Anything is possible with a new year

Happy New Year.

It seems crazy to think that it’s 2013 already. It was just 1997 a couple weeks ago it seems. But then life moved into hyper drive and suddenly … bam! 2013.

As much as I want to think it’s still 1997 sometimes, I’m constantly reminded that I’m getting older. Some examples: I hurt my back a week ago — putting on my shoes. And I wrecked my knee on Sunday — sledding with my family.

Yep, I’m definitely not getting younger, that’s for sure. Of course, to be fair, I distinctly remember being rather accident prone in 1997, too — when I nearly cut my finger off with a spatula.

I don’t make resolutions for New Year’s. As my oldest put it the other day (she was born in 1997, by the way), if you want to improve something about your life, why wait until the first of the year to do it?

But we’re fascinated by calendars. Just ask all those people who stood on rooftops on Dec. 21 waiting for the world to end. And I’ve been drawn to dates for a long time. New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day is an easy one to remember. I remember where I was, with who and what was said, even. Mostly good memories, but not all.

I’m hoping that 2013 is filled with good memories. Last year was kind of a mixed bag. I did some things right and I screwed some things up in a manner that only myself and Clark W. Griswold are capable of. Look kids! Big Ben. Parliament.

It seems that at the end of every calendar year, we have a tendency to look back and smile at the things we did right. And plan to do better next year with the things we did wrong. Just like we did in 2011. And 2010. And 2009. Etc. Ad nauseum.

Who knows though. Maybe this is the year I win the lottery. If so, I should probably start buying tickets. Maybe that could be my resolution: to waste more money buying lottery tickets. Sounds like poor planning to me, though.

Maybe this is the year the Bills make the playoffs. Maybe this year the NHL will decide they actually want to play some hockey. Maybe this year … anything is possible.

That’s what’s so interesting about changing the calendar from December to January. Anything is possible.

Scott Leffler is an optimist and a dreamer. He shares his hopes on Twitter @scottleffler.

Some heavy thoughts for the new year

Another Christmas has come and gone. I hope you got everything you were hoping for. Santa took care of pretty much everything on my list — aside from world peace … but I remain hopeful for 2013.

I’ve never been one to make resolutions for the new year. Sure there are things that I want to improve about myself, but I try to take things one day at a time rather than putting all my hope into the new year and then realizing in December that I still have a lot to accomplish that I said I was going to do in January.

This year was a good one, though, in terms of resolutions I didn’t even make. For one thing, I lost a significant amount of weight. At one point, I was in the 220-pound range and quite unhealthy. For years, I’ve hovered right around 200. And now I’m just under 180, which has been my goal for at least half a decade.

Dropping the weight was good for my sense of self worth — and not that I feel better because I am my target weight, but more so because I feel better because I was finally able to do it. Although to be honest, weighing 180 also just FEELS better. I have more energy. My back hurts less. And the guy looking back at me in the mirror smiles a lot more readily.

Losing weight has resulted in some funny conversations, though. Very few people tell you when you’re gaining weight. No one wants to offend you. But they’re quick to say something when you’re losing it. Of course in my twisted mind what they’re really saying is, “Hey, I’ve been meaning to tell you that you’re fat, but I kept forgetting.”

I was at a local watering hole last week putting weight back on — 16 ounces at a time — when I was introduced to a woman who refused to believe I am who I say I am. Comparing my photo that runs with this column to who I appeared to be in the flesh, she said something to the effect of I must have lost 80 pounds.

That made me feel good … and bad all at the same time.

This past week has not been good for trying to lose weight, I’ll tell you that. I feel like I’ve done nothing but eat. Pizza. Cookies. Crab. Cookies. Ham. Cookies. There’s a lot of cookies this time of year.

Fortunately the cookie well will run dry just as soon as I finish the plates on my kitchen island. I’m inclined to eat them all right now - just so I won’t be tempted later. Sometimes my logic is riddled with holes. Which is why it’s good that Christmas only comes once a year.

Scott Leffler is skinnier in real-life. And he’s practically weightless on Twitter. Find out for yourself @scottleffler.

Let the pundit battle rage on

Like many of the pundits that you see on TV spouting off about politics, I went to school for journalism and political science. Unlike (seemingly) many of them, I was not in the least bit surprised by last week’s election results.

There is a battle brewing between words and numbers and right now, numbers are winning.

See, many of the political analysts thought they understood how polls worked and many of them tried to read them themselves as though they were soothsayers reading tea leaves or something. Then they mixed in a healthy dose of “gut instinct” and came up with their conclusion that the election was going to be a nailbiter and Gov. Mitt Romney had a good chance of winning because unemployment was high — among other reasons.

I’m not an analyst. I don’t pretend to read polls. I don’t pretend to understand polls. In fact, I don’t like dealing with numbers at all. Math is so not my strong suit. But I’m smart enough to know that, acknowledge it and use a lifeline to “phone a friend.”

For the past three elections, that “friend” has been Nate Silver*. He’s been spot on in reading the poll numbers, giving them weight, and figuring out what they all mean. Taking his cue from his ability to analyze baseball statistics, Silver created a website devoted to analyze polling statistics for elections. And a brand was made.

For some reason, Silver’s polling numbers got under some people’s skin this year — primarily because they didn’t like the results, I think. It was a classic case of attacking the messenger.

But now that the election has come and gone and Silver was overwhelmingly correct in his “predictions,” there will be a new fight - between Silver’s new (and old) fans and those who still believe that gut instincts and intuition plays a role.

I suppose it is possible that Silver’s dead-on predictions in the 2008, 2010 and 2012 election cycles are all a matter of happenstance. It’s theoretically plausible that he’s just gotten lucky for the past three elections. But the odds are that he’s just smart.

Sadly, people are already talking about who will run for what office in two years and four years. Personally, I’m not ready for that. I think we should finalize the results of this election first.

Apart from the battle for the House, Senate and White House, though, many political pundits — analysts, whatever — face an uphill battle for mere relevancy. And just as people hoped and prayed that Obama would be a one-term wonder, there are many secretly (and some openly) praying for the downfall of Nate Silver and his ability to do math.

That’s a battle I’m excited to watch. Granted, it’s inside baseball, but for a political geek like me it’ll be fun.

* Scott Leffler isn’t actually friends with Nate Silver. He just has an overactive imagination and a horrible penchant for mixing metaphors. Follow him on Twitter @scottleffler.

Something scary is in the air

It’s the scariest time of the year. And no, I’m not talking about Halloween. I’m talking about election time.

This is my last column prior to election day and I could tell you who to vote for but I have no intention of ever doing that. Ever.

I just hope that people will vote based on knowledge and fact instead of voting for the person they share a skin color with or the person their spouse or favorite media mogul told them to.

The real scary thing going on right now is that people DO vote based on those things. And with an election as close as some are projecting it to be, I hate to see the whole thing decided by people who don’t know what they heck they’re doing.

Whether it’s the presidential election or the race for your local congressional seat or even your state assemblyman or senator, informed decisions are crucial.

Like you, I’ve been inundated with political mailers and commercials and even water cooler talk from people who want me to vote for their candidate. Facebook has been almost unbearable with all the political banter — as if anyone’s Facebook post has ever swayed someone else’s mind. Actually, I’m sure it has and that just leads to me thinking that my being scared is warranted.

The scariest thing for me, though, is the fear. The number of people who seem to think that these United States are so fragile that any one man — be it Barack Obama or Mitt Romney — could bring about its demise in four short years is truly frightening.

There are a system of checks and balances in place to prevent that from happening. Some of those checks in balances are the electoral system itself. Others are those we elect.

While my friend and fellow columnist Bob Confer expressed some concern in his most recent writing that we are headed towards a monarchy, I have no such fear. I believe that the system put in place by our founders remains intact and completely capable of protecting us from the potential that any one man (or woman for that matter) could destroy our freedoms.

That’s not to say that everything is hunky-dory. No, I think that America is sick and in need of a healing. I think we’ve become far too obsessed with what government can do for us and much less interested in what we can do for ourselves … or for our country.

When we look upon government to save us, ask yourself what we need saving from. The all-too-obvious answer is ourselves. So cut out the middleman and do it yourself. Vote not for the person who’s going to help you the best but who’s going to help America the best. Maybe it’s the same person. Maybe it’s not. But this systemic greed doesn’t flow from the top down. It flows from the bottom up. And only we can change it.

As you get ready to vote next Tuesday, I ask only that you base your vote on knowledge instead of fear.

Scott Leffler is a raving lunatic whose weekly rantings are available each week in this paper and online. Shorter daily-ish rantings are available on Twitter @scottleffler. 

Romney on health care: Let them eat cake

I don’t want to confuse anyone into thinking that I’m a Barack Obama, fan, but the more Mitt Romney talks, the more I like Obama’s chances of being reelected.

As for me, I’ll vote third party — again. I’m leaning towards Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, but I haven’t committed to anyone yet. I just know it won’t be Mitt or Barack.

Over the weekend, Romney said on 60 Minutes that poor people who are sick can just go to the ER to get fixed up.

“Well, we do provide care for people who don’t have insurance,” Romney said on the show, which aired Sunday night. “If someone has a heart attack, they don’t sit in their apartment and — and die. We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital, and give them care. And different states have different ways of providing for that care.”

Never mind the fact that ER care is the most expensive form of medical treatment there is. And never mind that just two years ago Romney said that keeping people out of the ER should be a priority because “It doesn’t make a lot of sense for us to have millions and millions of people who have no health insurance and yet who can go to the emergency room and get entirely free care for which they have no responsibility.” Also ignore the fact that emergency room care doesn’t come without responsibility — those debts stay with people for years if they’re not paid off.

What bothers me most about Romney’s comments is that ER treatment is not health care. It’s death prevention. The jobs of nurses and doctors in emergency rooms across the country isn’t necessarily to make you well. It’s to make you well enough to get you back out on the street.

So Romney’s suggestion that the poor simply use emergency rooms as their primary care physician is both fiscally irresponsible and morally objectionable. It keeps people in a vicious health care cycle of being “not dead yet.”

Personally, I think this view is telling. I mean, I can’t help but think that it’s actually how he feels. Just like he feels that “the 47 percent” are a bunch of moochers whose discount bin clothes are ruining the view for the well-to-do.

Never before have I seen a presidential candidate who was so cold and calculating as Mitt Romney. And yet, he maintains followers, in my opinion, simply by not being Barack Obama. Just as the Republican primary lasted so long because all of the other GOP candidates were not Mitt Romney.

Maybe that’s why a Washington Post/Pew Research poll released Monday states that just over half the nation — 54 percent — say they are very or fairly satisfied with their choices come November.
I can’t say that I blame them. I continue to check out the discount bin of political candidates — third parties — looking for someone I can live with.

Scott Leffler wishes he had better options for presidential candidates and other things in life. But at least he has Twitter. @scottleffler

The more they talk, the less I listen

Maybe I’m growing into a curmudgeon.

I’m not sure how I feel about that, really. I don’t want to be the old guy yelling at kids to stay off of his lawn. That guy’s crazy.

Yet, I have a feeling that there’s a bit of wisdom embedded in my curmudgeon-ness.

Last week the Republican National Convention was televised for the world to see. I’m not sure how much of the world watched, but I didn’t. Not one bit. I saw clips on the news and watched Clint Eastwood’s “conversation” with Invisible Barack Obama on YouTube, but I made no effort to watch any of the convention live on TV. And I don’t feel guilty about it.

This week, the Democrats have their turn and — likewise — I don’t care. I have no need to watch a bunch of rich people (yes, all Congressmen are rich in my book, not just the GOP) tell me how they’re going to fix the mess they created. Especially given the fact that I don’t even think they believe the words that are coming out of their mouths.

I suppose I could watch for entertainment value, but I get no joy out of watching my country disintegrate before my eyes in high definition. I have a feeling the Dems will have Betty White talk to a stuffed shirt or something — to combat the empty chair theatrics of Dirty Harry — but I’ll catch it on YouTube or something if I have to.

Truth of the matter is, the further along this process goes, the more powerless I feel … the more I want to tell all those clowns in DC (and Albany for that matter) to get the hell off my lawn. They are, after all, just as juvenile as the children I’ll someday be swinging a cane at as they cut through on their way to do whatever it is kids do these days.

While you wouldn’t be able to tell based on the campaign rhetoric and the hateful posts my friends and relatives are making on social media, the Republican and Democratic parties are more alike than not alike. They are two sides of the same coin. Scary to think, but Ralph Nader was right — about that at least.

Both President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney agree that the ongoing war in Afghanistan is a good thing. They both support the Patriot Act, NDAA, SOPA, the TSA, unmanned drones spying on whoever they determine to be the enemy (including us) the Dept. of Homeland Security and Guantanamo Bay. In other words, they both support the police state — against we the people.

Personally, I believe in freedom, a concept I fear that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have even the slightest understanding of. Asking me to choose between the two is akin to asking me whether I’d like to be drawn and quartered or hanged. It’s time we stopped choosing between the lesser of two evils and started choosing good.

So I make no apologies for ignoring the Hollywood productions put on by the “heads” and “tails” parties. I only wish that come November, more people would tell them to get off their lawns.

Scott Leffler is a curmudgeon. Follow him on Twitter @scottleffler. Also, stay off his lawn.

Can the GOP please flip the ticket?

I was a bit confused that Mitt Romney announced (via leak) his new running mate late Friday night. It was as though he didn’t want anyone to know. Friday night is when government types release data they want to hide — not when they announce their running mate for the road to the White House.

The official announcement was no better — a Saturday morning on the penultimate day of the 2012 Summer Olympics — when anyone who might actually be watching TV was most likely watching America win at life. If you wanted to watch the Olympics and it got pre-empted by politicians, would you be more or less inclined to vote for them?

My favorite Mark Twain impersonator and TV meteorologist, Mike Randall, suggested to me via Twitter that maybe the plan was “designed to take over the Sunday news shows.” Maybe he’s right, but I don’t tend to think of “real” people as watching those shows. And really, it’s real people that Romney needs to win over.

That leads me to believe that either Romney is embarrassed by his new running mate … or he’s just really bad at this whole “running for president” thing. Considering he introduced his selection as “the next president of the United States,” I’m inclined to think it’s the latter, which is exactly why I’m excited he’s added Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan to the ticket as his VP candidate.

I’m not a huge fan of Ryan’s fundamental principles, but at least I’m aware of the fact that he has fundamental principles, unlike Romney. Oddly, though, Romney announced his disagrees with the thing Ryan is most known for — his budget plan — which conservatives love and liberals hate.

In other words, Romney tried to buy some conservative credibility by partnering up with Ryan, while distancing himself from the thing which would help the most in that aspect. Put another way, Romney wants to ride Ryan’s coattails and denounce his core philosophy — simultaneously.

Again, I say, Romney is really bad at this whole “running for president” thing.

It makes me wish the ticket were flipped. I’d much rather see this a Ryan/Romney ticket than Romney/Ryan. At least then I would know what it stood for — even if it was something I don’t myself support.

Until recently, I had been mentally comparing the Romney campaign with the McCain campaign of four years ago. He seemed clueless and flailing. A decent guy (maybe) who had no idea what to do when put on the national stage and whose handlers should have all been fired.

It has come to my attention, however, that maybe Romney is actually John Kerry circa 2004. He a wishy-washy flip flopper with little charisma and no real plan for the future, hoping to energize his campaign with a younger better looking rising star from within in party.

I went with a friend (and former Greater Niagara News employee) David Winters to see John Edwards speak in Rochester in 2004. He was impressive. He was put together. He was enigmatic. He was apparently too good for the Democrats.

ASIDE: As a reminder, I supported Howard Dean in 2004 then dropped the Democratic party because they freaked out over “the scream.” I didn’t want to be associated with a big bunch of losers. So now I’m a registered Libertarian — a much smaller bunch of losers.

Long story short (I know, too late), it’s nice to see someone with principles in the race. Even if they’re principles I disagree with.

Scott Leffler would have rather written about #SharkWeek but then Mitt Romney went and announced a running mate. Follow him on Twitter @scottleffler where you can find the Twitter handles for everyone mentioned in this column.

2012 Olympics leads to marathon TV watching

The pendulum on my love/hate relationship with television has completed its arch back to love.

With the advent of the 2012 Olympics, I once again care about TV. And, frankly, since the start of the games, I’ve accomplished very little aside from watching as much of the games as possible.

I’ve always liked the Winter Olympics better than the Summer Olympics. I think that’s probably because the Winter Olympics have hockey and skiing while the Summer Olympics - while growing up, at least - meant two weeks of watching gymnastics. I may have pink checks but I am not now, nor have I ever been a fan of gymnastics.

I also can’t watch Olympic basketball. There’s nothing good that can come from watching a sport your country is expected to dominate. If we double-up on other teams, it’s expected. There’s no margin we could win by that would be impressive to Americans. Maybe that’s why Kobe Bryant has been spending all his free time watching other events. Good for Kobe.

There are several events I enjoy in the Summer Olympics, though. I enjoy watching the track events, both beach and indoor volleyball, tennis, rowing, swimming and — even though I have trouble believing it’s really a sport — water polo.

Honestly, though, water polo may be fun to watch, but any game that I could or would play in a swimming pool with my kids can’t be a real sport. What’s next? Don’t let the balloon touch the ground? Because my family would completely dominate that sport. In fact, we’d challenge any Russian family to a game. Any time.

The global politics of the Olympics is very interesting. Remember when we wanted to beat Russia at everything? It wasn’t all that long ago. Now it’s China that we feel the need to beat. That’s a good thing since I tend to root for any Russian women’s team. Apparently I have a thing for Russian women. Who knew? Now everyone does.

I find myself rooting for the underdogs nearly all the time. In fact, Sunday I was rooting for the Chinese water polo team against the Australians … simply because the Australians were supposed to win. I guess I’m difficult like that.

There have been some great human interest stories in the Olympics — as there always are. And NBC has done a good job in my opinion of relaying those stories to the world. Overall, I think NBC has done a good job with the Olympics, no matter how much flack they may be taking on Twitter, Facebook and the like. The coordination that goes into bouncing back and forth from one event to another without dead air is amazing.

The peacock network has had a great opportunity to showcase their fall lineup during the games. If only their fall lineup didn’t look so horrible. But the show with Matthew Perry looks good at least.

Of course, I can’t concern myself too much with the fall lineup quite yet. In fact there are only two things on television that I can even think about. This week it’s the Olympics. And next week it’s Shark Week. And honestly, after that, the pendulum will probably swing back to hate and I’ll finally get a chance to read “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.”

Scott Leffler is an avid television viewer … except when he’s not. Follow him (and his television viewing habits) on Twitter @scottleffler.

Wanted: Ross Perot or someone like him

Twenty years ago I made the most life-altering change a boy of 17 can make; I left my parents’ home, put Western New York in my rearview mirror and moved to Ohio to attend school.

Sometimes it’s hard to imagine that was 20 years ago. It seems like the fear and excitement of being dependent upon myself was just yesterday. And sometimes it’s hard to imagine it was only 20 years ago. I’ve done at least 100 years worth of stuff between then and now.

I spent the summer of 1992 watching political ads and reading every story I could find about the candidates. I knew I would be voting in November and I wanted to know as much as I could about the candidates.

I knew I didn’t like George H. W. Bush. He ruined my trip to Italy. Well, not really, but the planned Latin Club trip to Rome in 1991 got nixed on account of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait when we ran to the defense of the poor brutal dictators there. 

Bill Clinton wasn’t really on my radar too much. He was governor of Arkansas, played the saxaphone and had smoked pot. None of those feats sounded all that impressive, honestly. I was looking for someone capable of more.

Then there was this guy with big ears, a funny voice and an incredible affinity to charts.

I fell in love with H. Ross Perot early on. Then he dropped out of the race and lost me. Then he came back. I was a little leary after that, as I think many people were.

I arrived at college in late August, 1992. Like every other teenage boy moving away from his parents’ house, I had one thing on my mind — registering to vote. 

Okay, so maybe I wasn’t like every other teenage boy. While many of my schoolmates were focused on parties and social activities, I kept a keen watch on the presidential election. To be fair here, I’m not saying I didn’t drink my share of really cheap and tasteless beer my freshman year of college. But I interspersed it with discussions about the two-party system and the ballooning deficit.

In the end, Perot’s dropping out had lost him my vote. I voted for Clinton in 1992 … and again in 1996. I liked Clinton, but I’ve always kind of regretted not sticking with Perot. I haven’t voted for a major-party candidate since 1996 and I don’t plan to this year. I just wish I had a candidate that inspired me — and had a chance to sway the election — this year.

In truth, I wish Ross Perot would come out of retirement and run again. I don’t think that either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney have a clue how to (or a real desire to) fix what’s ailing us. And it would appear that the things that are wrong with America today are things that Perot discussed some 20 years ago.

I’m not saying that Perot is our only hope. But he’s a better candidate than the two we have now.

Obama’s subtle class warfare may work

Seldom do I put my hand up to my gaping mouth and say, “Oh my God” following a television commercial. Almost never following a political ad. But President Barack Obama’s recent anti-Romney salvo, “Firms” made me do just that.

The television commercial features former Governor Mitt Romney singing America the Beautiful in a horrible off-key voice. A series of screen posts say that Romney had jobs shipped to Mexico and China, presumably while with Bain. It says that as governor, Romney outsourced jobs to India. And it points out that he keeps his money in Swiss bank accounts and offshore in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. It ends with the tagline, “Mitt Romney’s not the solution. He’s the problem.”

Couple this with the Obama camp’s hammering Romney over his tax returns and it seems clear to me that the president wants to make sure everyone knows that Mitt Romney is not one of us. It is class warfare at its finest — or worst, depending on how you see it.

The genius in the ad, though, is that it’s designed not so much to make us fear what he would do as president, but angry over what he’s done to this point.

Romney’s people have said repeatedly that the economy is the issue and that no one cares about Mitt’s tax returns. I’d agree with them. Except …

If Obama can make people believe that one of the reason we’re in the dire straits we’re in is because of Mitt Romney (and people like him) then he can ensure that those people won’t vote for Romney. Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’ll vote for Obama either, but in real logistical terms, any vote not for Romney is a vote for Obama and the administration’s guns know this.

Don’t be fooled — Barack Obama is not one of us, either. But he doesn’t need to convince you that he is. He doesn’t need to convince you to vote for him. Just not to vote for Romney.

When it comes down to it, the president is running against himself. This might not be the case if the GOP had found a stronger candidate, but they didn’t. The found Romney. And all the nose holding in the world won’t make him palatable with those on the far right. And it won’t make him any more likable with the left, either.

As much as I despise class warfare — I hope to be one of those 1 percenters myself some day — it can be effective. The GOP has used it effectively for years, essentially telling the middle class that any desire it has to get a bigger piece of the pie is an attempted theft from the wealthy.

For years, Democratic efforts to combat this attack has been feeble. For the first time in recent memory, they’ve found an effort that seems to work in the Obama ad.

Of course, for me the most interesting thing here is that Obama is playing offense. I’m not used to seeing Democrats play offense. Neither is the GOP.

I’m looking forward to seeing how the Romney camp responds.

They’re going to have the Olympics this year, right?

Maybe I’m in my own zone. Or maybe I’m out of touch with the rest of the world. But I feel like I should be overwhelmed by something. And I barely know that something exists.


The 2012 Olympics start in just over a month and I feel like I’ve barely heard anything about it. 

Sure, there have been a couple stories in the sports pages here and there about teams qualifying, but hardly the bombardment I would expect.

It seems to me that prior to the last summer Olympics NBC was promoting the upcoming games the previous summer. In fact, I recall getting sick of the Olympics prior to them even beginning.

I’ll be honest, I’m not a huge fan of the summer Olympics. I much prefer the winter ones. There’s just cooler events in the winter: skiing, skating, hockey, bobsleigh, the luge and ski jumping. I’m even a fan of curling for some reason. In the summer the offerings are running, jumping, wrestling and gymnastics. Oh, and badminton. Yawn.

It’s not like I’ve been waiting for the Olympics and disappointed about the missing ads, but after a lifetime of conditioning, their absence is noted.

It makes me wonder. Is NBC not looking forward to this year’s Olympics? Did they get hate mail last time around and decide to hold off on the bombardment? Is the overwhelming crush of ads coming soon? Should I steer clear of watching NBC? 

Maybe I have been steering clear and just didn’t realize it. Truth be told, I don’t watch too much TV and most of what I do watch, I skip over the commercials, but nonetheless, I still feel like the Olympics should be everywhere and they’re not.

Instead, the presidential election is everywhere. All the time. News. Polls. Scandals. You name it, we’re inundated with the stuff.

Now, anyone who knows me knows that I love politics. It’s what I went to school for. It’s my most-often talked about thing in this column. But I feel lately that I could use a respite from politics. By lately, I mean since the Reagan administration. 

Frankly, I’ll be happy to replace the humdrum of politics with the humdrum of fencing and handball for two weeks. 

My favorite part of the Olympics, actually, is usually the opening ceremonies. The events themselves rarely live up to my expectations. The lighting of the cauldron, however, always seems magical to me. 

The best cauldron lighting I’ve ever seen was in Barcelona in 1992. It was the one where the archer shot the arrow over the cauldron and it caught fire. I have that image embedded deep in my psyche. It’s a good image. Beats the heck out of John Kerry looking like a deranged muppet in the crazy space suit. I have that image burned into my skull, too. 

I’m sure that come late July, we’ll find more iconic Olympic images to remember forever. I’m equally sure that some time between now and November, we’ll get goofy photos of politicians looking stupid.

Personally, I’d prefer more Olympics and less politics — at least for a while — starting now.

Rich gay rodeo clowns and the people who love them

I find it mildly interesting that President Barack Obama took the occasion last week to come out in defense of gay marriage — kind of.

But I found the reaction to it incredibly interesting. It is proof that sometimes you just can’t please anyone.

First out of the box was the looney left, complaining that he didn’t come out far enough. They wanted him to declare that he was in favor of gay marriage and offer to draft a Constitutional Amendment which he would then force Congress and the states to approve — at gunpoint if necessary. 

They were disappointed in Obama’s wishy-washy-ness. In essence, what the president really said was that while he doesn’t have a problem with gay marriage, it’s really up to the states to decide. 

Many viewed this as a sellout, in the same way that they viewed Bill Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy to be a sellout, as well. But they forget that DADT eventually resulted in the free and clear allowance of gays serving in the military. It was a watershed moment for the gay movement and at the time the left didn’t see it, although the right did.

Once the left was out of hot air, the rabid right jumped in saying that President Obama was out to ruin marriages and turn the United States into a land owned and operated exclusively by homosexuals.

My favorite bit was one where many on the right seemed to state that Obama was jumping out in favor of gay marriage in order to curry the gay vote — as though there were a chance they were going to support Romney — or to raise money from gay marriage advocates. 

Then there were the president’s advisors and prominent elected Democrats who were upset that the president would take such a risk in an election year. They publicly stated that they wished the president would have waited to make such an announcement until after the election, seemingly believing that he has the election in the bag.

Personally, I find the president’s statement to be a bit underwhelming. To find out that there’s a Democrat who supports gay marriage is akin to finding out that high school students can be cruel.

Which leads me to the big reveal on Mitt Romney: When he was in high school he mocked and harassed some kids that he believed to have been gay.

While bullying and harassment are NOT okay, everyone knows that they are prominent in high schools across America. And everyone should know that they used to be even more prominent. So to find out that the boy with the silver spoon used to harass people he viewed as different just isn’t that shocking.

Personally, I don’t care that Mitt Romney used to be a jerk. Short of murder or arson, I don’t really care what any of the candidates did in their teen years. I know that I had certain shortcomings when I was a teen. I grew out of them. I’m sure that to an extent, they did, too.

An argument can be made that “it goes to show character,” but I think that’s hogwash. Mitt Romney proudly displays his character on his shirt sleeve. That’s what we’re voting on: who he is now. Not who he was decades ago.

Democrats support gay marriage. Rich kids can be cruel. And the sun rose today. None of those things are news. And frankly, they only serve as a distraction from the real issues.

Superstitions and the power of one

It's funny the little things we do. Some of them are done without really thinking about it. Some of them are very much on purpose. Call them habits. Call them idiosyncrasies. Superstitions, even. But we all have our peculiarites.

I've mentioned before my penchant for stirring Kool-Aid with a wooden spoon and the fact that it never even seemed odd to me until my girlfriend pointed it out. After some research, I concluded that it was a learned trait, as my mother had stirred Kool-Aid with a spoon.

I have other oddities.

I do things in four-counts. For example, if I'm stirring something, I will stir it four, eight, 12, 16, 20, 24, etc. times. I would never stir it 17 times. It's some sort of built in rhythmic harmony that I only just realized about myself. Maybe it's from eight years of playing the trumpet and counting in 4/4. Or maybe I'm just odd.

Milk and sugar has to go in my coffee before the coffee does. I tell myself that this is scientific and that it allows the pouring of the coffee to help mix the ingredients, but I know that it isn't going to matter since I'm going to stir it in perfect measure.

Superstitions and oddities are never more on display that when sports is involved. You see people joke all the time that the Sabres (or Bills or whatever) won or lost the game based upon who was there: "That's is, Martha, you're not allowed to go to any more games. They lose every time you go!"

But that's just joking ... right?

As deeply as you may know that your attendance or lack thereof has no real bearing on how your team plays, you can't help but feel like maybe they would have done a little better if you had gone. Or had you not turned the TV off. Or gone for a bathroom break. I cannot explain, but it's true of me and since I'm a perfect example of humanity, I figure it must be true of everyone.

And it's not just attending/watching the game. You've got to wear the right shirt. And the right hat. And maybe the right pair of socks. After all, who doesn't have lucky socks?

I have no idea if Mitt Romney has lucky socks. But it's my understand that as a Mormon, he has magic underwear. Yes, that's possibly the worst segue in the history of ever, but it's all I've got to switch from sports to politics right now. So stay with me, please.

Willard "Mitt" Romney, as you surely know, will be the GOP nominee for the presidency. Come November we will all have the opportunity to vote for him, Barack Obama, and a variety of other people, the vast majority of whom we've never heard of before.

But if historical data is accurate, fewer than six in 10 of us will actually vote. There seems to be this theory that one vote doesn't matter — or that voting doesn't matter — despite historical evidence to the contrary. Every single election going back 150 years could have had a different outcome had those who didn't vote cast votes for the losing candidate. Every single one.

So I can't help but wonder, why are we all so willing to wear old socks and dirty shirts to "help" our team win when we won't even go take part in a game that we've actually been invited to play? Why do we feel so powerless in a system designed to be powered by us? And what can we do to change that?

GOP: Desperately seeking someone

So, Rick Santorum. Huh. Why not?

The former senator from Pennsylvania seems to be the Republican party’s flavor of the week in a game they’re playing called, “Which one of you is not Mitt Romney?”

I’ll give Senator Santorum this: He believes what he says. Of course, that’s the difference between liars and mad men. Liars know they’re full of it, while mad men completely believe the crazy things they say.

Take the latest example of “Republicans saying stupid things,” which Santorum provided during an interview with Bob Schieffer of CBS’s Face the Nation: “The bottom line is that a lot of prenatal tests are done to identify deformities in utero and the customary procedure is to encourage abortions.”

This is Santorum’s response to President Obama’s suggestion that birth control and many types of pre-natal care should be provided free of charge by employers and health insurance providers.

For so many in the leadership of the Republican Party, “family planning” and “abortion” are synonyms. From their perspective, the only purpose for Planned Parenthood is to provide abortions. Never mind the fact that 97 percent of what the organization does is everything else. All that matters is that three percent of the time, they perform abortions every time.

I’d like to state two facts, one which is readily apparent and the other, which anyone who’s followed my career already knows.

1) I am not a woman.

2) I’m pro-life.

That said, as much as I abhor abortions, I also abhor the divisive politics being played here by Senator Santorum.

To make a parallel-logic statement, if you find out you’re suffering from a deadly disease, you may engage in risky behavior, so you shouldn’t be screened for certain types of cancer.

Of course, that sounds stupid. But following the if-then schematic laid out by GOP flavor No. 5, it’s pure logic.

Of course, if you really follow their logic, you should be forced to smoke non-filtered cigarettes first, too.

At some point over the course of the past decade or so, knowledge became the enemy to the Republican Party. For many of the rank-and-file, science is evil and facts just get in the way of a good invasion, so they encourage that we bury our heads in the sand and not offer pre-natal screening or birth control.

The scariest part for me is that an increasing number of people seem to agree with Santorum’s view.

I’m all for replacing Barack Obama come November, but only with someone better. And the GOP hasn’t found that person yet. It sure isn’t Rick Santorum.

I remember the scream

If you’re sick of news of the run for the White House, I’ve got some really bad news for you: It’s about to get worse.

Today if the first step in the assumed coronation of Mitt Romney as the Republican standard bearer. The latest polls in both Iowa — with their caucus today — and New Hampshire, the next step in the primary process, have Romney in the lead.

After today’s assumed win, followed by the Granite State, Romney is expected to roll over the rest of his GOP counterparts on his way to the nomination.

I can’t help but recall eight years ago when a certain Democrat was expected to roll over competition on his way to his party’s nomination and then defeat George W. Bush in the 2004 general election.

I remember watching caucus returns on CNN or MSNBC or whatever, expecting to see Howard Dean win. I was a huge fan of the Vermont governor and genuinely excited about the future with him at the helm. In truth, he’s one of the few politicians I’ve ever been excited about.

But the returns didn’t come in as Gov. Dean — or I — had hoped. Dean came in third behind Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards. And in an effort to reinvigorate his base, Dean made a speech that would eventually derail his campaign. You may recall it.

“Not only are we going to New Hampshire, Tom Harkin, we’re going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and we’re going to California and Texas and New York ... And we’re going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan, and then we’re going to Washington, D.C., to take back the White House! Yeah!”

That “Yeah!” was broadcast on a loop, remixed, and made into songs, turning Dean into a joke.

What was assumed to be a sure thing turning into a disaster, and Kerry ended up the nominee, with Edwards his running mate. Dean became chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

So just because the pundits are telling you today that it’s a done deal and it’s Romney’s nomination to lose, doesn’t mean he can’t lose it.

His lead in the latest Iowa poll was razor-thin and, while his New Hampshire lead seems insurmountable, there’s no such thing in politics. Just look at who’s polling third in Iowa. Rick Santorum — dead in the water just a couple weeks ago and now running third.

Following New Hampshire are South Carolina and Florida — with Newt Gingrich leading the polls in both. If the former speaker can make a decent showing in Iowa and New Hampshire, his stock could skyrocket.

Of course, Ron Paul could win tonight and turn into the party’s front runner.

This is one of the reasons I love politics. It’s a huge game of chess. And it the match starts in earnest tonight.