I hate to be a wordsmith but…
I wonder if this is just an American thing so please let me know if other cultures also decide they like a word so much they have to use it whether or not it is the right word to use. For example, debate. Debate: a formal discussion of a particular topic by persons of opposing views. Members of high school debate teams and university debating clubs must cringe every time somebody refers to the live attack ads laughingly billed as Presidential Debates as a “debate.”
Yes we all use “debate” less formally in daily life. We debate thin and crispy or thick and chewy for the ideal pizza crust, we debate Ford versus Chevy for muscle car king, or we debate boxers or briefs to liven up a dull party. But unless you hail from Naples (Italy, not Florida), none of these are of any particularly consequence. Even a Neopolitan will concede the world won’t come to an end if the heathens get their way and insist on calling that dreck Chicagoans churn out a pizza.
Deciding who will be the standard bearer for a major political party should not be held in a forum more representative of a school yard “my dad can beat up your dad” stand off. Oh, sorry, inclusion you know. Make that “my mom can beat up your dad”….um, but not so inclusive as “my dad can beat up your mom.” That might be too much equality.
Without diving deep into the substance of the “debate,” mostly because it is dangerous to dive into shallow water, I have some comments that might make future Presidential Debates more entertaining since more informative seems to be out of the question.
Of the six candidates vying to be the nominee for the highest office their party will present, three were not always members of that party. That’s fine, neither is the sitting President and presumptive opponent of this group’s “winner” originally a member of the opposing party.
Although there is no mandatory retirement age for federal employees there are age limits for certain categories. Federal fire fighters, law enforcement officers, and air traffic controllers all have mandatory retirement ages of 57, 60, and 58 years respectively, probably because of the mental and physical burdens the jobs carry. Of the six candidates in last nights “debate” four would be excluded from these jobs just due to age. Under special circumstances the age limit may be raised to 65. Still those four would be ineligible. In fact, if it was raised to 70 those four, along with the current President, would still be ineligible. Now I admit I’d like to still be doing something when I’m 70 but I was thinking something more age appropriate, perhaps along the lines of volunteering as a docent at a historical site or a ticket taker at the local multiplex theater.
Of the six candidates on the “debate” stage last night, all but one have a net worth of greater than $1 million. In fact, there have been 30 declared candidates for President from both parties of which 9 are still active. Of those 30, only five cannot call themselves millionaires.
The Constitution stipulates a person must be 35 years of age to serve as President of the United States. No candidate has ever been than young. The youngest person to ever run for President is William Jennings Bryan who was 36 in 1896 when he lost to William McKinley. The youngest President was Theodore Roosevelt who was 42 when he assumed office upon McKinley’s death.
So there’s my take on the “debate.” I’ve presented my opening remarks and made my arguments. I suppose we could handle the question and answer period via comments. If you understood this then I’ll make it my closing statement and welcome you to the How Dare They Call That a Debate Club.
.
The Real Reality Show Blog 