Why file Twinkies under "bullish"? There are actually many questions concerning the status of the Twinkie and its relatives on the Hostess family tree. Why did the company file to be liquidated today? Why couldn't the company come to an agreement with the baker's union? Why did CNBC need to go and buy Twinkies and other Hostess cake products to serve as props on the news desk shortly after CNBC anchor Becky Quick read the breaking headline about the Twinkie decision this morning on Squawk on the Street? Why did I buy a box of Twinkies from Target (TGT) this morning (see picture below), even though I probably haven't had a Twinkie in the last 15 - 20 years? Why, for that matter, were boxes of Hostess products being arranged in stacks at the Target checkout lanes while I was waiting on line? Why hasn't private equity been able to save Hostess? What does Mitt Romney think? Mitt who? Why did Obama let this happen? Will a Chinese state owned enterprise acquire Hostess (or will conservatives block the sale on national security grounds)? Does this somehow portend a similar state of hopelessness where Washington lets American go over the so-called "fiscal cliff"? How many members of Congress eat Twinkies? Why are there less calories in one Twinkie than any one of the diet bars that I regularly eat? If Twinkies supposedly last for long periods of time, why is the sell-by date on the box I purchased today December 5, 2012? Because these are such weighty matters, I would not want to rush to answer such questions without due consideration and thought. However, as far as bullishness/bearishness goes, this Twinkie blog entry comes under the heading "bullish" for the following reasons: (1) everyone's talking Twinkies (seemingly a hotter news topic now than the effects of Hurricane Sandy), (2) things cannot get any worse for the Twinkie (an asset that is surely worth more today than it was yesterday), and (3) at least someone will probably be able to sell a t-shirt or two as a result of these events.