A Political Farce

    Here in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, it is time now to elect a new governor, along with the nationwide elections for Congress.  I don’t exactly know how you feel about it, dear reader, but I have to say that I’ve about had it with turning on my television to see these political attack ads.  I mean, really?  Are we truly going to conduct our elections this way from now on?  Count me out.  I get sick when the ballgame goes to commercial to hear stuff like this:
    “Joseph Numbskull twice raised property taxes, costing the taxpayers millions.  Mr. Numbskull claims to be a stand up guy, but when he was 23, (let me insert here, dear reader, that Mr. Numbskull is a 54-year-old man by now), he took a shortcut through an alleyway when he was late for work.  When he jogged past one particular doorway in his haste, he breathed in the second hand smoke from a marijuana cigarette.  After all this, he was two minutes late and, even worse, he clocked in with a contact high.  America can’t afford to put a burnout who can’t be on time in the senate.  Joseph Numbskull.  Don’t vote for a lazy burnout. (Hi.  I’m Adam Shitforbrains, and I approve this message.)”
    Did I miss something here?  So, Mr. Shitforbrains… why exactly, if I’m not voting for Joseph Numbskull the tardy burnout with a contact high, should I vote for you?  What’s your platform? What changes do you see that need made, and what exactly do you plan to do to try to get them fixed?  American politics has become a relative farce of “Where’s the beef?”  Now, when I see ads for products, with the exception of that Wendy’s ad, those ads are about the virtues of the product and not the faults of the competition.  When you do see faults of similar products, they’re rarely mentioned by brand name.
    Then again, attack ads could make commercials more interesting.  It could be downright fun.  Come on, dear reader, think about it.   What if every ad attacked something else.  Well, there is another series of attack ads, and that belongs to those ones who tell the truth about tobacco.  There’s the broken glass product recall and all kinds of things.  It is the truth, after all, and they’re not selling anything, but how fun would it be if the tobacco companies fought back and ran their own series of attack ads?  You’d get something like this:
    “These people say they’re telling the truth, that smoking is bad for you, and that you should be a non-smoker.  But is it the truth?  Or is it they that are lying to us?  Being a nonsmoker has been linked to lethargy, sloth, not getting enough fresh air, and sometimes even a lack of social interaction.  Nancy Puffaway had this to say: ‘I tried to quit smoking once and immediately noticed that I just wasn’t getting enough sun.  I saw how much time I was spending indoors and it disturbed me.  At work, the nonsmokers, of whom I had just joined, turned away and thumbed their noses at me.  It’s a sin to be new to the nonsmoker club and some of them even said that I didn’t count as a nonsmoker, because I had just quit.  It was so horrible that I had to take the habit back up so I could have my friends back.’   This is the truth.  If you quit, you’ll lose friends.”
    Or maybe you’d see the tobacco companies putting on ads like the following (Some of the information in this is truth, the PD related stuff.  But it’s still just as ridiculous):
    “Studies have shown that there is less instance of Parkinson’s Disease in smokers than there is in non smokers.  Parkinson’s Disease is a progressive, neurodegenerative condition that will disable its victims slowly over a long, torturous time frame.  The nicotine in cigarettes has been shown to be neuroprotective and can help in the prevention of developing Parkinson’s.  Are you willing to take the risk of developing such a horrible disease?  Start Smoking.  Don’t get Parkinson’s.”
    Is my point made?  Can you see how ridiculous these ads really are?  The sad part is that they run these ads because they are effective.  The only way to stop them is with public outrage on the whole situation.  We vote for people because of what they say about the other guy.  Doing this, they don’t have to say what they’re about.  They don’t have to make promises that they have no intention of keeping.  What do you think would happen if Americans stood up in one collective voice and said, “If your campaign is based on attacking the other guy, then we, as a country will vote for the third party candidate to keep you both out of office?”  I’m betting a campaign would then be based on the virtues of the supported candidate, not attacks on the other one.