It's Scandalous

Once upon a time, they called it Tabloid Journalism ...

Of course that was before economics forced many newspapers to down-size their formats to such an extent that an unfolded broadsheet (standard format) newspaper was little larger than the smaller versions that their big brothers denigrated.

While the Tabloid format was easier to read, such newspapers were often known for over-large headlines, racy photography, and stories that were often a rather curious blend of fact and all-but-speculative fiction.  From the sleazy grocery store tabloids (most of which are now magazines) to major city commuter alternatives in New York and Chicago, there was always a certain taint to such publications.  

Over time, many of these lesser publications established themselves as real players in an ever shrinking market with hard-hitting investigative reporting, award-winning photography, and a willingness to take on issues that their more traditional and staid brethren refused to.  Over much of the same period, many weekly newspapers moved from their original broadsheet format to the Tabloid one in order to take advantage of the readability factor and ever-changing postal regulations. 

This is not to say that Tabloid journalism didn't eventually make its way from the printed page to the small screen.  "Inside Edition" (where Bill O'Reilly spent 5 years) and "A Current Affair" were two early examples of faux news programs that covered red carpet events, new movies, and of celebrity scandals as if they were hard-hitting news.  Racy pictures and less content in fact seemed to fit this Tabloid evolution to a "T".

Then of course came the 24-hour news networks with CNN and C-Span on one side and ESPN on the other, taking the place of two traditional newspaper sections.  It wasn't long however before we had an alphabet soup of news networks, some attempting to break new ground and others content as mere spin-offs.  As each tried to establish its own place in the market, they likewise needed to define themselves by how much "Tabloid Journalism" they would include in their offerings.  As each evolved from 'news only' to 'news and commentary', the lines seemed to become even more blurred.

Television after all, is a medium that's defined by its ratings as much as its content.  Unable to rely on the support of prime-time scripted television to support those efforts as the Big 3 always did, these new News Networks had to be self sustaining.  While certainly the journalism component would establish their credentials, it would be their prime time offerings that would pay the bills.

All this is a roundabout way of say that it should be of little surprise to anyone that many of these news networks have allowed themselves to be seduced by the Dark Side of tabloid journalism.  Having taken the worst from their network counterparts and the seamy side of newspapers and magazines, some of these efforts are increasingly becoming the worst of all worlds.

Now their prime time lineups are filled with hosts who titillate with only the most scandalous headlines from around the world.  Which politician has a addiction problem (Toronto / Florida)? Which politicians or political party is suffering the biggest drops in popularity?  Which government's leaders have been caught literally or figuratively exposing themselves to ridicule?  Which of the latest proposals from one party or the other can be twisted into the biggest scandals?

From presidential popularity to the latest Obamacare website scandal, which recent controversy can be turned to a ratings advantage?  Which political dishonor by one party or the other can be turned into a dishonest roundtable dialogue of true deliberation?  Which guests can be counted on to create a 'Jerry Springer Circus' of interruption, contention, and high volume confrontation to glue the audience to their seats?

This is not to say that all such efforts are completely without merit or that this is the only thing that these networks do; but like so many things in life, this medium lives on a slippery slope.  Each of them, having once chosen 'the sizzle rather than the steak', now finds themselves slipping ever farther down the dark path in order to keep up.  The never ending battle to compete in the ratings wars has them constantly seeking new ways to ratchet up the repartee to a constant frenzy.

The losers in all of this of course, are we the viewers.  Like a movie that keeps you constantly on the edge of your seat, their attempts cause our attention spans to burn out.  Regardless of what these efforts seek, no one can maintain such a level of hysteria without finally succumbing to exhaustion.

Little surprise then, that so many viewers turn instead to reality shows, period dramas, and movie escapism.  Many of us add insult to injury (including yours truly) by decrying a lack of interest by this audience wearied of world affairs around them, and views this apparent abandonment as a lack of passionate patriotism.  The world is a difficult enough place to deal with however, without the manufactured madness and 24 hour-a-day mania that these 'news' programs now cheerfully espouse for no better reason than ratings and corporate profits.

Call this capitalism's practical media's dishonest dissimulation if you will.  You can even call it the mass insightment of indifferent insanity (if you want to get fancy).  I however, will simply settle for calling this mainstream media masquerade of purporting to be news little more than the latest version of Tabloid reporting, and Scandalous.
 
  

Much Ado?

As the continuing coverage of the Obama Administration's troika of tribulation goes on, I can't help but wonder about what any of it will mean for the nation in the long term.  Each of course, has become an amusing little bit of living hell for Press Secretary Jay Carney.  After all, it's hard enough to stand in front an appreciative audience and read your lines with a straight face when the writers have done such a horrible job with the narrative.  When the audience becomes of clique of carping critics, ready to find fault with every miscue and fumbled line; what should be a walk in the park becomes an effort to tip toe through a minefield.  But after this elite assemblage with their press credentials plays its verbal game with an equally elite assemblage of politicians and bureaucrats, is it likely that anything will actually come of it, or will all of it become much ado about nothing?

Benghazi
While in many ways this should be the most grievous of the mishandled situations, it's probably the least likely to amount to much in the long run.  There's little doubt that a political narrative intruded on real national security issues, that insult was added to injury in a poor attempt to turn 'chicken shit into chicken salad' that ended up costing American lives, and that the bureaucrats whose job it is to do CYA work for the President are slowly revealing their dirty fingerprints on the paperwork required wipe the national leader's backside.

On the other hand, those involved have largely managed to drag the inquisitional process out long enough that it's exceeded the attention span of the average American voter.  Oh sure, Congressional hearings will continue to be held by the opposition party who will take political advantage of the situation until much closer to their re-election (and maybe even find a little truth along the way).  It's unlikely though, that smoking guns will be discovered after all this time or if they are, that anyone will care much.  You see, in spite of the fact that many members of Congress are lawyers, most of those in committee meetings seem far more interested using their time in testifying than in questioning witnesses.

As a result, what's more likely is that those involved in the Defense and State Departments will have their costly mistakes written off as mere errors in judgement; while the White House will once more be seen as disconnected and 'leading from behind'.  It's likely that the largest impact of an incident which cost four men their lives will be to cause Mrs. Clinton to write an end to her political legacy with the titles of Senator and Secretary of State.

AP / James Rosen
Considering Benghazi, this is little more than a storm in a tea cup, though you would hardly know it.  Administrations have always had leaks, some of which are purposefully dropped breadcrumbs used to advance or reinforce their agendas; and others are inadvertent and the unintended consequences of bureaucrats and political sycophants trying to prove to those in the media that they are more in the know than they actually are.  Some (very few) are actually nefarious attempts to reveal vital national secrets.  Some of these leaks are politically necessary, some are little more than inconvenient nonsense, and some end up being positively perilous (though usually not for either the bureaucrats or reporters).

These nuggets of fact, fiction, and foolishness are parceled to the public by representatives of the various news agencies; who like their government sources, present a mixed assortment of talents and biases.  Since governments only want approved messages passed out, this causes them to create 'naughty and nice' lists where the media is concerned; and to use the coercive power at their disposal cater to friends and frustrate enemies.  Some Administrations are more sensitive where their friends and enemies are concerned and some far better and more subtle at coercion than others, but all of them do it.

Occasionally one or the other crosses the line, gets smacked around for it, and retreats in embarrassed or vindictive silence afterward.  These incidents are two such occasions when the government took its lumps.  Oh sure, there are some questionable Constitutional behaviors involved with the actions of the DOJ in handling them, and (like Benghazi) some poorly done cover up efforts; but fortunately for the government, citizens these days like the press only marginally more than politicians, and don't mind much if they occasionally get smacked around.  

Have no fear however, the DOJ has promised to investigate itself, and I'm sure that we can count on the AG to get to the bottom of his own and his department's misdeeds.  While the mainstream media would like this to be a far bigger deal for their own future protection (and for continued headlines), and Congress will be continuing to hold hearings of its own on this subject as well (more headlines for fund raising and re-election efforts); its unlikely that anything will happen beyond the resignation of the Attorney General Eric Holder (who should have fallen on his sword after "Fast and Furious") as being either completely incompetent or mildly crooked.

IRS Targeting
This scandal is quickly growing into the largest of the three, but mostly because hating the IRS is a truly bi-partisan practice.  Decades of heavy-handed mistreatment of citizens by it combined with an over-riding fear of this 20th century Frankenstein monster of an agency has all the townspeople looking for the nearest windmill to trap and burn it in.  The mainstream media has properly taken this scandal up, in spite of the fact that like the government, they don't much like the groups targeted because ... well it sells newspapers and commercial time and their vulture-like nature prevents them passing up a likely corpse.  Even savvy politicians on both sides of the aisle, knowing that such things have always gone on at some level, are voicing concern with this latest effort; lest the next party in power further escalate the use of this double-edged weapon in order to insure their continued right to rule.  

Some sacrificial villains (scapegoats) will at some point be discovered for this scandal during what's likely to be year-long hearings, but any perpetrators are likely to be able to resign and keep their pensions.  Menial IRS workers caught in the crossfire are protected by union contracts that will delay or prevent any punishment for their labors until such time as the whole thing is long forgotten.  Promises of reform will be suggested by both sides of the aisle (perhaps even honestly), but there's a momentum of power abuse in this bureaucracy far too great to overcome.  Additional increases in power the IRS gains under the implementation of Obamacare will not only add to its numbers and its penchant for abuse, but is likely to do little more than feed its appetite for evil.   

Fortunately or unfortunately for the party in the White House, the one controlling Congress is likely to drag out hearings through the mid-term elections on this subject as well to expose career bureaucrats who were doing no more than attempting to climb the food chain by pleasing those who controlled their promotions.  Based on past performance, Congress will over time completely inoculate us to the horror of these abuses by fumbling the opportunity given them right to a wrong in order to instead create self-serving fund raising efforts and campaign sound bites.  Far worse, legislators will overlook this uniquely bi-partisan opportunity to simplify tax law in this country, and eliminate the very power being exercised and abused by these blameworthy bureaucrats. 

  

TFP Column: Mainstream Media No Longer Recognizes Mission

Sure it's only Monday, but with the storms that were blowing through my area over the weekend, it seemed like a good idea to write while the lights were on and the Internet was working.  Which brings me to the subject or this weeks TFP effort, "Mainstream Media No Longer Recognizes Mission".  Sure this is a longer title than usual, but I suspect that smarter people me needed to do it because I was confused and had used this title before.  

Speaking of confused, it seems the Pew Research Institute has discovered that as many young people get their news from the Comedy Channel as do from ABC, NBC, and CBS.  Not to be left out of the party, Fox News has added a couple of more comedic efforts to its line up.  It's bad enough that most of the punditry passing for editorializing is a joke, but these latest crossover non-hit are bad news and worse comedy.

Fortunately, those of you in Toledo and Northwest Ohio can at least rely on both the 'Star' and weekend editions of Toledo's largest Sunday circulation newspaper and Ohio's best weekly newspaper for the last four years; the Toledo Free Press.  

It Could Happen

During one of the coldest springs that I can remember (certainly in the last few decades), I have been reading a story about how the decline in snow cover "could push some creatures to extinction".  I hate stories like that!

Don't get me wrong here.  I'm a news junkie and I like reading news stories about as many different things as I can get my grubby little hands on.  Stories like these however, annoy me beyond my capacity to absorb new information.  My particular distaste for them is not that the stories are wrong (or right for that matter); and it has nothing to do with whether I believe that the premise is correct or incorrect (well, maybe a little bit).  My problem with any story like this is that it is in fact not the reporting of fact as news, nor is it taking a position in editorializing about facts in evidence.  It is instead pure speculation posing as something news-like that never says enough about a subject to even face the potential of being wrong.  They are so riddled with the terms 'could' and 'might' that they become almost meaningless and all but useless.

Do not be deceived by these cowardly scribbles.  While such stories often do a fair enough job of picking out particular observations of phenomena or data (often local or temporary), their use of such information leads them to do little more than attempt to weakly speculate about conclusions.  In a complete abandonment of scientific principles and simple symbolic logic, they don't bother to fix a relationship between the observations they make and any kind of conclusion.  These attempts to gain notoriety, panic the general public, or simply simply bloviate on the printed page do little more than hide behind their lack of conviction in either their observations or conclusions, and in the end make them worth less that the space that they take up. 

So for example, the cold spring that the Midwest has experienced this year 'could' lead to a cooler than expected summer, in spite of the dire predictions of Global Warming.  On the other hand, the same data on the lateness and coolness of spring 'might' lead to even warmer summers than those that the Midwest has experienced in recent years.  The waffling nature of both claims make both conjectures equally possible, and predictively useless.  You may as well claim during the Bible's 'Great Flood' story that rain falling for 40 days and nights 'might' mean that it will rain forever.  On the other hand, such unprecedented and consecutive rainfall 'could' mean that such rain will end as soon as tomorrow.  

There is no courage in either alternative, nor is there any danger in making them.  Regardless of the outcome, the person making either of these potentially dire predictions is allowed the weasel defense of the using could or might to excuse their cowardly inaccuracy, while still allowing them to claim success if their 'coin flip' of speculation proves in any way to be the case.

Far too much of what we see these days as news pass as 'could' and 'might' stories; and their collective uselessness has become a testament to how the mighty have fallen where gathering news is concerned.  And let's face it, it's not that our mainstream media outlets are afraid of being wrong.  Hell, they're wrong all the time.  Of course many of them have the luxury of burying admission of their errors (and their retractions) in sections of the newspaper or segments of their broadcast in such a way that they can go all but unnoticed.  Even with this media backstroking available however, it seldom prevents these bastions of fact and truth from running off in meaningless and idle speculation about facts not in evidence.

Looking at the far too many mealy-mouthed stories like this posing as news, one cannot help believe that this 'might' have something to do with the reduced stature of the current mainstream media outlets.  Of course it 'could' also have something to with the rather biased methods that this same media uses in its often-failed attempts to bring their version of the facts and the truth to light.  Perhaps if these news outlets returned to reporting news instead of attempting to influence events, such efforts 'might' even have a positive effect on their current lack of profitability and 'could' even lead them to a far brighter and more long-lasting future.  Then again, it 'might' be too late for a public far too sick of idle and pointless speculation to dig themselves out of the hole that they've dug themselves into.

On the other hand, many of them 'might' be reading this blog right now and manage to slow if not stop their fall before it's too late.  It 'could' happen....


 

Six Months From Benghazi

Well we've past the six month anniversary since the terrorist attack on the Consulate in Benghazi, Libya in which four Americans were killed, including the Ambassador; and we apparently know little more than we knew as it was going on.  

Of course there aren't the media implications and political victories to be won from this tragedy that there are from many others that remain the focus of a great deal of attention.   This is no Sandy Hook or Columbine where the lives of innocent children were cut short by the mentally unbalanced behavior of other misguided children.  There can be no lingering discussion of 2nd Amendment rights and the on again, off again attempts of the national legislature to treat it as something they can interpret without bringing the issue to the people themselves in the form of a Constitutional Amendment.  Neither is this an attack on a politician like Gabby Giffords where we can add the misguided assumptions of impassioned political rhetoric censure to double dip in the Bill of Rights by adding attacks to the 1st Amendment to that of the 2nd.

No, this was a cold-blooded attack on the lives and property of the United States by what turned out to be a well-organized group of terrorists with a well thought out plan.  There is no argument in this para-military assault as to what weapons were used, even though this went beyond whether they were semi or fully automatic; since those involved brought mortars to insure that the compounds walls were not an issue, and its building little or no protection.

In the former cases we have certainly identified the culprits involved, analyzed their life stories in minute detail, and experts have done their best to divine the motivations of their mentally unstable behavior.  In the latter, we've had two potential suspects detained; one of which was subsequently released and another only recently brought in to custody, but not questioned by US law enforcement directly.  The only guy sitting in US custody is the poor bastard who made a YouTube trailer that was at first erroneously blamed for the attack.

In the former we've come to conclusions that perhaps teachers should be trained and armed or that local law enforcement should be placed at schools in the future to prevent the recurrance of such dastardly acts.  In the latter, we have yet to hear from the government that we've beefed up security, if only in troubled areas, to do the same.  (Hell, we haven't even heard that the State Department would have like to beef up security, but can't because of Sequestration ... an error on the part of the Administration if I do say so.)

In the former we've been given the tragic 'life cut short stories' of victims, heard the emotional testimony of some families before Congress while others have had their opinions and feelings detailed in high profile media interviews.  In the latter, the only witnesses have been held incommunicato (heaven forbid that they should be questioned while events are still fresh); and it appears that only a Congressional subpeona will see any first hand information given, even in closed hearings.

As for the things we don't know and will never know on the latter, the list is prpobably far too long to go into; but let me try and hit some of the highlights:

• We don't know whether the Consulate was trying to do weapons swaps as has been rumored, and which might provide some reason for its designation as a target.
• We don't know why a security detail deployed in Libya for the protectio nof the Embassy and its personnel was withdrawn a month before the attack, especially in light of events that occurred at the Red Cross and British Embassy.
• We don't know who was in direct command and control of the situation after Defense Secretary Leon Panetta met with the President for a regular briefing soon after the attack had begun.
• We don't know why there were subsequent briefings to the President as it continued, or apparently to Secretary of State Clinton, whose people were being fired upon.
• We don't know why an unarmed drone was sent to assess the situation when the Administration is so ready to deploy armed ones that might have been able to chase the attackers off in so many other situations. 
• We don't know why none of the military assets that were available to the US government (if only to buzz the site) were not deployed; or why Libyan defense forces were not called up to defend Diplomatic territory that they are obligated to do as specified in international treaty.
• We don't know why the YouTube video was erroneously trotted out as the and stuck with for weeks in spite of the mounting evidence to the contrary.
• We don't know why US officials and spokesmen attempted to play 'bait and switch' with this causation when it fell apart; or why the President himself claimed alternately that both sides were the truth (with tapdance music playing playing) during and after the fact.
• We don't know why the media mostly ignored this story at the time, and continues to see this particular loss of life as either inconsequential or non-newsworthy.
• We don't know if we'll ever get answers to the murder of a US Ambassador and three other staff members.

This Town Ain't Big Enough

Brian Wilson and Toledo's 1370 WSPD very quietly announced this week that they have parted company.  Nobody at the station is saying much, and Brian has remained almost surprisingly silent on the subject.  Brian was not only doing a three hour show in the afternoon, but was also the Program Director and News Director (a post that his wife Cassie formerly held), which leaves some rather large gaps on the station's personnel roster.

Now I would like to consider Brian a friend, though I'm sure that there are many across the country who would like to make a similar claim; and most of whom are of far greater stature and importance that this humble scribbler.  To present a bit of unimportant history ...

My own introduction came not long after moving to the Glass City, finding the show, and calling in a time or two.  I met Brian (along with his producer at the time, Phil McGeehan) soon after when he spoke at one of the first gatherings of an attempt to start a Lucas County Libertarian Party.  He spoke passionately and intelligently about his own 'small l' Libertarian values and beliefs, helping me to reconcile my own principles with a political system that I long felt had long since abandoned me.

We spoke briefly that evening, and occasionally continued to exchange information during the show, even while I was traveling around the US pursuing my own career.  As time passed, Brian, Phil and I even managed to get together once in a while for an adult beverage and additional conversation on the issues of the day when I made it home.  (I was even fortunate enough to meet his wife Cassie a couple of times.)  His recommended reading list, both off the show and on, proved a tremendous source of education to me not only on basic principles, but on being able to argue them from a logical and consistent perspective.  I was even allowed me to serve as the guest host of the one hour "Eye on Toledo" show with his permission a couple of times when Maggie Thurber (whose show it was at the time) took some well-deserved time away.  

I have to stop briefly here and acknowledge that I would probably not survived these experiences without the incredible amount of assistance provided at the time by Dr Phil McGeehan and 'Shaggy' Matt Culbreath, nor of the encouragement of Maggie Thurber to take on the opportunity.               

Even after leaving Toledo some years back, I continued to listen to WSPD for Brian's show most days, as well as that of Fred Lefebvre (which I still do) when I can get the webcasts to work.  I found myself keeping up with my former home through them, writing them, and occasionally calling in to make my two cents known; which is what talk radio is all about.  I likewise shared emails with Brian from time to time, continuing what I hoped was a friendship, even though it had become a long distance one.  I had no foreboding on how this situation came to pass; even after it did. 

I have yet to hear any tales of what really happened from him, though I suspect that it has to do with something to the painful budget realities that I experienced with regards to the newspaper industry a few years back, and which now is becoming more common for radio.  More's the pity, for while most of us doing our jobs are literally a dime a dozen, Brian neither was nor is.  Perhaps someday we will get a chance to again lift a glass with him, share that sentiment in person, and learn the story behind the story.  It ought to be a good one.  So while there's nothing that I know about the situation definitively, here's what I 'think' I do know.

1370 WSPD will be significantly diminished in stature and content by Brian's departure, as will the programming of talk radio in Northwest Ohio.  Not only was his a clear voice articulating the message of freedom and personal responsibility in Ohio, as he had in other places; but he was able to bring nationally-known, authoritative guests to a small market radio station in order to enhance that message and reinforce those principles.  I don't know if WSPD will attempt to bring in another host, or fill this show in with some nationally syndicated effort.  Regardless of what they do however, any effort they make is likely to suffer by comparison.

I have little fear for Brian, as with his ability, his credentials, and his industry contacts, I'm feel sure that he will continue to succeed. (Oops sorry.  Brian taught me to think, not feel.  I'm afraid I'm already back-sliding)  It's a shame for Toledo however, whose daily paper suffers from the dearth of leadership of an absentee landlord, a terminal lack of credibility, and editorial bigotry that foretells its ultimate doom.  A city whose only salvation now for something other than the Progressive Party line handed out by the Blade may be the efforts of its competition, a twice-weekly newspaper.  And a city whose other media outlets, though they sometimes consider presenting a less liberal, union authorized point of view; appear unwilling or unable to stand against the history of thuggery perpetrated by these often vindictive and controlling city influences of a decades long, single-party rule.

I will continue to listen to Fred in the morning whenever I can, but even with his valiant efforts continuing, WSPD will never be the same.  I fear that the truth of the matter is that Toledo may never really have been big enough for Brian Wilson in the first place.  With Brian's departure however, its odds of ever becoming so just went down significantly.   


     

Dance of the Dead

Halloween is over and the November election is but days away.  It's a special time of year when, if they know what's good for them, those in swing states are busy consuming large quantities of their left over 'Trick or Treat' candy; and washing it down with whatever version of brewed, fermented, or distilled products that they can lay their hands on.  This tinkering with the body's hormonal balance may in fact be their only hope of anesthetizing themselves from the incessant political commercials they are currently being forced to endure.  (And is a practice which has been surprisingly successful in keeping down the suicide rate down in swing states during election years.)  You see, it's time for the "Dance of the Dead".

This is not by the way, a term that you will likely hear from the media, since it's one that I 'borrowed' in attempt to explain the political poppycock occurring from now thru Monday night across the fruited plain; but especially in a favored few places.  The media after all, is too busy preparing to cash in on the upcoming quadrennial events to have any compassion for their audience.  Every news reader, political analyst, pollster, pundit, and former politician (along with their familial relation wannabes) are queuing themselves in front of every camera and microphone they can find to share their dearth of information and lack of insight with an audience that's only watching because the reruns of "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo" aren't on until later this evening. They will talk about how close the race this year really is (otherwise who would care, since it's only about who will be President for the next four years and not who will win 'American Idol' this one), while they micro-analyze percentage point polling changes for each of the swing states, and get an occasional plug in for their web-site or latest book release.

Of course most of what they say will be way too 'inside baseball' for anyone outside the Beltway to understand it (how else could they impress us or get us to sign up for something so that they can explain it to us); and the rest will prove little more than self-serving nonsense designed for media personalities who likewise need to promote their own careers.  After all, the candidates themselves have been out there raising money and getting their message is out for over six years; so what point can possibly be served in repeating it incessantly now.  What, you say that while it may seem like it's been a decade, that the campaign could only have been going on for four years at most?  Really?  As I recall, the Democratic candidate is an incumbent who's been continuously running for president since soon after he got elected to his first term in the Senate.  The Republican likewise ran for this high office in 2008, but got thrown off the island early during the last election cycle.  These two guys have been running for office so long that some of the positions have actually changed in the intervening period!  (Which apparently is now calling 'evolving' and not 'flip-flopping', unless it's being done by the opposition candidate and not yours.) 

There they are however, still out on the stump in every city, village, and hamlet that can provide them with a camera-ready audience of middle Americans (carefully screened so the proper demographic shows up on camera), repeating the same talking points they have for years to well trained audiences.  It doesn't even seem to matter that the only people that they're speaking to are their own, since such events at this point are by invitation only, and are carefully screened to insure that only the faithful are present.  Apparently, the need to fill twenty-four hour a day media coverage means that it's still vitally important for them to preach to the choir as long as the cameras are in attendance.  Repetition is the new rule, in some twisted (though sadly perhaps, accurate) belief that if you don't start speaking again before the last echos of your sermon die out, somehow they they will forget both you and your message.  As for the media, they cannot help but be there to recording this repetitious rhetoric for posterity, lest some part of that TV audience learn to tell the difference between a small town in Ohio and one in Iowa.

And when it's not the candidates themselves attempting to delivery carefully and barely restrained sermons to the party faithful, it's their fire and brimstone surrogates delivering partisan admonitions deemed too uncivil for the candidate himself.  Sniping and scurrilous claims fill the air so that even small market local media outlets won't be left out of the game.  Vice Presidential candidates assume their places as zealous attack dogs (though some have perhaps rightfully characterized incumbent VP Joe Biden as having morphed from zealot to crazed demagogue); but they are far from alone in their efforts.  From the former mayor of NYC to the former governor of Ohio, these stand-ins will spout ever greater amounts of acrimony (much of it often subject to selective interpretation of the facts) to ever dwindling audiences; and the farther away from the candidate they get, the more highly charged the vitriol in their message. Keeping the candidate protected under a cloak of 'plausible deniability', all of this is of course designed to whip up those attending into an all but rabid partisan frenzy for a media consumption that shows enthusiasm for the candidate.  The media plays along for their own reasons however, watching these side ring events in the hopes of snagging the Biblical scale gaffe or unforgivable faux pas.  This doesn't seem to deter these political apostles from challenging civility however, asking only for their fair share of face time on camera (and perhaps the occasional opportunity to comment on one of the cable news shows).

Unlike the debates or conventions however, these last days stand out in this long and bitter campaign for ... absolutely nothing.  Their tired oft-repeated rhetoric and disturbing diatribes add nothing to the national debate and do little more than provide a cadaverous song and dance.  Only the news and political junkies of this nation (like me) even occasionally watch, and we often do so in horror.  After all, voting has been going on in many places across the country for a month; and with the exception of the Chicago area, those who've already done so cannot participate again.  The party faithful, if they've not already cast their ballot, know how they will decide and long for the opportunity to do so.  If there are still undecided voters out there, as we are often told, they should probably have their polling cards taken away from them immediately; lest they contaminate the process by casting their vote based on a coin flip or random button push.  This weekend's 'Show That Never Ends; is actually nothing more than cheap bit of political / media theater where the actors are locked in circle jerk in which one half is a group jaded opportunists hoping to add to their resumes and the other a bunch of self-serving whores seeking to enhance their own.  (I'll leave you to decide which is which.)  I could say more about the twisted sexual nature of this Dance of the Dead weekend, but the tiny shreds of decorum that still remain a part of my shady character prevent me from using any of the off-color terminology that I can barely restrain myself from. (Though I must say that if the premise of my original metaphor is correct, much of what occurs this weekend could be considered little more than political and media-monitored necrophilia).

As for me, I have little fascination with the dead (and don't even watch zombie movies).  What's more, any woman that has ever gamboled with me quickly recognized that while not guilty of permanent foot damage, I am seldom confused with Fred Astaire (though I do look pretty good in a tux).  I will therefore not be attending this weekend's quadrennial Dance of the Dead.  How could I in good conscience when there's a 'Real Wives of Mission, Kansas' marathon on this weekend?     


(In the spirit of full confession, I should point out for those of you interested, my next self-serving novel, "The Black Helicopters Will Soon Be Here to collect the Tin-Foil Hats Who Got Mugged While Trying To Get There Share Of The American Dream Like My Father Did" will not be out immediately after the election as expected.  The publishing house appears to be making some vague and nonsensical complaints about title problems.)

Candidates Count On Us

The election is still some weeks away, but our twenty-four hour a day mainstream media seems intent on asking us how we're going to vote; when of course they're not trying to subliminally tell us how we're going to vote. They're apparently able to gain such knowledge through a rather arcane and twisted form of telemarketing known as polling. Don't get me wrong here.  There’s nothing actually new in using such a process, and there have been reputable firms like Rasmussen who have been doing it for many years; but these once reputable families have spawned a host of illegitimate offspring.

You see, with the increase in the number of network news organizations, the need to fill twenty-four hours of programming, and the desperate desire of daily newspapers to feel at least somewhat relevant in today’s world; it seems that everybody and their illiterate brother now wants to stick their name on this process of suffrage soothsaying. In fact, I don't believe I've seen this much attention paid to polls by the media since the year that the national newspaper conference and the stripper's convention were going on at the same time in Las Vegas. (I believe that's the year they came up with the slogan, "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas".)

These pollsters will tell you that they've become quite sophisticated over the years in what they call 'leveraging' their polls to compensate for the number of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans expected to participate in the voting process. Voters in turn will tell you that they've become quite sophisticated themselves in conniving pollsters of into specious target identification (lying about the information counted on by pollsters for accuracy). Having briefly studied this often confusing form of mathematics while in college, I was always curious as to how in their methodical application probability and statistics, pollsters could also factor in that the only people analyzed were those willing to stay on the phone long enough 'to answer a few simple questions'.  Such a bias in data gathering hardly seemed to form a true sample. This would seem to become especially problematic when pollsters are attempting to gather numbers on 'likely voters' as opposed to 'likely poll takers'. 

 

Of course once their results are published we see one of their real purposes, as they become endless fodder used by media moderators and pundits alike. Those whose candidate is ahead can talk about the reputable nature of the polling organizations, while those behind can berate such organizations for media bias, improper skewing, and inconsistency with other polls. After they've decided that the information that they've just spent 30 minutes tearing apart and putting back together is of no value, they can go on to tell you how it will skew the polls on voting day for the final 30 minutes of their respective programs. Those ahead complain that leading in the polls causes voters not to vote for a candidate who already appears to be winning. Those behind in turn can complain that such numbers dissuade those supporting their candidate for bothering to vote in what these numbers say is a foregone conclusion against them. 

 

There are organizations that attempt further accuracy to such information by analysis of the output of the various polling organizations, believing that by averaging the inclinations of those averaging the inclinations, they can improve the odds of success. They may be right in method of course, but you certainly don't see anyone using such a methods at the crap table.

For myself, I find the entire process more than a little annoying under most circumstances, but perhaps that's because I am constantly beleaguered for my opinion from pollsters who think I still live in a battleground state. Oh sure, I can occasionally amuse myself by convincing the person on the other end of the line that I'm of a different race, income bracket, or political persuasion. After a while however, even randomly manipulating the careful conjectures of these statistical sadists loses its appeal.

Inevitably, I can't help but remember what polling has done to governance, and to be appalled that political campaigns have come to be run by these daily interrogations of the people in order to decide what the candidate believes from day to day. Such misuse of mathematics insults those who show the personal responsibility required to work for candidates, let alone those who show up on election day. All deserve better than to be constantly cross-examined to discover if they are as fickle in their core beliefs as the candidates that they invariably support.

 

I am proud to say however, that there has been one exception to this rule lately. It was a time when polling was far from required to divine the beliefs and the mood of the nation. For one brief and shining moment during this recent week of the campaign, the nation finally stood united. Partisan political bickering was set aside, if only for a time, and there was bi-partisan support across the nation crying out to the world with one voice on a Tuesday morning, 

 “We gotta get the regular refs back to work in the NFL.”

Decide Dammit!

OK quick!  What's the most frustrating thing in the world?  Now for those fence-sitters out there running through the extensive list in your tiny little minds, let me help you out just a bit.  It's You!  And don't try and kid yourself that we haven't noticed who you are while we're standing behind you in the line at McDonalds (not that you'll find me hanging out at 'The Golden Arches' these days), waiting for you to decipher the intricacies of a menu that hasn't seen significant alteration in this millennium.

Don't get me wrong here, I know that there are sometimes tough choices that need to be made out there.  Yoga pants or pajama jeans, the shortest route or the quickest one on your GPS system, and chunky or smooth peanut butter are but a few of the earth shattering determinations that apparently can only be made after lengthy deliberation by someone with your Solomon-like judgment skills.  Of course there are those looking on from the sidelines who would like to see such resolution proceed at a less glacial pace, but certainly we can wait until you've completed proper contemplation on how much foam they should put on your latte (though the restraint required to keep our hands from your throat is almost crippling).

The problem now however, is that 2012 is a presidential election year; and that brings up even more indecision.  The mainstream media cannot decide how far in the tank it's willing to go for Democrats.  Fox News hasn't decided how far it's willing to go to counter the impact of its competitors on Republicans.  Largely irrelevant daily newspapers can't decide, based on their own past bias and increasing loss of credibility, if endorsing a particular candidate will do them more harm than good. 

Around the world, our traditional allies can't decide if more of what they've gotten for the last 3-1/2 years would be worse than what they might get from four years of the new guy.  Inimical governments and terrorist organizations can't decide if taking advantage of the apparent foreign policy weaknesses of the current White House occupant (especially this close to an election) can be used to their own political advantage, or will simply facilitate the election of someone who might be another game-changer for them, like Reagan was after Carter.

Of course all of this indecision inside the media and outside the nation, is because we are once more being told that this year's electoral process will be decided by ... you guessed it .... 'the Undecideds'.  This apparent group of vacuous voters will, according to pundits and other so-called experts, be swayed in the coming weeks by any public (or private) misstep of the candidates, by who makes a better showing in the three presidential debates (or how badly 'Jokin' Joe Biden performs in his one), and by who can raise the most money and run the most TV ads running up to the election.  (And people complained about how the BCS Championship decided the winner of College Football.)

Ostensibly the fate of the electoral process weighs on a group of people who, after over two years of campaigning, cannot now decide on their national leader.  After a campaign whose length seemingly rivaled that of the 100 Years War, they are still unable to commit to a candidate.  Apparently the fate of the nation will ultimately be decided by those who stand in the check out line at the grocery store, incapable of producing a decisive answer to,  "Paper or plastic?"  

Which of course leads me to my own 2012 dilemmas.  I can't decide if I simply pity those who, with all the information out there cannot apparently complete the deliberative process; or if I just hate their guts.  I'm undecided over whether perhaps if a few more people took more interest in learning about the people they vote for than about the lives and back stories of performers on 'American Idol' or on 'Dancing With The Stars', we wouldn't have Congressional gridlock (another form of indecision) and a $16 trillion national deficit.  I am unable to reach a conclusion over whether perhaps there wasn't a two-party stranglehold on the national election process, there wouldn't be so much indecision in the first place.  I am completely flummoxed over whether, if the education process in this nation spent a little more time teaching critical thinking and little less on fostering self-esteem, we'd have less people incapable of decisions on anything more important than whether they'll super-size their fries.

What I do know however is that there is a real pandemic of 'cranial / rectal inversion' occurring in this country; and it's far past time that people started pulling their aggregated heads out of their collective asses and Decide Dammit!