TFP Column: Climate Change Denier

(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 03/07/2014.

I hereby freely admit to being a climate change denier. I’ve listened to all the accounts, from the news readers to the opinions of pundits, and have read some of the limited amount of scholarly work on the subject. I find nothing in this body of work to convince me the issues involved are anywhere near settled. Further, I deny that the arguments put forward on the subject appear to have any merit.

This is not to say I disagree that the climate is changing. Instead, I’m convinced the changes occurring are little more than trends and natural movements that occur over time. Little if any of this movement appears to be man-made nor do man’s actions seem to have any significant effect on it.

Now for those of you already composing hate mail to me or to TFP Editor in Chief Michael S. Miller and canceling your free subscription, I’m talking about the political climate.

In spite of the endless stories (especially recently) regarding this notion of political climate change, little of it seems to actually be occurring. Some insist that the apparent cooling coming from the “Alphabet Fallout” cloud of the NSA and the IRS must surely prove the theory. Others are sure the “Benghazi Effect” and what it’s done to heat things up before the next election should be proof for all to see. Still others disregard these contradictory temperature claims and instead talk about the growing holes in the “Obamacare Layer” as proof that far-reaching and permanent political climate change is imminent. Nonsense!

Some even erroneously cite so-called statistical proof, using the alarming disapproval rate earned by Congress. Such claims are greatly exaggerated. While it’s true the current legislature carries a spectacularly low approval rating of 17 percent, the dirty little secret is Congress’ approval rate has seldom risen above 30 percent in the past 40 years.

Don’t get me wrong. The political tide certainly appears to be rising for the GOP, but this movement hardly seems permanent and may be a trend that ends with the 2014 election cycle (if not sooner). Part of this is because Democrats (and their media minions) seem far better at telling their story than their opponents, even when that tale is largely fiction. The rest, however, is because of the unfailing ability of the GOP leadership to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. (Can you say John McCain or Mitt Romney?)

Scholars have for years attempted to tell us that our nation is a center-right electorate. History shows us, however, that when the current group of neoconservatives in the Republican Party wins, they celebrate by apologizing to their opponents before moving in their direction, making that victory little more than a Pyrrhic one.

Instead of becoming evidence of change, such results are more likely to prove its absence. They highlight the inability of today’s political climate to show real change, regardless of who’s in charge. This entire process is reinforced by a plurality of low-information voters who seldom look beyond name recognition in choosing candidates, regardless of party affiliation or prior performance.

Available data, as determined by the length of Congressional service, tends to support this. Rep. Marcy Kaptur’s interminable 31 years in office, for example, doesn’t even rank in the top 100 on the historical “Groundhog Day” list of service in the national legislature. Michigan Rep. John Dingell currently holds the title of Congress’ “never-ending gobstopper,” but plans to retire this year after an uninterrupted 59-year tenure. Rumor has it his legacy will likely be carried on with his younger wife (a lobbyist) attempting a move from understudy to title role, and cashing in on said name recognition in her run for the open seat.

The climate of politics is not something easily influenced by the rhetoric of its participants, the heat of the issues nor the apparent coolness of the electorate to its representatives. It is perhaps far too placid (if not flaccid) to have its tides easily stirred. Those of you thinking you see a sea change coming, with a permanent rise in the depth of the Republican Party (especially that of some of its conservative elements) — think again. Wild and unproven theories may continue to exist, but real political climate change can and should be utterly denied. 

Get Over Yourself

Sitting in front of the keyboard once again, I was trying to make the difficult decision of what to provide the extremely loyal (if somewhat twisted) readership of "Just Blowing Smoke" in the way of a weekend effort.  Should it be some insightful bit of purposeful prose lamenting the current political state of the nation and how it can only be saved by conservative ideal; or perhaps instead a rather clever and amusing piece filled with wit, sarcasm, and irony (with a bit of poorly hidden polysyllabic intellectual snobbery thrown for no better reason than that it amuses me) whose value is not more than distraction and (if I'm lucky) a bit of entertainment? Fortunately for those of you reading this, such intellectual pursuits quickly sent me racing to the bathroom to revisit my most recently consumed meal.

After wiping my brow, brushing my teeth, and gargling, I was able to stumble back to my seat; much disappointed in my recent dietary choices, similarly humbled by the position of porcelain worship I had assumed, and emotionally staggered by the realization that led to this rather abrupt departure.  "Get over yourself," escaped all but unbidden from my lips.

You see, far too often I find myself (personally, as well as electronically) in the presence of my betters.  While I've learned to grudgingly accept and respect those with far greater knowledge and insight, more ability, and a far larger audience than myself; I can't help but occasionally find myself feeling rather smug about the exalted company that I'm keeping (whether I actually belong there or not).  In the end however, something usually brings me back to the brutal realization that even the best words of those I admire have little lasting effect on a society far more concerned with the cult of celebrity and the next 'squirrel moment' that comes along; a cognizance which make my own wretched efforts insignificant. 

This could be an insight that many of those who aspire to public office might seek to learn as well.  The job is important but quite frankly, you aren't; neither before or after obtaining it (nor even in the ineffective, if noble effort of failing to do so).  While there's a nobility of purpose in a goal of public service and a value in doing it well, both are entirely lost when the person involved becomes focused instead on a sense of real or imagined entitlement coming along with such a position. 

In the end, working in the national legislature is no more noble a calling than picking up the trash, and could in many cases be considered less necessary.  Being the Mayor of a city makes the decisions one makes sometimes more significant because of the numbers they may effect, but deciding makes one no better or more important than an insurance agent or used car salesman (and often far more annoying).  Voting on City Council may have greater long-term impact on ones fellow citizens, but makes that person themselves no more special than anyone who votes on "American Idol".

Win, lose, or draw, those of you running for office should seriously try to recognize that you will be no more and no less necessary whether you win or lose.  Yes, this is a glorified beauty contest and you might well find yourself wearing the tiara soon, but it's the responsibility of the crown that's important, not the potentially swelled head wearing it.  You may represent us, but you don't rule us.  You do not become the office you might win, just the latest person responsible for filling it.

So before this humble scribbler gets far too carried away with self-important sentiment where this all-too-forgettable effort is concerned, let me finish it with these two thoughts before election day:

1. To those of you capable of voting in the coming elections ... do so.  The responsibility of such a task is one not only to yourself, but to your fellow citizens.  The failure to do so is not only a breach of public trust, but a tacit submission to so many of the things that are wrong with society in general and government in particular.

2. To those of you running for office ... Thank you.  Though many of us pick on you endlessly for choosing this path (well, I do anyway); you deserve some credit for willingly subjecting yourself to the public humiliation involved with a life of public service.  Even as you are chided, it's recognized that you possess a special courage and a strength that perhaps the rest of us do not.  On the other hand; far too many of you doing so possess an ego that wouldn't fit on Mt. Rushmore; so get over yourself.  

Halloween Costumes - 2013

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

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

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

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

No We Can't Talk About Race

Update:

A modified version of this post (edited for length) has been picked up and reprinted in the August 1st edition of the:

It used to be that there were only two subjects that you were told you shouldn't discuss in public, politics and religion.  And while these two may yet remain on the forbidden list in polite society, we can certainly add a third ... race.   Today it seems, some aren't allowed to talk about race anywhere, while others can talk about nothing else. It has probably always been so, but it seems that while over the years the situation between races improves, the potential to hold a rational conversation on the subject gets no closer than it has on the other two banned subjects.  As someone fascinated with words however, it's interesting to note how much these three in particular have in common:

• Such 'discussions' these days are not so much about achieving consensus (or even hoping to) as much as they are contentious debates in which competing sides attempt to win debating points.
• Those who speak the loudest or interrupt the most are often held to be the most persuasive in such discussions, regardless of the truthfulness or effectiveness of their arguments.
• There are 'trigger words' that dare not be spoken in all three, lest any rational discussion break down (far earlier than would otherwise happen).  
• There are a far too people who appear to make their living off of one subject or the other (and in some cases, more than one).
• Facts and statistics are not as important as feelings and emotions in such discussions; and as such, the former are often subject to multiple interpretation through the window of the latter.

Politicians can't talk about race, but that's because they can't seem to talk about anything these days.  There's something about turning a camera or a microphone on in front of a politician today that creates an electronically generated field that disrupts rationality and enhances party politics instead.  Race, as a consequence, becomes little more than another partisan issue in which the other party's policies (past or present) become not only the issue, but the overriding cause.  And since today's politicians are always fundraising and running for office, any subject worthy of a recorded sound-bite must be one met with carefully prepared rhetoric designed to enhance the officeholder and his or her party, denigrate opponents, and encourage contributions regardless of its relevance.  (In other words, it has to be full of double-speak and bullshit.)

The Media can't talk about race because it's not a subject that lends itself to the six or twenty minute segment (six on TV, twenty on radio).  The current mainstream media is after all a business enterprise built around the interruptions of its commercials.  Any subject being covered by the media must therefore be capable of being diced up into convenient segments in order to accommodate this monetary necessity.  While this might work for a birth in the British Royal Family, the opening of the State Fair, or the latest Lindsay Lohan arrest, it's not a format that lends itself to anything resembling weighty discussion on so serious a subject.  Besides, most of what passes for punditry in the mainstream media has already divided itself into ideological or political camps that must be zealously promoted and defended in order to serve the true purpose of the medium ... ratings.

Churches can't talk about race because they have their own axes to grind.  Religion has enough a problem getting past the normal dichotomy between enforcing top-down 'Official Religious Doctrine' and the dealing with the local policy interpretations of its various ministries on a multi-national basis.  Throw in the flaws of human nature and personal idiosyncrasies of those standing behind what passes for a pulpit and you end up with a confusing inconsistency that most true believers find easier to ignore.  Besides, Churches survive through the willing contributions of their congregations.  Even with the ability to offer veiled threats of eternal damnation, they must at least to some extent follow the same rules used by politicians and the media, lest they risk the anger of their audience / contributors. 

The general public can't talk about race because they're scared to death of it.  In today's Twitter connected, Facebook addicted, politically correct society, an incorrect public pronouncement on such a subject could well make one an unemployable social pariah, soon abandoned by even friends and family electronically and otherwise.  (Who knows, writing this may have cooked my own goose.)  Life moves damned fast these days and there's little time (and often less interest) in doing proper research on anything that doesn't help you pay the bills every month.  Accepting this as the world we live in, grown lazy from a lack of exercise in free will, and unable to easily discover source material not already tainted with the prejudices of politics, media, and organized religion; far too many happily accept the instant gratification of the pre-packaged answers supplied without question.  

Besides, discussions of race are generational; and such conversations, like the species, continue to evolve (well, in most cases anyway).  Those old enough to remember real historic discrimination are fewer every day.  For the rest of us, the differences which one generation cannot get beyond are far less apparent to their offspring, and all but invisible (if not inconsequential) to succeeding ones.  Any multi-generational discussion therefore becomes difficult (if not impossible), since there is no singular frame of reference for them to use.

Oh I know that we would like to talk about race, that we should talk about it, and that somehow we have to keep on trying to do so; but it's unlikely today that any conversation that we begin will end up the one that we started with, the one that we want, or the one we should have.

TFP Column: Conservative Christmas List

I had been absent from sending appropriate efforts to Editor-in-Chief Michael Miller of the Toledo Free Press for no good reason.  Quite frankly, with the election over and the season of holidays upon us, politics was probably not as much on my mind as it should have been.  The fact that no original ideas were rattling around in the empty head of mine (much as they failed to make their presence known in Washington DC's recent discussions) might also have had a bit to do with my absence.

I sent an apology to Michael for my shortcomings and lack of worthwhile ideas, he replied with a suggestion in keeping with the Christmas spirit which should now be upon all of us.  This spark of creativity on his part in turn led not only to this week's late breaking effort:  "Conservative Christmas List"; but to a further effort that I am working on for next week (and maybe even more).

Fortunately, Michael need not count on my productivity in order to produce a newspaper that keeps the Glass City not only informed, but entertained.  So if you're looking to be either as you work your way through the holiday shopping season, you could not do better than to pick up this week's edition (or spend some time on the website of) Toledo's largest circulation Sunday, and Ohio's best weekly newspaper (yet again); the Toledo Free Press.

 

Dance of the Dead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Wonderful Time of Year

People always tell me how much they like this time of year ... with pictures of fall leaves to share to prove it.  There are a number of them who go on to regale me with stories of how cute cats are, and especially kittens are.  (Hell, there's an A and E show about puppies and kittens for Cripes sake.) Real life however, seldom if ever meets expectations of any of those cute little pictures.

Now for those of us residing in the Mission, Ks area, fall can be said to have been somewhat of a disappointment.  Annual rainfall this year is down about 14", and even the scattered showers of the last few weeks hasn't been enough to turn most of the mud flats back into lakes, let alone bring out the best in the trees.  As a consequence, Fall lasted from exactly 10:32 AM to 10:44AM on October 22nd this year.  I tried to get some really great pictures of it to share (so I wouldn't have to use this one), but the batteries in my camera were dead and by the time I found new ones and got them changed, it was over.  

As for cats, kittens, or any other form of domestic feline; pictures of them is as close as you will ever see get to them.  I am violently allergic to these pesky little critters in a way that the least amount of exposure brings on something quite akin to anaphylactic shock.  Call them cute if you dare; but as for me, these tiny predators have more than once sent me to a hospital, and have come far too close to ending my life by the simple act of rubbing up against me.

Fall is a grand season however, and one of my favorites.  We discovered it in this part of the world during a 30 degree temperature swing, so I had to seek alternative reasons for such pleasure.  Of course as a news junkie, a political blogger, and a columnist, this is the best part of the pre-election season. one that gives me opportunity to feed most of my addictions.  Who couldn't help but love the final weeks leading up to voting, where campaign travel and stress turn all but the hardiest candidates into gaffe machines, intent on ruining their political careers into the dumper during the very process of promoting themselves.  My current favorite is the Obama campaign's message given by HBO's Lena Dunham that 'Virgins' (first time voters), should be careful picking their 'first' (candidate for president to vote for).  The wealth of material in this as a Democratic subliminal message is incredible whether one looks back at the sexual antics of Bill Clinton or simply points out that most if not all incumbent Presidents have been screwing the whole country for almost four years; an indication that you might want your first to be a little less promiscuous (or at least wear the protection handed out at school).

Such bounty is not without peril however, as these politicians attempt to bury us under their last minute political commercials.  Oh, it's not as bad here in the wilds of Kansas (a state where even Democrats say they're conservative); but I pity my poor friends in Ohio or any other battleground state for that matter.  My advice to you is to make sure that you have fresh batteries in you TV remotes, and use DVR's whenever possible.

Of course, this is also the time of year when Halloween occurs; a time in which everyday people get to dress up, put on masks, and beg.  (Come to think of it, it really is a lot like political campaign season.)  Having been born and raised in the Chicago area under the first Mayor Daley, I'm one who's long accustomed to the dead rising from the grave at this time of year, walking the streets attempting to find brains, begging for a bit of candy, and finally casting their ballot before being able to 'Rest In Peace' once more (at least until the next election).  

But while some things have remained the same, a lot has changed since those prehistoric days of my youth.  No longer are neighborhood rampages committed by barely pubescent youth; with homeowners trying to remove toilet paper hanging from the trees and scrub the eggs from their windshields, and put out the fires of lighted bags of crap on their front porches.  Groceries are too expensive to be treated as ammunition these days, TP is too expensive even if you buy it in the Mega-rolls, and if you've got something that you can burn that will provide heat, you better save it to cut down on you heating bills. Besides, what kid (or group of them) can afford the gas required to ride around the block, let along the neighborhood.  Even when not planning on wearing a costume, one cannot help but see Halloween as a time of year when an overweight, middle-aged man (I know I'm giving myself a break here) can go to a store and buy four bags of 'Snickers' or 'Kit Kats' without receiving too many sidelong looks at the register.  One can perform this action of gross caloric neglect, muttering some nonsense about 'Beggars Night', secure in the knowledge that the checkout clerks are unaware that the apartment complex does not allow 'trick or treating'.  (As for myself, I merely say that I am stocking up on non-perishable food items that may even become a form or currency after Taxameggedon or the Zombie Apocalypse while I'm taking full advantage of the stockpiling opportunity.)

It also used to be a great time of year to sit down and watch scary movies, but that's become a rather mixed bag these days.  In spite of the fact that there are ten or twenty channels bragging about showing them, most of the Horror movies on them seem to consist of about 5 percent classic horror pictures and 92 percent semi-cheesy zombie flicks.  In the latter, it's hard to tell one from the other, as the zombie makeup all begins to look the same, and the plot consists of a group of people (normally consisting of at least one hot girl, an equally hot guy, a knowledgeable nerd, and a couple of senior citizens or kids) running from the zombies and losing parts of the group as they go along.  Of the classic horror movies, most suffer now by comparison with their Computer Graphic filled descendants.  'Frankenstein' and the Bela Lugosi's 'Dracula' do well enough, but 'The Wolfman' does little but prove that Lon Chaney Jr was not as good an actor as his dad, and the whole 'bats on strings thing' make the rest trying to capitalize on the title look tragically comic rather than frightening at times.

For those of you who didn't take your math classes at public school, you'll notice that the numbers don't add up.  That of course is because they don't ... unless you include the current crop of Vampire Love stories.  Of course Bram Stoker's version of the blood sucker was a bit racy for the time, but Anne Rice's 'Interview With a Vampire' gets credit for the now-popular trend.  Most of today's vampires are seen as tragic characters with pale skin and good hair, doomed to live forever looking like a male model, while being forced to turn down every hot chick that sets eyes upon them. (Can you say Twilight?)  Perhaps rewriting 'Romeo and Juliet' with some fangs thrown in sounded like good to entertainment executives who still think that Will Ferrell's and Adam Sandler's best work is still before them; but I think the difference between today's lovers (living vs undead) might be a bit more complicated than that between the Shakespeare's Montagues and the Capulets.  (And as for the idea of kissing a corpse, no matter attractive a corpse it might be ... Ewwwwwwwwww.)

I can't help but love the season however.  Living in an apartment means that I have no responsibility for the leaves that fell off of the trees faster than anything in a Charlie Brown cartoon.  Anyone brave enough to bring a cat into my presence (jumping through those leaves or otherwise) only does it to see me turn it into 'Wor Su Meow' and served with fried rice.  As for the rest, my intention is to bring the month to a close and open the next one watching as much football as I'm allowed (which is quite a lot actually since being unmarried, I actually do set the TV rules in my home), with some election coverage thrown in during the commercials and at halftime to see who has done something really stupid lately. (Today I found out that the candidates are adjusting their schedules to avoid an incoming storm.  Who knew that they had the sense to come in out of the rain?) When it's too early or late for that, I'm sure that cable TV can be counted on for a few non-zombie / non-vampire love flicks to capture my attention without eating my own brains (that I leave to those in battleground states caught listening to political commercials that escape their remotes).  Oh sure, it may sound a bit boring, but I can always inoculate myself against the pain and suffering by dipping into my Snickers stash.  I wish you equal enjoyment in this wonderful time of year.

   

     

That's Debatable

In the spirit of full disclosure, I should mention that at least part of this post was written before the second Presidential Debate had actually taken place.  I added to it after tonight's debate was complete, but only to keep my score up-to-date.  I will not attempt to critique the Townhall debate format or the performances given by the two candidates for reasons that I hope will become apparent by the end of this effort.

For those keeping score, I think that the existing debates stand at 1-1-1.  Nobody doubts that Mitt Romney won the first debate, since his competitor (the President) seemed either uninterested or just didn't show up (perhaps Eastwood's empty chair at the Republican Convention was prescient).  The Biden / Ryan debate has enough people still willing to argue over who won to call it a draw.  I'm giving this last one, though it was awfully close, to the President; not so much for what he said or did (though he did much better than his first effort), but for the glaring opportunities that Romney failed to take advantage of (and which he may come to regret before the election's over).  

I should also note that this may be another case of winning the battle and losing the war, as Romney's performance (mediocre as I thought it was) is likely to do him far more good than the President's will do him.

Last night's Townhall-style debate has little to do with classic debate and less to do with a Townhall.  The only truly amazing part of this may be the continuing ability of organizers to find an audience that's so disconnected from a campaign that's been going on for at least two decades (only years, really?), and so oblivious about how politics and government works that they remain undecided less than three weeks before an election.  All of that being said, the problem that I'm faced with is that win, lose, or draw, whether I should care or not.    

Winning a political debate these days is as much a contest of memory as it is of the positions that the candidate holds.  Days of 'debate prep' (better known as cramming in my school days) has long since turned these events into a contest over who will be able to remember their zingers under the hot lights and pressure of a nationally televised stage.  It's a example of a classic educational process that produces more functionally illiterate high school graduates every year ... memorize and regurgitate upon command.

The candidates are judged (fairly or unfairly) on their ability to memorize their talking points, along with some cherry-picked statistics, and regurgitate them when and if the opportunity presents itself. The live audience and media, like the mindlessly hungry little baby birds they are, gratefully receive these spewed talking points as if they were actual nourishment instead of mostly substance-less filler.  He who manages to upchuck the most in this battle of the political hurlers is at the end declared the winner.

The problem with all of this is one pesky little question:

What does any of that have to do with the qualities of leadership required to become President?

I mean its not like you are going to be daily challenged in front of an audience to retain esoteric data, that's what you have a cabinet fully of Secretaries and Undersecretaries (and recently, Czars) for.  It's not like the ability to fire back zingers when on a phone call in the Oval Office is going to help you get the job done right.  It's certainly not that repeating the same talking points over and over until we tune you out will move the country forward.  Debates are ultimately about winning an argument (often by fair means or foul) and little or nothing about facts or reason; and we've had too damn much of that going on in recent years.

Leading this nation is far from being the nation's 'Debater In Chief".  It's not about beating the other team, despite what we've seen lately; and in spite of the common myth, leadership is not about reaching compromise.  Oh sure, there will be debate, especially in the legislature, but the Chief Executive's job is to initiate that debate to a common purpose and moderate it to see whether what can be achieved is a goal worth reaching. Leadership is also about finding common ground upon which to build consensus of opinion; and to use that consensus to move a nation forward. 


As for what can only laughingly be called debates these days:
None of the talents of true leadership is either called upon or demonstrated in this year's multimedia circuses.  Points in the real world of governing are not achieved by encroaching on someone's personal space, and success is not achieved by mildly insulting insinuation.    

Since they are no longer the sweeping give and take on actual issues, they're not really educational.  Since they are supposedly designed around undecided voters who seem almost annoyingly unable to come to a decision between candidates, they are far too simplistic.  Since they are continuing to occur after early voting in many states has already begun, they are to some extent irrelevant.  

In fact the only really good part about looking forward is that we have only one more of these made for TV by political operative monstrosities left before election day.

Of course even that's debatable.....

October Terror Alert: DEBATE

October has begun, and while some look forward to putting on decorative costumes and begging for treats at the end of the month, others (far more insidious) are already attempting to disguise themselves as best they can in more traditional attire, while begging instead for votes.  With the big game in the election cycle but a month away and playoff contests long since begun, it's of little surprise that the Department of Just Blowing Security has slid another of their Cheetos-stained notifications from under the door of the DJBSS Command Center.  (They of course must deliver their communiques in such a fashion since we keep the door to this attic room locked at all times ... for their protection as well as ours.)

It's in fact about the potential damage of these purported playoff contests that the DJBSS is attempting to warn us about.  They are talking about of course, about the bombastic battles of political doublespeak known in common parlance these days as a DEBATE.  These current contests of cognitive thought however, should not be confused with historical bouts of magniloquent grandeur like those of the Lincoln / Douglas debates of the late 1850's where issues of sweeping import were contended by articulate statesmen and triumph was achieved by making successful argument based on fact and reasoned opinion; but far more like the Kennedy / Nixon debate of 1960, where manipulation of the thermostat, good lighting, and bad makeup carried far greater impact in the election that followed than the arguments being made by the two candidates that night.

The very term itself seems to carry a far different meaning these days than that of the classical form, standing now for Dialectic Exercise Blocking Any Thought or Elucidation of issues.  This process, once designed for reasoned discussion, clarification of political issues, and divining a candidate's beliefs and positions has instead become bastardized into one of carefully staged posturing and professionally written obfuscation. Where once the incontestability of the facts in an argument carried the day, such events are now instead a mainstream media event in which candidate arguments are limited to less time than that required for the average bowel movement, and where the only winners are the media themselves.  Where once winners and losers were decided by the logic of their assertions, reasoned argument, and facts used in support of them, we are presented instead with degraded attempts at a series of 'zingers' and 'clever sound bites' that will be endlessly repeated in paid candidate commercials ... not because of their truth, but because 'they're catchy and are easy to remember'.

Limited attendance at such events will probably not have a adverse impact on a person's ability to reason out future decisions logically, but prolonged exposure to these displays of bad manners and even worse behavior can have deleterious effects on the minds of those who expect to exercise their electoral rights and responsibilities.  Attempts to make voting decisions on candidates or issues based on what has become little more than the indecent exposure of public natural fertilizer production can in fact cause .... well, the kind of government that we live with far too often today.

If for some reason, you begin to suffer from depression incurred by attending such toxic events, or feel an indecisiveness that makes you believe that you may have already been over-exposed to this year's political DEBATE process, feel free to contact the DJBSS at 1-800-RAT-BUTT.  While personal ignorance of the dangers is no excuse and will engender little sympathy in those on the phone banks (meaning that they probably won't give a rat's ass about your particular exhibition of poor judgment).  If however, you can catch these normally cranky bastards in a good mood, they might at least recommend a number of products of the brewer's, winemaker's, or distiller's art that have in fact served as a prophylactic measure prior to such exposure, and as a medicinal treatment to minimize the most painful symptoms if taken during or after such encounters. 

They might also let you know that if for some reason the intake of these organic compounds fails to immediately minimize outward manifestations of intellectual infection, continued treatment using various forms of these chemical hydroxyls should be continued until either the evidence of your symptoms begin to dissipate or you realize that you no longer care that you have them.  Successful treatment can normally be recognized when the pronouncements of those participating in such vocal violations of decency are no longer considered inspiring or offensive, but instead only tedious and mildly amusing.

Since this is a Presidential election year, it's expected that such deplorable and disgusting behavior will be going on at the local, state, and national level on a rather grand scale and for most of the month.  The terror threat for October has therefore been raised to brown; the color of the massive quantities of bullshit that will no doubt be produced as part of their efforts.


      

The "Stuck on Stupid" Dictionary #37

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

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

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

Substantially Compliant:

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

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

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

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

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

 

Quantity Isn't Quality

One of the joys (sarcastically speaking, of course) of writing about politics is the necessity of listening to the speeches of their national conventions. These carefully crafted efforts have often become the launching pads for future political careers, as well as defining moments in elections, and as such these opportunities are carefully awarded.

Don't worry, I'll spare you any careful analysis of the shaded truth, jingoistic wisdom, and outright lies that we were subjected to in back-to-back conventions to talk instead about the sheer abundance of rhetoric that voters were subjected to by echelons of representatives. There was plenty of analysis during the conventions after all, and thank goodness they're finally over.  As we examine the sheer volume of bloviating however let's at least not that there was indeed a hierarchy to the performers and to the time allotted to deliver 'a few well-chosen words'.

Tier 3

These are the cheerleaders encouraged to whip the crowd into a frenzy with their inspirational orations before the main act, and their time is limited. Former White House Chief of Staff and now Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emmanuel for example, delivered a speech of some 1257 well chosen words; in a modest bit of bombast; and Democratic Keynote speaker San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro delivered an effort of just less than 2100 words at the pinnacle of his convention's Tier 3 efforts.

By comparison, Republicans trotted out up-and-comer Florida Senator Marc Rubio, who graced us with 1735 words. Surprisingly (and perhaps even suspiciously), New Jersey Governor Chris Christie delivered an effort of identical length; apparently not realizing that as Keynote Speaker, he had been awarded a larger allotment. 

Speaking of suspicious, I couldn't help by notice that former Governor of Arkansas and now Fox News personality Mike Huckabee delivered a speech of exactly 1776 words (something which I'm sure should be considered simply a patriotic coincidence for those without tin-foil chapeaus).

Tier 2

These higher ranking spokespeople are normally the spouses of the candidates which are used by them to explain their significant others; and this year both delivered reasonable efforts of greater lengths. Mitt Romney's wife Ann, evidently well-versed in rhetoric and numeric protocol, delivered a pronouncement of some 2331 words. It was greater than her Tier 3 predecessors, while allowing room to grow for those to come after. 

First Lady Michelle Obama, understanding that being is more than seeking, used her slightly greater status to give us about 3034 well-chosen words on her and her husband's behalf.   (Though perhaps such length had to do with the fact that even after 3-1/2 years in office, we know less about her husband than about any other person on the planet.)

Much like the GOP in Tier 3, Democrats had a celebrity Tier 2 speaker this year in the form of former President Clinton; whose status as a former Tier 1 put him greater in this Tier 2 arena (as did his performance). Being a savvy campaigner who apparently missed the big stage, President Clinton held onto the spotlight long enough to deliver 3190 words to insure everyone understood his abilities and his stature (current and former).

Tier 1

Tier 1 is reserved for the candidates and running mates, and they were well aware of it. Mitt Romney's selection, Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan came through with an effort of some 3229 words (slightly more than Clinton even without knowing). Our current VP Joe Biden came in only slight less with 3063 words.  In spite of extensive research, I was unable to discover if this lesser number had to do with feelings of inadequacy where Ryan and Clinton were concerned, or simply the Democratic party's heroic attempt to provide Biden less opportunity to produce a gaffe that even MSNBC couldn't spin.

When the candidates at the top of the pyramid took center stage, they too seemed naturally or artificially constrained to adhere to this unwritten etiquette.  Republican Mitt Romney managed to accept his party's nomination in approximately 4108 words. President Barack Obama took center stage as an incumbent President at his party's convention to accept an uncontested nomination in slightly greater effort of 4371 words.

By now you're probably pondering this statistical barrage, perhaps mildly curious about this even being noticed, and wondering what possible meaning it could have.  Since few of these speeches from either convention were soaring rhetoric and none produced ground breaking new policy, why so much concern over their length. It's the fact that so little was spoke about however, that's the point. Being subjected to hours of null value pontification aroused my curiosity as to how it might compare with other more eloquent and historically significant bits of rhetoric or composition. Here's the short list (literally) that came from the research that I did on the subject:  

• Ronald Reagan's 1987 “Tear Down This Wall” speech … 2672 words.
• The Declaration of Independence … 1458 words.
• John F Kennedy's 1960 “Ask not ...” Inaugural Address … 1364 words.
• George Washington's first Inaugural Address … 463 words.
• And what is often conceded as the finest piece of Presidential rhetoric ever publicly delivered, Abraham Lincoln's “Gettysburg Address” … 246 words.

It seems apparent that with the passage of time and in spite of the advantages of our candidates being more well-educated professional politicians, the assistance of media savvy speech writers to help insure a well written script, and computer aided teleprompters to aid in the actual performance; our politicians seem unable to qualitatively deliver the message regardless of the quantity of their rhetoric.

Perhaps in fact, these technological advances have become a crutch rather than an aid to their efforts.  Speaking only for myself after listening to all of it, I am at pains to point out that it's not the quantity of your rhetoric that moves us, but its quality.  If you truly do understand the problems facing this nation as you would like us to believe, it shouldn't take long-winded grandiloquence to inspire us, but instead grand ideas, simply expressed and easily carried out.  So if we seemed a bit inattentive at the conventions or bored at the campaign stops, by all means do take it to heart.  It isn't quantity we ask of you after all, but quality. 

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!