TFP Column: Dumb and Dumber-er in politics

As proof that there is not only a quirky, but perhaps even benignly evil bit of timing between real life and cinema, it’s hard not to notice next week’s release of a movie that would have probably have been better served by being left alone to die long ago: “Dumb and Dumber.” While it’s perhaps unfair to disparage “Dumb and Dumber To,” film that has yet to be released (although judging by the trailers already out there, not releasing it would be doing it, its producers, and the viewing public a favor).

I’m talking of course, about the occurrence and results of this week’s mid-term election, where the Republican party attempted to exhibit the real-life version of the “Dumb …” franchise by attempting to get away from the stigma of being the ‘Party of No’ by having no national concept of what it was they stood for. Dumber of course, being portrayed by the concept of Democrats attempting to show that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery by running candidates with the same predilection for ‘hoof in mouth disease’ that the Republicans did during the previous election cycle.

Proving that it’s often better to be lucky than good however, Republicans somehow managed to get re-elected a Senator who established his Kansas residency by claiming to rent a recliner from one of the constituents in his district. Democrats countered with lunacy straight out of “Mad Men” that their constituency could fight the ‘War Against Women’ by telling those of the fairer gender not to worry their pretty little heads about such complicated things as the economy, unemployment or foreign policy as long as someone in government would guarantee them a federal health subsidy for their uterus.
Republicans promoted change by running the same tired faces that they’d been showing up with since Clinton, while Democrats attempted to prove that that the American voter, while blind, misinformed and generally disinterested, seldom turns out to vote for a slate of candidates that the national party has already acknowledged as likely to lose.

Pundits on both sides may debate which candidates committed the greatest faux pas on this year’s campaign trail, and they’ll have a surprisingly large and bipartisan list to choose from. One that you won’t see, however, is the Democratic Party announcement to focus its money and effort on governors’ races to the detriment of their efforts in the Senate.  (How did that work out for you, by the way?)

The Senate Minority Leader (soon to be Majority Leader) and the President each held their press conferences Wednesday to discuss the meeting that they’re going to have later this week about the agenda of the upcoming lame duck Congressional sessions coming soon. (Only politicians consider the meetings about their meetings about their meetings of any real import.)
 
Both of these public statements continued to fulfill the promises of “Dumb and Dumber” by wasting the electorates’ time recapping what we already knew. Mitch McConnell said that he knew who the President is and vice versa  (thank you Captain Obvious). The President, meanwhile, reminded us of his continued promises to do something about the nation’s problems if Congress didn’t (difficult when both were on break to run for office). Both mentioned their willingness to compromise in such a way as to make it abundantly clear that neither really was.

Little mention was made about the money involved in this year’s election, since Democrats spent more than Republicans and (according to Fox News) that the $4 billion total was a fraction of what the nation spent on Halloween costumes and candy. The only entertainment left out of today’s session was the one never heard that: “Elections have consequences.”

Never fear however, the next sequel is just around the corner. By the end of 2015, the next election cycle will be in full swing again and most of Congress will return to becoming too busy running for their jobs again to actually do them. I hear that they’ve even got a working title for it: “Dumb and Dumber – Bush vs Clinton Again?”

TFP Column: Under-promise And Under-deliver

"Though not a professional political operative or someone who has personal experience with running for office,  I may have an implausible bit of strategy that might work for the most desperate or reckless among you: Under-promise and under-deliver.”  

Now admittedly while the above is true, I do have some considerable experience in the concept of under-promising, from having made a career out of it.  As for under-delivering, I have little fear of contradiction as to my level of expertise in this area; having a lifetime of it to point to.  

Recommending it therefore as a political strategy in the last month leading up to an election in "Under-promise And Under-deliver" might have some actual (if rather twisted) value that can only be discovered after reading this offering on the website of the TFP.  (Besides, I've already published a disclaimer to cover any potential blame.)

The good news however, is that regardless of the quality of the writing in the column or the value of the advice contained therein, you would still be able to look forward to so much more that's to come in this week's 'Star' edition, not to mention the weekend version of Toledo's largest Sunday circulation and Ohio's Best Weekly newspaper (at least according to the Ohio Society of Professional Journalists), the Toledo Free Press.

The "Stuck on Stupid" Dictionary #37

Just when we thought we had addressed all of the productivity issues (one way or the other) with our crew of rather lackadaisical lexicographers, something beyond the inexcusable occurs; creating the kind of thing that drives the senior editorial staff here at 'Just Blowing Smoke; positively berserk.  (This is a journey which I can assure readers does not add significantly to the carbon footprint of JBS.)

It seems that having recognized that the best way to get back into the good graces of management would be to show some form of exemplary effort where their livelihoods were concerned, this shiftless gaggle of glossarians were attempting to purge their work area of its customary level of filth, when they discovered an entry that had become lost in the flotsam, jetsam, and decaying organic matter that normally keeps the rest of us from entering their work area.  It is therefore with the greatest of apologies (on a number of levels) that we belatedly enter this effort into the SOS lexicon.

For those of you who have somehow managed to miss previous postings in this tome of tomfoolery (shame on you, now go back and read all of the postings under the label of dictionary), the SOS dictionary is a reference guide to terms which nominally mean something to the rest of the English speaking world, but which appear to mean something entirely different when looked at through the jaded eyes and rose colored glasses of the SOS dictionary staff.

Substantially Compliant:

1. Compliance with the essential requirements of a law or statute that satisfies its objective or intent without formally complying with same.

2. The curious claim of City Councilwoman Lindsay Webb during her last re-election bid that written acceptance of her nomination 12 days after being notified is acceptable, in spite of the fact that the City Charter of Toledo requires that such written acceptance be submitted within 5 days (making her argument both weak and a week late).

3. The curious action of the Board of Election in accepting Councilwoman Webb's substantially late paperwork and certifying her for election in spite of being notified by one of its employees of the belated arrival of said documents and the Charter violation involved.

4. The equally belated challenge of her opponent in the election Douglas DeCamp when he filed his paperwork with that same Board of Elections; and the subsequent block of a belated review of this belated paperwork by the Sixth District Court of Appeals.  The result of which left all in substantial compliance with something, but no two in compliance with the same thing.

5. The level of failure shown to good order and discipline by the unintentionally postponed posting of this entire embarrassing episode by the inexcusable retardation of normal activities by the loitering (and littering) behavior of the lexicographers of the SOS Dictionary.  (One cannot help but note however, that this dastardly delinquency does seem curiously appropriate, if not substantially consistent with the whole affair.) 

 

Fixing Four Year Events

The closing ceremonies of the 30th Olympics of the modern era is getting ready to draw to a close.  (I suppose to be more correct, I should be saying the XXX Olympiad; but someone is going to have to explain to me why it's more correct to use Roman numerals to describe a sporting event born of Greek traditions some day.)  Somehow I missed the opening ceremonies (I was probably watching a reality show about Pawn Shops buying the contents of storage units in a swamp full of alligators or something important like that.), and with just a bit of planning and luck, it seems likely that I will miss the closing ceremonies tomorrow.

Now having missed these gala outdoor Broadway shows, some might want to believe that I've more than made it up to NBC and its sister stations by immersing myself in the drama of Olympic competition with its 'thrill of victory and agony of defeat'.  (No wait, that's ABC.)  Wrong!  Like "Friends", "Seinfeld", "Everybody Loves Raymond", and "American Idol" before it; I have somehow managed to avoid more than the amount of viewing time contained in channel surfing past.

This is not to decry the achievements of athletes who have dedicated their entire existence to an attempt to stand at the top of the podium in these quadrennial events.  Nor is it a twisted form of protest by a twisted old man engendered by a growing jealousy over his inability to run from the couch to the kitchen, and whose next break of the tape is likely to occur while wrapping Christmas packages.  (OK, maybe a little bit is that.)  My gripe is with the IOC (International Olympic Committee) and NBC (the National Bullshit, sorry, Broadcast Company).

The IOC is after all to sports what the UN is to politics, a self-serving and bloated organization full of graft, bribery, and fiscal irresponsibility.  (Wow, it actually sounds a lot like a government.)  Both organizations are full of petty dictators who seem to meet endlessly, and mostly in secret; with little more decided than to do a more in-depth study and agree to meet again.  Neither the IOC nor the UN gathers any level of world respect, and both manage to go through unimaginably vast amounts of money without achieving anything meaningful in the way of results.  Merging the two together would not only manage to get a far greater number of the villains and thieves in one place, but perhaps by doing so we could move their headquarters to a more suitable location. (I'm voting for any small to medium-sized city in a country whose name ends with 'stan'.)

As for NBC, they lost my respect as a source of information or entertainment even before Johnny Carson blew them a kiss goodbye.  The best that I can say about them is that by using the letters NBC in the many of their network names, they at least warn you of what you can channel surf through without worrying.  They're normal news coverage is shoddy at best, but they fail to rise even to that level of mediocrity when placed up front and center on the world stage, as the Olympics does.  Bob Costas is a nice enough guy, but even he can't make up for failing to cover events that are only noticed, or which shine brightest in these four year venues.  Instead they in insist on filling the limited prime time hours available to 'looks back' at things most have long since lost interest in.  ABC did a better job in the old days, in spite of only having the one-channel flagship network to work with.   

Actually though, my real beef this year has been with the refusal to add political campaigning to the list of Olympic sports.  After all, major elections (in this country at least) are held in Olympic years.  I see no reason why other democratic nations can't bring their political competitions in line with sporting ones.  Not only would this increase world interest in the rivalries, and thereby TV audience and revenue; but it would also increase what's gained by those at the podium's peak.  Not only would they hang a gold medal (not so much gold in them these days) around your neck, but place a gold crown (at least temporarily) on your head. 

And think of the events that could be added!  Presidential campaigns (and many of their lower counterparts) have already become a full-contact sport.  Maybe we could allow teams of their spin-masters to actually take the field and go at it head-to-head.  (It might not be interesting television, but think of the lives that could be saved if they injured each other in such events.)   Debates could be changed to simple 'Rhetoric Singles' matches and VP's could participate in singles competition as well.  Political tickets could similarly debate in 'Mixed Doubles' competition.  

Candidates could receive further approbation and medals for the Olympic version of Political Tap-Dancing (with and without music).  Party spokesman (sorry it's still easier to write than spokespersons) could compete in 'Olympic backpedaling', an event where they walk back or properly interpret the misstatements of their candidates.  Campaign media too could be added to the venue, with Oscar or Emmy like events: 'Best campaign ad with not a shred of fact', 'Best editing in a political ad using their own words to misrepresent the opposition', or 'Catchiest, but most meaningless slogan' come to mind.  Perhaps such incorporation would allow politics to once and for all write down the rules under which such competitions will be held (and not in crayon this time). 

While we're at it, why not borrow (unapologetically steal) from those oh so popular TV talent competitions by using celebrity judges and allowing the audience to vote for winners and losers by an 800 number.  We've complained for years that we were sick of medals being robbed from worthy competitors because the French or East German judges were in the tank.  Maybe we could get Sean Hannity and James Carville to sit at the scoring table from the political right and left respectively, pair them up with Bill O'Reilly and Michael Moore (neither of whom will let anyone else get a word in edgewise), and toss in a bit of Chris Matthews to let us know who gives him a leg tingle.  And to balance off the ongoing and spirited competition (mostly for the spotlight, air time, and attention by the judges themselves), we could allow Mr, MS, and Mrs World to vote for winners and losers.  It may not mean much to a lot of the rest of the world, who take their RIGHT and OBLIGATION to vote far more seriously than Americans; but it seems highly likely to at least increase the numbers of those going to the polls in this country. 

Many have been complaining for years that it's long past time to do something about what's gone wrong with the Olympics.  Many have also said for years that politics is passed due for change and improvement.  Combining the two might not exactly meet the goals of those complaining the most or the loudest, but it would likely make either temporarily a bit more entertaining while we come up with better ideas for both.
       
    

Damn, I Missed My Train of Thought

Being a rider of public transportation these days, one cannot help but occasionally miss the boat, bus, or train (as the case may be) from time to time.  This usually isn't a problem, since if you miss one, there's always another (though here in Kansas there are limitations to such rules).  Missing (or losing) a train of thought can be slightly more embarrassing however, and can even have greater consequences.     

Now though never officially diagnosed with a recognized disorder, I'm the first to admit that I've suffered for more than fifty years (far more than I would like to admit) with the attention span of a two year-old (with all due apologies to two year-olds for the comparison of course).  It's a situation that I should probably be concerned about (since it keeps getting worse); but I can't seem to keep it on my radar screen long enough to do anything about it.  Even as I attempt to write this, I find myself jumping ahead to write down bits that I want to use and will otherwise forget in the next minute or so if I don't.  Let me tell you that it can sometimes be a rather frenetic process trying to assemble the bits and pieces into something resembling coherent thought, which might account for how little coherency occurs in these efforts.     

Some might ask why I haven't had the necessary testing done, since confirming a diagnoses might provide a path to its improvement. The problem however, is that I have little of the patience required for the medical profession to perform their alchemical testing processes on me, and absolutely none for the ensuing pharmacological experimentation required to achieve a 'medicinal balance'.  (In other words, I don't like taking pills.)  Besides, once I turn myself over to the military industrial complex that modern medicine has become, there's no telling what they may find and want to treat; ailments which would thereafter qualify as "pre-existing conditions" that would follow me around under new health care law. 

This condition might well explain in part why I spend so much of my literary efforts in writing about politics.  For in doing so, I can easily acknowledge that I'm not the only one out there suffering.  The strategies of politicians running for election or re-election for too many years is ample proof.  Every time that their teleprompter pontifications end and the subject becomes a Q and A session, we see the prestidigitation begin.  

While the mainstream media can normally be counted on to ask the same tired old questions, from which the candidate can pull a platitude from their tired bag of tricks (PETA gets pissed if it's a rabbit instead); occasionally one of them (or someone from the audience) manages to sneak in a real question about a real issue.  After pausing, smiling, and often reaching out the audience; the candidate (or incumbent) says, "I'm glad that you asked that question."  After stumbling through a couple of completely unrelated responses, they sum up their answer with, "Oh look, squirrel!"      

Amazingly, no one in either the media or the audience immediately stops the proceedings by shouting out, "Hey, that's not an answer!" Seldom in fact, will anyone attempt to re-ask the question in order to clarify an answer that was never given in the first place.  Even more surprisingly, if it's done well, the candidate insists in the follow up response that they think they've answered the question and would like to move on; the audience's short-term memory loss and loss of focus normally allows them to do so.

Now before those on either the left or the right begin nodding in a sad example of the 'bobble head' effect of so many true believers while reading this, you should understand that I think this one of the few bi-partisan efforts of politics.  Both political ideologies are equally guilty in participation and both are equally susceptible to its machinations.  Even Libertarian candidates can fall prey to the process, though usually in their case it's not that they're trying to dodge the question as much as they're trying rephrase it in such a way that the answer makes sense.   

For example     

Question: Do you support the concept of traditionally sanctioned Marriage between a Man or a Woman or do you approve of Gay Unions? 

Answer:  No. 

Follow up: Wuh?  (The media is often confused by direct answers to poorly phrased questions, as they fail to provide good soundbites.)  

Answer:  I think (not believe) that government, at any level, has no place sanctioning marriage.  Churches may choose to sanction or ban practices relating to the union of couples as it suits their beliefs, and the First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees them the right to do so without government interference.  Forcing a couple to obtain a license from the government in order to marry is over reach, and therefore denying them such a license for any reason should be irrelevant.

See those damn, pesky Libertarians keep throwing in distractions like limited government, the First Amendment, and the use of government force where it has no place.  Now what kind of answer is that?  But such occurrences are unfortunately rare, as Libertarian candidates are seldom asked such questions by the mainstream media (or any others for that matter).  And so we are left with a political rope-a-dope that Muhammad Ali would be hard-pressed to compete with, and a dearth of answers that's far too common in the legerdemain of modern politics.  

Though perhaps the gridlock, non-stop electioneering, and rhetorical nonsense being currently spouted (especially at the national level) is in fact a direct result of the apparent short attention span of the American voter.  Their ever-present need to be distracted in every aspect of their lives from entertainment to politics (when you can tell the difference between the two, of course) may be the only thing keep the few who actually do voting. 

Wow, it seems that I may be jumping around a bit in this effort, so perhaps I should attempt to sum this up for you and .... damn!  What was talking about again?

Look, Squirrel! 

The "Stuck on Stupid" Dictionary #34

The normally lazy lexicographers working on the "Stuck on Stupid" dictionary have decided to become more productive without further physical motivation exercises (ending practices that violated the Geneva Conventions and have mostly been banned by the UN).  Apparently they've decided that the regular release of efforts for the SOS dictionary are far more likely to improve their working conditions and perhaps even rate them a better long-term compensation plan.  (Personally, I just think they're jealous of the Cheetos and AC that we supply to the DJBSS in their attic Command Center.)  Senior staff will continue to evaluate not only the quantity of their efforts, but the quality before re-opening negotiations (Kansas is after all, a right to work state).  Besides, we're already spending more in our Cheetos budget than we can reasonably afford.

Now for those of you who have somehow managed to miss previous postings in this area (shame on you, now go back and read all of the postings under the label of dictionary), the SOS dictionary is a reference guide to terms which nominally mean something to the rest of the English speaking world, but appear to mean something entirely different when looked at in a political context, especially to those us who have come to understand the often peculiar vernacular of politics in Toledo, Northwest Ohio ... and sometimes even the nation as a whole.

Campaign Contributions

1.  Money raised for political purposes usually only mentioned these days in conjunction with "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission".   This was a landmark US Supreme Court case in which, by a 5-4 decision, the Justices essentially held that money and speech could be considered the same thing when it came to campaign expenditure and that according to the First Amendment; the government was therefore prohibited from placing restrictions on such independent expenditures.  The restraint of this prohibition was held to be true whether you were an individual, a corporation, or a union.

2.  Money raised in a particularly evil form of 'election buying' and considered a travesty by the political left about the political right when they are outspent and lose the issue that had been placed before the voters. (ie: The Governor Scott Walker recall vote of 2012 in Wisconsin, where the right apparently outspent the left by a ratio of 7 to 1, though some numbers are in dispute.) 

3.  Money raised in a particularly evil form of 'election buying' and considered a travesty by the political right about the political left when they are outspent and lose the issue that had been placed before the voters. (ie: The Ohio "Issue 2" vote of 2011 (also known as SB5) in which the left apparently outspent the right by at least a ratio of over 3 to 1, though some numbers are in dispute.)

4.  Money raised by major party presidential candidates, the amounts of which are only released when they can do the most good to themselves and the most harm to their opponents.  The candidate raising the greater amount attempting to prove (incorrectly) that the ability to raise campaign money equates to the ability to lead.  The candidate raising the lesser amount of money usually thanking contributors for their cash before citing the 'Citizens United' decision as the reason that there is too much money in politics.

5.  Money raised which has apparently led to a great deal more discussion of political issues, candidates, and elections around the country.  It has likewise performed the function of no longer leaving the message delivered on these elections in the hands of representatives of the two major political parties, allowing independent voices from all sides of politics the opportunity to get their own messages across.  While the results of such discussion are far from in, the increased level of discussion has been generally seen as a good thing, and the level of spending on campaigns while increased, has had no demonstrably negative effects on the electoral process.     

The Lessons of Scott Walker

Having said it likely that I would wait until the weekend to post, here I am again (which I suppose  means that I am as untrustworthy as some of the politicians I write about).   I  simply found that the more I listened to the talking heads on both sides of the political spectrum discuss the Wisconsin vote, the angrier I got.  I am therefore going to weigh while the ink is still drying on the Wisconsin tallies.

One of the few things more amusing than seeing the mainstream media handed their collective butts in an election is watching the Olympic back-pedaling of the losers and the massive overreaching of the winners when the final results of such an election are finally tallied.

After Ohio's Governor Kasich took a drubbing for the failed effort in his state to gain the restrictions of public sector workers, the left was all but convinced that Governor Walker would receive a similar shellacking, especially with the numbers of signatures on the recall petitions.  In spite of the fact that Walker seemed to be consistently ahead in the polls, we were told to expect his demise.  

Well the results are in now and the reports Scott Walker's demise were apparently greatly exaggerated.  He will remain the governor of Wisconsin, by what appears to be a lead of 53% to 46% over Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.  And even as Badgers were going to the polls, the pundits were lining up with excuses and prophecies.

I for one was amazed at the amount of whine produced in Wisconsin, as those on the left quickly pointed out that Barrett, after all, was not the Union supported candidate in the Democratic primary (refusing to acknowledge that the fact that his beating of that union candidate should have been saying something).  Lest Union power and dignity suffer unduly, they were also quick to point out that outside money being spent on the left was being significantly outspent by outside money from the right. (I was curious that no mention was made about the impact of the opposite having happened in Ohio last year).  

Before the dust had settled, we were likewise reminded that Ohio and Wisconsin were different situations, since the Ohio proposal included safety workers and Walker's in Wisconsin didn't.  According to this form of spin we're supposed to believe that voters, who often have trouble distinguishing the candidate's political parties, understood the subtle shading of these arguments seven months later.  I suppose it's equally possible that we should instead believe that safety workers, having no dog in this hunt, simply threw their Union brethren under the bus; but I heard no one mention this potential.

Last but not least, we were told that in spite of the Walker win, Barack Obama was still polling better than Mitt Romney.  (This is known as the, "Oh yeah, your family has a better car, well mine has a better house.  Nyeh!" response; and is usually limited to the playground in kindergarten.)  By the time they were done, all I cold hear was John Belushi crying out to Carrie Fisher in 'The Blues Brothers', "It's not my fault!"

For their part and much like with the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts a few years back, those on the Right were busy announcing the second coming of the Republican Party to the tune of "Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead".  They were equally vocal (and close to being as poor a sport in winning as the left was doing in losing) in predicting that the results of this election was a mere foretelling of Republicans increasing their lead in the House, taking over the majority in the Senate, and ultimately winning the Presidency.  They were not only as excited as a new puppy, I think that in a couple cases they actually peed on the rug.

In all of this, they like their opponents were also wrong (at least in my opinion).  

Scott Walker did not become the first governor to beat a recall election because he was a Republican.  He did so because he's one of the few elected officials out there (along with members of the Wisconsin legislature) to understand what needed to be done and when, in order to balance the budget of the state in his charge.  For this, those who originally voted for him did so again. 

He knew that raising taxes was an unacceptable option, and that cutting spending was the only answer.  He knew that public sector employee health and retirement benefit programs were only going to become worse if nothing was done about them.  He likewise knew that laying off public sector employees and reducing services had to remain a last resort.  In this, he was in some ways like his counterpart in Ohio, and their contemporary Chris Christie in New Jersey.  Regardless of the path taken, all have managed to achieved a balanced budget for States under their care (unlike their ridiculous counterpart in Illinois). Unfortunately, this is not necessarily an example of Republican values when viewed on a grander scale.  

Oh don't get me wrong, Republicans will certainly talk about small government and fiscal responsibility when on the political stump, but talk is usually all you get.  (Remember the budget discussions of last year, and the 'Incredible Shrinking Budget Cuts' that resulted.)  Upon achieving national office, they mostly seem to revert to a kind with their brethren on the left.  Republicans have never had any problem spending, their difference was little more than the rate at which they did it.  We were still spending more than we were taking in when Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress and the White House.  We just hadn't loosed the deficit dogs, running up debt like a country that never expected to pay it back except by inflating a portion of it into non-existence.  (Wait, that's exactly what we we're doing ... oh, never mind.)

Social Security and Medicare were both still going broke, and the Republican answer was to add a prescription drug program to make it happen quicker.   Regulatory agency budgets at the EPA, HHS, and the Security agencies were increased annually; and added to as required when the Department of Homeland Security was formed.  As for Defense spending; of course it had to go up.  There were two wars to be fought after all.  Oh sure there was talk about shutting down the NEA, but it never amounted to anything.  There was also talk of streamlining the tax code, and with it the IRS; but nothing ever came of it but empty rhetoric.

If all of this is the case, what then can we learn from Governor Walker maintaining his office?  Perhaps it's simply that even in a state as progressive Wisconsin, sometimes people will overlook political theory and keep someone in office who's getting the job done.  It might be that people are getting tired of the way things have always been, and want real change (not hope and change).   They're sick of what has largely become an over-priced and dysfunctional form of governance and want one that understands its limited power and even more limited finances.  On the other hand, maybe this is just the acorn that the blind squirrel finds once in a while.

As for what this taught (or at least should have taught) the two major political parties, I expect neither learned anything.  They've become too bloated, too power-hungry, and too set in their ways to learn from a simple lesson right in front of their eyes in Wisconsin.  Elections are not necessarily won by greater spending, more effective bullying, or more masterful rhetoric and spin.  Ultimately they are won by those who show up to vote; and increasingly, that group is made up of people who are really pissed at both of you.


So endeth the lesson ....



  

Professional Political Responsibility

Like many companies around the world, the one that provides me with enough compensation to allow me the indulgence of such petty pursuits as blogging is attempting to increase its ability to serve its customers.  There are many paths to such a goal, and I for one am grateful that the powers that be in my organization have chosen one that doesn't involve flogging, water-boarding, or group retreats (the latter having finally been designated as a 'war crime' offense placed on the UN list of non-sanctioned torture).

Instead they are choosing to follow the path set out in a book called “The Oz Principle” by Roger Connors, Tom Smith, and Craig Hickman.  I will not give away the contents of the book and deprive these gentlemen of their due compensation, but will say that their theory has largely to do with the concept of 'joint accountability'.  I will also say that there is a delicious irony involved with working for a company in Kansas that seeks to follow a path (dare I say 'Yellow Brick Road') having to do with L Frank Baum's Oz stories.

It had been some years I must sadly say, since I had used outside reference material to upgrade my skills or used the tests provided in such a book to judge my own performance.  It reminded me that in attempting to be a professional, that continuing to do so was an not only obligation, but a professional responsibility.  Being who I am and doing what I do, it also set me to thinking in this election year about those we send to Washington, what training they get in seeking the job, what training they get in DC, and what resources they might seek to improve the required skill sets.

Oh sure, I know that freshmen in Congress go through an orientation process before taking up their responsibilities, but I have come to think that this is more like that in college where they show you how to get around campus, teach you some of the basic rules of behavior, and assign an Advisor to you to get you through the early days until you become more familiar with campus life. 

Further training seems to involve little more than enlightenment on how to 'go along to get along'.  If you want to serve on important committees, gain power and influence, and gather support for efforts designed to aid your constituency (and for re-election), you must learn to do as you're told (for such is the reality of party politics).  I at least, have never heard of training, early on or ongoing, that's offered to make them better legislators, or better able to serve the people who elected them. 

As for testing (self or otherwise), the only real ones that legislators seem to take these days are held every 2-6 years (depending on the position).  Rather than being a test of the skills that have been attained or those required for the job however: good judgment, good governance, or legislative ability; they seem more a test of their ability to raise money, obfuscate their voting records and lack of results, and come up with clever sound-bites for their campaign commercials and the nightly news.

Some might see this as a role that the major political parties might play, both to improve the skills of their members and as a way to garner votes through a dissemination of the knowledge of the greater abilities of their membership.  Unfortunately, political parties these days have long given up on promoting the acquisition of talent among their ranks, unless it's a talent in political strategy to be used for political gain in the combination chess match and team sport that they have turned politics into.

Talent in soaring oratory has been set aside in favor of the ability sling mud and spew vitriol.  Debating skills are ignored in favor of the ability to twist an opponent’s statements and cast them in a poor light while re-casting the argument.  The ability to find common ground to serve the electorate is passed over in a never-ending, blind, and almost mindless attempt to gain points in the polls.  

And as for the talent or ability of writing of good laws, why bother when legislated language will be handed to you on a silver platter (much like the head of John the Baptist) by special interest group lobbyists who can thereby assure that their employers will benefit from its passage and implementation.  Legislative legerdemain then seems to mandate that many such laws be combined into 'omnibus legislation' to hide the dirty fingerprints.  Why should any bother to read such legislation when they know if permitted time enough to do so, that none will be provided to understand the ramifications and laws of unintended consequence that will inevitably follow.  And of course why bother to challenge the leadership of your party on legislation that they propose, even when you know they're wrong, when doing so will likely end your ability guide fellow legislators to a potentially better path, if not your political career.

It seems as thought we are to be saddled with professionals politicians for at least the for foreseeable future, (and who are by the way, are compensated at a professional level).  If they are going to make politics their chosen profession, the least that they can do is to act like professionals and seek effective training to keep up the skills required for the position.  They must recognize that running for an election is not part of maintaining those professional skills however (no matter how much time they spend at it), merely a periodic job review. They must come to understand as a professional, that gaining and maintaining their skills is as much an obligation of their position as their duty to serve their elected constituency.  If they need somewhere to start, perhaps they too might read “The Oz Principle”.  It may not relate specifically to the position of professional politician, but there is little doubt that all them could use some training in joint accountability.   

Paid My Dues

 .
One of the hotbed political issues for Republicans and Conservatives in 2011 (I list these groups separately because all Republicans are not Conservative and many Conservatives are not Republican) is the idea that people shouldn't be forced to join a union in order to participate in certain parts of the economy.  There is likewise a feeling that even such participation should not force one to pay dues to an organization that they either did not and would not join if they had an actual choice in the matter, and that they feel does not represent them in spite of the money that they are forced to contribute.  I could not agree with these sentiments.

How is it then that the greatest offenders on a national scale are many of those same politicians?  Oh, don't get me wrong here, I don't believe that there is a 'politicians union' operating in this country, in spite of the fact that they have much of the same negotiating philosophies with their bosses; and seem perfectly willing to let their job provider (us) go down the tubes as long as they are in a position to collect their healthy compensation & pension packages. There are in fact however, two national organizations that seem to follow many of the same practices as those that (at least on the right) they demonize. 

How else am I to view Democrats and Republicans?  Both of these national organizations, like Unions, normally require proper affiliation before they offer preferred treatment and seek to help you.  Even when membership requirements have been established, they provide only limited assistance when seeking a job (and less than that for Republicans in Lucas County, Ohio).  Both insist on demonstrations of loyalty before power and responsibility are granted within their ranks.  Both seem perfectly content to sacrifice one of their 'brethren' if such sacrifice in turn protects their own position. Both often cause a great deal of damage in the process of exercising their real or imagined power. Neither appears willing to allow secret ballot when voting; and neither appears to be above twisting the truth or using strong arm tactics to see their ends met.

There is a difference however.  Unions at least, only charge their members dues, and do not insist on all of us paying for their internal elections.

How else am I to view the coming 2012 primary season?  While we are told that this is simply the process of picking presidential election contenders, the truth of the matter is that it's no more or less than picking representatives of the two major political parties. As much as members would like us to believe that they are a part of the government, they aren't.  Therefore the picking of their representatives for a political contest is their own responsibility.  Yet over the years, voters in states across the country have become convinced that it is the responsibility of EVERY TAXPAYER to foot the bill for a part of internal party politics.

Argue if you will that the primary process is necessary, such arguments do not make the process of billing the taxpayer for it any less egregious and unfair.  How can it be unfair you say, when all allowed to vote?  Really?  Try voting in a Republican or Democratic primary in many of these contests if you are a registered Libertarian or Independent.  In spite of the fact that all of us are paying for this process, many of us (in what should be considered an obvious case of voter disenfranchisement) will not be allowed to participate, since we haven't joined one of the two big clubs.

Of course we are told that if such restrictions aren't imposed, that members of opposing parties will sabotage elections.  I'm sure that those attempting to enforce 'Jim Crow Laws' had similar defenses used in justification for their deplorable behavior in restricting the right of a citizen to vote in the 19th and 20th centuries.  The possibility of misuse of the right to vote however, has never been seen as legal justification to restrict its exercise.  If the concern for abuse is so great, why not let each voter select a representative from each major political party and let such potential damage (and benefit) be shared equally?  This at the very least, might produce candidates that represent the views of the majority of those exercising the right to vote in such events, rather than the majority of those supporting the political party in question.

Ah, but while such a revision to the process might better serve the people footing the bill, it does not serve the greater goals of the parties themselves.  Apparently Republicans and Democrats do not want the opinions of every citizens (much as they need them in general elections), only those 'loyal to the party'. Well I'm sick of it; and I'm going to keep bringing this up until somebody starts paying some attention to what's going on.  Since it seems that the only way to get attention for an evil in this country (real or perceived) is to complain about it constantly until someone finally does something about it to shut you up, I am going to do so.

After all, it's not as if I haven't earned the right to do so.  If you counted up all of my taxes wasted in the name of Democratic and Republican primaries, you could certainly say that I've paid my dues ...


.

I'm Hunting Powiticians

Somewhere in the last week, election season kicked into full swing.  I know this not because with Labor Day, Tourist season officially came to a close (which I found rather disappointing, since I was nowhere near bagging my limit in tourists this year), nor by the slight stench of decay which normally permeates the atmosphere when political speeches are emitted by candidates (after all, we've already had three Republican debates).  No, it was the tone of Presidential rhetoric that announced the official change of season this year.

With the President's recent stump speeches on his jobs and debt reduction programs (BTW, the lack of capital letters is an intentional insult), gone is the push for compromise, bi-partisanship, and the spirit of shared sacrifice that rang with hollow sincerity just a few short weeks back.  Now what we get is full-throated campaign mode, where getting along is no longer the goal and demonizing political opponents most definitely is.  

Republicans of course, responded quickly with a round of uncompromising rhetoric of their own.  Statements issued within hours by both Speaker of the House John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell which attacked the plans put forth and the President himself for encouraging class warfare (or perhaps more accurately, no class warfare).  Interestingly enough however, as Peter Nicholas and Lisa Mascaro of the Chicago Tribune pointed out in a recent piece:  

"[T]hose Republican rejections may not trouble the White House, because Obama's new proposal was designed less as a solution to the deficit problem than as a political argument to put before the voters."  

While this can certainly be a surprise to no one, it does once and for all sound the clarion call of open season on the inconsistent, power-seeking, and self-serving politicians at the beginning of their fall rutting season.  It is they and not I who have fired the first volleys in what will now become the non-stop attempts to mate with each and every potential voter (and some of them unfortunately, more than metaphorically); fending off their competition with rhetorical head butting, while attempting to evade sharpshooters like me.  This is a herd of vermin that once more cries out to be thinned by shining the light of absurdity (Limbaugh is still hogging the light of truth) on their dis-ingenuous duplicity, and demagoguery.  This is a task for which I am well-suited, and this is not my first rodeo.  (Of course it would be if it were in fact an actual rodeo, but ... oh, never mind.)   

For those of you now blushing or appalled at my choice of violent sounding verbiage; language that certainly does not fit the PC criteria to which Conservatives have been recently limited to ... get over it.  I'm long past being sick and tired of a society that's so afraid of speaking its mind for fear of offending someone that it can barely speak at all. I believe that people (well OK, some people) are intelligent enough to be able to tell the difference between well articulated castigation and incitement to violence.  (And if you're not, it's your problem, deal with it.)  Besides, it seems that if politicians of both major parties are free to take pot shots at each other, that some license is granted to us in the peanut gallery to let off a few rounds of our own.

Perhaps I'm just sick and tired of the bluster and bombast of politicians during what has become an all but perpetual election season.  Don't get me wrong, there are actually a few good people running for office at local, state, and national levels.  Unfortunately, they are surrounded by throngs of damaged goods who come awfully close to proving that human beings could not possibly have evolved from lower forms of life, since there are no forms of life lower than the members of the herd.  The unfortunate few seek a position held in the same regard as used car salesmen cannot help but be cast in an unfortunate light; the pathetic remnant of that shone on their conceited, power-mad counterparts.  Much of the light left is likewise obscured by the willing sycophants of the 24 hour news outlets; who prostitute themselves whenever required for the chance of a great sound bite.

You know, I've always like the political season.  The weather has grown cooler, which permits me indulge my addiction to smoking cigars without enduring conditions that allow me to light them by exposing one end to direct sunlight.  I can bask in an hour of cloudy enjoyment without turning the end of the cigar clenched in my teeth to a sweat-drenched monstrosity and myself into someone appearing to have only barely survived a WWII death march in the process of enjoying my no doubt cancer-causing folly.  Mostly however, I truly love this time of year for allowing me to pursue that most guilty of pleasures.  So I must ask you please:

Be vewwy, vewwy quiet.  Heh Heh, I'm hunting  powiticians ....

(GDH 9/21/71 +40.  Gone, but never to be forgotten.)

 

TFP Column: Too Little, Too Late

The results are coming in on the Toledo primaries, and none of them (including the embarrassingly small number of voters who cast ballots) is much of a surprise.  Equally unsurprising was that just a day before voting day, the Sixth District Court of Appeals finally released a decision telling the the Lucas County Board of Elections that they couldn't hold a hearing on whether to remove incumbent Democratic Councilwoman Lindsay Webb from the ballot.

This belated decision merely adds to a seemingly endless chain of overdue actions connected with this situation that I outline in an early effort this week for the Toledo Free Press website.  Come to think of it, writing "Too Little, Too Late" seems an action ripe tardiness itself.

If you want to catch up on the latest results of the Toledo primary and not find yourself late to the party, you'll do what all the other really smart people do.  You'll catch up on everything that goes on in the Glass City by reading not only the mid-week Star edition, but Toledo's largest Sunday circulation and Ohio's Best Weekly newspaper, the Toledo Free Press.

TFP Column: How Many Wrongs Make A Right?

After taking a week off to do some training in my chosen profession (well, at least the one that pays me), I found myself writing at a furious pace upon my return.  So it is with some pleasure that I offer this link to what I hope will be the first of two pieces to appear this week on the Toledo Free Press website.

The subject of this first effort is the ongoing saga of the misdeeds, misstatements, and mistakes being made in the District 6 City Council primary going on in Toledo.  I remember well my parents telling me that 'two wrongs don't make a right'.  With all of the wrongs being perpetrated in what should, at least in theory be a simple balloting process in Toledo, you have to ask yourself however, "How Many Wrongs Make A Right?"  

Now Editor-in-Chief Michael Miller tells me that this weekend's edition of the TFP is to be a special one.  Of course I believe that they all are (or maybe it's just the ones in which I am included).  My advice however, would be to keep your eyes open both for the mid-week Star edition, and of course for Toledo's largest circulation Sunday and Ohio's Best Weekly Newspaper, the Toledo Free Press.

A Curious Celebration of Democracy

While many us have been focusing on the frenetic movement of the stock market, the dwindling value of our retirement portfolios, and the rising national debt; yet another movement has been afoot almost out of sight to subvert the intentions of the Founding Fathers. As reported by McClatchy Newspapers in the Kansas City Star, California Governor Jerry Brown on Monday signed legislation that could potentially place Founders' view of the Electoral College in dire jeopardy. 

How can this be, you ask?  Isn't the Electoral College specified in the Constitution under Article II, Section 1, Clause 2?  (I know, you didn't have a clue how the Electoral College came about.  Fortunately for you, I carry a leather-covered pocket edition of this document with me at all times.)  In fact this bit of the Constitution does address how many Electors each state gets, and allows each state legislature to decide how they are chosen.  There are subsequent entries in the 12th and 23rd Amendment covering other aspects of the College.  How those Electors vote after a national election is held however, is something entirely different.

Electors are in fact free to vote for anyone eligible to be President.  Traditionally, Electors vote in proportion to the popular vote of their respective states or for the winner of their respective electoral district (at least on the first ballot).  The idea that the Founders proposed with the formation of the Electoral College was much in keeping with their thinking behind the bicameral legislature created in the same document.  By using the Electoral College as a buffer, they hoped to provide some form of balance between the more populous larger states and smaller ones.  Using the electoral system has allowed swing states like Ohio (20 electors) or Michigan (17 electors) to play at least as much a role as Florida (27 electors), Texas (34 electors), or California (55 electors).  (The fact that none of these states existed at the time that the Constitution was written speaks volumes as to the wisdom of their decision and the Founders ability to deal with future eventualities.) 

Of course the interstate compact now signed by Governor Brown we are told, "would take effect only if states controlling a majority of the nation's electoral votes agree."  I guess that this would make this the a 'pile on the winner' law allowing the votes of other states to influence the electoral vote of CA. Eight states and the District of Columbia have now signed on to this potential compact, an agreement which the article goes on to point out now encompasses "almost half of the electoral votes proponents need".  Certainly this legislation has the potential to create more direct ties to the popular vote ( which is a good thing if you're a state with a population the size of California's).

Now there have been calls to do away with the Electoral College before, most recently after the election of 2000, when George W Bush failed to gain a plurality of the popular vote.  Opponents of the Electoral College claimed that election results like that of 2000 subvert the democratic process and fail to provide a true popular mandate for an elected leader (though it must be admitted that they did at least provide us protection against a potential President Al Gore).  What they fail to point out or perhaps even recognize, is that while we do have the popular vote, the United States is not and never has been a Democracy, but a Representative Republic. The Electoral College was just another in a series of well-thought-out concepts to protect the minority rights in this country from being trampled the 'will of the mob'. (Something that this measure might be overlooking, if not actively subverting.)

California's interest in throwing its 55 vote weight around should be of no surprise to anyone, as they have long felt slighted by the national voting process.  Having their polls closing 3 hours after those of the East Coast and with election coverage by 24-hour news networks calling states while CA is still voting has sometimes caused this bastion of the progressive thinking to find itself extraneous to the decision-making process.  

It's interesting however that these so-called Defenders of Democracy see this as progress towards portraying the will of the people.  If this legislation is followed through on, it would in fact allow California to, "award the state's electoral votes to the candidate winning the most votes nationwide, regardless of which candidate California voters choose".  One might think it a rather curious contradiction that California and it co-signers would seek to extol the value and virtues of true democracy by potentially subverting the will of the popular vote in their states.

 

The Operative Term

I have been thinking about many of the upcoming campaigns a bit lately, and while the duration of the one for the highest office in the land has become all but interminable, I must say that my curiosity is piqued. Being a commenter on politics in general for a while now, on the process, and occasionally on the people involved; I sometimes ponder what it might be like to be on the other side. 


Don't get me wrong here folks, I have no aspirations nor any intentions of seeking elected office. I have far to many skeletons in my closet (a problem that increasingly makes it difficult to hang up my clothes) to even consider such an effort. My irresponsible nature likewise precludes me from hold a position of any responsibility, let alone authority. Even if I were interested (and believe me I'm not) there's the fact that I am by self-definition a Curmudgeon, and the tendency to be a cranky bastard would make me a difficult candidate for anyone to warm up to. 


All of that being said however, I believe that I might prove of some small value to the efforts of someone in seeking office. After all, I have a rather extensive and successful career of over thirty years in sales and marketing to draw upon that might be of some worth in the 'selling' of a candidate to the voting public. I have likewise been told that I have some meager ability to string together words coherently (not that you could tell it from this effort), which might prove useful in preparing both press releases and speeches. With the exercise of considerable effort, I can even occasionally manage to control my temper for short periods in what often seems like interminable meetings about campaign strategy. 


As a consequence, I cannot help but find myself wondering whether it would be worthwhile to offer my services to a worthy candidate as a political operative. Some of my acquaintance (and that I greatly respect) have offered themselves up to such service at one time or another in the past. Roland Hansen operated for some years as both an elected official and political operative. Maggie Thurber has likewise both held elected political office and worked to help others do so. Denise Soper, though never having run for office, certainly contributed greatly to a recent political campaign in NW Ohio. And while I have no prior experience in such efforts and would certainly expect to hold no more than a minor position at best, the idea of helping someone worthy of being elected to reach that goal is somewhat intriguing. 


Of course it's entirely possible that my efforts would stink worse than a cheap cigar (something I try to remain unfamiliar with). Such efforts require not only talent, but dedication; and my reserves of both were never all that extensive. It's also entirely possible that such thoughts are as self-serving as many of the politicians who put themselves forward for election. Altruism, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder; and one person's dedication is another's self-serving fanaticism. It may be that the idea of putting the term 'political operative' on my resume is what I find so fascinating, and not the concept of entering the struggle to see an able person fill a necessary role. 


Motives are after all, something that we should always call into question where politics is concerned. Who is the person seeking office and of what is their character made? What are their qualifications for office and what are the reasons that they seek to serve? Would the siren song of power and authority over others make them fall prey to the corrupting influences that surround office holders, or could this person be counted on to remain true to their principles after election?  


Even my own aspirations to perhaps play a minor role will bear much greater scrutiny before I would be willing to cast a vote. Would participating in the process in particular contaminate my ability to comment on it in general? Would crossing this line make me part of the problem or part of the solution? Would I have to wear a campaign button? (I really hate campaign buttons.) I have to admit that there is something about the concept that I find rather compelling though. Motive, Qualifications, Worthiness, Principle, and Character ... there are many words that could in fact be said to be operative terms to be considered in such a decision ...

Toledo's Convenient Truth

Later today,there will be a public meeting held at 4PM in the Toledo City Council chambers to discuss the proposed increases in the city's Water and Sewer rates. This meeting will be to discuss the department's request last week for increased rates of 9.9% for each of the next four years for water, and 13% per year for the same period for sewers. 


Evidently the state of the over 1,100 mile system is critical, and only a major influx of cash to shore up the emergency fund of the department (and the system) will solve the crisis. I will not comment on the long-standing court case between the city and the latest EPA agreement that these yearly increases will apparently help to resolve, nor will I comment on the management expertise of a Water and Sewer department that would leave itself in such a state of physical and fiscal disrepair before declaring the current emergency situation. 


I will however, comment on the convenient timing of the announcement of its woes and this recent request. For it is curious indeed that none of this information was apparently known in the days leading up to the November election. Evidently the city and water department's efforts at negotiation with the EPA, the state of the department's budget, and the concern over imminent catastrophic failures of infrastructure were all a mystery to those running things.  


And while it appears that such budgetary surprises are the norm for The Glass City (as can be seen by the examples of the the city's budget and that of TPS), one has to wonder about the convenience of the eventual discovery and announcement of this information ... after some members of the City Council whose responsibility includes the budget, had recently completed runs for higher office. I'm certainly not accusing anyone of purposefully hiding this information or attempting to mislead voters in the days leading up to an election in order to provide political cover for long-term elected officials (at least not so you would be able to legally accuse me of), but cannot help but at least consider the possibility of it when looking at the timing of these surprisingly dire circumstances. 


I likewise cannot help but now wonder how these candidates would have fared in that recent election if what can only be considered a dereliction of duty, ignorance of their obligations, or lack fiscal responsibility would have been discovered before the vote was taken. One cannot also help but wonder at the claims made by the current Administration that all of the fault for this crisis should be laid at the feet of previous Mayors and administrations. 


This is not to say that previous department Administrators, Mayors, and City Councils should have been more forthcoming, done something, or at least have known about the impending plight of the system. It is to say however that after this much time in office, that the current Administration might have discovered the impending crisis sooner if it had done the complete city audit that it promised voters during and after the Mayor's election to office. 


One cannot help but be left therefore, with the conclusion that either the situation remained unknown and the Administration was irresponsible in not carrying out its promise, or that it was known and those in power simply ignored the pledges made to voters. One must also believe in the possibility of a rather curious and fortunate set of coincidences, or that unlike Mr. Gore's this is a rather convenient (or conveniently timed) truth.

Dancing With An American Idol On The Jersey Shore

It's always a relief to see an election cycle end, not because of who wins or loses the races; but because we don't have to watch and listen to the "half-truths, mis-truths, and outright lies" of political candidate ads any longer. Of course, then I remember about what's left on television, and my relief is short-lived. Actually, I found a number of curious comparisons here when looking at politics and popular culture:

• Many of those eligible to vote know who is on 'American Idol', 'Dancing with the Stars', 'Jersey Shore', and the flood of 'wives' programs from New Jersey, the South, and Orange County. Far fewer knew the cast of characters on their local ballots.
• Many Americans know the names and life stories of the judges on Idol and 'America's Got Talent', but far fewer can come up with even the names of an equal number of Supreme Court Justices.
• Far too many people believe that the level of civil political discourse in this country is defined by 'The View', 'The O'Reilly Factor', and 'The Sean Hannity Show'. They believe that shouting down ones opponents, refusing to let people complete the answers to questions, and walking off of the set qualify as good interview techniques.
• People are often disillusioned and disappointed when public political debate does not turn into a bad episode of 'The Jerry Springer Show'.
• Candidates and TV shows are both defined, not by the quality of the characters or the level of the writing; but on how outrageous, controversial, and manipulative they are.
• Far more people seem to get their news perspective from parody shows like 'The Daily Show' and 'The Colbert Report' on The Comedy Channel than do from network news.

I have nothing against any of the shows or networks listed above, but I have to say that I am grateful for the variety of programming on cable that allows me to avoid such programming. 


Quite frankly, I have never seen television as a medium that did well at providing information. Entertainment sure, but information ... not so much. And even the entertainment value of television has taken a nose-dive in recent years. Information and entertainment are now chopped into discreetly defined segments that can be fit between the advertising that pays for it. Any news story or part of the plot that doesn't fit in these visual slices ends up being left out of the story, even if it makes things more difficult to understand. 


To add to the mixed metaphors here, imagine television as a sports league. When there were only a few franchises, only the best of the best rose to prominence in their game and got their chance. When the league discovers that there is a lot of money to be made out there however and add teams at a frightening rate in an attempt to cash in while they can (like any other evil corporation), it inevitably leads to a dilution of the limited talent pool available. 


Eventually, such attenuation means that we end up with what most professional sports leagues like to call 'parity', but which we know really means a level of mediocrity that most of us watching find more than a little objectionable. Cable has now given us hundreds of franchises attempting to dip into the limited talent pool of writers, directors, and actors that exist. When they reach the shallow end of that pool (which they appear to have done some time back), they are forced create celebrities out of people whose only real talent was convincing someone to put them on TV in the first place to fill the void. There are no plots, no scripts, and no performances worthy of note; only bad behavior, worse hygiene, and faux tragedy to entertain the masses. 


Owners of the Roman Empire's coliseums would be proud of the circuses and bloodsport that we have turned cable into, reveling in these thinly veiled and badly acted gladiatorial contests (and that's before I get started on wrestling). Politics has begun to show the same decided lack of talent when seeking its principal performers. While there are some legitimate artists remaining in the field (for which we should be truly grateful), the sheer scope and scale of government at every level has begun to dilute the talent pool. 


In truth, many of those with any real talent have simply abandoned the auditions; finding what the process has become too intrusive, personally abusive, and to ungraciously fickle to make it worth bothering with. While some with a real gift or an overwhelming desire to participate remain, many of them simply find other ways to express their genius, and abandon the political venue to the more venial and power hungry of the inferior players. 


These elections and shows are now often filled with flawed individuals who do not deserve the limelight or the applause. Their lack of ability is exceeded only by their demands for diva status; and once illuminated on these public stages, they prove themselves mostly talentless and particularly unattractive. Yet we continue watch, helplessly staring, often without any care or understanding of the plot or the meaning of the drama unfolding before us. 


Perhaps like watching a traffic accident, we are simply shocked or fascinated by the appalling spectacle and simply cannot take our eyes away. On the other hand, like many other times when sitting on the couch at home, perhaps we've simply been unable to reach the remote yet to change the channel.