Wednesday, November 11, 2015

On Why The Presidency Is Better Served When There Is No First Lady

Over on my other blog, Contra O'Reilly I made a funny when I asked who the greatest First Lady ever was... and answered that for me, it's a tie between Mrs. Buchanan and Mrs. Jefferson.

The joke being the fact that Martha Jefferson died 12 years before husband Thomas became president and that James Buchanan was a confirmed bachelor. Ha ha ha ha. Good one, right?

In any case, the take away here is that the best First Lady is NO First Lady. Which is why I say the position should be eliminated. At the least Congress should pass some legislation that says a First Lady can do nothing. I mean, this is NOT an elected position, right? So why the hell is the First Lady able to do anything, let alone EXPECTED to do things?

Do we really need some dumb bitch telling our kids that they should "just say no" to drugs or that they should exercise more? What a colossal waste of taxpayer money, I say! Leave the child-rearing to the parents and cut out the nanny state BS. Or "mommy state" (when it comes to the First ladies, apparently).

Presidenting should be for men only and the ladies should be prevented from doing anything when their husbands are the ones elected. But that's just my opinion. Call me old fashioned if you like.

Another reason (as if one were needed) not to vote for that liar Hillary!

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of being old fashioned. LLIN-187.

Monday, November 2, 2015

On Why I Believe Walmart Should Decuple The Salary Of Their CEO (Multiply It By Ten)

It's due to the fact that the CEO of Walmart could Work for NOTHING and even if you distributed his entire forfeited salary to the employees it would only come out to about $15 per person PER YEAR.

So why not give the dude a raise? Even if Walmart were to decuple his salary that would only work out to about $150 per employee per year. Surely the skinflint owners of Walmart (The Billionaire children of Sam Walton) can afford to bump up their CEO's salary by a factor of ten? Heck, they could multiply his salary by a thousand and it wouldn't be a big deal.

That's why I don't get too upset about this whole "CEO to worker ratio growing" talking point (the fact that it's an essentially symbolic issue, lacks perspective, etc.) and would much prefer a more substantive analysis concerning why many of our CEOs are so woefully underpaid.

Byline: This insightful commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Champion of our underpaid CEOs. LLIN-186.