This Is Why I Try Not to Think Too Much

Here's about a week's worth:

1) I heard a radio spot this week that cracked me up. It was an announcement from the IRS warning about a particular spam e-mail scam. At the end it said something about "cracking down on these crooks". Again, this is from the IRS. Too rich.

2) I'm pretty jaded on the politics of politics, but this election is at least going to be interesting from a sociological and historic standpoint. That said, I'm still pretty jaded on the politics of politics. I'd be less so if it weren't so political. Speeches, running mates, ads, whatever. It's all politics.

3) So good to have college football back! Unless you're a Michigan fan, at least. I was watching the Phillies game yesterday, but Michigan/Utah was on so I flipped to it during commercials. At one point I actually heard the announcer, speaking of the Michigan quarterback, say "Really a nice job by Threet of getting up after that hit." Really, when not being hurt is a victory, there could be trouble. And on their next play -- a punt from their own end zone -- they took a delay fo game. Somehow I'm not convinced that their punter was trying to audible. Anyway, Michigan would be pretty good if they could just not play a first game, but I'm not sure how they can get around the math on that one.

Seriously -- Is this the Best We Can Do?

No question -- The United States is a nation with a shortage. As Opening Day is all but upon us, there are nigh a handful of teams who are genuinely satisfied with their pitching rotation, and probably even less that like the depth of their bullpens. Shortly thereafter, NFL teams will bemoan the fact that there simply aren't 32 NFL level punters or place-kickers to be found. And a swing through your choice of Burger King, McDonalds, Wendy's, Arby's, or Hardee's will make glaringly obvious that our nation comes several million employees shy of however many million employees would be needed to competently staff our food service industry with individuals who can consistently provide reasonable service and the necessary self control to keep the onions off of my wife's sandwich. All of these shortages are regrettable, but also at some level understandable and of negligible long-term impact.

As far as President of the United States goes, however, I fully recognize that to be a truly strong and suitable candidate is no short order -- but come on, people -- we only need one! Is this truly a nation that, in a quest to find the best candidate from the however many million citizens, will eventually settle upon one of the three remaining legitimate possibilities? Seriously now -- is this REALLY the best we can do? Let's have a look at what we're dealing with here, in alphabetical order (so that it'll be something legitimate that I wrote that you decide to hate me for):


Hillary Clinton

Negative: Absolutely polarizing, for one. A member of the Democratic party. Also, you have to question the decision making of somebody who married Bill Clinton, right? I mean, if you voted for the guy that's one thing -- she MARRIED the dude. Plus, taking the capitalistic system that helped make this the greatest nation in the world and pushing it full-force toward socialism might not be a good idea. I don't know . . . how did that work out for the USSR (I miss them, by the way)? How are things in Cuba?

Positive: She ought to know her way around the White House. And let's face it, she pretty much ran the country while her husband was . . . um . . . otherwise incapacitated.

Sports equivalent: Brenda Warner. Even while her husband (who's attributes are still hotly debated) was enjoying his day in the sun, somehow his wife garnered something more than her fair share of the press, lending credibility to the idea that perhaps she had as much or more to say about what went down than he did. Whatever her experience around the big-time, however, there's no real way you're ok with her taking snaps from center on Sunday afternoons, right?


John McCain

Negative: Completely un-inspiring. Really old. A member of the Republican party. Um . . . not much more to say.

Positive: Probably doesn't eat much anymore. Least likely to be an embarrassment (unless a Viagra endorsement deal comes along). Least likely to do any real damage. Or anything else, really.

Sports equivalent: Eric Piatkowski. Your reaction should be one of either 1) "Who?" or 2) "He's still in the league?" Yep, he's still in the league -- he's in Phoenix, incidentally. And he's ok to have on your team . . . if he gets about 10 minutes a game and is on the bench while the game's on the line. If he's your big gun though . . . let's just say that nobody's coming out to see your team play.

Barak Obama

Negative: Every bit as polarizing as Hillary. He's never really done anything. He's young and inexperienced. There are all manner of rumors about the people surrounding him (his pastor, his supporters, his WIFE!) being hate-filled and bigoted.

Positive: He's likable and sure can deliver a speech.

Sports equivalent: Isaiah Thomas. Sure, Thomas had a remarkable career with a basketball in his hands and short-shorts on his . . . um . . . shorts, but his talents just never translated outside of that context. His shortcomings as an analyst ("when Larry, Micheal, and myself were in the league") have paled in comparison to his Matt Millen-like mis-management. He single-handedly bankrupted the CBA, was fired from the Pacers by Larry Bird himself (chuckle), and has completely run the Knicks into the ground (double chuckle). Add to that his "out of the office" issues (sexual harassment suit, Raptors ticket issues) and underlying rumblings of racism and just pure lack of talent recognition ("If Larry Bird was a black guy, he would be just another good guy") and hindsight begins to shine where foresight failed -- maybe putting this cat in charge of stuff wasn't as good of an idea as it may have appeared! Once we include "Bird stole the inbounding pass!!!", the fact that Isaiah had his success with one of the dirtiest teams in NBA history (correlate with a Democrat from Illinois -- I'm just sayin'), and that Isaiah was himself from Illinois, and you'd start to think I was making some of this up.


Really, you're telling me THESE are the best that our nation has to offer? Wow. Just, "wow". Maybe I just haven't been paying enough attention, but never before has Brewster's Millions seemed legitimately prophetic.

Democratacisy? Sounds great!

As Americans we treasure -- above all else (with the possible exception of the right to procreate at will and let the government pay for the consequences) the right to vote in public elections. It validates us. It tells us that our opinions matter. It means that we have a voice. And here today, in what *may* eclipse even my BCS post as the most hated in the history of Flogging, But With a "B", I'll tell you why it's a terrible idea.

Let's start with a story. I lived for several years in Minnesota where you can actually register at the polls. When I went to register/vote, I provided the requisite information and verification, and was then instructed to print and sign my name along with my date of birth. With all the care and caution of your least favorite multinational environment-raping oil conglomerate, then, I proceeded to indicate that I had been born, apparently, earlier that day. The poll worker was very nice and helped me correct the obvious oversight, and I proceeded to cast a vote in determining the course of our country, state, and county. But should I have been allowed to, really? My attention and care was so infinitesimal that I put "today's" date where my date of birth was supposed to go, and yet I was somehow qualified to have a say in things? Is that REALLY sound policy?

Here's the deal, though -- I'm a reasonably sharp dude. Even at the time the story took place (7 or 8 years ago) I held a B. S. (that still cracks me up) and had better critical thinking skills than a lot of people. My only conclusion, though, is that there was absolutely NO WAY I should have been allowed to vote! Which led me down a dark and depressing thought highway which dumped me off at the point where I've determined that democracy (representative or otherwise) is officially a bad idea.

Look, if you're anything like me, you're pretty happy that political ads, phone calls, etc. are done for a bit. They're obnoxious, misleading, and intentionally slanted with half-truths and twisted logic. If somebody voted against a bill that would use taxpayer money ([Jack Nicholson voice ON] "Is there another kind?" [Jack Nicholson voice OFF]) to put plasma tv's in every 2nd grader's coat hanger, he's against education and hates children. If he had a plan that would eliminate income tax completely but bump sales tax by half a cent, he's trying to give the rich more tax breaks and take bread from babies. And do you know what bothers me the most about these? That they work!!! Let's face it -- there wouldn't be 8,000,000 ads during every hour of tv if they didn't have effect, and that means that the insipid things are actually effecting people's votes, and the outcome of our elections. What kind of a system is this?

Do you know what, though? Even if we didn't base our votes on manipulated half-truths and emotional appeals, we STILL wouldn't be really qualified to vote. Raise your hand if you REALLY know what's going on in Iraq, or the probable consequences of any course of action? How about economics? Who here REALLY understands the various factors and arguments regarding costs of health care and what socialization would mean? Do any among us understand the implications of big political topics? What about the fact that, even among experts, there's heated disagreement? How does THAT turn into people who DON'T know stuff having a say?

Here's where it gets really bad, though. Yesterday I had somebody with a 10th grade education tell me that they'd just come from the polls. On one particular issue they admitted -- laughing -- that they really didn't understand the question, and so just voted "no". Now, I ask you -- who determined that this was a GOOD way to run a country?

That said, the only better system I've come up with is to just kill the whole deal and put me in charge. Now, who's going to vote for that one?