Halloween Costumes - 2013

While this effort has already been picked up by the Toledo Free Press with both it's local Toledo-oriented entries as well as National suggestions,  I thought that it would be worthwhile however for those who might not understand the local  Glass City references to post only those costume ideas that had national implications here.  Besides, there always seems to be additions to this annual effort as the week of its  creation progresses (as a matter of fact, additions have already been made since this was originally posted.), and the TFP has both space and modification restrictions that must be respected.  If you check back later this week therefore, you're likely to discover additions to this entry that you missed earlier.  

Here is the link to the Toledo Free Press website effort that includes the Toledo specific entries as well as most of the national ones.

Halloween is almost upon us, though there's still plenty of time to choose a costume. For those of you who remain 'costume-challenged' for this all-important candy grab however, we here at “Just Blowing Smoke” have once again come up with our annual list of politically-oriented (and politically incorrect) suggestions that could make you the hit of your neighborhood, if not a viral source of public ridicule on Facebook and YouTube.
 

• Place some orange cones on your driveway and install a flimsy gate across the sidewalk leading to your front door with a broken lock and a newly painted 'Closed' sign hanging from it. Leave your porch light on however to encourage participants to push past these feeble barriers. When revelers ring the bell and say 'Trick or Treat', tell them they shouldn't be there but give them candy anyway. If asked about this apparently contradictory behavior, tell them you're the National Park Service.
• Take a big piece of plastic sheeting and paint a wavy blue line across it.  Wrap it around yourself and fasten it together; then make your neighborhood begging rounds.  When asked, tell them that you're a glass, and you think you're half-empty.  What do they think?
• Wear a nice suit and.Trick or Treat from door to door while weeping and mumbling logically contradictory statements on the state of the nation and laws that should be passed as if nobody is listening (they won't be). When asked, wipe a tear from your eye and stammer 'God bless America', before telling them you are Speaker of the House John Boehner. 
• Trick or Treat from door to door, carrying either a recently minted dog turd or freshly filled diaper to sniff right before the door is answered. When residents note your pinched, rather constipated expression and ask about your costume, tell them you are Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and refuse to accept any candy they offer you.
• Wear a piece of poster board on your chest with the neatly printed words: “We are experiencing technical difficulties, please stand by ...” as you walk your neighborhood route. When asked, tell them that you are the 'Affordable Healthcare Website', take their candy, and apologize for not being able to give them anything in return; requesting that they try again later (after all, it's settled law) before moving on.
• Trick or Treat from door to door spouting the most wild, illogical, and even insane beliefs about the news at the top of your voice; making sure to periodically blame Republicans as the cause of the world's ills. When asked, tell them you're a show host for MSNBC.
• Trick or Treat the neighborhood and give the normal greeting when the door is answered. When homeowners attempt to speak however, interrupt their attempts to do so as foolish while disparagingly insisting that you know best about everything and insist that you are only taking their candy 'for the folks'. You will, of course, be masquerading as Fox News host Bill O'Reilly; and should be ashamed of yourself for providing him even that much attention.
• Wear whatever you want in while making your Trick or Treat rounds.  When asked who you're supposed to be and what you've done, tell them you're a member of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). When they explain that they don't know who that is, tell them that neither does anyone else, but that you're charged with cleaning up the poison gas in Syria and that you haven't actually done much of anything yet ... except for winning this year's Nobel Peace Prize.  
• Come to think of it, if you would like to Trick or Treat your neighborhood in a formal tuxedo with tails and can speak with a Norwegian or Swedish accent (I use the Swedish cook one from Sesame Street), you can go as a member of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee.  When they answer the door, give them one of the little blue ribbons you'll need to carry and explain that these days you're giving out the prize to damn near anyone whether they've ever done anything or not.  
• Wear something business casual and carry a clipboard full of computer printouts, along with your 'Trick or Treat' bag.  When homeowners answer the door, page through the list 'harrumphing', while telling them you're from the NSA and they shouldn't feel obligated to give you a special reward not to release the information they've gathered on you. 
• Kick a can from house to house on your Trick or Treat route and lethargically hold out your bag when the door is answered.  If questioned on your costume or your lousy attitude, tell homeowners you're a member of the new Congressional Budget Conference Committee and you're as optimistic of success in your coming Congressional efforts as you are of getting $20 bills from them for a 'Treat'.
• Drag out that old zombie costume from your 'Thriller' days but carry around a newspaper delivery bag instead of a Trick or Treat bag.  When those on your route ask about your costume, you might have to explain that it's the daily newspaper and not the carrier who's all but dead; but most will get the message. 
• If you want to really scare everyone however, you may dress however you'd like and carry a sign around your neck with the old Ronald Reagan quote about "the nine most terrifying words in the English language":  "We're from the government and were here to help."
• Wear a pair of jeans, flannel shirt, and cowboy hat; while also wearing President Obama masque on your 'Trick or Treat' rounds.  When asked, tell them that you are an out-of-work rodeo clown.  
• Walk your neighborhood in whatever you'd like and when the houses in the neighborhood answer their doors, mumble "Trick or Treat" in a disgruntled voice.  When asked about your attitude and costume (or lack of it), tell them that you are a non-essential federal employee, and were much happier when still at home watching "The View" on the shutdown's paid vacation.
  (By the way those of you actually capable of doing this should be ashamed ... not for enjoying the paid vacation, but of watching "The View".)
• Refuse to dress up, Trick or Treat, or decorate your house for Halloween; but buy a bunch of candy and leave your porch light on to encourage neighborhood participation in the festivities. When Trick or Treaters arrive, smile and engage them pleasantly, but refuse to give them any of the clearly visible candy you possess. When asked about this apparent contradiction, tell them you're a member of Congress and you're intention is to keep all the goodies for yourself.

The Lighter Side of SOTU

The State of the Union for 2013 is now another part of history, or at least it should be.  While a well-delivered piece of political rhetoric, it wasn't a particularly ground-breaking or inspirational bit of speech writing.  Now for those of you who would like to pick the nits for a bit more, I have a recent column in the Toledo Free Press in which we can do it together here.  For the rest of us:  as the old Chad and Jeremy song from 1962 says, "That was yesterday, and yesterday's gone".

Before we leave it completely however, I would like to touch on some of the lighter bits that I noticed during the days during which it was broadcast. (What, it was only a little over an hour?  You've got to be kidding me!)

• Would somebody please disconnect the APPLAUSE sign and stop treating the SOTU like a puppet show.  If this is as an important as they would like to make us think it is, they need to treat this speech like a school awards banquet where everybody is told to hold their applause until the end.  Not only would this take the pressure off the speechwriters to produce so many of the spontaneous 'scripted' moments required in good theater, but it would avoid those awkward moments when the audience stops paying attention and either jumps the gun or misses their cue to clap.  It would also stop making this gathering of the nation's leaders not look like they were bobbing up and down like a talent night puppet show.
• VP Joe Biden seemed awfully pre-occupied with some paperwork during the speech.  Oh, he managed to applaud whenever the little light came on, but it sure looked like he was checking over his tax returns or catching up on some briefing notes instead of listening to the boss right in front of him.
• Speaking of the guys behind, John Boehner had a look on his face that made it appear as if he hadn't had a bowel movement recently.  The other thing apparent was that a guy that represents Ohio and works in Washington DC looked like he was sporting far more melanin than he had any right to.  Fortunately, John's making pretty good money as Speaker, so I'm sure he can probably afford the new Obamacare taxes involved with tanning booths.
• I noticed that the Supreme Court was in attendance again this year, though not all of them.  The President didn't call them out this year, so the cameras didn't spend much time focusing on them during the speech.  They did pan across at one point late in the effort however, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg looked to be 'chin on chest' and down for the count.  Justice Breyer sitting next to her likewise seemed to be doing a chainsaw imitation, so he wasn't going to be able to help her.  Then again, most of the Justices are no longer kids, so being out after 9PM EDT is probably way past their bed time.
• OK, I get the fact that Senator Mark Rubio needed a drink of water while delivering the Republican response and had to reach well off-camera to grab a bottle of water while suffering from dry mouth; somewhat spoiling his performance.  Many saw this as a chink in his armor.  I saw it as a Republican who was working with Union stage hands who wouldn't give a member of the party of evil a drink if they were dying in the desert, but wouldn't mind making one look foolish by placing a drink just out of reach. 
• The beginning of the SOTU is a fairly well orchestrated bit of pomp and circumstance.  The Sergeant at Arms makes the introduction and the President walks down the aisle to the podium, shaking a few notable hands and exchanging greetings on his way; in a bit of ceremony well worth following with the cameras in the room.  The President's exit however, breaks down in a series of handshakes and autographs that cheapens much of what has gone before.  Giving an hour long speech is tiring, doing it in front of a jaded audience is even more so.  Having to hang around and sign programs like the paid talent at a baseball convention makes it downright silly.  I think that they either need to turn the cameras aways and spare the President, or tell the Secret Service they need to put on their dark sunglasses and remind the crowd that they've got guns and aren't afraid to use them.  Let's get POTUS out of the room and let him have the drink he probably needs by then.
• You know what, let's just go back to the days of Thomas Jefferson, who simply had a written form of the SOTU delivered to the members of both Houses.  Not only would it eliminate all of the issues previously listed, but it would keep from messing with the mid-week television schedule. 

Unresolved

It remains rather quiet here at the 'Just Blowing Smoke' headquarters with most of the staff still out on holiday; and being the end of the year, that would seem to make it an ideal time to pause for reflection on the year past and create some of the time-honored resolutions for the year ahead.  While there's certainly been time enough for proper pondering, such continued contemplation has in fact left me more unresolved than ever.

As it is for many around the nation, my attention instead continues to be drawn to so many things left unresolved in 2012.  Based on the quantity of press coverage if nothing else, the twin dooms of the Fiscal Cliff and the second coming of the Debt Ceiling probably top this list, though quite frankly I've long since grown tired of hearing about them.  For despite the protestations of some of our political leaders, this stopped being about 'regular Americans' some time back and has become (like far too many other decisions turned over to government) little more than a pissing contest between the members of two political parties who seem ill-equipped to compete in such an event. The current two-party system in our national legislature has become a warning sign that perhaps term limits once again deserves serious consideration. (Though I'm still more in favor of abolishing the Congressional Pension System, which would not only force legislators back into the public sector fairly quickly, but has the added benefit of putting them into Social Security.)

How Harry Reid can stand in the well of the Senate and complain about the obstinacy of anyone, when the legislative house that he's in charge of hasn't passed a budget in over three years is quite beyond me.  Despite his protestations to the contrary, partisanship in the Senate was not created in 2008.  Other Majority Leaders have faced it as well, and managed to find common ground and do their jobs.  If you can't Harry, man up and step down.   Instead of displaying the wisdom and experience that the longer six-year terms were supposed to grant them, they're instead used to put on 'secret holds' and find ways to dodge existing responsibilities on 'advise and consent' (when the President isn't using every bathroom break to shove in recess appointments). 

As for John Boehner,  his fawning and whining approaches at leadership are probably what should be expected after his teary-eyed acceptance of the leadership position.  I don't question his heart or even his courage, but a leader praised for his experience must ultimately be judged by the success of his strategies.  Boehner's strategies have produced a level of consistent strategic failure that hasn't been seen in this country since the War of 1812. (US troops lost almost every battle in this war and Washington DC was sacked and burned ... not that I'm trying to give anyone ideas.)  Having won the House in 2010, Republicans gave two years of lip service to those who carried them into the majority, but failed to make substantive gains, which undoubtedly played some part in their lack of progress to reach a majority in the Senate or win the White House two years later.  While they retained that majority in the House this year, they have yet to demonstrate the fiscal responsibility that actually know what to do with it or how to sell their efforts to an increasingly angry voter.s

Like the Majority Leader, it seems strange too that the additional 'experience' of the President should once again prove him to be a poor winner.  Apparently our commander-in-chief has not only the innocent nature of a child, but the selective memory of one as well.  In fact, it might be said that he holds the vindictiveness of a petulant child whose only willing to point out that he won re-election in 2012 and that his party kept control of the Senate when discussing his bargaining position (my ball, my game).   All of the talk of compromise is merely paying lip service to the concept however.  He he seems incapable of remembering that the election of 2010 turned control of the House over to his opponents (though he did when it first happened), and left it in their hands after this most recent on.  His current 'campaign style negotiating' is done in public speeches, and in fact seems to ignore the opposition party unless he's looking for someone to blame his own lack of negotiating skill on.  How can anyone call what President Obama offers compromise when his proposals are unanimously voted down by his own party in the Senate.  

And so we look at the last days before going off the Fiscal Cliff; most seem to have forgotten that this 'Thelma and Louise' ski jump was created by the very people who ignored it for months while campaigning, and now see it as a Doomsday Clock ticking while saying that they're dead set on avoiding it.  Citizens in this country likewise seem perfectly willing to trust that the same leaders who created this no-win game of financial chicken are capable of solving it for longer than the next congressional election cycle (which none of them has actually proved in the last four years).   

Haven't the past so-called victories of these three leaders in fact turned out to be Pyrrhic ones, cutting a path or devastation that we're still dealing with.  Isn't anyone else tired of the 'Three Card Monties' and proposals where immediate tax increases (and I don't care who they're on) are to be followed someday by budget cuts or savings that never actually come about (or that appear insignificant unless added together for ten years)?  Does no one else understand promises agreed to by either house of the current Congress doesn't even obligate the one that takes its seats in a couple of weeks to follow through on? 

If taxes need to be raised however (as many are convinced of on the left), then so be it!  Let's not pretend however that raising what slick politicians now like to call 'Revenue' (rather than taxes) that don't even keep the government from running deficit spending are anything more than a symbolic gesture however.   (Hell, they're barely enough to run the govt. for eight days.)  While we're at it, let's recognize that increasing taxes on those who pay most of them is little more than punishment for success.  Let's also agree on the simple logic that spreading any these revenue increases over a greatest number of people makes them less of a burden for each to carry in a struggling economy.  The "E Pluribus Unum" printed on our currency doesn't translate to 'Let Government Pick'.  The burdens and benefits that are our lot were meant to be shared by all; and spreading the tax burden over the whole leaves everyone with some skin in the game.  I find it interesting, for example, that the tax cuts we're arguing about continuing were created to expire in the first place (Why is that by the way?), but the increases we're considering are to become permanent.  Why couldn't any of those finally agreed upon also have a built-in expiration date, forcing legislators to re-evaluate them again in the future based on what happens with the economy.

Of course the bone of contention for many is that while tax increases are being discussed for implementation immediately, spending cuts are only being hinted at eventually and are to be taken up later.  Plans that included both taxes and cuts that Republicans recently proposed, are being rejected out of hand now by the same Democrats who proposed the same thing eighteen months ago. Is this an honest effort to keep us from a fiscal cliff, or a political gamesmanship more interested in punishing an opponent than serving an electorate.  Apparently for the President and Majority Leader, contentment means tax increases (and apparently spending increases to go with them) now and any form of fiscal responsibility 'manana'.  Many of us are tired of the continued 'Wimpy Economics', long scorned by anyone not part of the Paul Krugman school of economics, and most recently perpetrated by government.  We're tired of the fact that this nations needs to borrows forty-six cents of every dollar it spends; a process which only continues to work as long as the Fed cranks out fiat currency 24 hours-a-day, in the hopes of inflating some part of that debt away.  Inflated or not however, this debt takes us right into the next of the unresolved issue, the Debt Ceiling.   

Yes, from the same leaders that brought you the Debt Ceiling of 2011, we now have the Debt Ceiling of 2012-13.  Making no attempt at living with their means and having kicked the can down the road some 17 months ago during a previous deadlocked budget debate (and for no better reason than the cowardly reason that they didn't want to deal with it while running for re-election), the financial geniuses of both parties in Washington tried to rig their last agreement so that the issue wouldn't come up again until the new Congress was seated in 2013.  Of course our government is about as good as understanding how fast they spend money as they are about what they spend it on, so the government credit limit is about to be exceeded a little early.  Not to fear however, as our Treasury Secretary Tim Geitner (who has some experience with not paying bills .... tax bills) decided he could get us into 2013 by using some accounting tricks that he'd probably have you put in jail for using.

Of course 2013, like 2011, will kick off another in never-ending re-election cycle in the House of Representatives and widen the yellow streak of our elected representatives (especially those most vulnerable for re-election).  Already faced with a Fiscal Cliff negotiations that will not make any of them look good and that points rather dramatically to the fact that we spend more than we take in, you would think that sufficient imperative would finally exist to seriously address the root problem.  Such thinking would not get you elected however, and would therefore make you wrong.  Congress is quite content to ignore Social Security running out of money, as long as it doesn't do so before the election of 2014.  Consideration of Medicare and Medicaid budget reform pretty much falls under the same category, which means that as long as the 'Social Safety Net' remains intact for now, nothing substantive will be done to reform their bloated nature or prevent their impending doom.  Besides, members of Congress rely on none of these plans themselves, and their cushy pensions and medical plans (also funded by taxpayer dollars) will not be affected; so there's certainly no rush to interfere with seeking re-election contributions.  But these are just the entitlement programs.

Corporations who get money to drill for oil or mine coal might see some reductions in their subsidies (after all, what do we need with energy products) as the budget negotiations ramp up.  Corporations that get their money not to plant crops or that use those they do plant to produce bio-fuel to replace the coal and oil (creating even greater pollution in the process) will retain theirs however.  So too will wind and solar panel farms that can never pay their investments back, and research on things so obscure that even the people doing the research aren't sure they care about.  Congress will at least consider reductions in military spending, but not very seriously, and certainly not in ways that will affect influential Congressional districts.  We may cut back some equipment orders that are important only if we continue to believe we must poke our nose into the internal disputes of every nation on the planet, but that won't stop us from poking anyway.  We will not consider however, whether to remove or even reduce funding to countless military bases that we have around the world.  (Can anyone tell me who else has so many worldwide bases?  Buehler .... Buehler ...)  But of course such bases are vital to the protection of our interests, property, and citizens around the world; unless of course, you're one of the citizens working for the State Department on our property in Benghazi.  

Which takes us to yet another unresolved situation.  Over three months have passed since the 9/11 attack on the Consulate in Benghazi and the State Department's report has recently been issued, but we still know little more than we did the day after it happened.  Why the US outpost remained manned in Benghazi long after everyone else considered it too dangerous (like the British and Red Cross) and pulled out has been made clear.  Neither have we a clue of why, if we were going to remain, upgrades to the defensive levels of the facility and to the size of it's protection staff were not made; especially after the Ambassador (one of those killed in the attack) sent multiple requests for such improvement after attacks had occurred only months before.  We don't even know who made the decision for a security contingent already in-country to be pulled out a month before the attack.  Sure, a couple of people resigned after the report was issued (no one of importance and no doubt all of them managing to keep their pensions), but no one in real authority has yet to speak officially before Congress or the media.  When there's a oil spill, we demand that the president of that company appear before Congress; and they had better be properly remorseful, penitent, and contrite when they speak.  In this case however, we've not heard from the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, or the President; all of whom evidently had some real-time knowledge of events (or should have), about what decisions were made and why, while four other government employees died in a hours-long gun battle. 

So forgive me if I find that I have no desire to make self-serving attempts at self-improvement (no matter how badly they might be required) for 2013.  While I could certainly win a bit of approbation for listing a few New Year's Resolutions that I'm probably as likely to fulfill as our elected national representatives are their elected obligations, I choose instead to remain silent at a time when so many are seeking just such praise while leaving so much unresolved.