Definitely chilly--30s with wind chill in the 20s. I started a new crocheted winter cap and got about a third of it done. The gardens are winding down and the inside crafts are picking up.
I have just seen the morning TV news segments on the Repthuglican faux-debates. We should be honest and drop the word "debate" from the political lexicon. Lincoln and Douglas had debates. Nixon and Kennedy had debates. What has passed for debate for some several cycles now is anything but debate. In a real debate the parties would present their positions with supporting facts (which could be checked for accuracy) and reasoned argument while presenting counter facts (which could also be checked for accuracy) and reasoned argument. What I have seen in all of the clips and quotes are a bunch of egotistical assholes who wouldn't know a reasoned argument if one hit them over the head or a real fact if it bit them in their collective asses. If someone from the media (like the moderator, for example) tells them their facts are bogus or their numbers don't add up, they whine about how nasty and unfair the moderator is. I think it is time to get rid of these side shows. They don't add anything but opacity.
This piece in the Washington Post is interesting but not for the political analysis, which though interesting is not a fascinating as the linguistic knots involved. Take a look at the author's use of the words "responsibility" and "responsiveness" and how he applies them. Politicians are "responsible" when they support the financial austerity which benefits the bankers and investors. They are "responsive" when they support their electorate's desire for relief from that austerity. Why aren't the politicians who support austerity not "responsive" (to the investors and bankers) and the side opposing austerity not "responsible" (to the electorate)? In truth, politicians from both sides are both responsive and responsible--just to two different and opposed groups.