Time To Change The Rules On The Rules For Deciding Who Rules

I'm a word guy.

Always have been, always will be.

And that's not a brag or boast, in fact, it's really nothing more than an admission, and sharing, of what it is I seem to be.

Have always been. And will always be.

We all be something.

Some of us are mechanically inclined. My 4 year old grandson is already steering small farm equipment around and showing more than just a casual interest in tinkering with what makes them go.

I can change light bulbs, fuses and have been known, from time to time, to replace a worn lawn mower part or two but put a clearly malfunctioning carburetor in front of me, hold a gun to my head and say "fix this or you're dead."?

Save us both some time and embarrassment and just pull the trigger, man.  
 

That said, pretty sure that 4 year old master mechanic in the making can't, and probably never will, display the dexterity required to construct a witty and whimsical essay, eloquently enkindling a nation's passions, while remaining objective, but not obtuse.

Then again, he might turn out to be capable of a 500 word stanza on the aesthetics of John Deere being one of the subliminal motivations for one's purchase.

He's a cute kid. Don't want to sell him short.

All of this is by way of setting the stage, metaphorical as it might be in this here venue, for offering up one of those words that, these days, anyway, tend to result in a lot of teeth suddenly being set on edge and, as a pretty sure bet, safe rule, said teeth residing in the mouths of those who are very likely as far from living on my side of the philosophical street one can live and still qualify as a citizen of the same planet.

Because big words tend to annoy a lot of people these days.

The temptation, suddenly, looms to offer up something pointed and polemic like "big words often annoy small minds", but that kind of caustic childishness would something more easily expected from, say, a four year old.

And, like I said, I really don't know why that damn tractor won't start.

But here's the word.

Provocateur.

One who engages in provocative behavior. A person who provokes trouble, causes dissension or the like; agitator.

Yeah. That's sounds like me.

Truth be told, I prefer a more impish insinuation. Like, say,"king mixer" that Paul McCartney labeled his very clean grandfather in "A Hard Day's Night".

Or, for the more basic vocabularists in our midst, "shit stirrer."

There are a variety of methodologies employed to agitate, provoke, mix kingly or stir shittingly.

Some people can do it with just a look.

Others rely on Tweeting.

During commercial breaks on Fox and Friends.

Others do it by writing essays and/or op/eds and then producing them for broadcast/podcast.

Yeah. That sounds like me.

So here's the applicable provoke, agitate, kingly mix, manure muddle.

In the form of an unexpected. What with it coming from a more often, than not, accused sufferer of the deadly malady, libtardus snowflakeus.

The media couldn't be more wrong.

I'll give you nice folks in the fly over states a minute or two to return your jaws to their upright and locked position. And then elaborate accordingly.

The Democrats have announced that they will be excluding Fox News from hosting any of the scheduled twelve debates to take place in the coming months to weed down to, say, two or three, the, at this writing, 7,426 currently announced candidates for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

When it comes to reaction, of course, there was immediately a whole lot of shakin' goin on, from the posing to the pompous to the pedantic to the predictable.

In another one of those plot twists that ratchets up the theatre value but most likely confuses those folks accidentally channel surfing away from "Mama June-From Not To Hot", humorist/politico Bill Maher summed it up best.

"...(the Democrats) turned down Fox's offer to host one of their 2020 primary debates saying Fox was nothing more than propaganda. Okay. So why not go on Fox News and tell them that?  You want to be in the big leagues but you refuse to ever play an away game? You don't like the questions that Fox News might ask so you're deciding to not take any questions at all...........

...........how very Trump of you..."

Point made. Set and match for Mr. Maher. Any further elaboration should come only in the form of a musical punchline, for amusement purposes only.

Whoops. There it is.

The media, of course, didn't make that call. That one belongs to the Democrats and their not just a "we're going to take our ball and go home" but a "we're not even going to play ball with you in the first place". And Maher is spot on with his own finger wagging punchline.

"How very Trump of you."

Even the lower on the intellectual food chain of our 'Murican brethren can get their heads around the fact that "denying" Fox the hosting gig is nothing more than the Democrats cutting off their opportunity to do some damage and/or score some points to spite their face.

Media didn't make that decision. That's the Democrats.

But media, blusterers, blowhards, bloviaters, brigands and some very fine people, on both sides, are as far from blameless as Felicity Huffman at a parent/teacher conference.

And not for the same old, yammer, yada, blah, blah, blah "enemy of the people" bullshit that Donald pulls out every time he needs an adrenaline enema courtesy of his peanut gallery collectively blowing sunshine up his ass.

Because media, or as we born in and around the Eisenhower/Kennedy days remember it, journalism is supposed to be about fact gathering and truth telling.

And, make no mistake, there are, sincerely, professional, committed, chock full of integrity goodness journalists sailing fearlessly out there on the sea of sensationalism who do, in fact, do just that.

Fact gather. And truth tell.

The rest, meanwhile, the lion's share, or, how about the "lyin' share? (if Donald were half as clever as he thinks he is, he would have made that a trademark tweet shot years ago) . The rest seem to be caught up in an endless loop of a very annoying, and not just a little bit harmful to the national health, game show called "Gotcha!"

In journalism, used to be getting it right, getting it corroborated and getting it out there first.

Remember "Back To The Future" and that photo of Marty and his sister Linda and brother Dave? 

Yeah. Linda and Dave are getting it right and getting it corroborated.

Fade to black, baby.

Not all the news about the news is bleak and black, though.

And here's a chance for those of you mediameisters who went over to the dark side and are now achy and sore with the pains of buyer's remorse to get back to where you once belonged.

Starts with those debates that we all know are going to be more uselesser than useless, more tediouser than tedious, more childisher than childish.

First, everybody gets to play. That means CNN and MSNBC and PBS and, yes, Virginia, Fox News.

But more importantly, even critically, it's time for media to stop enabling the infantile behavior of the candidates and actually take a new and refreshed shot at being the grown-ups in the room.

And here's a fun, value added, bonus feature.

The whole premise can be primarily based on one of America's most fundamental, foundational, every single day priorities in life.

Game shows.

In this case, the "game" is basically "Jeopardy" meets "Pyramid" meets "Half Wits" with a potential grand sweepstakes prize that includes $400,000 annually, cars, planes and trains and a four, possibly eight, year all expenses paid stay at a luxurious 132 room resort at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, DC.

As with every game show worth its prize package salt, though, there gotta be rules.

Yeah, okay, presidential "debates" have always had rules. You know that silly list of shit the moderator reads from the prompter at the beginning?

Cue Dr. Phil. How's that workin' for ya?

The aforementioned Bill Maher wraps up his weekly show with a segment entitled "New Rules"

Props (and courtesy, even if unknown, of Real Time and HBO, so please don't sue, thanks) to Mr. Maher, here's an "S.E.P." salute to that segment, sure to take the "duhh" out of these "duhhbates".

"...time for New Rules..." Election for President Edition. (I tried multiple times to type the word "Presidential" and simply couldn't do it. Things haven't been "presidential" in this country for a long time)

• TIME: the usual "candidates have two minutes for opening statement, two minutes for answering, one point six minutes for rebuttal, four minutes for smoke break, eight seconds for throat clearing" nonsense needs to be streamlined bigly......

1. Limit the opening statement...fine
2. Expand the opportunity for answering by the several minutes that always accumulate during these things, of the noise, yammer, yada and blah of them interrupting and/or talking over each other. (we'll deal with that shortly)
3. Limit the closing statement...fine.

•  BEHAVIOR: here's where the "game" not only gets a major overhaul but actually runs the risk of becoming useful to viewers/voters/those sincerely seeking to make an intelligent choice of candidates.

1. Avoiding an answer to the asked question by pivoting to anything else: verbal warning followed by microphone shut off, on to the next candidate and/or question.
2. Interrupting another candidate (per each q/a): first time, verbal warning (a cute ding or buzz to keep things loose); second time: interrupter loses their next turn to speak. third time: Automatically disqualified, microphone shut off, the debate is soup and guess what? No soup for you!
3. Name calling: Zero tolerance. First time: automatic disqualification, microphone shut off. GAME OVER.

There are, of course, at least a few other tweaks that could turn these waste of time, expensively dressed freak shows into something in which reasonably intelligent people could find benefit and/or use. Every one who likes things the way they are....surf back over to Mama June.

Oh...and while it wasn't specifically mentioned earlier, these rules would apply to any election for President debate from either, any and/or all political parties, not just the Democrats.

(attention ad dollar obsessed networks: ratings would be through the roof watching the veins in Donald's temples pound as he did his level best to last more that five minutes without imploding over Behavior Rule # 3.)

I said, at the outset, that media couldn't be more wrong.

For a big ol' bunch of sea of sensationalism sailing enthusiasts, they sure are missing the boat when it comes to these debates.

After the first five minutes of any free for all, boredom sets in like rigor in the Hallmark Channel career of Lori Loughlin.

You want real drama? Suspense? Tingly anticipation?

Just watch a group of politicians at one of these things try to actually answer the question asked. Or keep from interrupting someone.

And forget the yawn snooze of disingenuous mealy mouthing about church and state.

Stay tuned for the almost sure to occur explosion of Donald's temples.

And, bubbling up to the top (some would say "tippy top") of the bubbling pot of political poop for the first time in a long time.....?

Some actual news we can use.

All it would take is some changing of the rules.

Call it a stirring of that poop pot.

Consider it an act of patriotism.

By yours truly.

The provocateur.