Mitt Romney - the Best Candidate…For me to Poop on!
If you’re new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
(Or “The Seamus on Mitt Romney”)
Sometimes you read a story that just grabs you. I got one forwarded to me today that, at first glance, seems to have nothing to do with math. But since Math Mojo readers know that math is more meaningful than that stuff they shoved down your throat in school, I think you’ll appreciate this one. Bear with me.
In the summer of 1983, Mitt Romney took a vacation with his wife and five sons, to his parents’ cottage on the Canadian side of Lake Huron. The trip from Boston was twelve hours long.
According to an article in the Boston Globe by Neil Swidey and Stephanie Ebbert, Globe Staff, June 27, 2007:
-
“…Before beginning the drive, Mitt Romney put Seamus, the family’s hulking Irish setter, in a dog carrier and attached it to the station wagon’s roof rack. He’d built a windshield for the carrier, to make the ride more comfortable for the dog…
“… As the oldest son, Tagg Romney commandeered the way-back of the wagon, keeping his eyes fixed out the rear window, where he glimpsed the first sign of trouble. ”Dad!” he yelled. ”Gross!” A brown liquid was dripping down the back window, payback from an Irish setter who’d been riding on the roof in the wind for hours.
“As the rest of the boys joined in the howls of disgust, Romney coolly pulled off the highway and into a service station. There, he borrowed a hose, washed down Seamus and the car, then hopped back onto the highway. It was a tiny preview of a trait he would grow famous for in business: emotion-free crisis management.”
Yeah, otherwise known as “compassionate conservatism.” You know that to “conserve” means “to not use,” or “to use as little as possible.” To conserve your compassion for what? Your cronies? Your sons, who you conserve for your political agenda, but not to fight in a war that you support? Certainly not for your dog…
Just what kind of sick freak is Mitt Romney? What kind of sick freak not only does something like that to a dog (who I suppose is just a “possession” to people like him, not a family-member, or friend) but covers it with a mealy-mouthed excuse like, “They’re just not happy that my dog loves fresh air.”
Is that why people are not happy, Mitt, you disingenuous twit? Or is it because you transported a dog in a crate on top of your car for twelve hours? Or because you hosed him off when he expressed himself on your plan?
People like Romney like to imagine that their lack of compassion is “emotion-free crisis management.” (And I like to call my abs a “six-pack,” but that isn’t true either, unless it’s a six-pack of bags of cottage cheese.) (OK, maybe you didn’t need that visual, either.)
There are branches of math and logic that deal with decision-making. Crisis management is part of decision-making. First, you determine what the crisis is. It seems that in this case, Mitt determined that the crisis was that a dog put a damper on his nice vacation plans.
But the actual crisis was that some idiot put a dog in a crate on top of a car and planned to drive for twelve hours. Or which do you think is a bigger crisis?
If Mitt can’t figure out what the crisis is, he’s not fit to govern. Hell, he’s not even fit to be dog-catcher!
(By the way, twelve hours for you and I is about three and a half days in dog-years.)
Surely you’ve heard people say they don’t like math because it’s too “factual,” or something like that. That is personality flaw, not something wrong with math. It’s an easy flaw to correct, thank goodness. When you think that the alternative is to have your description of your reality and your decision-making be mushy and nebulous. Getting clear critical-thinking skills keeps you from buying the muddled, weasely arguments and excuses that politicians of both wings are bound to try to fool you with.
If you know, or learn, how to dissect a problem as well as you can, you can find patterns where there are patterns, and you can also see where there are none. It doesn’t mean you’ll always be right, but you’ll be wrong a lot less then people who cannot think clearly.
Caveat:
Please, please don’t make any assumptions about my stand on any other issues concerning Romney or any other candidates. I despise Romney for even thinking about doing something like this to an animal, and for not being able to say, “I’m so sorry. I learned as soon as I did that, that it was an idiotic thing to do, and I have done things to insure that I don’t screw up like that again.” I’m not making any general political statements here, except that it seems that “they’re all like that.”
It’s not the mistake, so much. (Of course what he did was idiotic - but it was not heinous, and I’m sure you have done things equally as stupid - I know I have!)
It’s the total inability of politicians and other people of their ilk to actually be honest when they err, or learn from anything from their mistakes (except how to cover their tracks.)
In an ABC news article by Blair Soden on June 29, 2007, Physicist Dr. W.J. Llope, a senior faculty fellow at Rice University in the department of physics and astronomy, has his theory about the Romney’s decision to strap Seamus to the top of the car:
-
“Seeing the inside of the car is full, Romney absentmindedly says to himself, ‘Where am I going to put ole Seamus here?’ and hearing his name, the dog says, ‘Roof, roof,’ said Llope.”
Read Soden’s article for the physics and math of what happens to a Dog on a Roof Traveling 50 MPH.
Read these related articles:
Wonkette (The article is facetious, but the comments are brilliant!)
Peta for this telling quote:
-
“… any individual who does something like that may have what scientists term the absence of the mirror neuron, i.e., a pin-pointable absence in the brain of the characteristic which allows the individual to feel basic compassion. The implications are frightening. Anyone who suspects that they are not able to feel empathy for others needs to be aware of the existence of this condition. What is also worrying is that Mr. Romney seems to hold the very old fashioned idea that he needs to actively show he is heartless, hence the hunting claims he has made. Not subsistence hunting, but pride in killing defenseless animals.”
Time.com (”Mitt Romney loves his ‘Family Pets’”) Sure, Mitt. Next time share the fun with your kids, or don’t you “love” them?
Bill Frist - “Heinous and dishonest” (his own words) Cat Killer in the name of Science
Hat tip to my cousin Jayne for sending me the original story this morning.
As always, the story this post is based on has been checked at the snopes.com site for it’s veracity.
Tags:
If you liked this article, please add it on Digg, del.icio.us, or StumbleUpon. It will help Math Mojo help others.
Print This Post
Comment by matty s
You are really reaching on this story, comparing to Michael Vick, you should be ashamed. Mitt Romney has actually done great things, unlike any of the other candidates who are full of diatribe. You think he is not a caring and compassionate person? If this is your stance, then it is very obvious you have done absolutely no homework on this guy.
Brian sez:
Matty,
In some sense you are right. It would be reaching to compare him to Michael Vick. I was not actually comparing him, though. That graphic could be considered humor. Sorry it didn’t come across as such. No, I do not think he is anything like Michael Vick, and I apologize if I caused anyone to think he was.
On the other hand, “caring and compassionate” is relative. In the case of the dog on that trip, he definitely was not. I don’t think you could reasonably defend that he was. I also did not comment if Mitt Romney has done great things, or if any of the other candidates did, either.
That’s the thing about mathematical thinking - we try not to extrapolate where there is no basis. I commented about him and his decision-making in this instance, and how it is wrong to label it “emotion-free crisis management.” Any argument would have to be about that.
I really wish that you would have read the caveat I wrote (see above). See, that’s so important in math - taking in the details. If an equation is 3*4+7=19, you don’t get to say, “Well, if you think that 3*4=19, then it is very obvious you have done absolutely no homework on this problem.” Nobody said 3*4=19, and nobody said they think Mitt Romney wasn’t a caring and compassionate person (nor did I say he was - that’s not basically anything I care to comment about here). I just basically said he was an idiot in this case, and the way he defended it reflected poorly on his decision-making skills. You can make up any stories in your head that you want from there, but they wouldn’t be my stories.
Your statement that, “Mitt Romney has actually done great things, unlike any of the other candidates who are full of diatribe,” is a blanket statement, not backed up by any evidence you offered, and smacks of diatribe itself. Bad logic. Furthermore, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the article.
And furthermore, the use of that kind of argument is the same thing as “Well, Hitler built the Autobahns, so he did some great things for Germany.” Nobody’s “great things” excuse animal cruelty. By the way, my use of that argument does not compare Romney to Hitler. (That is not something that I even remotely think.) It compares the argument. For all I know, Romney may be a great guy to go for a beer and shoot quail with (better than Cheney, anyway). (I say, I say, that’s a joke, son!)
This is not a political blog. I like math, and I love dogs. I detest politics. So we’ll keep it to math, critical-thinking, logic, education and the occasional animal-rights issue. Anyone is welcome to comment on those issues. Political comments won’t be accepted. (Unless it’s pretty funny and insulting to all politicians).