When I first saw the new Pepsi logo, I thought the bottle came from another country where the logos are sometimes different.
It wasn't.
But then there was something else that the new logo reminded me of.
Barack Obama's logo.
Granted, the pepsi logo is just a twist on its classic logo, that has evolved plenty over the years. And the positioning of the red, white, and blue is different in Obama's and Pepsi's.
So did Obama copy Pepsi, or did Pepsi decide to captitalize on the Obama logo's popularity and change its own logo to evoke similar feelings?
I'm not exactly sure what it means to be qualified for office. It seems this issue was raised during this presidential election in reference to Obama and Palin. Palin was dogged mercilessly about her lack of policy knowledge and of the world in general. She didn't grant interviews or engage in press conferences. When she did interviews, she came off as glib and uninformed.
Enter Caroline Kennedy, of all the Kennedys she has made it a lifetime habit of being a recluse and eschewing politics. Now she wants to be a New York senator. Who is she, what does she know? Do her name, fundraising acumen and Obama affiliation qualify her for this position?
I see no difference between Palin and Kennedy, in what is known of them in the public sphere. The difference I see is the leeway the press has given to Kennedy, who has made gaffes, and has extremely noticable verbal tics.
I do not know what to make of this egregious one-sidedness. Maybe it's a liberal/conservative thing or a Northeastern/Midwestern thing, it just seems odd that it's so apparent.
I had a text conversation about Citibank and the Auto industry and it went something like this
Me: Do u agree w/ what they're doing for citi? Him: I'm not sure .. it is one of the three major banks nationwide and they're international so I guess if they let them fail it would do more harm than good. Him: They also said they wanted to regain the confidence of investors. Me: Do u think it's a slap in the face of the car companies? They're international too. Me: Lol that's a joke ... Him: Practically speaking. Him: Two different industries ... lol u think it's funny Me: I'd be mad if I were the auto execs I mean everybody is seeing the gov't as one big free for all for ppl that don't deserve it. Me: Citi was reckless enough to gamble themselves into this situation, car companies, same thing. Who is more important? Me: Everybody getting bailed out what's to stop me as a tax payer that lives in a house I can affored and pays my mortgage on time to just stop paying it?
Conversation ended
My bottom line is this: $1 trillion for the financial industry pales in comparison to $36 billion for the auto industry. I did not believe in the bailout, on top of that the banks are not lending or spending the money that they have gotten, so the markets are still frozen.
What I think is odd is that even after an initial injection, Citi needed more money, the execs made telephone calls from the comfort of their Manhattan headquarters and got the financial assurances that they requested.
Compare this to the dog and pony show that Congress is making the car company executives put on to effectively turn them down for the loan.
I have just one question, what is the amount of contracts that the government has entered into with the big three for SUVs?
