Less is Nothing

I came into the 2016 campaign thinking of Ben Carson as one of the smart guys in the Republican field.  He made a living operating on brains, which I'm given to believe is somewhat challenging.  I never expected him to know things about public policy or foreign policy, having never worked in government, but I thought he'd be good at common sense things and thinking on his feet.  Don't surgeons have to literally think on their feet?  Shouldn't quick decisiveness be a strength for a brain surgeon?  I feel like if something went wrong during my brain surgery, Dr. Ben would decide what to do about it halfway through my autopsy.  He's like a glacier with glasses.  But, even though it seems like Ben really REALLY thinks before he speaks, he still says things that make no sense to anyone.

In case you missed it, Ben decided he needed to go on TV and comment on the latest episode of America's longest running reality show "Lots of People Get Shot for No Particular Reason".  Like Survivor, it was never really a good show, but we have no intention of cancelling it.  Anyway, Ben figures that if he were ever confronted with a gunman, he would just rally everyone in the room to attack the gunman and stop him.  As far as I can tell, here's how Ben's fantasy plays out:

Scene: Dr. Ben is teaching a class about brains or whatever when suddenly a guy in a black jacket busts in with an assault rifle.

Ben: Hello Sir!  Do you intend to shoot all of us?
Gunman: Yes, that's the plan.
Ben: OK, can you give me a minute to rally all of these unarmed people to attack and stop you?
Gunman: Sure, that sounds fair, I'll just hang out here in the doorway for a minute.
Ben: OK everybody, out of your chairs, we're going to stop this gunman!
Student #1: Ummm, I'd really rather just sit here and maybe not get shot.
Student #2: Agreed.  Your plan seems flawed since he has a gun and we're unarmed.
Student #3: Yeah, I like being alive and if I just run at the guy with the gun, he's probably going to shoot me.
Ben: NO! NO!  You guys don't get it.  If you all run at him, some of you will probably die, but some of you might not.
Student #2: Yeah, we're definitely not doing that.
Ben: Excuse me, Mr. Gunman.  Could you give me a little more time with this? These people aren't really understanding the plan.
Gunman: Alright dude, but like, three more minutes.  I really need to get started with this.

And scene.

Now, to be honest, I don't really care what Ben thinks or says because Ben isn't going to be President and I already knew that.  Still, I was struck by the fact that Ben's solution to a mass shooting still involves a few innocent people dying, just not as many.  I've had this same concern for a while about the standard Republican response to mass shootings (most Republicans are smart enough to at least avoid suggesting that the victims were just too cowardly to live, I thought Ben was smarter than that too).

Usually, after one of these tragedies, Republicans will go on TV to talk about it.  After they get done sending thoughts and prayers, and before they get to the part where they accuse anyone talking about gun control of exploiting a tragedy for political reasons, they opine about how this all could have been prevented by a good guy with a gun.  What a wonderful world it would be if we were all constantly surrounded by armed vigilantes with itchy trigger fingers.  Everyone knows the best part of the old west was the constant possibility of being hit by a stray bullet.  Free lead everyone!

Also, Republicans have fantasies in which they play the role of Clint Eastwood, but most people aren't capable of just shooting someone.  That's why cops and military people need a lot of training, and frequently need a lot of counseling after they shoot someone.  That's why every time one of these shootings happens we talk about mental illness.  Killing someone is harder than Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina imagine it being, probably because they're both sociopaths. 

Any time someone opens fire on a group of people, even if there's a decently trained armed citizen in the crowd, a few people are going to get shot before the gunman does.  We can't shoot people before they start shooting other people unless Ben Carson is also working on a pre-crime division for the FBI (and I really hope he is, I would just like to see Rand Paul's reaction).  Sometimes these things happen in movie theaters.  Does a shoot-out between a crazy person and a vigilante in a dark theater really sound like a good idea to you?

While we're here, this is a little off topic, but let's quickly dispatch with another stupid argument.  I've heard politicians argue that we don't talk about knife control after a stabbing.  Yes, if you want to kill one person you can use almost anything you want if you're creative enough.  But if you want to kill 10 people in 3 minutes before the cops get there, a knife or a hammer won't get the job done.  Also, knives have other legitimate uses and guns are really only used for shooting stuff.  Anyway...

I don't think we should be willing to accept "less innocent people dying" as a valid goal.  That may be a realistic outcome, but I think we have to demand "zero innocent people dying" as the actual goal and work backwards from there.  I'm not saying ban all guns.  People already have them.  I also don't want to walk through a metal detector every time I go anywhere, although I feel like that's where we might wind up and I guess I can handle that if I have to.  Come to think of it, I already made a proposal http://somethingclever13.blogspot.com/2012/07/hunting-is-stupid.html

What I'm asking for is better leadership.  When you're talking about innocent people dying, less is meaningless.  I want a Presidential candidate with a proposal to get us to zero.  Why don't we demand a higher bar for our candidates?  I made this point on another topic recently.  In a country of 320 million people, only one of us has to be in charge at a time.  Is it too much to ask for one person with a new idea? 

The Last Straw (AKA Robot Bees)

Hey there.  Soooo....I completely stopped blogging for a while, for like 5 months.  Why?  Well, two reasons really.  First of all, sometimes I get so sick of myself that I just want to shoot me in the face.  I needed a break from putting the nonsense in my head into internet words.  Secondly, I almost completely stopped paying attention to political news.  Why?  Well, two more reasons.

First of all, I recently got a DVR.  It's the best TV related thing I've experienced since I discovered The West Wing.  Not only can I pause and rewind TV shows, which is perfect for me because I constantly stop paying attention to things I'm doing, even when I'm interested in them.  I regularly rewind something more than once because I'm genuinely interested in it but somehow my mind still wanders during it and I miss it.  I definitely would have been diagnosed with ADHD if I had been born 10 years later.  Wait, where was I?  Oh yeah, not only can I pause and rewind TV shows, but I can also record shows and watch them later.  Which means I can record the Daily Show and Colbert and @midnight and then I can watch them the next day when I get home from work, which means no more early evening Fox or MSNBC. 

More importantly, I literally couldn't take it anymore.  I've made this complaint before, but it's worth repeating.  Fox's 5PM slot has really gone downhill.  Glenn Beck was hilarious and genuinely entertaining.  As you might have guessed, putting a barely coherent lunatic on TV for an hour a day turned out to be a pretty solid programming idea.  In contrast, Fox's new 5PM show answers the burning question "what do morons think about everything?".  It's so stupid and because there are five of them, it's cluttered and not even really entertaining.  I think if you just gave Eric Bolling an hour to rant, he'd reach Beckian levels of insanity pretty quickly.  Unfortunately, his current show always provides someone to cut him off before he really gets going. 

The other thing with Fox is they have absolutely become the boy who cried Obama.  In Fox's universe, President Obama is engulfed in so many scandals he's making Watergate look like the Teapot Dome scandal (gotta love a Warren G. Harding reference...also, as far as I can tell, the Teapot Dome scandal is now what we call "lobbying").  The timing of the VA scandal couldn't be better because it's like Fox is challenging their viewers..."there's a real scandal in here somewhere...can you find it?...we bet you can't!". 

Meanwhile, MSNBC has gone round the bend.  I tuned into MSNBC one night this week and I caught a little of Chris Hayes' show.  I generally think of Chris Hayes as a reasonable fellow.  What was Chris talking about...this week...which is in June?  Chris Christie and a bridge.  I'm not kidding.  Actually I think he was talking about Chris Christie and a Skyway, which is sort of like a bridge but over land I guess.  So, as far as I can tell, MSNBC has been talking about Chris Christie and bridges (and skyways, and maybe tunnels) for six months now, only stopping to remind us of what a great President they think Hillary Clinton would be.

Quick detour...is Hillary Clinton out of touch with regular people?  Of-fucking-course she is.  She's spent almost all of the last 22 years being First Lady, a Senator, a Presidential candidate and a Cabinet Secretary.  If you HALO dropped Hillary Clinton into a working class neighborhood she'd be like a Star Trek away team member on a strange planet..."Captain, I see people getting their own coffee.  It's like they don't even know what a personal assistant is.  And I see cars driving around without an important person riding in the back seat.  Oh god!  Did they kill all the important people?!?  Get me out of here!".  It isn't her fault, it doesn't make her a bad person, it's just the way it is.

So what brought me back?  What sucked me back into cable news and got me to log back in to my dormant blog?  It was the President.  This President that I've mostly defended over the last six years.  This President who I've always stuck by.  I stuck by him when he ruthlessly insisted on giving more people access to health care.  I stuck by him when he tried to talk about gun control after some asshole shot a bunch of kids, even though we all know mass shootings are about literally everything but guns.  I consistently stick by him when he continues to reference god and jesus even though we all know he's an atheist.  I've stuck by him even as he continues to insist upon being black, even though the Republicans have made it clear that they are very uncomfortable with that.  He's so mean to them.  But I hung in there because I like Barack Obama and I think he's smart, and I kept hanging in there...until now. 

Look at this CNN story.  Look at it!
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/22/politics/honey-bees-protection/

That's right, Barack Hussein Obama wants to protect bees!  He's in the pocket of big insect!  Now I understand that it's hard to resist the bee lobby.  They don't even bribe you, they just sting you until you do what they want.  But that's still no excuse.  I elected Barack Obama to make the tough choices and not give in to political pressure or bee stinging pressure.  Save the bees?  Ugh, no wonder Republicans are talking more about impeachment these days. 

I can already hear you liberally whining about pollination and the food chain.  I have a solution for that.  Two words...robot bees.  Put tens of thousands of Americans to work building billions of robot bees which can be programmed to pollinate stuff while also not stinging everyone.  Or at least not stinging me, I don't really care what they do to the rest of you. 

Meanwhile, some nerd scientists can get to work on figuring out what's killing the bees so we can weaponize it and kill all the other insects.  They're sneaky and some of them can fly, and they can also be replaced by robots if they do anything useful.  Stop shaking your head at me, you know this is a good idea. 

So listen, I'm just going to say this, and if everyone in America wants to get behind me and turn it into a big national movement, I think that would be pretty great.  In the 2016 election, I promise my vote to any candidate from any party who is willing to play god and replace all of the insects with tiny robots programmed to not bother us (note: offer not valid for Rick Santorum).  We can call our group the Bee Party.  Who's with me?

Poor Faulkner

"Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words? He thinks I don't know the ten dollar words.  I know them all right.  But there are older and simpler and better words, and those are the ones I use."

This sentiment from Hemingway is always appropriate for a big political speech.

This year's State of the Union comes without the usual pregame madness thanks to whatever the hell was going on in California.  I did learn that Bill O'Reilly doesn't believe in the death penalty.  Who knew?  The rest of it was mostly just video of a cabin burning down.  I'm just looking forward to the President awkwardly working this situation into his speech.

8:57PM: This is pretty fun.  The huge panels of bloviating jackasses the cable networks put together for tonight each got about three minutes to talk.  In order to understand why this is fun, you really have to understand how much these people enjoy being on television.  Don't be surprised if someone burns down a cable news studio later tonight.  Also, Blogger doesn't know how to spell bloviate.  Or maybe Blogger just noticed that I opened with that Hemingway line and is trying to point out my hypocrisy.  Listen, if I could write like Hemingway, I wouldn't need to use words like bloviate.

9:02PM: The Cabinet is very slowly and boringly making its way into the chamber.  Also, breaking news from CNN, the White House says this speech is going to be effective.  What a scoop!

9:05PM: Seriously though, I just noticed CNN has Newt Gingrich in the studio.  He's barely getting a word in.  I think his head's going to explode.  And when a head that big explodes, terrible things happen.

9:07PM: I'm starting to wonder if the President is coming.  If he knew Newt was talking on TV right now, I'm sure he'd jump in and stop it.

9:09PM: Newt's laugh is disturbingly creepy.  Oh, I miss the Republican primaries.  No Newt!  Don't go!

9:10PM: Here comes the Prez.  I keep saying they shouldn't let Biden and Boehner sit together.  They already look like they're up to something.

9:11PM: Lots of poorly executed mustaches in the crowd tonight.

9:14PM: People say Congress never does anything, but could you stand and clap for this long without a break?  Also, Biden and Obama appear to be wearing the same outfit #awkward

9:16PM: Lots of "does anyone know what Mitt Romney is doing right now?" jokes on Twitter.  Probably enjoying being filthy fucking rich and not having to deal with all this nonsense.  Mitt may have dodged a bullet in November.

9:18PM: Did you know we're buying less foreign oil than we have in 20 years?  Still quite a lot, but, you know, less.

9:18PM: "The state of our union is strong."  OK, goodnight folks.

9:19PM: Biden looks twitchy, Boehner looks pretty drunk.

9:20PM: "The American people don't expect us to solve every problem."  True, but solving one would be nice.  Just try one.

9:22PM: Apparently the sequester is a really bad idea.  Everyone seems to agree on that.  If only we could find all those people who voted to pass the sequester in the first place.  Ohhh, I bet the Prez and Mr. Boehner would like to have a word with those assholes.

9:25PM: "Already, the affordable care act is slowing the growth of health care costs."  Yeah, I'm not sure that's good enough.  Health care costs are skyrocketing on a slightly less steep trajectory.  Hooray for us!

9:27PM: We're wallowing in the deficit reduction portion of the speech right now.  The working title for this section around the White House was "all the shit that's never gonna happen".

9:29PM: In the last minute, only the Democrats have applauded for "less crises" and "paying our bills on time".  Tough crowd.

9:30PM: Biden cracks me up.  Obama just said Congress needs to pass the rest of his growth agenda, which caused Biden to laugh out loud.  I'd love to be texting with Biden right now..."Congress do something? OMFG! LOLZ!"

9:32PM: The Prez thinks we should invest in good ideas.  Also, Biden is inexplicably wearing glasses now.  Wait, now the glasses are gone.  Why is Biden doing costume changes?  Just sit still man!  VPs are the worst.

9:34PM: Obama says we can make progress on climate change while also fostering strong economic growth.  I wish he'd stop saying that.  Not everything has to make money.  When you try to pair fighting climate change with trying to make everything profitable, you get stupid ideas like cap and trade.  How about we fight climate change just for the sake of, ya know, not dying?

9:38PM: "Let's cut in half the energy wasted by our homes and businesses over the next 20 years".  Sure, why not?

9:39PM: Even the Republicans stood up and clapped for fixing bridges.  They're not going to vote for any funding for fixing bridges, but, philosophically, they like fixing bridges.

9:41PM: On passing some bill that's currently waiting in Congress.."what are we waiting for?".  Well, the Republicans are waiting for a less black President.  I'm not sure what everyone else is waiting for.

9:42PM: Obama is seamlessly transitioning from one topic to the other.  Climate change, then bridges, now education.  He's really pushing for funding for pre-school.  I don't know.  I remember pre-school mostly just being day care with some counting.

9:44PM: Apparently, German kids are ready to work right out of high school.  I probably could have worked in Germany right out of high school too.  I don't want to work in Germany.

9:45PM: Something about re-designing America's high schools.  No, not going to happen.

9:46PM: "Colleges must do their part to keep costs down".  He said that last year too.  That is definitely not going to happen.

9:47PM: Now we're on boarder security.  He's like a tornado of policy proposals.

9:49PM: The President wants Congress to send him a comprehensive immigration reform bill so he can sign it.  I'm mostly hearing that this is going to happen.  I predict the end result will be toothless and ineffective.

9:50PM: Great audience shot of some lady shaking her head in anger at the idea of equal pay for women.  It isn't easy being a Republican woman, but at least you get to hang out with all of those hot Republican guys.

9:52PM: Raise the minimum wage?  Yes please.  Well, yes please for me, no thank you for the Republicans.

9:53PM: Boehner looks super fidgety.  Someone give him a ball to play with.

9:55PM: "By the end of next year, our war in Afghanistan will be over."  Kudos if he actually pulls that off.  I'm also glad to hear that we're going to spend plenty of time training and equipping the Afghan army that we will most likely be going to war with in about 25 years.

9:58PM: Chuck Grassley may or may not be asleep.  Also, Obama has successfully conditioned the Democrats to applaud whenever he pauses, no matter what he just said.

9:59PM: Even the lady who wouldn't clap for equal pay stood up and applauded for keeping Iran from getting nuclear weapons.  I wonder if she gets equal pay?  #hmmm

10:01PM: "today's world contains not just dangers, not just threats, but also opportunities".  He added, "opportunities to be endangered and threatened".

10:02PM: Did he say AIDS free generation?  I think he did.  That's sounds like a good idea.  Let's do that one.  Someone go find out why Magic Johnson is still alive!

10:05PM: Boehner just seriously sat there and refused to applaud for equal treatment for gay military members and equal benefits for their families.  What a dick.  These guys are so funny to me sometimes that I forget that they also spend a great deal of time being assholes.

10:08PM: About Newtown and gun control..."this time it's different".  Except not really and it's been two months and Congress still hasn't done anything.  But other than that, it's much different this time.

10:11PM: Republicans won't even applaud for voting on gun control laws.  If you were honestly against something and thought it was a bad idea, wouldn't you be all for stepping up and voting against it?

10:12PM: "they deserve a vote"...best section of a State of the Union speech I can remember in a while.  Well done Prez.

10:14PM: Hey look, that old lady voted. Way to get back to the silly nonsense!  I'm sorry, I'm sure it's a very inspiring story, but these little human interest stories are always my least favorite part of this, and really, of anything.

10:16PM: And hey it's over.  Sort of crash landed there, but OK.

10:17PM: I'm going to stick around for the Marco Rubio response.  Last year Paul Ryan's response was basically just 10 different ways to propose tax cuts.  I'm not expecting much more out of Marco, but we'll see.

10:25PM: If Rubio doesn't show up soon I'm bailing.  I can't wait around forever just because he has great hair.

10:27PM: Finally, here comes Marco Rubio.  I predict I'll never have that thought again.  Before I find 15 different ways to call Marco stupid, I want to give him some honest credit for doing this.  For every guy who made a name for himself giving the State of the Union response, there's another guy who committed political suicide attempting to pull it off.  This isn't easy.

10:30PM: Right off the bat..."for much of history, people lived in societies where a tiny minority stayed at the top and nobody else had a chance".  Ummm, that seems to be where the Republicans have been trying to take us for the last 32 years.  That's a literal description of the result of Republican policies.  Not a good start buddy.

10:32PM: They should have scored Marco a podium.  He's having trouble figuring out what to do with his hands.

10:33PM: Obamacare is bad, check.  Obama is divisive, check.

10:36PM: If the President will abandon his obsession with raising taxes, the Republicans promise to continue their obsession with lowering taxes.  Deal?

10:37PM: I think Rubio is also wearing the same outfit as Obama and Biden #doubleawkward

10:38PM: Republicans don't say "school vouchers" that much anymore, but that's still what they're talking about.

10:40PM: I don't know what Republicans think the President wants to do to the rights of law abiding Americans, but I guarantee that there's nothing in the Constitution about having the right to unregulated firearms.

10:41PM: Yikes.  Rubio just stopped for a drink of water.  Clearly unplanned since he had to stop and reach out of frame to grab the bottle.  That was super awkward and probably all anyone will remember from his speech.

10:43PM: I honestly haven't been listening since that weird water break.  Rubio's sound team isn't doing him any favors either.  The words weren't especially terrible, but the stagecraft was just an atrocity.

Well, there you go.

Untitled Lance Armstrong Thing

OK, I can't think of a title for this post and I'm tired of trying.  I'm going to start reading A Farewell to Arms again soon, maybe it'll help inspire me.  Anyway...

Did you hear that Lance Armstrong supposedly confessed his use of performance enhancers to Oprah?  That's right! The worst kept secret in the history of sports, the shocking truth that you've already pretty much known for ten years, will be revealed on a channel you probably couldn't find on your TV even if you wanted to.  Get excited!

I'll be honest and say that I've never really liked Lance.  He always seemed like kind of a tool.  And you couldn't even call him a tool because people would be like "hey jerk! look at all that money he raised for cancer", and then you feel shame.  But I'm on Lance's side here.  Let's be clear about what happened.

First, Lance got cancer and everyone said he was going to die.  Then, instead of dying, he won the Tour de France seven times.  Then, he raised half a billion dollars for cancer research.  That's billion with a B, as in, holy fucking shit that guy raised half a Billion dollars for cancer research! And now, we're about to find out that he cheated at riding his bike.

And now I'm supposed to think he's a bad guy and he betrayed everyone and fuck him?  Are you fucking kidding me?  They couldn't even give away some of his Tour de France titles because all the other guys were cheating too.  You try to ride your bike around the alps without drugs sometime and see how it goes.  Do you want to be buried in Europe or would you like us to fly your body back to the States?

I heard a guy on ESPN today compare Armstrong to Joe Paterno.  Seriously?  Joe Paterno employed a guy who sexually assaulted children right under his nose.  I heard a guy on the radio today compare Armstrong to OJ Simpson.  OJ SIMPSON!!! OJ Simpson murdered two people!  Lance Armstrong cheated at bike riding.  What the fuck is wrong with you morons?

(Yes, I admit that, outside of New York, sports talk radio is always awful.  Sometimes, on the ride home, I listen to this crazy Jesus freak just for laughs, or sometimes I just listen to static.  They're both better than listening to local sports radio talk about minor league basketball and high school golf.  So it's not the best example of what people might actually be saying.  But still, morons.)

Yes, Lance is a bully and kind of a dick, just like every other great athlete you've ever met.  But he didn't steal our money.  Let me ask you something?  Did you give money to the Lance Armstrong Foundation because you think French cycling is awesome and you have to support any charity associated with it, or because you thought maybe it would be nice to cure cancer?  It's a simple question.  If we find out Lance was using the Foundation money to buy steroids, then he stole your money.  Otherwise, shut the fuck up please.

OK, yes, there's some anger here that should be rightly directed at gun nuts and Congress people who won't give money to Sandy victims.  And I'll deal with them as soon as I can write one complete sentence about either group without using the word fuck.  But for now this is the best I can do.

If you want to hate Lance Armstrong, that's OK with me.  I never really liked him to begin with.  But don't sit there and tell me he betrayed everyone, or that you thought he was a great guy until just now.  You gave him money for cancer research and he used it on cancer research.  If you were inspired by him, it was because he beat cancer.  He still did that, it wasn't a magic trick.  Would he have been significantly less inspirational to people with cancer if he had decided not to use performance enhancers and finished 9th in the Tour de France seven times.  I highly doubt it.  It sounds to me like we all got the deal we were promised.

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.

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!

Right

I've been quiet for a few weeks. Sometimes it takes me a while to get a thought all the way together, or at least together enough to write something. The recent talk about civility in politics finally pulled together a thought I've had pieces of for a while now. It starts and ends with Congressman Steve Cohen.

In case you missed it, Congressman Cohen compared the tactics of the Republican party with regard to the health care debate to the tactics of nazi propaganda ace Joseph Goebbels (apparently pronounced Gerbels, because the nazis also hated spelling, and R's I guess). Lovely work by the Congressman, way to be a grown up. We'll get back to him later.

While listening to the post-Tuscon shooting media bonanza,(liberals blaming conservatives, conservatives scrambling to defend themselves, everyone talking about being nicer to each other) I was reminded of something that's been concerning me for a while now. At this point in history, the Republican party, and really, most of the conservative side of our political debate, is intellectually bankrupt.

In the wake of the recent shooting, I heard no less than three conservatives on Fox tell me "guns don't kill people, people kill people". OK, but can we at least agree that people with guns are better at it? It's unbelievable to me that one of our political parties is still arguing against gun control. Guns have become a religion on the political right in this country. No compromise, no common sense, no rationality.

Where are the conservative solutions to gun violence? Thousands of people are killed by firearms every year in this country, you can't just point to the Constitution and say "it won't let us do anything, sorry". How about a 28th amendment repealing the 2nd amendment? Nice and constitutional. Or, how about we just stop ignoring the first part of the 2nd amendment? Or, how about a tax cut for not owning a gun? Republicans love tax cuts (I was joking about that when I wrote it, but then I thought about it for a few minutes and it might be our best shot).

I'm not saying just take everyone's guns away right now and that's the answer. I don't know what the long term answer is. I'm saying, if you're not a cop, you don't need a gun, but we've got two political parties, and the one on the right basically thinks gun ownership is an American birthright. That's my point. But hey, maybe if you just keep talking about the second amendment, people will just stop getting shot one day.

(Sidenote: Don't get me started on needing guns for hunting. Tricking a wild animal out into the open so you can shoot it in the face for shits and giggles isn't any less barbaric just because it's a family tradition and your great-grandpappy used to do it.)

A few years ago now, I watched one of the earliest debates for the Republican nomination in 2008, back when there were something like 39 people still in the race. The moderator asked them who believed in evolution. I think three of them raised their hands. People on the right do the same thing with climate change science, responding to facts and verifiable data by simply claiming not to believe in it. Science isn't Tinkerbell, we don't all have to clap to make it real. Reality doesn't require you to believe in it, it's just there.

I'd like to have two parties working together to see if they can come up with smart solutions on energy and climate change. Instead, we've got one party coming up with stupid ideas like cap and trade and the other party pretending the problems aren't real. I'm not sure that's going to get us anywhere, but if you just keep saying it's not real, maybe it'll go away.

The story on economics is similar. Every time we start arguing about the economy, Democrats start quoting economists while Republicans go back to Reagan's made-up bullshit economic theory, which has somehow become the economic theory of the entire party. Reaganomics only works to destroy the middle class, and Reagan already took care of that, so it's pretty much useless now. We keep cutting taxes, the economy keeps getting crappier, but maybe if you just keep saying tax cuts create jobs it'll start to happen.

Then there's health care, and we start circling back to Congressman Cohen and the nexus of right-wing stupidity and political civility. I think we all agree that nobody is Hitler except Hitler, and nobody is a nazi except nazis. The media got so worked up about how mean Steve Cohen was being that they mostly forgot to point out that, nazi references aside, the Congressman's point was 100% valid.

The whole Republican strategy on health care has been to come up with lies and keep saying them on TV until they become true. "Death panels", the "government take over of health care", the whole thing about how people in Canada can't ever see a doctor (which is double ridiculous because even if it were true, the bill the Democrats passed doesn't resemble the Canadian health care system at all). Does any of this unbelievable bullshit sound familiar? Has the Republican party even floated a credible counter-proposal? You want a free market solution to health care? So do I. You got one? Me neither.

Why does this bother me so much? Why I am so tough on Republicans? It bothers so much because the two party system only works if both parties are making good faith efforts to do what's best for the country. Right now, I don't know if either party is. For every Republican who's basically just a lackey for an oil company or a bank, there's a Democrat who just does the bidding of a union (or an oil company, or a bank. Seriously, the two parties are barely bought and paid for by different interests at this point).

So, why so tough on Republicans? Because I think they can be better. I think I'd vote for the party of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt if it was still the party of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. I want to vote for candidates who believe in limited government, but who also know that government has a role beyond blowing stuff up in other countries. I want to vote for candidates who believe in personal liberty and responsibility, but who also understand that personal liberty isn't absolute when 300 million people are all trying to have a society (Sidenote number 2: I'd also like to vote for an atheist for President, but I doubt I'll live that long). I'm tough on Republicans because I want to be a Republican, but I can't, because Republican leaders are morons who spend their days trying to come up with the best right-wing sound bite.

Why am I so frustrated? I'm frustrated because factual accuracy has become optional in political arguments. I'm frustrated because politicians are worrying about civility, and that's fine, but nobody cares who's correct. I want a government in which being correct wins you the argument, and I want a Republican party in which being correct is more important than being right.

Hot Stove Reloaded

Two quick, unrelated comments before I jump back into the baseball off-season. First, Gilbert Arenas already gets my vote for athlete of the decade. For anyone who doesn't know the story, Gilbert was accused of brandishing an unloaded firearm in the Washington Wizards' locker room. This made some people, most notably NBA commissioner, and possible secret world overlord, David Stern, very sad. We were all waiting to see how long Gilbert's suspension would be when Agent Zero decided to lead his team in making fake gun motions with their hands during a pre-game huddle. This may be the single funniest thing I've ever seen happen in sports, and it's absolutely the first candidate and current front runner for moment of the new decade.

I have a question though. Where are all the right-wing gun nuts coming to Gilbert's defense now that some people are calling for him to be banned for life from the NBA for bringing an unloaded gun to a game? The gun was purchased legally, his only crime was bringing it into the District of Columbia, where the gun isn't registered. This seems right up the ring-wing's alley. Oh right, the second amendment was only meant to apply to white people, I always forget that. You know I'm right about this(and not just because I'm always right about everything). If this was a clean-cut, mid-western, white player, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter would be staging a sit-in at the next Wizards game, and you can't tell me any different. I know Gilbert Arenas is completely out of his mind and is quite possibly the very last person that should be armed, but the gun people don't know this, they're too scared of the NBA to find this out. And just to be clear, I'm not calling the NBA racist for suspending Agent Zero, they don't really have a choice and they'd do this to any player who did what Arenas did. I'm calling the gun people racists for suddenly being so silent about gun rights when it's a black guy.

Also, baseball just elected it's next hall of fame class. Congratulations to Andre Dawson, who deserves to be in both the baseball hall of fame and the nickname hall of fame (The Hawk, we don't have nicknames like that anymore, sports nicknames today suck). Big thumbs down to the voters for missing on Robbie Alomar. Unless you're old enough to have seen Rogers Hornsby or Eddie Collins play, Alomar is the best second baseman you've ever seen. How about batting over .300 nine times? How about 12 all-star games, 10 gold gloves, 4 silver sluggers and 2 world series rings? How about being a .300 career hitter even after decomposing on the field for three years with the Mets, Diamondbacks and White Sox? How about finishing in the top 10 in MVP voting five times? Or being a .313 career post-season hitter? Or 474 career stolen bases to go with his 210 home runs and 1,134 RBI?

How does he not get in? I don't understand how anyone sees the name Roberto Alomar on a ballot and thinks "no, not quite good enough." Is it really because he spit on an umpire once? Listen, I only played little league baseball, and if I'd punched every umpire I wanted to punch, I'd still be in prison. If he spit on umpires regularly, like once a week or something, then I'd say you have a case. But once? Come on. Moving on...

The Yankees traded for Javier Vazquez. I'm really torn on this one. I can see a lot on the positive side. First, I said last time the Yankees needed another starter, and Vazquez is better than any of the free agents still out there. Second, I've always been a big fan of Vazquez, and he seems to never get hurt, so he eats innings. Third, the Yankees got him for as close to nothing as you could get without just going to Atlanta and kidnapping him. Finally, he's coming off the best season of his life (15 wins on a mediocre team, lowest career marks for ERA and WHIP, 4th in Cy Young voting). All good things, right?

On the other hand, we've seen this movie before. And not just generically with pitchers coming over to the AL East from the National League, but with the actual Javier Vazquez. Here are Javier's ERA's and records in his four AL seasons:
2004 - 14-10, 4.91
2006 - 11-12 4.84
2007 - 15-8, 3.74
2008 - 12-16, 4.67
And the 2004 season was with the Yankees. This seems like a bad idea, right? If you caught chlamydia from a hooker six years ago, would you go back to the same hooker now just because she looks a lot cleaner these days? Probably not. And yes, I'm saying what Javier Vazquez gave the Yankees in 2004 is the baseball equivalent of chlamydia (I think this is a pretty good analogy, it's not the absolutely worst thing that could happen, but that doesn't make it good). In 2010? I think he can give the Yankees some solid innings, but I wouldn't keep my fingers crossed for more than 13-15 wins or an ERA below 4.

The Mets signed Jason Bay. I was mildly surprised by this. Which is handy, because Mets fans will be mildly entertained by Bay this year, and the team will be mildly improved. Bay can drive in runs, but it's not a magic trick, people have to be there for him to drive in. He's not a good outfielder, so I'm not sure Citi Field (roughly the size of Staten Island) is the best place for him. Basically, he makes the Mets better, but not that much better. He can't carry a bad team, but he can help a good one. Is the guy I just described worth $66 million over four years? I feel like he isn't. Especially when the Mets still need pitching.

The Mariners stayed busy, and they've officially become the team I'm watching closely. I loved the Milton Bradley move for them. Yes, now they have to sign somebody else to take over after Milton goes crazy. But until he goes crazy, he's the other bat I thought they needed. On the other hand, they traded Brandon Morrow to Toronto for Brandon League and a young outfielder. If the young outfielder turns out to be something, great. Until then, I'm not sure I get this move. This is a perfect example of a franchise drafting a guy with talent, completely destroying him to the point that they can't see ever getting anything out of him and then trading him for not that much in return. This happens a lot in baseball.

If I were a Red Sox fan, I wouldn't be wild about what the Sox are doing. Adrian Beltre and Mike Cameron? Cameron is pretty far past what was a mediocre prime to begin with. Beltre is a better player than people think, but not that much better. People say the Beltre signing frees up Mike Lowell for a trade. Trade Mike Lowell? For what? He's about to turn 36 and he basically lives his life in surgery. I still like Boston's pitching, but I'm not crazy about their line-up right now, and it looks like they're basically done.

Hideki Matsui and Fernando Rodney to the Angels: Blah. Matsui came pretty cheap, but still.
Brandon Lyon and Matt Lindstrom to the Astros: Picking up two closers doesn't help you if neither one of them is any good.
Mike Gonzalez and Kevin Millwood to the Orioles: I think the AL East could actually make Millwood cry. Mike Gonzalez scares me a little as a Yankee fan, luckily he's only healthy for about 4 games a year.

Finally, Matt Holliday stayed in St. Louis. I was pretty happy to see this. The Cardinals are a legit franchise, but they don't have all the money the Yankees and Red Sox have. I'm glad to see a big name guy sign on to stay there and play with Pujols. I think they probably overpaid a little for a guy who's probably a little overrated. I also think they're going to need a left-handed bat at some point. Still, I'm generally pretty high on this move. I'm a Yankee fan, but I'm also a baseball fan, I don't want one team to have all the good players, it's no fun that way.

Better Than Free Speech

I follow politics pretty closely. For most issues, I can give you a logical, decently well-informed opinion and I can defend why I think that way. Recently though, I've been thinking that there are some issues on which I don't have a strong opinion. These aren't issues I find unimportant, some of them are very important. It's not like I don't know anything about these issues, I've tried to learn as much as I can. But, at the end of the process, I can't pick a side. I have thoughts, inclinations, I could tell you which way I'd vote if you forced me. Honestly though, I can see both sides, and I don't have strong feelings either way.

Take gun control. I understand why people want much stricter gun control laws. Way too many people get shot in this country. Presidents have been shot, police officers, military personnel, not to mention ordinary citizens. Add to that all the robberies, sexual assaults and other crimes that happen under the threat of being shot. We know we have a problem with guns, and it still took me longer last month to locate and purchase a copy of Madden 10 then it would have taken me to find and purchase a gun. I don't blame anyone for trying to do whatever they can to start improving the situation, and I certainly don't blame Democratic law makers for trying to find a way to legally control guns.

Also, the second amendment argument Republicans make about gun control is stupid. The people who wrote the Constitution had no intention of making the second amendment about individual gun ownership. How do I know what the founders were talking about? Because they told us, they were talking about a well regulated militia. I know, the Supreme Court doesn't see it that way. What makes me smarter than the Supreme Court? I don't know, but I am. This doesn't necessarily mean we don't have a right to gun ownership, go read the ninth amendment, I'll wait. OK, moving on.

This where the Libertarian in me comes out. When people ask me if marijuana should be legal, I say of course it should. I don't smoke pot, because I'm not 16 years old and I have a job. But the fact that smoking pot robs some people of the ability to ever leave their parents' basement shouldn't ruin it for everyone else. Laws shouldn't restrict the rights of responsible people because of the actions of stupid people. The same argument can be made for guns, and I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't make it. A responsible adult can be reasonably expected to own a gun without killing anyone. You could argue that only misuse of marijuana makes bad things happen, while, unless way more people are buying guns to use as paperweights than I realize, the primary function of a gun is to injure or kill someone. That's a fair point, but I still think my general principle holds up (and, gun people, don't talk to me about hunting, I'm barely in your corner as it is, that isn't going to help).

The death penalty is another example. I don't think the state should kill people. I also don't know how the death penalty isn't considered cruel and unusual punishment and banned by the eighth amendment. If your definition of cruelty doesn't cover killing people, I don't know what to tell you, but if I ever have kids, you aren't babysitting.

At the same time, if a guy who kills a bunch of people gets found guilty, and if the state he does it in has the death penalty as an option, and the court decides to use that option on him, I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it, ya know? And if it brings the families of the victims some sense of peace and closure, then I'll lose even less sleep (I was already losing zero sleep, what's less than that, would I actually gain sleep?).

I feel this way about abortion too. This is a really hot issue, people on both sides feel strongly about it, but not me. I'm inclined to leave the choice up to individuals. Life begins at some point, we don't really know when, who gets to draw that line? I can't see doing anything other than letting people make that choice for themselves.

On the other hand, some people think life definitely begins at conception. They want the government to use its authority to protect fetuses that can't possibly defend themselves. That's a perfectly reasonable argument, and I don't have anything bad to say about the people making it.

I think you get the point. So recently I had an idea. I'd like to sell my opinion on these issues to the highest bidder. The NRA wants to pay me $50,000 to talk about individual gun ownership as a right? Sold! The catholic church wants to pay me $75,000 to be super pro-life guy? Not only sold, but because they do good charity work and I'm a nice guy, I'll do it for $15,000 and a guarantee that I'm going to heaven, just in case I'm totally wrong on the whole god issue and heaven is actually there. I mean, I wouldn't pay for afterlife insurance, but I'll take it for free if you're offering.

I don't think this would make me a bad person, I honestly believe both sides of these issues have a fair point, I wouldn't be saying anything I thought was total nonsense and I could advocate on either side without saying anything I thought was a lie. Sadly, we'll never get to find out if this would actually make me a bad person, because I'll never get to do it. You know why not? Because I'm not a politician.

See, opinions are certainly for sale. I already talked about how the Supreme Court, in yet another example of them being wrong and me being right, recently, and insanely, decided that campaign contributions are a form of speech. So, thanks to the concept of corporate personhood, which always gives me a headache when I think about it, we've basically legalized bribery. Politicians can take whatever amount of money they can get from industries they're supposed to be regulating. They can sell their opinions for top dollar, and you better believe they do. I can put my opinions up for sale too, but nobody will buy them, because, unlike politicians, I can't turn my opinions into useful actions.

This is the part where I'm supposed to give you an amusing and somewhat scary list of politicians and show you how they've successfully matched their voting records to the interests of their biggest donors. I'm not going to, because I don't blame the politicians. They're prisoners of a broken system. And it isn't like they're using the money to buy big houses and fancy cars, they just use it to keep their jobs. You can't get elected and re-elected without tons of money, and you can't get all the money you need from 10 and 20 dollar donations from regular people. The rules allow them to take huge donations from big corporate interests, and the system basically demands it.

On top of that, there's really nothing the rest of us can do about it. Should we vote for the candidates that don't take any corporate money? Sure, good luck finding one. If the Supreme Court sticks to the idea that campaign contributions are a form of free speech, Congress can't do anything about it even if they want to. We're basically stuck with it.

Well, I don't think it's fair. I thought we were all supposed to be equal here. All I get is free speech, it's useless, I can't get a dime for it. But politicians get something much better, their speech is incredibly expensive. Corporations spend millions of dollars on politicians' speech every election cycle, but I'm stuck here with this worthless free speech, and it sucks. After years of watching politicians think and say whatever people with money want them to think and say, I think it's time for us to stand up, hold our heads high and boldly say "we want in!"