An Open Letter to John Brennan: Don’t Drone Me, Bro!

DontDroneMeBro1

Wuttup player,

No need for introductions bro, I’ve been following your work. I know people give you shit for shifting U.S. counter-terrorism policy to “targeted, surgical pressure” on militant groups intent on attacking the homeland but whatever, people give us shit for our fratting policy of “targeted, surgical pressure” on slampieces. Fuck it, you do you.

Yeah there’s some shit I’m not cool with, like you supporting George W. Bush’s “enhanced interrogation” policies (shit’s messed up bro), but let’s pretend we both got hammered and blacked out for 4 years.

So let’s not drone on about the past (hardcore wit, right bro?); what I want to talk about are drone strikes. Now, let me just start this off by saying that I am not chill with the killing of innocent civilians in a any country, that shit cray and deeply unsettling. That being said, there are legitimate arguments on both sides of the debate that I think people give you undeserved shit for.

It’s kind of like a 21st-century “big stick” policy, but in this case we’re using swagged out death robots and not sticks. But again, whatever, I’m not here to discuss the civilian implications of targeted strikes vs. the realities of the world we live.

But seriously bro, what’s up not openly discussing the legality of the drone campaign you yourself pioneered? A HuffPost/YouGov survey found that 59 percent of Americans say they approve of the Obama administration using drones, only 18 percent disapprove. It makes sense, no one wants to think about war and if there’s a way to target high-level Al Qaeda officials without putting troops on the ground why the hell not?

What I’m here to talk about is transparency. How are you going to front on the American people like this and not provide a sound legal justification and public framework for targeted killings of American citizens?

I don’t come to your house, slam your wife and just say, “sorry bro, love is a battlefield and your wife posed an imminent threat to this D,” so how are you going to get up in my face and throw some punk-ass erroneous legal document in my face like you’re at an And1 Mixtape tour.

You’re acting like some slut who’s banged every guy in a frat and goes home to see her parents and tells them she’s a virgin. Like, are you serious? Everyone knows you do it bro, just come out with it and make this shit legit.

I do believe that drone strikes can be an effective counter-terrorism strategy, at least in the short term. But you need to put them in a context where human intelligence, diplomacy and trade are considered equally and fairly. Drones should be a last resort. You can’t just kill any bro with an Ak47 in the desert, nah mean?

So at the very least create some oversight process and clarification. How about for starters, more clearly define who qualifies for targeting? Right now all you’re saying is a “senior, operational figure” in Al Qaeda. It’s almost begging for some bureaucratic bitch to come in and err on the side of drone strike, without an appropriate cost-benefit analysis.

And bro, go public about the justification for each strike. There needs to be some process to justify assassinations to ensure every other option has been considered equally.

Finally, create a minimum oversight process to ensure that strikes face some kind of approval by outsider parties, whether in the form of a panel of judges, congressional committee or whatever makes sense. Just do it.

Our frat prides itself on openness and transparency. Our rush process is totally inclusive; our parties are open to any bro or slampiece that wants a taste of our swag; our frat holds weekly informative meetings for pledges. But there’s a lot of shit we keep to ourselves to avoid other frats copping our style or the University administration cracking down on our swag.

So I get it, drone strikes are a sensitive defense issue; I’m not saying to put every drone strike to a vote in congress. And I also understand, at least, the rationale behind drones as a counter-terrorism tool.

But bro, just be open about it and give the American people a chance to review the policy and process; we’re not going to put up with this shit for much longer.

Sincerely,

A concerned, pragmatic bro

Obama to Congress: Hit This and Let’s Fix Immigration, Brochachos

"Be chill, bro."

                                                                                   “Be chill, bro.”

I’ve always known my boy Brobama was chill as fuck. Shit, during his Choom Gang days bro puffed that herb like it was his obligation as an American citizen. Which, being from Hawaii (the chillest of states), it was.

But Congress is like that nerd GDI in your Calculus class; you need him to do shit for you so you can mack on bitches all day, but you fuckin’ hate him because he acts like a little bitch and can’t bench-press his own bodyweight. Apparently though, that little bitch got a hold of some bud and offered up a hit to our Commander-in-Cheef in the form of a bi-partisan immigration reform proposal.

Yeah bro, you heard me right: bi-partisan. Whatever the reason, it seems that a political center is finally showing signs of coalescing around immigration reform, an issue that has for decades fractured our political landscape more than bros on opposite ends of the beer-pong table.

The “legislative pillars” of the Senate’s proposal include a “tough but fair” path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants that are already here (contingent on improved immigration and border enforcement), a requirement that employers verify their employees have legal-work status, allow foreigners who study science, math, engineering or manufacturing to remain in the country post-graduation, and make it easier for businesses to hire foreigners as temporary workers for low-skill jobs.

There are arguments for and against the framework, but basically it’s like being handed a filthy bong packed with ditch weed from Mexico (ironic, I know): you’d hit it because it addresses flaws inherent in our existing system, but it honestly tastes like shit and lacks a certain human element.

In response to the proposal, Baracka Flocka went to Vegas and gave a rousing speech, saying that the Senate proposal was “very much in line” with principles proposed by the White House.

Or in other words, “bro you got a light? Let’s hit this shit and finally relieve the millions of undocumented immigrants languishing under our draconian immigration system.”

In his speech President Obama rejected the enforcement trigger demanded by Republicans, and includes provisions that allow permanent residents to sponsor visas for a same-sex partner, in addition to other progressive recommendations. Mainly though, the architecture of both proposals are remarkably similar; a rarity in our era of hyper-partisanship.

Political implications aside, we can all agree that without reform to our immigration system, we will degrade the moral fabric that binds us together as Americans, and continue reject the world’s brightest individuals from contributing to American enterprise and investment.

Will these reforms truly fix our broken immigration system? Probably not. Will they solve the GOP’s political quagmire of courting Hispanic voters? Definitely not.

But it’s a start, and that’s a good place to be. Now let’s get high and pick up bitches in Cancun. Mexico’s the shit.

Barack Obama’s 2013 Inauguration Speech, Dissected for Bros

obama-funny-smile

On January 21st, Barack Obama gave what could accurately be described as giant bitchslap to the GOP; an inauguration speech so boldly progressive that he might as well have taken out a paddle and told John Boehner to bend over right then and there.

Like, seriously bro, who is this guy? Struttin’ up on stage like he just banged an entire sorority in one night. Which he probably did, the man’s swag is off the radar right now, bro.

But a lot of my less politically inclined bros seem to have missed the message so I’m going to break down the most swagged out parts of the inauguration speech real quick, and what it means for Bro-bama’s second term.

First-term Obama was kind of a little bitch. I’m hesitant to use the term “little-bitch,” because he did get some shit done, but let’s be honest. Bro rolled up into Washington like the NIB he was thinking that “post-partisanship” was a reasonable goal.  Post-partisanship is probably as achievable as hooking up at a sober mixer. It just doesn’t work like that and Republicans pounced on the chance to haze the fuck out of him.

Second-term Obama seems to have learned his lesson and wore his Liberal ideology on his sleeve like a bro wears his letters. We got a “fuck-you” to the 1% and a “wuttup bro” to the middle class. We got a Stonewall name-drop and a passionate defense of LGBT-rights. Shit, we even got a full 8-sentences on climate change, the most of any other specific policy area. Liberals eat that shit up like bros eat burritos after a fat blunt.

Next Obama dropped a reference to a theme Paul Ryan was slamming throughout the presidential campaign. Obama was all like, “[social programs] do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great,” but what he really meant was “Yo Paul Ryan, come at me bro.”

Obama was all about progress in the speech, laying out a progressive vision for America that was pragmatic, well thought out, and most notably, bold as shit. Obama came to the speech with the confidence of a bro who just maxed out at 300 on the bench press, and left swollen as fuck.

And it’s showing in his approaches to negotiating with Congress as well. We saw an aggressive Obama during the fiscal cliff debacle and a full-scale effort to be forceful on gun violence. And we’re only one week in.

So yeah bros, I know a shit ton of you are conservative business school students who probably don’t agree whatsoever with Obama’s policy choices. But you gotta admit that man has swag, and you can’t fault him for that. Here’s to four more years. 

Sen. McConnell: It’s Not the Fiscal Cliff, You Want to Bone the Democrats

Image

Alright McConnell, we’ve had enough of this. With less than a day to go, fiscal cliff negotiations aimed at avoiding massive tax increases and huge spending cuts have reached a standstill. Yup, it seems like our country is about to take a dive into the fiscal unknown. Big surprise, right?

C’mon Mitch, all of this fighting and bickering is getting ridiculous. I know you have to appeal to you party’s base, and yeah keeping your job is important (especially in this broken economy) but we can all see through this shit to the real root of the problem: you just want to bone the Democratic caucus.

How can we tell? Well Sen. Mitch McConnell is going on the senate floor saying bullshit like he’s willing to deal but, “[he] needs a dance partner.” Bro, if you want someone to dance with just sneak up behind them and start grinding on them. Works every time. Plus, you sound desperate and lonely.

Next, you called Joe Biden into the negotiating process. Bro, Joe Biden is Chief Executive of Slamming Bitches. The man can walk into a meeting with the Congressional Female Caucus and have them naked and drunk in minutes. Clearly you’re looking to get down and dirty.

Listen Mitch, I know from experience: there’s nothing more difficult for a stone-cold bro then revealing his feelings. That’s why we only talk to bitches when we’re trashed (also sororstitutes are annoying as fuck when they’re sober). But when there’s a chick that we just can’t shake we always man up, buy flowers or some shit like that and say, “listen bitch, come over and let’s get fiscal.”

So cut the bullshit, McConnell. You know as well as anyone going over the fiscal cliff is a political win for President Obama. One way or another Brobama is getting the tax increases he wants, almost half of the spending cuts come from defense (red meat for the Democrat’s base) and national polling indicates that a majority of Americans will blame the Republican Party if a deal isn’t reached.

Bro you can go up on the Senate floor and say the Democrat’s proposals are inadequate and don’t address the root causes of our out of control spending on entitlement programs, and you do have a point. President Obama has put significant spending cuts on the table in return for increased revenues and that’s fine, but until we achieve meaningful reform to entitlement programs it won’t make any difference.

But that’s a debate for a different day. At this point a deal will most likely come in the form of a stopgap measure to avert fiscal ruin, passing the issue off to the end of February when we’re sure to see a political battle over the debt ceiling.

So basically, Mitch McConnel needs to concede to Obama’s calls for higher taxes, extend tax cuts for the middle class and just come out and say he wants the Democrat’s caucus (read: the man wants the big D). Otherwise the financial ruin caused by political gridlock over the fiscal cliff is only just the beginning of the end.

Right-to-Party Is Bad for Frats, Right-to-Work Is Bad for Everyone

beastie-boys-fight-for-your-right-01

Woah woah woah, hold on a second. Did I just read what I think I read? Because it sounded to me like the Inter-Fraternity Council (IFC) just passed a Right to Party Bill in some kind of backdoor gimmick without any input from the Greek community.

What the fuck, bros? If you’re going to pass legislation curbing the rights of fraternities to effectively throw mad ragers at least do it to our face through the appropriate legal channels. But it makes sense; the IFC is a bunch of resume-padding hypocrites run entirely by University-backed special interest groups.

For those uninformed frat-stars out there, here’s what’s happening on University campuses and why it matters for Greek Life:

What does “right-to-party” mean?

The term refers to laws that would prohibit fraternity brothers from having a portion of their annual dues taken out to pay social events. These statutes are broadly assumed to erode the ability of fraternities to influence the campus social scene, given that brothers on the Leadership Council have a harder time collecting money to pay for all the sick shit we do daily. Like buying 15 handles of Heaven Hill vodka and force-feeding it to our mini-horse out in the yard (which it fucking loves, by the way).

Pretty soon our frat is drained of funds and unable to throw as many 90s-theme foam parties and gain the reputation needed to get the hottest sororities over at our mixers. Not okay, bro.

“Right-to-party” laws breed free riders in the Greek System

Some members in the Greek system (read: douchebags) think that having social dues as a condition of brotherhood is a form of discrimination against brothers who don’t want to party or are unable to pay the full cost.

But if you’re in a frat you’re going to party, bro. And by opting out of social dues you’re passing those costs on to the rest of the brothers. So in essence you have bros who are paying no dues yet receiving the same benefits as more responsible brothers which gives us less money and deteriorates our frat’s ability to fraternize with hot sorostitutes.

Under “right-to-party” laws, brothers reap fewer benefits from fraternity growth

One argument for right-to-party legislation is that they’ll help attract more brothers to fraternities thereby strengthening their economic vitality. This may be true, but as an adverse effect, the laws lead to less epic parties, even with the expanded base of brothers, and thus end up hurting fraternities in the long run. Plus even if there were larger frats, most of the benefits would go directly to the University administration and IFC. Frats lose, University owners win and that’s bullshit.

All of this sounds really familiar…

Right_to_Work_Michigan-0bcb8-2035

Well hopefully it does, bro. Because right-to-party is based almost entirely on right-to-work laws passed in 24 states, with Michigan becoming the most recent on Tuesday.

Right-to-work is a little trickier to analyze than right-to-party. Obviously right-to-party is bullshit for Greek life, but what impact does right-to-work have on economies that aren’t driven by pounding brews and bitches at the same time?

Here’s what we know: right-to-work legislation makes it harder for unions to accomplish their goals of improved wages and working conditions and thus weaken the middle class. Just like right-to-frat legislation reduces the influence of Greek life and weakens our chances at scoring with hot slampieces.

Are there arguments for right-to-work legislation? Sure. Do we need to reform unions to accommodate for a more globalized economy? Absolutely. But I’ll just say this:

A preponderance of labor unions builds a strong middle class through high-wages and standards, and a strong middle class builds a strong, competitive economy.

This is not a moral or political argument; it’s an economic fact. And given that the auto-industry essentially kicked off the labor movement in America let’s end with my main bro Henry Ford, who started an industrial revolution and built America’s middle-class by, shockingly, paying his workers a livable wage.

Big Henry realized that if workers don’t earn enough to spend on consumption, the middle-class weakens, inequality rises and the entire economy suffers. He said: “Paying high wages is behind the prosperity of this country.”

And as it turns out, it was. Maybe we should start listening to such a smart bro.

3 Reforms to Pledging That Responsibly Fix Immigration Policy

I pledge allegiance, to the United States of America.

I pledge allegiance, to the United States of Fuckin’ America, bro.

Our frat has been under assault recently from bitch-ass school administrators over hazing policy. I’ve heard all the arguments: “Hazing is bad because it hurts people,” “No one really wants to be hazed they just do it because you make them!”

Well shut-up, bro. Yeah, I know hazing is illegal but guess what bro? You’re not going to stop it. Freshmen want to join our frat because we’re swoll as fuck and get all the hottest slampieces; that’s a fact bro. And if that takes running through a gauntlet of paddling, sitting in ice water and elephant walks than that’s what it’s fucking going to take.

It’s kind of like how undocumented immigrants want to enter our country even though it fucking sucks; it’s because we’re the fucking best. America, fuck yeah.

But I get that hazing is illegal and even my rich lawyer dad can’t get the entire frat out of probation if we get caught. And obviously we can’t let undocumented immigrants fester in the prison of America’s broken immigration system forever. It’s not practical or humane.

So what we need is reform to our pledging process that establishes a realistic path to brotherhood for NIBs, and to our immigration policy that provides a realistic path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Here are 3 ways to reform the pledge process in a responsible way and how it can also fix our broken immigration system:

1. Ensure pledging requirements are reasonable and humane.

What does this mean? First, pledging activities for seeking brotherhood should not be so fucked up as to place a barrier to entry for new brothers to pledge.

Our frat used to make freshmen eat cereal out of a toilet. But apparently it’s inhumane and does not improve the character of our NIBs. Whatever bro. It’s funny as shit (literally) and sorostitutes love when we act like total douchebags. But it’s not very helpful for reforming our pledge system and getting chill bros, obviously.

Similarly, any immigration reform should not impose punitive and exclusionary measures that prevent undocumented persons from taking advantage of the new system. This means avoiding high fines, “touchbacks” and exclusionary requirements that impose barriers to entry for immigrants feeling the brunt of their undocumented status. Any new system needs to be strict and protect against fraud, but must also do so responsibly and in congruence with American values.

2. Identify and expedite pledging for exemplary young bros.

Priority should be given to bros who already know the game of frat life. If you’re coming out of high-school slamming Nattys like a pro and banging slampieces like it’s your job than you should be given a path to brotherhood ASAP. You’re fucking chill bro, and we dig that.

“Dreamers” should also be given an expedited path to citizenship. These are undocumented persons who entered illegally as minors in the care of parents, and who have attended college or joined the military. They are upstanding, productive members of our society and should be treated as such. Why let such outstanding young people fall away and become economic drains on our system when they have so much to contribute to the success of America?

3. Support integration and connection across all types of bros.

There’s a diverse spectrum of bros out there: stoner bros, LAX bros, and even hipster bros. Any pledge requirements should not be developed so as to exclude these bros from our frat. After all, diverse bros bring in diverse bitches, and you know we love Latin biddies just as much as your typical sorority blond sorostitute.

In the same way, immigration reform should include all families and demographics through provisions in the bill. We should not exclude women, LGBT individuals or certain races from meaningful reform. In fact, we should encourage a diverse spectrum of immigrants to ensure the continued growth and development of our society.

It’s unarguable that any immigration policy should support the integration of immigrants into the fabric of America and continues to build a more cohesive, supportive society. What’s at stake is not just the future of families and students, but the future of the American economy and our moral fabric as a people as well.

We’re already implemented changes from our end – like making our pledges drink one handle of Heaven Hill vodka instead of two (bitch move, I know). But the ball’s in your court, Congress, to get this shit done ASAP.

The Federal Government Should Puff, Puff, Pass Drug Policies to the States

Obama and the Choom Gang getting high as shit and smashing a cake

                                         Obama and the Choom Gang getting high as shit and smashing a cake

Bros fucking love to get high, but not for pussy, tree-hugging existential bullshit. No, we smoke weed to get fucked up as shit. You might think frat life is all about booze and bitches, but you’d be fucking wrong, bro. After a heavy night of raging and banging slampieces there’s nothing we love more than getting high and playing FIFA with our bros.

Which is why when weed was legalized in Colorado and Washington we threw a mad rager and pounded through a couple zips of that good kush. That shit’s a step in the right direction, bro and deserves to be celebrated.

But now the Federal Justice Department is considering plans for legal action that would undermine the voter-approved initiatives. Bro, what? We finally have real progress on ending the expensive, cruel and unnecessary War on Drugs and the Federal Government wants to come in and take that shit away? Totally not chill, bro.

First of all, Barack, come on bro. We all know you smoked mad herb in high school and college. In Dreams of My Father you even wrote that you would smoke “in a white classmate’s sparkling new van,” or “in the dorm room of some brother, “ and even “on the beach with a couple Hawaiian kids.”

And in an early sign of your policy genius, you even popularized the concept of “roof hits.” Here’s an actual quote from one of Obama’s former classmates:

“When they were chooming in a car all the windows had to be rolled up so no smoke blew out and went to waste; when the pot was gone, they tilted their heads back and sucked in the last bit of smoke from the ceiling.”

Who even does that? That’s like next level stoner shit bro, and I’m impressed as fuck.

Secondly, and arguably more important, draconian Federal drug laws place a huge burden on our economy. When we’re embroiled in a debate on how to adequately address our country’s fiscal maladies, why reject policies that could help reduce the deficit in a profound way?

One report showed that legalizing marijuana and implementing a system of taxation and regulation would save the federal government $7.7 billion a year and generate between $2.4 and $6.2 billion in additional revenue for the federal government depending on how it is taxed.

A policy that would drive huge amounts of revenue and cut spending? That’s something Congressional Republicans and the White House should light up a joint and celebrate about.

This is shit you probably already know but it stands worth repeating: Legalization of marijuana is good for society and our economy. And as we stand on the precipice of real progress towards serious, tangible drug reform, the prospect of the federal government stepping in and destroying voter-approved, constitutional policies state-by-state is a scary one indeed.

And Barack, you know we all got your back bro. Do the right thing and let the states determine their own policies. Choom Gang for Life, homie. Don’t let us down.