I Wasn't Gonna Say Anything

Seriously, I wasn't.  I haven't posted anything in a while because I really haven't felt like it, and certainly this stupid duck dynasty thing wasn't going to be what sucked me back in.  It's right in the middle of my winter break man.  I mean, I'm trying to relax and re-read The Sun Also Rises over here.  Even the recent stupid budget deal* wasn't enough to get me back here.  Why would I come back for something that involves ducks?  And not even real ducks?

*Sidenote: The recent budget deal is stupid because we still have the debt limit coming up and the only reason a budget deal happened is so Republicans can hold the debt limit hostage and say "hey, you can't get mad at us about this because look we did a budget deal".  Stupid.

Listen, I can't even count how many ways this duck dynasty thing is stupid.  First of all, why is GQ asking this guy about social issues?  Clearly the intent was to bait him into saying something ignorant and rednecky, and being an ignorant redneck, he was happy to oblige.  More importantly, why is GQ interviewing this guy at all?  It's not like he's some business genius, he didn't invent the iPod.  His family invented a thing that sounds just enough like a duck (or something ducks like, I don't really know) that it helps other rednecks murder ducks for fun.  Hunting is stupid and I don't want to know what Charles Manson's grandpa over there thinks about anything.

I also don't care that he's on TV.  He's not the anchor of the CBS evening news, he's on a reality show.  And it's not even a good reality show.  For $10,000 I couldn't tell you why anyone watches that show.  Here's what I knew about that show before this month:
1) Beards
2) Something about ducks
3) Beards Again
In the last week or so I've learned that at least one of them hates homosexuals, and also that they're from Louisiana.

If I had known those last two things before I'm confident I still wouldn't have been watching.  I don't recall anyone sitting Snooki down and asking her for her thoughts on health care (I certainly hope that never happened).  You know why?  Because nobody cares what she thinks because she's a moron and so is the duck dynasty guy.  If they weren't morons, they wouldn't be on reality TV.

I also have no problem with how A&E has been handling this situation.  Yes, nobody should care about what Captain Beardface thinks, but when somebody reveals himself to be a bigoted asshole, then you have to stop giving him a microphone and a podium.  It's a really simple decision.  And even if I didn't like what A&E was doing, what could I do about it?  There is no possible way I could watch A&E less than I already do.

I'm also not surprised or in any way interested by the predictable feigned outrage from the Christian right.  I already knew they can't possibly go five minutes without claiming to be persecuted in a country where they are the overwhelming majority.  My only regret here is that this new fake persecution interrupted the last bit of fake persecution we were discussing, and I have to say that listening to people on Fox insisting that Santa Claus is factually white was more fun than talking about the duck guy.

I'm also not surprised by the fact that everyone is ignoring the equally insidious comments this guy made about how black people in the south were perfectly happy before the civil rights movement.  Yes, Mr. Robertson, I too find it hard to believe that no black person ever sought out you and your armed redneck ancestors to tell you how much they would have enjoyed equality.  I'm sure if they had you would have assisted them immediately and we wouldn't have even needed a civil rights movement.

All of these points are incredibly obvious and none of them inspired me to come sit here and type for an hour.  But I have many weaknesses, and one of them is my inability to look away when I know something stupid is happening.  This usually leads me to watching Fox News when nobody should ever be doing that, and it did so again yesterday.  I heard Fox's own Governor Huckleberry was going to be on Fox News Sunday to talk about, among other things, the duck dynasty guy.  Sigh.  I should have just kept watching football, but I couldn't help myself.

I used to sort of like Huckleberry.  He was always way too christy for me, Huck never shuts up about his invisible friend.  But, the old Huck spent more time talking about good things like feeding hungry people and helping poor people than he did talking about how the gays were ruining America.  I even remember him being sort of cordial about abortion.  As Chris Wallace pointed out at the beginning of yesterday's interview, Huck has a reputation for being a conservative, but not being angry about it, and that used to be mostly true.

But recently Huck has been become less of a reality-based political figure and more of a Fox News bizarro world political figure.  As a guy on Fox, Huck has to uphold a certain standard of nonsense in order to keep up with his colleagues.  Since Huck can't really manufacture the indignant anger of, say, a Bill O'Reilly, he has to do it another way.  So, Huck has become Fox's go to guy for fake persecution of Christians.  It's a sad end to a mediocre political career.

So Huck starts with the usual bible nonsense.  First of all, do you know how many people we'd be stoning to death every day if we actually lived by that book?  Honestly, nobody would have time for blogging or fake TV outrage or reality TV, we'd all be stoning people to death all day until we worked on Saturday or something and got stoned to death ourselves.  Of course, we'd have slaves, so maybe they could do the stoning for us.

But also, who cares what the bible says?  The old testament was written like 3,000 years ago.  Those people didn't even know where the sun went at night.  Why would I let them tell me what to do?  Seriously, sometimes I can't understand what's wrong with people.

Anyway, that was predictable, and this next bit was too but it still pisses me off.  Huck said that he is tolerant of people who have a different view of gay marriage than he does (how sporting of him) but he won't tolerate the intolerance directed at what he called old fashioned values.  He went on to claim that that this is a new level of bullying.

Come on, Huck.  I'm disappointed in you.  This is Fox's favorite trick.  Every time a Republican says something racist, they remind us that Barack Obama hates white people, so this whole racism thing is kind of everybody's fault and if you point out racism you're actually being a reverse racist so you should probably just shut up.  This trick with tolerance is the same thing.  If you point out that someone is being bigoted and intolerant, say by comparing homosexual relationships to bestiality, then you're actually a reverse bigot and a bully and you should probably just shut up.

Sidenote: This is the first time I've ever typed the word bestiality.  What happened to the "a" in beast.  Why isn't it in there?  That's weird to me.  Anyway...

Sorry Huckleberry, that's not how tolerance works.  You can say intolerant things if you want, but you don't get to do the double tolerance thing where nobody gets to call you a bigot.  Tolerance isn't like base where the first person to run to it wins.  If you're being intolerant then the rest of us get to call you a bigot and you just have to sit there and be a bigot.  And no, the fact that you claim your invisible friend agrees with you doesn't help.  The voices in my head always agree with me.

But that wasn't even my favorite part.  Huckleberry ended by trying to soften his position on homosexuality by saying that homosexuality isn't any different than any other sin.  It's just like if you lust after a woman, that's a sin too.  We're all sinners, says Huck.  That's great.  See?  God doesn't hate homosexuals, he hates everyone.  Feel better now?  For some reason, Huck thinks you should.

I changed the channel back to football once Wallace asked Huck if he was running for President in 2016.  I honestly don't want to know.  I'm obviously not voting for Huckleberry, but if he winds up running against Hillary Clinton I'll need to buy a boat and go live at sea for at least four years.  I heard Elizabeth Warren might run.  That's probably not true, and she probably couldn't win anyway.  I'd vote for Elizabeth Warren, she's smart and actually, ya know, believes in things, but she's also not awesome at running for office and when I say she's smart I mean "she's smart and would therefore make a good President" but other people will say the same thing and mean "look at her thinkin she's all better than us with her fancy book learnin".

No, I'm not getting sucked back into the 2016 election again.  I stand by my earlier predictions and Huck's sudden interest certainly doesn't change anything.  What was I talking about again?  Oh yeah, Mr. ducky duck.  I'm sure he'll be back on the show eventually and Fox will call it a great victory for values or free speech or whatever, but it'll really just be a small victory for nonsense.

Old people say crazy stuff all the time, and that's just the way it is, but I don't get why a whole news network and half the country feels the need to reflexively back this guy up.  I honestly don't understand people sometimes.

Job Killers

Did you know that the Affordable Care Act is a job killer?  I know that, because the TV told me, like 1,000 times.  If jobs are like the people of Baltimore, the Affordable Care Act is like Chris and Snoop, out there just murdering all of them for President Marlo and throwing the bodies in vacant row houses for Lester to eventually find.  So many senseless job killings, and for what?  So some poor people can go to a doctor?  If they wanted to see a doctor, they shouldn't have decided to be poor in the first place!

Luckily, the Republicans know what to do about all this murdering, so they're shutting down the government.  I mean, sure, shutting down the government will put actual people out of work right now instead of hypothetical future people, but if you want to talk about facts, you're sort of missing the point.  The point is Republicans are going to hold their breath until everyone has no health care and 14 guns, and you can't make them breathe because you're not the boss of them.  So there. 

I don't really want to talk about the government shut down though.  It's all silly political theater.  Either they'll come to an agreement today or tomorrow, or maybe never and we're all going to die, but I don't care a lot either way.  I do want to talk about job killing a little though, because the TV has been lying to me.

If I worked somewhere and they told me that I was being laid off because the government says they have to give me health insurance now and they don't want to pay for that shit, I wouldn't blame the government for my situation.  If my employer would rather lay me off than meet the basic social responsibility of providing me with health care, that's on my employer.  I realize it's easy to blame government, especially if you're a Republican and you blame government for everything, but that doesn't make it true.

What else are we supposed to do?  We're stuck with this employer-based health insurance system.  It isn't the best system, just ask Europe and Canada, but apparently it's the only one we can have because if I suggested single-payer health care for America Ted Cruz and Rand Paul would show up at my apartment later to kill me with their bare hands.  I mean, what do those stupid Europeans know about anything?  Some of them can't even drive on the right side of the road.

So in a country where we don't have other options, all we can do, before we even start to figure out what to do with unemployed people, is force employers to provide insurance for the people who work for them.  And we only have to force them because too many weren't doing it on their own.  I know it's expensive, and that sucks, but you couldn't get 20 votes in Congress for a bill with real price controls because that would suggest we don't have blind faith in the magic power of the free market.  So, once again, we're stuck with our own stupidity and without a lot of good solutions.  

You can make all the excuses for businesses that you want, but look, since the Reagan administration, big businesses in this country have been allowed, if not encouraged, to be robber barons.  Now we're asking them to do one simple thing, and they're threatening to cut jobs instead of doing it.  "We can't afford it" is not a good enough reason to not give people access to health care.  

When the President was first elected and started talking about finding a way to get millions of people health insurance, one of the arguments against it was "won't that mean I'll have to wait longer to see a doctor?"  Yes, yes it will.  Not if you're bleeding from your eyes, but yes, you might not be able to take your whiny, hypochondriac ass to the doctor 15 times a year for no good reason.  Sorry.  Eat a fucking apple or something.  

And this is the part Republicans aren't being honest about.  They don't really want cost controls because that would be socialism.  They also don't want people who already have insurance to have to share their doctors, because that would be inconvenient.  Republicans are cool with the way things were, which, come to think of it, sort of sums up the Republican position on everything.  But I'm not cool with the way things were, and the Affordable Care Act is a tiny little bit better, and that's better than nothing.

If you're so worried about jobs, do something about jobs.  Like a real stimulus bill with spending for fixing roads and bridges.  And high speed trains.  I don't really get the high speed trains thing, but Chris Matthews won't shut up about them and I feel like we should probably throw him a bone.  Or, even easier, just stop cutting things like food stamps.  Did you know food stamps are specifically designed to both feed poor people and stimulate the economy, because people who get food stamps tend to spend them immediately at a local business on, ya know, food?  True story.

Republicans want to make everything about jobs, except bills that could actually create jobs, those are about spending for some reason.  But health care bills aren't about jobs, they're about health care.  Just like environmental protection laws aren't about jobs, they're about environmental protection. Everything has a downside, that doesn't mean you don't do anything.  It means you do the right thing and then you do other things to mitigate the downside.  That's how grown-ups solve problems.  Then again, our country isn't really run by grown-ups at the moment.  

Ted Cruz

In March of 2010, when the Affordable Care Act passed, I wrote this:
http://somethingclever13.blogspot.com/2010/03/socialism-day-one.html

Three and a half years later, I still think it's pretty solid bloggery.  Anyway, I was sitting here writing about the current state of the health care debate (which, to be honest, hasn't changed a whole lot since 2010) and it was becoming this very long and sort of incoherent thing, and then I realized that I possibly had three things.  Three things that are all related, but weren't fitting together that well.  So why not just do three separate posts?  Then I don't have to sit here and try to think of some clever way to tie them together.  Meanwhile you, dear reader, get three posts in one week.  Win win.

Part 1 of 3 unfortunately has to be about my least favorite Senator.  I know we would all rather just ignore Ted Cruz's silly fauxlibuster, and Ted Cruz in general for that matter, but we can't and I'll get to why we can't in a second.

But first, I think one important thing needs to be said.  Ted Cruz isn't smart.  Maybe he used to be.  I know he went to Ivy League schools, and I've heard stories about him being brilliant in front of the Supreme Court (although the more I see of those people the more I think maybe it doesn't take much to impress in front of them), but however smart Ted Cruz once was, that's all gone now.  Like a running back who loses a few steps and suddenly can't even stay in the league, Ted lost whatever skills he had and he's just a dumbass now. 

I know this because Ted Cruz treated the Senate to a dramatic reading of Green Eggs and Ham in support of his stubborn insistence on hating something we haven't even tried yet.  You can call that a cheap shot, but it really isn't.  Either Ted didn't bother reading the 60 page children's book before using it to make an argument in the United States Senate, or he did read it but couldn't quite comprehend the moral of the story, which apparently only contains 50 different words.  Either way, dumbass.

And while I'll never get the people on Fox to admit that Ted Cruz is a dumbass, I would appreciate it if the regular journalists on other networks, or at least the liberals at MSNBC, would stop pretending that we all agree that Ted Cruz is a really smart guy.  He isn't.  At best, he's the smartest Republican in Texas, which is sort of like being the smartest plant in my office.  And my plants are dumb, because they came to my office and they know damn well that I'm not going to remember to water them.

And why do I care about what Ted Cruz is or isn't?  Well, for one thing, he's currently the ring leader of the thousand-ring, clown-filled tea party circus.  I often make the point that idiots only get a voice in our country when one of the two major parties is willing to take up their stupid cause.  When both parties agree about something, people can still complain about it, but they can't really do anything.

Same sex marriage is a good example.  If both political parties just said "of course anyone who wants to get married can get married, we're not going to sit here and try to codify bigotry, what's wrong with you people?" then we'd have a lot more progress than we have currently.  I'm not saying bigots go away if you ignore them, but if you don't give them the political machinery to promote their nonsense, they have a pretty hard time slowing the march of progress.  Unfortunately, the Republican party still seems more than happy to be the home of hatred, so progress is happening one state at a time and there are quite a few states left.

Similarly, if elected officials in both parties, who are supposed to be responsible adults, would all say that we're not going to shut down the government over a policy disagreement, then we wouldn't be having today's problem.  Sure, idiots could stand around in Washington with tri-corner hats and misspelled signs, but the rest of us would just ignore them like we usually do.  Wouldn't you rather be ignoring Ted Cruz right now instead of worrying about what happens if the government actually shuts down tomorrow?  I know I would.

Also, Ted Cruz is running for President.  That's definitely happening and we can't stop him.  And if he wins the Republican nomination, that basically gives him a 50/50 chance at being in charge of the country.  I wouldn't leave Ted Cruz in charge of the drive thru at a Burger King.  This qualifies as a legitimately bad thing that could happen in the near future.  And those of us who already know that Senator Cruz is a disaster waiting to happen are like the people with time machines who already know what's going to happen and have to come back to warn the rest of you.  So there, you've been warned.

People Are Idiots

Would you like to know what I think about Syria?  I think if I lived in Syria I would start walking west and I wouldn't stop until I got to a country where things don't routinely and spontaneously explode.  Although I suppose that would just get me to the Mediterranean Sea, and then I'd have to swim to Italy.  And if I survived the swim to Italy, I'd probably just walk to Paris, grow a beard and spend the rest of my life pretending to be Hemingway.   I seem to have lost my train of thought...oh yeah, Syria.

Would you like to know what I think the United States should do about Syria?  Nothing.  I'm not saying I think we should do nothing.  I'm saying I think nothing.  It's not that I don't care.  I think this is really important, and I think whatever the President and Congress decide to do will be an important moment for our country and the world.  It's not that I haven't had time to stay informed.  I've tried to keep up on the story as much as possible.  Unfortunately, cable news coverage is light on "facts about Syria" and heavy on conjecture about the domestic politics of military action and self-assured opinions from clowns who have no idea what they're talking about, but are 100% sure they're right.

Fox News, in particular, is absolutely positive that the President is being indecisive and weak by waiting for Congressional authorization for action.  Just like they'd be absolutely positive that the President was pissing all over the Constitution if he had decided to act without Congressional authorization.  I'm going to try not to be too hard on Fox though, this must be really confusing for them.  On the one hand, boy do they love bombing muslims.  I mean they LOOOVE that shit!  But on the other hand, the President wants to bomb muslims now too, and they fucking hate the President.  Also, half the Republican party is suddenly anti-war, it's like some Republicans don't even want to bomb anyone right now.  It's a strange time in the Republican party and you have to sort of feel bad for Fox as they try to be the propaganda wing of a party that can't figure out where it stands on the biggest story of the day.  It's tough being a worthless shill sometimes.

The truth is, I don't know enough about Syria to say anything useful.  I know Assad's name.  I know his country is in the middle of a revolution/asymmetric civil war/crazy shit going on situation.  I know Assad is a Baathist, and I know Ted Cruz thinks that means he forces people to take baths against their will.  I know something went on there with chemical weapons, and I know chemical weapons are bad. 

I also know that, if we do bomb Syria, it will be the fourth, count 'em, FOURTH Western Asian country we've had some sort of military action against in the last dozen years.  And that doesn't even count whatever meddling you think we did in Egypt.  Four!  That's a lot!  Bombing seems to be our only solution to anything.  I'm surprised we haven't tried bombing our public schools or our health care system yet.

I understand the arguments on both sides, and they both make sense.  Why take action?  Well, we told Assad not to use chemical weapons, and he apparently went ahead and used them anyway, on civilians, and children.  Even if we hadn't explicitly said we weren't going to allow that, it's still in violation of about a dozen international treaties. 

And if we don't do something, who will?  The French?  Seriously?  I heard they already surrendered to Syria, twice, just this week.  The U.N. can't do anything, and even if they could, U.N. military action is just the U.S. Armed Forces and like 15 British dudes, and the British already said they're not coming along for this one.

But why not take action?  Well, for one thing, we've been lied to about weapons of mass destruction before.  The case is clearly a little more plausible this time, and, if true, more of an imminent threat, but still.  The point of the boy who cried wolf is that eventually wolves eat all your sheep and nobody cares, and if you use Colin Powell to cry wolf you've sort of poisoned the well, because it's really hard to find someone more credible than Colin Powell used to be.

Also, as I've previously mentioned, this would be our fourth military adventure in Western Asia in the last twelve years.  Wouldn't it be lovely if we could just not be at war for a minute.  And look at how far we've moved the bar in terms of reasons for going to war.  Hitler took over Europe and turned London into rubble and it still took a Japanese attack on Hawaii to draw us into World War Two.   Now we start bombing every time a dictator looks at us funny.  Ron Paul's been complaining about the U.S. being the police of the world in Republican primaries since back when I would have actually considered voting for the winner of the Republican primaries.  And Ron isn't wrong. 

Also, Syria is in the middle of a violent civil war.  Why would we willingly step into the middle of that and pick a side when we all agree that we don't really like either side.  Why do we always feel the need to choose between the lesser of two evils in situations we could just choose to stay out of?  And there are probably five more valid arguments on both sides that I'm not getting to. 

So what do we do?  Well, polls show that an overwhelming majority of the American people don't want us involved in Syria.  But listen, here's the thing...This is one of those times when I couldn't possibly care less about what the American people think.  I would bet you a thousand dollars that half this country can't even find Syria on a map (and way too many of them would be proud and unapologetic about it).  I'm like 99% confident that if you asked Americans who the President of Syria is, roughly 5% of them would say Saddam Hussein, and another 5% would say Osama Bin Laden.

Think about it this way.  If you casually ran into the President, or your Senator, or your Congressman on the street and they asked you what you think they should do about Syria, would you 1) calmly tell them your opinion and expect them to listen or 2) panic because the people running our country are so completely out of ideas that they're asking your opinion without knowing whether or not you even have a vague familiarity with the subject matter?  I'm not saying the President and Congress should never listen to the people (although honestly sometimes I think we'd be better off that way), but on complicated foreign policy matters?  Come on.  People are idiots.  And even if we weren't idiots we wouldn't have time to get familiar enough with something like this to form an educated opinion.  And even if we did have the time, we don't have access to most of the pertinent information. 

I'm also not saying we should just follow the government blindly into war because we're too stupid to know any better.  I don't have any problem you voicing your opinion about Syria, and if you can get the Congress and the President to listen to your nonsense, then good for you.  I'm just saying that if I was the President and you told me what you think I should do about Syria I would respond to you the same way you respond to a three year old when you ask him what he wants for dinner and he yells "ice cream and pizza! Oh, ice cream pizza!"..."Really, ice cream pizza, okay buddy, I'll get right on that."

And if President Obama decides to take military action against Syria in spite of public opinion, and if it turns out to be a colossally horrible decision, and if it turns out his administration lied a little about why we were going there in the first place, then we get to shun him and pretend he was never President.  Just like George W. Whats his face. 

Now I grant you that shunning President Obama in 2017 won't fix whatever mistakes he makes just like shunning President Bush now doesn't fix the federal disaster area that was his presidency.  But the thing is, that's what these guys signed up for.  I don't want a President who hides behind Congress or polls instead of making the decision he thinks is the right one.  When you're the President, sometimes you have to make really hard decisions, and sometimes you have to make really hard, really unpopular decisions, and sometimes you might get them wrong.  If you get a big one wrong, then everybody hates you forever.  That's the job, and if you aren't up for it, then you shouldn't sit down in the big chair in the first place. 

2016 Election at the Jersey Shore

I wasn't planning on saying anything about the 2016 election for a while because, first of all, I tried predicting who would get the Republican nomination in 2012.  I picked Haley Barbour, and remember that time that Haley Barbour didn't even run?  I also wasn't going to say anything about 2016 for a while because it's 2013 right now and are you fucking serious?  

But, according to cable news, it's definitely time to start talking 2016.  Chris Matthews almost pissed his pants on live TV a couple of weeks ago when something happened that made him think Hillary Clinton was definitely running.  It even distracted him from Anthony Weiner for like five minutes.  Meanwhile, Fox News is like 2 steps away from having Rand Paul followed around by a reality TV camera crew at all times.  So, that's the way it is.  This is happening.

Well, this is happening in a minute.  But first, what's with all the outrage about Anthony Weiner?  Matthews held what would be best described as a week-long penis vigil on his show about it.  Meanwhile, Matthews' two favorite Presidents (Clinton and Kennedy) nailed interns like it was their job.  Kennedy seriously might have thought it was his job.  I'm not saying Anthony Weiner isn't gross, I'm just saying that if you're going to get outraged about this stuff (which I'm not), actually banging the interns seems worse to me.

Anyway, Republicans first.  For starters, I don't think Jeb Bush runs.  He's never seemed super interested to me, and he's had the opportunity to watch his dad and his brother be President for a total of 12 years.  Even if you hate the President, you have to admit that guy has a tough job most days, and I can't imagine watching two family members try to do it for 12 years has left Jeb with much of a taste for it.

I know these early front-runners rarely end up winning, but I do like Chris Christie for this.  People say Christie can't get the nomination, but I totally disagree.  Christie would wind up in the same position as Romney was in last time.  He'll be in a primary with Rand Paul and Ted Cruz and five other lunatics fighting to be named king of the clown car.  Santorum, Bachmann, Cain and Perry made Mitt look sane, reasoned, even smart.  And Gingrich was nice enough to make Romney seem like not that much of a dick.  

And by the way, Christie makes a pretty solid general election candidate.  I don't know a lot about Chris Christie in terms of what he actually knows, but if he turns out to be kind of dumb, that's not really going to hurt him in Republican primaries, or even that much in the general.  Meanwhile, I know Christie does all the superficial things that people love in Presidential candidates.  He talks tough, he doesn't take shit from anyone and he treats the press with the contempt that they've earned over the last 15 years.  I can't wait for him to go on Fox and sucker punch Sean Hannity.  

Also, if the Republican brand is anything, it's anti-government.  Specifically, the Federal government.  Ask yourself how the Republicans get the useful idiots in the tea party, who are mostly middle class people who, like almost everyone, are one lay-off from the poverty line, to protest against things like health care for poor people and slightly higher taxes for the wealthy.  They do it by equating everything they don't like to a robbery of freedom.  And since nobody is dumb enough to actually believe that more health care = less freedom, they inject the Federal government into the middle of the equation, so it's more health care + Federal government involvement = less freedom.  And that shit works like a charm.

So, if you're looking for a nominee from the everything the Federal government does = less freedom party, you may want to look for someone who isn't, ya know, currently holding a position in the Federal government.

And finally, if Christie ran against Hillary Clinton, I would absolutely vote for Chris Christie.  You can write that one down now.  Look, I even stopped calling him Governor Fatpants.  I will not vote for Hillary Clinton.  If Hillary Clinton, Rand Paul and a half-eaten meatball sandwich were running in a three way election, I'd vote for the sandwich.

You might ask, "hey Sean, you've always been a Ron Paul guy, so why no love for Rand?"  I just don't buy it.  People think Rand is a conviction libertarian like his dad, but I haven't seen enough evidence to believe it.  Ron Paul was never a serious Presidential candidate because he cared more about his beliefs than he did about winning, and you can't have it both ways.  Rand's level of ambition makes me think he's just another regular Republican who's trying to trade on his dad's name for extra votes by being a faux-libertarian and hoping people will believe it.  I don't believe it.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

Where were we? Oh yeah, luckily for me, I don't think I'll get the chance to choose between Hillary Clinton and a half-eaten sandwich because I don't think she'll get the nomination.  She's in exactly the same position she was in eight years ago.  How did that work out?  Now she's eight years older, eight years less exciting and eight years more oh my god why won't she just go away.  

First of all, for every independent voter who loves Hillary Clinton, there's an independent voter like me who wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton if you threatened me with violence.  A Clinton/Christie election puts people like me, who sprinted away from the Republicans once the tea people showed up, back in play.  Bad times for Democrats.  

Also, the far left doesn't like Hillary that much either.  Hillary Clinton isn't just an establishment candidate, she's THE establishment.  How does that play at a time when everyone hates the government (for both actual and made-up reasons)?  Not well, I think.  I'm not saying Hillary can't win, she's certainly the favorite, but I wouldn't put my money on her.

So who does get the Democratic nomination?  That's a tough one.  Normally the sitting Vice President would be a strong favorite.  And it's not like Joe Biden has never expressed any interest in running for President.  But, unfortunately, he's Joe Biden, so that's almost definitely not going to happen.  

What about Democratic Governors?  Can you even name a Democratic Governor?  I can name Duval Patrick (he's still a Governor, right?), but he really doesn't feel like a President to me.  Not everyone is cut out for the big chair, ya know?  Other than the Governor of the state I currently live in, I couldn't name another Democratic Governor, and I feel like most other people couldn't either.

Democratic members of Congress?  Yikes.  If Harry Reid ever runs for President, we should all probably kill ourselves just to be safe.  The Democratic nominee has to come from somewhere, but if he/she comes from Congress, it has to be someone who hasn't been there very long.  Which brings me to my pick.  Cory Booker.

Twenty years ago Booker would have been easily dismissed as way too inexperienced, but that's not the way it is anymore.  Barack Obama proved that if we like someone enough we're not willing to wait four or eight years while he gets more experience.  And if you hate Barack Obama, then I would submit to you that the fact that we're talking about Ted Cruz and Rand Paul for 2016 prove the same point.

Cory Booker is probably going to be a Senator soon, but when 2016 rolls around he won't have been in the Senate long enough to get that Senate stink all over him.  He's got executive experience as a mayor, and he's the mayor of an actual city, where people live, not some podunk middle-of-nowhere nightmare like Wasilla, Alaska.  And from what I hear he's a good mayor too.  Booker's good on TV, seems smart, he's generally pretty likable but he's also tough enough to not take the Republicans' shit.  

Plus, wouldn't an all-Jersey Christie/Booker election be pretty fun?  I feel like it would.  And as a citizen I'd like this election because neither one of these guys terrifies me, like a certain Mitt Romney did.  I think both of them would at least be an adequate President.  Imagine having two decent choices in a Presidential election.  Has that ever happened before?  The 2008 election doesn't qualify because of Sarah Palin.  1992 or 1996 maybe?  I can't remember if Bob Dole was really a decent candidate or not.  I'm digressing. 

Anyway, that's my call.  I don't know which side of the things I'd like to see happen/things I actually think will happen line I'm on here, but I feel pretty good about these picks.  So we're probably looking at Ted Cruz/Rand Paul vs. Joe Biden/Anthony Weiner in 2016.  Everybody get a helmet.

Crazy Week

This has been a crazy week.  I feel like it would be a helpful public service to take a minute here and just sort of review everything. 

First, on Tuesday morning, the Supreme Court announced that they had decided to gut the 1965 Voting Rights Act.  Not a good start.  Now, to be fair, were we really going to let minorities keep voting in the south forever?  I mean, come on.  Plus, this Supreme Court is very into the founding fathers, and if you had asked Thomas Jefferson about this he would have said something like "What?  Why would I let my slaves vote? What's wrong with you?".  I assume those are the two basic arguments opponents of the Voting Rights Act made.  I can't think of anything better.

Seriously though, this was terrible.  It seems to me that the right of citizens to vote should be marginally more important than the right of states to not be minimally regulated based on their long histories of institutional racism, but then again, I'm not a big time fancy lawyer. You may not be a minority voter, and if you don't care about minority voters I can't make you, but just remember that the Supreme Court, the group of people who interpret the laws for your country, cares about the rights of states more than it cares about the rights of individuals, and that's pretty sad.

Also, there's no truth to the rumor that Alabama will now be granting an extra vote to anyone who shows up at the polls wearing a confederate flag somewhere on their clothes, and two extra votes to anyone who shows up wearing nothing but a confederate flag. 

But while that was happening, something awesome was also happening, in Texas (seriously).  The Texas State Senate was trying to pass a bill that would severely restrict abortion rights in Texas, because that's what Texans do I guess.  Tuesday was the last day of the legislative session and Texas State Senator Wendy Davis decided she was going to filibuster until midnight so they couldn't pass the bill.  She started a little after 11AM and kept going with no breaks for like 10 or 11 hours. 

I didn't really see any of the filibuster because I had work all day and also none of the cable news networks covered it and it took me a while to realize it was going on, but I tuned in on YouTube around 11PM Texas time and I feel like I caught the best part.  Apparently the Republicans in the Texas Senate were claiming that Senator Davis violated the rules of the filibuster three times, and in Texas three strikes means your filibuster is out.  The Democrats appealed this ruling and I tuned in while the Texas Republicans were googling "how to make a woman stop talking" (supposedly they were actually reviewing parliamentary rules and such, but based on what I saw my theory sounds more plausible).

They finally started Senating again after about 10 or 15 minutes, and that's when Senator Davis' colleagues started trying to help her out.  First, Senator Older Librarian Lady (I don't know any of the names except for Wendy Davis) stepped up, and she was a whirlwind of parliamentary inquiries.  I'd say she took up a good ten minutes just politely asking questions.  Unfortunately she eventually ran out of steam when she ran into some circular "because I said so" Senate logic from the guy running the Texas Senate (hereafter known as Captain Mustache, though I may be making up the fact that he had a mustache, but he looked pretty mustachy to me).

Then they moved on to debate on the appeal of the ruling that ended the filibuster.  Senator Beauregard T. Crockett went on for about ten minutes until Captain Mustache got tired of listening to him and just let some other guy call the vote on the appeal.  My favorite part of this section was that it took me and most of the people commenting on YouTube about five minutes to realize Beauregard was on Wendy Davis' side.  It was sort of jarring when it hit me.  He was just so southerny and Texasy.  Good for him though.

After the Republicans voted down the appeal, it was time for Senator Hispanic Lady in a Pants Suit, and she was awesome.  Senator Pants Suit peppered Captain Mustache for a good 7-8 minutes with her own hurricane of parliamentary inquiries.  When Captain Mustache finally got tired of her, she finished by asking what a female Senator has to do to get recognized over her male colleagues.  What happened next was, literally, the best thing I've ever seen in a Senate Chamber.  OK, that's pretty specific, but still.

The gallery, who had been super well-behaved up to that point, sensed that the Democrats were sort of out of ideas and the Republicans were getting ready to vote on the actual bill.  Captain Mustache finally stopped falling for the parliamentary inquires and may or may not have turned off some microphones so the Democrats couldn't bother him anymore.  You know what they say in Texas, fool me 114 times, shame on you, fool me 115 times, shame on me.  So, with the vote coming and the Democrats defeated, the gallery, in response to what Senator Pants Suit said, proceeded to cheer and chant for about 18 minutes until it was a few minutes after midnight.  At one point, Captain Mustache tried the old "if you stop cheering we'll stop voting" trick, but the gallery didn't fall for it.

This was fun to watch and really impressive/inspiring, but I went to bed thinking the bill had still passed, seeing as Captain Mustache said it did.  When I woke up, I found out that Captain Mustache is a liar and a cheater and the bill had, in fact, not passed.  The bill will almost certainly pass eventually, Texas isn't getting any smarter, but this was an awesome moment of democracy and I'm glad I had the chance to see it.

That was just Tuesday.  Wednesday featured two almost simultaneous happenings.  Two things which received news coverage almost inversely proportionate to how important they were.  First of all, we found out that while the New England Patriots may not have won a superbowl in a while, they've been secretly leading the league in murders (allegedly).   And that's really all I have to say about that because the TV won't shut up about it and I just don't care.

More importantly, the Supreme Court (remember them from yesterday?) announced that they had struck down a section of the Defense of Marriage Act and had also declined to rule on Proposition 8 in California, effectively restoring marriage rights to same-sex couples in California.  Both of these rulings were, while not perfect, full of all kinds of good stuff for marriage equality.

Here's how you know this was a big day for marriage equality.  Fox News almost completely ignored this story all day.  If you've never watched The Five on Fox, they basically get five of the stupidest people you could ever find (OK, four of the stupidest people you could ever find and Dana Perino, who is adorable), put them at a table and have them talk about politics and stuff.  I watched them for pretty much the whole hour yesterday, they didn't go anywhere near this.  I'm not sure Republicans have any idea what to do with this now.  Even the Roberts court won't back them on homophobia.  It's a bad week for bigots and religious nuts.

Fox spent the rest of the night talking more about Paula Deen than they did about two historic Supreme Court decisions.  Ya know, I was originally on the fence about Paula until she went on TV this week like a blubbering idiot and cried about how you can go ahead and cast the first stone if you've never said something you regret.  You know what Paula.  How about she who has never said the n-word can keep getting paid ridiculous amounts of money to melt butter on TV.  Go away.

And then, as if all of that wasn't enough, today the Senate passed an immigration reform bill.  Sure, it's probably dead on arrival in the House, but still, the Senate did a thing!  I had to check with all three cable news networks to make sure MSNBC wasn't hallucinating.  So it was a crazy week, and here's what I learned:

1) Seriously, cable news is awful.  They spent more time this week on Paula Deen, Aaron Hernandez and George Zimmerman than they did on the awesome Texas filibuster and three really important Supreme Court decisions.  A friend from college pointed out to me the next day that while the filibuster was going on CNN was airing an important discussion between Piers Morgan and Dr. Drew regarding blueberry muffins.

I guess CNN gets a pass, I have a lot of questions about blueberry muffins.  Why not chocolate chips? Can I trade you one blueberry muffin for four mini-muffins? Can you tell me what blueberries taste like because I don't really know?  I guess if I had watched Piers Morgan and Dr. Drew instead of the filibuster, I'd know the answer to these and many other muffin related questions by now.

2) No matter how obviously you murder someone, you can always find people on TV to take your side. I watched like five minutes of George Zimmerman coverage, because MSNBC literally stopped in the middle of a great discussion of the DOMA ruling so they could show us silent pictures of the Zimmerman trial, and you know what I'm already 100% sure of?  George Zimmerman is definitely a murderer (allegedly).  Even if you believe every word of his story, his basic story is "that guy was punching me, so I shot him in the chest".  That's not a proportional response!  I'm not a Florida law expert, but it can't possibly be legal to shoot somebody in the chest for punching you.

3) I will stay up way later than I planned to in order to watch anything that even remotely reminds me of an episode of The West Wing.

4) I think...oh wait, forget about what I learned, because also, I almost forgot about this, the President made a big speech about climate change and said he's going to start doing a bunch of executive orders to get on top of that whole thing.  I don't know if he'll actually do anything, or if it'll actually work, but that was like the 8th biggest story this week.  Crazy week.

Why Are You So Bad At Your Job?

I've been thinking about this for a while and game 6 of the NBA finals was sort of a tipping point for me.  First, Tony Parker clearly got pushed when he tried to make a game winning shot at the end of regulation.  He also flopped, but still, he was fouled first.  Then, Manu Ginobili got mauled by more than one Miami player on his way to attempting a lay-up near the end of overtime.  Manu also took about 4 steps.  Neither one of those things drew a whistle.  Then Danny Green got tackled by Chris Bosh while trying to make a game tying three at the buzzer.  Van Gundy commented that he was OK with the no call but "is that a foul in the first 46 minutes of the game? Definitely!".  That's not how rules work Jeff!

Quick sidenote on the NBA finals.  I guess I'm rooting for the Spurs, but I kind of don't like either of these teams and I feel like neither outcome will save me from a summer of having to hear about Lebron all the time, so I mostly don't care who wins. 

Anyway, back to the point...why is it so hard to find competent officiating for major professional sports?  It's an honest question.  I sometimes feel like the NBA is secretly only allowed to recruit referees from prisons that are full of prisoners whose crimes somehow related to their complete inability to understand the rules of basketball.

Before we get to actual sports though, a quick honorable mention for soccer.  We'll talk about the NBA more in a little bit and when we do, just remember that flopping started in soccer.  Soccer referees throughout the world were so incompetent at discerning the difference between an actual foul and a flop that flopping became something of a soccer tradition, like 0-0 ties or standing around and not doing anything while the game is actually happening.  The influx of European players to the NBA was immediately accompanied by the advent of NBA flopping (I'm looking at you Vlade Divac).  There's no excuse for American referees to be just as useless as European soccer referees, but still, like most things, some of this is all soccer's fault.

Let's start with the NHL because, as usual, hockey is better than everything else.  I honestly can't remember the last time I walked away from a hockey game thinking that the officials had influenced the outcome of the game in any real way.  Hockey officials are the exception that prove the rule.  You could read this and say I just hate all referees, and you could be right, except you're not, because I don't hate hockey refs.

To be fair, there's definitely some built in advantage here.  Most hockey calls are relatively subjective and the NHL has taken concrete action in the rules to avoid flopping and exaggerating to get calls.  Also, most hockey commentators are Canadian, so they're generally pretty nice abooot stuff and they don't kill the refs too much even when they do miss a call. 

Hockey officials also get extra bonus points because A) if you count each skate individually, hockey players are carrying three deadly weapons at all times and B) hockey officials have to know how to skate, making them the only officials I can think of who actually have a skill. 

One more important point here.  Since, when you grow up, you learn that none of your dreams actually come true, I don't live in Canada.  Our syrupy neighbors to the north take hockey at least as seriously as we take football, and I imagine that if I were to walk into a Winnipeg sports bar in January I'd hear Canadians using their awesome accents to politely complain about all the bad calls in last night's Jets game.  So maybe it's all just a matter of perspective. 

Speaking of football, the NFL is sort of a mixed bag.  On one hand, I feel like there's been a disputable or debatable call on every football play I've ever seen.  The NFL provides a constant stream of questionable officiating, and I'm not sure I've ever fully agreed with a call in an NFL game. 

But the thing is, I'm not sure I've ever fully disagreed with a call in an NFL game either.  Officiating football is really hard.  Take a look at the basic situation for NFL refs:
-Players basically assault each other on every play and it's perfectly legal...
-except for the quarterback, who has like one square foot of area where you're allowed to touch him.  -I'm not sure if anybody in the world is 100% clear on when you're allowed to hit a receiver.
-Commentators constantly point out that there's holding on every play, which seems true enough, but you obviously can't call it on every play. 
-The rules change slightly every time someone gets another concussion.
-And there are all these complicated extra rules about eligible receivers and things happening down-field and whatnot. 

It's a lot, is what I'm saying.  Watching a group of guys try to properly officiate an NFL game is a lot like watching your dog try to work the microwave.  He's not going to get it right, but it's not really his fault either.  Plus it's football, so it's not like we're going to stop watching, so who really cares.

Now we come to baseball and this is where I start to get annoyed.  Baseball umpires have the easiest job I could possibly imagine.  First of all, most baseball rules were written 150 years ago.  People were less creative back then, so you have really simple rules like "if the ball beats the runner to first base, the runner is out" or "if a fielder catches the ball before it hits the ground, the batter is out" or "women aren't allowed to vote", etc. 

Secondly, if baseball were moving any slower, the games would be happening in reverse.  Baseball umpires are the only officials I can think of that literally never have to worry about watching more than one thing at the same time, and that's because there are four of them (six in the post-season) and there's almost never more than one thing happening at the same time.  Unlike other sports, baseball doesn't really have things happening off the ball that the officials have to worry about.

So, to recap, the job of a baseball umpire can be summed up as "watching the shiny ball and describing what happens around it".  And yet, way too many baseball umpires are just terrible at it.  I honestly feel like you could train four smart horses to umpire a baseball game and you wouldn't necessarily notice the difference in call quality.  I'm also 100% sure baseball umpires could be 100% replaced by some well placed sensors, a locator chip in the ball and a computer.  Why haven't we done this yet?

Finally, we come to the NBA.  Why is every basketball game I watch an officiating catastrophe?  I don't even know where to start.  You get two steps when you pick up your dribble.  TWO!  Can NBA referees not count to three?  I could replace NBA refs with the smartest kids in a nursery school and get better calls on traveling violations.

And the blocking/charging calls.  I know, that's not so easy, but still.  If you put me in a room where I couldn't see the game and just told me whenever there was a blocking/charging call situation and I just flipped a coin to decide which one to call, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between my results and the results we get from NBA refs.  You know I'm right about that.

And the flopping.  So much flopping, so easy to fix.  Just stop making the calls.  Next time a defender dives to the ground like he was shot trying to draw a charge, don't call a charge, or a block.  Just let them keep playing so the offense gets two points because one of the guys on defense is rolling around on the floor like a moron. 

And then there's Lebron.  Yes, Lebron gets his own paragraph because watching NBA referees officiate Lebron is one of the most frustrating things I've ever seen in sports.  Every time Lebron goes to the basket he uses his off hand to clear out his defender (which is super effective for him, because he might be the strongest person in the history of everything).  Not only does he never get called for this, but half the time the defender gets called for a foul for viciously assaulting Lebron's left elbow with his face.  I sometimes think NBA referees all have a secret memo from David Stern which reads, in part, "Our research shows that people like watching Lebron score, so if you see anyone trying to stop him from doing that, just call them for something, we don't really care what". 

You know why people can't stop spinning conspiracy theories about the NBA using officials to manipulate games and playoff series results?  It's because people watching are just trying to think of a plausible explanation for how the officiating could be so consistently awful.  And the most frustrating part is, we never get an explanation.  Why are referees the only people in the world who never have to be accountable for their job performance?  Why don't they have to do a press conference at the end of the game like coaches and players do?  Just once, I'd like to see a reporter get to raise his hand in a press room and ask the lead official of an NBA crew "Why are you so bad at your job?"