Its getting close to that time of year in US politics where the Commander in Chief will be elected come Dec 2012. Be it a king, monarch, Prime Minister or President or for that matter a Chief Executive there is always somewhat of an arbitrary process to identify this entity that will end up leading/ruling/dictating/monarching (is that a word?) the masses under that role's purview.
It is ironic that many like to consider the role of the US presidency as more of a 'Commander in Chief' job as opposed to 'Chief Executive' although his task is largely focused on the latter - running a country than issuing guidance on how to strategize our next attack.
But setting aside the ironies of nomenclature for a minute or two let us look at this whole idea of electing - elections in particular. After accounting for the amazing accident of having been born on the planet that we inhabit to then be in the confluence of events that lead up to being elected (or usurp in some cases) to do the top job as it were is harder than winning a lottery.
And what we end up with is a dude or dudette that may or may not really get their shit together to prove to the electing public that they made a good decision in doing so. They are set for a four or six or eight year rule no matter what (barring some incidents with anatomical digressions or foot in mouth actions on their part - whether provoked or intentional); even mass genocide is excused if you have a good PR department.
So to all this nonsense I say stop. What may we do you ask if not this?
I propose a 1 year rule by lottery. Take out a full page ad in the major bumf publications that the unsuspecting public consumes on a daily basis and announce the request for application from the masses to elect a ruler for the followers.
Qualifications could include -
1. Level of Education - Bachelors degree in something relevant for the country - say engineering or math or science (you can imagine how many bible or other books of religion types will go in arms on this one);
2. Record of having successfully governed at least 100 people - say a town mayor or manager and above in a private business of some kind;
3. No known criminal record - moving violations on the DMV excusable;
4. Ability to speak English and preferably one of more popular languages that are spoken in the ROW (rest of world) - Spanish/Chinese/Hindi (a large swath of the 7B speak these);
5. Last but most importantly we ask the public to define their top 3 peeves with the STATE of the STATE and ask the lead candidates to define what they will consider is a SUCCESS after year 1.
you get the idea...
This person then will go through a bacheloretter type screening process on national television with people texting their approval (not for singing or dancing but being able to answer the public questions arriving via Twitface or such social medium that everyone and their uncle seems to approve of).
Once the finalist is chosen he is given a salary of $100,000 no more no less tax free and 1 year to prove what he will do to hold himself or herself accountable - and reach the metrics defined in item 5 above.
A semifinalist will also be recognized as a backup in case the chosen one gets wiped out - gets cold feet - or is found incompetent after year 1.
At the end of the year the public will be asked to vote on the results produced and measured by a neutral entity (like Public Radio listeners;) against a scale that has been determined to be the yardstick for success qualifications.
If the dude manages to prove his mettle then he gets a remainder 3 year term to continue the good work or else he gets the boot.
Semi finalist steps in to continue the job that the incumbent could not handle.
Here is another essay on the subject of first names. As in birth names. Or names provided to an offspring at birth. While the developed world tends to shy away from the exotic like Refrigerator or Coca Cola for their new production there is a plethora of Jims and Johns and Bobs or Robs. Speaking of which I do not think there is a categoric decision point at the time of birth if a child will be hereafter called as Bob. I mean have not yet met a toddler called Bob or Rob for that matter. At some point though the parental instinct to mouth out multiple syllables runs out and they switch from calling the crawler Robert to simply Robbie to Rob. Now speaking of - it is strange that the name sounds like something you would not want Rob to do - i.e. Rob anyone. Then why call someone that? After all Rob Peter to Pay Paul is not exactly a maxim to live a young life? Is it? Perhaps Peter or Paul might want to have a say in it? Then there is this matter of going to the John. Why degrad...
Ekdum hit reality show hai..
ReplyDelete