So! How about them good old days?

By Joseph Walther

Here’s some good news and some bad news. Americans’ average life expectancy is currently around 78.0 years. It’s higher for women but lower for men. The bad news is that, according to www.NationMaster.com, we’re 44^th on a list of 220 covered countries.

Medical Science has come a long way over the past 100-years. In 1907 over ninety percent of all United States physicians had no college education and some had never attended a medical school. Medical schools were thought to be substandard.

The five leading causes of death were (in order from first to last): Pneumonia and influenza, Tuberculosis, Diarrhea, Heart Disease, and Stroke. The five leading causes of death today are (same order as above): Heart disease, Cancer, Stroke, Pneumonia, and Accident/Suicide.

Diarrhea is no longer on the list. Thank God for Imodium AD! When ya gotta go, ya gotta go. As life-saving as this stuff is, the last cause of death on the list indicates that more and more people don’t care and just want to check the hell out of here.

Here’s a complete list of how it was in 1907. I don’t know who compiled it, though. Have a look, anyway. I have verified it against other legitimate list and it seems consistent with them.

• The average life expectancy in the United States was forty-seven.
• Only 14 percent of the homes in the United States had a bathtub.
• Only 8 percent of the homes had a telephone. A three minute call from Denver to New York City cost eleven dollars.
• There were only 8,000 cars in the US and only 144 miles of paved roads.
• The maximum speed limit in most cities was ten mph.
• Alabama, Mississippi, Iowa, and Tennessee were each more heavily populated than California. With a mere 1.4 million residents, California was only the twenty-first most populous state in the Union.
• The tallest structure in the world was the Eiffel Tower.
• The average wage in the U.S. was twenty-two cents an hour. The average U.S. worker made between $200 and $400 per year.
• A competent accountant could expect to earn $2000 per year, a dentist $2500 per year, a veterinarian between $1500 and $4000 per year, and a mechanical engineer about $5000 per year.
• More than 95 percent of all births in the United States took place at home.
• Sugar cost four cents a pound.
• Eggs were fourteen cents a dozen.
• Coffee cost fifteen cents a pound.
• Most women only washed their hair once a month and used borax or egg yolks for shampoo.
• Canada passed a law prohibiting poor people from entering the country for any reason, either as travelers or immigrants.
• The American flag had 45 stars. Arizona, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Hawaii and Alaska hadn't been admitted to the Union yet.
• Drive-by-shootings, in which teenage boys galloped down the street on horses and started randomly shooting at houses, carriages, or anything else that caught their fancy, were an ongoing problem in Denver and other cities in the West.
• The population of Las Vegas, Nevada was thirty. The remote desert community was inhabited by only a handful of ranchers and their families.
• Plutonium, insulin, and antibiotics hadn't been discovered yet. Scotch tape, crossword puzzles, canned beer, and iced tea hadn't been invented.
• There was no Mother's Day or Father's Day.
• One in ten U.S. adults couldn't read or write. Only 6 percent of all Americans had graduated from high school.
• Some medical authorities warned that professional seamstresses were apt to become sexually aroused by the steady rhythm, hour after hour, of the sewing machine's foot pedals. They recommended slipping bromide, which was thought to diminish sexual desire,into the woman's drinking water.
• Marijuana, heroin, and morphine were all available over the counter at corner drugstores. According to one pharmacist, "Heroin clears the complexion, gives buoyancy to the mind, regulates the stomach and the bowels, and is, in fact, a perfect guardian of health.
• Coca-Cola contained cocaine instead of caffeine.
• Punch card data processing had recently been developed, and early predecessors of the modern computer were used for the first time by the government to help compile the 1900 census.
• Eighteen percent of households in the United States had at least one full-time servant or domestic.

It will be interesting to see what happens over the NEXT one hundred years assuming, of course, that we don’t extinguish our species with some of the stupidity we are currently involved with.

Another point worth noting is this. Progress, from generation to generation, usually occurs at an ever-increasing rate because of technological advances. It took humans about 200-years to go from horse speed to Voyager-1 space probe speed (about 38,000 miles per hour).

I wonder how long it will take us to get to some meaningful percentage of light-speed (around 50%). I won’t be around to see it, but some of you might be provided you tame some of your excesses and always make you to have some Imodium AD on hand!

Next week… same time, same channel.

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.

Of Doctors and other matters of IQ

By Joseph Walther

A few months ago, I was channel surfing during the late night—defined by ME as after mid-night but before 4 AM. I came across Larry King Live. His guest was Dr. Jack Kevorkian, recently released after serving 8-years of a 10 to 25-year prison term stemming from his conviction on a multitude of assisted suicides.

This is not about Larry King or Jack Kevorkian, at least not specifically. It’s about something that Larry King said to the infamous Dr. Death! However, in the interest of fairness, I must clarify something first.

Relative to Larry King, I have never been one of his fans. Personally, I think he’s highly overrated and a perfect example of how someone has managed to fool an inordinately large number of people over an interminably long period of time.

But, given his long and successful career, I stand as a member of a relatively small group of critics. Regardless, in my opinion, there is something about Larry King that seems to scream out; “Look at me, everybody; I’m a dumb-ass!”

Relative to Dr. Jack Kevorkian, I ALWAYS agreed with him in principle. I think his intentions were always honorable and sincere in that he believed he was helping people.

Since we seem to abhor letting animals suffer under such horrible conditions, why do we expect humans to suffer so? If their medical conditions are terminal and they are mentally and emotionally competent, why not permit medical doctors to help them die painlessly and with dignity?

All of this aside, though, I think Kevorkian did his cause more harm than good. His methodology appeared callus and dangerous. Taunting law enforcement personnel to “Stop me if you can” by sending audio/video recordings of his actions was both arrogant and stupid.

Okay… Now, back to the interview. In answer to King’s question concerning the outcome of his (Kevorkian’s) efforts, Dr. Jack explained to Mr. King that his “doctor-assisted” suicide mission was over.

“Someone younger will have to take up the cause,” he told King. “Besides,” he added, “the state of Michigan revoked my medical license as a result of my conviction. So I couldn’t continue actively, even if I wanted to.”

Larry King then asked, “So, how do you feel now that you can’t call yourself ‘Doctor’ anymore?” Dr. Kevorkian looked at him and said, “I’m still a doctor because I have a medical degree from an accredited medical school. They can’t take that away. I just can no longer practice medicine.”

This went over Mr. King’s head by at least 5-vertical feet. He was sincerely clueless. Viewers could tell this because of the way he continued to press the point. He seemed determined to spring some sort of “gotcha” on Kevorkian.

It always seems that whenever dumb-asses try explaining what intelligent people have said, they (the dumb-asses), due to sheer cognitive deficiency, subconsciously translate it into something THEY can understand. Larry King seems to substantiate this with alarming frequency.

Actually, it lends much credence to what I said about him a few paragraphs above: that, in my opinion, there seems to be something about Larry King that just SCREAMS, “Look at me, everybody; I’m a dumb-ass!”

Now, if you happen to be a Larry King fan, fine! Don’t be sending me hate email because I’ve picked on him. It’s not personal. And, besides, I’m not alone in this respect. Take consolation in the fact that many other TV/Radio talking heads are just as bad, only a lot younger.

Look, I have to begin my Christmas shopping—I’m not about to let people classify me as a “last minute shopper”—so I’d like to keep this week’s article short. However, I do believe that I’ve stumbled onto a possible reason for Larry King’s long-term celebrity success.

I’m a Comcast broadband ISP subscriber. I found the below headline on Comcast.net Entertainment. Since they tend to remove stuff faster than people can read it, I’ve decided to include the entire article here.

“Cops: 'Mr. Bean' Dings a Car in Aspen”

ASPEN, Colo. — British comedian Rowan Atkinson, known for playing the bumbling television and movie character Mr. Bean, made a mistake of his own when he backed an SUV into an Aspen woman's car.

Atkinson was moving from a metered spot Thursday when he struck the Volkswagen Jetta, police said. "He was backing out of a parking spot and didn't see the car behind him," said police Sgt. Dan Davis. "There was a little bit of damage to the car. He put a ding in it."

Davis said the accident was minor, and no citations were issued.

A phone message left for Atkinson's management in London late Saturday was not immediately returned.

Why is this newsworthy, even though I think Rowan Atkinson is a fine comedic entertainer? The fact is that it isn’t. However, some reporter thought it important enough to call Atkinson and tell us that he did not IMMEDIATELY return the call.

These entertainment reporters must have the IQs of carrots. And, based on some of the stuff I’ve seen on television over the past several years, we readers and viewers may be suffering similarly.

The fact that I’ve actually enjoyed some of this stuff scares the daylights out of me, though. I’ve always thought my own IQ to be in the range of high-grade tree bark.

Even though I told you last week, again, have a great holiday, whatever name you assign to it. I call it Christmas. So Merry Christmas! If this offends some you, I’m sorry, not for offending you, but because you have a carrot-level IQ.

We’ll do it again next Sunday. Stay safe. Don’t drive and drink. Carrots certainly don’t.

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.

OK! But ONLY because it's Christmas

By Joseph Walther

For many people, most applicably this writer, using the newest, faddist, and most recently declared GREATEST electronic gadget is the SECOND most incredible feeling male humans can experience. I subscribe to at least 30-electronic product newsletters; each arriving in my inbox chocked full of “gotta haves.” Trust me; I know what I’m talking about.

People flock around me for advice on the newest and greatest stuff to buy. Computers! Digital Cameras! Cell Phones! MP3 Players! Digital Voice Recorders! Vibrators! You name it and people have asked me about it.

I was in Best Buys^® last Tuesday afternoon. A sales associate had approached a potential customer and had just popped the magic question: “May I help you?” Yes, rare as it is, it still happens occasionally.

The customer, probably in shock, gushed, “Oh, God, I hope so. I’m looking for a digital camera with a lot of megapixels for my wife for Christmas and I’m clueless.”

The sales associate then asked the ultimate sucker question, “How much did you want to spend?” The customer, in the tradition of the truly clueless, responded with, “Not too much. I’d like to keep it under $500.”

With that, the “associate” stepped back a pace or two and picked up an Olympus SP-560-UZ. “This is one of the best cameras on the market,” he said; “and, it’s on sale for only $459.99!”

The man appeared to be in his mid- to late 50s. But, as nice and sincere as he appeared, the only thing missing was a lollipop wrapper covering his head and tightly twist-wrapped around his neck.

My spoiler instinct kicked in immediately. “NOT ON MY WATCH,” I whispered under my breath. “I own this model,” I said to the man. “What would you like to know about it?”

At this point, the store “associate” excused himself to wait on another customer, a much younger customer, female with perky breasts and firm… SORRY, I digress too much sometimes.

Though I cursed myself for intervening too soon, I continued my resolve to help this man just the same.

As the sales associate schmoozed with his younger, perky-breasted, bubbly-voiced customer, I tore my eyes away and pulled the older guy aside; describing the two most egregious consumer felonies customers could possibly commit: telling salespeople how much they’re willing to spend and admitting their cluelessness.

In less than 2-minutes of conversation, I learned that his wife’s total camera experience was restricted to those disposable 35mm cameras sold at drug stores and department stores such as Target, and K-mart. His experience, I also learned, was not quite as extensive as hers.

I asked him if he had a home computer with email and an Internet connection. He said that he did and that both he and his wife were more familiar with the Internet than with digital cameras.

I’m not going into the entire lesson on digital cameras that I shared with him. But, in summary, here are the features that people should look for in a FIRST digital camera purchase.

Sadly, sales people tend to overlook most of the absolute, practical features, while overemphasizing much of the relative and/or useless stuff.

Take megapixels for example. We’ve been brain washed when it comes to megapixels. We’re convinced that the more megapixels there are the better the camera. This is a myth that all camera manufactures love to perpetuate because more megapixels mean higher purchase prices.

However, once people learn the role that megapixels play in the total quality aspects of digital cameras, they discover that the importance of large megapixel counts is relative to what you want from the camera.

The most popular print size for digital prints is 4x6 with an occasional 8x10. While it’s true that megapixels determine image quality, it’s also true that they are more relevant to print quality. The higher the number of megapixels, the more you can enlarge the image for printing without distortion.

For prints of 4x6 and those occasional 8x10s, between 4- and 6-megapixels is more than sufficient. It also lowers the price of the camera. Four to six megapixels will provide great screen image quality as well as provide for image enlargements without quality distortion when printing your pictures.

Also, forget DIGITAL zoom. It’s a software matter that comes into play during the cropping of images or their screen resizing. What IS critical to camera users is OPTICAL zoom. Standard optical zoom for point and shoot digitals is 3x or, more rarely, 5x.

Again, manufacturers do a lousy job of explaining optical zoom. Most people understand that a zoom feature brings a subject closer to the camera. I heard one sales associate at CompUSA explain that 3x brings the subject three times closer.

Wow, that’s clear, but um… three times closer than what AND from where? Here’s a down and dirty explanation. Divide the distance to the subject by the optical zoom number.

In other words, if your subject is 100-yards away, a 3x optical zoom will make it seem like it is only 33 yards away. If the optical zoom is 5x, the subject will seem to be only 20-yards away. A 10x optical zoom will make it seem like your subject is only 10-yards away.

Most point and shoot digitals do not have viewfinders. You just look through the LCD monitor; focus in on the subject; and take the picture. A viewfinder is only important if you take many pictures in very bright light, such as sun glare-like brightness at the beach.

The last technical features that you should look at are shutter lag and optical image stabilization. These are important.

Blurring, especially in low light conditions, is caused by natural handshake. I don’t mean overt handshaking, as in suffering from a hangover, but rather a natural, subtly undetectable handshake that comes from the simple act of trying to hold a camera still. It happens and it blurs the image.

It’s enough to drive you crazy, to maybe start drinking; resulting in some of that overt, hung-over handshaking I referred to above!

Built-in optical image stabilization overcomes this, for the most part, using gyroscopic sensors and floating elements in the lens. So always look for a digital camera that has this feature.

BUT NOTE! It does NOT overcome handshake from hangovers. You’ll need cocaine for this, or, at the very least, some high-quality pot that ONLY Leroy sells… outside the police station… downtown.

If shutter lag is too long, you’ll end up missing some great shots, especially those evidence shots involving small children putting peanut butter and jelly sandwiches into the VCR slot.

So, whatever you do, be sure to buy a digital camera with a shutter speed less than one half a second. You won’t regret it.

Finally, find a digital camera that is easy to use. It does not matter how technically GREAT a camera is. If it’s too difficult to learn, you’ll not use it. Conversely, no matter how easy a camera is to use, if it takes crappy pictures, you’re not going to use it, either. So look for balance.

That Olympus SP-560-UZ, you know… the one the sales associate mentioned above… has all of these features and tons more. It’s optical zoom is 18x, to boot. On sale notwithstanding, $460 is a lot of money for something with this kind of power, most of which you’ll not be using.

You can buy a compact Olympus Stylus-740 with just the right number of features (no viewfinder) with a 5x optical zoom, the proper shutter speed, and optical image stabilization for MUCH less. And, it will fit inside one of your wife’s smaller purses—I think they call them clutches.

You can buy one at www.amazon.com for $237.87, with free delivery before Christmas. Your wife will LOVE it because it’s so easy to use, especially the self-portrait/timing features. And, if you apply the savings in some Christmas Eve champagne, she may even let you experience the FIRST most incredible feeling that male humans can experience!

I mean, with the new camera, you might even decide to take pictures. Personally, I wouldn’t, but if you do, you should know that proper use of the auto-timer feature is critical, unless you invite a “friend.”

You’ll also need an optional tripod (absolutely eliminates camera shake) and lots of dooby vapor (eliminates ALL semblance of fear, embarrassment, and common sense). BOTH are sold separately, of course—just call Leroy.

He can probably get you a good deal on the tripod if you buy the doobies from him. In fact, he might provide the stuff for free if you let HIM be the “friend.”

In any event, have a great holiday, no matter what you call yours. Be safe and I’ll be back next week.

Oh, by the way, if too much dooby vapor and champagne cause you to take pictures ANYWAY, don’t post them on YouTube. It might prove quite costly. I’ll try to cover the procedure in a later column, including some helpful hints on how to keep both the police and the lawyers out of it, especially your wife’s divorce lawyer.

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.

Could it BE!?

By Joseph Walther

A friend of mine owns a jewelry store. I stopped in to see him the other day. While we were talking, we noticed one of his younger sales associates waiting on an older man—looked to be in his late ‘60s. The customer was nicely-dressed and well spoken. He was interested in a diamond necklace that was on sale for a mere $6,899.96.

The clerk, anticipating an imminent sale, dutifully explained the investment qualities of diamonds and his store’s quality guarantee. Almost as an after-thought, he mentioned the inevitable thrill his wife would feel when she found it under the Christmas tree.

“Oh, I’ve been a widower for the past fifteen years, but I’ve finally met someone. I feel like a teenager in love for the first time,” he explained.

At this, my friend (the owner) excused himself for a “minute” and went behind the counter to “help” the clerk close the sale. He’d spent his life in the jewelry business and he knew something about the product that young, inexperienced clerks have yet to learn.

He introduced himself to the customer, complementing him on his taste. He also asked if he’d like to see a matching set of earrings that he might want to consider for a later purchase. The customer seemed thrilled to look at them.

With that, my friend reached for the earrings that were next to where the necklace had been. They, too, were on sale. The price was $8,996.99. His eyes widened and he exhibited the biggest smile I’ve ever seen.

“I’ll take them AND the necklace,” he exclaimed. Harry (the owner) asked if he’d like to include a card and have them gift-wrapped. The customer said that he would like that very much.

Harry handed him the small white, blank card. The gentleman took out a FOUNTAIN pen and wrote in a near-perfect Palmer Method—cursive to you non-Catholics—“I love you, Ann” and signed it, “Tommy.”

He pulled his check book from inside his overcoat and wrote a check in the amount of $15,996.95, explaining that the extra $100 was a tip for being so helpful. Harry concluded the transaction with a warm handshake and a wish for a very warm and happy holiday.

By now, the young clerk had moved toward me. He told me that he would not have believed what just happened had he not seen it with his own eyes. “My boss just talked that customer into buying $16,000 worth of jewelry,” he told me. “I could never have done that,” he finished.

Clearly, this young clerk had no idea what had happened. The customer was there and already committed to buying. The boss knew this because he had a clear understanding about what the customer was trying to buy. All the boss had to do was show the customer what he was looking for.

I tried to explain that while he (the clerk) was trying to sell the customer quality diamonds, the customer was looking to buy a fantastically positive reaction. His boss knew this almost instinctively.

“There must be five or so other jewelry stores within a 5-mile radius of this one,” I told him. “Each sells high-quality diamonds,” I continued. “This customer came into YOUR store. All you had to do was convince him that he’d come to the right store. You had the necklace sale in the bag,” I concluded.

Harry knew that this customer was not buying diamonds for his newfound love because they’re good financial investments. If this were the case, a nice cache of blue chip stocks would have sufficed quite nicely!

No, men who purchase diamonds for the women in their lives do so to experience an exhilarating, sincere, tearful, loving reaction. It’s one of the greatest feelings in the world. In my life, the only joy that ever topped it was that of my children wrapping their little arms around my neck and saying, “I love you, daddy!”

Anyway, this is why Harry has been so successful for so many years. He knows what he’s actually selling. Hopefully, this young clerk has begun to see the point, too. The same lesson is applicable to virtually every other retail sales endeavor.

On another matter, unrelated to diamonds, I volunteer some of my time to one of those homework help facilities. You know… the kind where kids can phone in their questions or pose them via internet forums. This one is unique, though. It’s private.

First, those who provide the help must submit their qualifications to do so. Participating schools verify the credentials, including background criminal checks.

Second, the students who use it must register with their school’s principal who provides each student with an approval code. Whenever a student either phones in or places a question in the online forum, they must provide the code.

Third, the service is restricted to junior and senior high school students. The phone system records student codes, questions, and responder solutions. The same is true of online forum use.

Last the service is free. Responders are all volunteers. The only technology that a student needs to use the service is access to an online-capable computer or a standard landline phone.

Responders are not permitted to divulge student identification in any way. However, I recently received a help request that blew me away. It wasn’t the question, though. It was the fact that it came from a 13-year-old.

I contacted the school and they gave me permission to write about it here as long as I do not divulge the student’s identity, including the name of the school. I agreed and, for the record, the school is not in my home state of Delaware.

The question…FROM A 13-YEAR OLD was as follows. “Is there a way, using simple algebra, to calculate the effects of relativistic time dilation? I’ve tried everywhere to find an answer, but the only thing I found involves Lorenz transformation equations and I can’t understand them.”

The question continued, “I want to figure out how old I would be if my father left on an outer space trip that took him ten years traveling at 80% of the speed of light.”

My response… “WOW, you’re only thirteen?” To answer the question directly, yes, you can use simple linear algebra to calculate a correct answer. The key is to concentrate on relative time lapses instead of worrying about figuring out dilation factors.

Since it took dad ten years to make the trip, I assumed the ten years to be his time inside his space ship. As such, calculate the square-root of (1-0.8²—the 0.8² represents 80% the velocity of light). The square-root of it all is 0.60.

Then, divide this into 10 (representing the ten years of dad’s reference trip time. This will put your reference time, upon his arrival back on Earth, at about 16.7-years.

The answer makes sense because, in terms of relativity, clocks run slower the closer you get to the speed of light. This isn’t speculation, we’ve already proved it.

In other words, relative to the clocks on dad’s space ship, a total of ten years went by, while 16.7 years went by on your Earth-bound clock. The formulation works in the other way, also.

Assume the same speed of travel. Then, say dad leaves on a space trip and you wait 16.7-years (by your Earth clock) for his return. How many years will have transpired on HIS space ship clock?

Again, calculate the square-root of (1-0.8²), which still equals 0.60. But instead of dividing this into 10-years, multiply it by 10-years. Dad’s space ship clock will show that it took only ten years to make the trip.

While relativistic time dilation is verifiable—it’s done, almost daily, in virtually every undergraduate physics lab in the country—we’re nowhere near actual human age effect verification.

Besides, no massive body can achieve the speed of light. By massive, I do not mean big. I simply mean a body that contains mass. And, we’re not likely to achieve even 50-percent the velocity of light in terms of travel speeds anytime soon.

It took the human race 200-years to go from horse speed to Voyager speed, the fastest space vehicle we’ve thus far developed. Going full-throttle, its speed is about 40,000 MPH.

Don’t fret, though. When Albert Einstein was 8-years old, he wondered what it would be like to ride on a light-beam. You’re a little older than he was when he began thinking about such things, but you seem to think far in advance of your years, the same as he did. Could a Nobel be in your future? Maybe! We humans could use some good news. Keep it up.

Next week… same time and place.

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.

Double-speak 101

By Joseph Walther

I sat through a 30-minute political tirade last Wednesday afternoon. The tirader, a “potential” candidate for one of Delaware’s numerous school boards, seemed oblivious to the fact that we tiradees were more embarrassed than interested. I’m not going to name the dude because I refuse to give him any press at all, even negative press.

Astute politicians—and ONLY the astute ones--seem to have one thing in common. They have huge egos that they’ve learned to camouflage by using generous coats of modesty and affability. This produces a rather pleasant, veneer-like appearance to their celebrity.

However, Sherwin Williams must have been closed the day this guy showed up to pick up his painting supplies.

School board candidates are politicians, no different from those seeking other elective offices. But, unlike other elective offices, school board seekers don’t have to campaign as rigorously.

First, school board elections are held at the most innocuous times with voter turnout closer to two-percent than five-percent. Second, the candidates are practically anointed by the “power” structure within the sitting boards. So, “politicking” is not something board position seekers need to do.

Educational administrators, particularly school board members, are notorious perpetrators of munificent amounts of double-speak, passionately expressed in their favorite mode of communication: passive voice. Thanks to this man’s efforts, the stereotype remains firmly intact.

“It’s imperative to get a handle on wasteful spending,” he bellowed. “The need is critical for allocating more money to classrooms rather than to administrators,” he continued. “The need to reduce the number of school districts in this state has become evident,” he admonished. “We MUST get more parents involved with their children’s education,” he declared. “Discipline is all but dead in public schools,” he sputtered.

He was long on stating the obvious problems that everyone, including my 15-year-old cat, already knows about. He was alarmingly short on stated solutions, though.

I was one of several people present. While I observed about twenty people walk off shaking their heads in disgust, I remained put, out of, um… respect. Besides, this occasion had “COLUMN” written all over it.

What amazed me beyond belief was the rapture-like attention most of those remaining were paying to this individual. It was as though he was Jesus, giving the famous Sermon on the Mount. I expected a lunch of loaves and fishes to appear at any moment.

There is a saying in politics and post-secondary education: “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” He had this down to a science and, trust me, he was light-years from brilliant.

The man used turns of phrases and descriptors that people rarely hear at a local level. How about some of these—I’m not making this stuff up, either.

Have you ever heard of “subdued flamboyance?” He used “courteously unfriendly” four times over a 15-minute span. Also, I’ve met thousands of people during my life to date, and none have been “compassionately quarrelsome” or “spuriously real” or “harshly tender? In fact, I have no idea what these terms even mean.

He referred to a speech that he claimed our Governor, Ruth Ann Minner, gave several months ago, wherein she, he stated, “inferred that some educational programs should be cut. My implication from this,” he told us, “was that she has no idea of the problems we face.”

I’ve searched everywhere, including the State of Delaware web site and a call to her office. I can’t find it. And, neither can members of her speech-writing staff find it.

As a governor, people either love Ruth Ann Minner or they despise her. From the average poll in this state, more fall into the latter category than the former. But, if this man wants to be on a school board, he should know that speakers imply and listeners infer.

No matter what you think of Ruth Ann Minner, she knows the difference between “infer” and “imply,” and HER formal education ended with a GED, albeit a respectable achievement for her in light of several personal adversities she faced in her early years, over which she had no control.

It’s probably best NOT to elect this man to a position as a school board member. The problem is, though, that others, who’d consider a run, especially if they are competent, will not receive the anointment of the present board’s power brokers.

This is because incompetence will NEVER willingly surround itself with competence. Otherwise the incompetence would stand out like zit in the middle of your forehead. So, much of the time, we’re stuck with the “baffle them with bullshit” candidates for whom a sufficient number of clueless voters will vote.

This has given ME pause to consider a run for some office. I’ve already begun my search for rousing bullshit comebacks to campaign questions. I dug into my files and found this one that a former colleague of mine sent me years ago. I’m thinking about asking her to be my campaign manager. Anyway, here it is.

“I fully realize that I have not succeeded in answering all of your questions… Indeed, I feel that I have not answered any of them completely. The answers I have found only serve to raise a whole set of new questions, which only lead to more problems, some of which we weren’t even aware were problems.

To sum it all up… In some ways I feel we are as confused as ever, but I sincerely believe we are confused on a higher level, and about more important things!”

This gem, alone, could propel me to the top. Eat your hearts out Barrack, Hillary, Rudy, and Mitt. Just consider yourselves lucky that I didn’t think of this in ’06!

A candidate has to be prepared out there on the campaign trail. After all, what happens when it’s impossible to seed the audience with friends that will ask light-weight questions? You’re screwed. That’s what happens.

As the recent ’07 primary debates have proven, the other party may try to sabotage the proceedings by planting subversives without the debate moderators knowing about it. What does a candidate do then, hmmmm?

Believe me. It’s prudent to have an ample supply of “baffle them with bullshit” material at your disposal, especially if the stuff seems perceptively brilliant.

For example, suppose, hypothetically, a member of the audience were to ask, “Do you believe in UFOs?” Or, “What is your stance on the Supreme Court’s ruling relative to “Brown v. The Board of Education?” Or, even, “Yes or no, do you believe in evolution?”

Candidates shouldn’t pussy-foot around such issues. They need to take a firm position… stand up and be counted as it were. Since my motto is “BE PREPARED,” I’d snap back, instantly, with something both “surreptitiously direct” and “non-definitively committal”.

“Well,” I’d begin, “I kind of sort of think I might be leaning, at least a little, toward possibly agreeing in principle. However, if you MUST have a definitive answer IMMEDIATELY, than I must tell you that I am decidedly and definitely more positive than ‘maybe,’ but probably not quite as strong as ‘perhaps,’ so you can put me down as respecting the rights of those who differ with me but as holding whichever opinion most people hold and sympathizing with those who are undecided. And, I MEAN it!”

I should win in a landslide! Wolf Blitzer would eat this up. And, if I added something like; “There are no gays in this country, only straights living in sin,” I’d have Sean Hannity campaigning for me night and day.

See you next week. By the way, it has come to my attention that traffic is becoming more and more congested out there due to the looming holidays. Watch out for drivers who are “drunkenly sober,” not to mention those shoppers who are “sanely crazy.” So, watch yourselves.

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.