Your Politics =/= My Twinkies

I’m back from a 2 week hiatus, and I has a sad.

Sad because Target took undershirts or razor blades off sale?

I’ve been listening to “Whatever and Ever Amen” on a loop. Watching every breakup movie I can think of. I would dive into comfort food, but APPARENTLY WE CAN’T HAVE NICE THINGS. 

Hey, people from Philly. This shit is gross. (via)

 No, I’m not recently dumped. I’m attempting to move past the sudden and crushing loss of Twinkies, Cup Cakes, and the little Devil’s Food Donettes I like, even though I know they’re horrible for me. The closure of Hostess Brands means a lot to a lot of people. The most obvious and real cost is approximately 18,500 people losing their jobs due to the company closing their doors. Obviously, any job loss of that scale is disheartening, at best. Not nearly as disheartening, however, as the attempt to politicize the closure of an American institution. (For those who may chuckle at throwing the word “institution” around like so much confetti, did you SEE some of the supermarket photos posted online on Friday or this morning?)

Insert lazy fat joke here. (via)

So thus far, I’ve read people attempt to blame this entirely on the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM), as if Hostess Brands was an earmark of how a successful business should be run. While I personally believe the “union” in its current incarnation is outdated, to lay all the blame at these people’s feet is absolutely ridiculous. Hostess Brands already had one bankruptcy under its belt (2004), and were asking union workers to make concessions for the second time in eight years. The union workers certainly were not responsible for the $860 million in debt listed at the time of Hostess Brands’ second bankruptcy filing, but they were being asked to take hits to their pay, pensions, and benefits…again. This while Hostess Brands’ upper management attempted to gift themselves with 7-figure bonuses in 2011 before they were called on the carpet and cut 4 highly-salaried members of their board down to a $1-per-year salary to placate furious employees.

However, by and large, they’re supposed to sit and take it because “you should be lucky to have a job”. But when does it end? These workers had already taken one hit, and were being asked to take another. If they agreed, what’s stopping Hostess from asking them to take further cuts down the road? When is it acceptable to stand up for yourself?

(I also accidentally typed “by and lard” originally instead of “by and large”. Freudian slip?)  

Another valid question brought up by a long-time family friend is “How does any (junk-food) company affiliated with the largest grocery distributor in the country, in an increasingly obese society, go under?” I don’t have an answer for this. I’ve been to Wal-Mart on pretty much any day of the week, at any time of the month, at any time of the year, and I’m sure most reading this have as well. The irony of obese people being malnourished is another story for another time, but looking into most any cart you walk by tells me it’s safe to say that we can’t hold Twinkies as the sole culprit of our fattification. (Made them shits up. Feel free to steal.)

(via youmoron.org)

Bottom line: Even though I’ve held a serious grudge since I found out they stopped making Chocodiles, the closure of Hostess sucks. Your politics aren’t helping.

Late edit: And now this is all officially a moot point.

@johnathanrush