In the Capitalist system, people’s images can become a commercial commodity with relative ease. Most of these images are trademarked by the company utilizing them to prevent unauthorized or improper use excepting parodies covered by the first amendment. However, what happens when the figures being used are not the product of an advertising think tank, but historical figures who are a part of the shared heritage of the nation? Consider the following advertisement:

Maybe it’s just me, but I can’t help but find the image of deceased American presidents dancing in order to sell furniture insulting. What do you think? Should there be regulations or trademarks in place to protect the dignity of our founding fathers and other historical figures, or would steps of that nature taken either by the government or private historical groups end up restricting free speech? Sound off in the comments!

Yes, I got the fart joke out of the way in the title. If you live in some kind of void outside of time and space, you might not be aware that Donald Trump has a penchant for the dramatic and overblown. If you want to anger a disciple of Ayn Rand, just point to Donald Trump and ask if he represents her ideal of the wealthy master race with actions such as the following:

Not long after anointing Mitt Romney with his endorsement, Trump decided it was time to do some un-endorsing as well. His target: Scotland. Now, I’ve seen Braveheart and Rob Roy, so I know how messing with the Scottish usually ends up. Trump seems to have missed those films, because he has decided to blackmail the Scots, threatening not to build a golf course and resort there if they go through with plans to use offshore turbines for power generation.

But his campaign isn’t about making his coastal golf course more appealing – Trump insists it’s actually about “saving Scotland” and its environment.” You know what? Don’t worry about commenting if you believe that one. Instead, go ahead and email me – I own a certain bridge in London and I’m looking to sell.

Fresh from announcing plans to remove American troops from combat roles in Afghanistan to placate his liberal support base, Obama’s administration is ratcheting up the rhetoric against Iran. Is it because Israel plans to attack soon? An act of posturing and brinksmanship? Or because the President needs to get three in a row to win a surreal game of foreign intervention tic-tac-toe?

Well, according to Obama administration officials, it’s because the Iranians are not imprisoning alleged Al Qaeda militants well enough. Which, by their bizarre logic, means that they are in league with Al Qaeda. “Change we can believe in” has turned back into “You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists.”

Has Obama pulled troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan so he can plunge the nation into a new war? Will he be able to resist foreign influence from Israel if they ask for American intervention? And, most importantly, doesn’t the allegation of a Mid-East nation maybe harboring terrorists and possibly wanting weapons of mass destruction sound terribly familiar? Sound off in the comments!

To start off with, I’m by no means a Republican. I was in the streets with a sign during the Bush years so much that I really did start to think that pepper spray was an every day food product. I spoke out against every policy Bush put forth until he announced his going back to Texas policy of 2009. That’s why, after the let down of the Obama candidacy and the continued economic collapse, I was surprised to find myself gravitating towards Ron Paul.

One thing anyone can respect about Ron Paul regardless of where they are on Rossiter’s spectrum is his stubborn devotion to integrity and consistency. An example: Ron Paul is against both gay marriage and abortion. No surprise there, these are among the pet issues of the American right. But Paul’s treatment of the issue is different. When he says abortion or gay marriage should be left up to the states, it’s not because he wants to dodge the question, it’s because he really believes that, and has voted as such before.
Read more

One of the great things about a primary is the blatant pandering. Yesterday, Gingrich literally promised Florida voters the moon. Today, Romney is offering them Cuba. Granted, there is a good segment of Floridian voters who have made it absolutely clear that they don’t want Cuba through, you know, leaving Cuba and coming here. However, Romney figures they can have Cuba back all to themselves if his plan comes to fruition.

Romney’s ingenious policy? Wait for the Castro brothers to die. That’s literally the height of his creativity. Granted, this has been the policy of the United States since President Castro kicked out our sugar plantations and fruit companies for essentially using the islands rural populace as slave labor, but it’s bound to work eventually! Romney went on to claim that Obama’s policy, which he dubbed appeasement, of letting Cubans visit their relatives in Cuba and send them money for food has, somehow, helped President Raul Castro stay in power.
Read more

Welcome to Jarret Herrmann, a new contributor to PD!

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, campaigning in Florida detailed his plans to, among other things, colonize the moon and declare the celestial body the 51st state after building, and I believe this is the exact quote, “a sweet-awesome moon fort”. He then challenged the other candidates in the Florida debate by boldly declaring “Everything but the podium is lava.”

In all seriousness, this is a needless provocation towards another space race with infinitely higher stakes at a time when the U.S. can absolutely not afford to fund such an outlandish competition. Could we make it to the moon, and have a sustainable colony there by 2020? Absolutely! If we work together with our allies and, I’m not afraid to suggest this as a Socialist, share. Yes, it might seem tempting to point up at the sky and declare “Dibs” but it’s both childish and insane.
Read more