For those in foreign countries this topic may seem somewhat bizarre, but it has been a mainstay of american politics for at least as long as I can remember, so for certain since 2004. The reason for this is that presidential debates are very important and so should be watched, but the actions of those debating are so predictable that at times you feel like clawing your own eyes out. Add in the almost certainty that you have picked your guy, and the other guy is going to sound like a moron (yes, you liberal tree huggers, Obama sounds like a moron to right wingers) one needs some form of tranquilizing entertainment to enable you to perform your democratic duty. Hence the Presidential Debate Drinking Game.
On-line one can find many suggested rules, but these seem brutal to the point of actually being life-threatening. http://brainyjane22.wordpress.com/2008/09/25/the-presidential-debate-drinking-game/ for example has the insanely dangerous "10. If at any point, you find that you are replying to the debate (this includes yelling at the candidates) and are awaiting a rebuttal, slam back a martini. Then congratulate yourself for slamming back a drink that’s not often slammed." If I followed this rule I would die.
So, I'm suggesting a simpler method. Gather your alcohol in two forms, maintenance and brutal, with me it will be beer and quality bourbon whiskey. During each commercial each person in the room picks a word that if stated results in a drink of maintenance product. This allows for decisions about how quickly you wish to drink. If you feel like pounding beer then simply pick the words "Change, friends, look," and "I". The bourbon is for special situations when one of the candidates says something so outrageous that all of those watching in the room exclaim in disbelief/horror/outrage. Let us say that McCain says that the Iraq war has been a resounding success, for example, my wife and I will certainly scream obscenities at the television, thus requiring a shot of Knob Creek. If you are a republican you may have a similar reaction when Obama says he can deliver all his social programs without raising taxes.
If only we could actually have two people who talked like humans, rather than exchanging pre-polled talking points, we might not have to invent such methods to withstand our future leaders.
Follow-up from my last blog. McCain is now taking part in the debate, breaking his promise from before. This is entirely unsurprising since everyone could tell what he was up to. His presence on Capitol Hill did exactly nothing and the negotiations are still following essentially the points that Obama outlined early in the week and President Bush essentially followed word-for-word in his speech in mid-week. Meanwhile in the media, Harmad Karzai, the president of a country in which we are fighting a war, has been in the country this week. I have seen multiple reports of americans talking to Karzai but literally nothing about what he has to say about how the war is going. CNN literally cut him off at the start of what he was saying after Bush had stopped gibbering incoherently. Apparently it is vitally important to not hear the opinions of people anywhere else in the world, no matter whether we have troops fighting and dying in their country or not.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment