K STREET CASUALTY

Cranky had a significant K Street experience recently. Every Washington wonk dreams of becoming a K Street somebody, and after almost forty years in the town, Cranky finally made it.

Did Cranky succeed in convincing a Congressional staffer to change the position of a comma in an appropriations bill, thereby qualifying Cranky’s client for several millions in tax breaks?

Noooo.

Did Cranky find a way for a client to avoid complex and expensive EPA regulations?

Noooo.

Did a maitre’d say to Cranky: “Haven’t seen you in a few days, Sir. Your usual table?”

Noooo.

Well, what was it?

After finishing a day’s work at a legal sweatshop document review project, Cranky was crossing K Street at its intersection with 18th Street when his knee went belly up. Cranky was almost instantly crumpled on the street in intense pain and screaming emphatically about it.

Fortunately, several of the hundreds of home-bound passersby paused in their journeys long enough to drag Cranky to the sidewalk and stand him against a small barrier protecting one of K Street’s lovely trees. The pain had subsided a tad and Cranky was able to examine his knee. (He just had running shorts on although he had not yet commenced his evening run.) Something was majorly obviously wrong. The kneecap was not in its accustomed place, having relocated down and to the left, and was sort of free-floating. The foremost thing in Cranky’s mind was, “I gotta get outta town.”

Now residents of the north side of the Potomac River in the DC area may not understand this, but many citizens of Northern Virginia prefer to keep certain functions on the south side and close to home, medical care being one of them. And there is some concern about trusting one's well-being to a large urban medical institution. The medical care may be among the finest, but it can come with some less-than-pleasant secondary accouterments. For example, about ten years ago, Cranky had a heart valve repair operation at a major urban institution. The medical procedure went as expected, but Cranky will never forget the week he spent afterwards, recuperating from major heart surgery, with a loud-snoring, quaintly odorous roommate who took frequent cigarette walks, returning reeking like a Camel commercial.

Anyway, think of him what you will, but Cranky did not desire to repeat the experience. So he tested his knee, found that he could gingerly make some progress, called his spouse to describe what had happened and his plan, and set out for a metro stop. The idea was to take the metro to a Northern Virginia station, and thus perhaps to a less stressful medical situation. Cranky did get part way to the Farragut West metro stop but then the knee gave way again, and he was once more on the ground, disrupting the commutes of many hundreds with his incessant screaming.

A few Good Samaritans were among the flowing crowds, however, and 911 was shortly called. An ambulance soon arrived. Cranky thanked his temporary guardians and was off to a large urban medical institution.

The rest of the story is as might be expected, only maybe a little worse. Cranky will try to keep it brief, mentioning the most salient points. The injury itself was a complete rupture or tear of the quadriceps tendon that attaches the quadriceps muscle to the kneecap, or patella. Or at least that’s the terminology as Cranky now understands it. Pain-wise, this is a baddy, but in terms of correction it seems to be a rather basic orthopedic surgical procedure involving the reattachment of the tendon to the kneecap. Indeed, it allegedly is sometimes done on an outpatient basis. The length and requirements of the rehab process, however, are no picnic.

Cranky arrived in the emergency room of Major Urban Trauma Center (exact identification withheld to protect the innocent) at approximately 5:30 p.m. on a Thursday afternoon. He was soon joined by Ms. Cranky, who was to be transported back and forth over the following days by Long-Suffering, Across-The-Street Neighbor, who seems to get a perverse pleasure from Cranky's adventures. The ER was Cranky's home for the next seven or so hours as he was evaluated, allegedly scheduled for surgery, and entertained by the dramas that are part of the environment of an urban ER. He was finally told that surgery would not occur that night, partly because the available Orthopedic Surgeon had too many other cases.

At this point, Cranky broached the possibility of being transferred to a medical facility in Northern Virginia. He was to raise this possibility several more times over the next few days as the surgery timeframe was continually revised. Each time he was persuaded by the argument that the move, while doable, required a major administrative and logistical effort, that the preliminary steps already taken would have to be repeated at the new institution, and that things were not much more than an hour or so away from beginning. In hindsight, …oh well.

Surgery did not occur the next morning although its start was allegedly not far off. The other thing that did not occur was pain medication. Whether through oversight, ineptness, conflict with the supposedly imminent surgery, Cranky went without pain medication for a three-hour period, and felt every second of the time.

Finally late Friday afternoon, the surgery time arrived, 24 hours after Cranky’s admission to Major Urban Trauma Center. But Cranky spoiled things by, with the commencement of the anesthesia, permitting his blood pressure to fall to dangerously low levels. The implication in the explanation given to Cranky after he had been resuscitated was that if only he hadn’t been such a wimp, everybody else would not have been inconvenienced, and the efficient workflow of Major Urban Trauma Center would not have been interrupted. Cranky’s counter that perhaps the underlying cause was the 24 hours he had spent on practically no food or liquids fell on deaf ears.

Incidentally, Cranky's whereabouts became a little uncertain at this stage, and Ms. Cranky spent almost 30 frantic minutes trying to determine if he had been thrown out with the trash.

So Cranky was back to waiting. The surgery was to occur the following morning, Saturday. Then it was first thing in the afternoon, then later in the afternoon. At about 5 p.m., 48 hours after being admitted, Cranky had a discussion with a Person of Some Importance about his predicament. This person seemed to be in charge of the Trauma Center portion of Major Urban Trauma Center. As this person explained it, Cranky just didn’t understand how a Major Urban Trauma Center operated. A Major Urban Trauma Center handles the most traumatic cases first. If you’re next in line, you get bumped if a more traumatic case comes in.

Eureka! So Simple! Now Cranky saw the light. He just had to wait until he had deteriorated enough to not get bumped by some Johnny-Come-Lately! So Cranky got back to the business at hand, which he now understood was to deteriorate some more.

Finally, later Saturday evening, Cranky had his surgery. And apparently things went well, medically. But it was not until Tuesday evening, three days after the surgery and five days after the beginning of the adventure, that Cranky was able to escape the medical Kafkaesque fortress. And this only after been told all day Tuesday that he was leaving but then running into the roadblock of an obstinate Intern who somehow, in the great scheme of  things at Major Urban Trauma Center, outranked or at least was on a par with the Resident and the Attending on her medical team. There was a problem with some blood count. Cranky told the roadblock, “Look, I’m leaving,” and for once Cranky prevailed.

It will be awhile before Cranky goes north of the Potomac River again.

PS: If you know of any good K Street personal injury lawyers, let Cranky know.

 

LONG LIVE THE CALIPHATE

Just about everybody seems concerned about radical Islamic extremists gaining control of a hunk of desert stretching from northern and eastern Syria to northern and western Iraq. From there, it is argued, they will have a base from which to mount attacks on Western, and Eastern, Civilization.

 

But getting all the militant whack-jobs in one place might just be the best strategy for controlling them and their activities. Particularly if that place is pretty much nothing but sand and rock. In such a place they can't hide from drones, overflights, and satellites. Their activities can be readily observed. An aggressive border surveillance can control ingress and egress. And a few airstrikes from time to time would keep them in a defensive posture.

 

So long live the caliphate. Give the terrorists and potential terrorists a place to gather. And then keep them there. Anybody got a better idea?

DICK CHENEY, PUMP HEAD

Ever wonder how Dick Cheney came to be? You know, the infatuation with torture, the un-thought-thru decisions about undertaking wars, the failures in planning and logistically supporting those wars? The knee-jerk hard-right response to pretty much any problem? Well, someone may have hit upon the answer.

 

In an opinion piece in the April 9-15 issue of the Boise Weekly—yeah, that’s right, Idaho—John Rember discusses Mr. Cheney’s history thusly:

 

He’s been under general anesthesia for a substantial portion of his life. One can assume high-school concussions [Mr. Cheney played football in high school], some months or years of not enough blood to the brain, some hardening of the cerebral arteries, long moments when one or more of his hearts ceased to pump blood, times when, fascinated with videos of water-boarding, he simply forgot to breathe.

 

Mr. Rember raises the term “pump head,” a condition of temporary, and sometimes not so temporary, mental problems experienced by some recipients of anesthesia. Cranky can vouch for the existence of pump head. He’s had two heart operations and several less serious but still anesthetized procedures, and his head ain’t been completely right since. Oh, he’s gotten a little less foggy as the operations have receded, but he’s still prone to excessive peevishness, decisions too quickly made, and a general reduction in compassion for his fellow man (and woman).

 

Lest anyone contend that Mr. Rember’s analysis is based solely on politics, he also mentioned Bill Clinton’s somewhat less than stellar press conferences following his open-hear surgery.

SUPERB OWL XLVIII--THE PERFECT TRIFECTA

Superb Owl (see Steven Colbert) XLVIII was the perfect trifecta: lousy game, lousy ads, lousy half-time show.

At least we won't be hearing weeks, months, and years of "Peyton Manning is the best quarterback of all-time." (But really Peyton, you ain't half bad.)

And Roger Sherman did not yell at the camera, causing some poor news chick to winch in discomfort. (Hope he's OK.)

And who was that half-time singer, anyway? (Guess I'm showing my age.)

And Queen Latifa singing America the Beautiful? (Wasn't bad but just don't seem right.)

And those pre-game, half-time, and post-game commentators! (Really, the whole concept of talking heads needs to be revisited; on the other hand, it is employing the otherwise unemployable.)

And what's next? (That's right, the Final Four; life is such a grind.)

No, the Winter Olympics comes first! (There's hope after all! Hundreds of hours of watching people play in the snow and on the ice! Just like watching TV from Atlanta!)

ALASKA, WHERE IS IT?

Hope Alaska Senator Mark Begich does not find out about the U.S. map painted on the playground at George Mason Elementary School in Alexandria, Virginia. According to an article in the Washington Post's Style section of January 22, the Senator's pet peeve is U.S. maps that ignore or misplace his state. The George Mason map has Alaska, the nation's largest state as measured by land mass, at about the size of South Carolina and located just to the south of California.

At least Alaska fared better than Hawaii, which is no longer in the Pacific Ocean but has been relocated to the Caribbean.

In defense of the educators at George Mason, perhaps their goal is not a geography lesson but an attempt to illustrate a component of Quantum Physics theory, that component being Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Still, it's a little disconcerting to think of all the Alexandria urchins who go forth thinking a state with humongous glaciers exists immediately south of California. Maybe they pass it off as just a Sarah Palin thing.

MORE ON "POSITIVE RESPONSE"

More ED physicians and clinics seem to be guarantying, in radio advertisements, a "positive response" while in the doctor's office. The problem is that the guarantor is usually an earnest clinical-sounding male. Nothing against male ED docs and clinics, but such advertising falls a little flat, if you catch my drift.

A preferable advertisement would feature a sultry female voice, maybe from a Doctor or Nurse with a last name such as Svensen who invites you to call her "Brigitte." She would offer the guaranty thusly:

"I guaranty you a [pause, then uttered with innuendo] positive response while in the office or your money will be refunded. And no one has asked for a refund in a long, long time."

Wouldn't such advertising be a bit more effective?

TEA PARTY AMERICA: THE ‘60s COME FULL CIRCLE

Remember those wacky ‘60s? At least some of us old-timers do, and you kids, you might have read about those years in your history classes. (Do they still teach history in school?) Anyway, those were fun times. A raucous group of anti-establishment, anti-government, anti-authoritarian wackos dominated the national discourse. They were a minority of the population but you would never know it from the amount of attention they attracted to themselves. They competed with each other to see who could be the most outlandish, who could produce the most consternation amongst their fellow citizens.

 

And guess what!? They’er back! Anti-establishment, anti-government, anti-authoritarian wackos dominating the national discourse. To be sure, they don’t have quite the same political philosophy as did their 1960s’ predecessors, but the details are minor compared to the central focus shared by the two groups. That central focus was then and is today the desire to collapse a good portion of society, and mostly just for the fun of it.

NEOCONS, WHERE’D THEY GO?

Remember a few years back when neocons—neoconservatives—were all the rage? Remember the large role they played in getting the nation into those little skirmishes in Iraq and Afghanistan? Well, they certainly seem few and far between today. A handful are still around: Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Laura Ingraham, for example. Dick Cheney still sounds off occasionally. But by and large they seem to be lying low.

Which on one hand is a pity, because their willingness to throw military might at a situation could contribute to the backing the President seeks before delivering a bit of punishment to Bashar al-Assad for using chemical weapons, a punishment that definitely should be delivered.

But on the other hand, those neocons weren’t the most rational people. Their answer to most problems in the foreign affairs arena boiled down to us kicking the snot out of some country or group. Winning hearts and minds was not their thing. Their attitude was, “Grab ‘em by the gonads. The hearts and minds will follow.”

And the “us” that was to do the snot kicking wasn’t necessarily them, safely ensconced in their think tanks, literary havens, political positions, and the like. The “us” was the sons and daughters of ordinary Americans. As Mr. Cheney once said about the five military deferments he received in the sixties (Vietnam, remember?), “I had other priorities.”

Moreover, the neocons weren’t very good on the details of snot-kicking. Just throw some troops at the problem. We’ll think about goals, objectives, strategy, and stuff later. They were sort of the opposite of Teddy Roosevelt’s “speak softly and carry a big stick.” They were more “scream loudly ‘til the other guy quits.” Only the other guy can often outlast the inept application of military power.

So most of us won’t miss the neocons. They were fun while they lasted, but all good things must end. Now we can turn for entertainment to those rising laugh-a-minute libertarians. It’s like your favorite TV show went off the air but this new one definitely has possibilities.

OBAMA'S SYRIAN SPEECH

This is what the President should say in his upcoming speech to the nation on Syria. Oh, not necessarily the exact words. His speech writers should be able to smooth the jagged edges. But these are the points he should get across Tuesday night.

My fellow Americans. I come before you tonight to present the case for military action against the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad. The reason for military action is simple: punishment for using chemical weapons.

War is horrible. But chemical weapons are especially horrific. They were used extensively in World War I. The revulsion against them and their terrible effects was so great that they were absent from the battlefields of World War II and have been employed only in isolated instances since then. All but a handful of nations--Angola, North Korea, Egypt, South Sudan, and Syria--are party to the Chemical Weapons Convention outlawing the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons.

Bashar al-Assad was warned about using chemical weapons in Syria's current civil war. But he ignored the warnings and recently slaughtered more than a thousand fellow Syrians, including over four hundred children, with chemicals.

This despicable act requires punishment. And that is the nature of the military action I am prepared to undertake. The action is punishment for waging war in a manner that is condemned by the vast majority of the world's nations and peoples. The action is designed not only to punish Bashar al-Assad but also to discourage any other powers from resorting to such evil in the future.

But, many ask, how would punishing the Syrian dictator impact our policy toward him in general and toward the civil war he is conducting?

Our desire regarding Bashar al-Assad and Syria is that he no longer be the ruler of Syria and that Syria start down the path to a democratic government and freedom and justice for its citizens. But these goals are not things we will pursue with large-scale military action. To impose our will on Syria by force would require a massive military invasion, an effort similar to the one we led in 1990-91 to remove the forces of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. The wars we have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last decade show the confusing, unsatisfying outcomes that can flow form trying to do too much with too little military. 

Partly as a result of the inconclusive Iraq and Afghanistan wars, partly as a result of a decade of exposure to the perplexing conflicts of the Middle East, the American people would not be supportive of open-ended military action in the area, much less a large-scale military effort in Syria. Moreover, a large-scale military effort would have to be followed by a large-scale, long-term military occupation in order to protect the fragile new government. And again, this is not a mission Americans are currently disposed to undertake.

We will continue to explore diplomatic solutions. We will provide various sorts of support--short of large-scale military action--to what groups we can find in Syria that share our desire for peace, justice, and democracy in the country. But we are not prepared to attempt to solve the many problems in that part of the world by force. We are the most powerful nation in the world, but there are limits to that power. There are limits to what we can accomplish in, or impose on, other cultures. 

What we can do is to punish pure evil. And chemically killing over a thousand of his fellow Syrians, including over four hundred children, was an act of pure evil by Bashar al-Assad. I propose to punish him and his instruments of power for that act.

 

Thank you, and may God bless and protect America.

OBAMA ROLLS THE DICE

In what could be one of the defining actions of his Presidency, President Obama has rolled the dice on military action against the Syrian regime. Instead of ordering military action, he has asked Congress for authorization to do so.

The need to respond to the despicable conduct of the Syrian regime−using chemical weapons against its own people−would have been unquestioned in decades past. But the combination of three factors is threatening to turn back the nation's clock to the pre-World War II years when peace at all cost was the shameful stance of many Americans. First, after the costly and drawn out conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan−drawn out in large measure because of the military incompetence of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld−the American people are tired of foreign involvements, particularly in the perplexing, confusing Middle East.

Second, the current Congress is certainly one of the most partisan and inept in the nation's long history of partisan and inept Congresses. If this Congress is a true reflection of the electorate, we are indeed a nation dominated by dummies. And third, far too many so-called conservatives, including far too many conservatives in Congress, simply want to see Obama fail, never mind the cost to the nation. The visceral dislike−hatred is not too strong a word−of the nation's first President who does not have a typical middle or upper class American background is more than palpable in some quarters.

So it does not seem too strong a statement to say that the President has put his ability to govern effectively over the next three years, and his place in history, on a roll of the dice. Maybe this isn't his reasoning, but his bet seems to be that the Congress can rise above itself, can rise above the passions that have engulfed tea-party, Fox-Noise America, and do what is required of a world power with responsibilities it may not want but most certainly should not avoid.

That is one helluva bet.

THE APOCALYPSE NEARS

Signs that the Apocalypse ain't far away:

) Private Chelsea Manning (It's not the transgender thing; it's that someone with such obvious mental and emotional problems had practically unlimited access to sensitive documents pertaining to the nation's security)

) Senator Ted Cruz

) Republicans in general (Remember the good ol' days when Democrats were the whacko party? At least they were never a real threat to bring the American experiment to a crashing halt)

) Facebook

) Twitter

) The Middle East

) Climate change deniers

) Fox Noise

 

) A financial system that is totally at the mercy of computers (and hackers and technological glitches and whatall)

STAND YOUR GROUND = LICENSE TO KILL

Stripped of legalese and high-sounding bows to an individual's right of self-defense, the essence of stand your ground laws is a license to kill. You find yourself in a ticklish situation with a loud-mouth ahole, you don't have to expend energy in trying to defuse things. You can just blow his sorry a** away.

 

In the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman confrontation, whoever survived arguably had a stand-your-ground defense. Zimmerman was allegedly on the  ground getting his head pounded into the concrete, so he was justified in shooting Martin. Never mind that Zimmerman had stupidly put himself in harm's way.

 

If Martin had been the survivor, he most certainly would have had a stand your ground defense. He was being followed by some weird wannabe tough guy who had a gun. If that is not a threatening situation justifying a bit of preventative killing, nothing is.

 

Yeah, standing your ground is a great addition to the Second Amendment. No more need to show a preference for peaceful solutions or defusing actions. Rationality is for losers. The law says you can shoot first. Ain't that great?

F-BOMB IN COURT

Much to the delight of the nation's media, pundits, and assorted talking heads, the prosecutor in his opening statement in the George Zimmerman trial dropped the f-bomb. It was a planned drop, not one of those spur-of-the-moment “oh f***”s. The prosecutor was quoting Mr. Zimmerman in a call the latter had made to the police shortly before slaying another individual, a slaying Mr. Zimmerman claims was self-defense but the state, represented by the prosecutor, asserts was murder.

The prosecutor was not the first lawyer to drop the f-bomb in a trial. Cranky his own self did so almost four decades ago. At the time, Cranky had a little part-time law practice down in Williamsburg, Virginia, where he had grown up and was working on a graduate degree at the Big Green, or The College of W&M. One day a cousin dropped into his office, a young lady he had last seen when she was a child. She was now a young adult and in a bit of a jam.

Seems she had gotten into an argument with another young lady over the affections of a young gentleman, a truck driver as near as Cranky can recall. Some unpleasant words were uttered and there may have been a bit of hair-pulling. The local constabulary became involved, and Cranky's cousin found herself with a court date. Only a misdemeanor was alleged, so it wasn't the crime of the century.

Still, Cranky didn't get into a courtroom much. Thus here was an opportunity to shine. The only witness against Cranky's cousin was the other young lady. In fact, since only a misdemeanor was involved, there was no prosecuting attorney. The complaining young lady took the stand and told the judge her version of events. The judge, incidentally, who Cranky had been before on several other occasions, conducted his court in the head-down position. He was continuously writing and rarely looked up for eye-contact with anyone in the courtroom−attorneys, parties, police officers, spectators, anyone.

The young lady completed her perceptions of the truth as she remembered them. As one might expect, she was just an innocent victim of a wrathful other woman. But Cranky had heard his cousin's version of the incident, and that version included one item that the complaining young lady had not mentioned.

So Cranky got right to it: “Miss Jones, isn't it true that you called my client a 'Mothaf***ing B****'?”

The low rumble of courtroom back-up noise ceased. Jaws of spectators and attending law enforcement officers dropped. The judge looked up from his writing. And the young lady on the stand commenced a flustered bout of hemming and hawing.

Soon after, the judge ended the proceedings by instructing the two young ladies to stay the heck away from each other. Some months later, after several billing notices, Cranky's cousin paid him his $10 fee.

All in all, it was one of Cranky's finest courtroom moments, rivaled only by the time a young male client ran from the courtroom shortly after being told by the judge that he needed to spend some time at a state facility for troublesome youths. After following his client for several hours through the picturesque Colonial Capital, Cranky was able to flag down an officer of the law, who returned Cranky and the adventurous youth to the courtroom.

But that's another story.

BATON BEING PASSED

The big picture significance of Edwardo Snowden and the NSA situation is that the generational baton is being passed. Maybe slowly but certainly inexorably. This doesn't mean that Ed is any sort of hero, or even that he shouldn't spend considerable time in the slammer, provided he eventually surfaces in U.S. custody.

What it does mean is that the generation now on the precipice of power will not be denied, as previous generations on the precipice of power were not denied. The flow of time is inexorable, and no ranting and raving by the likes of Dick Cheney, Bill O'Reilly, and others standing athwart history yelling "Stop" can hold back the tide.

The generation on the precipice of power is a nerdy group. Computerized social media and computerized everything else have been their environment. They are the first generation fully a product of the Information Age. They don't see 9/11 as older generations do. Older generations see 9/11 as a momentous, paradigm-threatening event epitomizing and releasing forces that must be defeated. The precipice generation is not so sure. Many of its members have no strong recollections of "Before." They came to adulthood in uncertainty. Sometimes they wonder what all the fuss is about.

What they do see, in the United States that is, is a government and ruling class that can be somewhat hysterical. Every minor issue has the potential of going viral, of causing massive and conflicting paranoias. The members of the precipice generation may have concerns about the aggressiveness and rigidity of foreign powers and ideologies, but they have similar concerns about the aggressiveness and rigidity of the right and left sides of the political and cultural spectrums in their own country.

Edwardo Snowden, Bradley Manning, they represent a generational rebellion against the old order. And us members of the old order? We best prepare for change, at least as far as the dominance of our world view is concerned.

WORST ELECTION CHOICE EVER?

Voters in the Commonwealth of Virginia (not a state, Dude; we're a Commonwealth) may be facing the worst election choice in the history of democracy, a history stretching back to at least Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, and their pals in ancient Greece.

Okay, that might be an overstatement. At least the two candidates for November's gubernatorial election are not crooks (that we know of). And at least the election appears to be real and not one of those pro forma phony (and often crooked) things held in many parts of the world.

Still, for voters in the vicinity of the political spectrum's center, it is hard to imagine two more unpalatable candidates than Republican Ken Cuccinelli and Democrat Terry McAuliffe. The Cuch is one of those far right whack jobs who have pretty much captured the Republican Party. Terry Boy is a Virginian mostly by virtue of paying Virginia taxes. The Cuch got his party's nomination by hijacking the nomination process from an open primary to a convention dominated by like-minded again'ers (those against just about anything). Terry Boy is on the verge of getting his party's nomination because the Virginia version of his party is devoid of state-wide leadership at the moment.

Do issues matter in this election? Probably some. What will probably matter most, however, is turn out. If turn out is low, the advantage goes to the Cuch who can count on the rabid support of fellow again'ers. If Terry Boy can persuade enough middle-of-the-roaders to overcome their apathy and show up at the pols, he has a chance.

But that's a lot of apathy for Terry Boy to overcome.

CONSERVATIVES AS GRADUATION SPEAKERS?

A conservative was complaining on a recent radio show that only a small percentage of graduation speakers at colleges and universities are of the conservative persuasion. Well, duh.

Of course conservatives are not well represented at graduation ceremonies. Graduations are a time of happiness, a time of optimism. Who wants to hear gloom and doom at such events? Gloom and doom may be correct. We may all be going to hell in a hand basket. But really, is that what you want to hear at your graduation, or your kid’s graduation?

Conservatives are all about gloom and doom. And about the past. They are ever moaning about the lost paradises of yesteryear. As a general matter, they are only happy when opining on two topics: their own alleged victimhood at the hands of liberals and the mainstream media, and the alleged decaying state of society.

Occasionally, a conservative will come along who doesn’t sound like Dr. Grump ninety percent of the time. Ronald Reagan was one such individual. But by and large, conservatives impress the rest of the populace as dour and dogmatic, incapable of expressing a positive view of the future without tying it to a particular political stance or a static economic structure.

So yes, Conservatives, you might be under-represented on graduation stages. But most of us get enough of cranky old aunts and uncles at Thanksgiving dinner. Who wants to hear one at a graduation?

"POSITIVE RESPONSE"

A local radio station has been running an ad by a medical clinic specializing in the sexual problems of the American male, the major problem apparently being the erectile dysfunction (ED) epidemic that is making the nation's obesity epidemic look like small potatoes (small potatoes, obesity, get it?). The ad suggests that the clinic focuses on the really hard cases (oops, another poor word choice), experiments with combinations of almost two hundred medicines, has successfully helped a 94-year old, and promises a positive response right there in the clinic or your money back.

The ad raises a number of troubling images, one of course being that of a 94-year old guy gettin' it on. Perhaps the most troubling images, however, involve what might constitute a "positive response." Here's one image. A patient is lying on a bed, or maybe just a gurney. He might be completely naked, or maybe just his head and groin are uncovered. Four or five medical types with clipboards and pens are gathered around. The group might consist of one or two doctors, maybe an intern, and several nurses, most likely elderly. They are watching for movement.

"There, it twitched."

"No, that was strong enough."

"Well, it was certainly close."

"It could have been just a PH." (PH being an acronym for the medical term "penile hiccup.")

Now, if the ad is producing images such as this, perhaps the clinic's advertizing efforts need some adjustment. No matter how bad a fella's problems are, the possibility of group observation of his groin by serious medical types might be more than he is willing to chance.

A much better "positive response" image could involve young Swedish masseuses wearing the official uniform of the Swedish Bikini Team. Of course, developing a tactful, and legal, ED ad featuring Swedish masseuses would certainly be a challenge. But if you're promising a "positive response" or your money back, you gotta offer more than a group of dour medical types watching intently for the effects of a pill.

FIFTY SHADES OF, WHATEVER

Cranky is a little more than one month short of seventy. Cranky's wife is much younger, by a year to be more precise. So Cranky has a trophy wife.

But should that trophy wife be reading "Fifty Shades of Grey"?

Really, how is Cranky supposed to respond? Dinner at MacDonalds?

Or maybe washing the dishes one night.

Or being sure to put the toilet seat down.

Or vacuuming.

Or not complaining about his bunion. (You would be amazed at the size of that thing.)

Or maybe emailing Carolyn Hax for advice. (Note emailing instead of writing; Cranky is not unaware of social media and the Information Age.)

Or thinking, "It's just a phase."

Or suggesting more Nora Roberts.

Or recommending a different arthritis medication.

Or mentioning his heart condition.

Such weighty issues make Cranky sleepy. Time for a nap.

THE GOVERNMENT PROMISES NOT TO. . . .

After a thirteen-hour filibuster, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky extracted a promise from the Government to not drone him while he was having a frappe cappuccino or something at a cafe. Whether the promise is valid in just Kentucky or encompasses the entire country is a little unclear, but subsequent negotiations between the Senator and the Government will presumably clear up that particular point.

Now some might contend that Senator Paul's fear of a personal droning was a little unrealistic. After all, the Government's theoretical capability of doing something does not necessarily mean that the something will be done. But one individual's seemingly irrational fear is another's distinct possibility, even likelihood, and the Constitution's guarantee of freedom from fear makes no distinction between the rational and the irrational, and indeed authorizes no branch of Government to make the distinction. Embedded in the Constitution's Preamble−"in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"− is certainly the right to rationally or irrationally fear whatever one wants.

In any case, Senator Paul's success in achieving a personal promise from the Government concerning a particular fear of his has established a precedent. Taken to its logical conclusion, the precedent is that each and every citizen is entitled to a promise or promises from the Government to refrain from inflicting some unpleasantness upon him or her. Once the scope of this precedent becomes widely recognized, the deluge will begin. To cope, the Government might need to establish a new agency, the Department of Personal Promises, or DOPP. So much for balancing the budget.

An initial promise that many a citizen will request is "to not take my guns away." Despite the Second Amendment, more than two centuries of widespread gun-ownership, and promises galore by politicians over the years and across the political spectrums, fear of Government confiscation of guns is rampant in many areas of the country. So every citizen who desires a promise of no confiscation will be entitle to a personal letter from the Government: "Dear Mr. LaPierre, We the Government promise not to take your guns away. s/The Government."

Of course, given how deeply entrenched is the fear of gun confiscation, the promise will likely have to be re-expressed every month or so.

Other possible Government promises concerning fears some citizens might find unrealistic include:

) To not have your home nuked.

) To not have a microchip planted in your brain to control your thoughts.

) To not have poisonous snakes dropped in your backyard.

) To not have spider colonies put in your attic.

) To not be required to listen to Fox Noise at least four hours a day.

) To not be required to listen to MSNBC at least four hours a day.

) To not have black UN helicopters following you around.

And so on. A Government agency with the sole mission of promising citizens that their personal fears about Government intrusion won't come to pass might go a long way toward dampening the current epidemic of national paranoia. It certainly couldn't hurt. You have my word.

CHARLOTTESVILLE CATFIGHT

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell needed this like the proverbial hole in the head. The University of Virginia catfight between Board of Visitors member Helen Dragas and University President Teresa Sullivan has resurfaced. In spite of her ineptitude, and failure, last year in attempting to remove Ms. Sullivan from office, Ms. Dragas remained on the Board and indeed was reappointed by Governor McDonnell for another term, a reappointment confirmed by the Virginia Legislature in January.

Ms. Dragas apparently celebrated her reappointment by presenting Ms. Sullivan with a list of 65 goals for the latter to meet in the current school year. The number was pared down a bit by the full Board of Visitors but reportedly still remains formidable. Thus the conflict that captured the nation’s attention last June appears posed for round two.

And just when things were going well for the Governor. In recent weeks he was able to get a compromise tax plan through the state’s cantankerous Legislature, and he has received kudos for being a voice of reason—one of the few in the Republican Party—on the desirability of mitigating the effects of the sequester. So thanks a lot, Helen. You too Teresa, although Helen’s thick-headedness and tone-deafness seem the real problems here.

After all, 65 goals? That sounds like micromanagement carried to an exponential power. Was micromanagement your field of concentration at the University’s Darden School of Business, Helen? And Darden, is Helen a typical example of your output? And what about the dimwit who, after the events of last summer, put Helen on the Board of Visitors’ three-person evaluation committee? Wasn’t anything else available? Say, the prom committee, or the meeting scheduling committee?

But in large measure due to the interplay of three stereotypes, the situation certainly has entertainment value. The first stereotype is the Catfight, two women going at each other. MEOW, scratch, scratch. The second stereotype is the Queen Bee, a woman who reaches a high position turning on female peers and subordinates. Incidentally, the Review section of the March 2-3 Wall Street Journal features an article entitled “The Tyranny of the Queen Bee.”

And the third stereotype is exemplified by this very column: males getting an inordinate amount of pleasure watching Catfights and Queen Bees. A Seinfeld episode captured the stereotype, with Jerry, Kramer, George, and assorted other males, including several cops, enjoying Elaine’s travails with another female.

So, Helen and Teresa, don’t let up. Deep down inside, we really are enjoying this. MEOW, scratch, scratch. Who's getting the keg?

s/Cranky, a Wahoo Alum (BA,’65; JD,’72)

MATT DILLON AND GUN RIGHTS

With all the citing of precedents in the current debate over guns, an important figure in American history has been ignored. The views of Matt Dillon, one of the nation's Founding Fathers, have received practically no attention.

Mr. Dillon, as he was usually called by Chester, his trusty helper, had an unequivocal approach to guns: you couldn't wear your gun in Dodge City, where Mr. Dillon was the marshal. And this wasn't just about your modern day assault weapon with a magazine holding dozens, or hundreds, of rounds. This was about your old-timey six-shot revolver.

Yes, Mr. Dillon understood a basic thing about guns: they are frigging dangerous, particularly after you've had a few drinks in the Long Branch Saloon and have become enamored of Miss Kitty. Better you settle your problems with fisticuffs rather than lead, steel, uranium, or whatever bullets happen to be made of at your particular moment of history.

Remember in the beginning of each episode of Gunsmoke how Mr. Dillon slapped leather with some bad guy? Mr. Dillon wasn't the fastest on the draw, but he was the one standing when the smoke cleared. Wouldn't it be great to see Wayne LaPierre as the bad guy, standing there with an AR-15, a Glock, and bandoleers over his shoulders and across his chest? Hey Wayne, even with all that firepower you think you got a chance against Mr. Dillon? He ain't like those Congressional fru-fru boys, and girls, you've been pushing around for the last couple of decades.

Boot Hill, here we come.

GUNS AND MENTAL HEALTH

Perhaps even the NRA could agree with the proposition that individuals with serious mental health problems should not have guns. A no-brainer, right? But at what point, if any, do extreme political views indicate a serious mental health problem that would prohibit an individual from possessing a gun?

Take an individual on the extreme radical left. Does the espousal of armed overthrow of the U.S. government and its replacement with a Communist dictatorship indicate a serious mental health problem?

Or just take a leftist-leaning individual who believes entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security are more important than balanced federal government budgets, even over the long term. Does this cavalier attitude toward deficit spending, toward unbalanced budgets, indicate a serious mental health problem?

Incidentally, the most definitely right-leaning Dick Cheney once said approvingly that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Does such a statement indicate the former Vice President has a serious mental health problem and consequently should have his guns confiscated? Actually, in the case of the former VP, the mental health issue is preempted by the competence issue. In shooting a hunting companion in the face, Mr. Cheney arguably displayed gross incompetence in the handling of a firearm. Ideally, such a level of incompetence should result in placement on the "No Guns For You" list.

Moving to the other end of the political spectrum, would a yard sign such as the following indicate a serious mental health problem: "The Second Amendment is the only thing between the People and Tyranny"? Some on the left might say so.

Thus the matter of guns and mental health is no easy thing to fit one's mind around. Fortunately, the nation has a Congress of predominately sane individuals who should be able to produce appropriate guidance.

OBAMA SHOULD GO BIG ON ENTITLEMENT REFORM

Democrats pretend it doesn't exist. Republicans acknowledge it but are unrealistic in their solutions. What is it? An aging population. The proportion of Americans over 65 has risen from 6.8 percent in 1940, to 12.4 percent in 2000, to 13.0 percent in 2010. The Census Bureau estimate for 2025 is 17.9 percent.

But the two major entitlement programs−Medicare and particularly Social Security−are implicitly based on unchanging demographics. Medicare was revamped by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2012−Obamacare−a very complex, and controversial, piece of legislation. The changes made in Medicare might be sufficient to ensure viability for some time to come, but continued monitoring will be necessary.

Social Security, on the other hand, is certainly unsustainable in its present form over the long term. What is the long term? Different observers have different opinions, which means disagreement, which in turn means a barrier to action. Consequently, the nation plods along, meandering into the future and hoping for the best.

At the very least, Social Security's age qualifications should be reexamined, and needs requirements should be considered. But many Democrats want to maintain Social Security in its present form, damn the changing demographics and the unlikelihood of maintaining the status quo solely through sizeable tax increases. As for Republicans, many of them want no tax component at all in any solution, meaning that they don't really have realistic solutions.

Significantly complicating the issue is fear on the part of both fervent Democrats and fervent Republicans of making a political mistake. Keep your head down. Let the other guy step into the line of fire.

This is where Obama should go big. The political center, where the majority of Americans reside, is not that much concerned about who is in power. The center wants solutions to problems. Obama, not having to run for office again, does not have to worry as much about offending the extremes on the left or the right. He does not have to tippy-toe around. He can throw out big ideas, big solutions, and let the chips fall where they may. An explicit proposal to revamp Social Security through both spending and revenue changes would put the left and right extremes on the defensive.

So, Big O, go for it.

CAN DEMOCRATS REMAIN THE ADULT PARTY?

For several years, the Democratic Party has been the nation's adult party, the party of reason, of logic, of compromise. But the characterization was not so much earned as bestowed by default. With the Republican Party resembling a group of infants going through the terrible twos−unrestrained desires, zero self-control, tantrums−appearing to be the adults required little effort.

As a result of being perceived as the adult party, Democrats largely triumphed in the November election and the year-end fiscal cliff standoff. In the election, Mr. Mitt and supporters did not come across as serious people with serious policies. They were all buzz words and absence of details. In the fiscal cliff mess, Republicans, particularly the House Republicans, seemed locked in an unstructured childhood fantasy that only they comprehended, and not really very well.

But in the political world, adulthood is not something that is necessarily permanent. Regressing to political childhood is all too easy, particularly when segments of your party are strongly ideological and bereft of any appreciation for opposing views or of what can reasonably be accomplished.

The Achilles heel of the Democrats, the factor that could destroy the current adult status of the party, is an inability on the part of some to see the need for a long-term balancing of government revenue and expenditures. Segments of the Democratic Party see a problem or an injustice and immediately want to throw money at it, damn the budgetary consequences. Or they refuse to acknowledge that circumstances change and that what were once acceptable monetary solutions are no longer appropriate.

Medicare and Social Security are two areas in which current policies are financially not sustainable over the long term. The population is aging. The proportion of people over 65 has risen from 6.8 percent in 1940, to 12.4 percent in 2000, to 13.0 percent in 2010. The Census Bureau estimate for 2025 is 17.9 percent. For Medicare and Social Security to remain viable over the decades ahead, such factors as age qualifications and needs requirements need to be revaluated. Can the Democratic Party participate in this revaluation? Or is the Party poised to abandoned the adult world for childhood fantasies?

THE REPUBLICAN GOAL: TO REMAIN A VIRGIN

To remain a virgin appears to be the primary goal of most Republicans in the fiscal cliff maneuverings, virginity to Republican true believers meaning never having voted to increase taxes. The easiest way to maintain one's tax virginity in the current circumstances is to do nothing and go over the fiscal cliff, let the automatic tax increases occur, and then quickly vote to reduce them, if not for everyone at least for everyone but the very rich.

If instead, a Republican, before the fiscal cliff is reached on January 1, votes to make permanent the current temporary rates on all but the very rich, his action (there aren't that many Republican hers in Congress) could be interpreted as an affirmative vote to increase taxes on those very rich. The Republican could argue that technically he was still a virgin, but technical political virginity is a tough case to make, just as is the case for technical sexual virginity among sexually active youth.

Granted, John Boehner's (most definitely not pronounced "Boner's") Plan B, which would have raised tax rates only on the very rich, was blessed by Pope Grover the First. But really, what does a Pope actually understand about virginity? Parenthetically, is virginity a requirement for being Pope, and if so, is it unquestioned virginity or just technical virginity?

Anyway, the reason the fiscal cliff mess is going down to the wire may be to enable Republicans to maintain their virginity. Instead of criticizing their actions, or non-actions, the sinners among us ought to stand in admiration of their restraint, a restraint that we sinners obviously lacked in the back seat of that '58 Edsel oh so many years ago, even if it was just a technical violation.

GUNS AND TECHNOLOGY

Here's the problem with the Constitution's Second Amendment: technology. When the Bill of Rights−with the Second Amendment−was adopted in 1791, "arms" were ye olde muzzle-loading musket, ye olde flintlock pistol, in short, ye olde old. Two rounds a minute would be a good rate of fire with these weapons.

Today, "arms" might, depending on who is doing the defining, include a fully automatic AR-15 spitting out 800 rounds per minute. How long would it take a Revolutionary War soldier to fire 800 rounds? At two rounds a minute, 400 hundred minutes, or more than six and a half hours.

So a Constitutional provision that protected the right to own a weapon firing two rounds a minute is now protecting the right to spray 800 rounds a minute? Even if the Constitutional protection is limited to semi-automatic weapons, an AR-15 in semi-automatic mode can spew 50 or more rounds a minute, depending on the quickness of the shooter's trigger finger and the size of the weapon's magazine. In the Founding Fathers' era, a shooter would need close to half an hour to get off 50 rounds.

Maybe it's time to repeal the Second Amendment, or at least adopt Justice Antonin Scalia's strict constructionist approach to Constitutional interpretation: the Constitution means what it meant when adopted in the closing years of the 18th Century. As for the term "arms," that means the Second Amendment's protection is limited to two rounds per minute.

What say you, NRA?

OVER THE CLIFF

What th' hell, Thelma, let's go over the cliff. It can't be any worse than watching the ridiculous minuet the donkeys and elephants in Washington and the talking heads there and in the Big Apple are engaged in. High school student councils across the nation do a better job of governing, and you remember what kind of dorks were on student council.

Besides, how bad can the likely consequences be? The nation would return to the tax rates of the later Clinton years. Remember those years? They were a time of budget surpluses, full employment, prosperity. W, draft-dodging Dick Cheney, and their myopic followers hadn't yet put the nation on a path to economic and fiscal disaster by cutting taxes−and consequently revenues−undertaking two wars on the nation's credit card, authorizing a prescription drug program for Medicare without paying for it, and in general making hedge fund managers look like responsible fiduciaries.

And for good measure, conducting foreign policy in a manner that would make Attila the Hun envious.

Barack is being criticized for not being a negotiator, for not buttering up the likes of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. Maybe there's something to the criticism, although making nice with the Boehners and McConnells of the world would be beyond the ability of most sane people. But the real problem does not appear to be making nice but ideological rigidity. The Republican party of the second decade of the 21st (and maybe last) Century is in the hands of the lowest common denominator. Egged on by Fox Noise, conservative talk radio, the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, and their fellow travelers, the members of the lowest common denominator appear ready to take the nation into the economic abyss.

So why fight it? Let's join hands, stomp on the accelerator, and go over the edge. The uncertainty has an appeal that a future of partisan bickering, intransigence, nitpicking, and political gamesmanship lacks.

BENGHAZI: A FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS

In an effort to create a Watergate-level scandal, Fox Noise and its flunkies in the U.S. Congress (talking about you, Senators McCain and Graham), are making an already murky event much more opaque. Here’s a framework for analyzing and interpreting what has transpired. The framework doesn’t provide answers but merely tries to separate the important questions and issues from the unimportant, and to highlight the complicating facets of the matter.

First, it is helpful to think of events in Benghazi as taking place in three phases: the pre-event phase, the attacks themselves, and the public explanation aftermath. Second, not just the U.S. State Department was involved. The attack was against both a State Department consulate and a significant operational center for U.S. intelligence operations. And third, the attack occurred at a moment when demonstrations were erupting in various locations in the Islamic world over an inflammatory anti-Islamic video produced by an individual in the United States.

The interplay of these factors makes for a very messy picture that is ripe for simplistic political exploitation by those so inclined (talking about you, Fox Noise).

First, consider the three phases, or timelines. In the pre-event phase, the broad issue was the security of U.S. embassies, consulates, bases, and personnel around the world. Was the security of the consulate and operational base in Benghazi neglected? Reports are that additional security was requested in the months before the attacks. But were these unusual requests, or are they common? The fact that requests were made and rejected is not in and of itself sufficient to establish negligence. Security levels are dependent in part on the perceived threat and in part on adequate resources. Tradeoffs are necessary, and within limits defensible whatever the outcome. The decision to not increase security in Benghazi is one that must be judged from a broad perspective and with a number of considerations in mind.

The actual event phase lasted only a few short hours. Questions have been asked about when the Secretaries of State and Defense were informed, when the leaderships of the intelligent organizations were informed, when the President was informed, as if early knowledge by any of these individuals had the potential for making a difference in what transpired. Given the relatively short elapsed time of the events and the remoteness of the location relative to major collections of U.S. forces, early, even immediate, notification of the highest levels of government, if it did not occur, would likely have made little difference. Complicating the situation was the lack of clarity about what was actually happening. The more pertinent issues concern the responses at lower levels of the government agencies involved. Establishing the timelines of these responses is necessary to get a clear picture of what happened, but focusing on when the President was told is little more than political gamesmanship.

Phase three of the events was the shifting public explanations that stretched over several weeks. Opponents of the Obama Administration see in the shifting explanations a conspiracy or conspiracies amounting to something on the level of a Watergate scandal. But the much more likely explanation is confusion arising from the involvement of multiple, and secretive, agencies of the U.S. Government: State, Defense, intelligence agencies, and maybe more. It would be wonderful if government were a well-functioning machine, but it’s not and that’s just the way of things. And it’s not just government. Very few large organizations, if any, operate smoothly.

Compounding the confusion was the fact that demonstrations were occurring in many locations in the Islamic world over a video produced in the United States. Distinguishing a violent demonstration from an organized terrorist attack is easy only if you’re a commentator in a comfortable safe studio and you have the time and energy to quibble over the difference between “extremist” and “terrorist.”

So did the confusing responses leave the U.S. Government looking good, or even competent? No. But were they the result of conspiring public officials trying to accomplish something that even Fox Noise can’t quite pinpoint? If your answer is yes, you have qualified for citizenship in United States of Paranoid America.

UPPER BODY STRENGTH

One of the great things about the Internets is that any yahoo can broadcast his or her opinions to the World. The World might not be listening, but that's the World's problem. Anyway, Cranky reacted negatively to a recent op-ed in Rupert's paper, The Wall Street Journal. Cranky sent the WSJ a letter to the editor, which apparently fell on deaf ears. But the World should have the benefit of Cranky's thoughts, so here is his unpublished letter. (UPDATE: The WSJ did in fact publish an edited and abbreviated version of the letter on November 20.)

Michael O'Hanlon's op-ed, "A Challenge for Female Marines" (Nov. 13), accepts without question what Cranky considers the fallacy of excessive upper body strength as a necessity for individuals in Marine or Army infantry positions. Mr. O'Hanlon cites two components of Marine Corps testing in the Corps' Infantry Officer Course: endurance and upper body strength. He gives each equal importance.

But writing as an individual who served in Vietnam for two and a half years (1966-69), was an Infantry platoon leader in an Airborne unit (the 173rd Airborne Brigade), and retired from the Army Reserve with the rank of Colonel after 31 years of service, Cranky firmly believes that endurance is far more important than upper body strength for successful service in the Infantry, particularly when the tests of upper body strength are contrived and subjective.

Mr. O'Hanlon mentions three strength standards demanded of Marine Corps infantry officers. The first is being able to lift oneself−while wearing body armor and carrying a pack−up and over walls. He calls this essential in modern combat.

But what are the details of this standard? How high are the walls: 4 feet, 6 feet, 8 feet, 10 feet? What is the combat load? Is there any research as to what and how often walls of various sizes are encountered? Or is the standard just a seat-of-the-pants estimate by someone who just happens to be blessed with superior upper body strength? During his time as an infantry platoon leader in Vietnam and later as an infantry advisor to a Vietnamese infantry unit, Cranky encountered zero walls in need of climbing. But then, that was the nature of the jungle and the rice paddies.

Second, Mr. O'Hanlon describes as also essential being able to move a wounded fellow Marine across a field to safety. Does that mean being able to lift and carry a wounded comrade? Or is dragging permitted? And is any adjustment made for whether the comrade is bigger than normal and the carrier smaller? Cranky will bet the mortgage that in few, if any, infantry companies in the Marines or the Army can every single individual carry every other individual for a meaningful distance. There just have to be some outliers.

Third, Mr. O'Hanlon notes as essential being able to haul part of a dismantled mortar to an ambush site. Finally, we have a requirement that is somewhat realistic. One of Cranky's "commands" was of a 81mm mortar platoon in an infantry company. Actually, there were only about fifteen members of the platoon, and the platoon had only one, rather than the more normal two or three, mortars, but such were the conditions in '67. Anyway, the mortar base plate, the tube, the tripod, and the mortar rounds certainly made for heavy loads. But they were loads of endurance and stamina much more than of upper body strength.

Cranky has two daughters, one a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy. Neither has exceptional upper body strength. But both have completed a number of marathons and several 50-mile ultramarathons. One has completed a 100-mile ultramarathon. Both have accompanied Cranky on grueling multi-week backpacking trips into remote wilderness areas in various Western states. In Cranky's opinion, each has both the endurance and upper body strength necessary for the infantry, provided the upper body strength standard is not based on a figment of some weightlifter's imagination.

A SCANDAL MAZE

This thing is really getting complicated. A short time ago it was reported that the object of Paula Broadwell's ire, Jill Kelly of Tampa, Florida, who first alerted the FBI through an agent who was a "friend," has had extensive correspondence with the current Afghan Commander, Marine General John Allen. As the cliche goes, you couldn't make this up. Here's a chart of the players. Connecting the boxes should keep the nation occupied for many months.

WANTED: BIOGRAPHER(S)

Events of the last few days have convinced Cranky that he needs a biographer. As an exemplary federal government bureaucrat for many years, Cranky enjoyed a career that could serve as a model for aspiring young federal bureaucrats. Cranky's accomplishments are many and well-known, but a detailed biography is really the best avenue for telling the complete story, for enabling the public to fully appreciate Cranky's bureaucratic greatness.

The first requirement for Cranky's biographer is that she be a she. It is well known that in most instances the deepest communications occur between individuals of the opposite sex. And Cranky's full story will require deep communication.

Also, to avoid the loss of understanding that can occur when works are translated from one language to another, a biographer for each major language should be involved. Thus, in addition to an English biographer, there is need at the very least for a Swedish biographer, a French biographer, an Italian biographer, and an Hispanic biographer.

And then there's the Orient with its many languages and huge number of potential readers. Each language will require its own biographer.

The project is daunting but the rewards will be great. Now let's get started with selecting those biographers.

OVER

Well, it's over. Apparently−and hopefully−there won't be disputes, recounts, hanging chads, and whatall. Mr. Mitt gave a gracious concession speech. And Barack gave an inspiring victory speech in which he noted the problems ahead, pledged efforts at bipartisanship, and praised the fact that the American system encourages both the airing of disagreements and their peaceful solution.

Now the tough work begins. The "fiscal cliff," budget deficits, entitlement spending outrunning revenues, the list is long. Barack sounded intent on making significant overtures to the Republican opposition. Will there be reciprocation? The common ground is there, but have we become so blinded by partisanship that we won't be able to find it?

In terms of comedic relief, the highlight of the evening had to be the dispute between the Fox Noise anchors and Karl Rove over whether the call on Ohio as a Barack victory came too early. Cranky knows that this comment is not in the spirit of bipartisanship, but Karl, you really have no business overseeing the multimillion dollar disbursements for Crossroads America. Meaning no disrespect Karl, but your talents are rather more limited. Have you thought about a Home Depot franchise?

APOLOGIES

First, apologies to Mrs. Mitt, Ann Romney. She called the other evening and Cranky said some pretty nasty, childish things to her. There may have even been some obscenities uttered, and some derogatory statements about her dancing horse Rafalca's performance in the Olympics. It was entirely unnecessary for Cranky to suggest that Rafalca rather than Seamus, the family dog, should have been strapped to the roof of the family car for the infamous cross-country trip. But Mrs. Mitt seemed to take Cranky's indiscretions in stride as she did not pause in her entreaties for Cranky to vote for Mr. Mitt.

Apologies also to Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia. It was inappropriate for Cranky to suggest during their phone conversation that the Governor take the vaginal probe he and Attorney General Cuccinelli want to insert in Virginia women and put it up their own orifices to "where the sun don't shine."

And apologies to Mike Huckabee for comparing him during his phone call to Virginia's collection of "whack-job television politico-evangelicals who are more concerned about the collection plate than about saving souls or successful government."

Also to Barbara Bush. Cranky should not have suggested when she called this evening that the names of both her husband and sons were likely to surface in the ongoing prostitution scandal in Kennebunk Maine.

And finally to Mr. Mitt himself. When he specifically asked for Cranky's spouse by her first name, Cranky should have paused before jumping to the conclusion that hanky-panky was afoot. After all, for Cranky's spouse, greasy hair has always been a turnoff.

PAUL RYAN WINS NYC MARATHON

Barely breaking a sweat, Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan coasted to victory in the New York City Marathon. Even the vaunted Kenyans were nowhere to be seen as Mr. Ryan posted an unofficial time of under three hours. Mr. Ryan did receive a congratulatory tweet from a "B.O., on behalf of my fellow Kenyans."

For his winning strategy, Mr. Ryan credited a Michigan dentist, Kip Litton. Dr. Litton was featured in the August 6, 2012, issue of The New Yorker magazine for his unusual marathon talents of finishing a marathon despite not being observed on many portions of the course. Dr. Litton has also performed exceptionally well in marathons in which he was apparently the only participant.

When asked about his future running plans, Mr. Ryan said it depended in part on the outcome of Tuesday's election. If he and Mr. Mitt are successful, Mr. Ryan indicated that balancing the federal budget would likely require most of his efforts. He promised, however, to bring the same intensity and attention to detail to that task as he has brought to marathoning.

AMERICANS FOR LIMITED GOVERNMENT: AN AMERICAN GESTAPO?

An organization calling itself Americans for Limited Government is sending a "Vote History Audit" to individuals in various localities across the nation. The audit contains the names of the recipient and a few neighbors, the addresses of both, and whether or not the recipient and the neighbors voted in the elections of 2004 and 2008. The audit does not say how the listed individuals voted, just that they voted. The one page audit contains the following ominous paragraph:

"As a further service, we will be updating our records after the expected high turnout for the Tuesday, November 6, 2012 election. We will then send an updated vote history audit to you and your neighbors with the results."

Limited Government?! Under what possible rationale does an organization purporting to be for limited government take upon itself the task of publicly revealing to his or her neighbors how often a private citizen goes to the polls? The ALG may not be a government body, but this invasion of a citizen's privacy is Big Brother in the extreme. If the federal government made a practice of publicizing a citizen's attendance record at the polls, you can be sure that the likes of the individuals providing testimonials on the ALG website, getliberty.org, would be screaming bloody hell. Those testimonials are by Ed Crane, Founder/President of the Cato Institute, and Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

An AGL spokesperson was quoted as saying that the purpose of the mailing was only to increase participation in the electoral process. But doing so by publicly shaming citizens smacks of authoritarianism in its most virulent manifestations: Nazism and Communism.

The AGL is a right-leaning group, but this strange desire by political groups to publicly out the voting attendance record of private citizens is not confined to the right. The left-leaning MoveOn.org reportedly has a similar, although somewhat less revealing, campaign underway. In the MoveOn effort, the recipient's voting participation is scored against a neighborhood average but the records of individual neighbors aren't revealed.

Admittedly, an individual's participation in voting−not how he or she votes but how often−is currently a public record. But just because it is legal to publicize something does not mean it is a good idea. The Executive Director of MoveOn.org was quoted in USA Today as calling the practice "creepy." To say the least, that is a gross understatement.

MR. MITT AND WEIRD MONEY

In The Wall Street Journal of November 2 was an article on Mr. Mitt's financial holdings and how difficult disclosure or divestment of them would be if he were elected. The article contained selected assets valued at $1 million or more, divided into two groups: Bain-related and not Bain-related.

The Bain-related group contained two private-equity funds, a public-equities fund, an employee IRA co-investment fund, and a distressed-debt fund. The not Bain-related group contained two hedge funds, a private-equity fund, and a Tagg Romney private-equity fund. (Alert to Josh, Matt, Ben, and Craig Romney: Brother Tagg might be number one on the runway as far as disposition of Dad's estate is concerned.)

Just this selected portion of Mr. Mitt's holdings would provide all the material needed for a full semester investment portfolio class in an MBA program. How many folks in the ninety-nine percent can even attempt a definition of a private-equity fund, a hedge fund, or a public-equities fund? The only term that might be somewhat familiar to ordinary Americans is IRA fund, but even here the addition of "co-investment" likely adds confusion.

The content of the WSJ's listing of selected Mr. Mitt assets highlights two points. First, despite his forced folksiness, Mr. Mitt ain't like most of us. He is one rich dude. Second, despite his claims of being a successful businessman, Mr. Mitt is really both more and less than that. He is successful at money, but he is not a businessman who made and sold a tangible product or provided a service recognizable by most of his fellow citizens. He is someone who tore businesses apart, repackaged them, and sold the results to others.

And he did this in a time of seismic change in the world of finance, a time when the computer put money-creating power into hands of many beyond the traditional banking structure, a time when such exotic things as derivatives, credit default swaps, hedging, and electronic trading appeared and laid the foundations for the financial collapse that occurred in 2007-2009. In short, Mr. Mitt came on the scene in a time of weird money.

Mr. Mitt was a very special type of successful businessman at the dawn of the Information Age. But he doesn't appear to understand the world in which he achieved success. He speaks and appears to think in the platitudes of the fading Industrial Age. He professes to be forward looking, but in realty he is blindly rushing into the uncertain future with the intellectual tools of the fast-fading past.

A MINORITY TWICE OVER

Polling data indicate that a sizeable majority of white men are supporters of Mr. Mitt, and that a sizeable majority of old people−geezers−are similarly inclined. That makes Cranky a minority twice over. Cranky is a white guy geezer who is pro-Obama.

Where did Cranky go wrong? Back in the '60s, he didn't march in the streets, trash his college, or do drugs (he did do a fair amount of alcohol, however). He even ended up in uniform in Southeast Asia, trying to halt them Commie hoards. Moreover, he maintained a connection to that uniform for over thirty years. So shouldn't Cranky be in the ranks of Mr. Mitt's most stalwart supporters?

Well, here's the problem with Mr. Mitt's most stalwart supporters. They enthusiastically adhere to the late William F. Buckley's definition of a conservative as one who stands "athwart history yelling 'Stop!'" Mr. Mitt reeks of the 1950s when white guys were both in the majority and top dogs, and when today's geezers were experiencing blissful or at least tolerable childhoods. In short, Mr. Mitt's most stalwart supporters seem to lack a sense of time marching on.

The future ain't gonna be easy, folks. The Information Age and its tool, the computer, are posing challenges we are only beginning to perceive. Both Mr. Mitt and Barack want to create jobs. But the computer is eliminating jobs, and its job-elimination propensities will likely accelerate. After two centuries of industrialization, the uneasy relationship among job creating technologies, increasing productivity, meaningful work, and unemployment might be tipping toward the latter.

Looking back is not where the future will be found. Barack may not be perfect, but at least he gives an impression of someone who knows the future will require adjustments in many areas. Mr. Mitt doesn't give that impression. Mr. Mitt exudes the past, and the past is no longer within reach.

EARLY VOTING: REALLY SUCH A GOOD IDEA?

Early voting has become a big part of the election of 2012. More and more states are jumping on the bandwagon, either allowing early voting without restrictions or loosening the restrictions on absentee ballots. The later path, being followed in Virgina for one, is creating a number of fibbers as voters claim they have to vote early because they will be away from their homes on election day, when in reality they won't. What if the election in Virginia is close and one side or the other starts going after likely fibbers to have their ballots disqualified and their persons fined, jailed, or whatever?

Can't happen, you say? Then you haven't been paying much attention to recent American electoral history.

But early voting of any sort−whether without restrictions or with just the loosening of absentee ballot restrictions−poses another problem that might cause significant problems. What if after voting early for a candidate you learn of some really nefarious thing about him or her, so nefarious that you want to take back your vote. The right, of course, would give you its version of such a vote changer: the discovery that Barack's Hawaii birth certificate was a fake.

On the other hand, Mr. Mitt might have some things in his past that could be vote changers. Evidence has already surfaced that in his youth Mr. Mitt was something of a bully, on one occasion even forcibly shaving the head of an individual who was not part of the in-crowd at a highfalutin prep school. But there are other possibilities. Maybe Mr. Mitt was born in Mexico, the birthplace of his father, and the Michigan birth certificate is fake.

Or maybe during his time as a missionary in France he experienced a bit more French "culture" than he is letting on. Or maybe a lot more French "culture," if you catch my drift. Maybe, just maybe, mind you, he drank wine and coffee, smoked disgusting French cigarettes, and had a fling with Catherine Deneuve. Just speculating.

Anyway, this early voting thing has the potential for significant problems, maybe not in this election, but the future goes on for a long time. Someday many decades from now, early voting might install a candidate in office who was shown before the end of the voting period to be a liar, scoundrel, or worse. That future generation would look back to this time and ask, "How could those clowns come up with such a ludicrous idea as early voting?"

SANDY AND CAMPAIGN ADS

The electricity on the street was out only 24 hours! And the even better news is that the local cable provider is not yet reconnected, so no Fox Noise! Electricity, warmth, and no Fox Noise. It don't get much better. Unfortunately, other folks nearby won't have electricity for awhile. But they don't have Fox Noise either!

Inhabitants of the so-called battleground states have had to endure an avalanche of campaign ads. Oh, for the good old days when it was just commercials for cars, soap, nasal spray, headache remedies, erectile dysfunction treatments, and the like. But at least many of the commercial ads come with disclaimers and warnings. Not so the campaign ads.

Some warnings that might be appropriate for campaign ads:

) Do not take with alcohol, caffeine, amphetamines, uppers, downers, or any other forms of stimulants or relaxers.

) See your doctor if your erection lasts more than four hours.

) See your doctor if you have an erection.

) Do not be worried about nausea and vomiting. They are normal reactions.

) See your doctor if you don't experience nausea and vomiting.

) Do not watch if you are attempting to cure a nicotine, alcohol, or other drug addiction. This ad will make the effort exponentially more difficult.

) Do not watch if you are attending anger management classes.

) Do not watch in the presence of breakable items, such as glass and small pets.

The Campaigns should also adhere to warnings. One warning is to be careful what your ad is collocated with. For example, the juxtaposition of a link to Mr. Mitt's official site with a video of Hurricane Sandy destroying a house in North Carolina might not be ideal.

MR. MITT AND HURRICANES

Getting the daily blog in before the electricity goes. Recall that the Republican convention was disrupted by a hurricane or tropical storm or something. Now another major storm is arriving as the election approaches. What is the common denominator? Mr. Mitt. The guy brings bad weather. Think about it as you cast your vote, if you haven't already done so.

Opps, that last gust was a doozy. Guess Mr. Mitt got really irritated with the preceding paragraph.

Just caught a Fox Noise commentary by Brit Hume. It's hard to avoid the impression he's hoping a major disaster is in the offing that could be blamed on Barack. Hey Brit, can't you see that it's your boy Mr. Mitt who's responsible for the bad weather?

A PAUL RYAN MARATHON

Did the October 28 Marine Corps Marathon in just over three hours. Well actually, it was well over six hours, but Mr. Paul has shown that preciseness with numbers, whether they be marathon times or calculations regarding federal budgets and deficits, isn't that important.

In fact, next year I'm thinking of taking the approach described in an article in the August 6, 2012, issue of The New Yorker. The article detailed the marathon activities of a Michigan dentist who claimed good times in a lot of marathons but apparently had employed a sophisticated strategy of avoiding many of the miles between the start and the finish. The MCM course is a series of zigzags that would provide numerous shortcut opportunities. But I won't be a glutton. Claiming a time of just over four hours seems sufficient.

Incidentally, the Michigan dentist might be ideal for a position in a Romney-Ryan Administration. Fudging the numbers is the only way their promises have a chance of working out.

MR. MITT AND BIPARTISANSHIP

Increasingly, the President is getting zinged for failing on the bipartisanship front. He didn't do enough to bring Republicans to the table, to work out mutually acceptable solutions to the nation's problems. Peggy Noonan, she of the Ronnie Reagan fan club, in October 27's Wall Street Journal makes much of Barack's supposed failure to reach out. In his new book, The Price of Politics, Bob Woodard dwells on Barack's perceived bipartisan inadequacies. Mr. Mitt has been amping-up his own alleged bipartisan abilities. He knows how to sit down with the opposition party and work stuff out.

Well, for the most part the President indeed has been unable to bridge the partisan gaps. But whose fault was it? Maybe a little blame goes to the President and his fellow Democrats. But the party that took the hard line, the no compromise positions over the last four years, was the Republican party. Grover Norquist said no new taxes, nothing that even could be perceived as a tax increase, and the Republican Party jumped.

Nothing is more instructive regarding the current Republican attitude toward compromise than the responses to the question asked during one of the Republican primary debates: would you walk away from a hypothetical deal calling for 10 to 1 spending cuts to tax increases. The eight debaters, including Mr. Mitt, all raised their hands that they would walk away. And this is the attitude Barack is found guilty of not accommodating?!

It would certainly be ironic, or maybe just a perversion of justice, if Mr. Mitt were to win the election on his recently discovered bipartisanship strategy when in fact the major lack of bipartisanship over the last four years has been due to his own party.