Herb Week: Flying Lavender People Eater

Down the walk of herbs we go, today pausing at Lavender (Lavandula angustifolia.)

Unlike other colors, we've come to associate a scent with the color lavender. Run a blossom through our fingers, and it's "scratch and sniff" time in the LipsYard Garden. It's a rather "girlie" scent, and it's uses include: Potpourris; herb pillows (there's one hanging in our closet;) crafts, vinegars, jellies.

Here's a piece about how to watch, scratch, and sniff tonight's second debate between Barack Obama and John McCain. With both sides ratcheting up the personal attacks, (as always happens in the final days of a campaign,) two gentlemen (not the candidates) who know a thing or two weigh in on the fine art of debate.

Questions to ask as you watch the debates
By SEAN PATRICK O’ROURKE and RON MANUTO

After the first presidential debate, many of us might be tempted to ignore the other two, to assume that we have heard too much already or to believe that debates between candidates mean nothing.

Don't do it. We are in crisis. Our national debt is at a record high, $11.3 trillion. Unemployment, homelessness and home foreclosures are up, the markets are unstable, energy prices are at record highs and public distrust of political leadership is unprecedented. Terrorism continues to rise, and tribal feuds and insurgencies continue to hurt our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So don't let the cynics mislead you. The debates do matter. Debates require the candidates to develop substantive arguments. While debate purists might complain about the "joint press conference" formats, debates nonetheless reveal differences. They enable us to see where the candidates agree, where and to what extent they disagree and how those disagreements matter. And they do so far better than a bumper sticker, endorsement or TV commercial ever could.

The candidates know this. They know that when they face each other before the American people, all the rehearsal, all the spin of the advance men, can disappear in an instant. Assertions are questioned and accusations answered. Distortions are challenged. Misrepresentations are corrected. If we are lucky, falsehoods are exposed. Real issues emerge, and the candidates cannot help but reveal themselves.

For this reason, the debates require us to set aside the myths and illusions of the campaign's drama, to face the real requirements of citizenship. That's why, instead of letting the media tell us who "won," we can and should judge the debates ourselves.

Here's how:

Set aside prior opinions and focus first on the issues. Weigh the evidence and assess the arguments as a juror would in a criminal trial. Some questions to keep in mind are:

• What issues matter to each candidate? Why? Are they the issues that matter to you?

• Where do the candidates clash? Are there significant differences? Do you find yourself agreeing more with one candidate than the other? Why? On what grounds?

• On matters of policy, debaters carry certain burdens. An advocate of change must identify clearly what is wrong with the current system, how we are harmed by it, what the costs are and how the policy he proposes will solve the problem. Those who defend existing policies must show that the system is working and must supply evidence of that success. And remember, slogans are not evidence.

• On questions of value, candidates also carry certain burdens. So, for instance, when candidates champion the value of change, we should ask, how do they define the term? What do they think it means? Change from what? To what? Do they tolerate those with dissenting views? Most important, do they (or their agents) act in accord with the values they promote?

• In all of this, we must be attentive to what evidence or proof the candidates offer. Do they make assertions without evidence? When they use evidence, is it from sources with a heavy bias or vested interest? Are examples representative? Overall, do they offer good reasons for the positions they take?

Issues alone, however, are only part of a presidential debate. Perhaps just as important are what we might call "character questions" - not who smiles or is "just plain folk" but who is fit for the job. Debates offer an excellent opportunity to see candidates under fire, to assess their ability to respond to tough questions in difficult circumstances:

• Are the candidates poised under pressure? Do they continue to speak clearly and think cogently? Are they easily rattled? Angered? Flustered? Repetitive?

• Are the candidates competent? Do they have their facts straight? Are they aware of complexities or do they oversimplify by repeating campaign clichés?

• Are the candidates people of integrity? Do they pretend to be someone they are not? Are they principled? Do they stand their ground when they should and admit error where appropriate? Have they acted in ways consistent with the values expressed?

• Do the candidates speak out of self-interest? Do they represent the interests of a special few? Or is the well-being of the nation as a whole their primary concern?

These and other questions should provide us with the ability to judge the debates, to exercise our civic duty responsibly and to participate fully in the election process.

Sean Patrick O'Rourke was an award-winning debate coach at Humboldt State University and the University of Oregon. He now teaches argumentation and debate at Furman University in Greenville, S.C. Ron Manuto coached debate and taught argumentation at Oregon State University. He now lives in California, where he writes full time.