It’s been a while since I have done an idiot of the week. While it’s not for lack of deserving candidates mind you. Truthfully, there have been a plethora of worthy inductees, I just have been slacking.

Before we visit this weeks fool, I have to confess I’m not sure that the title “Idiot of the Week” quite works, as “idiot” may give the wrong idea. Or leave the possibility that these people are simply lacking in knowledge or education, when in fact some of them aren’t stupid, they’re liars who are fully aware that they are lying. Others, on the other hand are just massive douche bags or some combination of all three. Further, it fails conveys the correct level of contempt that I have for these folks. I think I need a new pejorative.

So while I meditate on some new invectives, please enjoy this week’s offering: Scott Adams.

Now, if the name, Scott Adams, rings a bell, it should. He is the creator of Dilbert – a comic strip that I adore. Unfortunately, of all the reasons that one would support Mitt Romney, Adams’ is one of the most asinine that I have heard, and I just can’t let it go without some well dissevered ridicule. So, let’s take a look at this sad piece of drivel. [Original Here]

Let’s say a CEO does a great job for stockholders; he increases profits five-fold, treats the employees well, and causes the stock price to skyrocket. He’s a superstar. One day the public learns that the CEO killed a guy to get ahead in his career, but the CEO doesn’t get convicted because his clever attorney gets him off on a technicality. Assume in this hypothetical situation that the public correctly believes the CEO killed a guy to advance his career. Should the board of directors allow the superstar CEO to keep his job? Or is killing a guy to advance your career always a firing offense?

Okay, keep your answer in mind.

The next question is for supporters of President Obama. Let’s say your political views map closely to the President’s positions. He’s your guy. But suppose you found out he once killed an American citizen in the United States to help his reelection. And assume, as with the CEO example, that the facts of the killing are undisputed and the President found a legal means to avoid prosecution. In that hypothetical case, would you still vote for President Obama? Or would you say it is a firing offense for a President to kill a citizen to advance his career?

I predict that every one of you favored firing the hypothetical CEO for killing a guy to get ahead. My second prediction is that every Republican reader of this blog favored firing President Obama in the hypothetical and imaginary case of him murdering a citizen to get elected. My third prediction is that supporters of President Obama will quibble with the hypothetical example, or my comparison to the CEO, or say President Obama is still a better option than Romney. In other words, for most supporters of President Obama, I don’t think there is such a thing as a “firing offense.”

Ok, the point of these hypotheticals is create an “intellectual” underpinning for what will come, an endorsement of Mitt Romney. We’ll see in the next few paragraphs just how poor these underpinnings are, but for now I’ll simply comment on the last sentence. It’s interesting to me that Adams insinuates that the President’s supporters are less rational than his detractors… I cannot say I think that is an accurate assumption.

For the record, President Obama did not technically kill anyone to get elected. That was just a hypothetical example. But he is putting an American citizen in jail for 10 years to life for operating medical marijuana dispensaries in California where it is legal under state law. And I assume the President – who has a well-documented history of extensive marijuana use in his youth – is clamping down on California dispensaries for political reasons, i.e. to get reelected. What other reason could there be?

Oh my, there is so much stupid in this paragraph, I can feel my IQ dropping just reading it. First, and let me be very clear on this: it does not matter one damn that California has legal access to medical marijuana… it is still illegal under Federal Law. Period. Further, as far as the courts go, the Federal government is well with in it’s authority to regulate marijuana (Gonzales v. Raich, 2005) and prosecute offenders of federal law. That is because of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, this states that where there is federal law on something it is supreme to and supersedes state law. Bluntly put, the states are in the wrong here, not the feds.

Next, “not technically kill”, give me a break. This is the point where Adams’ logic begins to break down. By way of analogy, Adams is arguing that putting some in prison for breaking Federal Law is comparable to murder for political gain. These things are not only not equivalent, they’re not even any same universe. Making this analogy to attack the President does not show the strongest use of critical thinking skills. Also, the President does’t put people in jail… federal law enforcement does that.

Third, the President’s past use of pot is not relevant. To me, this comment comes across like a kid arguing, “but you did, why can’t I”, again, not really strong reasoning skills here.

Lastly, as to why the Feds would crack down on this guy… oh, I don’t know… maybe because he broke the fucking law.

One could argue that the President is just doing his job and enforcing existing Federal laws. That’s the opposite of what he said he would do before he was elected, but lying is obviously not a firing offense for politicians.

I’m pretty sure that Adams has no idea what the President actually has said on medical marijuana. In no way did the President say that he would not enforce federal law where medical marijuana is concerned. For the record, and furthering Adams’ sorely needed education, here is the President’s words on medical marijuana [Link]:

 President Obama clarified his position on medical marijuana in an interview with Rolling Stone, telling publisher Jann Wenner that he can’t “nullify congressional law.”

“What I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana. I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana – and the reason is, because it’s against federal law. I can’t nullify congressional law,” Obama said.

“I can’t ask the Justice Department to say, ‘Ignore completely a federal law that’s on the books.’ What I can say is, ‘Use your prosecutorial discretion and properly prioritize your resources to go after things that are really doing folks damage.’ As a consequence, there haven’t been prosecutions of users of marijuana for medical purposes,” Obama said.

Obama also said in a late night TV appearance Tuesday on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, that he didn’t expect Congress to change that law: “We’re not going to be legalizating weed … anytime soon.”Personally, I’d prefer death to spending the final decades of my life in prison.

That’s a bit more nuanced then Adams may have realized.

So while President Obama didn’t technically kill a citizen, he is certainly ruining this fellow’s life, and his family’s lives, and the lives of countless other minor drug offenders. And he is doing it to advance his career. If that’s not a firing offense, what the hell is?

Ok, enforcing the laws is just enforcing the laws. That fact Adams doesn’t apparently agree with the law or its enforcement isn’t “firing offense” for the President. The problem solely belongs to Adams and his lack or understanding/ education on relevant laws.

Incidentally, there is a term in the political lexicon for being fired for doing job, that is “Borked”. Referring to then Solicitor General (and Acting Attorney General) Robert Bork’s illegal firing of Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox at the orders of President Nixon.

Romney is likely to continue the same drug policies as the Obama administration. But he’s enough of a chameleon and a pragmatist that one can’t be sure. And I’m fairly certain he’d want a second term. He might find it “economical” to use federal resources in other ways than attacking California voters. And he is vocal about promoting states’ rights, so he’s got political cover for ignoring dispensaries in states where medical marijuana is legal.

Gov. Romney is also enough of a chameleon to return to the Bush era enforcement where not only distributors are prosecuted but users as well. Medical marijuana is well thought of in GOP circles and Romney is on the record as opposing it.

So while I don’t agree with Romney’s positions on most topics, I’m endorsing him for president starting today. I think we need to set a minimum standard for presidential behavior, and jailing American citizens for political gain simply has to be a firing offense no matter how awesome you might be in other ways.

And here it is, the questionable hypotheticals, poor reasoning skills and lack understanding/ knowledge of our nation’s laws brought to their most ridiculous pinnacle. That is an endorsement of a candidate based on the hope, despite reason, that Mitt Romney will let people smoke up.

Now I do not know if Adams uses pot, nor do I know if he would qualify as a “stoner”, but the arguments he makes are often used by that demographic. Even if he is not though, he still shows an amazing lack of knowledge that is also all to common in single issue voters – another demographic not known for reasoning skills. See, some people become so wrapped up in a narrow issue that they unwilling to acknowledge or uninterested in anything outside of that single issue.

I have harped on the lack of education quite a bit. This may come off as elitist or prickish, but all of these topics from the President and Gov. Romney’s positions on medical marijuana to the actual law on medical marijuana in the US are easily found through a Google search – Adams apparently couldn’t be bothered to do that minimal amount of research. If you can’t do that simple of a task, you should probably just keep your ignorance to yourself.

Two more points about Adams’ post, first he has a number of updates that I am not going to reproduce, they amount to him alternately praising and condemning stories on his post from other websites. This seamed rather petulant, so I’m not going to bother with it.

Second, Adam’s had placed a warning at the start of his post, I will address it here.

The warning:

Warning: This blog is written for a rational audience that likes to have fun wrestling with unique or controversial points of view. It is written in a style that can easily be confused as advocacy or opinion. It is not intended to change anyone’s beliefs or actions. If you quote from this post or link to it, which you are welcome to do, please take responsibility for whatever happens if you mismatch the audience and the content.

The post may have been intended for a “rational audience” but it wasn’t written by a rational person. Further, Adams may not like this, but an endorsement is advocacy, that’s the point.

A last thought on medical marijuana. During my time as a graphic artist at my local newspaper, I had made advertisements for several medical marijuana dispensaries in my home town. See Montana is a medical marijuana state and many dispensaries use a traveling doctor that would come, see patients for half a day and sign off on the cards for medical marijuana. One thing that really and repeatedly struck me was that all of the advertisements for these doctor’s clinics stated (often highlighted at the client’s request): “No Medical Records Necessary” Now, I cannot see a doctor prescribing medication to a patient without looking at their records is as due diligence. But, maybe due diligence isn’t the point, maybe getting high is the point.

Oh, and a runner up: Dinesh D’Souza. Now it’s hardly unusual that one of these moral crusader, pro-family types turns out to be a complete hypocrite, but D’Souza’s melt down this week gave me some much needed humor, so here we go. D’Souza had been the president of a Christian university called Kings College. Well, some time ago, D’Souza went to a function for this school with some attractive new young lady on his arm, who he introduced as his fiance. This may have been a surprise to some, especially his wife… and also to her husband. For his part, D’Souza has now, after that fact, filed for divorce. He has also resigned from his position at Kings College. Still, you do have to be impressed with the nuts it takes to accuse President Obama of attacking the traditional family one week, and then destroying yours the next.

I know that I’m not the only one to make this observation, but I swear, give these guys time and almost invariably, they go down flames – fueled by equal parts hypocrisy and stupidity. Clicky for more.

Until next time…