Are you excited yet about Super Tuesday? I've been watching a LOT of TV so I can better understand the world in which I live because TV people always have such great hair and white teeth, both of which are needed to fully explain the complexities of daily life.
I'm not sure if I'm rooting for the New York Clintons or the New England Obamas or if whatever they're starting off with on Sunday in the University of Phoenix Stadium (U of P is thought of as a virtual school, though it has a campus and a tenant for its football field in the Arizona Cardinals who are matriculating even as I type (so I'll type faster, in case some of them want advanced degrees)) is part of the whole process or is a separate election.
In addition to the 147 nations, eleven protectorates and three commonwealths (or so it seems) taking part, there are 22 (more or less) united states involved in Super Tuesday. I came across a factoid suggesting one and half million manufacturing jobs in those two dozen states have disappeared in less than a decade (let's hear it for increased shareholder value by controlling costs and exporting jobs to lower-wage nations!) . In all candor, the biggest issue seems to be 'America Loves a Horse Race'. I read an explanation by a writer for a local newspaper explaining its endorsements ("... we decided very early on that what we would not do is try to create the "best matchup" for the November election"). I admire that honesty.
And Obama and Clinton are only one league-there's others playing, too. There's the Arizona McCains (perhaps related to the french fried potatoes?) and the Massachusetts/Michigan Romneys (or do they prefer to be called the Mitts?) and the Texas Pauls (no affiliation to the Mrs. Paul fish stick dynasty, or so I'm told). I'm not sure I want freedom of choice or freedom from choice. It's like standing in the 'oral dentifrice' aisle in the supermarket when the BGO hits you: it's all toothpaste.
No one yet has an accurate prediction, when all is vote and cast, as to how much the campaigning will have cost, except it'll be more than it was in 2004 which was the most expensive of all time (until that time). In comparison, it's estimated Abraham Lincoln spent about one hundred thousand dollars to be elected in 1860 (I know, 'but we were a smaller country!' Point made). How much per pound are all these folks who want to be President worth? You wanna try that?
Or, maybe we should divide the number of registered voters on a specific date (let's say Super Tuesday) into the money that will be raised and spent attempting to influence our choice for President and just get that as walking around money, to fold up and stick in our pockets.
Since our news media love to 'handicap' contests like this and use sports analogies until you get so fried you feel sorry for ESPN because sports is ALL they do (maybe they could add Book Talk with Brian Lamb during the election season), Perhaps a sack race, or, because we're electing a President AND a Vice-President, maybe a three-legged race? Don't knock it, it might work. Did you ever have a child in the Punt, Pass and Kick contest when they were small? See where I'm going with this.....?
How about a raffle to pick the next President? Each candidate buys tickets, at a dollar a pop, and the money goes to reduce The Deficit (Capital letters are called for, right? The TV people are always talking about 'The Deficit', usually just before they talk about 'the weather' (no caps?))
All of these people want us to take a chance-why not buy some? Life can be so easy, let the wheel of fortune spin. Gamble if you want to win.
-bill kenny
No comments:
Post a Comment