It's Time to Give It a Rest, Part II

There are a few things that are trendy these days that I don't understand.

Novelty Hoodies

Take a look at this:

Your first reaction might be to think, “Ha! That's clever. You can look like Bowser.” But really think about it. Once the novelty wears off, would you really want to wear this thing around? Seriously, you'll make people smile at first, but then you're walking around with a cartoon character for a jacket. It's one thing to have a t-shirt that looks kind of like a cartoon character's outfit. But this is a big, oddly-shaped jacket. Even if the spiky shell in the back is detachable, you've still got that tail, hair, and horns getting in the way. It would make it uncomfortable to sit down on the bus, especially with all of the beatings and wedgies you're sure to be getting at the same time. Here are some more:

Let's be real. You aren't really going to wear any of these just around. So what's the point? Are you going to wear any of them for a Halloween costume? Of course not, they're not elaborate enough to be costumes. These hoodies are in that weird, useless middle ground between everyday apparel and halfway decent costumes, making them pointless and worthless. And yet the Ninja Turtles hoodie is priced at $52. The Optimus Prime one is $60. The guy that made the Bowser hoodie wants $400 for it. I say anyone dumb enough to pay four hundred big ones for something so pointless is too stupid to be trusted with their money anyway.

Being an Introvert Doesn't Make You Better Than Other People

I'm also getting tired of the recent surge of Pro-Introvert Propaganda I've seen online in the last six months or so. It seems that there are people out there who have decided that introverts are the best that humanity has to offer, and we all need to go out of our way to accommodate them.

Look, I get that introverts are misunderstood a lot, and it can be frustrating for them. Believe me, I know. I don't know where exactly I'd be classified scientifically, I feel like I'm a little extrovert and a little introvert. But I am definitely part introvert. There are times- a lot of times- when I would much rather be alone and do stuff on my own than go out and put forth all the energy of being around people. Last year I went camping by myself in Zion National Park, and I loved it.

But what angers me is how a lot of these “introvert activists” seem to be asserting that anyone who isn't an introvert is shallow and worthless. Look at that image up there. The title of this masterpiece is “Introvert Rage.” He hates being around people because they are crazy anti-government nuts, shallow, gossipy airheads and sweetbros, stoners, etc. So he decides he'd much rather stay home and spend an evening on the internet. But wait... all of those people he hates in the real world are not only in the online community as well... they are the online community. Stupid, shallow, crazy people abound everywhere you go. Stupidity is not specific to any personality type. By the same token, there are tons of people out in the more social hemisphere of society that are intelligent, thoughtful, humble, and pleasant.

The caption that went with this image was, “Am I the only one?”

No, you jerk, you aren't the only one who hates clubs. You aren't this great intellectual who is leagues above the mindless troglodytes who enjoy clubbing. There are tons and tons of people who don't like going to clubs. But hey, look at all those dumb sluts taking endless selfies and wasting their lives on such a stupid activity. Every single person who likes to go to clubs sure is an idiot.

You know what? If you don't like clubs, then don't go to them. But just because you don't like something doesn't mean the people who do are idiots. It means that their way of having a good time is different from yours. And that's ok. It's just as ok that you prefer to sit home and read or have a quiet conversation with a close friend over lunch. Plenty of smart people like to dance on the weekends.

This introvert activism has all kinds of helpful guides on how to rearrange your whole personality in order to make them more comfortable. Don't make them go out if they don't want to. Don't demand that they be more outgoing. Don't pressure them into participation in large group activities. They say that just because they aren't loud and crazy doesn't mean they aren't having a good time. Just because they don't want to have shallow, pointless small talk doesn't mean they're a jerk. Just because they prefer not to go to big parties doesn't mean they don't want to spend time with you or be your friend.

I get that. They're valid points. If a person is introverted, you really shouldn't try to force them to be extroverts or assume that they're just mean or don't like you. But can I present a counterpoint on behalf of the extroverts out there? Nobody knows you're an introvert unless you tell them, and even if you do, not everybody knows what exactly that means. Being quiet and thoughtful at a party often looks exactly the same as not having a good time and hating being there. How is anyone supposed to know the difference if they don't know you?

If I'm an extrovert, that means that I am outwardly expressive of my emotions. If I'm happy, I look happy. If I'm having fun, I'm energetic and talkative. And it's hard for me to really, consciously understand that other people might not express their emotions that way. So when I see my roommate avoid large social gatherings or leave them early and spend a lot of time alone in his room, based on my understanding, I'm going to assume that he's shy or hates the people I hang out with, or that he's depressed. If I encourage him to get to know my friends or go out with me to more activities, it isn't because I'm an idiot and I want him to do idiot things. It isn't because I want to make him uncomfortable. It's because I don't know he's an introvert, and if I do, I don't get what that means or how I should interact with him.

A lot of frustration and resentment could be avoided if he would just take me aside and say, “Hey, I just want you to understand that I'm the kind of guy that prefers to be alone or in small groups. I like people, and I can be a great friend, but big parties and things like that aren't really my thing. So if I seem shy or anti-social, it doesn't mean I'm not having fun or that I hate you or anyone else. I appreciate your efforts to include me. Please don't take offense if I'd rather stay in than go out.”

Is that so hard?

Stop Complaining, Old People

The other day, I was at work, and during a brief moment of free time, I checked football scores on my phone. I have a coworker who is an ancient Spanish woman named Julia. She is a lovely lady, and generally very nice and pleasant. She came over and told me that she predicted that twenty years from now, the human race will have forgotten how to speak out loud because they will have entirely abandoned talking to one another in favor of texting.

You hear these kinds of things all the time. Kids these days don't make connections with other people. They always have their faces buried in their phones. They text instead of call. Nobody interacts with one another anymore. You ride the bus and every single person is playing with their phone instead of enjoying the world around them.

Look, I won't deny that we could all stand to look up from our phones a little more. Enjoy the party without constantly tweeting about how much fun you're having. But it's not nearly as bad as people are whining about it.

Imagine a picture of people on the bus. I would have drawn one, but I didn't feel like it. This is a bus in 1956. Some riders are reading the newspaper. One is reading a book. Another is doing a crossword puzzle. One is doing some work he brought with him from the office.

Now picture a bus in 2013. There are the same number of people, all of them looking straight down at their phones. How awful! But you know what? They're doing the exact same things the people were doing in the first picture. They can read the news, books, do work, play simple games, and way more than that. A person can use their phone to text their mother how much they love her. They can pay bills. They can listen to music, take pictures, watch movies, learn about the world around them, meet new people, learn a new language, participate in the political discourse in their community, even tune their guitar- all with their phones. Just because sometimes we aren't talking to someone face to face doesn't mean we're wasting time.

But why can't they put their phones away and interact with each other? Because it isn't like they would have if they didn't have phones with them. The other day I was at Chik-fil-a, waiting for my food. To pass the time, I played a game on my phone. Sure, I could have kept my phone in my pocket. But what was I missing by playing a game? I'm not interested in striking up a conversation with a complete stranger who will only be near me for five minutes. That's pointless, and carries much more opportunity for awkwardness and unpleasantness than I'm willing to risk. If it had been 1956 and I didn't have anything to distract myself with, I would have stood there quietly, looking around for something interesting to occupy my mind. Such a shame that having a phone with me kept me from that experience.

"What do you say we all put down our phones and play 'Red Rover?'"

Look, if you're out on a camping trip or at a party, or anywhere else that offers something or someone to actually experience, then yes, put away your phone and be alive. But if you're on the bus, and you have to decide between playing Scrabble on your phone and small talk with the creepy guy across the aisle, then please take out your phone and go for that triple word score. (Although I do make decent conversation if you'll just give me a chance.)

It's Time to Give It a Rest

 Everybody wants to be a part of popularity. Whether it's a company trying to capitalize on a trend or an individual wanting to participate in the current “thing,” whenever something becomes big, everyone seems to want to rush onstage and feel like they're in the show. An unfortunate byproduct of the modern era of technology is that everyone has the means to be a part of pop culture. This is unfortunate because while all of us can contribute, not everyone can contribute something good. In fact, most of the things created by your everyday citizen is pretty much absolute crap.

Just look at any running joke or fad on the internet. Anything that has open submissions from the general public will get 99% garbage. Cracked.com used to have a weekly caption contest. They'd post a funny picture, and everyone could submit a caption to make it funnier, and the winner got fifty bucks. The winning captions on these things were often hilarious. Take this one, for example:

“And the prize for Best Costume definitely goes to the Invisible Girl in the middle.”

Not bad, right? Give the man his fifty dollars. But you could also scroll down and see all of the submissions, arranged in order of how many votes each one earned. Here's one that, clearly, did not come close to winning:

“Duck, Duck, Duck.... Duck GOOSE!”

Maybe it's going way over my head, but I can't figure out what makes that funny. Like, at all. I don't even get what joke he was trying to do. But here's the thing- not only did this guy think this line was funny enough to post, but fifteen other people voted for it. Fifteen people thought it was worthy of winning the contest. Scroll down to see the ones that only got one or two, and you'll want to euthanize your computer.

I get that everyone wants to be a part of something. I understand why companies will try to capitalize on the popularity of literally anything. But the problem is that when everybody gets a shot at the horse, it's going to already be dead when most of them get a turn to beat it.

The result of all this dead-horse-beating is that things that are great become awful, through no fault of their own. Ask anyone if they want to listen to “Gangnam Style.” Of course not. There's a good chance that they might even tell you that they “hate that song” or that it's “such a stupid song.” The thing is? It's not. “Gangnam Style” is a good song. It's catchy, fun, and the absurd dance moves are funny. There's a reason the music video got over ONE POINT SEVEN BILLION views on YouTube. People watched it and listened to it because they liked it. But now, because it was so popular, it got way overplayed, a million different people made parody videos, it got played at every sporting event for a solid six months, and you can bet your life there will be a movie soon where poorly animated Smurfs or Chipmunks do a dance number to it right before the credits roll. We are all fed up with that stupid “Gangnam Style” song, even though most of us loved it at first.

So there are things that are awesome that are becoming terrible because people won't ease up on the hyperbole. Here is a list of such things:

- Bacon

- Nutella

- Sloths

- Grumpy Cat

- “Get Lucky” by Daft Punk

- “Keep Calm and Carry On”

- Doctor Who, Sherlock, The Avengers, etc.

- Chuck Norris jokes

- Every single meme and joke ever created.

All of these things, on their own merit, are great. But then everyone had to repeat the same thing, then take the thing and change it a tiny bit and think they're a comic genius. (Keep Calm + "Do A Thing That I Enjoy" = BRILLIANT.)  ("I don't always [do thing], but when I do, I [do thing differently than usual])

Then they decided it was the greatest thing ever created and they must have it tattooed on their back. They take something that people like, then apply it to completely unrelated things and declare it awesome. Yes, bacon and Nutella are delicious. But we DO NOT need bacon-scented soap. Angry Birds gummy candy is UNNECESSARY. There is NO REASON to tattoo a sloth on your chest.

“Well, you see, grandchildren, for about eight months in 2013, lots of people agreed that sloths were cute. Sure, they moved on to iguanas once they were tired of sloths, but I have never once regretted having this hideous image on my chest for my entire life.”

You guys, they are making a Grumpy Cat movie. This has to stop.

The 5 Worst Things College Professors Do

1. Make the Class Too Hard

I'm not complaining about a course that is challenging.  It's not about a subject being difficult to master.  That's the point of higher education- to stretch your mind and give it a chance to grow.  What I'm talking about is when a professor intentionally makes things hard.  We've all had that class where the average score on an exam is somewhere around 52%.  I had an American Heritage class my freshman year that was known for this.  At our first midterm, you could score in the thirties and still pass.  The highest scores might have made it into the sixties.

Professors who do this love to show how hard their class is.  I don't know, maybe they like to flex their authority.  Like somehow, by tearing every student down, that makes the professor super smart.  My eighth grade science teacher was awesome.  He was super funny, and everybody loved his class.  But he took pride in the fact that the slightest error on an assignment would knock your grade down a whole letter.  For the rest of my education, all the way through college, whenever I had an awesome teacher, it would mess with my head, and I'd be terrified to make mistakes.  The man had screwed me up psychologically.

What's the point?  The fact is, if most of the class is getting failing grades, the problem isn't with the students- it's with the teacher.  The whole reason people are taking your class is so they can master the subject you're teaching them.  So teach it to them, and stop jerking them around.

2. Have the TA Teach the Class All the Time

What's the point of teaching a class if you don't actually teach it?  Some professors have their TAs do all of the actual teaching, and the professors focus on their own research.  What kind of joke is that?  Why is Dr. Schlotzky's name on the syllabus if Tyler and Katie are the ones who do all the lecturing and grading?  I don't get it.

3. Make Attendance Part of the Grade

I know that often, a student will realize that he has this new freedom to skip class whenever he wants.  He is no longer required by law to be in class.  So he might not show up.  But one thing I realized in my time in college was that while I didn't have to go to class, I really needed to.  I came to understand that when I went to class, I learned more.  And when I learned more, I got better grades.  So I went.

College students are adults.  They should be allowed to decide whether it's worth their while to go to class.  If they do poorly in the class because they didn't attend lectures enough, then that's their own fault.  Let them reap what they sew.  Don't make attendance a part of their final grade.  Don't have this nonsense where if you miss more than three lectures, then you automatically fail.

I'm fine with having quizzes and other graded assignments that require you to be present in order to get the points.  It's ok to have these graded things take place on any random day, which would encourage the student to go every time.  But when I decide whether I want to go to class, it should be up to me to decide if it's worth the sacrifice.

Like I said before, the point of taking the class is to master the subject.  Your final grade should be an assessment of how well you have done so.  Not whether you actually attended class every single Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.  If I can miss two thirds of your lectures and still ace my final exam, I deserve that A.

4. Dock Points Based On Your Opinion

Someone once told me they got a bad grade on a paper because their teacher didn't agree with their interpretation of Hamlet.  That's right, Hamlet.  An incredibly complex piece with countless interpretations.  One time I saw a show where several different performers did the "To Be Or Not To Be" monologue, each with a different tone and emotion.  What I'm saying is that Hamlet can't be interpreted just one way.

It's fine if you disagree with the thesis of the paper.  But if the point of the assignment is to display critical thinking skills and an ability to formulate and effectively defend an argument, then grade the student on that.  A debate team takes an assigned position on an issue, and has to defend that side with all they have, regardless of their actual opinion.  You don't award the win to the team that you agreed with.  You give it to the team that did the best job arguing their side.

Obviously, many assignments require the student to explain specific facts and show that they understand the principles taught.  There is only one correct answer, and they are supposed to give it.  But for others, the student is expected to show what they found in their research, and even if the professor disagrees, if the student clearly did a good job researching and formulating their argument, you've got to give them due credit.

5. Testing Students on Nitpicky Things

I don't know how else to say it.  Getting an education means attaining a masterful understanding of a field of study.  If, as a professor, your objective is to help your students do that, then great.  You're doing your job.  If, however, you want to trick your students and see exams as a way to win a battle of wits against them, then you're a manipulative jerk.

I've had classes where I've been tested on specific pages of a text.  The worst have been religion classes.  The Doctrine and Covenants are organized into numbered sections.  When taking a course on the Doctrine and Covenants, you're trying to grasp the message of the scripture.  So it helps nobody if a quiz question asks you to match certain quotes to their specific section number.  If I can get a good understanding of the Word of Wisdom, what does it matter if I know whether it's found in Section 12, 89, or 130?

Professors who do this don't care about teaching as much as they care about proving they're more clever than their students.  It's incredibly immature and unprofessional, and it has no place in a place of higher learning.

A Few This's and Thats

Several things on my mind recently.

Today I had the unfortunate experience of watching a trailer for an upcoming talkie called The Big Wedding.  Apparently Katherine Heigl really is the patron saint of terrible romantic comedies, because this one looks incredibly, and predictably, stupid.  The premise:  A young couple is getting married, and one of them's parents (I forget which, and I don't hate myself enough to watch it again to find out) are divorced, and the dad is remarried.  But I guess he (it was the groom-to-be's parents.  I remember now) was adopted, and he has for some reason decided to invite his birth mother to the wedding.

His birth mother lives in Colombia, where she's from.  Now, I'll buy that he could conceivably still maintain contact with his biological mother, and even want to invite her to his nuptials.  But the fact that he would fly her all the way to another continent for it is kind of a stretch to believe.  But it gets way more contrived.  You see, she's very Catholic, and so she frowns very sternly upon divorce.  So in order to not offend her, this young man demands that his adopted parents pretend to be still married to each other, and his stepmother has to pretend she's someone else.  She could be a family friend, an aunt, a former teacher, anything- but they decide she's the waitress or something.

We all know Hollywood is out of ideas.  Battleship: The Movie and Step Up 17 tipped us off.  But there have to be simpler ways to come up with a bland romantic comedy with the intention of humor.  Since when in the known history of mankind is a birth mother's archaic views regarding divorce more important than letting the actual parents enjoy their son's wedding like normal people?  She might not like the idea of his parents being divorced and remarried, but guess what?  People do that, even in Colombia, and even Catholics, so she'll get over it.




Speaking of terrible movies and Catholics, have you seen these commercials for this Mel Gibson movie that just came out?  It's straight-to-DVD.  Let that sink in.  Mel Gibson's career has died so completely that he's the star of a movie that is going straight to DVD.  Mel Gibson.  Mel.  Gibson.  You guys.




I have to say, the Olympic Opening Ceremony in London was brilliant.  It was made fun of a bunch leading up to the big day, since the rumors about what was going to happen kind of sounded ridiculous and hilarious.  But they pulled it off, and it was incredible.  A few of my favorite parts:

1.  The industrial revolution part was kind of sad, seeing all of that wonderful green countryside get ripped up and smokestacks rise up out of the ground.  But it was also really cool to watch.  That part where they forged the ring that rose up to join the other four in the sky and create the Olympic rings?  So cool.

2.  "Abide With Me" was strangely beautiful.  I didn't get exactly what they were trying to convey with the dancing, but I still thought it was great.

3.  Mr. Bean.  Oh my gosh.  I've probably watched that part alone around 30 times.  Also, the "Queen" jumping out of a helicopter and parachuting into the stadium with James Bond.

4.  People complain about the seven non-Olympian kids lighting the torch, but I liked it.  I thought it was very cool to see the older generations of Olympians literally pass the torch to the future competitors.
                     (Also, I couldn't help but think of the Hunger Games when I saw those kids.)

5.  The Olympic Cauldron has to be the best cauldron I've ever seen.  Breathtaking.  I can't think of one more beautiful, and I love the symbolism of a whole bunch of smaller flames joining together to burn in unity as one flame.  I hear there's one bronze petal for each participating nation, and each country gets to take theirs home once the games are over.

I Am Disappoint.

Sunday night was one of those nights. The kind where years later people ask each other if they remembered where they were when they heard the news. Nearly ten years after the attacks on September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden was finally found and killed by US troops. This was a great day in terms of sweet, satisfying justice and good ol' OBL got what was coming to him. What fascinated me was the responses that came from people all over, especially people close to me.

You've probably heard of the famous fake Martin Luther King, Jr. quote that made the rounds on Monday. I saw at least eight or ten of my facebook friends post it. It goes like this:

‎"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."
~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

The funny thing is that it isn't actually a quote from MLK. Or more specifically, the first sentence isn't. The thing that bothers me is not that it was misattributed. I'm not even bothered by the sentiment it voices, regardless of who actually said it. I can completely relate to the feeling that you shouldn't rejoice over the death of a human being, even an evil one. The beef I have is with the reason why people were posting it.

One possible reason to voice that sentiment is to respond to what you might see as classless revelry over a person's death, seeing people partying in the streets, waving flags and dancing. It conjures up reminders of people celebrating in a similar way after the 9/11 attacks (though those people were cheering the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians, while people on Monday were rejoicing that a powerful terrorist leader had been eliminated... but still). But responding by posting a fake MLK quote like that is basically waving your nose in the air and getting all snooty over those uncouth, uncivilized ruffians who dare be happy that a madman was taken out. It's self-righteous and insensitive. If you really disapprove, that's ok. But let others deal with the news in their way without getting all judgmental and self-absorbed about it.

The other reason I thought of has more to do with politics, and I personally think it motivated a larger portion of the posts. There are so many people who can't STAND the idea that President Obama was the President who ordered the assassination of bin Laden. They hate him so much that literally nothing he does is, in any way, a good thing. I am still in awe that so many people have clambered for some reason to hate Obama for this.

"How dare they kill bin Laden? That is so un-Christian and merciless. No matter how bad a person is, they should be arrested and put on trial, not killed." I have a few points to make about that idea.

- First, the order was to take Osama dead or alive. Do you really think they would have killed him if they were able to take him alive? If you think it was politically motivated, and Barack Obama wanted bin Laden dead to boost his poll numbers, don't you think he'd rather have the guy alive so he could take him home in handcuffs? A trial would have lasted months, perhaps years, and Obama's poll numbers would have soared the whole time.

- Second. Many of these people who harrumph and fuss over the President's audacity to order the killing of bin Laden are the same people who fiercely defended Bush and the war. Are you telling me that sending the military to invade two countries and kill terrorists for ten years is a righteous cause, but sending a tactical team of Navy SEALs to take down Osama bin Laden is awful and unforgivable? I know what the difference is: The war was ordered by a Republican, and the May 1 operation was ordered by a Democrat. That is all this is about.

Which brings me to my next point. I am so fed up with all of the ways people are hating on the President. They are so committed to hating the guy that even when he does something that their beloved George W. Bush tried to do, he's still evil and trying to destroy this country. Look, I have said plenty of times before that I am not an Obama-lover. I disagree with him on plenty of things, but I also appreciate the things he does that I do agree with. The point is, I wait for him to do or say something before I decide how I feel about it. I have not decided, as so many others have, that because he is a Democrat, I will hate every single thing he does. That kind of political bigotry is the driving force behind everything that is wrong with politics in America.

Is Obama going to use this to get re-elected? You bet. He is a politician, and politicians have to use everything they can to get their way. Bush used 9/11 and the war in 2004. I hope Obama doesn't go too far with it, but he is certainly going to try to play up his role in this. And his opponents are going to use their political tactics to try and downplay his role and somehow build themselves up.

What bothers me is how people insist that the President had nothing to do with it. Baloney. You just can't stand that this guy you despise actually did something right. If you are going to say that Barack Obama played no part in Osama bin Laden's assassination, then you have to be prepared to say this as well:

- Abraham Lincoln had nothing to do with the North winning the Civil War. It was the soldiers and the officers and stuff.
- Franklin D. Roosevelt didn't do anything to win World War II. In fact, the war wasn't over until after his death, so Truman should get all the credit, if anyone.
- John F. Kennedy didn't put a man on the moon. That was all NASA and the astronauts.
- Ronald Reagan didn't do anything to end the Cold War or liberate East Germany. That was the citizens of those Communist nations. It was the Germans who physically tore down the Berlin Wall.

I'll admit that most of the honor and glory goes to the soldiers who landed at the compound in Abbottabad. They were the ones who risked their lives, and they were the ones who killed Osama and seized all the intel. But guess what? Like it or not, Barack Obama was a major player in the operation. No, he wasn't on the ground in Pakistan, but he was the one who ordered it. One of the very first things he did as President was tell the CIA to make the capture of Osama bin Laden their top priority. As intel came in, the President analyzed it and made judgement calls regarding what leads to follow and how to act. He had his role to play, it was an important role, and he played it with great success.

Is it such a hard thing for people to accept that President Obama actually did something right, and that he should get at least some credit for it? I remember when George W. Bush was in office, and we saw people criticize him and oppose the war. I recall some people saying things like, "Like him or not, he's the President, and that office deserves respect. I didn't want John Kerry to be President, but if he had been elected, I would have supported and respected his position." Now, those same people are doing exactly the same things they said would put others in Hell during the Bush Administration.

Here are a few pointers to keep in mind, and they generally apply to most American leaders, especially Presidents.
- He is not evil.
- He does not hate God, the military, or babies.
- He does not want to take away your healthcare, religion, safety or money. His policies might jeopardize some of those things, sure. It is possible that he is wrong about something. But he is not motivated by the tantalizing idea of snatching away Linda Pefferschmutz's Bible from her very arms.
- Yes, Bush did do some things to help find bin Laden. Obama also did things to help find the guy. Both deserve some credit.
- For the last f%@ing time, Barack Obama was born in the United States.

I'm not asking people to like Obama. I'm not asking anyone to vote for him. I'm not convinced I'm going to vote for him in 2012 (although if Palin, Trump, or Bachmann are the only other options, I won't have much of a choice). What I'm asking is for people to stick to their standards, but understand that others might disagree with them, and that's ok. If you don't like something that Obama is doing, fine. You can oppose it. You can encourage your Congressperson to try to vote it down. You can choose not to vote to re-elect him. But please, please stop fighting him tooth and nail on every single thing he does or says entirely because he is Barack Obama, or because he is a Democrat. I'd ask the same of people who do those things against a Republican President. I'm not asking people to choose a particular side in politics. I'm just asking people to be smart and mature about it, and accept that even someone you disagree with on a lot of issues might get something right once in a while. Take the good, and oppose the bad, but don't let idealogical bigotry blind you to one or the other of those things.

Trump vs. Rump

In a bizarre kickoff to the next exhausting presidential election season, Donald Trump has, for some reason, convinced himself that he has a legitimate shot at taking the crown from Big O. Sure, businessmen and women have ran for president in the past, and they aren't entirely a terrible group of people from which to select a president. But Trump has long been kind of a weird guy, and I cannot fathom what has made him think that he's suddenly cut out for politics.

Stranger still, The Donald has inexplicably chosen the Birther cause as one of the primary pillars of his campaign. He decided that his message is basically: "You should elect me because I believe in a conspiracy theory more convoluted and desperate than the "Moon Landing Hoax" theory." Seriously? Running for president is a matter of gathering the most people to your side, trying not to alienate anyone but the votes you're willing to sacrifice. You basically have to convince a slight majority to vote for you, and to do that you have to take a strong position that a lot of people agree on and enough of the rest can be convinced of. So you really think that there are enough birthers out there to push you over the top? In fact, you pretty much have to hope over 50% of the people are birthers, because anyone who isn't is most likely going to think you're a nutcase and won't vote for you.

The very fact that birthers exist at all, especially that there are so many of them, is baffling to me. It started out as a desperate attempt to delegitimize Obama's election. He won very convincingly, so it would be hard to blame a rigged election or demand a recount. So someone looked for something else, and found one tiny glimmer of false hope, and cooked up a conspiracy theory. It was perfect, because even though it was a long shot, and could be proved to a satisfying degree for most people, paranoid people could always find reasons to remain unconvinced.

The fact is, the birther issue has been settled, and by all legal scrutiny, Barack Obama has been ruled to be an American citizen. They begrudgingly inspected his birth certificate, and said yes, it's real, and yes, he is in fact American by birth. But Trump is still not convinced. He supposedly has a team of very smart people in Hawaii doing their own detective work, and he refuses to be convinced until the president proves that he is an American. But tons of people are still doing what Trump is doing. They are insisting that they will not be convinced until Obama drives down to their house and personally presents his birth certificate to them so they can inspect it.

This is so stupid to me. They say he is acting all suspicious because he won't show it. Let me illustrate the stupidity of this with a different example. Let's say that President Obama has The Shredder from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles tattooed on his left buttcheek. We really have no way of knowing this, nor is there any evidence that it's in any way true. But wouldn't that be hilarious? I want it to be true, therefore I will believe it until President Barack proves me wrong.

Pictured: Barack's Obottom

There are several ways for the president to respond to this. First, he could just ignore it, passing it off as a weird, crackpot idea that has no real merit. I say that his lack of response just proves his guilt. He's trying to silence the truth, man! We must demand that he either confess and step down, or prove we're wrong! Okay, so he has some qualified individuals testify on his behalf. His doctor and his wife go before the nation and let us know that the president of the United States does not have an 80's cartoon villain tattooed on his backside. Well obviously the doctor has been paid off, and the First Lady won't out her husband. Cahoots! All right, so the President finally gives in and stands on Capitol Hill with his pants around his knees and every news network displays the Caboose-in-Chief, unequivocally un-inked. They zoom in, using their HD cameras. Headlines around the world declare the news to the world: "NO JUNK ON THIS TRUNK", "BARACK'S BOOTY BEREFT OF BAD GUY", "CRACK LACKING: NO MAN ON THIS MOON", and "GOOD GAME: PRESIDENT SPANKS OPPONENTS BY SILENCING RUMORS WITH DEADLY EVIDENCE".

Even then, there will be doubters. They will say the President used concealer, the media altered the footage, a lookalike was used. They will never be convinced until the President comes to their house and lets them scrutinize his booty. The point is, he shouldn't have to. He should not have to be constantly harassed with idiotic and baseless accusations. The President's citizenship should not be an issue in the election. Not in 2008, and not now. And for a circus clown like Donald Trump to bring it up and encourage this idiocy is just irresponsible, unproductive and distracting.

So here's my idea.

We need to give good ol' Trumpy a taste of his own medicine. I think we need to start a rumor that Donald Trump is not human, but is in fact an alien in a moderately convincing human disguise. It wouldn't be that much of a stretch. Look at the guy. His ridiculous hair is a thing of legend. He has an unnatural orange hue to his skin (except around the eyes). He talks really weird, shaping his mouth in bizarre ways that nobody else does. And his skin looks like a lumpy, rubbery mass haphazardly hanging off of some misshapen humanoid structure.

"Just tuck the extra skin into the collar. I'm going on 60 Minutes tonight."

He can't prove he isn't a real human. What will he do? Have doctors testify? Paid off! Show his birth certificate? Fake! Have a DNA test done? Easily fabricated! The fact is, there isn't a thing he can do to prove beyond any doubt that he is, in fact, a human being. And if I had my way, this would become such a big thing that he would be forced to withdraw from the Presidential race. Let's face it, it's more plausible that Donald Trump is an alien than that Barack Obama isn't a real American citizen.

#8

October 22, 1991

I BrusHt' My Teet
After BreKfast.
Mom Said I Have
A Super !


*bongo drum*