Decision 2016: The Drinking Game

It's just about settled. The 2016 general election will be Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton. Talk about being stuck between a douce and a turd sandwich.

To wipe away that dirty feeling you'll have on election day, I've devised a Decision 2016 drinking game. The rules:

Divide all participants into two equal teams. One team is Team Trump. The other is Team Clinton. Each candidate has a list of foolish but likely actions, with a shot value assigned to each. On election day, after both teams have cast their votes, they will gather together and do the number of shots their candidate accrued.

Who wins?... It doesn't really matter. Just like the real election.

Team Trump:

- Promises to build a wall to protect America from Puerto Rico. (1 shot)

- Refers to German Chancellor Angela Merkel as a 'that old Kraut Broad.' (2 shots)

- Softens his stance on immigration by proposing a new, streamlined path to permanent residency for hot chicks. (3 shots)

- Announces his goal for the first 100 days: Breaking ground on Yosemite National Golf Club and Resort. (4 shots)

- Admits his hair is actually an ectoparastic fungus. (5 shots)



Team Clinton:

- Does several Rust Belt appearances in a Carhartt jacket with the price tag still hanging out. (1 shot)

- In order to associate herself with popular Democratic administration, she has an affair with Bill Clinton. (2 shots)

- The FBI investigation of her private servers clears her of wrongdoing as Secretary of State, but strongly implicates her in the Kennedy Assassination. (3 shots)

- Tries to sound like a tough, calculating executive by quoting The Art of the Deal by Donald J. Trump. (4 shots)

- For her running mate, she seeks a bold female voice who can balance the ticket in blue-collar swing states. Ends up with Sarah Palin. (5 shots)

Predicting the Next Music Legend to Die in 2016

David Bowie, Glenn Frey, Merle Haggard, and now Prince.

With 2016 still young, the odds are great that another music legend will die in this year. But who?

Lesser music figures die all the time. 2016 has seen the passings of minor luminaries such as Phife Dawg and Frank Sinatra, Jr. It's not unusual.

What makes this year different is the concentration of major artists who have passed on. With that in mind, here are the criteria I've used to guess the next earth-shaking demise:

1) Must be a household name

No obscure jazz men. No well-regarded, low-profile producers. No old-school rappers who no one outside the South Bronx ever heard.

I'm only looking at Legitimate Superstars. It's OK if they've been out of the limelight for a while. If they once ruled the world, I've considered them.

2) Must have a resolved legacy

The notably deceased of 2016 left no questions about their place in history. David Bowie and Prince are influences cited by almost everyone in pop music today. The Eagles' Their Greatest Hits (1971-1975) has gone 29x platinum. Glenn Frey has songwriting credits on seven of the ten tracks. It's de riguer for contemporary country singers to name-drop the Hag on almost every album. These guys had nothing left to prove.

I'm limiting the field to artists at least a decade past their commercial prime. Rest easy Katy Perry, you won't be resting in peace.

3) Must have nothing to gain from dying

This precludes fading pop stars who either never reached, or couldn't sustain their place at the top of their craft. For them, death could be their best career move.

I once suggested that Justin Bieber should go this route. To his credit, he made me look foolish by dropping a Number 1 album. At this point, I'm not sure Lady Gaga can do the same...

Considering all this, my prediction is: 

Chuck Berry.

Everyone knows Johnny B. Goode, Maybellene, No Particular Place to Go, etc. His position in Rock and Roll history is ironclad. He's also pushing 90. If he died now, it wouldn't be overly tragic.

Election 2016: Amaze/Piss Off Your Friends With These Fun New Third Reich Comparisons

I'm tired of the Internet rhetoric surrounding the 2016 Presidential election. In particular, it's become a reflex for people to label a candidate they oppose as 'the next Hitler.' There's even a book about it.

It's lazy, historically ignorant, and trivializes the real suffering the Nazi regime inflicted on the world.

But if you must go that route, you may as well keep it fresh. For each of the remaining candidates, I've chosen a figure of the Third Reich who better illustrates why you think he/she is evil. It's about time somebody elevated the 'dialogue.' Have fun!


Hillary Clinton

Best compares to...

Albert Speer, Minister of Armaments and War Production.

Speer's primary responsibility was the industrial logistics of the Nazi war machine. This role involved him in every major military and political initiative, including the Holocaust and war crimes against civilians in occupied territories.

After the war, he downplayed his culpability, and only served 20 years in prison before retiring on the proceeds of his best-selling memoirs. He even enjoyed a fraudulent reputation as 'the Good Nazi.'

Hillary Clinton's political life is defined by scandals (Whitewater), tragic embarrassments (Benghazi), or pragmatic decisions that became liabilities (supporting the invasion of Iraq in 2003). Like Speer, she has spent her time out of office trying to forget or at least ignore her past.


Bernie Sanders

Best compares to...

Heinrich Himmler, Reichsführer-SS

As leader of the SS, Himmler was second only to Hitler in the chain of command which directly organized the death camps. Criminal organizations under him included the Gestapo, the Einsatzgruppen, and the SD amongst others.

In other words, he was a big government guy, who pursued a sweeping ideological agenda regardless of its practicality. Particular areas of interest were racial issues, police reform, and wresting control of the nation from big business... Wait, am I still talking about Himmler?

Bernie's platform is a little different in the specifics, but he thinks about the role of government in a similar way.

Furthermore, they share a talent for populist mobilizing. The signature elements of the Sanders campaign are its small donors and aggressive grassroots work. Similarly, Himmler's recruiting was critical in filling the ranks of the SS, turning it from a small party organ, to a pervasive force in German society.


Donald Trump

Best compares to...

Hermann Göring, Reichsmarschall

Göring was blustering, ostentatious, and militant. Less ideological than many of his colleagues, he would do or say just about anything to further his position within the Reich. Aside from the trucker cap, his political persona was not that different from Donald Trump's.

Like Trump, Göring was not taken seriously in political or military circles. His crass personal style and limited experience proved off-putting to diplomats, soldiers, and many senior Nazis.

Göring's fortunes rose and fell with his primary command, the Luftwaffe. From 1939-1940, smashing victories solidified his position within the Reich. As the war progressed, he proved incapable of the complex strategic and operational functions of his command. This was a major factor is the Wehrmacht's defeat, as well as his fall from favor.

A similar arc befell Donald Trump's Atlantic City casinos. Once among the great American gambling outfits, years of poor management and declining revenue forced him to sell the business. Today, the Trump Taj Mahal and Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino are both closed.


Ted Cruz 

Best compares to...

Alfred Rosenberg, Reichsminister (various functions)

Rosenberg was a severe, ideological purist whose 1930 book The Myth of the 20th Century provided the formal outline of Nazi racial theory. His uncharismatic, 'intellectual' demeanor kept him out of public view and confined to relatively minor offices.

Similarly, Ted Cruz may be the most forgettable personality in this race. He brands himself as a pure conservative; so much so as to alienate many fellow Republicans.

Rosenberg ideas were also controversial within his party. Hitler thought little of 20th Century, as did Goebbels and Göring. Like Ted Cruz, he was most valuable for his aggressive rhetoric.


John Kasich

Best compares to...

Paul von Hindenburg, President of Germany (1925-1934)

Hindenburg was a conservative monarchist, not a Nazi. In 1932, he ran for reelection as President despite his age and poor health. His only purpose was to oppose Adolf Hitler.

Despite his intentions, he was too sick and feeble to resist the Nazi's growing influence. His last year in office was spent rubber-stamping Hitler's consolidation of power. Nonetheless, he served to delay some of the party's most virulent anti-semitic reforms.

In this way, John Kasich is a well-meaning, respected moderate with little role besides speed bump in the rise of an electrifying rabble-rouser.