TFP Column: Post "Network" Politics

(Contrary to all logic and reason, I have decided to put new material up on this blog, but only in the form of the columns that I have done for the Toledo Free Press.  This is done for the benefit of those with time to waste, who likewise do not spend their time reading the website of this award winning weekly newspaper, and I will go back and add efforts that were published earlier this year.)

This particular effort was published on 03/20/2014.

In 1976, Peter Finch spoke to a generation as newscaster Howard Beale by telling us: “So I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out and yell, I’M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!”

Not many recall “Network” screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky’s cynical prescience regarding the degradation of television network news (cable news networks didn’t yet exist), or director Sidney Lumet’s portrayal of the general apathy and eager gullibility of the American viewing public. Few indeed remember anything of this film other than its iconic tagline.

The only thing that’s changed in the intervening years is the addition of cable channels dedicated, in theory, entirely to news yet with programs that have become in many ways far worse than Chayefsky anticipated, and perhaps more outrageous than Lumet was willing (or heroic enough) to portray.

We may not yet have astrology segments, but multiple (and mostly inaccurate) weather segments seem to serve well enough as a substitute. Revolutionary groups may not be on the air yet, but the proliferation of journalistic zealotry makes one often feel it is.

Not anticipated in 1976, however, was the proliferation of non-news stories (and reality shows) from Hollywood regarding those leading lives of unthinkable luxury and unthinking ignorance. While flouting moral precedent, society’s rules and the nation’s laws (with the permission of lenient courts), many find time (between rehab sessions) to support international tyranny under romantic notions of revolution.

Talk radio, for all its supposed sins, at least attempts to devote an entire 30-minute segment (including commercials, news and traffic) to a subject as important as whether we should get into or out of a war, or whether the laws and regulations pouring out of the pens of pampered politicians make a difference.

With television, we’ve come to accept a schizophrenic form of news. Most days, it’s force-fed to us in two- to four-minute segments (bipartisan commentary included). Eastern European politics or the science of hydraulic fracturing, we’re apparently only capable of digesting important national or world events in a Reader’s Digest condensed format, with segments only slightly longer (and often less intelligently written) than the commercials that separate them.

Occasionally however, the networks depart from their information shorthand to provide their viewers with nauseatingly repetitious offerings on what they don’t know on a story, supplemented by experts and pundits providing commentary so “inside baseball” that few if any can understand it.

As for their coverage of national politics, networks prefer an inflammatory sound bite to their job of covering the four W’s of the story (who, what, where and when). If they do get around to them, one can be certain of an Obi-Wan Kenobi interpretation of such facts “from a certain point of view.” And as for the fifth W (why), once more a panel of experts returns (fellow journalists and unemployed political minions) who can ignore questions in a bipartisan fashion, regurgitate party talking points ad nauseam and still find time to promote their current book.

Much of that unresolved “Network” anger still exists in this country, but remains largely unfocused. We’re angry with government for not doing the job it’s expected to do while doing far too many things it’s not needed for. We’re angry with politicians and political parties who’ve spent far too much time feathering their own nests instead of the nation’s work and have done so with our feathers. 

We’re angry with each other for the selective inattention we exhibit to the pain and suffering going on around us. Often however, we’re the most angry with a mainstream media that continues to assert special privilege as “The Fourth Estate,” ignoring their responsibilities and failing as badly as the American equivalents of the first three.

The right of a free press was included in the First Amendment for a reason by the founders, who understood that the republic would never survive without it. I wish Howard were still around, and this time “mad as hell” at those he worked with.

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.
 
  

This Is An Official Statement

"Blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah ...."

That, of course, is what they all seem to sound like these days (remarkably like the adults in a 'Charlie Brown' cartoon, if I do say so).  A representative of the city is standing in behind a podium and in front of a bunch of microphones to tell us that there's a problem, and that the water and sewer system is going to hell.  Oh sure, he knows as well as you do that part of what we've been paying for years was to take care of the upkeep of the system (which evidently no one really bothered to do, in spite of the fact that they told us they were).  That's not important now though.  What's important is that without money, a lot of money, the problem can never be solved. 

No wait, it's a representative of the state telling us that in spite of the fact that we're spending more money per child than we ever have in the nation's history on education, we need to spend much more money for it.  This isn't more money to keep and reward the best teachers, to test more innovative teaching methods, or for technology that might make the process better for teachers and students alike; but only to perpetuate the existing failed practices.  Previous dramatic increases in spending have done nothing to produce students more ready for higher education, increase measurable test results, or even increase general literacy in this country.  Such prior failure however, has nothing to do with the potential of success (no matter how remote it is); but more money it is.  

No, it's a representative of our federal government telling us that in spite of the increasing amount of money that we're spending on the war on poverty, that we're losing the battle.  Not only are we losing however, but according to the government, our investment has led to a situation where things are worse than when we started, and in fact worse than ever before.  In fact, perhaps one of the few successful bits of strategy is that some of the money we're spending has been to recruit new victims to the struggle or to relax the rules so that more than would have in the past will now qualify.  We've been fighting this war for over 50 years now, but instead of it being one that America has long since become tired of funding at previous or existing levels, it's one that our leaders tell us can only be held at a draw (no one even talks about winning it anymore) through ever increasing staffing and budgets.  You've guessed it ... more money from us it is.

Fortunately for you this isn't an official statement, which means that it isn't filled with what one of those once in power in the Glass City used to call "half-truths, mistruths, and outright lies".  That means that you're free to actually pay at least some limited attention to it (well, as much as you normally do with JBS at any rate) without fearing that it's going to cost you any money.  Cause if you're being even minimally honest with yourself, that's what you normally do.  You're tired of hearing the same old crap from the same cast of characters; and knowing that each time they open the pie hole in one of their two faces, someone's going to be reaching into your pocket. 

Like many of you in this economy, I've been forced to recognize that at times I've been a bit wasteful and profligate in my spending.  I always figured that this was money, earned from the sweat of my labors, and I could therefore do whatever I wanted with it.  I never counted on being able to borrow money from friends and relatives in order to fulfill my financial obligations; and in spite of my setbacks, think I can say that what I owe to both is simply my thanks for being supportive when I needed them to (and putting up with me in the first place of course).  And in the process of my minor trials and tribulations, I like to think that I've learned from my mistakes. 

Government at any level however, seems incapable of this last part, and therefore unable to do the same.  There are those at least in government, honest to admit that many of the same programs designed to take care of a problem, though designed and initiated with the best of intents, are full of waste and fraud.  Whether we're talking about the quality of drinking water or that of education, they can point to glaring errors (usually far enough in the past to show that they weren't responsible); and assure you that now that such situations have come to their attention are being seriously looked at.  They can likewise point to serious breaches in the rules and enforcement as part of the bad old days that will go away if new and additional funding is approved.  When was the last time that you heard any of them making a subsequent official statement regarding the progress that's been made, the rules that have been changed to close or even address issues, or the enforcement cases that are being prosecuted against those who have done little more than steal both our trust and our money.

Unfortunately we hear nothing of the kind.  Journalism (especially investigative journalism) has all but disappeared from the airwaves.  Neither the television nor the radio networks (nor the daily newspapers for that matter) can afford the news staffs required to attempt to do what they once considered their moral responsibility.  Instead more often than not, their programs and pages are filled little more than the official statements handed to them by the very corporations and governments that they once attempted to protect us from.  Most of those dedicated to editorializing on paper and television talking heads that are their broadcast counterparts have become willing sycophants to the official blather of the ruling elite in order to keep their 'inside access' to those in power.  This unfortunately, has become a gift that's little more than a parasitic arrangement used by both for feeding off the public.  It doesn't take someone with their tin foil hats slightly askew to believe that the parasites like it this way, since when you've tuned them out, they can do damned near anything they like to you.  After all, they've more than adequately informed you about it by issuing an official statement.

So before ending this I'd like to issue an official statement of my own:

"We regret that Just Blowing Smoke has done so few posts in the last couple of weeks.  Technical issues, in conjunction with a mild case of creative blockage and a healthy dose of pure laziness might normally have been considered the root of the problem.  In reality however, the sole responsibility for this has been a lack of government funding.

Since no government in their right mind is likely to change this situation, we at JBS will have to do our best to pull ourselves up by our collective bootstraps and return to doing a better job."

We apologize for the inconvenience, and now return you to reruns of Honey Boo Boo ...    

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.

Isn't It Funny Too (II)

It seems that even more "Isn't Funny ..." ideas occurred to me after the first such posting was put up.  I even got a few suggestions from friends such as Brad Reynolds that needed to have a place somewhere in a listing.  Like the previous list, these little bits of life's ironies are not in fact, the periodic WTH (pardon my capitals) moments that suddenly occur to us, but more in line with the overall ludicrous nature of what we laughingly call civilization in general, and our legal and political systems in particular.  Because these are additional offerings in a second posting, I couldn't decide how to phrase this one.  I therefore chose to both applicable word usages in yet another bit of irony. (Though I suppose that 'Isn't It Also Funny would be a more proper grammatical form.  Get over it.)

• Isn't funny that one of the centers of liberalism in this country (Hollywood) makes much of its money from movies depicting things that Liberals absolutely abhor and the rest from traditional Conservative values? 
• Isn't it also funny that the government pays people to produce more of things that it says are bad (tobacco and oil), then makes other people pay them in turn (cigarette and gas taxes) for using what are supposed to be the bad products produced under such government encouragement?  
• Isn't it funny that the only thing more annoying that a politician giving another fairly well-written, but seemingly endless set of teleprompter prepared remarks are the hours of even more boring analysis, historical perspective, and critical parsing of those remarks by 'inside the beltway' pundits?
• Isn't it funny that some of the worst acting on television comes from those working in reality TV shows that are attempting to portray ... themselves? 
• Isn't funny, speaking of reality shows, that many of them are people who are rich or attempting to become so, at a time when those of wealth are considered little more than an object of scorn? 
• Isn't it funny that the more channels that you have on your cable system, the less likely that you will be able to find something you want to watch on TV?
• Isn't it funny that after queuing up hundreds of movies on Netflix that you want to make sure to watch at one point, that you can go down the entire list later, unconvinced that you want to give any of them the 90 minutes required?  
• Isn't it funny that some of the same states that have very strict laws against driving while under the influence also have drive-thru liquor stores?
• Isn't it funny that wineries take great pains to provide stopper systems to keep air out of wine, but recommend that you let a recently opened bottle 'breathe' before serving it?
• Isn't it funny the longer these lists get, the less amusing any of this becomes?     

Yeah, I'm still not laughing either... 

Random Thoughts on the CT Tragedy

In the twenty-four hours since the shootings at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT took over every form of media in this country; I have been doing a good bit of thinking about it.  I'm sure many others have as well.  Some of my thoughts may not be particularly acceptable to those of you reading this, but I believe that whether like them or not (and I'm not taking a poll before putting this up), someone probably should speak them.  Feel free to comment if you will.  I will put up any that are not from anonymous trolls (feel free to create clever names for yourselves if you wish to hide your identity), but will put no restrictions on otherwise.  Better still, create your own blog and give your side of it ...    

Not all of these thoughts come from specifically from beliefs of my own.  Some come from what I believe which are widely held nonetheless, cogently argued, and worthy of mention.  As with most subjects, I am of two minds on this one; so I will separate my multiple personality disorder into the Humanist and the Cynic.  Because these are 'Random Thoughts', I will list them in so specific order, but will label them according to point of view.

• H:  Twenty-eight deaths is a tragedy at any time.  The deaths of twenty children even more so.  That these children are so young makes the entire thing all but unbearable.
• C:  Murder rates in this country are down, but still horrendous.  Most times such events barely rate a story in the local daily rag, or more than five minutes of news coverage in other media.  Over 1.2 million abortions take place every year (2008 is the last year for truly accurate data), which equates to just over 3,300 children's lives per day that are ended.  I'm not arguing for or against abortion here, just the inconsistency of outrage on such things.  It's also curious that some would consider this number to be in fact an example of freedom in this county, rather than one of horror.
• H:  This tragedy in Newtown has absorbed every media outlet since it occurred, and with good reason.  Thanks to this coverage, we not only about the ongoing investigation and the history of perpetrator, but also of the heroism of many teachers and students alike in saving friends, co-workers, and those put in their charge.  Thank goodness that we have a media that can provide such coverage.
• C:  We saw a lot less coverage in the news on rockets that were being fired into Israel just a few short weeks ago; and got very little detail, no names, and no back stories about its casualties.  We haven't heard much about civilians killed and wounded during US drone strikes in the Middle East, nor are there stories of local heroes attempting to do the same thing there in saving lives.  Rather than gaining 24 hour coverage in fact; those whose lives were ended are all too often simply listed as 'collateral damage'.
• H: Thank goodness for the depth of news coverage of such events.  It allows us to understand the implications of such a tragedy and how it brings out all of the best in human nature.  It likewise allows us to more fully sympathize with the victims families, and begins the national healing process.
• C:  The only thing that could be worse than experiencing a personal tragedy of this nature would be having the story drug out and paraded 24 hours a day.  I can't imagine the horror of seeing what must be considered your worst nightmare, and knowing such horror would be recycled every sixty minutes (or less) for the edification of an audience who can't get enough of your personal pain as a vulture media who lives for such stories to occur in order to get better ratings and make more money.   
• H:  The fact that so many lives were once again ended through the use of a gun has to mean something.  Isn't it time we took up the discussion of guns again in this country?
• C:  Why is it that Guns seem to be the only object that engenders this feeling.  No one calls for banning airplanes after a crash, trains after a derailment, gas lines after a house explosion and fire, or even cars after someone hits the gas pedal instead of the brake and runs through a parking lot, local market, or storefront; ending lives of innocents in the process.  What responsibility does the media have for the huge spotlight put on perpetrators.  Maybe it's as much the 15 minutes of fame provided them as it is the weapons being used that cause these 'off the rails' killers to commit their acts.
• H:  One cannot help but be touched by the memorials and candle light vigils that spring up spontaneously across the nation in show of sympathy for grieving families.  At a time when so many decry the uncaring nature and growing cynicism of society, these act as a shining light to say otherwise.
• C:  Maybe some of the professional mourners in this country should step back from buying flowers, teddy bears, and candles for street corner monuments to people they never knew.  How about taking the money you want to spend in such a way as to be seen (as you lovingly place your toy or candle), and instead donate it anonymously to a group that helps children without a homes or promotes help for those with mental illness.  Maybe you need to decide whether your display of sympathy is about you or them.

As for me, having written this, I'm now done with Sandy Hook Elementary.  My feelings for those children and their families are my own and not the business of interviewing reporters, agenda seeking lobbyists and politicians, or even my Facebook friends.  I won't be reading or listening to the details of the story endlessly repeated by newspapers trying to sell additional copies, or TV and radio shows trying to sell commercial time with a 'juicy follow up story'.  Neither will I spend my time in teary-eyed seclusion, in mourning for those whose lives have been touched by a tragedy that none of us can truly comprehend.  There's nothing that we can do about this one now, and many more that we might perhaps have some impact on if we could only turn our eyes away from yet the roadside accident and yet another random tragedy. 

   

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.   


     

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.”

Presidential Debate Zingers

(Anyone expecting serious political analysis in what follows will find themselves disappointed at best.)  

Well we're only one day away from what the media has been hyping as the most momentous political event of this year's presidential election (at least so far).  It's not that I don't understand how the media has lost all sense, other than their own sense of self-importance, can believe that watching two politicians dodging direct answers to often set up questions in front of cameras is in any way unusual, let alone consequential (at least in a sarcastic way).  After all, there are going to be three more debates for presidential candidates, and one for their running mates.  Of course, such contestation will be on every regular and all the news networks, giving it some significance; but given that many will choose to ignore such posturing, they might also want to consider the importance of the day when the nation's electorate actually gets to cast ballots (unless of course, you think that some of them will be similarly be voting four times) as a day of equal or greater importance.

I've examined the records of these two debate participants (part of the job), noting in passing that this first face-off will be heard in the Rocky Mountain state, and have come to the conclusion that this one may well be shaping up to be as exciting as a singing contest between Coloradans John Denver vs Dan Fogelberg.  Both have delivered some outstanding efforts in the past (Denver and Fogelberg, not Obama and Romney), but neither seems likely to produce an outstanding performance this week, having achieved room temperature some years back (pick your pair here).

The incumbent President's talking heads are already saying that it's likely that Romney will likely win this first debate, citing his experience in recent full contact efforts in the Republican primaries.  This seems somewhat strange, considering in how little esteem they hold any Republicans.  When you add that these same people believe that their candidate is the smartest person on the planet and therefore one who finds such mundane duties as security briefings and meetings with foreign leaders as unnecessary, such pronouncements seem rather incongruous.  There's also something almost tawdry in setting the nation's expectations about your candidate's ability to lead so high, and his ability to defend the way he's done so the last four years so low.

On the other hand, Barack Obama's opponent has shown himself over the last two election cycles as a true 'plain Jane, white bread' Republican, often full of retread ideas; coming off as dull as only a politician can, and as compelling as an allergy commercial.  Being a mainstream Republican, one must also keep in mind his party's latent ability to as the WSJ's Stephen Moore has said, "never to pass up an opportunity to pass up an opportunity", refusing to recognize or take advantage when their opponents expose a policy weakness in a very public way.  

Failure to allow any other serious candidates into the debate since the Ross Perot debacle now means that there's something to be said for the idea that both the media and the two major political parties have turned presidential dialectics into a 'Last Comic Standing' event.  There's compelling evidence to make one think they've succeeded so well, that it's now little more than two clowns doing extended stand-up tours full of their best 'one liners'.  There are those who go even further to say that the tragic humor in this process is that there's far less difference between the party platforms (routines) than they'd like us to believe; much like there's far less difference in the speed at which they're driving the nation off of the 'Thelma and Louise' cliff approaching.

Unfortunately, it's the very media that has been hyping the upcoming contest as critical to deciding who the next leader of this nation is (close elections make good television), that will immediately be casting aside 90% of what's said after the debate is over.  They will instead make a big deal out of a couple of the 'Zingers' delivered by one candidate or another.   The President himself in a recent speech in Las Vegas reinforced this point, hinting that his opponent might even have a 'Zinger advantage'.  

(For those who may not know, a 'Zinger' is a term used to describe a witty remark.  Real Zingers however are cake treats with creme filling, shipped to stores under both the Hostess and Dolly Madison brands, though both are owned by the same Interstate Bakeries.  Neither of the tastier versions unfortunately, will be delivered by either candidate at the debate venue.)         

Based on the writing skills available to current politicians, it seems likely that a memorable line or two might come out of these debates.  Unfortunately, it's equally likely that little else will be remembered from each night's event.  Regardless of political persuasion, these lines will be played ad nauseum on the news, and used in paid political ads as well.  Most are occasionally clever, seldom truly memorable, and usually of far more concern to the media repeating them than to voters who they expect to judge candidates by them.

Without being able to predict the winner of the first debate, let alone the four that follow (including that of the VP's), and without being able to anticipate the eventual victor in election itself; there is one conclusion that I have already been able to come to regarding the entire debate process and its Zingers however:  

I always liked Twinkies better anyway.

   

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!

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! 

2012 Primaries: Let The Games Begin

The new year has begun and after an endless number of debates, the seemingly endless process of actual voting begins. Iowa got to go first in what they appear to deem a reward for being known for damned near nothing else; except perhaps their ability to produce pork on a scale that only the federal government can compete with.  (In the spirit of full disclosure, I should point out that my father's family came from Iowa, and many of them still reside there.)

Using an arcane caucus process whose rules are so convoluted that no one knows or cares whether they are followed and so ridiculous that even the IRS laughs at them, they managed to produce a virtual tie between the Republican front runner and a guy that a week before was tied for last. Casting aside a 'favorite daughter' in Michele Bachmann that only months before won their straw poll (an equally enigmatic and incomprehensible practice), they gave their blessing (a prediction that has had much the same accuracy as a coin flip) to former Governor Mitt Romney and former Senator Rick Santorum before passing them off to the next stop on the rodeo circuit, New Hampshire.

New Hampshire of course is known for three things: its rebellious "Live Free or Die" state motto, not being Iowa, and getting to vote after them. They were granted this favored #2 spot because they suffer from New England's equivalent of Iowa's dreariness. Unlike their Midwestern counterpart however, they recognized that the odd shape of their state and its pugnacious slogan were enough eccentricity for any one place, and chose instead to use a more normal primary election format to make their own selection. (Pity they didn't show a bit of New England austerity as well, and bill the entire process to the parties involved.) 

As any who follows the primary process knows (very few, except for politicians and political pundits), these selections then move south to South Carolina and Florida before January ends, then scatter like the fall leaves amongst the winter snows in February; with the entire process completed in June.  And in spite of the fact that only one primary has been held, most of those 'in the know' are once again predicting that the entire process will be all but over after just four of the some fifty odd contests (pun intended) are completed. 

I am not counting as part of the fifty, the primaries which are held in Guam, Puerto, or any of the other US possessions, as they are meaningless in terms of sending delegates to the Republican Convention.  Of course the same might be said of the Missouri primary held on February 7th, as delegates to the convention in this state are sent based on a caucus held a month later.  Missourians however, are known to be a stubborn lot, unwilling to surrender their right to choose regardless of how superfluous it proves.  

Primaries in my last three states of residence are strangely enough, grouped together in March; with Georgia on 3/3, Kansas on 3/6, and Ohio on 3/10.  All three share dates with other states across the nation, and curiously two of them share a date with Wyoming (3/6 thru 3/10).  Apparently citizens in Wyoming enjoy the caucus process so much (or things are so boring in Wyoming) that they participate in it for five days, though their ultimate decision gains no more credit than if they had done so in one.  (Maine also has an extended state caucus, one which runs even longer [4/4 thru 4/10], but their eccentricity might easily be explained by similar boredom, and sharing more border with Canada than the rest of the US.)   In perhaps some twisted form of egotism, Utah's primary is the last one held that actually gets to send delegates to the convention.  Though not able to send any great number of delegates, they do have the dubious honor of having their choice be usually and largely irrelevant.

And while the Republican candidate needs the votes of some 1144 of these party representatives, let us not forget that there are 132 'superdelegates' who will also cast votes at the convention.  These delegates are long-time party members in good standing who become a kind of Republican 'Hall of Fame', rewarded with a trip to the Convention held in Tampa, Florida this year in August (not what many would consider much of a reward).  These delegates are not obligated to vote based on the results of the primary held in their state of residence, but can instead simply vote their conscience (assuming after years of party politics, they still have one).  At the very least, they might hope to be courted by a number of candidates and get their names and pictures in the news one last time before sinking back into political irrelevancy and relative obscurity.

According to most of the pundits this whole thing is inconsequential anyway, as Mitt Romney will achieve the nomination because they say he will, because it's his turn after his prior attempt in 2008, or perhaps because he pulled a sword from a stone.  Apparently the only reason that we continue to go through the motions at all is to give the 24-hour news networks something to talk about for the next six months and to provide temporary boons to the economies of each state brought on by campaign events and media buys.  Besides, there is always the off chance that at least one of the candidates (or as in this year, all of them) will say something really stupid at a time when someone is there to record it (which is pretty much guaranteed) and provide sufficient fodder for the media to criticize them now, having previously built up their effort to seek high office.

But what the heck, the media circus involved seems to be providing sufficient distraction for the president to circumvent the spirit and the letter of the Constitution with recess appointments, allows Congress to demonize trading practices as illegal on Wall Street that they legally commit themselves, and have both doing nothing to halt a Federal Reserve increasingly taking control of the economy and a federal bureaucracy intent on expanding its own legislative / regulatory power while the two elected arms of government that are supposed to be in charge seem perfectly willing to cede them such responsibility.

So by all means, let's have more 'bread and circuses' for the masses.  Let these ridiculous, irrelevant, and inappropriately taxpayer funded internal party games begin. 

.