Sometimes this blog challenge is too easy. I say that now, but just wait until Q, X, & Z raise their venomous little heads (I will, of course, be ducking mine).

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Okay, I can make montages. That’s pretty cool. Always finding new tricks on WordPress. Cool enough for me to call it quits for that topic. And I probably would be simply extending the ‘F’ theme (without the highlighted f’s – still don’t know why I did that).

So, the unscheduled change-up pitch is… Gullible.  It’s definition is a preamble to the definition of insanity. The major differences are of scope and scale. To be gullible is to be easily deceived. The general usage of that term began in the early 1800’s.

Insanity, on the other hand, has been used centuries longer, mostly for seriously delusional cases. Lots of other maladies are attributed to the term. But we’re concerned with the lesser of two evils,  as they are.

There’s this one old saying that “doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different outcome, is the definition of insanity.” This definition is an active one, based on someone doing an activity, let’s say for example: voting.

The word of the day is: gullible. This is a passive word. A person being mentally or emotionally guided by something said or done. Let’s say, oh I don’t know, a campaign poster or political news article.

Now it gets interesting. How does a person, intelligent enough to reach adulthood, end up believing the poster, slogan or article? How can we measure gullibleness? Also, how long does it take to develop – and under what circumstances? Then, there’s the progression to exercise an insane activity (voting), expecting a different result (honest, transparent government), and achieving …nothing different.

Last, is the process reversible, or does it remain dormant during the even number of years between elections?

In summary, I posit that elections are too long, election adverts are biased pablum written for 8th graders, and the elections themselves are – if not rigged – are definitely challenging to an average voter (in an age of smartphones using qwerty keyboards: the election machines use a 4×5 matrix with no logical organization).

Gullible. An electorate forced to choose between two (or more) disagreeable candidates, or learn how to operate a dysfunctional machine in thirty seconds or less – and enter your own name as candidate.