This. Isn’t. News.

I’m sorry people, if the president is going to play basketball then he’s going to have to specifically play with women as well … and old people, and children, and a homeless person, and republicans, and anyone else who may or may not even have any interest in playing an informal game of basketball with the president but who nonetheless make up a segment of the population not currently represented in said basketball game. Because let’s face it people, the president and his administration should represent the exact make up of the country as a whole. In fact, before the president does anything, time should be spent in order to make sure that what he’s doing and who he’s doing it with represents as many distinct groups as possible, because if he doesn’t it obviously means he’s discriminating. And while we’re at it, I think the president shouldn’t be allowed to eat whatever he wants or watch whatever he wants. The president’s activities and personal life should mirror the voters’. The president should eat whatever most American’s eat, so let’s have a poll and decide what that is in order to make sure he’s appealing to as many people as possible. The president should only be watching or listening to the most popular media, so let’s have a poll and decide what that is as well. And why stop at the president? If we’re going to hold the chief executive to such standards than surely it means that we all already meet such standards ourselves. I propose we pass a law that any basketball games held on public property (parks, rec centers, etc.) must represent a plurality of the local population. I’m sorry if you just want to have a pick-up game with some guys from work or your friends from he neighborhood on the weekend, but if it’s going to be in a public space then you’re going to need to diversify the participants or not have the game at all … those people who aren’t part of your game who may or may not even have any interest in it might possibly feel left out even though they didn’t ask to play.

This. Isn’t. News.

If we stop giving a shit about dumbass minutiae and realize that just because we voted for someone (and if you voted for the other guy guess what … you don’t get a say in this kind of thing, although you can say “my candidate would do things differently”) that person doesn’t need to represent every single voter in every single thing they do with their life. I want my president to have a favorite beer, I want him to have a favorite baseball team. I want my president to have opinions that may not be those held by the masses. I want my president to get together with a group of people and play basketball and so long as he isn’t actively excluding someone, who cares?!

If you don’t have anything of substance to say … if all you can do is nitpick … if your only response is a total denunciation of something without any concession or chance for rebuttal and discussion, then you’re not part of the process and you’re wasting everyone’s time.

The Political Game

Maybe it’s just because I’m more aware of it this year or maybe it’s because it’s just more prevalent, but I think politicians have a new game. The game is essentially to say (or have someone close to them) say something mildly outrageous, which causes a minor press fervor. The news organizations spend part of their cycle talking about the comment and then the politician retracts the statement, which causes further talk. The point however is that the politician becomes the topic of discussion and every discussion becomes a debate. The news networks haul out people from all sides to speak about the incident. Sure the opposite side gets to defend themselves, but the one who initiated the incident gets to attack as well, by via 3rd parties that the politician can’t be held responsible for. It’s almost brilliant, but so manipulative. Still, whatever gets people talking is good.