Don’t Tase My Pumpkin, Bro! (Or, You Look Like a Man-O-Lantern)

I haven’t posted a trip to the Drew Friedmanizer in a long time, but this morning’s scroll through the Wall Street Journal was too tempting:


The accompanying article is about Boulder, CO’s annual naked pumpkin run. It’s a 4-block streak in a city famed for its laid-back, hippyish culture. Apparently, it’s gotten so popular that the police are out to crush it and ruin its participants lives:

[Police Chief Mark Beckner] will station more than 40 officers on the traditional four-block route tonight, with two SWAT teams patrolling nearby. All have orders to arrest gourd-topped streakers as sex offenders.

That’s right! He’ll need two SWAT teams in place, in case a group of people without clothes are armed and dangerous! Way to escalate a situation and just about guarantee violence, you fucking moron! Still, the law’s the law, right? Um . . .

Casting about for a law to apply, since nudity per se is not illegal, police hit upon the state’s indecent exposure statute, which makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor for anyone to knowingly expose his or her genitals in circumstances “likely to cause affront or alarm.”

Given that the Naked Pumpkin Run starts at 11 p.m., long after young trick-or-treaters have retired, and given that the route is packed with fans who come out specifically to see the event, runners argue that it’s absurd to think their prank is causing either affront or alarm.

Even if the run does catch a few people by surprise, “the joy it brings overall far outweighs the one or two people who could be offended,” says Callie Webster, who is 22 and a veteran pumpkinhead.

Police acknowledge they have not been flooded with pumpkin-run-related complaints, but say that’s beside the point. A throng of naked people with jack-o-lanterns on their heads is, by definition, an alarming sight, Chief Beckner says. Therefore, it’s illegal.

Keep reading for more of police chief’s bullshit attitude, which even the mayor and the D.A. find to be over the top. Go, Pumpkinheads!

Full circle!

I’ve long goofed that the Wall Street Journal’s standard headshot drawings look like they’ve been put through The Drew Friedmanizer. Today, the WSJ has a headshot by none other than. . . Drew Friedman!

That sad part of my “Drew Friedmanizer” reference is that Mr. Friedman hasn’t used his pointillist drawing style for more than a decade. But far be it from me to develop new material!

Anyway, the article is an interview with AT&T CEO Ralph de la Vega about his view of the future of wireless (centered on the iPhone, of course).

Soft side successfully deployed, sir!

Now that Obama has crossed the delegate finish-line for the Democratic nomination . . . it’s time for the finger-pointing! Today’s WSJ has a fun article that details the mismanagement, backbiting and strategic idiocy of the Clinton campaign.

For a while now, I’ve been marveling over the Clinton camp’s contention that the Obama has had a free ride, what with his, um, being, half-black and having middle and last names that are markedly similar to those of America’s recent public enemies #1a and #1b.

Even more audacious, I thought, was the complaint that sexism was holding Sen. Clinton back. This was utter BS, as the candidate actually benefited from the lowered expectations the public has for women. Think back to the days before the New Hampshire primary in January, when Sen. Clinton cried on camera. It’s clear to me that if a male candidate had done such a thing, he’d be laughed off the campaign trail as a weakling (I deleted several much harsher terms before settling on that one).

(Oh, and her crying-jag lament of, “I have so many opportunities for this country. I just don’t want to see us fall backwards,” struck me as a really chilling choice of words.)

The WSJ article is a hoot, because it explores what a mixed-up organization Sen. Clinton assembled, in concert with her lack of understanding of the nomination process. One of my favorite lines was about the campaign’s chief strategist, Mark Penn (dutifully put through the Drew Friedmanizer, below):

Critics’ bigger complaint was that from the campaign’s start Mr. Penn had been its only pollster. Other campaigns typically use many pollsters to provide alternative views; Sen. Obama has had up to four. Ms. Solis Doyle says that throughout 2006 and 2007, she urged Sen. Clinton to add more. Sen. Clinton told advisers Mr. Penn is “brilliant,” and multiple pollsters would slow consensus on strategy.

But top aides chafed that Mr. Penn used his control of “the numbers” to win most disagreements. “He could go straight to the [former] president of the United States, who in turn got to Hillary,” says a senior strategist. “After a while, people just shrugged their shoulders and said, ‘Hey, look, this is how she wants her campaign run.'”

Mr. Penn defends his polling analyses, and counters that others were responsible for budgets and field operations. “The misleading thing here is, the title of chief strategist connotes that I was in charge of things,” he said. “It was a much more complex structure than any title connotes.”

Anyway, congrats are in order to Sen. Obama and his campaign. As Eddie Griffin recently put it (according to Page 6), “Barack Obama is about to get the Democratic nomination. It’ll be the first time in history that a black man beat a white woman and didn’t go to jail for it.”

Beer-goggling at the WSJ

Last November, I wrote about how the Wall Street Journal’s infamous headshot illo-style — which I like to call The Drew Friedmanizer — had a vested interest in, well, portraying Hilary Clinton a bit unflatteringly:

Nowadays, I think they’re more concerned about derailing Sen. Obama’s campaign. Why, in today’s article about how both Democratic candidates are pandering sacks of shit reframing their messages on free trade as they campaign in Indiana and North Carolina, Sen. Clinton has been transformed:

Maybe she visited Glamour Shots by Deb.

(I like the carefully placed flag pin, although I think giving her a pearl necklace is a bit cruel.)