It seems like every time we are voting for the president it comes down to the lesser of two evils. Sometimes we get excited about a candidate, like many did for Obama, but too often we are simply voting against the other guy with the wrong letter after his or her name. How can we fix this broken system? I have an idea.
Have you ever noticed that many candidates, after losing their shot at the presidency then become cool and more likeable? Perhaps the best example in our time is Bob Dole. I was young when he ran, but I still recall his transformation from an uptight borefest to the leading spokesperson for Viagra. Suddenly he was funny and transparent. We learned that he had a personality. Where was this guy during the campaign? Another example is Al Gore. During his run he appeared to be an upper-class stiff with zero charisma. But after he lost in that devastating election, he grew a beard and dropped off the radar. (Any man who suffers such a loss should grow a beard. And if you have a beard already, shave it. Just trust me) Then he came back with a vengeance as a leader in climate change awareness. Sure, he was still an upper-class stiff with zero charisma, but he had a cause, and it made him look a little cooler to stand for something.
What’s my point?
Candidates get better when they lose. So I think we should have two elections. The first is a fake, and whoever wins that is tossed out. Then we get the losers back together, you know once they’ve gotten cooler, and we have a real election. It’s an airtight plan. Let’s see it done.
My boss smokes. Once he asked me to buy him a pack of cigarettes. I was shocked that a little pack cost almost ten dollars. Even though I don’t smoke, and I think it’s pretty disgusting and deadly, I can’t believe how badly smokers are being discriminated against.
Cigarettes are taxed to hell. I’m sure there are many reasons for this. But really, it must boil down to the government deciding that they are bad for us. Since they decided that we shouldn’t be smoking anyway, it makes sense to penalize those who continue to do so. We hear the same type of thinking when it comes to soft drinks and fast food. If we shouldn’t be consuming something, the government should make it harder to purchase that item. But is that right? In a country where we pride ourselves on our freedom, is it right for the government to make those kinds of decisions? Or should adults have the freedom to choose what they consume? Am I opening the door to legalized drug use with these kinds of questions? Is anything not a slippery slope?
Another area of discrimination is in the banishment of smokers from public buildings. I can understand having places where smoking isn’t permitted, especially when non-smokers are present. But to completely abolish smoking from all public places is insane. We force them to go outside. And if that’s not embarrassing enough, they have to stand a certain distance from the building.
Don’t get me wrong. Smoking is extremely damaging to your health. But what if I wanted to smoke anyway? What if I said, “I’m an American, and I choose to smoke this cigarette!”? Shouldn’t I have the freedom to make that choice without being discriminated against?