I did the Puyallup last night with Laura. Haven't done the Puyallup in a good many years, turns out it's still a really good time. Actually saw deep fried butter. Didn't eat it, but saw the sale of them. Rode the big roller coaster there, still as exciting as I remember it. The memory I most closely associate with that roller coaster is when I was a kid and I went to the fair with my mom, dad and Jeannine. Jeannine and I were going on some rides and dad talked us into going on the big roller coaster. It looked pretty scary to my little 1987 self, and even bigger to Jeannine, but we went for it. While standing in line, dad was remarking on how well they rebuilt the coaster after it collapsed with all those people on it. And how it was nice and sturdy now because they used nails instead of staples this time. So we rode, gasped at all the appropriate places, laughed and had a good time, but when we disembarked, all of that buildup came back to Jeannine is a great wash. She realized what she had just done and it was too much for her to bear, and she burst into tears. It was really cute :)
I was thinking the other day how strange it is that the presidential campaign with the most money is pretty much the most effective campaign. Does this seem weird to anyone else? Is this a wise way to select a leader for our country? It's strange that when I talk to folks about this, everyone universally agrees (or nearly universally) that it's an absurd concept. Then why is it this way? In my opinion, I think we shouldn't even see a candidate during the whole process. No pictures, no videos, nothing. Only voices. Every presidential debate ought to be in audio format only. We can still know everything about their lives, marriage status, children, full access to their background, but nothing that would sway someone to vote for someone for any other reason then their strict qualifications for the job. And each campaign should be given a budget to stay within. This will force a balance to occur that can't really happen when there's all this play on emotions through advertisements. Are we really that stupid? A candidate is falling behind in some area of the country where he used to have a stronghold and what does he do? Plays more commercials and advertisements. We are fooled by this, or it would never happen. Our response to advertisements is testament to the fact that this approach is effective. This is all to elect an individual who is going to have the monumental task of running this country. Do we really want a president who is the most hansom, or some other non-consequential aspect?
I'm speaking out of COMPLETE ignorance, I should say that right out of the gate. This idea is probably done in some Communist socialist satanist country where they never even recycle, and I have no idea because I really don't care much for politics.
I was thinking the other day how strange it is that the presidential campaign with the most money is pretty much the most effective campaign. Does this seem weird to anyone else? Is this a wise way to select a leader for our country? It's strange that when I talk to folks about this, everyone universally agrees (or nearly universally) that it's an absurd concept. Then why is it this way? In my opinion, I think we shouldn't even see a candidate during the whole process. No pictures, no videos, nothing. Only voices. Every presidential debate ought to be in audio format only. We can still know everything about their lives, marriage status, children, full access to their background, but nothing that would sway someone to vote for someone for any other reason then their strict qualifications for the job. And each campaign should be given a budget to stay within. This will force a balance to occur that can't really happen when there's all this play on emotions through advertisements. Are we really that stupid? A candidate is falling behind in some area of the country where he used to have a stronghold and what does he do? Plays more commercials and advertisements. We are fooled by this, or it would never happen. Our response to advertisements is testament to the fact that this approach is effective. This is all to elect an individual who is going to have the monumental task of running this country. Do we really want a president who is the most hansom, or some other non-consequential aspect?
I'm speaking out of COMPLETE ignorance, I should say that right out of the gate. This idea is probably done in some Communist socialist satanist country where they never even recycle, and I have no idea because I really don't care much for politics.