A leftover post left un-posted when Frank died.  Haven't had the inclination to do anything since then so here it is.  Longest break I've taken since I started this over a year ago, and hope to get back into the swing soon...

You want to build a house?  

You know nothing about construction.  So you shop for contractors.  You meet them and talk to them.  They tell you what they can do for the money you have.  You listen.   You look into their eyes for clues.  You decide that one is (or looks or sounds) more credible than another.  You're impressed by the enthusiasm of one and put off by the laconic gloominess of another.   Ultimately, you make a decision and pick one.  Now it's all out of your hands.   Then you watch as some promises are kept and others broken.  You pay for things you never thought you would have to pay for and though work gets done and progress is made and you end up with a house-- not quite what you had imagined or expected, but what did you know?

That's what I was thinking while watching the Obama/Romney economy debate.  Unless you've studied the issues in depth, you have no idea if any of their ideas and numbers make sense and no way of judging the feasibility or advisability of any of the proposals.

The Think Progress Website the next day cited some 27 instances in which Romney made a statement that was either factually incorrect or blatantly untrue.

LINK: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/04/958801/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/

A while back I suggested the idea that someone (Comedy Central? Jon Stewart?) cover the debates with a team of fact checkers on hand who would (in real time) check the candidate's statements for veracity. Would be helluva lot more enlightening that watching  the spinning sessions following the debate (even the one on PBS) cause that's all about performance.  It's  pundits keeping score while we're left to ponder the probability  of players corking their bats, juicing or throwing spitters.

LINK: http://www.politifact.com/

"Politics is universally debasing" as Bill Buckley (of all people) said, and yet, as Molly Ivins said, "...you can't dismiss it cause it really matters."  Which is even more reason to keep laughing about it and at it--cause the more serious it gets, the more you need a sense of humor to endure it.

And Hendrik Hertzberg in New Yorker was as usual, cogent, clear and concise on the matter: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/10/15/121015taco_talk_hertzberg

C is for: 

cachinnation	Loud or hysterical laughter
cacoethes	A bad habit or insatiable urge
cagamosis	An unhappy marriage
callipygean	Having well-shaped buttocks
cancatervate	To heap up into a pile
capernoited	Slightly intoxicated or tipsy
cataglottism	Kissing using the tongue, French kissing
causeuse	A sofa built for two people
charientism	An artfully veiled insult
cheiloproclitic	Being attracted to a person's lips
chirotonsor	An alternate title for a barber
cleptobiosis	The act of plundering food
clithridiate	Key-hole-shaped
colposinquanonia	Estimating a woman's beauty based on her chest
concilliabule	A secret meeting of people who are hatching a plot
cruciverbalist	One who loves doing crossword puzzles