I will judge you. You should judge me.

I would not support Anthony Weiner for dog catcher in a town without dogs.

However, I have no problem with his decision to involve himself in this heated exchange with a voter at a Brooklyn deli on Wednesday. In addition to questioning Weiner’s character, the voter makes a racially charged statement about his wife, which makes the mayoral candidate’s decision to turn and engage the voter understandable and justified in my mind. 

It’s what Weiner says annoys the hell out of me.

Weiner’s response to the man’s comments is to question the his right to judge him in the first place?

“You're my judge? You're my judge? What rabbi taught you that? What rabbi taught you that you're my judge?”

“You have no right to judge me.”

“That’s not for you to judge? You’re perfect? You’re going to judge me? You’re a superior man to me? Where do you get the morality to judge me? You have shown no signs of being superior to me and you are not my God so you have no authority to judge me.”

The assertion that a person has no right to judge another is illogical, idiotic and naïve. The idea that one must be superior to another or perfect in order to judge another is even more stupid.

The idea that a voter is not permitted to judge a candidate who is running for political office is the most stupid of all.

But even is Weiner was not a public or political figure, the idea that one person has no right to judge another is simply ridiculous. It’s an assertion often made by people guilty of the transgression to which they are being judged and by idiots.

Human beings judge one another constantly. It’s our way of determining who we can trust, who we can depend upon, who we should befriend, who we should avoid and who can rely upon when in need. It’s the way we form our tribes. It’s why certain people are invited into our circles of association while others are not.  

Judging people is the reason that most of us don’t stop and chat with  prostitutes on street corners. It’s the reason we tend to gravitate toward effective and genial people at work while avoid others. It’s the reason we nudge our children away from the kids on the playground who seem unruly, disrespectful or unsupervised. It’s the reason we rightfully question the intelligence of a person displaying a Confederate flag from the rear window of their pickup truck. It’s the reason our friends tend to share many of our same values and beliefs.

We judge people all the time, and we do not need to believe that we are superior to a person in order to do so.

I see a muscle-bound behemoth in designer clothing and an expensive  watch park his Humvee on the curb at the gym even though there is an empty parking spot at the end of the lot, and I know that he and I are probably not friendship material.

Could my judgment be wrong? Possibly. But there is nothing wrong with making an initial assumption. There is nothing wrong with casting judgment upon another person based upon his or her words and deeds.

To imply otherwise is asinine.

It is not unreasonable for me to think that Anthony Weiner and would not be friendship material based upon his marital transgressions. It is not unreasonable for me to question his moral fortitude and decision-making skills based upon his recent actions. It’s not wrong of me to doubt his ability to lead based upon his history with Twitter and his penis.

I am judging you, Anthony Weiner, and I have no qualms about you judging me. It’s what we do as human beings. It’s expected. It’s recommended.

The guy who confronted you in the deli was a jerk (I’m judging him, too), but hiding behind the idea that people have no right to judge you, especially while you are running for mayor, is almost as stupid as sending photographs of your penis to strange women via Twitter.

Bad ass old man of all time

Samuel Whittemore might just be the toughest old guy in the history of the world.

Born in England in 1694, Whittemore went to North America in 1745 as a captain in the British army, where he fought in King George's War (1744-48) at the age of 50 and the French and Indian War (1754-63) at the age of 64.

Then on April 19, 1775, at the age of 80, he engaged British forces returning from the Battles of Lexington and Concord at the onset of the Revolutionary War.

Whittemore was in his fields when he spotted an approaching British relief brigade under Earl Percy, sent to assist the retreat. Whittemore loaded his musket and ambushed the British from behind a nearby stone wall, killing one soldier. He then drew his dueling pistols and killed a grenadier and mortally wounded a second. By the time Whittemore had fired his third shot, a British detachment reached his position; Whittemore drew his sword and attacked. He was shot in the face, bayoneted thirteen times, and left for dead in a pool of blood. He was found alive, trying to load his musket to fight again. He was taken to Dr. Cotton Tufts of Medford, who perceived no hope for his survival. However, Whittemore lived another 18 years until dying of natural causes at the age of 98.

In 2005, Whittemore was proclaimed the official state hero of Massachusetts. Not bad considering this is a state that produced such wartime heroes as Paul Revere, Israel Putnam, John Hancock, Robert Shaw and John Kennedy.

All great men, but if I were sent to war, I’d choose Samuel Whittemore to stand on my side above them all.

Watch this instead. Please. You’ll be so happy that you did.

I took a lot of flack (and quite a bit of praise) for my position on the attention given to the royal baby.

My position is essentially this:

Shut up. It’s a freakin’ prince in a twenty-first century monarchy that shouldn’t exist. Thanks to this child’s genetic background and his ancestors’ ability to maintain power through military force, he has been born into greater unearned privilege than anyone could possibly imagine. Look away, damn it. Give your attention over to something more meaningful. Something earned.

It’s not exactly a nuanced position.

It also opens me up to attack in terms of some of my own interests and hobbies. I readily accept those criticisms, acknowledge the potential ludicrousness of some of my interests, and most important, have not responded to these attacks as if someone has eaten my firstborn child while giving me wedgie, as many have responded to me.

There are differences between supporting the National Football League and supporting the British royal family, and I don’t believe they are entirely comparable, but I won’t get into that now. 

But for those of you who have argued that the birth of the prince has been a means of escaping some of the more unfortunate news of the day and has afforded you the opportunity to revel in something slightly more joyous (the most common refrain to my position), I offer you this:  

While I’m sure the future king is cute as a button, here are some equally adorable children who are doing amazing things with a bit less privilege than the future king will enjoy.

This is something truly worth your attention: 

Britain legalizes gay marriage thanks to the approval of their unelected, genetically appointed head of state.

It’s remarkably progressive and exciting that Britain has legalized gay marriage. 

I love news that angers bigots.

However, it’s remarkably arcane, incredibly regressive and rather depressing that a unelected, genetically determined, lifetime appointed queen needed to sign off on this legislation in order to make it law.

Another argument against the death penalty

I don’t support the death penalty because I think it’s barbaric, but more importantly, it endangers the lives of innocent people.

Human beings are fallible. The justice system makes mistakes. To think otherwise is stupid, except think of a word that means stupid a thousand times over.

I don’t know what that word is, but that’s what I think of the death penalty.

Mistakes happen. They have in the past, and they will again. Innocent people will die at the hands of the state. 

For example:

On this date in 1456, Joan of Arc was declared innocent for heresy.

Unfortunately for Joan, that was 25 years after she was burned at the stake for her crime.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s DOMA ruling, I can’t help but accentuate the negative

I think it says a lot about me that as happy as I am about the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, I take infinitely more pleasure in imagining how outraged, surprised, angry and defeated the bigots in this country must feel right now.

I should feel elation for my gay friends and the equality they so deserve. They should be people in the forefront of my mind on this historic day.

Instead I find myself focused on the image of some probably old, probably white bigot somewhere probably south of me, sitting in a rocking chair on his front porch, pained as he watches the America he once loved rapidly transform into an America that we can all love.  

I’ve always been a fan of schadenfreude. This is the one instance when it feels not only good but somehow righteous as well.

When was the last time you had a pillow fight?

On the day of his assassination, Martin Luther King Jr. had a pillow-fight in his motel room. I love this. I’m so happy that he was able to experience such joy on his last day.

As a twenty-something, my friends and I had enormous, knock-down, drag-out pillow fights in our apartment, usually with the lights off. Minor injuries, broken lamps and an occasional bout of romance often resulted.

I started a relationship with a girl in the midst of one of these massive pillow fights.

I nearly lost an eye on a zipper once.

I haven’t had an honest-to-goodness pillow fight in twenty years. I didn’t even know that there was a National Pillow Fight Day until just now.

What a tragedy.

Thankfully, I have a four year-old who will probably more than willing to correct this.

Just leave the bigots behind

From TIME:

The Republican National Committee voted unanimously Friday to reaffirm the party’s commitment to upholding the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, upending party efforts to grow support among younger voters.

A resolution introduced Wednesday by Michigan committeeman Dave Agema, who came under fire last month for posting an article describing gays as “filthy” on his Facebook page, passed the full RNC by a voice vote and without debate. A second resolution reaffirming “core values” of the party — including opposition to same-sex marriage — was also passed.

Frankly, I’m stunned. It is clear that America is moving swiftly in both opinion and with legislation on this issue, yet Republican leadership has decided to stand by bigotry when it has become increasingly clear that gay marriage is rapidly becoming universally accepted in this country.

There will come a day, much sooner than later, when our children are going to ask why in hell we wouldn’t allow two men or two women to get married, much the same way my generation asked our grandparents why in hell they needed two separate drinking fountains for blacks and whites.

In fact, that day might already be here. Except in the halls of the Republican Party.

As a person who leans toward the liberal side of the aisle, the fact that the Republican Party is turning its back on this cultural sea change does not bother me much. Democrats are sure to score huge political points on this issue in upcoming elections.

Who wouldn’t love run a campaign against a bigot?

But I have Republican friends who support gay marriage who must be devastated by this news. For these people, of which I think there are many, I propose that you simply leave behind the mostly white, mostly older wing of the Republican Party that opposes gay marriage, denies climate change and establish a new, Rationale Republican platform.

Just like we would do at a dinner party, shove all the bigots, liars and morons into one corner with a bottle of Johnny Walker and a box of Depends and move your party in a direction of integrity, decency and ultimately strength.

Before you start thinking that this storm is anything like ‘78…

I was seven years old during the Blizzard of ‘78, and I will never forget it. I lived in Blackstone, Massachusetts at the time, within one of the most impacted regions of the Northeast.

Our home was without electricity and heat for a week.

The roads in eastern Massachusetts (where I lived) were closed for a week.

The rest of Massachusetts and all of Rhode Island and Connecticut closed their roads for three days.

The adjacent town of Woonsocket, Rhode Island, reported 44 inches of snow by the time the storm was finished.

 

The storm included sustained hurricane winds of 86 MPH, making it just as damaging as the snow itself.

In the neighboring town of Uxbridge, Massachusetts, ten-year-old Peter Gosselin disappeared in the deep snow just feet from his home's front door but was not found until three weeks later.

Motorists died on Interstate 95 as snow piled high enough to prevent the exhaust from escaping from their idling vehicles. Interstate 95 eventually had to be evacuated by cross-country skiers and snowmobilers.

The storm killed approximately 100 people in all.

This storm is a serious piece of business, but it’s nothing compared to what the New England dealt with in 1978. 

The most baffling part about the North Korean government is their inability to lie well.

The North Korean government is obviously unlike any other governing body in the world, but what I cannot understand is why they are such bad liars. While there may be good reasons to enhance the reputation of their country and their dictator around the world, the propaganda that they promote is so  ridiculous and ultimately damaging to the nation’s image that they would be better off saying nothing.   

For example, while he was still alive, their official news agency claimed that former North Korean dictator, Kim Jong II, had invented the hamburger, composed six operas and written more than 1,500 books in three years while at university.

His birth was reportedly heralded by a swallow and caused winter to change to spring, a star to illuminate the sky and rainbows to spontaneously appear.

According to his official biography, he did not defecate, despite this book’s insistence that this could not be true. 

Best of all (at least to a golfer), he reportedly shot eleven holes-in-one the first time he played golf (a feat verified by his army of bodyguards).

Is the North Korean government so backward as to think that these claims would be received by anything but amused smirks by the rest of the world?

I honestly don’t get it.

They left their bookstores behind.

A new study has found that at various times the British have invaded almost 90 percent of the countries around the globe.

The analysis of the histories of the almost 200 countries found only 22 which have never experienced an invasion by the British.

And the Brits seemed so civilized.

As an author, I’ve noticed that even though the British relinquished control over most of their empire, they seem to have left their bookstores behind. When I sold the publication rights for MEMOIRS OF AN IMAGNARY FRIEND to Little Brown UK and agreed to use a pen name for the book, I was under the impression that my pseudonym, Matthew Green, would reside only on the British Isles, where the books were to be published.

But since it’s publication in March of this year, I have heard from readers of the UK edition in Australia, South Africa, Dubai, Turkey, India, Morocco and a number of countries in Europe and especially the Far East.

So much for staying put on the British Isles.  

It’s been both surprising and thrilling to hear from these readers around the world. The idea that a story I made up in my head has spread to the corners of the globe is one I would have never imagined. The book is even being adapted for the stage in South Africa. But when I agreed to the pen name, I had no idea that Matthew Green would be landing in as many books shops in as many places around the world as he has.

Clever of the British to remove their troops and infrastructure from these nations but leave their bookshops behind.

Win the hearts and minds, and what better way than through a book?

One percent of stupidity

As of today, this video has been viewed more than three million times.

It’s been liked by more than 41,000 viewers.

It contains not an ounce of political rhetoric. Not a smidgen of partisan positioning. There is no talk of party or platform or policy. 

It is simply a recording of the President of the United States telling a group of volunteers that he is confident that they will do great things in the future. And yes, for a moment, while expressing his pride for the people in the room, the President has tears in his eyes.

It’s a moving speech, but what I am most interested is the 641 jackasses who disliked the video. These people amount to .0002 percent of the total number of views that the video received and (not ironically) .01 percent of the people who have chosen to rate the video.

The one percent raises its ugly head again. 

It’s hard to imagine how sad and petty and angry and implacably partisan a person must be to actively and purposefully dislike something like this.

They must have been so annoyed with the reelection of the President.

That makes me so happy.

Why I chose not to vote today and then did anyway.

Here is a fundamental truth about me:

I do not like to be told what to do.

The more I am told what to do, the less likely I will do it, especially if:

• I am being told what to do with great earnestness.
• Failure to comply will not result in any serious negative consequences.

Today is a perfect example of this fundamental truth in action.

I opened my eyes this morning, looking forward to voting in today’s election.

I take a peek at Twitter through bleary eyes and see a handful of tweets urging me to vote. Simple reminders to vote don’t bother me, but the tweets that attempt to appeal to my civic duty and my patriotism annoy the hell out of me.

Don’t tell me what to do, and especially don’t tell me why you think I should do it.

I want to vote a little less now.

A little later I pop onto Facebook. This is where things start going downhill in a big way.

Extreme earnestness and self-righteousness are on full display this morning all over Facebook. Individuals who have deemed it necessary to proselytize to their friends about the nature, value, and benefits of voting are out in force today. They are pounding on their keyboard in sanctimonious glee.   

An example of the kind of Facebook message that annoys the hell out of me goes something like this:

It’s Election Day, friends. We are blessed as Americans to possess this sacred right, so please don’t waste it. Look into your heart and vote your conscience today. No matter what you political affiliation, we are all Americans. It is our duty to vote. Soldiers and patriots have given their lives so you can pull that lever today. Please be sure to exercise your right.  

Now I’m completely annoyed.

I’m not saying that this is the best way to be, but it’s the way I am.

The inane earnestness, the painful obviousness contained within the statement, the sheer weight of cliché, and seeming need of some people to take an oratorical, parental, paternal or Sermon on the Mount approach to something as basic and personal as voting makes me no longer want to vote.

Instead, I find myself wanting to do exactly the opposite of what these people are telling me to do. I want to not vote in hopes of ruining their day or at least convincing them that next time, I don’t need their reminder to vote.

No one needs a reminder to vote.

Everyone knows it’s Election Day.

Anyone who turns on a television or a radio or a computer or drives down the street or speaks to a friend on the telephone knows that today is Election Day.

We all know that today is the day to vote.

I can only assume that the person who feels the need to employ this level of self-righteous earnestness in an effort to convince a friend to vote must live in some kind of pious, self-satisfied bubble. Unfortunately, they have poked their heads out of their bubble long enough today to annoy me.

Now I don’t want to vote. The fundamental truth that I do not like to be told what to do has been activated, and I must now decide if I can purposefully not vote and (just as important) tell everyone that I decided not to vote.

I consider the second condition by which I decide whether to actively not do what I have been told:

• Failure to comply will not result in any serious negative consequences.

In the grand scheme of things, this is probably true as well. While every vote counts, it is unlikely that my vote will determine the fate of any political race. It is possible for me not to vote today and have no election result changed in any way.

So now I am seriously thinking about not voting. In fact, the idea of not voting as a direct result of a friend’s earnest appeal to vote warms me inside. I smile. I discover a skip in my step. My heart soars.

I was told to vote, so now I am not going to vote.

Like I said, this is not the best way to be, but it’s me.

But here’s the problem:

I want to vote.

Underneath the layers of spite and pettiness and annoyance, and beyond my extreme desire to ruin the day of an overly-earnest proselytizer lies the desire to express my political will by pulling a lever.

In my gut, I still want to vote.

In the end, it comes down to this:

Whose day would I rather ruin?

The annoying Facebook friend who seems to think that he or she is the patron saint of voting or the political candidate whose positions I despise?

Whose day is better ruined?

My vote may not alter the course of the election, but when my candidate wins, I will know that I played a role in defeating the opposition.

That would warm me inside as well. That would put a smile on my face and a skip in my step and cause my heart to soar.  

In a perfect world, there would be a way to ruin the day of the Facebook friend and the political candidate, but sadly, this is not a perfect world.

But voting for the right candidate might make it a more perfect world, though, so in the end, I choose to vote. 

I vote because I want to vote. I opened my eyes this morning looking forward to voting, and that is what I will do. I cannot allow the sanctimony and self-righteousness of Facebook friends to strip me of my opportunity to exact my political will.

Next time I’ll take my wife’s advice and just avoid Facebook altogether.

image

40 years late, jerk face.

Have you heard?

It wasn’t Yoko’s fault after all.

From The Daily Beast: 

Paul McCartney absolves John Lennon’s widow of any blame in the break up of the Beatles in a new interview with David Frost. “She certainly didn’t break the group up. The group was breaking up,” the famed singer and songwriter says in the hour long special to debut next month.

Why the hell did it take Paul McCartney 42 years to let Yoko Ono off the hook? He sat by for more than four decades, listening to Beatles fans blame Yoko Ono for the breakup of the band, and only now does he decide to come forward and absolve her of blame?

What a jerk.

A perfect delineation of the differences between the parties

This story provides a perfect delineation between Democrats and certain elements of the Republican Party.

One one side we have Maine’s Democratic State Senate candidate, Colleen Lachowicz, a social worker who has been working with mentally ill patients for the past 25 years. She is also licensed foster parent and mother who happens to play World of Warcraft in her free time.

On the other side we have Maine’s Republican party, which has condemned Lachowicz for playing the online videogame. According to Republican press releases, her "disturbing alter-ego" and "time-consuming double life" make her unfit to hold public office.

I would like to write a paragraph or two explaining the stupidity of Maine’s Republican Party, but I think Lachowicz did a fine job of it in her response to the Republican press releases. She said:

"I think it’s weird that I’m being targeted for playing online games. Apparently I’m in good company since there are 183 million other Americans who also enjoy online games. What’s next? Will I be ostracized for playing Angry Birds or Words with Friends? If so, guilty as charged.

What’s really weird is that the Republicans are going after my hobbies instead of talking about their record while they’ve been running Augusta for the last two years. Instead of talking about what they’re doing for Maine people, they’re making fun of me for playing video games. Did you know that more people over the age of 50 play video games than under the age of 18? As a gamer, I’m in good company with folks like Jodie Foster, Vin Diesel, Mike Myers, and Robin Williams. Maybe it’s the Republican Party that is out of touch."

I’m not sure if Colleen Lachowicz is a qualified candidate for Maine’s state senate, but I know that she deserves credit for a 25 years of service in social work and her willingness to serve as a foster parent to children in need.

At minimum, she has proven herself to be a dedicated public servant.

I also know that her decision to play World of Warcraft in her free time has absolutely no bearing on Lachowicz’s ability to represent the voters of her district and assist in governing the state of Maine.

Most important, I know that that anyone making a claim as stupid as this does not deserve the vote of any right minded Maine citizen.

It boggles the mind how stupid people can be in the midst of a political campaign with so much on the line.

Public opinion is irrelevant when it comes to matters of right and wrong

The Daily Beast’s David Frum writes:

Maryland will settle same-sex marriage the right way: at the ballot box. In November, Marylanders will vote on Question 6, an initiative to amend the state constitution to allow same-sex marriage.

I could not disagree more.

Equality, basic human rights and common sense should not be dependent on public opinion. The legislation of issues such as same-sex marriage should not rely upon voter turnout, television advertising, and campaign fundraising to decide the matter. It should be decided by a fair minded, politically neutral court comprised of men and women who have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Actually, same-sex marriage should just be legal from a standpoint of basic human decency and common sense, the same way that kissing your grandmother, climbing a tree or hugging a friend did not require legislation in order to be legal. But absent this, the matter should not be reliant upon the whims of the electorate. Human beings live too damn long, are too narrow minded and are too likely to carry their bigotry to the grave with them. Reforms like the legalization of same-sex marriage often must be forced upon the citizenry, regardless of public opinion.

For example, interracial marriage was legalized in 1967 by the United States Supreme Court even though only 20% of Americans supported it and 73% expressed disapproval of interracial marriage at the time. Twenty-seven years after the Court legalized interracial marriage, a majority of Americans still opposed it, but public opinion did not matter. The Court had done the right thing, regardless of what the public believed or continued to believe more than two decades later.

In fact, it was not until 1997 that a majority of Americans expressed support for interracial marriage. Had the country allowed the ballot box to decide the issue, interracial couples would have been required to wait thirty additional years before being granted the same rights as intra-racial couples. 

Public opinion should only go so far. When it comes to doing the right thing,  do the right thing, regardless of what people think, any way you can. 

Want to settle the same sex marriage debate the right way?

Just legalize it and tell the bigots to shut the hell up.

It seems fairly obvious but perhaps it’s not: You can’t “become” rich if you’re already rich.

Mitt Romney: “When I was a boy, I used to think that becoming rich and becoming famous would make me happy. Boy was I right!”

I know this video was recorded in 2005, and I know that the former Governor was trying to be funny, but could someone please inform Mitt Romney that he was rich from the moment he entered this world.

His father, George Romney, was chairman and president of American Motors, Governor of Michigan, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and a Republican candidate for President of the United States.

There was no “becoming rich,” regardless of what Romney may want us to believe. There was just rich.

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with being born wealthy, as long as you don’t try to pretend otherwise.

So much nuance in just 30 seconds of bigotry

This anti-Obama, anti-gay marriage ad is fascinating.

First, despite the enormous amount of money that Super PACs are pouring into the campaign, they apparently cannot afford professional actors or writers. The ad is embarrassing in terms of its production value.

If I had paid for this ad, I’d be angry as hell.

Second, this may seem picky, but does anyone other than me think that the shot of the coffee mug being placed on the napkin is a little strange? I’ve watched the ad a dozen times, hoping to discover a subliminal message hidden  within the shot, but I can’t find anything save the inexplicable decision to focus on the mug and the napkin for one awkward second.

Bad acting, bad writing and bad direction. Way to go, Campaign for American Values PAC.

Third, I’d like to know what newspaper the woman in the ad is reading, because President Obama has not proposed any legislation regarding gay marriage, nor has he expressed any desire to do so.

In fact, he doesn’t need to. The states will eventually legalize gay marriage on their own. According to recent CBS and Pew polls, more Americans now support gay marriage than oppose it, and support is increasing rapidly. Six states have already legalized gay marriage, and at least two more are likely to join the ranks in 2013.

Perhaps the producers of this ad haven’t noticed, but even the Republican candidates have been mum on gay marriage. They know it’s a losing battle.

Fourth, I’d like the Super PAC responsible for this ad to find me one person in America who:

1. Voted for President Obama in 2008
2. Believes that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman
3. Believes that President Obama is attempting to “force gay marriage” on the American people
4. Would switch his or her vote to the Republican ticket based solely on this faulty belief

There are a lot of people in the United States, but I would venture to guess that not a single American citizen could meet all four of the criteria that the characters in this ad represent. This person simply doesn’t exist. It’s an ad directly solely at the two fictional people who appear in the ad. 

Last, did you notice the final, gauzy image in the ad? The family has gathered in the living room, presumably to discuss how disgusting gay people are and how legalizing gay marriage will make everyone gay and ruin the country and stuff.

When I saw the couple’s three smiling children, I immediately thought, “Quick! Someone save those kids from those bigoted, poorly portrayed parents! Remove those kids from the home! Now!”

Then again, the kids probably don’t need any rescuing. Support for gay marriage among young people is extraordinarily high. More than two-thirds of people born after 1981 now support gay marriage and those numbers are also increasing rapidly. The odds would seem to indicate that at least two of the children in the ad will ultimately reject their parents’ bigotry in the same way that my generation rejected the racism of our parents’ generation.

Clint Eastwood’s Imaginary Friend was really his convenient friend

I wonder if Clinton will speak to an imaginary Clint Eastwood tonight at the Democratic National Convention. 

I doubt it.

I’m guessing that Clinton knows the first rule of Imaginary Friends:

Keep them to yourself. Don’t talk to them in public. (People will think you’re strange.) Don’t set a place for them at the dinner table. (People will think you’re strange.) And whatever you do, don’t talk to them on stage at the Republication National Convention. (People will think you’re really strange.)

Imaginary Friends (or foes, in this case) have their purpose. They serve as the ideal confidante: always available, always willing to lend a hand . . . and an ear. I had an imaginary friend when I was a child—his name was Johnson Johnson. He was a boy about my age, conveniently shorter and smaller than me with ice blue eyes perpetually focused in my direction. Johnson Johnson was my best friend for several years, and for a time, he may have been my only friend. When I was feeling lonely or faced with a difficult decision, it was Johnson Johnson I turned to.

I thought a lot about my imaginary friend while watching Clint Eastwood speak to his imaginary version of President Obama. It was an interesting rhetorical device—our nation’s quintessential tough guy literally talking down to an empty chair. But I wasn’t thinking of rhetoric last Thursday night. I was thinking of how similar Eastwood’s imaginary president was to the imaginary friends of millions of children across the country.

As an elementary school teacher for the past fifteen years, I’ve come across my fair share of imaginary friends. I know their world and I understand their purpose. Imaginary friends are convenient, agreeable, and above all, there when you need them.

Rather like Imaginary Obama. The empty chair to which Eastwood directed his words was remarkably agreeable. When a smirking Eastwood turned to Imaginary Obama and posed his first question about the promises that the President had made to the American people, Imaginary Obama ignored the fact that the question made no sense and had no possible answer.

And it didn’t matter in the least.

Like any good imaginary friend, Imaginary Obama did not refute Eastwood’s claims or even attempt to answer him. He just sat there: invisible, imaginary, irrefutable.

Hardly surprising.

After all, imaginary friends serve their imaginers at all times. It’s their job. They fill the gaps in a child’s life, serving roles unfilled by parents, teachers, and even real life friends. In Eastwood’s case, Imaginary Obama served as the agreeable prop that he required.

Eastwood’s first question showed his apparent lack of concern with coherence while speaking to Imaginary Obama, which is common with children and their imaginary friends. In some cases, children begin babbling to imaginary friends before they are capable of speech, but even older children with rich vocabularies develop their own special languages—languages that are full of meaning and nuance and often indiscernible to outsiders. Eastwood did his share of babbling on Thursday night as well, often straying into unintelligibility. While it may have been uncomfortable for the audience and presumably for Mitt Romney and his campaign team, Imaginary Obama didn’t seem to care one bit.

Imaginary Obama had no say over where Eastwood brought him. The real President Obama would never consider being seated off-mic to the right of Eastwood at the Republican National Convention (particularly if he was expected to answer questions), but imaginary friends are excellent companions in this regard. When I brought Johnson Johnson to school, he often had to wait in the boys room for me, regardless of the persistent bathroom smells. When I brought Johnson Johnson to the park, he was required to wait by the chain link fence rather than joining me on the swings. When we rode in the car, he was often forced to sit in the trunk. It’s nice to have a friend who is willing to accompany you at every turn, regardless of how unwelcomed he or she may feel. Johnson Johnson never complained about being my trusted sidekick, but I have to wonder if how much Imaginary Obama enjoyed the stage at the Republican National Convention. He may have preferred to wait by the fence.

Imaginary friends are convenient. And even imaginary foes have their purpose. But I have to wonder if Eastwood had wanted to debate Obama so badly, did he ever consider inviting the real President Obama as opposed to his imaginary counterpart? Something tells me that had the real President been invited to debate Clint Eastwood on the stage of the Republican National Convention, he might have accepted.

But Eastwood didn’t ask, and on Thursday night a man known in his films for toughness, grit, and unwavering courage chose to bring his imaginary friend to the party because Imaginary Obama was convenient. He was guaranteed to show up, certain to offer no rebuttal, and assured to understand every word of Eastwood’s speech, regardless of how indiscernible and crazy it seemed to the rest of us.

Eastwood also chose convenience over challenge on Thursday night. Rather than debating a man who would have likely spoken rings around him, Dirty Harry chose to chat with a chair. I’m sure that even Imaginary Obama was a little disappointed in his lack of courage.

Now I feel like a loser

This is why I don’t read obituaries.

I read the obituary of Count Robert de La Rochefoucauld, who died last month, and I can’t help but think that I have accomplished nothing in my life by comparison. 

“La Rochefoucauld, who died at the ripe old age of 88, escaped from Occupied France during World War II to join the Special Operations Executive. He then parachuted back into France on sabotage missions and twice faced execution, only to escape on both occasions, once dressed as a Nazi guard.”

No one likes a showoff.