Politics frustrates me. Often when I watch media conferences, debates, Congressional hearings, et al., I think about how I would’ve said something else or wonder why no one ever asks my questions.
For instance, when a Senator (oh, maybe, hypothetically, John McCain) demands a “yes or no” answer, I would turn to whomever happens to be in charge and say, “Your honor (or Mr. Chairman or Madame Chairman, whatever), I just took an oath in which I pledged to tell ‘the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,’ not yes or no. Some questions are more complicated than yes or no, so would you please ask the honorable gentleman to let me answer his question?”
It’s unlikely I’m ever going to testify at a Congressional hearing. I had to take part in a deposition once, and that was quite enough. By the way, the verb “depose” means to overthrow, a king, a despot, a dictator, etc. I always find it a bit startling when a lawyer says he’s going to “depose” anyone.
To really get my program in place, though, I’d have to be president. Much has been made of “executive orders” lately, but I can’t criticize Pres. Obama much because I’d be ready to sign a bevy of them on my first day in office.
– Pharmaceutical companies couldn’t advertise on TV. They could advertise to doctors. What’s the point of these commercials? They want you to go to your doctor and demand he prescribe you the latest drug. That’s backwards. I realize the loss of humor that would occur with an end to those cautionary messages (“in rare instances, use of hydrobutosolenoid could cause you to howl like an aroused hyena …”), but it’s the right thing to do.
– “First usage, full name.” When I was in college, this was called “fufn.” I shouldn’t have to read newspaper stories about the CDEP, or EWOK-27, or the BLURB memorandom, without at least once being informed what the hell they are. I guess I’d exempt Twitter in the interest of enforced brevity.
– I’d limit the language a bit in order to simplify the code and eliminate loopholes. I’d get rid of either “flammable” or “inflammable,” “normalcy” or “normality,” “regardless” or “irregardless,” and I could go on and on. “Notorious” could not be used in a positive sense. These violations would just be misdemeanors, and the fines could be collected in piggy banks.
– No one would be allowed to give more than 100 percent. I’m sure the Tea Party would object on the basis that such a judgment would be scientific.
– Serious organizations could not be called “Fannie Mae” and “Freddie Mac.”
– West Virginia could not be in the Big 12. If it’s the Big 10, it has to have 10 members. No more, no less. Texas would have to play Texas A&M. Kansas would have to play Missouri. Football playoffs would be required.
– Tattoos would have minimum standards.
– Nothing could be “in the pre-planning stage.” No one needs to plan to plan.
– Businessmen (and businesswomen) would have to speak English. “Where the rubber meets the road” would have to involve rubber and a road. If anyone achieves “the whole nine yards,” he would have to concede that it remains second down and one.
– Sports would no longer be immune to grammar. “Heat” and “Jazz” would have to be singular, just as Noah Webster intended.
– Drivers could stop law-enforcement officers for speeding.
– No one could ask, “How we doing?” It’s an impossible question to answer without research. People should take responsibility for their own pronouns.
Many more regulations need to be in place, but it’s a start.