75 Reasons I'm Still Single

Whenever I talk to my mom, she either asks me if I'm seeing anyone, or I can tell she wants to but she doesn't because she already knows the answer.  I often joke about why I'm still single, and then I thought, is there a blog in there?  And then I thought, of course there fucking is, because I don't get paid for this and whether 0 or 1,000 people read this has no impact on anything else in my life and I can write about whatever the fuck I want.  So there.

75 Reasons I'm Still Single
1) I'm given to understand, from movies and such, that women like a sense a humor.  That has yet to be my experience.
2) Maybe my sense of humor is more of an acquired taste.
3) Maybe me just telling people I'm funny doesn't make it so.
4) I'm not that good-looking.
5) I think I'd look better with a beard, but
6) Something from my vague memories of childhood tells me that growing a beard would make my mom a little too happy.
7) The rational part of my brain is mostly sitting this one out, because it doesn't really care why I'm still single, but it chimed in here to suggest that perhaps my refusal to grow a beard for that reason should shed a little more light on this whole topic, #waytoofuckingstubborn.
8) Yeah, my brain uses hash tags now, we're trying a new thing.
9) Shut up brain, nobody asked you!
10) Sleeping when there's somebody else in the bed is damn near impossible for me.
11) Seriously, who in history decided that couples have to share a bed?  I'd like a word with her (or him, but not really).
12) Speaking of sharing, I suck at that.
13) Maybe #10 would be less of a problem if my body hadn't decided that the best time for me to sleep is between 5AM and Noon.
14) I can't really stop myself from making a face at anybody who tells me they believe in god.
15) Turns out, lots of people believe in god.
16) When I was a kid, I was naturally good at a number of things.
17) school...
18) sports...
19) being awesomely rational.
20) For example, I wanted to play guitar, so I picked up a guitar...
21) I wasn't immediately awesome at playing the guitar...
22) I never picked up the guitar again.
23) Same thing happened with my keyboard.
24) There's a lesson in here somewhere about not being willing to try at things that aren't immediately perfect.
25) Also, some people aren't wild about #19.
26) I'm told that I always need to be right.
27) Apparently that's annoying.
28) I don't always need to be right, I just am right.
29) It's not my fault, I don't make the facts.
30) Rational brain wants to make another editorial comment.
31) I'm not allowing it.
32) My friend Sadie says I may or may not be a sociopath.
33) I might have made up the "may not" part of #32.
34) You can't grow the economy and cut the deficit by cutting taxes again...
35) Because you don't actually have magic powers.
36) OK, #34 and #35 don't have anything to do with me, but...
37) I feel obligated to mention that in every blog entry until people stop believing it.
38) I have at least 6 fantasy football teams.
39) It seems like people like to talk about books.
40) Unless Ernest Hemingway wrote it, there's about a 102% chance I haven't read it.
41) If I did have a girlfriend right now, she'd have to listen to me complain incessantly about those new Maker's Mark commercials with James Carville and his awful wife.
42) Seriously, I've never seen a worse ad campaign.
43) It's like they want me to hate their product.
44) It also makes me want to punch James Carville in the face...
45) Because I feel like he knows better.
46) I wanted to do 100 reasons why I'm still single...
47) But I'm only up to 47 and now I'm pretty bored...
48) I get bored really easily...
49) Probably another lesson in there...
50) Shut up, rational brain!
51) Online dating still seems weird and unnatural to me
52) No offense, but...
53) The people in those eHarmony commercials seem like the kind of couples that would do eHarmony commercials.
54) I don't want to be in that kind of couple.
55) Rational brain says maybe if I wasn't so fucking judgmental...
56) I said be quiet, brain!
57) The Yankees look pretty much done.
58) #57 isn't about me either...
59) but I'm pretty sure I'm right about it.
60) There's a very small chance that I'm going to find you interesting.
61) The fact that you don't find me interesting either doesn't change that.
62) If you're reading this, there's a decent chance you now know more about me than several people with whom I'm been in actual relationships.
63) Hmmmmm
64) I'm a pathological liar.
65) No wait, that's Paul Ryan.
66) My bad.
67) People think I'm quiet...
68) Because I can't make fun of you in my head and talk to you at the same time.
69) Eventually people find that out...
70) They don't love it.
71) #68 is a lie...
72) I absolutely can do that.
73) I spent two hours on a Saturday doing this.
74) Because it seemed like a good idea two hours ago...
75) See #7

The Cult of Personality

Tonight, Comrade Obama will speak at the DNC and, if crowd reaction from the first two nights is any indication, the democrats will riot and burn Charlotte to the ground.  So, before this impending tragedy takes all the funny out of the Democratic convention, I've got a point to make about why I don't think the Republicans can win this election.

First of all, did you see the audiences for each convention?  The Republican convention looked like the state of Florida's AARP convention.  No wonder they all liked Paul Ryan so much.  He was ten years younger than anyone else there, they all wanted to eat him and steal his life force.

I don't even know what to say about the Democratic convention audience.  It's like they rounded up a bunch of people in Penn Station at 3AM on a Wednesday, but honestly that doesn't even begin to cover it.  I've seen (and heard) babies in the audience at the DNC.  Honestly, babies.  One was crying while some lady was talking about how Republicans want to repeal the Affordable Care Act, thereby allowing insurance companies to deny people with pre-existing conditions, including sick babies.  Seriously, that happened, right there on my TV.

Who brings a baby to a political convention?  And people wonder why I refuse to register as a Democrat.  Diversity aside, I give the advantage on audience to the Republicans in terms of which crowd I'd rather be standing in.  Old boring people are exactly who should be at a political convention.  If you're under 30, you should be outside chanting things and throwing stuff and getting arrested. And if you're under 18 months, you should be nowhere near anything like a convention, and you shouldn't be on my TV.

Having said that, in a voting contest between "boring old white people" and "everyone else", I'd still put my money everyone else.  I think.  Old white people do like to vote.  No, I'm sticking with everyone else.

Then there's the actual talking.  I'll give the Republicans this, their message was certainly more simple.  Barack Obama is destroying America, and we're going to save it with tax cuts, because tax cuts are magic.  That's three days of Republican bloviating summed up in 19 words. 

Instead of spending three days calling the Republicans stupid (which is probably the way I would have gone), Democrats have decided to fight fire with fire by spending three days talking about how Barack Obama is actually the most awesome person in the history of awesomeness.  During Bill Clinton's speech last night, I lost count of the number of jobs he said the President saved or created somewhere around eleventy billion. 

Now, on the surface, the Democrats may seem to be at a disadvantage, what with getting bogged down with all their "facts" and "numbers" and "things that actually happened".  But I think, in the long run, the whole "telling the truth" and "not just making shit up" strategy is going to pay off.

Most important, I think, is the tone.  If the Republicans are the cult of tax cuts (and they absolutely are), then the Democrats are the cult of personality.  They believe in Barack Obama.  The speakers all talked about it, the talking points all echoed it, the pundits all noticed it; they believe.  In contrast, you'd barely know if any of the Republican speakers other than his wife had ever met Mitt Romney.

The RNC was fueled by hate.  Hate for the President, hate for certain types of people they don't like, hate for government.  The DNC has been fueled by belief.  Believe in Barack Obama, belief in what he can do, believe in what good government can do.  I'm not making a value judgment on who's right here, just stating the facts.  And I'm not blaming the Republicans for going negative, they can do what they want.

What I'm saying is, I don't think they can win with negativity against all the positivity and optimism we've seen in Charlotte.  I don't think you can be as successful getting your base out to vote for hate as you can be getting your base out to vote for hope.  I just don't think it can be done.  I guess we'll see.

Words Don't Matter

I've only watched the Republican convention in bits and pieces.  The conventions aren't worth watching if you've been paying attention to the campaign before now.  They're just week-long infomercials for the party talking points.  What's that you say?  The Republicans think Barack Obama is a bad President?  And they think Mitt Romney would be less bad?  Stop the presses! 

I don't need to spend hours watching TV to find out that the people speaking at Mitt Romney's convention are mostly in favor of voting for Mitt Romney.  I wanted to watch Chris Christie, just to see if he was able to get through a 20 minute speech without taking a snack break, but I honestly forgot it was happening.

Having said that, the little bits of Republican convention I've seen have been really strange.  Tuesday night I watched my old buddy from the primary debates Rick Santorum run his mouth for a while.  I just couldn't resist.  My blog and I miss Rick so much.  I tuned into MSNBC literally about 4 seconds before Rick started, just in time to hear Rachel Maddow say "he's not telling the truth.  Let's listen".  Now, I'm sure Rachel was finishing a sentence that went something like "If Mr. Santorum says (insert stupid Republican talking point here) during this speech tonight, he's not telling the truth.  Let's listen", but it was still hilarious and a perfect introduction for the man who the second half of the 20th century forgot.

Anyway, Rick rambled and rambled about his god and all that.  He didn't mention Mitt Romney a whole lot, which seemed strange.  I wonder if they've told Rick that Mitt won.  Or maybe Rick won't believe it until his god tells him personally.  Then Rick said America holds out a loving hand to all of his god's children.  He forgot to add "except if you're gay, or black (or really any minority for that matter), or not super into jesus, or if you're a lady who doesn't understand that men are supposed to be in charge of your lady parts.  If you fall into one of those categories, well fuck you, but loving hands for everyone else".  They must have left that part off the teleprompter. 

Like I said before, I completely missed Chris Christie, but I'm given to believe that he didn't start a fight or eat anyone, so I guess he more or less nailed it.  I don't know why I'm so mean-spirited about Christie, well except for the fact that whenever I see him on TV he's belittling someone or yelling at a reporter.

Wednesday night was even stranger, and I honestly only watched a total of like 12 minutes.  I caught about half of John McCain's speech.  The Republcan party is supposed to be the fiscally responsible party, but Senator McCain's speech would have been shorter if he had given us a list of countries he doesn't want to invade.  Unless he thinks we're going to find buried treasure in Iran or Syria (which is funny, because that was essentially the Bush administration argument about oil in Iraq), we're going to need a way to pay for John McCain's ever-growing list of fun new wars.

Quick McCain sidenote:  Everyone on MSNBC's convention coverage panel after McCain's speech felt obligated to heap the praise on McCain for not playing ethnic politics with Barack Obama during the 2008 election.  First of all, I seem to remember some crazy lady from Alaska running around trying to paint then Senator Obama as "pallin' around with terrorists".  I'm pretty sure she was connected with the McCain campaign in some ancillary way.  More importantly, is the bar really that low now?  Is not stooping to the lowest possible level now all you have to do in politics to get praised as a great guy with tons of integrity?  Sigh.

Anyway, then I watched like three minutes of Condoleezza Rice.  First of all, with her and Herman Cain, the Republican party now has two black friends.  Two!  And I'm not even counting Michael Steele, who's more of a high school acquaintance that the Republican party is facebook friends with, but wouldn't actually go hang out with.

Secretary Rice talked about education and the importance of good schools and good teachers.  It sounded really good, but also highly suspect coming from a party that:
1) has spent the last two years busting teachers unions in every state they control.
2) has spent the last 32 years demonizing science, learning, knowledge, facts and the very idea of being educated.
3) has ruined textbooks for the whole nation by doing stupid things in Texas.
4) wants to cut the entire Department of Education.
And I realize that they think #4 will actually help, but the fact that they think parents and local school boards know more about education than, ya know, professional educators, just circles right back to #2.

I'm not really sure how Condoleezza Rice got stuck being the one who had to talk about education, but I guess when you're the Secretary of State you kind of have to know about everything. 

Then Paul Ryan started.  I thought he was supposed to be all energetic and exciting.  He looks like a muppet and I was still bored.  I spent the first three minutes thinking of new Romney/Ryan campaign slogans, like "Hey ladies, Mitt and Paul would like to have a word with you about your uterus." or "you might as well vote for us, because if you're planning to vote for the other guy, we're not even going to let you register".  Catchy, no?  Anyway, after three minutes I went back to watching Almost Famous on cinemax, and I had already missed the airplane scene.  Stupid Paul Ryan.

I'm not planning to watch Mitt Romney tonight.  It's going to be dull, and I already know what he's going to say.  Plus I hear he's going to try to tell us who Mitt Romney the person is and let us get to know him a little, and I really couldn't be less interested in that.  But mostly, I'm not watching because the words don't matter.  Conventions are about stagecraft.  It's four days (or, if you decide to have your convention in Florida during hurricane season, sometimes three days) of patriotic backdrops, silly songs, weird video packages and mindless cheering. 

I'm told the Republican party has a platform that they've agreed upon.  I'm also told Mitt Romney doesn't agree with some of it, but I'm told that doesn't really matter.  Other than the tax cuts (which I swear is the only thing Republicans really believe in) I haven't heard much about this so-called platform.  The actual Republican platform, the one about outlawing all abortion and telling poor people to go fuck themselves if they get sick and cutting taxes but never actually getting around to the whole cutting spending thing, that's sort of like Republican fight club.  They all know about it, but they're not going to talk about it.  It's like how Barack Obama is going to take away everybody's guns in his second term, but he's not saying it now, because he's all smooth and shit.

And this is why I'm not watching Mitt Romney, because the words don't matter.  It's all nonsense.  Mitt Romney isn't going to stand there tonight and tell me what he's going to do as President, I'm not sure he even knows yet.  He'll sit there and tell me about his family background or whatever, and he'll talk about all the terrible things Barack Obama has done in the alternate Republican universe, and he'll make uncomfortable jokes that uncomfortable delegates will laugh uncomfortably at, but he won't actually tell me anything.

I honestly don't know if the Democratic convention will be any more informative (I doubt it).  Sometimes I wonder why I bother paying attention.  I was watching Chris Matthews as I was finishing this up, and he played a clip of Paul Ryan from last night talking about "the strong protecting the weak" and "caring for the least among us".  Now those are some good talking points.  So what if his economic policies do the exact opposite of those things?  I mean, his mom thinks you should vote for him, and look how cute his kids are!

Alchemy 2012!

So Mitt Romney finally has a running mate.  I can't wait to find out who Barack Obama decides to pick (what?  Is it still Biden?  Well, OK then).  Get ready for three months of soundbites from conservatives that basically boil down to "well, I mean, sure Mitt Romney sucks, but, but Paul Ryan!".  Conservatives are excited about Paul Ryan, like kids on Conservative Christmas.  Conservative Christmas, by the way, is a lot like regular Christmas, only instead of giving toys to all the good little girls and boys, Conservative Santa takes all the toys from the poor kids and gives them to the rich kids who really deserve them.  Those poor kids need to get a job, or an inheritance.

Personally, I like this pick for the Republicans.  Honestly, I do.  First, let's start by comparing him to the lowest possible running mate standard, which is obviously Sarah Palin.

Paul Ryan understands enough about the federal budget to, ya know, propose a budget.  Advantage Ryan.
Paul Ryan comes from a state where people actually live.  Advantage Ryan.
Paul Ryan possesses the ability to speak in full sentences.  Advantage Ryan.
Paul Ryan is, at least, vaguely familiar with reality.  Advantage Ryan.

Next, what's the worst thing about Mitt Romney as a candidate?  I know it's hard to choose, but I think you'd have to say it's the fact that nobody likes him.  He's just a really unlikable guy.  When he's talking, instead of listening to what he's actually saying, most people are just daydreaming about running up onto the stage and punching him in the face.

Paul Ryan, on the other hand, is genuinely likable.  He has an ability very few 2012 Republicans have, the ability to sound reasonable.  When you see Paul Ryan on TV, even as he's saying things you completely disagree with, he doesn't make you want to throw things at the TV, or, I don't know, spend an hour writing an entire blog post just making fun of the things he's saying http://somethingclever13.blogspot.com/2012/07/your-arguments-are-bad-and-you-should.html

Now, Democrats are pretty excited about Paul Ryan too, and I understand why.  Yes, Paul Ryan believes that the rights of women are less important than the rights of religious institutions to impose their values on everyone else.  Yes, Paul Ryan believes you can budget cut your way out of a recession. And yes, Paul Ryan is an economic alchemist.

All 2012 Republicans are economic alchemists.  They believe they can magically turn tax cuts for the wealthy into a thriving economy for everyone.  It's just like how you build a house starting with the roof.  The roof is the shelter creator.  Without the roof, your house is just a small park with high walls.  So you build the roof first and just wait for the roof parts to fall down and magically form the rest of the house.  That's how you build a house, right?  I don't know, I've never done it.

You can't blame Mitt Romney for choosing a Republican to run on the Republican ticket with him.  And, in 2012, you can't really ask Mitt Romney to find a Republican to run with him who doesn't believe things that are stupid.

I also think the Romney campaign deserves some credit for picking someone who really does seem interested in talking about policy.  We'll see if I'm right when he starts making campaign speeches, but I've always seen Paul Ryan as a guy who is much more interested in having an honest policy debate than he is in suggesting that Barack Obama is a secret Kenyan muslim terrorist.

I don't know if Ryan helps the Romney campaign win any states, but I don't think that's the point.  Selecting Ryan represents a decision to make this an election about base and turnout, and I think that's the right move for Romney.  The Republicans don't have policies that appeal to truly independent or moderate people, they just don't.  They need to win this election with base energy and turn-out.  Paul Ryan helps with that as much as anyone, and he does it with much less negative baggage than you'd get with someone like Santorum or Palin or Gingrich.

For Ryan, this is obviously great.  I don't think Romney wins, he's just too unlikable (I know it wasn't that long ago that I said I thought Romney had a better than 50% chance, but have you seen how they're running his campaign?  Right now, I think Romney would do better if he spent the next three months traveling around the world and avoiding the media).

So Ryan gets national campaign experience and he gets to blame the loss on Romney.  After the election, he'll be in the same position Sarah Palin was in four years ago.  Palin had the opportunity to go away for a while, learn stuff, and come back as the clear favorite for the 2012 nomination.  Now, Palin possesses neither the ability to go away nor the ability to learn stuff, so that didn't really work out for her, but she had the opportunity, and Paul Ryan will have the same opportunity.  And he doesn't have to go all the way away, he just has to stop himself from chasing every TV camera he sees for a couple of years.

In 2016, Paul Ryan can be the clear favorite for the Republican nomination for an election that's wide open on both sides.  Additionally, since this country is really too stupid to stick to a budget, our debt is only going to be worse four years from now, which only makes Ryan (who, whether you like his ideas or not, is one of the few people to at least suggest something) more attractive in four years.

I'd be really interested in a debate between Barack Obama and Paul Ryan.  I think it would be fascinating.  Unfortunately, unless Romney goes back to his planet soon, we're still stuck with three horrible Romney/Obama debates and one semi-fascinating Biden/Ryan debate (people forget how smart Biden is because he's so goofy, but he's a bright guy).  So, I'm not sure this choice makes the election any more watchable, or tolerable, but it does bait an interesting trap for the Democrats.

I've said before that Republicans are stupid for making constant personal attacks against Barack Obama because he's so likable.  I think the same is true for Ryan.  Democrats seem to be getting ready to tell you that Paul Ryan eats babies for fun (and, since he's from Wisconsin, he fries them and covers them in a thick, cheese-based sauce, which is even more cruel and delicious), but when you meet him, he'll seem like a good guy, and the Democrats will just look mean and stupid.

I probably would have preferred Tim Pawlenty, just because I kind of like Pawlenty, he seems like a nice guy, but Paul Ryan was probably the right choice.  Don't worry, I'm sure the Romney campaign has already fired whoever it was that actually did something right.

Lying Is Hard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your Arguments Are Bad, And You Should Feel Bad

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

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

Everything attributed to Senator Johnson below is a direct quote.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Still three minutes left...

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Death Penalty

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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