The TV and radio news shows are taking the easy way out with Q&A interviews. Let’s see what kind of expert you might be: here are some of the most current Q’s to which you might supply some A’s:

1. We know that Henry Ford was blamed for the inventive use of “planned obsolescence,” when he found that his first cars were so well constructed that there was no need to exchange them for newer ones. Solution? Build into each product (now including just about anything that’s for sale – appliances, furniture, toothbrushes, whatever) a scheme by which it would wear out, change style, or become improve however slightly, to create the demand for an “advanced” product, usually at an equally advanced price.

Q: So why have we gradually adjusted to expecting nothing to last, accepting it as a tight-lock fact? Is it based on Ford’s theory of planned obsolescence or just cheaply made, mass produced items from overseas that don’t last? Or could it be that we’ve become a country of affluent consumers, always looking for a reason to throw out the old and bring in the new? Or, having been affluent since the end of WWII, have we felt the pleasurable competition in matching or exceeding the Joneses with the arrival of anything new? Or what?

2. Publications, broadcastings, and the entertainment media have almost overnight discovered a wide range of sexual deviations from the norm as topics that sell, no longer dismissed as unacceptable among political, social, religious or other conservative people, gradually now taken for granted, flooding the market for all ages to astonish, titillate, or gratify.

Q: Why has the change become so acceptable by Mr. and Mrs. Public Citizen? Can it be that anything subtly fed to a dumbed-down society will be accepted if it is doled out a little more daringly at a time, so that it is soon accepted as the norm? Or can it be that we’re going through another “Deer Park” period of unbridled enjoyment for previously forbidden pleasures; and if so, how long before the pendulum swings again in the opposite direction? Or can it be that such forbidden fruit brings in heaps of money for anyone for whom making money is always primary?

3. We complain about the gradually lengthening of time spent in presidential campaigns, now hyped by the information media which could be fine, except that it becomes difficult to separate the political wheat from the chaff: Grown people attending caucuses and primaries reacting to the hoopla with shouts, screams, overreactions pro or con, much to the embarrassment of those who would like to bypass the silliness along with the political red herrings and unreliable promises from the candidates and settle down to relevant facts. We know that debate for political office is not a new thing; consider the famous Lincoln/Douglas debates with similar riotous, senseless action but to a far lesser degree.

(Note: Historians have traditionally regarded the series of seven debates between Stephen A. Douglas and Abraham Lincoln during the 1858 Illinois state election campaign as among the most significant statements in American political history. The issues they discussed were not only of critical importance to the conflict over slavery and state’s rights but also touched deeper questions that encouraged honest political discourse. As Lincoln said, the issues would be discussed long after “these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent.”)

Q: Are today’s campaigns the only way to help decide a vote for the best candidate? Are the hoopla, misleading statements, unworkable promises, and hot air absolutely necessary, the best way to stir up masses to emotional heights and, perhaps, beat the bushes with the propaganda technique of “jumping on the bandwagon”? Or are we unfairly obstinate in our choices, basing them entirely on personal biases rather than logic? Or do we simply vote without having clearly, unemotionally examined the candidates and their stands?

4. AARP recently published an article covering something anyone with a phone already knows: that there are predators out there scamming. Even the legitimate charities are now paying people to rotocall with stubborn didacticism.

Q: What do you do about it? Soon as you recognize it as an unwelcomed call, slam off? Or listen long enough to cut in with a polite but negative response? Or say, “I never do business on the telephone” and shut off? Or add Caller ID to your phone service & simply ignore the unwanted calls? Or rip out the phone and stomp on it?

5. Not too long ago the favored “first class citizens” were WASPs (white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant), but it took the Vietnam War to produce young Americans to prove that power generates from the masses and virtually ended the war with their combined protests. The idea caught on, and it wasn’t long before any self styled “second class citizens” joined in, putting themselves above the idea of a diversified nation in which both give and take are prime. Women banded en masse to strengthen their efforts for equal rights, just as a racial rebellion also grew by banding with a broader “people of color” to increase their strength . Meanwhile gays and lesbians followed suit, now with the conglomerate power of LGBTQ (etc.) all, of course, ignoring President Kennedy’s “Ask not…”.

Q: Whom do you see as the next complaining “second class citizens”? Midgets? Christians? Jews? Muslims? Pornographers? Drug dealers? Prostitutes? People who lisp? Those allergic to peanut butter? Where do we draw the line on the American principle of the greatest good for the greatest number of people?

How far will the “oppressed” push their demands and at what expense?

Tough questions.