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.

A Christmas Quorum

Twas the night before Christmas
and all through the House...and Senate
not a creature was stirring
not even a mouse...or Senator Bob Bennett

The stockings were hung
in the cloakrooms with care
in the hopes that campaign contributions
would soon be in there

The lame duck Congress worked hard
in their own special way
sometimes they voted
on more than one thing a day!

It was jarring, alarming
amazing, stupendous
so what if some of the things
they passed were horrendous

First came a deal
on the Bush tax cuts
did they make the hard choices?
No, silly, that would be nuts

Instead they just gave everyone
whatever they wanted
tax cuts for all
and spending undaunted

And earmarks as far
as the eye could see
project after special project
pinned to the Christmas tree

The DREAM act died
on the Senate floor
Republicans say it was amnesty
sneaking in the back door

I don't care much either way
so I'm not going to panic
but Republicans; good luck winning elections
with zero votes from Hispanics

Democrats fought against
don't ask don't tell
while Republicans fretted
about unit cohesion going to hell

But you can't ask people to fight
for our country indivisible
while simultaneously asking them
to remain invisible

So finally they repealed
that bigoted piece of crap
and then...the gay army took over the world!
oh no! it was a trap!

The 9/11 first responders bill
can't get votes from 60 men
suddenly we're all worried
about deficits again

For a fraction of the cost
of tax cuts for the wealthy
we could help keep real heroes
alive and healthy

Where is the outrage and shouting
that usually abounds?
even John Q. nine-elevington himself,
Mayor Daffy Giuliani, is nowhere to be found

If that bill doesn't pass
by the end of this week
I wish everyone who blocks it
a horrible, slow, coughing death
(they don't all have to rhyme people. My blog, my rules)

Televangelist Beck railed
against the food safety act
clearly it was some kind of
big government attack

On our personal liberties
but Glenn brought the heat
defending our holy right
to eat tainted meat

The START treaty sits
unratified and useless
apparently we're still afraid of the Russians
and I have to admit to feeling a little clueless

Didn't conservative hero Reagan
single-handedly win the cold war?
isn't that why we forgive him
for being a big corporate whore?

As I write this it looks like
START will pass soon
don't worry about Russia
they couldn't even beat us to the moon

I'm not used to the federal government
doing so much so quickly
this Congress spent its first 22 months
abdicating responsibility so slickly

Frankly, I'm impressed
with the savvy of the President
some tough words for his own party
and now he's everyone's favorite D.C. resident

But success in politics is fickle
and this could all go awry
as Republicans remind their base
that he's still a black guy

For now, with everyone bitching
on the left and on the right
I hope the President understands
he must be doing something right

I Had An Idea!

I was watching Glenn Beck a little while ago, I still check in on Glenn a couple of times a week, just for giggles. Sometimes I wonder, if Glenn didn't talk about god all the time, what would I think of him? Do I let his constant references to faith and the creator and values negatively color my whole view of him. If Glenn were an atheist, would I still call him crazy all the time? Of course I would! Glenn's really wandered round the bend lately, but he's still as good for a laugh as he ever was.

Alas, this isn't about Glenn. While I was checking in on Glenn today, he mentioned that members of Congress make $175,000 a year, which seems to be more or less correct (as usual, I refuse to put more than 47 seconds of research into this, but I quickly found that the base salary for Congress is $174,000, and the leadership makes more, so the average is probably right around $175,000. Glenn must have taken a trip to reality to get that number, I hope he enjoyed it).

I've heard this number, or a rough estimate around it, many times before. It never bothers me, I don't care how much other people make and I generally respect the right of a person to earn whatever someone else is willing to pay them. That argument is a little more convoluted with Congress, because they vote on their own salary, so it's more like they're earning whatever they can get away with paying themselves before we riot. Still, I don't begrudge them their six figures. But today, I had an idea.

I propose we tie Congress' salaries directly to the national average wage. If the average salary of a regular working person is, say, $40,000/yr, that's what we pay Congress. When the country is doing better, Congress does better. When something bad happens, like say, a Republican President, we'll call him Donald Deagan, starts off a 30 year period of setting the economy on fire and putting it out with peasant tears, then Congress suffers a little too.

Would this cut the deficit? Not really. All the money we'd save cutting Congressional salaries would probably be enough to buy us one extra F-35 fighter jet. But it would be a nice symbolic budget cut, and since symbolic budget cuts are probably all we're getting anyway, this would be as good as any.

Do I really think this would change Congress' behavior? I don't know, maybe not. I doubt we've got a lot of people in Congress who are in it for the money (not the legit money anyway). Plus, you could argue a policy like this would create a disincentive for the best and the brightest to get into Government. That's a perfectly reasonable argument, but the current Congress isn't exactly a brain trust. You'll have a pretty hard time getting me worried about damaging the intellectual quality of Congress.

On the plus side, I could see how this could happen. First of all, politicians get voters to vote against their own interests all the time, so obviously that's possible. Secondly, wouldn't this be awesome politics. Can't see you pundits on Fox and MSNBC lauding the courageous politicians willing to cut their own salaries in order to cut spending and send a message about fiscal responsibility and solidarity with the people? How could one party publicly oppose this?

Obviously, this isn't going to happen. Look, we're at a point in time when the fortunes of the people running the country have nothing to do with the fortunes of everyone else. Why not look for a way to tie them together, just a little. So, I had an idea, not the most actionable idea I've ever had, and I'm probably not the first person to think of it, but there it is. I thought I'd share.

Ps...after I posted this, I got a little curious and found out that this is in no way an original idea, many people have had it, including some crazy people. You know what, if I had a whole bunch of totally original ideas that nobody ever thought of before, I'd be rich and I wouldn't have to go to work anymore. You can still enjoy the jokes.

The New Center

I have a theory. Now, I watch Glenn Beck at least a couple of times a week. Glenn has a lot of theories, I think the last one involved Woodrow Wilson secretly traveling back in time to start the slave trade. My theory isn't a Beck-style, category five crazy theory. I'm a bit more of a moderate, and that's sort of my point, this is a theory about moderation.

I've been trying my best to get engaged with the 2010 midterm elections, my efforts are meeting with limited success. The Democrats are undisciplined, somewhat cowardly and really failing to zero in on a message. Ya know, they're acting like Democrats. I can't imagine a way a party could more thoroughly squander a huge majority, but I'm sure the Democrats can.

Meanwhile, the Republican party seems to have been taken over by crazy people. Their nominee in Nevada, Sharron Angle, can generously be described as totally insane. Of course, she still has a decent chance of winning because she's running against Harry Reid's politically dynamic combination of unspeakably boring and unimaginably ineffective. Should be a real barn burner out there.

The Republicans in my current (but, thankfully, soon to be former) state have nominated Linda McMahon. Seriously, the wrestling lady. I swear I'm not joking. But she also still has a decent chance because she's got about a trillion dollars and she's running against a Democrat who kept telling people he served in Vietnam even though he didn't.

I've also noticed the Florida Senate race. Florida has the rare three-way race going. Independent and former Republican Charlie Crist vs. tea party Republican and former hair model Marco Rubio vs. a couple of Democrats who can't even poll at 20% in a pretty 50/50 state. Crist leads the real clear politics average of polls no matter which Democrat you plug in. This brings us to my theory. I think Crist is the leading edge of a big wave of successful independent candidates.

Look at where we are right now. People are rightfully fed up with both parties. The imagineers at Fox News keep telling me the Republican party will win back a majority in the house and maybe the Senate in November. How many times do you think people will go back and forth like this before they realize nothing ever changes? I think Crist wins by double digits in November, partially because he won't be weighed down by the stupidity of either party. That's why I think he should change his campaign slogan to "I'm Charlie Crist, and I don't like either of these guys". I also like that slogan because it's a little punchier than Marco Rubio's "I'm Marco Rubio, and I'll say whatever Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin tell me to say".

In the past, independents struggled because they couldn't raise any real money and they didn't have enough name recognition. Next time you go vote, take a look at the candidates on your ballot after the two major parties. It's a veritable who's who of who the f*ck are these guys. People generally aren't fans of voting for people they've never heard of, or giving them money.

But Sean, you protest, Ross Perot had money and everyone knew who he was, and he still only got just under 19% in the 1992 election. I can't argue with you there. Sure, part of what Perot was known for was his trademark bat-shit insanity, but still, he was well known. So what's different now?

As usual, part of the problem is the internets. An independent candidate doesn't need the party establishment to raise big money anymore. Even major party candidates do a decent amount of fundraising on the internet. I'm not saying an independent can get even with the big parties on money, but I think they can get close enough, if people know who they are. That brings us to culprit number two.

Cable news. People are more well informed about politics now than ever before. Well, maybe I wouldn't say we're well informed, but we're certainly more informed. I live in Connecticut and know who Marco Rubio and Sharron Angle are. Do you think I would have known who they were in 1992? Probably not.

So, here are the factors:
1) People are genuinely fed up with both parties
2) Fundraising is way easier now than it was even 10 years ago
3) Name recognition in politics is almost universal at this point
4) I say an independent is about to destroy both big party candidates in a pretty visible Senate race in Florida

Over the next five/ten years, I think we'll see a wave of moderate, reasonable politicians running for office as independents, and winning. I wouldn't be surprised if the 2020 Senate looked something like 43 Republicans, 41 Democrats and 16 independents. Of course, this means Congress will do even less than it does now. Impossible, you say? That sounds like a challenge.

Further down the road, maybe this even gets us a new third party, which will inevitably become just as corrupt and ineffective as the current two parties. I said I had a theory, I didn't say it was a good thing.

Telemarketer From The NRA

You wouldn't say I have a fun job. I sit in an office, I do work. Sometimes people talk to me, sometimes funny things happen outside my window (like the time the facilities department here got one of their trucks stuck in the mud outside and then got a second truck stuck trying to get the first one out). For the most part, it's pretty boring. Every once in a while though, I get some fun at work, even just a few minutes is appreciated.

Today, I had a few minutes of fun, because I got a call from a telemarketer. Here's how the call went (approximately, I wasn't taking notes, but this is basically how it went):

Telemarketer: I'm glad I finally got in touch with you, I'm calling from the National Rifle Association. Sean, when was the last time you had a chance to get out and go hunting up in that part of Connecticut?
Me: Never (I might have already been laughing at him just a little at this point).
Telemarketer (undeterred by my giggling): Never? That's OK, most NRA members aren't hunters, they're just ordinary Americans concerned about protecting our 2nd amendment rights. Did you know that Attorney General Eric Holder is currently working on a law which would take all handguns and firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens? This would mean the criminals would be the only ones left with guns.
Me: You're suggesting that the Obama administration has a secret plan to leave criminals as the only people in the country with guns? That sounds like a terrible plan.
Telemarketer (mostly ignoring me): Don't you think it's important to protect our second amendment rights?
Me: The second amendment doesn't have anything to do with personal gun ownership.
Telemarketer: Sure it does, the second amendment is the one that protects your right to keep and bare arms.
Me: I'm not a member of a well-regulated militia.
Telemarketer: Can I sign you up for a five year NRA membership for just $125? Or would you prefer the three year membership for just $85?
Me (laughing at him pretty audibly at this point): What? No.

At that point, the telemarketer hung up on me. I feel like getting a telemarketer to hang up on me is a pretty solid accomplishment. I only have a couple of comments:

First of all, telemarketer for the NRA has to be one of the worst jobs you could have, right? People have really strong opinions about guns, and some of those strong opinions are really negative. I can't imagine the words that guy probably gets called everyday, and based on his staunch adherence to his script, even when I was openly mocking the NRA's beliefs, I'd say it's possible he doesn't even care about gun rights.

Secondly, I've noticed I haven't been writing about politics too much lately, and I think this is why. I'm just tired of the nonsense. Barack Obama's secret plan to take guns away from all the law abiding citizens, leaving only criminals armed. I don't even know where to begin. Democrats aren't any better. MSNBC spent like three days trying to blame the BP oil spill on Dick Cheney.

This just in from the MSNBC news center: "Sometime between tomorrow and 5 billion years from now, the sun's nuclear fuel will run out. Fusion will cease and the sun will balloon to a red giant star before it's final death as a white dwarf. Any life left on Earth will die unless it can find some way to leave. Can we blame this on the Bush administration? You bet your ass we can!"

I'm still really interested in politics and, soon, I'll probably get back to paying close attention and writing about it sometimes. For now, I can't even laugh at Glenn Beck anymore. If you can watch Glenn for a whole hour and not laugh your ass off at least once, you know it's time for a little break.

Socialism: Day One

The first weekend of the NCAA tournament is the best weekend of the year, and I'm not even a huge college basketball fan. Under the circumstances, I think it was perfect timing. It was like one last great American party before everything changed. Late last night, the House of Representatives passed the health care bill, which means we're now a socialist country, and we don't get to enjoy cool American stuff like the NCAA tournament anymore. It makes perfect sense, because, when I think of socialist/marxist/communists, like say, Hitler and Stalin, I immediately think "health care".

I have to say though, my first day in the United Socialist States of America has been a little disappointing. I mean, look, I'm not happy about being a socialist now, I really liked the old America. But, I've decided to adopt a positive attitude and make the best of our new system of government. I know it's only been one day, but so far, I feel like I'm not getting what I was promised.

I still had to get up and go to work today. I didn't think I'd have to do that anymore. I was expecting the government to just send me some free money that I didn't have to work for. It's a good thing I took a day off on Friday. If I had been at work Friday, knowing socialism was coming on Sunday, I might have quit my job. Without a job or my free government money, I'd be totally screwed right now. Maybe my free money will come at the end of the week, like pay checks do. I'll be waiting.

What about President Obama's death panels? I was sure the government was going to start killing everyone's grandparents as soon as this bill was passed. So far, I don't know of anybody in my family being put to death by the government. It could be that I just don't know about it yet, but I feel like my mother would have called.

"Gee, Sean, lack of death panels doesn't seem like a reason to be disappointed". True, but we all know the death panels are coming, they were a key component of the bill. It's sort of like when you were a kid and you did something really bad. You knew your parents were going to punish you, but then they didn't right away. You spent the rest of the day terrified, just waiting for them to do something. I feel the same way now. I know the death panels are coming, I wish the President would just get it over with. Right now, we don't know who's going to die, or when, or how. This waiting seems cruel and unusual.

Speaking of death, I know for a fact that freedom died yesterday. Republicans in Congress were very clear about this. It's bad enough that I was apparently not invited to the funeral, freedom and I were pretty close, but I haven't even seen a lot of TV coverage. Fox is the only channel really talking about it, and they seem more in denial than anything else. TV covered Michael Jackson's death for like two weeks. Hell, the death of Corey Haim got a few days. Nothing for the death of freedom? I'm disappointed.

Also, since Republicans on TV have been telling me that we're heading toward European-style socialism, I was expecting something with soccer. Europeans love soccer, and I assume it's a key part of their particular brand of socialism. I was expecting something like a $1,000 check in the mail, in exchange for which I would be required to attend and enjoy soccer games. There's soccer happening outside my window right now and, well, I still hate it. Now, I haven't received my soccer subsidy yet, so maybe my feelings will change when it arrives.

What about all the slavery reparations? Glenn Beck was adamant about this bill being part of a secret plan to redistribute wealth in an effort to make reparations for slavery. Shouldn't there be a guy at my door collecting money? Maybe because my family wasn't here until the 1900's I get out of this one. That kind of makes sense, but I don't know, Glenn didn't say anything like that, and he said he was telling me the whole truth. I'll have to check the text of the bill. (Glenn, by the way, is in full tantrum mode right now, it's hilarious)

As a matter of fact, I haven't even noticed a drastic change to my health insurance yet. I think I'm still on the same plan I had last week. I thought they were sending a government bureaucrat to come stand between me and my doctor (in my case, it's an imaginary doctor, because I don't go to doctors and you can't make me). Maybe I'll try to make a doctor's appointment later this week, just to see how crazy and different it is.

I don't know. Maybe socialism is like quitting smoking. When people quit smoking, they don't just magically become 100% healthy right away, it takes a little time. Maybe I should just be patient and wait a few weeks. Or maybe this bill's full socialist effect won't happen until the Senate is done passing the reconciliation fixes. That's certainly possible.

The only other possibility is that Republicans and TV conservatives were lying to me about what was going to happen when this bill passed. No, no that's ridiculous. What kind of person would make up lies to try and defeat a bill that aims to insure over 30 million people? What kind of monster would go on TV, day after day, and hammer a health care bill just to further their own career? No, I don't think any of my TV friends would do that...

OK, OK, I've had my fun. Do I have any serious thoughts about the bill?

1) I don't love this bill, but I'll buy it as a step in the right direction. The pre-existing condition thing is solid policy. So is the part about not kicking people off their plans when they get sick. Allowing kids to stay on parents' policies longer in this economy is a nice touch too. I'm not sure why most of the other good stuff doesn't kick in until 2014, but it probably has something to do with our government being barely functional.

2) I really don't like the individual mandate. I know it's hard to affordably insure sick people without making healthy people be part of the pool. That doesn't mean I have to like it. There isn't a little fine print section at the end of the Constitution that reads "*feel free to violate this document if it makes doing what you want to do too hard". I wonder about Constitutional challenges here. I'm sure I could find something in article one, section eight to uphold this, but, as you may have noticed, I'm not actually on the Supreme Court, so what I can find doesn't matter all that much.

The only thing that blunts my problem with this is the fact that I don't feel like I've ever had a choice. I've had three jobs that provided benefits. All of them just signed me up for a plan, they didn't ask me if I wanted one. Maybe I had to ask about it, like the secret menu at in-n-out burger. Oh well.

3) I especially don't like the individual mandate without a public option. We're basically just forcing everyone to buy insurance from the companies that are already screwing us. Only now we're making it slightly harder to screw us and we're providing subsidies (for the buying, not the screwing, I think).

4) This whole abortion thing is stupid. First of all, it's apparently a nonsense debate because, for reasons I obviously don't fully understand, federal funding of abortion is already illegal. Undeterred by reality, yesterday, Congressman Mike Pence (R-Imagination Land) said it is "morally wrong" to use the tax dollars of pro-life Americans to fund abortion. Really, moron? Quoting one of my all-time favorite TV characters, "I don't know where you get the idea that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for anything of which they disapprove. Lots of them don't like tanks, even more don't like Congress." Is it morally wrong to use the tax dollars of anti-war Americans to fund the military? Of course it isn't.

Someone should have the authority to immediately throw people like Pence out of Congress for stupidity (put that on my list of dream jobs, right near the top too). Either that, or we should send Pence, Michelle Bachmann and Steve King (not the crazy novelist, the crazy Congressman from Iowa) down to the basement of the Capitol to guard the bee whenever Congress is trying to do something serious.

Bachmann: "Duh, Mike, why are we down here?"
Pence: "Aw geez, I told you Michelle, to guard the bee."
King: "But whyyyy?"
Pence: "You guys are pathetic. No wonder Pelosi made me head bee guy."

5) Speaking of abortion, I don't understand how these Republicans can all be against giving more people health insurance. Aren't these the "right to life" people? I'm positive I've seen that on a Republican sign somewhere. Won't it be easier for people to exercise their right to life if they can, you know, stay alive?

6) My favorite part of Health Care Day (that's what I'm calling yesterday, I think it'll catch on) was MSNBC's brief coverage of tea party idiots trying, and apparently failing, to spell out the word "no" on a lawn near the Capitol building. I'm sure they got it right eventually, and MSNBC was probably just mocking them a little to gloat. It was still funny though.

On a more serious note, these tea morons have me seriously considering changing my party affiliation from Republican to Independent. I'm still up in the air about it. Congratulations tea people, you are so ridiculous, so blatantly racist and ignorant, you've got me considering leaving a party that I was willing to share with fundamentalist christians.

7) How many times in the next seven or eight months do you think a Republican somewhere will say the bill was passed in the middle of the night or under the cover of darkness (spooooky!)?

8) Finally, is it possible that the Democrats did something (gulp) politically smart? Follow me on this. Sometime early last week, the Democrats started talking about using this deem and pass procedure, which would have allowed them to deem the Senate bill passed through the House without actually having a direct vote on the Senate bill. Republicans freaked out, and rightfully so. We spent the rest of the week listening to Republicans complain about the process.

Then, Saturday, the Democrats announced they'd just pass the Senate bill with a regular vote. It almost seems like they intentionally tricked the Republicans into spending the last week of debate arguing about a process issue that never actually came up instead of making points about the weaknesses of the actual bill. This left the Republican message a little jumbled going into the vote. I think the Democrats just won a political chess match. Politically competent Democrats? Hold me, I'm afraid.

Be Afraid

Glenn Beck is a crazy idiot. But he is, by far, my favorite crazy idiot. Beck's show is an hour long roller coaster ride of delusion, hilarity, complete disregard for reality and even the occasional moment of insightful clarity. I can only imagine what his radio show is like (awesome, I assume).

A year ago Friday, a tearful Beck introduced his ridiculous 9/12 project. The premise was for us to go back to being the people we were on 9-12-01, the day after 9-11-01. What a great idea! I really enjoyed that odd combination of anger and confusion, thanks terrorists.

The 9.12 project is built around Beck's "9 founding principles" and "12 eternal values". Glenn's very much into founding and the founders. Today's politicians are no Ben Franklin. I mean, sure, some of them may have syphilis, and I could see many of them enjoying French whores, but still. I seem to have wandered off the path a bit. Anyway, I think now is as good a time as any to take a closer look at the 9/12 project.

First, the nine founding principles...
1. America is good
That's it. No qualifiers, no caveats, no exceptions. We're just good, period. The list of things that are good under all circumstances is pretty short. Even bacon doesn't make that list (raw bacon=not good). I'm pretty sure a country doesn't make that list. We've been here since the 18th century, I'm positive we're slightly more complicated than "good".

More importantly, this type of broad oversimplification is exactly the kind thinking that allows people to justify things like torturing terror suspects. Because if we're always good, then everything we do is good, and we don't have to think about it. I know America is a great place, and we've done a ton of great things, but sometimes we do bad things. We need to be able to recognize those bad things, take responsibility, and try not to do them again. Why? Because that's how you stay good.

2. I believe in god and he is the center of my life
OK, most people who read this are people I know, and a lot of them are religious. They're good people, and they don't look down on others who don't believe what they believe. So I try really hard not to insult religion here, but Glenn is always baiting me. So, religious people I know, feel free to move on to number 3, or you can continue to the blasphemy portion of today's program, but don't say I didn't warn you.

I am so incredibly tired of people like Goldmember Beck and Fathead Hannity telling me that I'm somehow less of an American or less of a good person because I can't see their invisible friend. Everybody here gets to believe what they want to believe, and I'm cool with that. But if you're telling me, to be a real American, I have to buy into your magic story about how the universe works, either show me some proof or leave me alone.

I'm not hostile toward religion, I'm really not. I see people doing good things in the name of religion, and I see the value people get out of always having something in their lives that loves them and gives a crap about them. If I could get my brain there, I'm sure I'd find it comforting. But I get annoyed when people suggest that the government, the people who run our country, should base decisions on something that, to be nice about it, may or may not be real.

(PS...why do I like calling him Goldmember Beck? Watch his show one day, watch the commercials. I think you'll agree, he likes gooooooooooold)

3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday
It would be easy to call Glenn a liar here and move on, but I really don't think he is. I don't know if I've ever seen Glenn say something he didn't believe. That's part of his charm. So much of what he says is nonsense, but he's very convincing because he absolutely believes it. My problem with principle number 3 is this. How about just trying to be completely honest everyday? I only have to be more honest tomorrow if I lied to you today.

4. My family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government
This one is all about kids and education. Now, if you read my education blog from a couple of months ago, you know I think parents are, generally, idiots and I don't want them anywhere near public education. Having said that, I fully realize that parents have the right to teach their stupid kids whatever nonsense they want. The problem is, this starts with parents teaching their kids values or religion at home, which is fine, but it ends with home schooling and not getting kids vaccinated. Do you want a generation of home schooled kids with measles? Me neither.

5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it
I'd like to be able to cure cancer with beer and skittles. Some things are really nice ideas, but you can't just wish them into reality. Some people will always be above the law, or they'll at least always be able to buy their way out of trouble. We don't have to like it, but we do have to live with it.

6. I have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results
Yes, Beck believes in equal rights and opportunity for everyone. Well, except the gays, of course. Oh and Muslims (who apparently shouldn't be Congressmen unless they can prove their loyalty first). And, of course, progressives, who are just terrible and evil. And minorities, they get most of the rights, but if one of them becomes President or something, than everything he does is automatically socialism or a sneaky plan for slavery reparations. You know what? Glenn's going to have to get back to you about this equality thing.

7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable
I remember that passage in the bible when Jesus said "In as much as ye have done unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Unless ye be the government, in which case, anything ye have done unto the least of these my brethren is socialism, and it be WRONG!" I may have slipped from bible talk to pirate talk near the end there, but you get my point.

8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion
he added, "unless of course we have a Republican President. Only terrorists disagree with Republicans." This is a trick Beck and all of his Fox buddies use. If you listen to them now, they'd have you believe they were all really hard on President Bush. Poor guy just couldn't catch a break. I must have just randomly tuned into Fox for all the rare times they were completely agreeing with everything the Bush administration was doing. Just my crappy luck I guess.

9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.
This one makes me almost as angry as number two. If I could, I would tattoo this next sentence onto Glenn's forehead. The government does not work for us, it works on our behalf. It's the difference between having an employee and having a lawyer. You pay both of them, but an employee, generally, has to follow orders, while a good lawyer doesn't just do whatever you say, because you're an idiot and he went to law school. We do not have a right to a government that never spends a tax dollar on anything we don't like. We don't have a right to a government that never does anything we don't like. Anyone who tells you different is either stupid or lying.

And, of course, the 12 eternal values...
Honesty - Well, when Glenn said he was sick of the 9/11 families and he wanted them to shut up, that was, indeed, super honest. Beck supporters will tell you he said he didn't feel that way about all the 9/11 families, just about 10 of them. Oh, OK, that makes it better, my bad.
Reverence - This one feels suspiciously religious to me. Who, exactly, am I supposed to revere? Especially since I'm supposed to be hating the government and all. Glenn either wants me to revere him or god. No dice either way.
Hope - Not that crazy Obama hope though, ya know, white guy hope.
Thrift - When was the last time someone called you thrifty and it wasn't just a nicer way of calling you cheap?
Humility - Like the humility it takes to believe you know better than every elected official and every voter who elected them. What? That's not what humility means? Screw you!
Charity - As referenced above, only when you feel like it, and the government had better not be anywhere near it. It does seem like a lot of these values are just modified versions of the principles. Seems kinda lazy. I get the feeling this was like a homework assignment for Beck. He knew it was due on 3/12/09, but he just kept putting it off and then he had to throw it together the night before.
Sincerity - You know what? I'm gonna give Glenn this one. The world could use more sincerity, and I'm as bad with this as anyone. Sure, I'll write something sincere here or in an e-mail sometimes, but it's very possible it's been three months since I actually said anything sincere to anyone. So there you go, the Beckster is 1 for 21.
Moderation - I think this one comes from Beck's background as an alcoholic (I'm not mocking alcoholics, Glenn brings this up all the time). Sorry Glenn, if there's a more American value than crazy, unnecessary excess, I haven't found it.
Hard Work - Glenn is a big fan of hard work. Unless, of course, you're in a union. Then, you're destroying America. Much like me, Glenn's a puzzle.
Courage - Like the courage to go on TV and share your paranoid delusions with the world.
Personal Responsibility - Beck often claims to be a Libertarian, and this one is sort of a nod to that. Unfortunately, you can't really be both a Libertarian and a Theocrat. Sorry Beckster.
Gratitude - This one was originally friendship, but Beck swapped it out for gratitude on the fly as he introduced the values. Wait, I thought these were eternal values? Maybe if the terrorists had attacked on 9/12, Glenn could have had 13 values and kept friendship. Stupid terrorists, they ruin everything.

I'm curious about the complete lack of any mention of diversity, tolerance, acceptance, etc. What happened to the whole melting pot deal? Are we done with that now? I didn't get that memo.

So, what's my problem? This seems mean-spirited, even for me. Shouldn't I go easy on Beck, isn't he at least getting his followers involved in government, and isn't that ultimately a good thing? Well, if that were true, I would say it is a good thing. But I have a hard time believing that Glenn's anti-government manifesto will result in his fans getting constructively involved. So far, we've had people shouting nonsense at politicians while the rest of us were trying to get health insurance fixed. And we've got the Republican party chasing the idiot vote instead of gravitating back toward reality after the last two electoral beat downs.

This isn't constructive engagement, it's propaganda, from a guy on a "news" network (and I know, MSNBC does the same thing for the liberal agenda, but Fox is way better at it, at least for now). But that's not the worst part. Go back to the beginning. It's the 9/12 project, we're supposed to try to feel the way we did on 9/12/01. I identified anger and confusion, but my guess is, most people associate one emotion with that day more than any other. Fear. Glenn is, almost explicitly, trying to scare us into agreeing with him. And it seems to be working. That's my problem.

What Are They Up To?

I'm starting to feel like I finally achieved my dream of moving to Edmonton or Alaska, only nobody told me. If you live in the northeast or mid-atlantic, you know what I'm talking about. There's snow everywhere, it's like some kind of Dickensian frozen hellscape out there. The sun doesn't help, it just makes the blinding white snow even brighter. Yesterday I felt like Forrest Gump. There was big snow, little snow, sideways snow, upside down snow. I'm thinking of investing in some cross-country skis, or a plow for the front of my car. I'm not complaining, I like winter, I like snow, I love the cold.

The best part about all of this is the reaction of climate change deniers. Hannity, Goldmember Beck, Big Fat Rush, other conservative pundits and commentators on Fox, lots of Republican Congressmen and Senators. They believe, because it's cold right now, that this completely destroys all theories of global warming and climate change. That's pretty dumb. These people are suggesting, with straight faces, that snow, in winter, means climate change is just a big liberal myth. How dumb is that?

Sometime in our infancy, after birth but well before we learn not to fear the toilet, we develop our understanding of object permanence. That is, the understanding that things we've seen before continue to exist even when we cannot see them. So basically, when you say that climate change is all a myth because you're cold right now, even though you know, say, that last decade was the hottest decade we've ever seen, you're making an argument that even a 1 year old would find implausible.

I saw Olbermann and Jon Stewart, among others, hammering the deniers pretty hard for this. That kind of insane stupidity is right in their wheelhouses. But see, I'm not buying it. I refuse to believe that all of the people I've seen mocking Al Gore this week because it's snowing are actually that stupid. Rush maybe, Jim Inhofe definitely, but not all of them. No way. Take Beck, he's not a dumb guy. He plays dumb for his audience sometimes, but he's a master manipulator, pretty funny (sometimes intentionally) and he knows a lot of big words, like communist and eugenics and oligarchy (although that one took him two tries) and woodrowwilson (that might be two words, I'll have to check that). Anyway, my point is, I'm positive Glenn is at least as smart as, say, a four year old, or a chimp.

Hannity too. He doesn't play dumb on TV so much as he plays willfully ignorant. But Hannity also knows big words, like propaganda and hyperbole, and I've seen him use his opposable thumbs to throw a football and hold a piece of paper. He too, is definitely at least as mentally capable as a toddler or a lower primate.

That brings us to my question. What are these people up to? Are they just trying to bait Democrats into a climate change fight so it looks like they're not paying attention to the economy and terrorism? Are they just trying to kill that idiot-ass cap and trade bill? I still say my argument against cap and trade (that it's stupid and won't even do much for the environment, you can read all about it in one of my earlier posts) is better than any other argument I've heard. Are they just trying to make Democrats look generally silly?

I don't know, this seems like kind of a stupid way to do any of those things, and Democrats can look silly all on their own. Is it just because ignoring science is generally good policy in the Republican party right now? This time, I'm really just asking questions. I honestly don't know. But I want to know. Conservatives everywhere spent the last two days saying incredibly stupid things on TV, and I honestly believe many of them know better. What are they up to?

The Craziest Thing I've Ever Seen

We see crazy things on TV all the time. Sometimes MSNBC runs old episodes of To Catch a Predator on the weekends. Every segment of that show ends with the police tackling a surprised pervert. It's fantastic. It's also pretty crazy to see a bunch of guys show up to have sex with 13 year olds on national TV. We're like two, maybe three steps away from killing someone on live TV, right?

By the way, what do you think goes through a pervert's mind when the little girl disappears and Chris Hansen pops out and tells him to have a seat? His first thought would have to be "uh oh, that's her dad and he's definitely going to kill me". So, when he finds out it's just Chris Hansen, there have to be some mixed emotions. On the down side, no sex with a 13 year old today, and he's about to get tackled by policemen dressed as trees and hauled off to jail. On the plus side, he's probably going to live.

Last night I was watching the Colbert Report and I found out that J.D. Salinger died last week. I watch as much news as anyone, it took me a week to find out that J.D. Salinger died. The death of one of the Jersey Shore cast members would get more media coverage. I know, Salinger was a recluse and the State of the Union was last week. Plus, we're still getting more information on just how much of a scumbag John Edwards is (I used to like John Edwards too, I felt like he really gave a crap about poor people, then he cheated on his cancer surviving wife, had a baby and denied paternity. There's a special level of hell just for him. You know, if hell were real).

Still, the death of Michael Jackson was on every channel on my TV for like a week. If Michael Jackson had died last week, I think we would have had to postpone the State of the Union. I'm only half kidding about that. But Salinger gets hardly anything. He wrote Catcher in the Rye. How does that not at least equal Thriller? (obviously, it's like 78 times better than Thriller, and I like Thriller. I'm just trying to be fair-minded) Seriously, sometimes I wonder what's wrong with us.

Last week ole Goldmember Beck was at it again. I didn't watch most of this episode, but it seemed he was doing an entire hour on the evils of elitism. My favorite part was when he called Woodrow Wilson a "dirtbag racist" (Beck really doesn't like Wilson, or Teddy Roosevelt). I don't have a problem with that, it was pretty funny to see, but weren't many of Glenn's heroes, the founders, slave owners? Anyway, that's not the crazy part, and Beck's constant attack on elite people isn't the crazy part either.

Going after elites is good politics. Most people aren't elite, most people are actually pretty average, and many of them are just plain stupid (I've said this before, look around you right now, do you see stupid people? You bet your ass you do. I rest my case). There's a lot of political hay to be made in making the stupid people think that they're not stupid and actually somehow better than the smart people. It's nonsense, but a lot of populism is nonsense and it always seems to work.

The crazy part was right at the end. Glenn and his guests were talking about what people should read to get informed. Someone suggested The Federalist Papers. That's not a bad idea. Glenn suggested that someone would have to translate The Federalist Papers into words regular people could understand. So Glenn's argument is that the "people" are smart, and they know what's best, and anyone who calls them stupid is an elitist jerk, and possibly a communist who wants to kill everyone. But those same "people" are just too stupid to understand The Federalist Papers without someone translating the essays into smaller words. Glenn even made fun of himself for saying it. Something has to be pretty crazy to give Glenn Beck a moment of self-awareness.

I saw something else last week. The President reminded us why being elite isn't a bad thing, why we want the smart guy in charge. He reminded me why I voted for him and why, even though I'm a registered Republican, I refuse to vote for anymore Republicans until we get the idiots out of the party (I've said this before too, it may be a while). Last Friday, the President went to visit the House Republican caucus and took questions on live TV. He mopped the floor with those morons. It was awesome, like watching the President debate a group of hostile third graders. Here's how you know last Friday didn't go well for the Republicans. They haven't even been trying to spin it this week. They're just pretending it never happened and moving on. It got to be such a one-sided ass kicking that Fox News stopped covering it in the middle.

So what was so crazy about this? You had Republicans asking questions and listening politely to the responses. You had the President talking on TV without prepared lines or going over everything with his staff. Politicians, having an open and honest debate, unscripted, in front of TV cameras, for the whole country to see? I don't know about you, but that's the craziest thing I've ever seen.

Corpocracy

Did I watch Conan O'Brien's last Tonight Show? Hell yeah I did! It was fantastic. Neil Young was awesome (Neil was awesome on the Haiti concert too. Is that the first time him and Dave Matthews played together? Did Neil travel back in time at some point so he could have a second career as Dave Matthews?). Plus, and I swear this is true, I had never heard Free Bird before, at least not that I can remember. I'd heard of it, but I'd never actually heard the song. Will Ferrell, by the way, has gotten to the point where I can't tell if he's kidding anymore, but he gets an A+ for breaking out the cowbell (I feel like we needed a little more of it). If I was Fox, I'd give Conan a blank check to go on my network at 11:30 starting in September and do whatever the hell he wants. If they do it right, he'll crush Leno and Letterman. I almost wrote a whole thing about it, but then I thought, who would I be convincing? Is there anyone who would say "no Sean, I don't think Conan has a big future in TV, Fox should just stick with Seinfeld reruns at night"? Of course not, that would be ridiculous.

Speaking of ridiculous, Glenn Beck, my favorite TV crazy person, is at it again. Last week Glenn did a whole special about how communism is bad. Thanks Glenn, that's super helpful. I hadn't noticed all the communist countries failing miserably and disappearing, except Cuba and North Korea, who can't feed themselves. At one point, Glenn teased the next segment as the story of the holocaust that history forgot. That sounded unlikely right off the bat, but I stuck around to find out. Turned out he was talking about Stalin. Ummm, what? Can I get a show of hands from anyone who didn't know Stalin killed millions of people? Seriously, wow, kudos to Glenn for pointing out that Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Che Guevara were all bad guys (I know, people wear Che t-shirts, it's not because they support all the things he did, it's because they're stupid. Glenn, of all people, should understand what that's like).

With whom did Glenn think he was arguing? Does he think people were watching and thinking "sorry dude, I totally disagree with you about that Stalin guy, he seems super cool"? I know we have some communists in America (and that's the good part about America, you get to believe whatever you want, and tell people about it too, and I'm not allowed to send you to jail, or even punch you), but they're not the crazy killing people communists, they're more the sharing the wealth types. I have yet to meet anyone who thinks all America needs is Stalin. And I know Glenn would say that the wealth sharing communists always eventually turn into the killing communists. And if there was a huge wealth sharing communist movement in America and Glenn was talking about them and warning them that it's easy to get carried away, I wouldn't make fun of him.

Unfortunately, Glenn was talking about this because he continues to insist that President Obama and the majority of Congress are, in reality, communists/marxists/socialists/facists; maybe polygamists. OK, I made up that last one. But Goldmember Beck isn't the only one saying this, lots of "conservatives" are. I'm not sure why.

The bank bailout? As far as I can tell, here are the terms we gave the banks in return for giving them an oil tanker full of unmarked bills:
1) You have to pay us back, well most of it, or some, unless you really don't want to. We might suggest a new tax/fee to get the money back, but it'll never pass Congress because, um, you own Congress.
2) You have to come to Washington every once in a while and re-apologize for lighting the economy on fire and using the flames to light your cigars. You have to try and sound really sorry.
3) We're going to use you as a political pinata for a while.
4) There are some things we're requiring you to do with the money to help re-build the economy you broke, and no more huge bonuses (or, if you prefer, boni)...just kidding. Do whatever the hell you want.

Now, you could argue, since we don't produce actual things in this country anymore, that the banks are as much a means of production as anything. I'll buy that, especially because, the way our economy is set up, it's basically impossible to start any kind of business without a loan. But if you'd say that the government controls the banks now, you have a very odd definition of control. It reminds me of that joke about who aliens would think was in charge if they came down and saw us following dogs around and picking up their poop. The banks destroy the economy, the government gives them billions of dollars and they get super rich again while the rest of our economy still sucks. It's hard to argue a lot of government control in that equation.

Health Care?
I don't know what a final health care bill is going to look like, or if we'll get one at all. I do know that Republicans have been crying about a "government take over of health care". What? What part of forcing citizens to by insurance from private insurance companies at basically the same rates we're paying now constitutes a takeover? Believe me, I've argued that a government takeover of health care might be necessary, the way the government controls the military or police, because the private sector isn't doing the job on health care. If the government was taking over health care, I'd be among the first people to say so.

What about the auto industry bailouts?
Well, we're getting warmer at least. I'm not wild about taxpayers owning the majority of GM, especially since by taxpayers I mean the federal government. Because if I owned any piece of GM, we wouldn't be getting rid of the Saturn brand. Soon I'll have to find somewhere else to take my car for service, I don't like change. On the other hand, there are a couple of realities here worth noting. First, if we're going to bailout huge banks, why not also save some jobs for blue collar auto workers. If you'd rather have done neither, that's an excellent point and I couldn't agree more, but that ship had already sailed on the President when he took office. Second, if it takes a little government input to get GM to stop making cars that get 3 miles per gallon and explode whenever they turn left, then so be it.

On a somewhat related topic, last week, the Supreme Court ruled that any limit on corporate contributions for buying campaign ads in unconstitutional. They can't just give a candidate a sack of money, but they can buy all the ads they want (which is what campaigns use money for anyway). Great job Supreme Court, well done. For years, Congress has tried to find sneaky little ways to be corporate whores, now they can do it right out in the open, I'm so thrilled (by the way, Republicans seem to be supporting this decision, I'm not sure why they think it'll be better for them, Democrats can be whores too).

This doesn't really look like socialism or communism to me. It's actually sort of the opposite of socialism, the corporations are running the government. What do you call that? Congressman Clyburn, specifically in reference to the Supreme Court ruling, called it a corpocracy. I knew there was a reason I always liked him. I especially like corpocracy because, if you look at it really quickly, it kind of looks like crapocracy. Is this better than communism or socialism? Probably not. But it isn't socialism.

What Can Brown Do For You?

Well, it's all over. Goodbye health care, goodbye socialism, hello Scott Brown. Oh, the poor Democrats, how will they ever get anything done when they only control 59% of the Senate and roughly just over 59% of the House? Why not just give up right now? You might say, "hey Sean, I seem to remember Republicans doing pretty much whatever the hell they wanted with quite a bit fewer votes, and I seem to remember it happening not that long ago." Nice try, but they had the Republican voodoo magic on their side (and by that, of course, I mean that you can say whatever you want about Republican policies, but, right now, they're like a billion times better at politics than the Democrats).

I watched Scott Brown's victory speech in Massachusetts and I learned a few things about our newest Senator:
1) I can see why people voted for this guy, he's super likable. I don't know a lot about where he stands on issues, though I can probably guess, but he knows how to relate to a crowd. Take away the rookie speech mistakes (like driving home the talking points a little too hard so they sound like they don't belong, like they're fake additions to his otherwise real speech, which he'll learn to stop doing) and he's really got something.
2) He has good political instincts. He spent a few minutes praising and thanking Ted Kennedy and his wife, it looked genuinely classy. Was it all fake? Maybe, but he did it and in today's politics, that's really all we expect. It's been a long time since we cared if anyone meant anything they said.
3) Scott Brown's daughter is pretty hot. You heard me.
4) Scott Brown wants to be the President.

(Before I continue, I should say that I am in no way suggesting Scott Brown would make a good President, or even that he'll definitely ever run. I'm just saying he wants to.)

How do I know that last part? First, he talked a lot about being the "independent" candidate and how the independent voice of Massachusetts elected him. We'll see if he actually votes independently when he gets to Washington (I'm predicting no, not even a little), but that's campaign talk that means "if you've had it with both parties, vote for me". Since the percentage of people in this country who've had it with both parties might get near 100% by 2012, that sounds like a pretty good strategy.

Second, he talked a lot about national issues. For example, he mentioned the upcoming terror trials in New York and how Constitutional rights protect us, not terrorists. Setting aside Mr. Brown's tragically simplistic understanding of how Constitutional rights protect us, can anyone tell me what that has to do with being the new Senator from Massachusetts? The answer is nothing, that whole section of his speech was a national campaign section. I could go on, but if you watched Scott Brown last night, I doubt I have to convince you.

So, how does he do it?
Step 1: Health Care. I know I said this election wouldn't impact health care, but I'm having second thoughts. I may have underestimated the cowardice of Democrats (impossible right? maybe not). I could see 6 or 7 moderate Democrats using this as an excuse to run scared from the health care bill. This would reset the issue and Mr. Brown would be in a unique position to show himself to be a reasonable Republican who will break from his party leadership and support a good bill that covers more people and regulates the industry. Normally a brand new Senator wouldn't be able to get in and be such a big part of such a major bill, but the Democrats will work with him if he's the only Republican willing to talk. The chances of Brown actually doing this? Like .0001%, but he should.

Step 2: Vote Against Earmarks. All of them, and don't even think about taking any for Massachusetts. In reality, this is pretty stupid. Earmarks are a big part of how we get federal money to the states, which is sometimes necessary. But guess what? Most voters don't know that, they think earmarks are all multi-million dollar highway rest areas named after members of Congress, and people hate earmarks. Plus, if Scott Brown does plan on running for President, he doesn't have to worry so much about what he gets for Massachusetts, because he's not planning to go back there. The chances of this happening may actually be pretty good.

Step 3: Don't Say Crazy Things. Don't call the President a socialist. Don't say the health care bill includes death panels. Basically, get away from the Glenn Becks of the world. Brown wants independents, you can't get them by standing next to the lunatics. People are looking for someone reasonable, someone who can respectfully disagree and offer a better idea.

Step 4: Learn. I still say this is Sarah Palin's biggest ongoing mistake. Look, she was pretty dumb in 2008, but they grabbed her out of the middle of nowhere and asked her to be the VP candidate, so what did we expect? She should have finished her term as Governor, disappeared for six months while getting a crash course in everything and then come back looking smart and knowledgeable compared to her earlier self, and ready to run. Instead, she released a book and decided to work for Fox.

I don't know if Scott Brown is stupid, but I know he's never been a national figure before and he'll have a lot to learn on national (and international) issues. He needs to go to school (ya know, metaphorically, he doesn't have time for actual school, he's a Senator now). Learn everything he can about foreign policy, national security and everything else a serious candidate needs to know about. Running for President isn't about being right all the time, it's about having an informed opinion all the time. He needs to resist the temptation to mock so-called "academic elites" and, instead, get a little elite himself. Being elite isn't a bad thing. Knowing more than your opponent isn't a bad thing. I don't know if Scott Brown can get to where he knows more than Barack Obama, but he can at least get to where he looks like he belongs on the stage with him.

These aren't the only things he'd need to do, but they're the first things that come to mind for me. Will these four things get him my vote? Hell no. The Republican platform has so many positions that annoy me right now, he'd really have to piss off the party to get me to consider him. But I'm just one vote. I'm talking about getting 50.1% of people to vote for him. Do I think that will happen? Probably not. But like I said, I'm not saying Scott Brown is going to be the next President, I'm just saying he wants to, so he's worth keeping an eye on.

Mixed Bag

First of all, if anyone reading this hasn't donated to the Haitian relief effort yet, what exactly are you waiting for? Here are some links (I know some people get nervous about credit cards over the internet, I can tell you I've never had any security problems with the red cross website):
American Red Cross: http://www.redcross.org/
Yele Haiti: http://www.yele.org/
MSNBC has a good bunch of links: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34835478/ns/world_news-haiti_earthquake/
OK, on to less important things...

I've noticed that many of my favorite ESPN.com writers sometimes do mailbags, where they answer questions sent by readers. Just now, I'm figuring out exactly why. Sometimes you sit down to write, but you don't really have anything to write about. Bummer. That's where the mailbag comes in. Unfortunately, I don't know if I have any readers, and I know they don't e-mail me. I'll have to improvise. So, here are some fake e-mails from made up readers.

Q: "I just watched Mark McGwire admit to Bob Costas that he used steroids. This is a two part question. First, is this even remotely news? Second, did you see him crying? Did you know that Mark McGwire was secretly a ten year old girl this whole time?" - Zack, Bayside High School
A: Excellent question! Of course it's news. And someone should tip Bob Costas off to some other breaking news stories. I have it on good authority that the sun might rise again tomorrow. Also, I took the ice out of my freezer a couple of hours ago, and it melted, all I have left is a bunch of water. I feel like I need to give a tearful interview about it. Seriously, I've never been less surprised by anything. I'll be more surprised tomorrow when I wake up and find that there isn't a monkey in my bathroom than I was when I found out Mark McGwire used steroids. As for the crying, if you're going to come out and try to cover your old lies with barely more believable lies, at least keep your dignity.

Q: "I read your NBA preview blog. Were you high when you predicted that the Washington Wizards would make the playoffs and Gilbert Arenas would have a great year and not do anything crazy? Did you have a serious concussion or some other kind of traumatic brain injury?" - Balki, Chicago/Mypos
A: No. Sadly, my brain was fully functional when I wrote that. I'm 30 years old and it's possible I've never been more wrong about anything in my life. I'll give Gilbert this, not many people could pull off doing something that hits a 10 on the what the f*ck meter and still have it not be that surprising. Well done sir.

Q: "I have a friend who innocently brought four guns to work, only because he didn't want to leave them home with the kids. Now, out of nowhere, he's suspended from work and being charged with a felony. I guess I should also mention that my friend has a reputation for being somewhat unstable, and any rational person would be terrified by the idea of him having even one gun. But come on, shouldn't everyone just give my friend a break?" - Philbert, Washington D.C.
A: Sorry "Philbert", I'm going to have to disagree. I don't think your "friend" is a bad guy. In fact, if I knew who you were talking about, I'd probably say he's someone I've always liked and rooted for. But, if I brought a gun to my office, I'd probably lose my job immediately, and nobody would give a crap. So I don't feel a whole lot of sympathy for your buddy.

Q: "What do you think about Charles Woodson winning Defensive Player of the Year?" - Jean Luc, um...Space, in the future
A: Let me just say this. If you offered the Packers Darrelle Revis straight up for Charles Woodson, even if Woodson was still young, they'd take that deal so fast you'd see a big Packer shaped dust cloud in the room where they were standing. Not only should Darrelle Revis have been the Defensive Player of the Year, he may also be some kind of Roman god. Did the Romans have a god of pass coverage? I feel like they should have.

Q: "Did you think it was weird for the NFL to have the Packers-Cardinals playoff game officiated by a group of blind chimps?" - A.C., Bayside High School
A: Lots of questions from Bayside today, they're huge fans of mine. I actually got 200-300 almost identical e-mails. I know it seemed that way, but I went back and watched the game footage in slow motion. The game was officiated by actual human referees, who, at times, appeared to have the full power of sight. Is it possible the NFL adapted my Umpire Idol idea and used it? I don't think so, my idea involved making sure the winners knew the rules of the sport. It's more likely a bunch of drunk tailgaters from the parking lot beat up the actual refs and took their uniforms. The NFL should beef up ref security for this weekend. By the way, what does the A.C. stand for?

Q: "What do you think of this whole Leno-Conan thing?" - Tyler, Paper Street
A: First, I think what I've always thought. Jay Leno sucks and I don't understand why anyone watches his show. I don't understand why NBC can't just let Jay and his 95 and over demographic go to ABC. Carson was the best, Conan is awesome. Leno is like the lettuce in my patented BLMB(bacon, lettuce and more bacon) sandwich. I'd say I'm boycotting Leno from now on, but I literally couldn't watch him less than I already do.

Q: "You picked the Cowboys and Chargers in the superbowl. You still feeling pretty good about that?" - Ron, San Diego
A: I feel awesome about my picks right about now. The Cowboys destroyed the Eagles and the Jets have their fans set up perfectly for the annual huge disappointment that no one saw coming. Plus, I think this is the week the football gods punish the Colts for quitting, which means if the Chargers can get by the Jets, they get a home game next week against Jets lite. Of course, if you read back to my Wizards/Arenas pick, you'll see that Jets and Vikings fans should be very happy I'm picking against them this week.

Q: "Speaking of your NBA preview, when you tagged the Nets as the most boring team in the NBA, did you fail to account for how interesting a team can be when it's that bad, or are you not the kind of person who finds 10 car pile-ups interesting?"- Hawkeye, fictional Korea
A: First of all, how did you know someone else also asked a question about my NBA preview? That's a little creepy. The answer is a little bit of both. I'm not surprised at how bad the Nets are. I also wrote that if you combined the rosters of the Knicks and the Nets, you still wouldn't have a playoff team. Even with the Knicks overachieving, the Nets are still bad enough to make that true. If you added all of the Nets to the Knicks, it might actually make the Knicks worse. At the same time, I probably underestimated how interesting this colossal failure would be. I have to admit to turning to Nets games a few times this year, just to see how bad it really is. I have yet to be disappointed.

Q: "Do you regret dumping the Islanders for the Edmonton Oilers now that the Oilers might be the worst team in hockey and the Islanders are not actually terrible and kind of fun to watch?" - ALF, Melmac
A: Not at all. This was a long term decision and I'm very happy with it. Have I seen an Oilers game all year? Absolutely not. Is it possible I may never see an Oilers game? Entirely possible, since only the Cup finals get televised on a real TV network. Are the Islanders' throwback blue uniforms on Saturday nights incredibly awesome? You're damn right they are. Having said all that, Edmonton is still the best hockey city I could find and I'm still moving there if I ever get rich and decide to move out of the U.S., so I'm fine with my choice.

Q: "Any thoughts on Pete Carroll going to Seattle?" - Al, Chicago
A: This is really a two part question. First, how do I feel about him leaving USC? I don't know yet. I get the sense USC football may get some nice NCAA sanctions for Valentine's Day. If that's the case, Pete's sudden exit gets a solid 8.5 on the douchebag meter. Otherwise, he had to leave sometime. Second, how do I feel about Seattle being the NFL job he finally took? That's the part I don't get, and the part that makes me think he had other reasons for leaving. Maybe he just got tired of waiting for Norv Turner to finally get himself run out of San Diego. Maybe he just really likes rain. I don't know, but the Seahawks were awful this year, and possibly the first team to quit on the season. Why is Pete Carroll taking over a team that quit before the Redskins? Before the Raiders? Before the Rams? I honestly can't figure it out.

Q: "Did you see the Sarah Palin-Glenn Beck interview?" - Jim, Scranton
A: I wouldn't have missed it for the world. It was like the black hole at the center of the galaxy of stupidity. You know what's really starting to strike me about Sarah Palin? Her incredibly high ratio of condescension to knowledge. I don't know if we've ever seen anyone who knows so little acting as if she knows so much. Everything she says, even the total nonsense, has this air of absolute certainty about it. It's really something. I still say she should have her own TV network. I also still say I'm moving to Finland if she gets elected President (which I also still say is impossible unless her campaign strategy includes some sort of military coup involving the Alaska National Guard).

Q: "Can you believe someone other than Mr. T is playing B.A. Baracus in the new A-Team movie?" - Danny, San Francisco
A: I absolutely cannot believe that. "Mr. T is dead" is the only acceptable excuse for that, and Mr. T is clearly not dead, I just saw him in a commercial. I don't know a whole lot about this Rampage Jackson dude, but I pity the fool who takes Mr. T's role.

Q: "I'm getting excited to watch the Olympics in February and I'm wondering if you can point me toward some of the best competitions to see?" - Mike, Long Island
A: This is obviously a trick question, no one is excited to watch the Olympics.

Q: "Everyone knows you don't care about soccer, and you're right not to, soccer sucks. But are you going to try to get interested in the World Cup?" - Rose, Miami
A: I think I might. Originally, I had decided to double boycott the World Cup on account of it being soccer and the Irish team not even being involved. Recently, I'm having a change of heart. I remember that I always enjoy the World Cup, even if I go back to making fun of soccer as soon as it's over. It's the best possible soccer you can see. Since the Irish are out, I'm rooting for England. I know Ireland and England haven't always gotten along but, as always, I'm a puzzle.

Canadian Baby Boomers And The War On Christmas

I was watching TV during lunch today and I saw the President give yet another speech designed to get feckless Senate democrats to just use the majority they have and do something useful already. Good luck with that, Mr. President. He talked a lot today about the deficit and CBO scoring, so I guess he figures the biggest obstacle to a health care bill is the cost. Well, the biggest obstacle he can talk about out loud anyway. He can't just come out and say that Joe Lieberman is bought and paid for by health insurance companies and is just blocking health care reform for campaign money and political revenge, because that wouldn't be nice. He also can't say that Joe Lieberman is only an independent because neither party really wants him, that too wouldn't be nice. So, I'll get to the war on Christmas in a minute, but first, all this talk about money and health care gave me a new idea.

Insuring so many more people would cost money. A public option would cost money, subsidies would cost money, adding more people to medicare would cost money. Everything costs money. The President optimistically believes a good reform bill would ultimately save us money, and it might, but there's no guarantee. At the same time, the federal deficit is under increasing stress from retiring baby boomers qualifying for medicare and social security. This makes it even harder to sell anything that costs money. So here's the idea, send all the baby boomers to Canada.

I love this idea. First of all, Canada is great. They have hockey, maple syrup, snow, health care, more syrup. And baby boomers may be too old to learn a new language, but I don't think they're too old to learn a cool new Canadian accent. Also, I'm not 100% positive on this, but I'm pretty sure everyone who becomes a new Canadian citizen gets a free moose. If Canada doesn't like it, too bad. We've been putting up with their Celine Dions and their Trebeks for years, it's really the least they can do. You think we would miss our baby boomer friends and relatives? That's why Canada is such a fantastic idea. It's right there. I was in Detroit once, I could have traveled right to Canada via bridge OR tunnel. How much easier does it need to be? So there you go, I solved health care, what's next?

Oh yeah, the war on Christmas. I don't know if I can solve this one so easily. On the other hand, this is another one of those times when I get to disagree with everybody, so there's that. First though, let me say that I don't blame Bill O'Reilly (who is sort of the king of this issue) or Glenn Beck (who is a good bet to cry at some point in the next nine days about how there isn't a nativity scene somewhere) for talking about this. It's an interesting debate, it gets good ratings and the outrage they show isn't anymore disingenuous or fraudulent than the outrage they show about anything else. So I'm laying off Bill and Glenn today (and Glenn's lucky, Monday night he did a whole show about how environmentalism is really just a way to replace god with the planet, because god gave us liberty and if you replace god then government can take away our liberty, I almost threw something at my TV). I'm talking more about the people who listen to them, or argue with them, the people who really get up for this issue. I suppose my only real question is, why?

I guess I can sympathize with where Christians are coming from on this, at least to an extent. If you believe in your religion, and you perceive the country to be burying it when it used to be such an accepted part of the culture, I can see how that would be concerning. I just have one problem. If you told the Jesus in the bible that some places don't want to put Christmas symbols on public property, because it makes people of other faiths uncomfortable, do you think he'd say "screw those people! They're gonna look at little plastic baby me on the state house lawn and like it!"? If you wished him happy holidays, would he respond by putting a big "we say merry Christmas" bumper sticker on his donkey as a passive aggressive FU to all the happy holidays people? I know I'm the last person who should be telling religious people how to be religious, but I went to 12 years of Catholic school, and I feel like I have an OK grasp on the basics. So, do you really think Jesus would be that dickish about Christmas? Probably not, right?

The other people, the people who act honestly offended by Christmas, I have considerably less sympathy for them. I understand the church and state implications of religious symbols on public land, and I don't want religion anywhere near public schools, but sometimes you just say "who cares?" Is anyone honestly offended by Christmas? Really?

First of all, Christmas is barely even a religious holiday anymore (I know Christians hate this, but shhhh for a minute, I'm on your side for once). Everyone gets off work for Christmas, and the people who have to work usually get overtime or weekend pay or a floating holiday or something. We treat Christmas the same way we treat the Fourth of July, it's a national holiday. So, I say anyone who complains about seeing Christmas symbols has to go to work next Thursday and Friday while the rest of us are going to church (or in my case, sleeping late). They have to sit in their empty offices and be sad and not get any extra pay for it. Deal?

Second, Christmas is just fun. There's lights and cookies and a big fat guy with presents. You have parties where you can watch your stupider co-workers jeopardize their jobs. It's an excuse to give presents to people you care about. We get weeks of awful television and music that I can't stand, but other people seem to enjoy. I like fun things, don't you like fun things?

Also, I really don't like political correctness, not even a little. I'm not talking about not saying words that are legitimately offensive and hateful and have no place in society. That's not political correctness, that's being a grown-up. Here's an example of what I'm talking about. I used to work in an office where we had a secret santa gift exchange every year. Then, one year, we called it secret snowflake, and we weren't allowed to say secret santa anymore. Everytime someone said secret snowflake to me, I lost a few brain cells in a tiny explosion of rage in my mind.

Christmas is also an excellent chance to do good things. It's a chance to donate to a charity or bring food to a soup kitchen or give toys to poor children. Would I like to think that if there was no Christmas we'd find other reasons to do these things? Sure, but for now we have Christmas, so why not take the opportunity to do something good. We can argue about which religion is right, or if god is even there, in January, after people get food and toys and jackets.

I'd like to see a truce in the culture war, just for Christmas. If you celebrate Christmas, and someone wishes you happy holidays, just say something nice back. If you don't celebrate Christmas, and someone wishes you a merry Christmas, I promise they aren't secretly trying to indoctrinate you and your kids. I think most people already get this, but for everyone else, Christmas is a good time to be nice to people. Christmas can be crappy for real reasons. Christmas sucks if you're alone, it can suck if you lost a family member recently, it sucks if you lost your job this year and you can't afford gifts. It can suck even more if you try to reach out to someone by saying happy holidays and you get an earful because they say merry Christmas. It can suck even more if you can't afford gifts for your kids, but you can still take them to the park to see the big shiny tree, only it's gone this year because someone called it offensive. Dramatic scenarios? Sure, fine, all I'm saying is, everyone be nice for a couple of weeks, because it's Christmas. And if you don't celebrate Christmas, just be nice because there's a way to be a person.

Is it ironic for me to start by suggesting the deportation of baby boomers and end by asking everyone to be nice? Sure, as always, I'm a puzzle. What do these two things have to do with each other? If you're one of the millions of Americans who can't afford health care, and you spent all year hearing about how the President and Congress were on the job, and now you see that we're getting either a craptastic health care bill or no health care bill, wouldn't that be the crappiest Christmas of all?