The "Stuck On Stupid" Dictionary #36

As was noted in the previous SOS posting, it was a surprise to discover that it had been some three months since the most recent entry to this tome of tomfoolery used to document the misuse of the English language.  Perhaps in guilty recompense, there were multiple listings in the previous effort, and multiple entries in this effort as well. Being a powerful motivator (almost as powerful as the threats of personal violence), may even account for the multiple efforts this weekend.  

Having thoroughly 'discussed' this ridiculous lack of production with members of the Senior Staff in a way that they are not likely to soon forget, I cannot say I was surprised by their mostly lame attempts at greater productivity.  I expect some level of these increased efforts to continue for at least the next ten minutes (their normal maximum attention span). 

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

Mismatch

1.  A contest in which one contestant is unable to compete on an equal basis with another due to an inequality in size, training, or simple ability. While sometimes amusing to watch, such contests are normally viewed as unfair by the inequality of their very nature.

2. The decision of a lawyer or politician to challenge another in public without knowing how that challenge may be responded to.  Lawyers know this as the maxim:  "Never ask a question in open court that you don't already know the answer to."

3. Any attempt by Democratic Toledo City Councilman at-large Steven Steel to challenge or engage Independent Mayor Mike Bell either politically, rhetorically, or even physically; since recent attempts to do so have thus far revealed his shocking inability to compete at this rarefied and more professional level of play.


Religion of Peace

1.  A descriptive term used to designate and demonstrate that a given theology is one which encourages non-violence between believers and non-believers.

2. A descriptive term that cannot be used regarding the religion of Islam; since such such judgments should be made not on the basis of accepted doctrine, but on the actions that result from the application of that doctrine.  Religious Courts, Terrorist acts, and War resulting in the murder, mutilation, and property destruction of non-believers in recent history for no greater fault than non-belief disqualifies followers of this religion.

3.  A descriptive term that cannot be used regarding the religion of Christianity; since such such judgments should be made not on the basis of accepted doctrine, but on the actions that result from the application of that doctrine.  The Crusades in Middle East and the Inquisitions in Europe and the Americas, which were perpetrated as organized campaigns of war, murder, and mutilation of non-believers for no greater fault than non-belief disqualifies followers of this religion.

4. A descriptive term that cannot be used regarding the religion of Judaism; since such such judgments should be made not on the basis of accepted doctrine, but on the actions that result from the application of that doctrine.  The Hebrew Bible (Old Testament in the Christian version) which documents the early history of this religion is itself replete with stories of war, murder, and mutilation of non-believers for no greater fault than non-belief disqualifies followers of this religion.

The Armageddon List

Don't worry, this isn't my plan to ready myself for survival after the End of Days. Instead it's a reference to a movie of the same title that's seen a lot of air time lately on cable.  That and upcoming political conventions got me thinking about what my list of demands might be as my reward for saving the world.  As is often the case, such thinking inevitably found itself onto the pages of this blog.  After all, what's the point of 'nonsensical musings' if you don't make them public from time to time.  

Have no fear, there will be no requests to bring back 8-track tapes (or cassettes for that matter).  Too many twisted tape, jammed player experiences in my past make that even too nonsensical for me.  Neither do I have anyone that I want to get special consideration for citizenship, or to stay in the Lincoln Bedroom in the White House for six months.  There may be a few musical references before I'm finished however.  In fact, let's start off with a one to get in the spirit things ....

*  It's time for many of these multimillion dollar cry babies in long-touring bands to get over their petty differences and tour with the original members.  Dennis De Young is the lead singer of Styx, Jon Anderson is the lead singer of Yes, and Steve Perry is the lead singer of Journey.  I don't care if the new guy sounds mostly the same, there's just some things that shouldn't be messed with.  And before you ask about Van Halen, I am of the belief that they should tour alternate years, one with David Lee Roth and the other with Sammy Hagar.

*  Every federal agency is to be placed on a 5-year referendum; with both houses of Congress compelled to a straight up or down vote (without dodges or filibusters) on its effectiveness, necessity, and continuation.  

*  I want Will Farrell, Adam Sandler, and Rob Schneider to stop making movies.  They play pretty much the same parts from one to the other anyway, so it's not like they would actually be giving up much in the way of an acting career; but if their absence could save even one life (let alone the intellects of movie-goers around the world) it would be worth it.  Since every actor likes to recognized by their peers before their career is over (and believe me, for these three it is) I would even be willing to start a petition drive to have the Academy of Motion Pictures to award them a special "Lack of Lifetime Achievement" Oscar.

*  Make some of the Networks out there change their names or their programming choices.  If you're the "History Channel", you're about history.  If network name is "Arts and Entertainment", then be about that.  If you want to air trashy reality shows about horribly dysfunctional people, pawn shop thieves, and exterminators; your network name should be NBC (Nothing But Crap).  Oh wait, that's already taken ...  
(Oh yeah, and MTV and VH1 both have to back to playing music videos ...)

*  All laws passed by Congress to likewise immediately become applicable to its members.  Such laws to become retroactive with respect to retirement plans and healthcare; but only long enough to place current and future members onto the Social Security rolls.  I would further like a law added in which the pay of  members of Congress is a daily fee, only for the days during which Congress is in session, and taxed at the highest individual rate allowed regardless of the amount of income earned.

*  While we're at it, can we get a lot less of Donald Trump.  It's bad enough that we have to deal with the over-the-top narcissism of naming everything he owns after himself and put up with combination of egotism and bad entertainment of his faux reality show, without listening to his tin-foil hat opinions on national politics.  Maybe he could use the time he would gain in saving us from his opinions on a new television effort; one where he searches around the world for someone to give him a decent haircut.

*  I want party primary elections to be paid for by the parties picking candidates.  General elections are a civic responsibility (even though most people don't choose to exercise their obligation where they're involved), so I don't mind paying for them.  I'm sick to death however of paying for the two biggest political teams billing me for letting them make their 'fantasy football' choices when others like the Green Party, the Constitution Party, or Libertarians have to foot their own bill. 

*  There is one however, that I will cheerfully steal from the movie:  "Yeah one more thing, um... none of them wanna pay taxes again.  Ever."



I may add to this list in the coming days as more ideas (or suggestions) come to me; so don't be surprised to see this get longer over the weekend.

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.
       
    

TFP Column: Cognitive Dissonance

After taking a week off, I'm back on the Toledo Free Press website early this week with another piece on the 2012 election in about seven months.  This time however, I'm not talking about the contradictory statements that the candidates normally make about their closely held principles, but the mutually exclusive concepts that voters seem to able to simultaneously maintain in the "punkin' heads". 

Interestingly enough, there's a term for this condition; and suprisingly enough it's the tile of the piece, "Cognitive Dissonance".

Being that this is in so early in the week, there is no way for me to know what will yet appear in either the mid-week "Star" edition, or next weekend's.  I know it will be interesting however, which must account for the fact that this is Toledo's largest Sunday circulation and Ohio's Best Weekly newspaper (for the third year in a row).  But that's merely what you've come to expect from the Toledo Free Press.  

TFP Column: Political Telemarketing

One of the few things more annoying than the endless political debates and even more endless coverage of the primaries is the seemingly endless polling that the candidates and incumbent use not only to guide their next public pronouncements, but eventually to govern.

In "Political Telemarketing", I've got a few things to say about the difficulty of the process of obtaining accurate information (or even getting people to answer the phone), about the twisted uses that such information is eventually put to, and about the monkey wrench that I, for one, would like to throw into the process.

It's still early in the week though, and there's like to be a great deal in both the mid-week Star edition and the regular weekend TFP that you'll need to catch up on.  My suggestion would be to make sure to set a little time aside for Toledo's largest Sunday circulation and best weekly newspaper for three straight years, the Toledo Free Press.

(For those who can't help but notice, yes I mangled the last paragraph rather badly.  I am working with Editor-in-Chief Michael Miller, and I hope to have it modified soon to something more closely resembling the English language.)

Sailing Off Course

So as not to let a writing effort go to waste, I thought I would post the column I wrote earlier in the week for the TFP, one that was ultimately supplanted by my State Of The Union piece.  I hope you get a kick out of it ... 

It seems amazing that something so large could be allowed to go so far off course, permitted to sail so close to potential disaster, and with danger largely ignored, fail to prevent it running aground on a known hazard. It's astonishing that the person allegedly in charge should all but abandon the charges in his care in a cowardly attempt to save his own skin. It's astounding that as more information becomes known, this person should now attempt to blame everyone and everything around him but his own failed policies and foresight. And in spite of all the mistakes made, responsibilities abandoned, and in a total failure of leadership, it appears likely that he will ask to be placed in command once more.

Oh sure, you thought I was talking about the recently unsuccessful attempt by the Carnival cruise ship Costa Concordia (with the assistance of the Island of Islo del Giglio) to prove that two objects could in fact occupy the same space at the same time. I was however, talking about another top heavy behemoth that has been off course for some time now. One which seems often to go out of its way to find things to run into … the ship of state.

As for its captain; he appears to have abandoned the concept of working with the rest of the crew to pick a less dangerous course, in favor of taking up the fight to retain his exalted rank and extravagant privilege instead. In traditions more befitting those of captains like the Bounty's Bligh, this one stood cap in hand before us, pleading the case yet again that the cause of all the untoward events of these last three years of voyaging are the fault of the previous captain, members of a sometimes mutinous crew that has refused to follow his wise orders, and passengers who apparently have not paid enough for the voyage. But after lecturing for months that the only way to maintain a properly working ship is for all to work together to keep it on course, he once again seemed unable to heed his own advice, and there is little doubt that we will see a return to a typical election year's acrimonious invective and rancorous rhetoric.

This is not to say that there isn't some cause for the captain's complaint, or that there hasn't been a sizable element opposing both the course being followed and the treatment of crew and passengers alike. Nor is to say that this crew and its ambitions are either altruistic or above reproach, or that they have shown the ability to steer a better course themselves. Such opposition when it deigns to make an appearance is in fact often both inconsistent and disingenuous. Many of the crew seem far more concerned with maintaining or improving their position in the chain of command than improving the lot of the passengers aboard or reaching a more desirable destination. Few have shown the courage of their convictions when faced down by captain, fellow crew, or passengers.

Swaggering around deck and with little clear idea where they would sail if the wheel were placed in their hands, they appear instead content to merely to complain. When put to the question however, their course in fact seems little different from that of their ill-fated captain, with the amount of sail raised amidst the growing storm as their only point of debate. None seems capable of operating a moral compass or charting a clear course away from the dangerous waters that we find ourselves in, nor avoiding the growing maelstrom around us. Any among them that appear of sound judgment or a with grasp of the real dangers at hand are shouted down by captain and crew alike as rabble rousers and trouble makers by a multitude growing in size, ignorance, and inflexibility.

And what do we hear from this blustering and boisterous majority? Is not the captain in charge? Has he not already told us that the ship of state would be in far worse shape had we not sailed the course he has charted? Have we not already given him our every confidence, that we should now question his leadership? Does he not have an able group who still believe in him?

Perhaps then, we are little more than a Ship of Fools; blind to the faults in captain and crew, ignorant of the dangerous waters we sail in, and oblivious to the rising storm around us. Perhaps it's our fate to continue sailing off course until like the ill-fated Costa Concordia, we too capsize, floundering in rising waters far too deep for us to fathom.

Republicans Aren't Perfect

.
Upon reading the title of this piece, there may be some of you out there that are shocked, either by seeing such an admission in Just Blowing Smoke, or that I could even conceive of such a thing, let alone write it.  Others of you who occasionally visit this site (or who have a number of assumptions about it), may only disagree with me in part; believing that they are in fact perfect: perfectly heartless, perfectly soulless, and perhaps even perfectly evil.  Those of you who regularly visit the site however, will have previously noted that I am more than willing to take shots at any political party when the cause and need arise.  Such is in fact the case today.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I must confess that I am not in fact a Republican, but a registered Libertarian.  In my rather long voting history, I can affirm that I started out as a Chicago Democrat (a shameful confession, I admit), and became a Republican for some years before becoming finally and fully enlightened. 

The situation of which I speak of course, is the current debate over the payroll tax deal.  Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those who's about to go all mushy and talk about the spirit of compromise while beating my breast over John Boehner and House Republican's unwillingness to vote on the Senate proposal.  In fact, just the opposite.  I think it's high time that the House threw the whole thing back in the Senate's face.  

How did political discussion in this country reach a point where standing on principle makes you intransigent?  When did having principles that you were willing to fight for make you the lunatic fringe (and you Tea Party members, God love you, know who I'm talking about)?  When did compromise mean that Republicans must give way to the desires of Democrats, but Democrats need not give anything to Republicans in return?  Why is the House the will of the people when controlled by Democrats and an obstructionist and unruly mob when controlled by Republicans?

(As a side note, when did spending 'cuts' become reduction in the increase of such behavior?  When did government begin to accept the concept of 'Wimpy Economics' where tax increases occur immediately, but spending cuts, such as they are, can be deferred to a later date which never actually comes; only to later become forgotten promises by the same politicians who promised fiscal responsibility when looking for votes?) 

How is it that Republicans (who I admit again, aren't perfect) are held as irresponsible for not voting on the Senate Democratic bill, when those Democrats are not in turn held accountable for not voting on a bill previously passed in the House (whether by Republicans or on a bi-partisan basis)?  Why isn't the 'Democratically controlled' Senate being castigated for taking their vote and then ducking out of town, throwing compromise to the wind in the spirit of 'my way of the highway'?  Why isn't the President and media complaining about the Senate one again ducking their budgetary responsibilities (it has after all been over 900 days since they passed a budget) and attempting to kick the can down the road once more?  When did national tax policy become something that required bi-monthly approval?  What can businesses to do in the way of long-term planning (let alone hiring) when so much uncertainty looms, with 2012 being an election year that promises only more of the same, and with the taxation and spending policies of this government being announced as the chosen battlefield?

Don't get me wrong.  I know that these are a lot of uncomfortable questions for many these days; but perhaps it's time someone asked them (the media certainly won't).  The nation is tired of seeing economic policy in this country treated like an empty can of beans (which Congress seems all too full of) being used in a child's game.  It's tired of elected officials shirking the responsibilities that they are paid very well for in the pursuit of keeping the job that they apparently seem incapable of performing.  It's tired of politicians and pundits demonizing business leaders who could be creating jobs in this country, if those in elected office could only provide them with some 'Insider Information' (you know, like businesses give members of Congress) so that they could find a way to cash in on the future and get the economy jump-started.

Wait, I seem to have gotten off track here.  Where was I?  Oh yeah, I started this whole thing by talking about how Republicans aren't perfect ... and they're not.  I have little doubt that under the pressure of the President's bully pulpit and the media's willing cooperation, they will once again cave in on a proposal of their own which did little or nothing, in favor of one proposed by Senate Democrats that does even less.  Displaying the type of fortitude that normally requires a visit to the Invertebrate section of a museum to find, they will fold faster and easier that the paper used for Christmas presents; and the whole pointless disagreement can begin again in time for the next holiday ... Valentine's Day.

Now I don't expect perfection from Republicans (and I expect even less from Democrats under Harry Reid), but I wish that someday they would at least aspire to be more than they are today.  At some point they must learn not to always be the first one to blink in this game of political chicken.  Yes I know that Republicans aren't perfect, but they would be vastly improved by hiring a half decent media consultant / press secretary, getting a spinal transplant, and agreeing to an injection that would help them grow a pair.

.

TFP Column: Inevitable Criticism

I have been doing a lot of serious reading lately on political philosophy and economics. (I know, am I living the dream or what?)  One of those recent books, and an interview that I managed to capture a part of on PBS recently led me to attempt to connect the dots between politicians changing their positions on issues ... and why.  It was Michael Sandel and his book "Justice - What's the right thing to do?" that inspired this week's TFP effort, "Inevitable Criticism".

While I can't say that I'm a fan many of those running for office these days, I like to think I keep an open and objective mind where the slimy little bastards are concerned.  Seriously though, I usually allow those on both sides of the aisle the benefit of the doubt until they prove themselves to be ethically flawed one way or the other.

It's actually not the apparent flip-flopping that they do on major policy positions that's my problem with them however, but the annoying buzzing sound coming from ... What?  That's them speaking?  Oh man, this may be a bigger problem than I thought.

Anyway, it's early in the week (and next Tuesday's an election day), so if you want to know everything that you're going to need to, you better be keeping up with Toledo and Northwest Ohio in Toledo's largest Sunday circulation  and Ohio's Best Weekly Newspaper (for the third year in a row, no less), the Toledo Free Press.


.

Bi-Partisan Compromise ... Phooey

The only thing that aggravates me more than the mind-numbed robots endlessly repeating the left-wing mantra that all of our current problems are the responsibility of George W Bush, the Republican Party, and Fox News (with occasional tips of the hat to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and the rest of right-wing talk radio); is listening to their counterparts telling us that its all the fault of the man behind the curtain Barack Obama, the scarecrow Harry Reid, and the Wicked Witch of the West Nancy Pelosi.  

Oh don't get me wrong, GWB deserves his share of the blame, as do the rest of this cast of characters and a few more besides.  In fact the list is a rather long and distinguished one, going back to the 30's and including such luminaries as presidents FDR, LBJ, Richard Nixon, and Jimmy Carter; along with Senators such as Bob Dole, George Mitchell, Trent Lott and Tom Daschle.  While we're at it, let's add in some current and former Speakers of the House like Sam Rayburn, Thomas 'Tip' O'Neill, Newt Gingrich, and John Boehner. 

You see, much as I hate to admit it, President Obama was right when he said that "we didn't get here overnight".  Of course he misused one of the only statements of fact that he's made since taking office; but the truth remained that the problems we face now have been brewing since long before the current President ran for elective office at any level.

As for the idea that all of this can be solved by some bi-partisan compromise ... please.  After all, wasn't it such bi-partisanship during the FDR Administration that got us Social Security in the first place?  Hasn't it been some bi-partisan shenanigans that have allowed politicians in Washington who have known for decades that Social Security was eventually going to go broke, to do and say nothing?  Isn't the only compromise that Democrats and Republicans have reached about the national pension program in recent years one involving adding people that were never originally intended to be a part of it? Bi-partisan spirit in Congress has done little more for this program than to trade its imminent failure for the votes of those protected by it.

As for health care, it was wage and price controls implemented under FDR during WWII in a bi-partisan spirit that got employers into providing health care insurance for workers instead having them pay their own medical costs in the first place.  Not content with setting us on another road to failure however, they made an additional bi-partisan effort with the 1965 Social Security Act, creating Medicare and Medicaid in what amounted to another government attempt at wage and price controls, this time for health care. 

Not only did their compromised effort prove a dismal failure, but with these two new programs, States were now conscripted into the no-win game as well.  Costs continued to go up and increasingly successful (and expensive) medical technology insured that this bi-partisan effort would eventually become another financial monster.  How did our bi-partisan Compromisers answer dawning awareness of another government program that was on the verge of collapse?  ... by adding insult to injury with bi-partisan passage of prescription drug coverage under G W Bush.  No longer content with poisoning what little is left of private sector health care however, the Obama Administration decided to strike the next blow in nationalizing health insurance and health care in the US with what has now become known as Obamacare.  Early analysis of this most recent effort (which surprisingly was not bi-partisan, but a partisan lack of compromise on the part of Democrats) tells us that Government has once more worked its magic, and things will be getting more expensive much quicker than they had been, under the control of a government that can't afford them.

But let's not focus on the big three (now four) entitlement programs as the limits of compromised bi-partisan disaster.  Doing so might cause you to miss other government support programs passed over the years like food stamps and subsidized housing by a legislature ripe with bi-partisan compromise, in an effort to create a dependent class while spending other people's money.  It would also mean that you had failed to take notice of the legislative alphabet zombies that now stalk the land and cannot seem to be killed.  The IRS, DEA, and EPA may be the most infamous of these bogeymen; but the HHS and DHS (and its minions of the TSA) have mandates and budgets that are growing almost as quickly as their public unpopularity. 

Why should any of this make you angry?  Because we let all of this fraud, waste, and nonsense be spoon fed to us in the spirit of the bi-partisan compromise that legislators told us was required to make government work.  Republicans and Democrats alike not only continued to support failed programs, worthless subsidies, and useless departments, but added to their numbers and budgets in a truly bi-partisan fashion that has run up the debt to what was once an unimaginable number. (Feeling compromised yet?)  

So now we're told that the problem is the rancorous language of partisanship in Congress; and the only thing that can save us is Bi-Partisan Compromise. 

Bullshit! 

The problem is that professional politicians, who won't have to utilize the monstrous programs that they've compromised the rest of our futures with, are sitting fat and happy on great pensions and medical coverage that's the envy of the world.  Having secured their own bit of the American dream they are once again trying to stir up voters in the months winding up to an election with nonsensical rhetoric about bi-partisanship. While legislators continue to do nothing to fix real problems in this country, party spokesmen and political pundits drone on about the lack of bi-partisan compromise to provide political cover for the inaction of Congress.  Well, I've got a compromise of my own that might gain broad bi-partisan support: 

Do your job (for once) and we'll think about re-electing you.

I'm Hunting Powiticians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Contradiction In Terms

If it sometimes seems like everything having to do with politics is confusing, that might have something to do with the fact that it is.  Oh sure, often the problem is that politicians and pundits are simply trying to obfuscate (Go ahead and look it up, I'm not going to help you.), but there are times when even the snake-oil peddlers are not at fault.  You see, many of the terms used in association with politics do not mean what they appear to.

Federalism, which seems to imply a strong Federal government, in fact means much the opposite.  Those of the Founding Fathers who believed in federalism believed that were different levels of government which co-existed or shared in power on an equal footing, along with the power that the people themselves retained.  In the Federalist Papers (No.28) one of the strongest supporters of a strong central government, Alexander Hamilton, conceded: "Power being almost always the rival of power, the general (Federal) government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government."

Of course this didn't stop those considered Federalists (like Hamilton) from attempting to take things too far and gather too much power under central government.  Opposition to this perversion of the concept led to the creation of the Anti-Federalists (Jefferson & Madison) who fought Federalism by espousing its original intent.  (Confused yet?)

Statism, which one would assume based on its appearance to mean place power in the hands of the States rather than a central government, in fact means what you probably thought that Federalism did.  Instead of being defined as dispersing power to the various states, in fact this terms implies that all power will be held by a strong central government.  Statism is the governmental process by which such a central government intervenes (interferes) with all aspects of society, such as the regulation of the economy, the control of markets, and the disposition of property ownership and distribution.  (I know, I know.  Don't even get me started on this or I'll have to start taking my blood pressure medicine again.  But I'll bet you're even more confused now!)

But wait, it gets better!  Now for those of you who haven't been keeping up with Just Blowing Smoke, should pay close attention and keep the duct tape handy.
 
Liberalism is not what you thought it was either,  In fact, it is the belief in liberty and individual rights, a philosophy that grew in the 17th Century (1600's), rejecting previous theories of absolute monarchy and the divine right of kings in favor of the Rights of the Common Man.  Philosophers John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were some of its first proponents and a source of inspiration for the Founding Fathers of this country. As developed, it came to simply mean a life in which the individual was free from interference from the State.  

The term was co-opted in the 19th Century however, and shifted from what we now considered the political right to what's currently the left, leaving little of its original definition behind but the term 'classical liberalism'. An early form of political correctness had injected itself into the discussion, and we were given the concepts of positive and negative liberty.  As so often happens when intellectuals get their hands on the terminology, what this also meant is that no matter which kind of liberty you were determined to have, you would now had less of it than you had before, and government would be playing a role in how much and what kind of liberty you would be permitted.  

By the time that President Teddy Roosevelt picked up the ball and ran with it (1901-09), the original meaning was all but lost.  By the time that Woodrow Wilson (1913-21) and Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-45) had their way with it, it would not have been recognized by those who originated the concepts.  (Feeling a little woozy yet?)

Conservatism in a similar fashion, was first defined as maintaining the status quo (which at that time was a monarchy or limited parliamentarian government).  Instead of seeking personal freedom and limited government, it was a politics that sought little more than keeping things the way that they were.  Often credited to such luminaries as Francois-Rene de Chateaubriand (a man, not a meat) and Irishman Edmund Burke, this became Toryism when it emerged in Great Britain.  If this term sounds familiar to you, it might be because the American Revolution in those 13 colonies fought against not only British troops brought over from what was then the motherland, but local Tories who remained loyal to the status quo of King George. (Don't worry, just breathe ...)

If all of this seems a little 'Inside Baseball', it probably is; but pointing out the misconception of so many about so much is a necessary part of the process of reversing it.  Listing the obscure and as well as the obvious is the only way we're going to recognize how badly we're getting screwed by governments and elected officials hell bent on treating us like mushrooms (buried in shit and kept in the dark). 

A pretty smart guy that I trade words with from time to time in Toledo, WSPD radio's Brian Wilson, often says that politicians wake up every morning, counting on the poor recollection, aggressive ignorance, and mind-numbed complacency of their constituents.  I would have to concede every point; but plead that while there's no excuse for it, there are definitely reasons.  It's no easier to decipher the confusion, nonsense, and absolute bullshit handed out as fact on a daily basis when the words used for any intelligent discussion on the subject of politics are little more than a contradiction of terms.

Politicians Are A Necessary Evil

"Most Politicians are like Halloween decorations.  It's OK to display them in public for a few days once a year, but you don't want to leave them out too long ... they scare the children."

If it seem like I spend a lot of time castigating politicians on both sides of the aisle ... it's because I do.  Don't get me wrong, most of them are probably pretty decent people outside of their political responsibilities (but there are some that are simply and seriously wrong in ways that I don't have time to get into in this post).  What they have CHOSEN to do however, cannot help but call their intelligence, common sense, and ulterior motives into question.  Who after all would choose to sit through school board or city council meetings that are only slightly less entertaining than being trapped in an elevator for hours at a time with a talkative hypochondriac, a flatulent idiot, and a self-righteous and proselytizing bigot without a damn good reason?  

Like many, I've heard the pronouncements of "the call to public service", and I believe for a few that it's actually true; but as it relates to far more of those seeking office, I have more than a few doubts.  In fact, I'm far more willing to believe the outlandish claims of AXE ads telling me that if I spray some cheap crap on myself, the chicks will really dig me than these concocted self-serving rationalizations. (Though that AXE thing really does work ...  No, really!)  Seeking public office, regardless of the misleading reasons handed out like fortune cookies by some office-seekers, is for a great many of these people a desire to take up the mantle of power.

Perhaps the exercise of such power is the prize they believe is their due for the price they pay by humbling themselves in begging for campaign funds, showing up at public events that they don't want to go to (and normally wouldn't otherwise), and talking to a bunch of 'just plain folks' who want them to make the neighbors dog stop barking in the middle of the night.  This 'Let's Make a Deal' trade should not and does not however, grant them a level of self-importance beyond their previous station; nor does election provide them as a 'servant of the people' with membership in some elite society.

Worse still however, is that somehow being elected often seems to mistakenly confer upon them the belief that they can solve the world's ills if they can just pass one more law.  Many times it doesn't even matter what the laws long-term consequences (good or bad) might be, as long as such a law has the elected official's name attached to it.  It seems as if somehow the thrill of competing and winning in the game of politics has had the side effect of turning these once normal people into media addicts, jonesing for the microphone and the camera, desperate for the fix of a broadcast soundbite.

Politicians can in fact, solve little if anything by passing another bit of legislation (though they can create some rather costly and unsuccessful attempts to do so).  If the world could have had its ills resolved by the passing of a law, don't you think someone in the long history of politics and politicians would have come up with it by now. "Passing laws is like passing gas.  It normally serves no one but those passing it, is an impolite thing to do at best (especially in public), and often results in a horrible and lingering odor."

Those we elect to office should recognize that they are only necessary as the chosen sacrifices made by a civilized society (well, kind of anyway) that recognizes that it's far too wrapped up in self-indulgence, complacency, and ignorance to govern itself.  We can respect the nature of the sacrifice that some make on our behalf, while retaining what now seems an all but necessary skepticism of the motives of the rest.  For their own and society's benefit (and much like small children), they should seek to be mostly seen and not heard.  Also like children, they should work hardest at staying out of mischief.  All of us should likewise keep in mind that where politicians are concerned, they serve us best who burden us least with their efforts.

And so perhaps we are left with a reluctant thanks to those who serve us in office at the same time that we must at all times be suspicious of their efforts and methods.  Like those responsible for picking up the trash, we should applaud their services to the common good without seeking to join them in what often becomes their rather distasteful efforts.  Like the actors that they many times are, we seem to ask little of them these days but that they entertain us.  Most (except the best) should remember however, that they are only necessary until the new crop of would-be zealots and power seekers makes its appearance at the next election. Ultimately, politicians (and government) are nothing more than a necessary evil that we must perpetrate upon ourselves in protection from the even greater evils that Man is capable of. 

(All quotes used in this post are from ... me.)

Revolutionary Tactics

It often seemed that Conservatives were doomed to suffer continue electoral defeats, having learned nothing from the army of their Idols, the Founding Fathers.  Strangely enough in fact, they seem to have been running the playbook of the Redcoats rather the the Rebels for some time now.

For those of you who have not read your Revolutionary War history (and certainly were not exposed to such nonsense in the government indoctrination camps that supposedly educated you), much of the limited success that the fledgling American Army had were the result of using the element of surprise and vastly different tactics than their opponents.  It's of no surprise that they had to do this, since British Army (along with their German mercenaries) were the most disciplined in the world, better financed, and proven in battle.  Their one and only weakness was that they were used to fighting stand up, line abreast battles with other armies on the open fields in Europe, a weakness that the rebels were often able to exploit.

Revolutionary troops had neither the numbers, the training, nor the discipline to fight the same way as their European counterparts.  What they did have though was a knowledge of terrain, a musket with both a longer barrel and a rifled bore, and a marked unwillingness (at least on the part of militia) to trade volley fire with their opponents.  They chose instead to learn from the tactics of their hunting and Indian fighting days, hiding behind any cover available, shooting their opponents leaders first, and seeking strategic retreat (running away) after doing as much damage as they reasonably could.  The few times that the Army managed to mount successful major assaults against the British were usually by sneaking up on their foes at an unexpected time or from an unexpected direction. The times they went toe-to-toe with the British troops, they lost.  These lessons have apparently been lost on today's Conservatives.

Certainly anyone looking at the tactics of today's political battles would agree that the Conservatives seem to be the ones marching ahead in straight lines, heedless of 'shot and shell' around them.  They seem far more willing to accept casualties in the name of 'good sportsmanship', they refuse to adapt their tactics to the opposition or the situation, and usually refuse to engage their opponents on an equal footing.  Often seeming to be more concerned with playing by rules than winning the battle, they blindly repeat prior tactical errors of repeated direct assault.  They blithely accept potential decimation of their ranks in the name of a fairness which disappeared with line abreast formations, and often at the cost of victory.

Their more liberal opponents, for all of their detestation of military matters, understand that history will be written by the victors. Having either failed to read or choosing to ignore the rules of 'civilized' battle presented to them by Conservatives, they snipe away at the right; regularly achieving both tactical and strategic success. Realizing likewise that the victors will dictate the terms of surrender, they seem to grasp firmly the concept that once the battle has been won, no one much cares whether the killing shots were fired from formed ranks or from the cover of a rock.  They understand that it's easier to pick off the key leaders of a group under directed and concentrated fire.  Once such leaders have been effectively neutralized, discipline of your opponents will quickly break down in the ranks and the rest can be easily taken.

Not being privy to the political stratagems of Conservatives at the highest levels, I can only hope that  they are learning with time; that perhaps they are simply following the strategy of the first (and only) Commander of the Continental Army and first Commander-in-Chief of the nation, George Washington.  Washington if you will remember, lost about 2/3 of the stand-up battles that he fought with his British counterparts; but learned from each of his defeats, always managing to withdraw in an orderly fashion and seeking to fight another day.  

Though saddled with a general staff made up of far too many 'privileged characters' whose positions were often no indication of ability, he was still able to maintain a solid fighting force by promoting those of ability regardless of previous rank.  Though starved by a Congress more intent on its own comfort than that of its Army, he somehow managed to rally his troops together in the harshest of conditions; maintaining their spirit to fight on.  Though plagued by 'friends' who turned their back on him to seek their own power and glory, or after insults real or imagined, he somehow managed to maintain discipline and fight on long enough to win the war.

Recent changes in the maneuvers exhibited by Conservatives lead to hope that these lessons are at last not lost on those who most need a new strategy.  Utilizing troops fresh from the growth of the Tea Party Movement, the increasing strength and influence of the Libertarian Party, and the wealth of new citizen-politicians seeking public office; they finally seem to understand that winning should at least be as important has how you do it.  We can only hope that much as the French helped seal the deal for Washington's rag-tag Revolutionary Army, these new allies will provide the additional impetus required for Conservatives to begin to recognize their heritage, and to properly utilize Revolutionary Tactics.

Political Personality Disorder

I am currently working my way through P J O'Rourke's latest effort,  "Don't Vote - It Just Encourages The Bastards" (a book whose insight and humor make it one that I would highly recommend). While I'm not one prone to sharing long passages, when I came across this particular one, I found it crying out to be shared with those of you not willing to spend your all too brief leisure time reading books on history and politics. 

I present it for your amusement, enlightenment, and edification without explanation or comment.

"Political power, however, remains the most powerful of powers, so people will continue to be drawn to it.  What kind of people we know too well.  The politician's personality has been brilliantly described.

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fanstasy or behavior) need for admiration ... beginning by early adulthood ... as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. has grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents and, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance
3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
4. requires excessive admiration 
5. has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
6. is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her ends
7. lacks empathy:  is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
8. is often envious of other or believes that others are envious of him or her
9. show arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

The authors of the above passage had no idea they were writing about politics.  They thought they were writing about mental illness.  This perceptive analysis of politicians appears on page 717 of the American Psychiatric Association's 'Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Medical Disorders', fourth edition, under the heading 'Diagnostic Criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder'."  

RHINO's

Recent events in Washington DC have shown yet again that there are Republicans who apparently do not share the principles on which the the Grand Old Party was founded.  Of course it also might be said that the Republican party has itself largely mislaid, mostly forgotten, or completely ignored the fundamental precepts on which it was established.  Certainly anyone taking an objective look at what this party has done at the national level in much of the 20th Century might question whether this is still the party of smaller government and fiscal responsibility. 

This apparent disparity between theory and practice became apparent yet again during the latter days of the Debt Ceiling debate in the House of Representatives; when there seemed to be 'Tea Party' Republicans, 'Mainstream Republicans, and RINO's; each of which had different ideas on how these canons should influence voting. Now for those of you who aren't 'inside baseball' enough to recognize this last term, it stands for 'Republicans In Name Only'. 

There is little doubt based on their records, that there are those in the national legislature who could be called RINO's, claiming GOP membership while often voting more in keeping with the dogma of Democrats; but since I am not a Republican, I see no reason to call out these 'sheep in wolves clothing' or disparage them individually.  Quite frankly the difference between the two parties is becoming so insignificant these days that the accusation is all but meaningless, and the petty problems of Republicans or Democrats are of little interest to me.

What is of great concern to me however is the direction that this country is going, one which many of the current brand of elected officials seem unwilling or incapable of dealing with.  It's not because they are RINO's confused over how party postulates influence their decisions however, but because they are RHINOs.  This may also be a term that you are unfamiliar with (quite possibly because I just made it up); but stands, fittingly enough, for Representatives Having Inadequate Nerve in Office.

(Some of the editorial staff at JBS suggested that 'Nads be used in place of Nerve.  Inconsistent anatomical references to body parts mentioned later in this piece, and an unwillingness to use street slang won out, but only just.  Both references however, appear to be accurate.) 

Now some may find this comparison amusing, since the Rhinoceros is known as a rather stubborn, belligerent, and cantankerous animal; almost incapable of getting along with anything (even other Rhinos).  RHINOs in Congress however, seem to be their polar opposites, being easy-going to the point of being almost placid (kind of like cows with a hard, pointy noses). One might go so far as to say that the only thing that the animal and these politicians share in common is a predilection for short-sightedness.  This apparent 'Hyde-Jekyll' transformation seems to occur to RHINOs somewhere between running for office and accepting it.

Apparently all of the stump speeches made on the campaign trail about mom, apple pie, and (dare I say it?) God become meaningless once election is achieved.  All pronouncements about strongly-held principles seem to weaken once many of these leaders walk up the steps of the Capitol Building.  Indoctrinated in the schools of bi-partisanship and compromise, many of those entering their respective branch of the national legislature get a 'spine-ectomy' performed as part of the House and Senate induction ceremonies.

Witnessing this transformation into the equivalent of jellyfish or flatworms, the only confusion that most of us in 'fly-over country' have these days is this: 
Is the House is worse for watering down every attempt to get the national proclivity for overspending under control through double-dip, double-entry, and double-dealing tricks long found in the 'Big Book of Govt Budgets'; or is it the Senate that's worse for sitting idly by on their well-padded chairs, on their well-padded asses while proposing as a solution to the nation's problems ... absolutely nothing.

This "Thelma & Louise" mentality, where the two major political parties (or the two houses of the legislature) do little more than argue about which one is to blame for the direction they're going or how fast they're driving off the cliff, has made it increasingly difficult to find anything other than 'the lesser of two evils' when going to the polls.  Small wonder, since there is seldom enough difference between the offerings of the two major parties, that so few go to the polls each election.  

Recently elected Tea Party freshmen in both Houses have been a breath of fresh air in these turbulent times however.  Say what you will about them, you must admit whether you agree with them or not that they at least appear willing to stand by their principles (and constituents); even when attacked by those around them for doing so.  They are currently but a vocal minority however, and one cannot help but wonder if they too will eventually be corrupted by a system ripe with the effluvia of pestilence that permeates Washington.

Until Congress realizes that it cannot spend itself out of debt, cannot continue to turn compromise into capitulation, and cannot continue to abandon its responsibilities to an out of control and unelected bureaucracy, we are looking at some dark days ahead.  It's likewise apparent that unless we begin funding the Congressional medical plan for spinal replacement therapy, we will be at the mercy of far too many RHINOs.  

Not A Team Player In A Two-Party System

We are often told that the problem with government is the level of political discourse between the left and the right. We are similarly told that if only conservatives would compromise with liberals (or vice versa), the nation's problems could be solved. It seems however, that the problem with the debate is that it's not so much between the left and right as it is between the Democrats and Republicans. Even as politicians attempt to define themselves by issues in order to appeal to certain parts of the political base, what they're doing in actuality is establishing their credentials as members of their political parties. 


Politicians have in fact become little more than players on political 'teams', competing on a national electoral playing field. My friend Roland Hansen has written about the fact that Independent politicians are a joke that can achieve little if anything once elected, due to a lack of party affiliation. While I agree with him about what can be accomplished, but my anger is not directed at these potentially viable candidates, but at the rules of the game that have put them on a dead branch of political evolution. 


It's not that Independent Candidates could not be good elected officials, do not come up with good ideas, or that their thinking is incorrect; instead it's that since they do not wear the uniform of either team, their efforts are doomed; since there's little hope that they will be allowed to score. As use of the sports analogy points to, keeping score is in fact what politics has become all about. Neither of the major teams plays for the benefit of the fans or the good of the game any longer (if they ever did). Instead their efforts are expended on behalf of their team owners, investors, and fellow players; often at the expense of the rules of the game and the expectation of the fans. Good legislation will go down to defeat and bad legislation will be passed all so one team or another can put another win on the scoreboard. When those in the stands cry 'foul', they are told by contestants and analysts that they simply don't understand the situation (or more accurately, the rules of the game). 


Few view the success of elections in terms of ideology any longer (which quite often is much the same in these parties), as much as they do in terms of the number of players they can put on the field. Few politicians will even attempt to reach an accord on a legitimate issue that needs to be a addressed, or reach across 'party lines' for support when there's a chance to use the issue in the next election cycle. Cowardly competitors from both sides refuse to stand alone for fear of angering the team that they play on or losing their team's support to keep a job that their timid actions show them not to be doing. 


Instead, we are treated to elected officials carefully polling the fan base and season ticket holders (special interest groups) to determine how to increase the sound of the cheering for their side while actually doing nothing. Even if they disagree with their team management over which plays should be called, they swallow any remnants of independent thought to maintain loyalty to 'the franchise' rather than those who sent them to Washington in the first place. We can in fact blame this madness on our Founding Fathers. 


It was begun by Alexander Hamilton's creation of the Federalist Party in the late 1700's to support his desire for a stronger central government than many saw in the Constitution, and a fiscal policy which included a powerful national bank. James Madison, and later Thomas Jefferson, responded to this move with the formation of the Democratic-Republican Party (a name which has nothing to do with either of its namesakes); and the game was on. Oh, there have been name changes over the years, as the effects of Political Plate Tectonics continue both the erosion of ideology and the formation of new teams who would like to play in the big leagues; but for the most part in the history of this nation, we have seen only two players. Lately however, these two gladiatorial squads seem intent on making this a 'Thunderdome' event, where two enter and only one leaves. 


The pronouncements about the 'will of the people', 'the good of the nation', and 'serving the electorate' ring especially hollow among the cheers of 'we are the champions', 'go team go', and 'take no prisoners'. What's even worse is that through tradition, we've now institutionalized the entire hierarchy of the contest. This team concept has become such an ingrained part of the political culture that we think nothing of paying for their internal candidate selection processes (primaries); as if there is some intrinsic value in paying public dollars so that these private clubs can pick their representatives. And should some libertarian, independent, or other '3rd party' candidate attempt to enter the ring of this exclusive contest; they will quickly find themselves without access the trough of taxpayer funding granted by tainted tradition to the elephant and the jackass. I'm afraid however, that they've lost at least one fan. I can find nothing of value in what has become a savage and pointless game where no matter what the score is, the ultimate loser is the voters.