Earlier today, Albert Brooks tweeted…

Why the F are 911 calls public? Peoples worst moments of their lives should be their own.

I agree.

Back when the O.J. Simpson murder case began to dominate the news, I made what turned out to be a smart decision. I make plenty of the other kind but I don't like to talk about them too often. In this case, I made one of the smart ones. I said to myself, "Self, this matter is going to go on for a long time. There will be books and specials and non-stop news coverage and they may even televise the trial and that could last a couple of months. If you start following it, you'll get hooked and you'll waste hundreds of hours of your life on it."

And I was right: I did waste a lot of hours of my life on it because I did find it fascinating and I did start watching specials and reading books…but I didn't waste as many as I could have. The smart thing I did was to join the proceedings late. I just didn't pay attention to the first few months of it. I was like a friend of mine who loves basketball but doesn't start watching most games until at least after Half-Time because, as he puts it, "That's a perfectly fine place to start watching."

I may not have enough sense to actually do this but I'm starting to feel this way about the presidential election.

Election day isn't until November 6. That's 284 days from now. I don't know about you but I can't take 284 days of this…and we aren't even to the point where I have a Republican ticket to root against. There have been years when there was a G.O.P. ticket that might have gotten my vote. In '88 if that George Bush had ditched Dan Quayle and the racist and dishonest "Willie Horton" ads, I might have gone that way. This year, I don't see any such possibilities on the horizon so for me, the decision process is effectively over.

But nine more months and ten days of this? Gingrich and Romney are throwing feces at each other — and if they'll do that to other Republicans, you can just imagine what they'll hurl at Obama when they have their entire party unified behind them and Fox News isn't still wondering who to take to the prom.

To unseat an incumbent, it's never enough to say, "I'd do a better job." It has to be, "If we don't get rid of him, the world will explode." No matter how much the economy and foreign relations might improve, we have to be told that Armageddon is at hand. Even if I had a dead-on, never-wrong crystal ball right now that could show me an Obama triumph, I'm not sure I can listen to the doom 'n' gloom forecasts 'til 11/6/12.

I'm also not sure it's humanly possible to ignore the circus when it comes to town — and it's here, defecating elephants and all.

Anyway, that's how I'm feeling about it tonight. Tomorrow, I may find myself enjoying the show. I just sometimes wish my TiVo had a "Skip ahead four months" button on it.

Fred Kaplan, who may be the only person in America who actually reads our defense budget, says that the proposed cuts do not go far enough. When do they ever?

Opponents of Gay Marriage often whip out the following argument: "If we say it's all right for two men to marry then why not three men? Or two men and one woman? Or fifteen people?" That always strikes me as one of those "we can't make a good case so let's make a stupid one" arguments.

Most "slippery slope" arguments are like that. My neighbor has a dog. I don't like dogs but I can't argue for a dog ban based on that so I try slippery-sloping it: "If we let anyone who wants a dog have one then what's to stop my neighbor from having a rabid coyote? Or fifty disease-carrying pumas that will kill our children?" Back when there was a debate in this country about lowering the voting age from 21 to 18, all some opponents could come up with was "If we lower the age to 18 then why not to 17? Then 16-year-olds will demand the vote, then 15 and before you know it, we'll have three-year-olds voting! Then embryos!"

There are, I will concede, some legit arguments of this nature…cases where doing X is likely to lead to Y. But most of the time, the principle is that if you can't gin up a reality-based thesis, you invent one based on something that's not apt to follow.

Jay Michaelson discusses the one where they leap from Same-Sex Wedlock to polygamy…or as he calls it, polyamory. He thinks we don't know enough about multiple-partner relationships to say if they're at all in the same category as same-sex ones. I think it doesn't matter much until such time as there's a real outcry to consider legalizing group marriages.