Economic Facts, Senate Facts, and Flip-floppping

There really is so much to write about, Eliot Spitzer and the now super-ugly Democratic presidential campaign, but I just can't get the post done tonight. Hopefully tomorrow. So, instead, my most recent letters to the Boston Globe.

My last letter to the Boston Globe:

Editor,

The letters to the editor fact checker should have researched that the Dow Industrial Average is up 14% and 36% since President Bush's inauguration and 9/11, respectively, and that the unemployment rate has dropped for two consecutive months (to historically low 4.8%) before the Boston Globe published another letter from another unglued, hate-Bush, extremist that claimed Bush's economic policies are responsible for "personal retirement accounts losing value" and "unemployment rising" (Some might ask for a 'Bush discount', letters, March 12).

Oh, and President Bush did not lend one dollar to a home buyer who could not afford to repay the loan. (End of letter.)

My second to last letter to the Boston Globe:

Editor,

Letter-writer Ms. Margaret Merritt is simply wrong on the facts in suggesting Sen. McCain is anywhere near as guilty as Sens. Clinton and Obama are in being AWOL from their day jobs in the United States Senate (Have they forgotten they're senators, letters, March 10).

On the three most significant pieces of legislation voted on this year by the United States Senate, the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 (February 7), the FISA Amendment Act of 2007 (February 12) and the "torture ban" (February 13), Sen. McCain reported for duty and voted.

Ms. Merritt should limit her snide insinuations for those who earned it by being conveniently absent for all three votes (as well as almost every other vote since last summer): Sens. Clinton and Obama. (End of letter.)

As I wrote some time ago, I think the media misuses the phrase "flip-flop". I think to change your position is to "flip". To change it and then change it back is "flip-flop". However, since nobody else acknowledges my definition, I reluctantly used the contemporary definition of flip-flop in my third to last letter to the Boston Globe:

Editor,

A big thank you to the Boston Globe for exposing Sen. Obama's flip-flop on the Iraq War (Obama stance on Iraq shows evolving view, March 8, A1).

Though, I didn't understand the reason for the generous title of the article given the abuse the Boston Globe gives other politicians whose views "evolved". (End of letter.)

The letter the Boston Globe published instead of my letter (look how many words she needed to say the same thing!):

I READ with interest Farah Stockman's front-page piece "Obama stance on Iraq shows evolving view" (March 8).

As a matter of principle, I admire people humble and open-minded enough to rethink their views to reflect changed circumstances or the acquisition of new data or information.
Although I like to think myself in possession of the seventh-grade reading skills necessary to navigate a typical newspaper article, coverage of the 2008 primary elections has taught me that poli-speak is a substantively different language than the American English spoken and understood by regular people like me. As a student of poli-speak as a second language, I must admit that comprehension often eludes me.

The headline of Stockman's article refers to Obama's changing stance on Iraq as "evolving." I wonder, does "evolving" mean the same or have the same usage as the term "waffling," or a candidate's changing views for purposes of political expediency?

Or is "waffling" reserved strictly for use in reference to the changing views or ideas of seasoned politicians? (End of letter.)