I'm ambivalent as hell, and I'm not going worry about it anymore!

Pop quiz: which of the following statements does not belong with the others:

a) Washington is "broken"!

b) Partisan politics is ruining the country!

c) Things are worse now than ever before!

d) We're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it any more!

Actually, it's a trick question. While d) is, of course, the famous catchphrase from Howard Beale's rant in the 1976 movie Network, it falls in with the others as oft-repeated description of the current state of affairs in our nation's capitol, and the American public's purported reaction to it. In fact, to hear some tell it, Beale's rallying cry now represents mainstream sentiment in America.

As I was scouring my pantry looking for some tea to toss out my window (I ended up just throwing out an expired Starbucks coupon), the thought occurred to me - is this really a new situation? Haven't we "thrown the bums out" before? Did the villains ousted in 1974, 1994 and 2008 just change jerseys, get some plastic surgery, throw a new letter after their name, and sneak back in through another entrance?

If that's not the case, then why are we continually in this kind of situation, where the federal government seems, depending on your point of view, anywhere from ineffectual to downright evil? Was the D.C. beltway actually constructed by aliens, designed to emit mind-altering rays that remove competence, principles and noble intentions from those that take up residence inside it?

To me, this is just another example of the pendulum that is American politics. Like a pendulum, American politics will only swing so far, before it inevitably comes back in the other direction. Like a pendulum, the further it swings in one direction, the further and more drastically it then swings back. And as with a pendulum, there is never a state of equilibrium, and the center is just something that gets passed on the way to the other extreme.

There have been moments in our history where this metaphor has been temporarily suspended - usually when the specter of something like collapsing buildings in New York, burning battleships in Hawaii, or an imploding economy prompts folks to set aside their normal tribal impulses of religion, ethnicity, or shared economic interests, and pull together as one bigger tribe of Americans. Inevitably, the crisis passes, and folks retake their assigned seats in their designated cheering section - either as party in power railing at the obstructionists across the aisle, or the party out of power, railing at the ineffectiveness of those in power.

It's always easier to be out of power - second-guessing the decisions of others, rather than making the decisions - and maybe even taking up Howard Beale's rant (or, as was the case a few years ago, threatening to move to Canada).

So, if this is the inevitable American condition, the logical question is - why? When virtually every political poll and pundit would indicate that the vast majority of of American voters gravitate toward the political center, why do we seem stuck in this vicious and seemingly endless cycle of back-and-forth?

I suspect that - as is so often the case in life - a major cause of the problem can be found in our own mirrors.

I think a lot of it is just a basic manifestation of human nature, more specifically a tendency toward intellectual laziness that is part of our behavioral DNA. It's the same thing that feeds our natural predisposition toward tribalism, bias and prejudice, the product of the evolutionary process that for centuries favored those that banded together and distrusted differing characteristics or viewpoints. It's always easier to fall back on our tribal tendencies, and pre-judge an individual based on whatever group we identify them as belonging to, than to take the time and mental energy to look at the individual - and the "content of their character", if you will - and make an individual assessment.

When it comes to politics, we're no different. We're all busy trying to navigate our everyday lives, and only have so much mental energy to devote to assessing officeholders, candidates and the situations they are dealing with. It becomes convenient to develop an internal political "template", constructed from the dogma that we feel suits our viewpoint and interests. Assisting in this process is the presence of so many talented national entertainers; it is easy to find one aligned with our template, and anoint them as our prophet du jour. We then proceed to use this template as a prism, through which we view every politician and political question we encounter.

Politicians know this - or soon find out once they enter the political arena. We're basically complaining about the players becoming adept at the game and rules that we've created, and continually enforce.

If we all would do the following, I think it would go along way toward breaking this cycle:

1. Be conscious of our own thought processes, and how we're evaluating a given situation. Are we blindly applying our template to the issue at hand, or are we evaluating it on its own merits? Many people automatically fall in on either side of certain political principles, such as big government vs. small government, personal privacy vs. national security, etc., and view these as absolutes. History is full of examples where the "right" answer, in retrospect, has changed with the situation. For example, the privacy vs. security equation resolves much differently when applied to the days of Watergate than when applied to Sept. 12, 2001.

2. Recognize our favorite political pundits as what they mainly are - and that's entertainers. The Rush Limbaughs, Glenn Becks, Bill Mahers, Keith Olbermanns, and Michael Moores of the world are talented entertainers that have cultivated a following by finding and pushing people's hot buttons, often using humor - today's most effective bully pulpit. I'm not saying that these people can't be right, it's just that they aren't prophets who are automatically right. What's more, just because they are good at criticizing those in office, doesn't mean that they themselves could govern their way out of a paper bag. We should question the views of those that we tend to agree with with more vigor than those with whom we don't.

Put it this way - Sheryl Crow's fairly talented too, but just because I like a couple of her songs didn't mean I was going to buy into her plan to limit ourselves to one square of toilet paper per sitting. What an inconvenient truth that would've been!

Oh by the way, if the above list of political entertainers elicited an emotional response from you - your favorite guy is nothing like those other guys - then thanks for illustrating my point.

And our next contestant is....

One of the sad but inevitable side effects of the growth and entrenchment of the internet in our civilization has been the deteriorating health of print journalism. The easy availability and dissemination of information and opinion on the web has clearly invalidated the basic business model upon which the local daily newspaper depends. As a result, many papers across the country have ceased to exist, and those that remain resemble fish stranded by low tide, futilely flopping and flailing as they strive to survive in this hostile environment.

Which brings us to the largest and oldest local newspaper here in the greater Toledo area, The Blade. This paper’s floppings and flailings have assumed a familiar formula in recent years, which must be working for it, because they have stayed with the formula faithfully. It goes something like this: 1) Identify a populist cause that focuses on the misdeeds or failings of a single, identifiable person (preferably a white male) as an antagonist. 2) Relentlessly report and opine on the cause - not limiting coverage to the cause itself, and its merits (what fun is that?), but also on the reasons why the antagonist should be vilified and despised, in order to maximize the pitchfork-and-torch atmosphere surrounding the issue. 3) Keep hammering away at the issue, giving it the placement and column-inch priority of a 9/11-level story, and don't let up until the villain is vanquished and you've milked every newspaper sale possible out of the cause.

It’s been successful time and time again in this town, with such notable examples as Tom Noe, Robert Alexander and Tom Skeldon finding themselves with the red dot of the Blade’s laser gunsight dancing on their foreheads, awaiting the inevitable bullet.

The latest target, Lucas County Dog Warden Tom Skeldon, was a particularly apt example of the efficient use of this formula. An obvious cause was identified (the wanton overuse of euthanasia at the dog pound on surrendered and seized dogs, including puppies....OMG, PUPPIES!!) The series of headlines that followed brought to mind an image of an evil dog warden in a black cape, laughing maniacally as he tossed puppies (OMG, PUPPIES!!) into a wood chipper at the dog pound. They even went so far as to add reporting in the Daily Log of those dogs euthanized or adopted out by Mr. Skeldon’s dept., right there with the other crime reports.

This week Mr. Skeldon, seeing the obvious writing on the wall (or in this case, on the newspapers on the floor of the dog cages), announced his intention to retire at the end of the year. That he would show such blatant disregard for the marketing needs of One of America’s Great Newspapers by not playing this thing out to the end must have caused great consternation among the Blade’s higher-ups. Now they have to go back and consult, much sooner than they had hoped, the sacred Blade Hit List (rumored to be kept on scrolls in a germ-proof vault in Pittsburgh), to determine the paper’s next target.

Everyone in Toledo should be on the lookout for red laser-dots dancing on foreheads in the coming weeks.

How does the saying go? They came for the crooked Republican coin dealers, and I said nothing, because I am not a crooked Republican coin dealer. They came for the YMCA executives, and I said nothing, since I am not a YMCA executive. They came for the dog wardens, and I said nothing, since I am not a dog warden. Then they came for me....

Or something like that.

So it’s come to this....

In a grudging acknowledgement that this worldwide interweb-thingy may actually have some legs, I’ve decided to join my fellow lemmings and start my own blog. I’m not really sure what I’m going to write about, how often I’ll update it, whether it will contain coherent thoughts or just streams of semi-consciousness, or even what, if anything, I’m going to call this thing (the crickets thing is probably temporary, although it captures quite well the reaction I expect). It will probably be chock full of the strained metaphors that I am so fond of using - hell, I may even work in some wisdom from such great minds as Nietzsche, Buffett or Berra (just kidding, the only thing I know about Nietzsche is he was a hell of a middle linebacker for the Packers when I was a kid).

When you think about it, these blogs are much like the diaries that were so popular among young girls when I was a child - except that that more people probably read those diaries, those little locks notwithstanding. As is often the case, technology has improved things - those little locks could never provide the confidentiality that results from collective disinterest.

Some entries will likely be the digital equivalent of a grouchy, slightly demented old man sitting on his porch yelling at the neighborhood kids to get off his lawn, but without the coolness of Walt Kowalski - lamenting the state of the world, and of “kids these days” - until I grudgingly remember that my Baby-Boom generation, just through its sheer mass, probably included more losers and parasites than any other generation has or, for the foreseeable future, ever will.

I imagine sports will be a topic, since it’s always been a passion of mine. Other posts will likely touch on such interesting (to me, at least) subjects as world events, politics, religion, politics as a religion, pop culture - wow, this is starting to sound too boring for even ME to read!

Anyway, back to the Baby Boomers - I can’t just besmirch an entire generation, especially one that I’m a member of, and just leave it at that. After all, in our defense, my generation has made many valuable contributions to mankind as well. For starters, there’s Al Gore, the Thomas Edison of our generation. I mean, the man invented the internet AND global warming! (can I get a rim shot?)

There, I’ve done it - I’ve gored my first ox, or in this case, my first Gore. But not to worry - I promise to piss off, or at least offend the sensibilities of, folks from all parts of the political spectrum. I mean, it’s just so easy to do - and if I’ve learned anything, it’s the value of the path of least resistance.

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

Seriously though, I would be remiss if, on this Veteran’s Day, I failed to recognize the sacrifices that so many have made and continue to make to preserve our freedom. As the son of a WWII veteran and the father of a new USAF officer, this day holds special meaning for me. I can't put it any more eloquently than Chance did in his post today.