Is dodging a question standard?

This is an example of another reason I'm keeping to my choice at the ballot box. Once again, the talk is on taxes, but the treatment of this topic looks very much like that of others.

Talking about the challenger's tax plan and repeating talking points on the level of "Adam" from "Credit Card Services" when the interviewer asks the interviewee about the tax plan he supports isn't showing me what he may think it shows. What I see here is that it's not about the interviewer refusing to listen or that she's not letting the interviewee talk - it's that the man himself is neither listening nor answering the question that was asked, focusing instead on hyping up the candidate he supports. Just because there isn't a change in Fed Reserve policy does not answer the question posed, of how the interviewee supports raising the corporate tax. (You're a partisan. You're trying to play off viewers' emotions according to the script you got.)

Also - what's even more childish is taking offense at the mispronunciation of a name when the person named is responsible for harm at scale. (*cough* Silicone values acting up again. *cough*)

Here simply because it sparked my curiosity - this article brought to mind another hurdle to deal with if wind is meant to be a viable long-term energy source. It reminded me of another piece (from at least a year ago, if I remember correctly) about wind turbine blades at the end of 10 years of service. They're built tough enough to withstand heavy weather, which I would wager is part of why their component materials couldn't be recycled - otherwise, why would the blades be buried? (Also has the name for the egg-like turbines.)

And here's more news on water being wet.