Mitt Romney: An Explanation

No one should want to be President. So I think we can all agree that anyone running for president is a stone-cold weirdo.

That being said- this year gave us an exceptional batch of psychos vying for that coveted office. Let us remember fondly, the republican candidates of 2012: Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, and Newt Gingrich. These were candidates who casually suggested that we colonize the moon, who didn't know the legal voting age, and who wanted to ban contraception.

And let us never forget my favorite: Herman Cain. What a marvelous man. This is the man who quoted the oft-forgotten "poet" (Pokémon/Donna Summers) at a Republican debate. Cain could tell how manly you were by what pizza toppings you ordered. He argued that "knowing things" wasn't an essential qualification for President. 

Herman Cain, you will be missed.

But ultimately Mitt Romney won the Republican nomination. But as the real race for the presidency begins, even his Romney supporters admit the man is off to a shaky start.

People running for office have to deal with an intense level of scrutiny. There are bound to be some gaffes/missteps. Romney, however, seems to be constantly striking out.

It would be one thing if his gaffes were the result of "gotcha journalism"or if he were tricked into ridiculous situations... but, alas...

Romney prefers to stage his blunders at his own painstakingly choreographed publicity events: a picnic with regular folk and an american flag in the foreground. Difficulty level: CHILD'S PLAY. Unfortunately, no one thought to remind him: "Don't insult the food people put in front of you-- especially when that food comes from a beloved local bakery." OY!

So, why is Romney is so insanely out of touch with reality?

I have thought about it and there are three explanations that I can think of to explain Mitt Romney.

1) MITT ROMNEY IS THE MONOPOLY MAN COME TO LIFE!

It sounds crazy-- but bear with me.

Remember when you would play (1/8th of) a Monopoly game and you'd start waving around $8,875 dollars around like it WEREN'T NO THANG? It was special sort of psychosis known as Monopoly madness. It didn't matter that the bills that you were holding were pink and blue- you were rich.

And you owned a railroad.

That is Mitt Romney's LIFE.

The man is rich.

Not just rich-- but, like, stupid rich.

Who else but Uncle Pennybags would consider $10,000 a gentleman's bet?

Why watch NASCAR when you can own a NASCAR team?

That is the point of the game, right?

So--yes, Mitt can seem a bit out of touch with normal mortal beings-- but that is just because he thinks we are all playing the same game.

So of COURSE student loans shouldn't be a problem. Massive debt can be solved by careful planning and saving.

I mean, COME ON-- they just GIVE you $200 every time you pass GO!

2) MITT ROMNEY IS A TIME TRAVELER

We need to demand to see Mitt Romney's birth certificate.

Not to determine where he was born-- but when!

(NOTE: He has already released his birth certificate but clearly it is okay to ignore that concrete factual information...)

When he begins sentences with "boy!" and "gosh!" it is adorable (you can't tell me otherwise)! But when Mitt Romney speaks, it sounds like dialogue lifted directly from "Leave It To Beaver."

While his old-timey vernacular would undoubtedly be a constant source of amusement for me, I can't help but think that if he was confronted with a legitimate military situation, he would probably propose that, "we engage them with some light cavalry."

"Tally-ho!"

3) MITT ROMNEY IS AN ALIEN

I don't mean an illegal immigrant.

I mean extra-terrestrial.

How else do you explain this clip?



He doesn't know what a DOUGHNUT is.

Really, Mitt? REALLY?

I'm Here To Bring the Good News

GZA (from Wu-Tang Clan) is planning on putting out an album about science. 

How awesome is that?

Answer: MEGA-awesome.

A rap/hip-hop album about science.

Be still my nerd heart.

GZA is a hugely respected rapper and lyricist. His albums don't rely solely on slick hooks and they aren't auto-tuned to death. This isn't a slam against auto-tuned songs. They are awesome for clubs and dancing. GZA, however, seems to focus his efforts on writing lyrics. He has things to say. So this album won't just be catchy tracks with science-y buzzwords in it. It is going to have substance.

GZA is calling in Neil deGrasse Tyson in to consult-- because if you are going to do science-- do it right, because Tyson is not afraid to call you out (three separate links). Neil deGrasse Tyson, which the commentator rightly describes as, "the fusion of astronomy and awesome in the shape of a man," is basically the Carl Sagan of our day. He is bringing science to the masses.

So I'm glad these two geniuses are coming together.

I'm excited to see what comes of it.

GZA and Neil deGrasse Tyson. A meeting of the minds.

one last note on the above tweet...
(**ICP stands for "Insane Clown Posse." They put out a song in 2009 called "Miracles" which was later (perfectly) parodied on SNL. The lyrics (sNSFW) are here, and they are amazing. The lyrics have all the depth you'd expect from two grown-ass men in clown make-up. The line that stands out the most to me is, "I see miracles all around me... f#$%ing magnets, how do they work?"

Magnets are blowing these guys minds.

Magnets.

If information found in a Highlights magazine unravels "the mysteries of the universe", I don't think ICP will be able to handle a GZA/Tyson collaboration.)

An Important PSA

Found on Buzzfeed.com

"Law enforcement officials, cat counselors, and state legislators agree—catnip (called “Nip” on the streets) is tearing apart families and destroying lives. Please take a second to read these important catnip PSAs and share them with your cats or kittens. Nip: Not even once"

Click here to see more PSAs

Quote of the day

“The problem, often not discovered until late in life, is that when you look for things in life like love, meaning, motivation, it implies they are sitting behind a tree or under a rock. The most successful people in life recognize, that in life they create their own love, they manufacture their own meaning, they generate their own motivation. For me, I am driven by two main philosophies, know more today about the world than I knew yesterday. And lessen the suffering of others. You’d be surprised how far that gets you.”

—	Neil deGrasse Tyson

My Review On the Reviews On HBO's "Girls"

HBO’s Girls debuted on April 15^th. It stars Lena Dunham (director/writer/star of "Tiny Furniture"). Director/writer/producer Judd Apatow took notice of Dunham and worked with her to create Girls. Shortly thereafter, writers/critics/bloggers went bananas.

The show’s homepage says Girls is: “a comic look at the assorted humiliations and rare triumphs of a group of girls in their early 20s.” Very succinct. The first episode follows Hannah (Dunham) who recently graduated college and has just been cut off financially by her parents.

At this point, only two shows have aired. Is that enough to form an opinion on the whole season?

YES!

I would love to have a divisive and incendiary opinion on the show- but, alas, I don't have HBO.

That is okay, because the reviews on Girls are insanely entertaining. 

Everyone has an opinion on the new HBO show Girls. Most of the reviews were written before the second show aired.

Those opinions seem to be that it is either "a staggering work of genius" or "offensive fail of a show." There is very little middle ground.

(**Also- you are required to use the word “zeitgeist” at least once in your review.)

In order to enter this arena, you need only have an opinion (based on one episode) that you defend to the death.

It Doesn't Represent Me

Ugh. I don't want television shows to represent me. That would be the worst show ever. I don’t even know how you would dramatize marathon naps, epic tumblr sessions, and doing stand-up about muffins. I need escapism.

But I get it. There are so few women in TV (and even fewer female leads) that a lot of hopes and ideas are riding on the few that make it to leading lady status. When the L-Word came out, so many people complained that it was an inaccurate portrayal of lesbians and unless you were a hot (white) lady who was rich and had her shit together, it was. BUT since it was, you know, the ONLY SHOW EVER to be about lesbians, I think it would be fair to say that there was a lot of ground to cover.

Women have always been under-represented in TV. For years, television's portrayal of women have typically either been insipid or just grossly inaccurate (I’m looking at you “Flying Nun.”) If only Twitter existed earlier, then people would have had a forum to voice their outrage ("I am not a nun NOR do I have the powers of flight. How could I possibly be expected to relate to this! #OFFENSIVE")

Some argued (vehemently) that the ideas and beliefs espoused in the show aren't representative of women/the times. People seem to acknowledge that women are varied and nuanced but (IN THE SAME ARTICLE) complain that one female character doesn't represent all women everywhere.

Like when the internet lashed out at my girl Liz Lemon (and Tina Fey herself) for not being a good/accurate representation of women. (*those are 8 different links)

An article in GOOD points out "This is only a problem because there are so few shows starring complicated, authentic young female characters. Girls ends up having to stand in for everybody. Dunham is painfully aware of this pressure. "I was given a role I never said I could handle" she told Salon." Poor girl.

She is one lady. She isn’t going to represent womankind.

Clearly we have cast Beyonce in that role. 

"Girls" and "Sex in the City"

People were quick to wonder how "Girls" would compare to that other show about women. 

Is it "Sex in the City" for a new generation? Is is the anti-"Sex in the City"? Is it "Sex in the City" with poor people?

I doubt any of the massive generalizations above would accurately describe the show. At least I hope not (but I do hope they go to Dubai in the second season).

Girls Can Be Shitheads Too!

After Bridesmaids, people seem to concede (most of them) that woman can be funny. So now the new frontier woman have to conquer is “the female slacker.” These battles are becoming more and more aggravating. 

Can women be slackers? Some say “yes” and this is apparently BLOWING PEOPLE’S MINDS!!

The slacker dude is a pretty established archetype: Kenny Powers, Jeff Winger, and every stoner comedy ever. They are can range from morally neutral to completely amoral but we always end up finding them charming.

People aren't finding slacker ladies so charming. It doesn't look good on them. Their lack of direction in life is irritating and their life of privilege is offensive. 

Keep reaching for that star, ladies.


I'm certainly doing my part to make the female slacker more visible.

SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX

Every single article mentions sex.

Every.

Single. 

One.

It shouldn't be that sensational. It isn't as if this show is airing on a cable network. It is on HBO. There is sex on EVERY SINGLE SHOW but Girls is the one to drawing the most criticism/attention. It seems kind of crazy that people are going bananas over the sex in Girls when there is rape and insect on the show after it.

Boring and awkward sex is apparently more controversial.

When people offer up critiques, it isn’t that the scenes are bawdy, rather, it is that it’s boring or (my favorite) not funny (you know, because if I see a woman having sex, I better be fully aroused or shaking with laughter!).

My favorite is one writer (seemingly horrified) wondering “is sex always as unfun or awkward as it is on the show?” Does "real sex" equate to "bad sex"??! (she only has awesome sex so she wouldn't know),

The article is from (my favorite) Slate and titled "Why is the sex on the HBO show Girls such a drag?" They claims that “the show’s skittishness about sex is just old-fashioned moralism."  Because sex in Girls is strange and uncomfortable (and makes her feel sad feels) that it is the show's way of saying, "promiscuity is punished by HPV, abortions, and sad sex."


But the show doesn't seem that “skittish” about sex. It isn't pushed to the side. There is a lot of it and people talk a lot about it.


"It" meaning sex (didn't want to appear skittish).

Also, sadly even if you are having awesome sex, you can still get HPV and babies.

Oh My GOD! Did We Mention She Isn't Pretty??

People are tripping over themselves to mention Dunham's appearance.

Even though Dunham herself talks about how she deliberately chose for her character not to be glamorous, when other people comment, it just doesn’t feel nice.

Some people mention it and then "defend"/"praise" her for being "so real."

Which seems like it should be a compliment but it reads like "you are so brave for showing your horribly plain face on television."

THIS IS WHAT PROGRESS FOR WOMEN LOOKS LIKE!

Enough About "Girls." Ima Talk About Me For A While.

There were some articles where the writers just started talking about themselves.

Fascinating.

My favorite article was basically a journal entry complaining that he doesn't have a show. After he remarks that Dunham's sucess can be attributed soley to nepotism, he spends two paragraphs claiming how he is more deserving of a show.

WHO ARE YOU??!

In what other article would that be appropriate?

Op-Ed = Gospel Truth.

Again, I haven't seen the show. I'm not trying to defend the show or attack people who don't like the show. My issue is when huge generalizations are made about a show based on one episode.


Sure there hasn't been any character development  but that critique would hold a lot more weight after you watched the entire season. Most characters don't experience much character development after one episode. Maybe there is a story arc that reveals complexities and insights. Perhaps people's views change. WHO KNOWS!


Also, pundits and bloggers have really worked to blur the line between opinion and reporting. Opinions aren't facts. 


A lot of negative articles could be summarized thusly: "I did not like it- therefore it has failed as a show."

I don't like Entourage or Grey's Anatomy.

My solution?

Not to watch them. 

I could construct arguments about specific ideas and constructs within the show (The actions of "character" are misogynistic because of A, B, and C). But I can't just insist that it is bad (or good) because of my feelings. You can't argue that your opinion is correct.

De gustibus non est disputandum: you can’t dispute matters of taste.

BAM!

Latin.

Latin automatically makes everything in this article is authoritative and scholarly.

(also... zeitgeist)

Commercial artist and self-proclaimed "Painter of Light", Thomas Kinkade, died recently. He apparently led a rich life that included heckling Siegried & Roy and urinating on Winnie the Pooh at Disney World. Awesome stuff. The saga continues, however... 

Lindy West at Jezebel:

"At the time when he became suddenly and mysteriously dead (of Light), Kinkade, 54, was separated from his wife and living with another woman. Weirdly, those two ladies are not getting along...."

READ THE REST HERE!

*Picture from somethingawful.com. There is a whole archive of pictures like this.

WHAT DID TAYLOR SWIFT EVER DO TO YOU?

There is a movie coming out based on Sheila Weller’s book “Girls Like Us.” It is the story of Joni Mitchell, Carly Simon, and Carol King and the kickass stuff they did.

Taylor Swift is rumored to play Joni Mitchell and some people are FURIOUS.

My favorite article was titled “Taylor Swift to Potentially Ruin Another Thing.”

Strong words.

It is just a blurb but a paragraph is sufficient enough for this man to vent his horror and rage. 

The title of this article suggests that Swift has ruined other things. I don’t know what other things Taylor Swift has destroyed in her quest to ruin this man’s life. Her cover of "Lose Yourself?" Whatever it is, he has been profoundly affected by the actions of TSwift.

Joni Mitchell played a huge role in this man’s life. When he first heard the amazingness that is Joni he says it was “like some astral stranger crawling out of the speakers and wrapping you in a bittersweet embrace.”

That is a pretty intense reaction to have to something playing on the overhead speakers at Starbucks.

That kind of experience probably ranks up there with that time he was rocked by the genius of Maya Angelou. Sure it was just a quote on a coffee cup (but spiritual awakenings can happen anywhere!).

I'm not saying he is wrong to not like T Swizzle. 

It is okay to not like Taylor Swift.

While I cannot conceive of a reason you would hate this adorable angel child, you do have every right to hate her. 

That is your opinion and I can never take that away from you.

It is hilarious to me, however, that a 22 year old girl child can ruin your life (and all that you love) so easily. That her pretending to be Joni Mitchell would negate those powerful "emotional experiences" you had. 

If this is the case, biopics are probably destroying this man's life! ("Gandhi? Yeah, I used to be a fan-- until that jerk, Ben Kingsley, went and messed everything up. He ruined non-violence for me.")

He begrudgingly admits that Swift “writes fun pop songs and seems like a nice enough young lady” which is nice concession on his part. He stands his ground, though: “but Joni Mitchell she is not nor will ever be.” (*italics added to emphasize vehemence!)

To clarify, she will be pretending to be Joni Mitchell. It is not as if she will BECOME Joni Mitchell (the key is to eat her albums. Its how you gain her power!)

He then goes on to call her a “deer fetus” which, despite my affection for Taylor Swift, is pretty funny. 

I like it because it is so insanely absurd and because it doesn't quite work as an insult.

I understand how Taylor Swift could be thought of as a fragile adorable faun AND that she is young (ergo fetus). But for some reason the combination of these two insults doesn’t really make sense. What is he really insulting? The power of insults lay in their remarkable specificity. "Deer fetus" is more like a weird nickname your friend gives you.

He calls her an "1820s deer ghost" (hysterical!) in an earlier article, which is a slightly more effective insult.

You would think he could muster up something more scathing, though, for someone who is destroying everything he loves. 

He goes on: “Who is going to play Carly Simon, Selena Gomez?”

God, I hope so. 

Actually, no. I hope Taylor Swift plays ALL the parts (that would make him furious!).

Writer-man suggests Mia Wasikowska for the roll of Joni Mitchell because she is a good actress who looks like Joni Mitchell and MORE IMPORTANTLY she hasn’t ever released awesome songs about boyfriends and dreams! 

“Plus, (Mia Wasikowska) already played a character named Joni.”

How… is this a point?

If this were a standard by which we cast people in movies then, yes, Selena Gomez really would be a horrible choice for Carly Simon because clearly, that role would be destined for Miranda Cosgrove (that other Disney Channel superstar. She plays Carly on iCarly). 

(NOTE: No one age-appropriate has played a character named Carol- but I want them to cast Amandla Stenberg from “Hunger Games” because she is ADORABLE.)

Basically he is upset that Taylor Swift is popular and therefore couldn’t possibly portray the amazing genius of Joni Mitchell and everyone knows that all profound and meaningful music is locked away in the past where it is protected by nostalgia and fairies.

That isn’t to say Joni Mitchell’s music isn’t profound and meaningful. She was (and is) amazing. She was a voice of her generation.

You realize, though, if she debuted today, people would DESTROY her.

That same amazing music (that so affected everyone) would be picked apart by hordes of faceless critics who peddle their opinions as incontrovertible truths. 

When she sold her album in Starbucks, she would be crucified! Anything profound she had ever sung about would suddenly be derided as hypocritical and meaningless (because Starbucks is a huge fan of paving paradise and putting up parking lots).

And, if somehow, she overcame all those haters and became successful she would obviously be a sell-out because she had the gall to achieve mass appeal (and everyone knows that anything popular is garbage!).

And God help her if she had the audacity to consider a lead role in the “Taylor Swift” story.

Ugh, she would be such a deer fetus.

*PS: if you didn't click on that T Swizzle link... do it. It's not too late.