Partisan

As I watch the final negotiations going on about turning the "Bush Tax Cuts" into the "Obama Tax Rates", I cannot help but be amused at the maundering of many of the political pundits going on out there. While recognizing many of them as probably better educated and certainly better connected than I am, I find that they appear to be suffering from compromised thinking ... about compromise. As we once again are regaled with the very public 'sausage making' of the legislation under negotiation, like many I find myself more than a little disgusted with what these media pundits find laudable in the process. 


We are told that President Obama has somehow given in without a fight to the right (though not without calling opponents some names) by granting tax breaks to the rich, to the detriment of his left-wing base and his potential re-election in two years. We are likewise told that the Republicans in both Houses of Congress have sold out their fiscally conservative principles in the name of no longer being seen as the party of no. 


On top of the unemployment insurance that was always part of the deal (and which admittedly both sides wanted anyway), they have allowed the left to add extraneous nonsense to enter the negotiations on legislation for such things alternative energy and ethanol subsidies; seriously jeopardizing voter support they received in the recent election. Mostly what we are told however, is that both sides are showing a return to a bi-partisan spirit in crafting this legislation, and that this is indeed a beautiful thing.

But what is the value of such compromise? Are elected representatives to be applauded for giving up on what they told us were fervently held beliefs in the name of compromise? Did we elect them to abandon what they told us were core values, or were they sent to Washington to represent those beliefs for us? How are we to trust them in the future, or the very concept of our representative republic itself, if so many are willing to compromise in such a way? What is wrong after all with a little partisanship. 


In spite of what we have been told recently, partisanship is a part of this country's history. Since the Revolution, this country has reveled and suffered through partisan debate. Many did not want to make the break with Britain in the first place, even as battles were being fought. After winning our freedom, many did not want to replace the originally passed Articles of Confederation with the stronger federal government of The Constitution. 


That founding document in turn could not be officially ratified by the States without a serious partisan debate over the addition of the Bill of Rights. And after all the dust had cleared, the Hamiltonians (followers of Alexander Hamilton) and the Jeffersonians (followers of Thomas Jefferson) bitterly debated what they considered at the time to be the encroachment of the federal government into areas that it had no business for decades afterward. Why then should we be surprised that Federalists and Statists continue to debate such issues in this country to this very day? 


This is not to say that one philosophy or the other should rule the day (much as I would sometimes wish it), nor is this an endorsement of a particular political party. It is however to say that bi-partisanship is not a good of itself, nor should it mean that each side can have something bad for the country if the other can have one in turn; a practice which sounds more like adding insult to injury than it does like meeting in the middle. As far as the general lack of bi-partisan thinking and compromise slowing the wheels of government down, my question would be: "What's wrong with that?" 


In spite of what they would like us to believe, the two major parties have proved themselves equally unable to govern and not so far apart in the direction they would like to steer the country. The argument now more often appears to be about the speed we are driving on an unsafe road rather than the direction we are going. 


The out-of-control ride is becoming increasingly more difficult to watch from the back seat. If such partisan wrangling slows the pace of government attempts at encroachment of personal freedom in some way, then I'm all for it. If standing by principles should in some way slow the runaway train that government has become in any way, it has my full support. 


Compromise is defined in Dictionary.com as "a settlement of differences by mutual concession". It is also defined as "an endangering, especially of reputation". While I might be in favor of some of the former when required, I find that I am increasingly disgusted to discover far too much of the latter going on these days. Far from applauding such bi-partisan back slapping however, I would prefer a little partisan backbone in my elected officials.

The Price of Peace

As the debate over tax rates continues in the House and Senate, one of the chief argument against extension of lower rates is over their cost to the federal government. It seems that their is a great deal of concern on the part of those desiring the end to those tax rates because an increase of the federal deficit will result. 


Chief among the concerns of these recent deficit hawks is that the country cannot afford a loss tax revenues at a time when this country is involved in two wars. I cannot help but reject this thinking. Since Congress has not passed a Declaration of War since December 7, 1941, the conflicts that we are currently engaged in cannot qualify as such. This does not speak to the necessity of these actions nor in any way lessen the sacrifices of brave men and women fighting on these fronts; but only speaks to the fact that words do have meanings and in this country war means something very specific. (Either that, or Congress and past Presidents have abused their legal authority under the Constitution.) 


Besides, the cost of these military engagements is far from the only investment that this country is making. Most estimates in fact, place all defense-related spending at between $1 and $1.5 trillion for fiscal 2010. Since the total 2010 budget is over $3.5 trillion, which would put total defense spending at less than half. Setting aside the rest of the money spent by Congress (admittedly, a pretty large set-aside, but one that many Representatives seem capable of doing), my curiosity turns not to what the price of these two combat zones costs, but what the cost of peace is to the US in the rest of the world. 


What does it cost this country for troops deployed in the Far East and NATO countries? What does it cost to maintain and replace equipment in far-flung bases around the world from Saudi Arabia to Guantanamo Bay? What level of treasure do we pay for troops and bases not actually engaged in open conflicts around the world? What's the cost to maintain bases of the various services in this country alone, where by law such troops cannot be deployed. While we are deploring the costs involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, does anyone ever bother to ask about the cost of troops in Japan and South Korea? How much do we spend to maintain armored divisions in NATO countries that have never fired a shot in anger? 


Moreover, what have we paid over the years to hire, transport, and provide logistical support special envoys sent into countries around the world attempting to maintain peace that often has nothing to do with this country? What have the costs been in attempts to resolve thousand year-old conflicts between with a never-ending stream of Cabinet Secretaries and special envoys seeking to create or maintain peace in Eastern Europe between various sectarian groups or the Middle East between Palestinians and the Israelis? 


What we do know, at least according to its "Budget In Brief", is that the Department of State operated on about $16.4 billion in appropriations last year; but these sums do not include Foreign Service Nationals or Border Security Programs. Also not included is the money called out in this document is that doled out as Foreign Aid either dropped into the cesspool more commonly known as the UN or used as little more than payoffs to governments and petty tyrants in nations around the world in a vague and failing effort to get them to remain our friends. 


What does it say about the quality (or value) of such friendships that they have to be bought and paid for? How long would we expect them to last if the money were withdrawn? I am not trying to justify the nation building that this country is attempting around the world, in fact far from it. Neither am I commenting on the too seldom heralded efforts of a military often placed in untenable positions by the very politicians who complain about their costs after deploying them in the first place. I am however showing my confusion and disgust at the ability of these self-same politicians to complain about the cost of fighting what they deem lengthy and perhaps unworthy battles around the world, without ever mentioning the price of maintaining the peace for far greater periods in far more places.

TFP Column: Pirates of the DC Wetlands

It certainly seems as though Disney's "Pirates of the Caribbean" trilogy has been on a lot lately. From the election through the holidays, it seems like they are being replayed almost every week. 


Now since I don't believe in coincidences, I decided to try and figure out if there was a meaning to be derived, however subliminally, from all of this screen time. As I listened to the ongoing negotiations for extension of the Bush Tax Rates and unemployment insurance benefits, it all began to come together for me. The result of that realization and the anger that I began to feel as a result of the conclusions that I drew became a piece entitled "Pirates of the DC Wetlands" in the online edition of the Toledo Free Press. 


As usual however, there is a lot more going on in the opinion pieces in the TFP, with many of the usual players speaking out on both recent events, as Publisher Tom Pounds and Lisa Renee Ward have done; and editor-in-chief Michael Miller's piece on the anniversary of John Lennon's providing more historic perspective. We could all use a little perspective as the days remain cold, the snow begins to fall (both in Toledo and Kansas City), and the frenetic pace of shopping increases in the days leading up to Christmas. 


I would suggest that spending a little time catching up with all that's going on in NW Ohio with the Toledo's largest Sunday circulation newspaper might just be the way to provide it.

The New Governent Cookie Monster

Update 12/13/10: 
This was signed into law by President Obama today saying, "Had I not been able to get this bill passed, I would be sleeping on the couch." The first lady, presumably the one who would have been assigning sleeping arrangements, applauded bi-partisan support for the bill which she said would insure that "no child should go to school hungry." I would add, "unless they want a cookie..." 


For those of you who believe your federal government has lost its focus on what's really important these days (or just its mind), the proof may just have finally presented itself. 


At a time when Congress cannot seem to agree on a budget months after the current fiscal year has begun, nor decided on what tax rate you are going to pay next year; they have found time to decide what home-made treats can be sold at school bake sales. No, I'm not kidding about this. Senate Bill S3307 (The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act) has cleared both Senate and House votes, and awaits only the president's signature to become the law of the land. Among other things, it will allow the Secretary of Agriculture and the USDA to limit the number of bake sales held at schools and the type of foods sold at those events. 


At a time of concern over the amount of money being spent by a government already drowning in debt, it will also provide an additional $4.5 billion in funding over the next ten years for free meal programs in and out of school, and nutritional education programs for food service providers at these institutions of learning. (I was tempted to say Government Indoctrination Centers, but my tin foil hat slipped off as I was typing and I managed to forebear.) 


Setting aside the contradictory evidence that the sale of sugary treats at school events is the root cause of childhood obesity in this country, one has to wonder why enlightened administrators and educators in this country are not the best judges of calorie and fund generating activities in their respective schools than a faceless federal bureaucrat who has probably never seen the place. 


It likewise seems curious that these college-educated instructors should not be able to agree that the issue is little more than a simple math problem to determine that the number of calories burned in activity subtracted from the number of calories ingested has more to do with producing the result shown on a bathroom scale than what's on the table at a bake sale. 


Can government be so fat-headed that they believe that yet another law or an additional program will somehow produce a different result in this equation? Can common sense where diet and exercise are concerned in fact be legislated? (Not that I'm looking to open that can of worms ...) And will such rigid control of bake sales actually produce the desired result? Can the cake or pie addict not self-medicate at the local grocery store or restaurant? Can the pizza junkie not only order his drug of choice by phone or online, but have it delivered? Can those suffering withdrawal symptoms from a serious doughnut or cookie habit not stop at the local Krispy Kreme or Duncan Donuts to still the tremors? 


Perhaps more importantly, doesn't the Secretary of Agriculture and USDA have better things to do than monitor fund raising events designed to replace money that government can no longer provide for school activities? Don't school administrators, already in short supply and buried under a mountain of government compliance paperwork, not have better things to do than fill out more of it? 


Doesn't Congress have more important subjects to concern itself with than stepping on the personal initiative (and self-esteem) of students attempting to show some school spirit andsupplement funding for a school band or football team? 


The whole thing would be laughable if it were not so tragic. Fat cat politicians who are normally more concerned with participating in pounding down heart stopping, calorie crushing lunches and rubber chicken fund raising dinners believe that they are the best judges of food intake in this country. Bureaucrats normally more focused with the expansion of their own bloated budgets than with tightening their belts are supposed to micro-manage the fund-raising and diet activities of students that are under their control eight hours a day, five days a week, nine months out of the year. 


I used to believe that 'The Cookie Monster' was an irreplaceable bright blue Muppet created by Jim Henson who first made his appearance in 1969. It now appears however that even this lovable "Sesame Street" fixture is capable of falling prey to the a government takeover. Do not expect Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack to be nearly as cute and cuddly, nor to be using the all too familiar line, "Me want cookie" however. It seems far more likely that his government imposed script will be adapted from that of the "Seinfeld" character the Soup Nazi, "No cookie for you".

Appeasement

On the day after we commemorated the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, I find myself looking at the times leading up to the US entry into WWII.  


This country and the world once again find themselves in troubled times and many of its leaders shake their heads in dismay at what currently masquerades as a foreign policy for the US. We treat our friends as strangers and our enemies as innocent bystanders. We pretend that evil does not exist in the world in spite of having our noses rubbed daily in illustrations of its presence. We refuse to confront or even acknowledge the danger inherent in those whose stated goal is our destruction in the name of political correctness. 


We act as host and chief financier of the United Nations so that every third world dictator and petty tyrant can take center stage to disparage and insult us in our own backyard. We create or prop up corrupt governments around the world to provide us protection from what we believe are other even more corrupt governments, only to often find ourselves having to deal with the tyrant that we supported when he finally gets out of control. We pretend that we can broker peace between cultures that have been fighting each other for thousands of years and act surprised when our efforts prove unsuccessful because one side or the other (or both) simply don't want peace. 


We watch as hundreds of people are killed along our southern border, and refuse aid to state governments begging for it that we would cheerfully extend to a foreign country to protect them from a similar invading criminal element. We bow our heads as Mexico rebukes us on how we treat immigration law violators in this country, when its own authorities are shown to be guilty of robbing, raping, and murdering those in similar circumstances in their own. We accept such criticism without complaint and without pointing out such obvious incongruities. 


We accept criticism from Iran and China on human rights violations while watching them murdering their own citizens year after year. We reach out a hand in friendship to those proven to be our enemies in the Muslim world (only to have it spat upon) while simultaneously reaching out a hand to pat down innocent citizens in our own country to protect us from their most radical elements. 


We hand billions of dollars over to countries like Egypt that corrupt the electoral process through violent suppression of opposing points of view; and stand silently while they accept our money, but refuse observers of their flawed process that they deem as interfering. We support equally corrupt governments in Pakistan and Afghanistan, again with billions in US funds, ignoring their aid to this country's enemies and the murder of US troops by their security forces. We in fact seem to hand bags of money to every petty despot in the third world, only to see them share this wealth with other local tyrants who make no bones about being our sworn enemies. 


This does not dissuade us from sending more money however, filled as we are with the childish hope that somehow these misguided misanthropes will eventually change their minds. Disaster relief money that we send to areas around the world more often than not ends up in the hands of corrupt politicians and bureaucrats in even more corrupt governments, but our response is to send more in the misguided hope that some of it might actually be used for the intended goal.

--------------------------------

No matter how much we badly we desire it, the world does not change to suit our altruistic picture of it. Perhaps it's time that we began to recognize that much of the world does not share a common philosophy with us and stopped trying to remake that world in our own image. 


Perhaps it's time that we stopped looking at the world through rose colored glasses and stopped believing that by our example and our treasure, we can influence other nations to follow our path to freedom. We would do well in fact to remember our 20th Century history. 


Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain of Great Britain in the 1930's certainly showed us what we can expect to reap when we sow a lack of recognition of the real evil that does exist in the world. His treatment of Adolf Hitler lingers on some seventy-five years later as an shining example of ignorance and futility. Governments who reject freedom, liberty, and the "pursuit of happiness" of their citizens have not fundamentally changed in the intervening years. 


Unless we begin to once more stand on the founding principles of this country; like the misguided Chamberlain, we risk being remembered by history for little other than appeasement.

Christmas 2010

While looking for something else, I came across a posting that I did about Christmas three years ago. I was so taken by the apparent timelessness of the sentiment of this piece that I decided that it might be worth dragging it out into the open again and revisiting. (The fact that it allowed me to post to this site with little or no original work had nothing to do with the decision, I assure you.) 


While the piece has been edited slightly due to the timing of its appearance and the changes of the last three years, I believe that it remains true to the insight of the original. 


The Christmas season is once again upon us ... and with a vengeance. Retail outlets have shoved aside the last lingering Halloween or Thanksgiving displays in a full-throated effort to separate us from us much of the money that we really don't possess as they possibly can. Many are now hunkered down and beginning to look forward to the arrival of that white-haired fat guy with a beard (but enough about me). 


This is a time when families gather together, trees are decorated, and aggressive shopping behavior becomes a truly Olympic sport. It's also the time when I most question the manners and intelligence of my fellow man. 


Think I'm kidding, then answer these questions for me: When did people start waiting in line all night in front of a store like it was a "Harry Potter" movie premier? Do we really need to begin shopping at 3 AM in order to save a couple of bucks and buck up the sales of what is still a bloated retail marketplace, or would it make more sense to at least wait until the sun comes up before attempting to do our small parts in the massive consumerism more commonly known as the US economy? 


Has anyone bothered to think of the poor schmuck store employees who have to worry about you freezing to death on their sidewalk while waiting, only to break their sleep rhythm to come in long before the crack of dawn and face the thundering herd waiting on their doorstep? What part of the Christmas spirit is it to fight with your fellow man over the latest over-hyped gift that your kid or spouse simply can't live without? Is this year's game system or $200 laptop any better than last years, or has it simply fallen prey to the obsolescence that was designed into it in the first place. Forget the religious implications of such behavior here folks, if Santa sees this going on, you're definitely getting put on the 'naughty' list and getting a rock in your stocking. 


When did we become so stupid (or the assumption of such ignorance on the part of advertising agencies and retailers become so pervasive) that diamonds, big screen TV's, and expensive cars are the only presents believed to make us happy? I've watched "Charlie Brown Christmas" for years, and I get that Christmas has gone commercial. I missed part however, where the whole thing turned into 'Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous". 


What part of the Christmas spirit is it to run up all of your charge cards buying expensive and over-hyped presents for the family in order to assuage your guilt for always being at work; only to realize that you will now have to continue to spend all of you time away from them in order to pay for the purchases you just made to make it up to them? What happened to the toy commercials (or have I just been watching the wrong channels)? The Christmas hype always used to be about kids, now it's about adult toys. Is this about the spirit of giving or just a contest to see who has the most disposable income? (We know the answer of course, but I had to ask the question.) 


Will they be playing all the versions of "Miracle on 34th Street" over and over again this year, with the colorized version following the black and white and the color one following it? Is this instead some new and diabolic plot by some evil corporation to replace "A Christmas Story" as our favorite Christmas movie, since they've worn out the copy they are showing anyway? (Or could it instead be a plot to follow Miracle on 34th with Christmas Story with repeated showings allowing them to short-staff the studios and turn our brains into Christmas tapioca?) 


Why do we feel the need to overindulge at Christmas parties, as if we had taken a vow of abstinence on the 4th of July that we feel can finally be broken? Is the likely chance of a DUI and spending some time in jail or the commission of some personal or professional faux pas at one of these social gatherings worth the long term repercussions of breaking the pledge? Are the nauseating feelings of guilt and retribution (and hangover) worth a few hours of alcoholic indulgence in public? Take my advice ... If you really feel the need to be over-served, do it to yourself, at home, while watching "Miracle on 34th Street". Don't worry if you happen to nod off from time to time from the effects, you can fill in the blanks during the subsequent replays. 


Listen folks, I may not be the Spirit of Christmas present (though I admit to bearing a remarkable resemblance to someone hanging out in neighborhood shopping malls); but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that somehow we've missed a turn that was indicated on the societal GPS. I know that December 25th has now been recognized by the Catholic church as not being the day on which Jesus Christ was born. In spite of being a date co-opted from a pagan mid-winter festival (Mithras) however, the day does still has serious spiritual traditions and implications. In both the pagan and Christian teachings, this holiday was supposed to be about fellowship and good cheer. 


Let's try not to lose sight of that as we gather to celebrate this special time of year. So lighten up everyone; and in the words of Tiny Tim (no relation),

"God bless us, every one".

TFP Column: An Unlikely Winter Freeze

The weather outside has indeed become colder and the first day of winter is less than three weeks away, but this week's effort for the Toledo Free Press has nothing to do with falling temperatures, but rising rhetoric. 


In "An Unlikely Winter Freeze", I take the recent announcement by President Obama of a federal employee pay freeze and pose a few questions. Like so many other things that a politician says, it appears to make some sense on first hearing it than it does if you actually attempt to make it happen. 


But I'm not the only one looking at the numbers in this week's TFP. Kristen Rapin-Criswell has put together some interesting information on the proposed increases in Toledo's proposed water and sewer rate increases, and Caitlin McGlade looks at the money that the Toledo Symphony Orchestra is looking for from the city for their upcoming Carnegie Hall appearance. 


There's cold and snow in the forecast for NW Ohio, so my advice would be to curl up in a warm place and catch up with Toledo's largest circulation Sunday paper, the Toledo Free Press.

Spending Madness

The Christmas shopping season madness is once again upon us, and once more we find ourselves goaded into spending money that we don't have on cleverly named retail holidays like 'Black Friday', 'Small Business Saturday', and 'Cyber Monday'. Whoever thought that we would some day long for the simpler times of manufactured 'Hallmark Holidays' that only encouraged us to buy a piece of paper or perhaps some flowers for a loved one? 


Even these have morphed over time however, until they have become a out of control Frankenstein monster of spending where only jewelery or automobiles can replace the simple written message of affection that were originally intended. 


When we look dispassionately at the spending frenzy that such clever marketing and advertising have engendered in even the most reasoned of us from a well-intentioned sentiment, it's not impossible to understand what some of our lawmakers go through after being exposed to the current spending culture in the 'logic free zone' of Washington. Even the most cynical of us can recognize that the best "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" intentions can be derailed, and that those in control of the nation's purse strings can lose their common sense and become caught up in the compulsive spending behavior that government has become. 


The problem however is that unlike individuals or families, government never seems to recognize when it makes a bad purchase, feels remorse for spending money it doesn't have, or shows a willingness to change such pitiful behavior going forward. They instead normally seek to follow prior poor spending choices with more and greater ones. Not content with the acquisition of the occasional useless Chia pet, government goes on to expand the program into a Chia farm. (Or is it Chia herd?) 


Unwilling to admit that no matter who makes it, the ab belt (a battery-operated electronic muscle stimulation system to flatten your stomach) will not give you the 'six pack' that they show on commercials, government instead buys each succeeding (and more expensive) model by the truckload and expands the program to provide even more of us something that we don't want and which will never work. 


When was the last time you heard of a government program being de-funded because it wasn't getting the job done? When was the last time that you heard of spending being reduced to a failed effort because of its lack of results? When was the last time that you heard a government legislator or bureaucrat admit that a program that they sponsored or worked for was simply wrong and should be eliminated? (Except of course, when they were suggesting that it should be replaced by a larger and more comprehensive one.) 


No, the government's answer to what we should do about money wasted in a failed efforts seems to be, "let's keep it going to see if it gets better", or worse still, "let's expand the program to see if the results change". Each succeeding legislature, regardless of the political party in charge, seems doomed to repeat the mistakes of its predecessors through a combination of misguided altruism and the belief that the bill never comes due on the government's credit card. 


There is no rhyme or reason to this squandering, only a misplaced belief that forward is the only direction available and that admission of failure is never an option. If there can be said to be a government philosophy about spending in fact, it may in fact be one that can be taken from the Scifi parody film "Galaxy Quest". Congress seems doomed to follow the "Never give up, never surrender" doctrine where its own compulsive consumption is concerned; and while amusing perhaps as movie comedy, it should perhaps be found less so as national policy. 


As the final days of the Christmas shopping season wind down, there's always the hope (though a slim one) that for once we'll get more than we paid for in this holiday shopping season. Perhaps we'll break the cycle of addiction created by the government's shopaholic mentality and fueled by our lingering desires for instant gratification. Perhaps in spite of the cries to fuel the retail engine and jump start the economy, this will be the time that we finally manage to end the spending madness.

The O'Reilly Factor

There has been a lot of talk in recent years about the tone of discourse and punditry in the media today. Many rightly feel that there is a distinct media bias in the coverage of news these days, and that this is in some way a dramatic change from the past. 


I would argue however that the plethora of news sources out there has simply made the playing field so diverse that the ability of one organization to point out the failings others only highlights the slant and selective coverage of both. I would further point out that the number of bloggers out there serving as an alternative 'amateur' news source also serves to point out the glaringly apparent shortcomings where both print and broadcast media are concerned. 


Information shows have seen a change however, and not necessarily for the better where the interview and news-talk shows are concerned. This began perhaps with the descent of weekly news shows like '60 Minutes'. This show at some point went down the dark path not only in the choice of the stories that it covered, but in the editing of the interviews in order to drive home the particular point of view of the segment producer. Good guys and bad guys were decided by camera angles, lighting, and the careful cutting of even more carefully worded questions and responses. A predisposed bias was subtly and effectively promulgated in what was sold to us as hard-hitting investigative journalism; but in fact was a careful blending of ambush and editorializing. 


Next came the the plethora of news shows with live interviews, where both hosts and guests quickly discovered that in order to play the game effectively, one had to be 'prepped' by increasingly more professional handlers. Being visible on such shows was important, but more important was having the required clever lines and talking points memorized. It didn't matter if the questions were hard-hitting, or the answers had anything to do with them, as long as those answers were part of a biased message that the guest was trying to deliver. 


Hosts of these shows became frustrated, since they attempted to play by the rules while not antagonizing guests; and the guests refused to follow their lead. The visiting team had a distinct advantage by playing the game it wanted the way it wanted to, while the home team looked mostly irrelevant. There was no longer information being sought and explored, but instead a disjointed and fractious competition where the winner had already been decided. The level of discourse and interviewing used today has become little more than a meandering diatribe followed by non sequitur. 


Nowhere is this more personified than on one of the more popular of the purported news commentary shows, 'The O'Reilly Factor'. Now for those who don't or haven't watched this show, Bill O'Reilly is someone who has been part of journalism for some time. As well as spending time as a legitimate reporter, he also spent some time on the tabloid side while hosting shows like 'Hard Copy'. 


Since 1996, he has hosted a show on the Fox News Channel (perhaps its most popular) in which he combines the worst of both of those worlds. This has nothing to do with Mr O'Reilly's opinions, which I may or may not agree with, but with the level that such discourse has sunk to in the process. Mr O'Reilly seems to personify the current concept of political punditry, which has become little more than hosts saying 'look at me'. 


Interviews normally begin with him expressing an opinion and then asking the guest to tell him where he's wrong. If the guest agrees, he get 20 seconds to do so before being interrupted to confirm the host is right and move on to the next host opinion/question. If he disagrees, he gets half of that time before being called out as foolish or misinformed. 


In fact while I haven't timed it, I think a comparative analysis of microphone 'time of possession' would find Mr O'Reilly holding the field of play better than 75% of the time. This begs the question that if you are not going to let a guest answer the questions posed, why bring them on at all. 


Bill O'Reilly is not alone however. Rush Limbaugh forgoes interviews on his 3 hour syndicated show 5 days a week, but finds a different path to the same goal. While saying that he doesn't want to talk about himself, he instead spends much of each hour sharing with us what others have said about him, as if that's all that's going on. 


Sean Hannity spends probably more of his time on his radio and TV show telling us about the personal appearances, book signings, and things that he will be talking about later than he does telling us anything else. Glenn Beck is equally busy promoting books, personal appearances, movie theater broadcasts of personal appearances; and less so in informing us of information that he claims is vital that we hear and understand. 


Media stores and subscription websites can do little but prove to us that such labors are exercises in capitalism rather than information. (And for those of you who believe that I am attacking those on the right without due consideration to the panderers on the left, let me state that my failure to comment on Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, or Rachel Maddow is only because their efforts so nauseate me that I cannot stand to subject myself to such punishment long enough to properly critique them.)


Unfortunately, lost in all this self-promotion is any legitimate news or insight that any of these pundits might offer. Picking the nuggets of truth and information from the overwhelming barrage of self-serving nonsense is difficult at best. Even when one concedes that these are potentially intelligent and well-read individuals, the constant self-promotion leaves one too tired to retain the carefully winnowed rewards. 


The few legitimate news and opinion offerings out there are drowned out by egotistic tabloid punditry. And while everyone has a right to try and make a buck, it's unfortunate that we've turned news and opinion into little more than a traveling medicine show. It's likewise unfortunate that at a time when so many are looking for unbiased facts and answers to vital questions in society, all we are offered is the equivalent of entertainment at the intellectual level of the WWE. It's sad to me especially that at a time when this country would be well-served by reasoned Conservative voices, all we are offered is little more than hucksters and little better than the O'Reilly factor.

What I'm (Not) Thankful For

There will undoubtedly be many who will write in the next couple of days about all of the wonderful things in this world that they are thankful for. The love of family and friends will likely make all lists, but others will share feelings on their health, their country and those serving it around the world, and the freedom that we enjoy. 


While I share all of these sentiments, I would not be fulfilling my duties if I succumbed to such maudlin sentimentality every time a government-mandated holiday came along. In order to execute those responsibilities therefore, I have decided to list some of the things that I am not thankful for on this day before we celebrate the Pilgrims traveling from Plymouth to Plymouth.

• I'm not thankful for the excellent cooking that I will be sampling on this day dedicated to over-eating, which will not only leave me feeling extremely uncomfortable that day; but will also ruin my self-image for many days ahead when I look down at the scale with guilt to see what my gluttony has done.
• I'm not thankful for retail outlets that will be open all day Thanksgiving and long before the crack of dawn on 'Black Friday'; proving that while cash may be short in this country's economy, there is no shortage of exploitation and greed.
• I'm not thankful for the pornography of body scans and pat downs masquerading as security in airports. (Though in the spirit of full disclosure, I must admit to being extremely thankful that I'm not flying this week.)
• I'm not thankful for a Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade which stopped being about floats, marching bands, and Santa Claus and started being about the promotion of Broadway shows in NYC, every lame TV show that needs a plug, and a procession of lip-syncing pop stars performing their latest offerings in the hopes of salvaging their failing careers.
• Speaking of self-promotion, I'm not thankful for halftime shows during Thanksgiving football games by Keith Urban and Kid Rock to promote their latest albums, tours, or ... whatever. Give me the scores and the highlights at halftime and then let's get back to the game.
• As to the games themselves, while I'm thankful that there will once again be football played on turkey day, I am far less thankful for the teams playing it. Detroit and New England ought to be a game for about 10 minutes, as will Dallas and New Orleans. As for the Bengals vs the Jets ... I can only hope that by the time that this third lame effort occurs, crammed into the schedule in the name of TV ratings, it will find me passed out from turkey tryptophan.
• I'm not thankful for the ads that I'm already being bombarded with this shopping season telling me that I can only make people in my life happy at Christmas by buying them jewelery or a car. (though if someone wants to exercise such extravagance for me ...)
• I'm not even sure that I'm thankful for the Republican victory in the recent election, as they seem to be forgetting why they were sent to replace those in office almost as quickly as the Democrats who lost office forgot why they were asked to leave.
• I'm not thankful for the cold weather that I have to deal with this time of year. While we all make noises about liking the change of seasons, the brisk chill of the winter air, and snow; it's all much prettier and more fun in a movie or on a Christmas card than it actually is while standing in it or shoveling snow.
• Come to think of it, I'm not sure that I'm thankful for getting together with all of my friends and family for the holidays. Don't get me wrong, they're all wonderful; but getting together with some of them reminds me of all of those I will not see over this period and forces me to deal with that guilt and sadness that comes with that realization.

While there are certainly more that I could list, I think that you've gotten the idea without me listing more (though you are welcome to add to the list if you would like to). In the end, let me say that I'm sorry if any of this may have taken you a little out of your holiday spirit (though hopefully it made you chuckle a little), but I'd be lying. This after all is my self-assigned vocation as both Curmudgeon and Village Idiot ... and one that I appear to be well-suited, and indeed truly thankful for.