dozen employees to die in a warehouse fire because of the lack of a functioning sprinkler system and various other violations of the fire code,” stated Mary Annadale, a frequent shopper of Arme’s, “but this fear of ‘offending’ someone has gone too far. I might have to think about shopping somewhere else.”

Arnold Arme, the president of the company, grandson of the original founder, and financial supporter to a right-wing militia known for killing a Lansing, MI police officer, said he was currently rethinking the company’s decision because of the backlash.

The Zimmerman Filter

Like I've said on Facebook, (because I can't think of a better way to start this post, so I'm shamelessly recycling it) After this Zimmerman verdict, I've had to unfollow a bunch of people or I'd wind up in the hospital, normal or psychiatric.

Events like this do expose whom among your friends are racists on Facebook. My cousin posted this picture: 

With the Caption: Marley didn't fit The Obama Administration's Race War agenda, that's why it did not get the same coverage! Are you AWAKE yet America?!

Yes, I'll tell you the difference. Marley Lion wasn't killed because of his race, it was a robbery. He wasn't pursued by a Security Guard because he was black and wearing a hoodie. While it took about as long for the four men involved with Marley Lion's death to be arrested and charged as George Zimmerman was, it was because the police were looking for them, not because they were dithering around not sure what to do. Also, Marley Lion was always portrayed as an upstanding citizen, whereas Trayvon Martin was a victim of character assassination.

But really, thank you for trying to combat racism with racism with that caption up there.

Tropico 4: Modern Times review.

The game is “jaw-dropping”.

However, I mean that in a negative connotation. I am very disappointed by this game.

I reviewed Tropico 4 some time ago. With some very minor reservations, I really enjoyed the game. I thought it had added enough from its predecessor, Tropico 3, to warrant buying the sequel. To sum up the game as best as I can, you rule the Caribbean nation of Tropico as El Presidente. Build up the island’s economy, try to keep the competing factions on the island happy, and stay in power as long as you can…by any means possible. It is a very fun Construction and management/Government Simulation game.

When the “Modern Times” expansion pack was announced, it looked very promising. I liked the idea of new buildings and edicts reflecting the modern world and a timeline feature that allows world events to affect your island. 

It wasn’t until recently that I obtained the game (almost a year after it had been released), and that was a headache. I couldn’t download it from Steam because I had purchased a physical copy of the game and it would only recognize a digital download from them. It’s nice that they would stop me from purchasing a game they thought I couldn’t play…but I had the game! Going to the Kalypso website (the publisher) led to other problems. I broke down and ordered a physical copy on Amazon.

Finally obtaining it, installing it was another hassle. I had the most recent version of the game, 1.06, but it wouldn’t install because update 1.05 was already installed. I had to uninstall Tropico 4, reinstall it, and before doing anything with the base game, I put the “Modern Times” disk in. After several failed installation initiations and a restart of my computer, I finally got it to work and I started playing.

If only the headaches ended there. My technical problems were solved, but the game was still broken. As a new building is discovered, the older building becomes “obsolete” and no longer able to build. I first noticed this in game-year 1957, when the grocery store replaced the market and I could no longer build them.

This is what made playing this game a jaw-dropping experience.

 “What?”, is all that I could ask after making this discovery. After making sure there was no way to get the old market back, I quit the game and haven’t played since.

Why is this a deal-breaker?

Taking away control: I have less control over the game than I had before. The design and layout of my nation is now based on these forced upgrades. Part of my frustration is from an aesthetic perspective. The upgrades are ugly and/or oversized. If I wanted to keep up the “traditional” look of my island, I can’t. In my games, I always build up a nice, ritzy section of condominiums around the presidential palace. I think it creates a nice old/colonial feel. Screw that! Now I am forced to have these hideous eye-sores. If my older buildings are destroyed, I can only replace them with the upgrades.

It makes no sense, from an in-game perspective: I understand that my buildings should upgrade as my nation improves, but the improvements are based on the year. Time might be advancing, but my nation isn’t. As I mentioned, grocery stores become available in 1957. But at this point, my nation is poor and has very low food diversity. A grocery store does not fit my needs at this time! Maybe when I establish a thriving middle class and have a surplus of a wide variety of food, then I should build one. When it comes to housing, middle and upper class housing units upgrade in the mid-1960s. They are more expensive and require more of electricity (old middle class housing didn’t require electricity, the upgrade does). Having electricity by the mid-60s might be a tall order as you are more interested in producing food to consume and exporting basic raw materials to balance your budget.

It makes no sense, choice of upgrades: Since when does a solar-power plant make windmills obsolete? Why can’t I have both wind and solar power on my island? And water treatment plants replace landfills? How does filtering water replace the need to store garbage? Like having nice little bank branches on the street corner? No more! Now can you have a huge National Bank instead! Remember when the US established a National Bank and all small banks were closed and replaced with gigantic structures? No? The worst decision of all must be the decision to replace restaurants with giant, ship-themed eateries. What. The. F*ck? I’ve never been to Cuba, but I’m sure not all the restaurants there are like the taffy shop from that Simpsons episode.

No warning: I don’t expect an expansion pack to take things away from a game. None of the reviews ever suggested that most of the new buildings will permanently replace older ones. If I had known this, I would most likely have never bought the game. It was mentioned that buildings become obsolete and can be upgraded, but I thought it was along the lines of horses becoming “obsolete” and “upgrading” to automobiles; horses didn’t become extinct and still had uses after cars were invented. This is the first time I have felt like I have been suckered by false advertising. I really feel cheated.

I was really excited to play this game, but this asinine system really ruined it for me. I like the new buildings! I want solar power, water treatment plants, grocery stores, and modern apartments! I just wish they didn’t completely replace the old ones. Couldn't they give me the new building and make me decide which one I want to construct based on trade-offs? "The new apartment building costs more to maintain and build, but it houses more people and the quality is higher. Hmmm..."

Maybe I’ll give it another chance, but not for a while. If this whole upgrade thing doesn’t bother you, then you should like this game. But if it bothers you, Tropico 4: Modern Times is a huge disappointment.

Stupid Shit Anti-Feminists Say.

I came across this article online and found it absolutely hilarious. Not because it was trying to be funny, but because the article is terribly written by someone overreacting. I will warn you that this article may trigger some emotions. Read it at your own risk!

Will feminists ever complain about something important?

I think the title was enough of a warning. I'm going to list a few problems with this article.

If you didn't care about this one woman's complaint, why did you write this article? The author mentions that, "On June 21, 2012, my list of the Top 30 Hottest Women in Politics was published. The only opinions about it that I value are those of the women on the list." He also stated,  "After I scrolled through about thirty pages (very bored), her criticism reared its ugly head. That tells me that in the big scheme of things, she is not widely read. Being attacked by CNN interests me. Being attacked by unknowns is boring." Also, who are you to talk? Who are you? I have never even heard of you before this article and you act as if you are Walter Cronkite.

If people didn't think you were sexist before, they will definitely think that now after reading this article! Let's see, what did you say again?

• Rush Limbaugh once pointed out that feminism was created to give ugly women a chance in society. Hot women don't need feminism, which is why feminists despise hot women to begin with... Rush Limbaugh is starting to look like an even bigger genius.

• The woman writes under a screen name and does not post a picture...She wants me to judge women based on their personalities and not their looks. Her looks are a mystery. Therefore, any comment about me finding her repulsive is solely based on what appears to be a revolting personality

• Unsurprisingly, a few college girls at Brandeis University are the offended ones. Perhaps they are training to be future Sandra Fluchs. If these women ever enter the real world they can then talk to me about what is offensive.

Yes, let's show how not sexist you are by showing how sexist you are. I think the best way is stating that feminists are all ugly women who are jealous of hot women because they can't get laid and can't get by in life with their looks. His profile on the Washington Times website says he is a comedian. I'll be honest, I don't understand conservative humor. I can't tell when a conservative is being funny or serious. Everything that comes out of their mouth sounds like an unfunny joke to me.

Thank you so much for actually letting the readers see her actual words! I can't judge for myself if this woman really is overreacting and being a cry baby because the author fails to actually use any of her words from her article or provide a link. He explains why,

• For those building successful online presences, never "argue downward." Do not elevate those who have not succeeded on their own. Those who can only build up by tearing others down deserve their anonymity. Therefore, providing a link to this woman's site serves no purpose

I love the "pretending to take the high ground while not showing my critic's comments to make them a straw man" technique. All he says is that his post was listed under the "Misogynist Musings of the Month" section and that she wrote, "she wants me to judge women based on their personalities and not their looks". Well, that certainly doesn't warrant the kind of response that you took in this article. If I had her exact words in front of me, maybe I could actually form an opinion. Instead, I'm treated to a anti-feminist rant by an egotist.

Because I don't have access to her words, I would like to know if this woman was upset over the article posted on the Washington Times website, or the "raw, uncensored version" you link to on said article, in which you refer to these women as "Yummy Bouncies"? What else to you have to say?

• Technically this is not much different from listing the top 30 hottest political women, except that the focus is on their T and A.
• From the front, I dream of playing sexual volleyball, bouncing them vigorously. From the backside, I hope to play Sir Mixalot’s “Baby Got Back,” while giving them the ketchup bottle treatment.
• The list has been divided into the top 10 liberals, centrists, and conservatives. Given that they were all anatomically correct, this added up to 20 breasts and 20 hides per all three political denominations.
• Pictures of all of the women are included, but because they were all fully dressed in the pictures, some would say that makes the exercise pointless.

• To the best of my knowledge, I have had sex with none of them.

• For those wondering why the girl I like is not on the list, the answer is simple. I value my existence. There is not a woman on earth that compares to her in my opinion. Her body is a temple, and I hope to enjoy worshiping at her altar. Yep, her holy grail is quite holy indeed.

You honestly don't think this is considered sexist? See, what you are doing here is "objectifying", to present or regard as an object. When you say your focus is on their "T and A", count them by counting their breasts and butts (20 hides per section? Are you counting each ass cheek separately?), apologize that you have pictures of them fully dressed, and I don't know what the hell the "ketchup bottle treatment" is, THAT is being sexist! And I would like to know who this woman is in your life and what the fuck she sees in you.

Now, I'm going to get a little more nit-picky with this article. Focusing on writing and nonsensical statements and arguments. I'll be the first to admit that I make mistakes while writing. I'm human. But I'm just some punk-kid on a free blogging site. He's supposedly a big shot with a big newspaper! I think it is appropriate to hold him to a slightly higher standard.

• "Her website is amusing. It is a feminist community organizing site that actually teaches women how to write complaint letters. Now that will look good on a resume. Most prospective employers are dying to hire professional complainers."

 Another nice little personal attack, but what is your point? I don't think it is surprising that a site like this would provide that kind of service. I received 3.27 million hits on Google by searching "how to write complaint letter". Do you know who provides this information? The New Hampshire Department of Justice: Office of Attorney General, The Consumerist, USA.gov, and millions of other sites, plus advertisements on the side for books on the subject. Plus I think experience writing form letters might be handy in an office environment. You really needed that extra punch, didn't ya?

• "Golub commits an egregious crime with his misogynistic and pompous pontification." A crime? Beneath the failed onomatopoeia and the hysterical hyperbole is a simple solution for this woman. She may not need a man, but she certainly needs a thesaurus.

Onomatopoeia? There is nothing in the entire article remotely onomatopoetic (Definition: the naming of a thing or action by a vocal imitation of the sound associated with it (as buzz, hiss)). You mean alliteration? I think you need a dictionary, or a new editor. (I'm sorry if that sounded like a personal attack. I wouldn't want to do that. Like I wouldn't want to point out how you criticize the crybaby for not having a profile picture, whereas the one you have shows you with your mouth wide open like an idiot. That kind of thing is beneath me.)

Now, here is the most unintentionally funniest and stupidest things mentioned in the article:

• 1.) Radical Islamists are trying to kill us all. Women in Muslim countries are beaten, stoned, raped, and shot for trying to drive a car or walk outside unaccompanied by a male. Those who take a tough stand against this are the good guys. Those who do nothing about it are not. George W. Bush is a feminist hero for freeing millions of women in Iraq and Afghanistan. Barack Obama is a zero for leaving women in Syria to get murdered for sport.
•  2.) Global trafficking of young girls is evil. George W. Bush spoke about this throughout his presidency and took active steps to combat it. Barack Obama does not bother to wax poetic about the subject, since there are no electoral votes at stake. Once again, George W. Bush is the feminist hero on this one.

Where do I start?

1. I love the "Westerner who has never been overseas and all knowledge of Muslims comes from Fox News" interpretation of "Muslim Nations". From what I have heard from people who have actually been there, it isn't the hell-hole as portrayed by western media. I'm not saying this stuff doesn't happen and I'm not saying there aren't problems, but women over there aren't THAT oppressed or weak and helpless as we are lead to believe. How come no one blames Christianity for all the women abused in the United States?
2.  "George W. Bush is a feminist hero..." Wow, just wow. 
1. If by "freeing them", you mean "kill hundreds of thousands of them", then yes, he freed them. According to the Gender Inequality Index, Afghanistan ranks in the bottom 10 countries. Wow, that invasion really helped.
2. This feminist hero withdrew American support from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), an organization whose mission is to create "a world where every pregnancy is wanted, every birth is safe, every young person's potential is fulfilled" through access to birth control, because of some rumors that the funds would support China's forced abortion policies. Abortion AND China? That's a twofer!
3. Bush really seemed to be buddies with the same nations you deplore for their inhumane treatment of women, *cough* Pakistan.
3.  "Barack Obama is a zero for leaving women in Syria to get murdered for sport." I guess our intervention in Libya never happened...
4. "Global trafficking of young girls is evil. George W. Bush spoke about this throughout his presidency and took active steps to combat it. Barack Obama does not bother to wax poetic about the subject, since there are no electoral votes at stake. Once again, George W. Bush is the feminist hero on this one." Um, Obama has come out against global trafficking and is developing a plan as mentioned here, here, and here. To be fair, those stories were published after this article. So here are articles before this was written here, here, here, and here. Although I think Obama and his policies are better for women, he's no saint either. His administration refuses to admit that drones are killing civilians, even though they are.

I can't even bring myself to address the other numbered points he brings up, but I think I will partially address #5.

• Any woman who spends one minute of her life harping on my lighthearted column admiring female beauty should be forced to live in Saudi Arabia for one month to be given a reality check on what misogyny really is... So to the radical feminists out there, start focusing on what actually matters.

This is by far the easiest way to feign moral superiority and ignore talking about the problem, by pretending to care about "the real issues" in the world and relegating anything under it as 'not important'. And yes, I am VERY guilty of using this technique. Looking back, I can now see how idiotic such statements are. Don't pretend to care more about something when it's barley a concern in your mind and you have not done a single God-damn thing to help in any way. This is one of the biggest asshole statements to make, especially from a man who refers to women as Yummy Bouncies. He doesn't care about the women being stoned or murdered or raped. He is using them to dodge a discussion and make himself look good. Anyone who does this is an asshole, including myself.

You might note a hint of irony in this. Or maybe a better term may be hypocrisy. I complain about a guy who receives criticism from "a nobody" and then puts in more time attacking them than they claim they are worth. Here's a nobody in my opinion, and I've written a post a thousand words longer than his. Well, we all have an opinion to share.