Lying Is Hard

I watch Chris Matthews most days if I'm home at 5PM.  I used to flip between him and Fox News, but since Fox let Glenn Beck go, their 5PM show is still just as stupid (thanks in large part to Eric Bolling, who is an absolute clown), but about 1000% less funny (Eric's more of a sad clown).  Matthews, on the other hand, remains as loud and entertaining as always.

Recently, one of the best parts of Chris' show is his almost constant befuddlement at the hands of Mitt Romney.  Every time Romney says something that doesn't make sense, or just doesn't sound exactly right, Matthews reacts as if Romney just ate an entire wheel of cheese and pooped in the refrigerator.  He's totally baffled by it.

This shouldn't be surprising.  Matthews has spent his whole life in politics.  He knows what a polished politician is supposed to sound like and he knows how polished a major party Presidential candidate should be.  Romney's inability to consistently, well, sound like a person, is an enigma for Chris, but not for me.

I was in a couple of plays in high school, and when I got a little experience with it, I realized that just memorizing your lines is stupid.  Lines are important, but it seemed like it was more important to actually understand what the character is trying to say.  That way, if you forget your line, you still sort of know what's supposed to be said, and you can get through it.  If you just memorize lines and then forget them, you're totally lost.

One of the simplest things about life is this, lying is hard.  At least harder than telling the truth.  The consequences of the truth might be less desirable, but telling the truth is always easier than lying, if for no other reason than the truth is easier to remember.

When Mitt Romney opens his mouth and something incomprehensible comes out, it's because he's out there playing Generic Ultra-Conservative Presidential Candidate Man, and sometimes he forgets his lines.  So, when Brian Williams asks him if London looks ready for the Olympics, he doesn't just say what he thinks.  He thinks, "what would Generic Ultra-Conservative Presidential Candidate Man have to say about that?", and then he tries to say something that sort of sounds supportive but also reminds the world that America is the best and fuck you. 

But Mitt isn't always playing Generic Ultra-Conservative Presidential Candidate Man.  Sometimes he's playing Guy Who Can Relate To Regular People.  Guy Who Can Relate To Regular People might show up in Michigan babbling about how the trees are the right height, because Mitt can't exactly remember Guy Who Can Relate To Regular People's lines, but he knows that regular people care very deeply about tree height.

But then sometimes Mitt has to play Bat-Shit Crazy Foreign Policy Lunatic.  Bat-Shit Crazy Foreign Policy Lunatic says things about how we'll always support Israel no matter what they decide to do, and how Israel has a better economy than the Palestinians because the Israeli culture is inherently superior.  He's just trying to say things that sound strong and tough and supportive of Israel while also appeasing the base of his party by sounding vaguely anti-muslim, and in this case it's less about him forgetting his lines and more about the people writing his lines being dumb.  Either way, it's a mess.

And listen, my problem with Mitt Romney isn't that he made the Palestinians angry.  My problem is that this man who wants to be in charge of our foreign policy thinks it's OK to add another ring to the million ring circus that is the middle east in an effort to do some least common denominator pandering for votes at home.  Mitt Romney should have to wear a sign whenever he leaves the country that clearly states he doesn't speak for the rest of us.  In fact, a lot of people should.  Can I be the one who decides who gets a sign?  I'd be really good at that.

Anyway, I can only conclude that Mitt Romney's actual self is too unlikeable for him to be honest with us and still win.  I suspect that I would probably like actual Mitt Romney.  He's probably one of those guys who makes mean jokes and everyone laughs while he's in the room and then when he leaves everyone talks about what a jerk he is.  I usually like those people, but other people usually think they're mean and probably wouldn't vote for them.

I work with college students, and when I give them interview advice one thing I always say is be yourself, because if you get the job people are going to expect to work with the person they interviewed, and if you don't get the job, at least you gave it your best shot.  You don't want to go on an interview, be fake, and then not get the job and be left wondering what would have happened if they had met the real you.

So I'm wondering if we're going to look back on this election and wonder what would have happened if we had met the real Mitt Romney.  And I'm wondering if there even is a real Mitt Romney.  And if there isn't a real Mitt Romney, that really worries me.  There are times when a caretaker President who doesn't have much in the way of his own opinions/values/personality will do just fine.  This doesn't really seem like one of those times.

Your Arguments Are Bad, And You Should Feel Bad

Last Sunday I was finishing up a post about gun control and I turned on Fox News Sunday, just in the background, to see if I heard anything interesting.  What I heard can only be described as an avalanche of stupidity, a symphony of imbecility.  Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin let loose approximately 10 minutes of nonsense so detached from reality that I honestly couldn't keep up.

I decided to mention it a little at the end of what I was already writing and just move on.  I'm not going to take the time to sit here and pick apart every idiotic thing he said.  That would be...actually that would be really fun.  Let's do that.

Everything attributed to Senator Johnson below is a direct quote.

Right off the bat, first thing out of his mouth after the obligatory acknowledgement of the tragedy and sending his thoughts and prayers out - "he's a sick and demented, evil individual and unfortunately I don't think society can keep sick, demented individuals from obtaining any type of weapon to kill people."  He went on to reference explosive devices as a possible alternative weapon if guns weren't available.

OK yes, that's true.  Crazy people can also make bombs.  But we at least try to regulate bombs.  A person would have to break several laws in purchasing bomb ingredients, assembling a bomb and transporting explosives before they even got anywhere near a movie theater.  It doesn't mean we stop them every time, but at least we try.

Later in the same ramble - "this isn't an issue about guns".  Stop.  Stop right there.  You don't even get to finish that sentence.  I'm perfectly willing to concede that this isn't entirely about guns.  There's a really important conversation to be had about access to mental health care, for example.  But, when a guy walks into a theater with guns, and shoots people with guns, my personal opinion is that it's a little bit about guns.

And then - "I don't think there's a solution here in Washington to solve this problem." Yeah, I mean especially with Senator moron here running the show.  But what if we started voting for smart people?  Then there might be a solution in Washington.

"I wish I could wave a magic wand and make this tragedy go away".  I already addressed this in my last post, but it doesn't get any less dumb the second time you hear it.

"Criminals will always be able to get whatever they want."  I'm glad the Senator has completely given up on law enforcement.  Then he said it's not an issue about guns again, and then the real fun starts.


"It's really an issue of freedom.  And I swore an oath to defend the Constitution and part of that Constitution is the second amendment which guarantees the right to bear arms and these types of laws (referring to assault weapons bans) infringe upon that right."

I don't even know where to start.  So, does the second amendment mean I have the right to own any firearm with no restrictions.  Can I own a working cannon?  Can I keep a surface to air missile launcher on my lawn as long as I promise not to shoot at commercial aircraft?  Can I build my own missile silo in the backyard?  Or, can we all agree that maybe there's an obvious line of common sense we get to draw with this and every right, so nobody's attacking the Constitution when they ask if assault rifles might be on the other side of that line.

Chris Wallace then specifically asked him if something that would limit 100 round magazines infringes upon that right.  Senator Johnson says yes.  Then, again, "you simply can't keep these weapons out of the hands of sick, demented individuals who want to do harm and when you try and do it, you restrict our freedoms."  OK, so, just to be clear, Senator Johnson is saying we can't keep these weapons out of the hands of sick people but, more importantly, we shouldn't try to because, apparently, his right to to hunt deer with 100 bullets at a time is more important than my right to not be murdered.

Then Wallace asked him if we need more guns, not less guns - "It certainly is one of the rationales behind concealed carry, where criminals have to be a little concerned before they commit a criminal act that maybe somebody could stop them, and I think that is the truth, that if somebody, a responsible individual, had been carrying a weapon maybe, MAYBE, they could have, ya know, prevented some of those deaths and some of those injuries, and that's just the truth."

This particular run-on sentence was a masterpiece of numbskullery.  Ron Johnson is the Mozart of nonsense.

1) I'm not sure "truth" is the word he was looking for on either occasion there.
2) I addressed the whole public shootouts thing in my last post too.  To which a friend of mine from when I was a kid added: "if you had a kid, would you want everyone on the street to have a gun and have to worry about it every day."
3) Could the death and injury toll have been lower if someone in the theater and had shot back and stopped the shooter?  Maybe.  But if neither of them had a gun, then the death and injury toll would be zero.  Are we really willing to accept "less dead and less wounded" as our ultimate goal?
4) I think we're overestimating the ability of people to shoot each other.  Yes, crazy people shoot people, but that's why we call them crazy.  Most regular people, even if they own a weapon, aren't cut out for actually shooting a person, even if that person is shooting other people.  It's not as easy as conservatives fantasize about it being.

Still three minutes left...

In response to Senator Feinstein's point about the assault weapons ban basically making an exception for every hunting rifle ever made - "but the result of that ban...it didn't solve any problems.  I mean, we've had bans here in Washington DC, we've had bans in Chicago, and you can argue statistics but, ya know, I take a look at the statistics and I say it has no measurable effect, you can actually argue that it's made matters worse...but I don't want to get into statistics"

There's more, but I'd just like to point out this little verbal judo move the Senator just pulled.  First, he brought up statistics and suggested that the statistics show he's right and the assault weapons ban had no effect.  Then, as Senator Feinstein was attempting to jump in to point out that he was lying, he immediately decided he didn't really want to talk about statistics.  And, of course, Wallace let him get away with it.  What happened to you Wallace, you used to be cool?  Anyway, he continued...

"...we are talking about basic freedoms and the Constitution's second amendment."  Just show me in the second amendment where it says we have a right to assault rifles with 100 round magazines.  You know what Thomas Jefferson would say if he saw you firing an AR-15 rifle?  I'm not sure, but I think it would be something like "holy shit! Are you some kind of fucking wizard?"  because they didn't have assault rifles when they wrote the second amendment.

And then my favorite part right at the end - "I really would hate to see a tragedy like this used to promote a political agenda to reduce Americans' freedom.  Enough of our freedoms have already been taken away, we don't want to lose any more."

Other than my freedom to die if I'm too poor to afford health care (which we all admit Barack Obama is ruthlessly trying to steal from us), I'm begging conservatives to tell me what freedom of mine has disappeared in the last three and a half years.  I mean, I know I've seen some people desperately trying to take rights away from women, but I don't remember that being Barack Obama.  Although, I guess Republicans would argue that Barack Obama is trying to rob American women of their right to shut up and do whatever their husbands tell them to do.  What, you don't have a husband?  Well then who tells you what to do, and why are you such a slut?  Where was I?  Oh yeah, freedoms!  I still can't think of any freedoms that I'm missing, but I guess that's what makes Barack Obama so damn good.

I'm done with Senator Johnson for now, but I hope he runs for President next time or something, he's just so much fun.

The Death Penalty

In 1987, the football program at Southern Methodist University received what college football people refer to as "the death penalty".  SMU's 1987 season was cancelled, and their home games in 1988 were also cancelled, which eventually lead to the cancellation of the entire 1988 season.  SMU was also hit with a pretty severe reduction in scholarships and a reduction in the number of coaches they're allowed to have (as if college football teams really need so many coaches anyway, but whatever).  These penalties effectively demolished the SMU football program, and over 20 years later they're just barely starting to recover.

What did SMU do to deserve this?  Recruiting violations.  There was a lot going on, but basically, they paid players, and you aren't supposed to do that in college football.  Were they the only program paying players in the 80s?  Hell no, but they were doing it pretty blatantly, and they got caught.

Fast forward to 2012 and, as it turns out, Penn State's football facilities were being used, for years, by a former Penn State football coach, to sexually abuse young boys.  And, it appears, serious people at Penn State, including the head football coach, were at least peripherally aware that something very bad either was happening or, at the very least, had happened.

Umm, that sort of sounds worse than the SMU thing, doesn't it?  I mean, I don't wanna get into a whole thing here, but I assume we can all agree that sexual misconduct with kids is worse than paying people to play football when they're supposed to be doing it for free.

So, I was all ready for Penn State football to get the death penalty, and maybe multiple years of the death penalty, but no, not so much.  I have to admit to being sort of puzzled by this.  I've heard college football people argue that this whole scandal isn't really a football thing, so the NCAA should have stayed out of it altogether.  I don't know, it seems like it was a little bit of a football thing.  Kids weren't being abused in the showers of the Psychology department.

I think, more than any other sport, even the NFL, college football people often fail to see the bigger picture.  Growing up in a real city, with real sports to root for, I'm not particularly tied to any college football program, but I understand why Penn State people want to defend their program.  I don't really understand why other college football people can't just admit that Penn State got off easy.  They're lucky they ever get to play football again.


So what was Penn State's punishment?  First, a fine in the amount of $60 million.  I have no idea what that means.  I don't know how much money Penn State has.  I don't know how long they have to pay off the fine.  I don't know if, being the state college of Pennsylvania, they're permitted to pay all fines in the form of cheese steaks and Primanti Bros. sandwiches.  I have no idea what this means.


Second, four years of not going to bowl games.  Say it ain't so!  With Urban Meyer's arrival at Ohio State and Michigan back on the upswing, Penn State wasn't going to any Rose Bowls or national title games anytime soon.  So this basically means four years of not having to spend New Years in Shreveport or El Paso for the Whocares.com Bowl presented by Flakey Flakes off brand style breakfast cereal.


And then there's the vacated wins.  I have to admit, as much as I think Penn State deserves every bit of punishment it has coming and about 10 times more, I don't like this one.  This seems highly personal.  I've never been a big fan of Joe Paterno, or Cal Ripken or anyone else who wound up being called great mostly through an ability to stay around forever.  Still, this seems like a misguided attempt by the NCAA to kick dirt on Paterno's grave just so they can say "hey look, we did something!" and "Joe who?  Never heard of him."  You stay classy, NCAA.


And they lost some scholarships and players can transfer without having to sit out for a year, which is a stupid rule anyway.  I'm sorry, this all seems a little too lenient for me.  I've heard people say you're punishing current players for the sins of people who aren't there anymore, and that's not fair.  Umm, so? Listen, if, at some point in your life, a teacher or a parent or somebody told you that life was going to be fair, I suggest you attempt to locate that person and punch them in the face.  


Maybe the combination of the penalties and the bad PR will put Penn State football out of its misery anyway, I can only hope.  But the penalties themselves are way too soft.  What other organization would be able to move past an abuse scandal like this with not much more than a slap on the wrist?  Well, OK, there's the catholic church, but do you really want to be the catholic church of college football?


I'd like to see Penn State voluntarily suspend football for two or three years, then come back with new uniforms and probably a new team name.  Nobody knows what a nittany lion is anyway.  Is nittany a color?  Is it a place where you find lions?  I don't think Penn State will do that though, because at big time college football schools, even after huge scandals, football still runs the place.  And now we're sort of all the way back to the beginning of the problem.

Hunting Is Stupid

About a year and a half ago when some numbnuts opened fire on a sitting Congresswomen and a bunch of other innocent people in Tuscon, people said it wasn't the right time to talk about gun control, because you don't want to exploit a tragedy for political gain.  Really?  You know what exploiting a tragedy is?  Selling a 9/11 commemorative coin with a little picture of the twin towers on it and not giving 100% of the profits to fire fighters is exploiting a tragedy.  Talking about gun control after yet another round of pointless gun-related deaths is trying to fix the problem.  It's the same thing as building better levees after your city was destroyed by a hurricane.

Personally, I'm not really for total gun control.  Yes, I think owning a gun is dumb, but it's not really the government's job to keep us from doing dumb things.  On the other hand, rights have limits.  I'm allowed to own a car, but I'm not allowed to buy an Indy car and drive it around.  My right to own and drive an automobile is infringed upon by other peoples' right to not be killed by me zipping around the neighborhood at 200 MPH, and I'm OK with that, because I'm a grown up and I understand that we're trying to have a civilization here.

So, I understand if someone wants to own one small-magazine, non-automatic pistol for protection or whatever, but nobody needs an assault rifle.  Nobody needs a semi-automatic anything and nobody needs more than one gun.

First of all, hunting is stupid.  If you really live somewhere that requires you to hunt for food, than fine, you can have one rifle.  But in this way, most people are like me.  I can think of at least 8 supermarkets that have plenty of perfectly good edible meat and are a shorter drive from where I live than any wooded area where I would hunt for food, and I don't even live in a real city anymore.  Most people are just hunting for fun, and if killing stuff for fun is a regular part of your life, you may want to consult your local psychiatrist.

Secondly, if you really want to live off the land like our caveman ancestors (that you may or may not believe in) than shouldn't you be hunting with a crossbow or large rocks like real ancient humans?  Seriously, if you're hunting for sport, I'm not sure I see the sport in killing a deer from 50 yards away with an assault rifle.

I heard a guy on TV today say that it's perfectly reasonable for someone who shoots targets regularly to buy thousands of rounds of ammunition in a month.  I'm not sure he understands what reasonable means, and the fact the recreational gun use provides a context for someone to see purchasing thousands of bullets as reasonable should be a hint that maybe we need to scale things back a bit.

And honestly, why can't people who like to shoot targets just get bullets at the shooting range?  When I go to the driving range I hit maybe 100 balls.  I don't buy 100 golf balls.  I know you can only use a bullet once, but still.

Shouldn't we all be able to agree on this?  Why does half the country freak out at the idea of any kind of gun control?  Is it really a slippery slope?  Is an assault weapons ban really just three steps away from Barack Obama landing a helicopter on your roof and forcing you and your family to convert to islam?

Guns are everywhere, you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube, they say.  OK, but that doesn't mean you leave the toothpaste all over the goddamn bathroom forever.  I hate when I hear people who are supposed to be running this place make that "well, there's nothing you can do, so screw it" argument.  If you don't feel like you can do anything about the country's problems, resign from whatever position you hold and let someone else at least try.

So here's my proposal.  Everybody gets one non-automatic gun if they want one and, like, 15 bullets a year.  If you need more than 15 bullets a year for self-defense, you might want to try not pissing so many people off.  If you have a better idea, that's fine with me.  And if you're a Senator with a better idea, or a member of the House, or a President, well that would be just great.

There's an idiot (who is also somehow a Senator, seriously) on Fox right now saying that this thing that happened Friday "isn't about guns" and he wishes he could "wave a magic wand" to stop these tragedies from happening.  He went on to say that maybe so many people wouldn't have been shot if maybe someone else in the theater had a gun and had shot back.  Yes!  Public firefights between armed crazy people and relatively untrained private citizens sound like a great idea!  Oh and he just added my favorite argument about how he'd hate to see a tragedy like this used to reduce Americans' freedom.  Congratulations Senator, you're officially a moron.

Things like this aren't the fault of anyone but the shooter, but you can see why some people point a finger at guys like this idiot on Fox right now.  You don't really need a magic wand Senator Idiot, you just need to stop being stupid and vote for an assault weapons ban.  Abracadabra!

What Mitt Should Do

After watching Mitt Romney campaign for a few months, I'm forced to ask, is Mitt's campaign being run by a brain trust of infants and angry chimpanzees?  Honestly, with the President as vulnerable as he is, I'm baffled by the Romney campaign's inability to ever do anything right.  Campaigns for student council president in high schools have been better run.  

Now, I'm not rooting for Mitt, but there's always a part of me that roots for the trainwreckiest outcome possible, which is obviously a Romney victory.  If Mitt wins, I predict we'll lose an entire state by 2016.  We'll have no idea where it went.  Mitt might know, but he won't tell us.  I hope it's Texas.

Doesn't that sound fun?  Not even a little?  Well I think it does, so here's what I think Mitt needs to do to win.

1) Release His Tax Returns

How stupid can Mitt Romney possibly be?  He's at least smart enough to send his money on permanent tropical vacations.  It's unbelievable to me that Mitt doesn't understand how poorly he's handling this thing with the tax returns.  Here are some things everybody already knows about Mitt:

1) He's super duper rich.

2) His money lives in far away places.

3) Because he doesn't work anymore, and mostly just makes money from investments, he pays a frustratingly low tax rate.

Mitt's tax returns will tell us all of these things, not that we need them to.  Unless Mitt's tax returns will also somehow reveal a 7 figure "hooker disposal" budget, there's no way releasing his returns could possibly be more damaging than four months of stories about how he won't release them.  You know what nobody will give a shit about once Mitt releases his tax returns?  Mitt's tax returns.

Also, even though the current Republican theory of economics is demonstrably nonsense, doesn't the fact that Mitt has to hide his money off-shore sort of play right into their whole argument about how we need a Republican President to create an environment that's conducive to business and investment?  What am I missing?

2) Shut Up About Health Care

Anybody stupid enough to fall for the Republican talking points about the Affordable Care Act is already voting for Romney because they think Barack Obama is a secret muslim communist socialist. 

And it isn't just that arguing against, ya know, insuring more people, makes you looks stupid.  It also makes you looks like kind of a dick.  When Republicans say health care reform will lead to "rationing", what they're really saying is "hey look, if we let more people get insurance, then more people will be going to the doctor, and we might have to wait longer, and we'd rather just let some poor people die than figure out a better system." 

If Mitt wants to make the argument that the Affordable Care Act is just a big government give away to big insurance companies, I'm cool with that.  But if he wants to make the argument that it's a socialist government take-over of health care, than he's an idiot. 

Lost my train of thought there a little, this health care debate still makes me crazy, moving on...  

3) Pick a Normal Running Mate

Remember what John McCain did when he picked a running mate?  Mitt should do exactly not that.  McCain picked a clown to run with him and it turned his campaign into a circus.  Romney should pick Tim Pawlenty.  He's the vanilla pudding of politicians.  He'll sit quietly and not say anything stupid, which already gives him an advantage over Biden.  If you ask for anything else from a running mate, you're just setting yourself up for failure.

Also, I like Tim Pawlenty.  The fact that he got knocked out of the Republican primaries almost immediately only proves my point that he might actually not be an idiot.  And, for all the those evangelicals who are worried about how mormon-y Romney is, I hear T-Paw is super jesus-y.

4) Talk About Results

Don't let the Obama campaign dismiss the still struggling economy by blaming everything on Congress. Is it true that Barack Obama hasn't really been able to do anything about jobs because Congressional Republicans have spent the last two years "governing" like fussy six-year-olds?  Yes, but who cares?  How does that help anyone?  Do you think, if the President gets re-elected, Republicans will suddenly grow up and realize they need to work with him?  

Romney needs to make the point that he's not blaming the President for the current state of the economy, he's just saying the President isn't the guy to fix it.  It may not be fair, but it's probably true.

(sidenote: there's zero evidence Romney is the guy to fix it, and a decent amount of evidence that the policies Mitt wants to implement are what broke the economy in the first place, but voters really aren't that bright.  You have to have like three consecutive intelligent thoughts to get to where I just went, most swing voters can barely string together three polysyllabic words).  

Barack Obama's only defense against the unemployment rate is that it's not his fault.  If Mitt makes the point that it doesn't matter whose fault it is, the Obama campaign will be mostly defenseless on the economy, which is the only thing anybody really cares about right now.

5) Lower Expectations

Barack Obama is going to murder Mitt Romney in three debates.  It isn't really Mitt's fault.  How is he supposed to compete with an actual smart person after a year of debating mouth-breathers like Santorum and Gingrich.  The only intelligent counter points Mitt ever heard during the primaries came from Ron Paul, and he never had to respond to those because the crowd was always booing Ron ("Boooooooooo! what you said is logical and I hate it! Boooooooo!")

Do you remember the Palin/Biden debates from four years ago?  Everything we knew about Palin suggested she wouldn't be able to get through the debate without setting her podium on fire.  So, when she managed to make it to the stage without getting lost, half of the media immediately declared her the winner.  Sure, her points were mostly incoherent nonsense, but she smiled a lot and seemed to have a decent grasp of the English language, and that was really more than we were expecting.

Mitt needs to pull the same trick.  By the time we get to the debates, people should be saying that Mitt wins as long as his battery doesn't run out on national TV.  I think he's well on his way.

6) Pretend He's Never Met Congress

Mitt should run as far away from Congressional Republicans as possible.  Obama should do the same thing with Congressional Democrats, but this isn't about the President right now.  You know who people hate?  Congress.  You know how Mitt could lock up about a million swing votes in about 10 seconds?  Walk up to a microphone somewhere and say "you know, I'm a Republican and all, but Michele Bachmann really is a fucking idiot.  I just felt like I needed to share."  Wait, are mormons allowed to say that word?  He may have to re-write it a little.  Can he say gosh darn?

And that's pretty much it.  You have a sitting President with a somewhat disappointed base and an unemployment rate over 8%.  If Mitt Romney can spend the next four months not being a moron and staying out of his own way, I give him about a 75% chance of winning.  Terrifying?  Yes.  But also true.  Luckily for everyone, the chances of him spending four months not being a moron are not quite so high, so there's still hope.