Tuesday night is my usual time for writing this column. This particular Tuesday night, however, is also the night of the first State of The Union Address by “President” Bush, so I’ll be home in front of the TV, curled up in a fetal position, and sobbing inconsolably.
Without the time for my usual reasoned analysis, I offer instead some random thoughts on current events…
SUPREME FOLLIES
Every year, as the President speaks, waves of Congressmen stand and applaud wildly at select cues. In order to preserve their air of rarefied dignity, however, the members of the Supreme Court present for the speech maintain their decorum, never applauding, only occasionally nodding in a respectful manner. To do anything less, one supposes, might leave the impression that they have a partisan interest in the proceedings…
I am going to be watching them very carefully this year. I want to catch Antonin Scalia nudging Clarence Thomas with his elbow while they both giggle uncontrollably.
STAYING ALIVE
Have you heard of this series on CBS called Survivor? Apparently it’s all the rage with folks who’ve never seen a TV show before.
Here’s the premise as I understand it: a group of nitwits are dropped into an isolated location and told that they have to survive by relying on their instincts and their ability to form social contacts. The participants are forced to endure a series of contrived ordeals, and each week the group gets together and votes one member “off the island”. Eventually, the numbers dwindle down to one person, and he gets declared the winner.
Since neither I nor anybody I know socially has actually watched this thing, I am unclear as to how that last part works. When you get down to the last two “survivors”, and each votes against the other, who adjudicates? Or do they simply throw both into a pit and see who comes out alive?
Regardless, I find that the process resonates as an interesting metaphor for the political process: the gradual excise of reasonable aspirants until a single candidate, who really is the ultimate outcast, stands alone.
Also, I rather like the idea of throwing the party nominees into a pit to see who emerges intact. Now there would be an elected official with a mandate … and no more Electoral College messes!
MICRONOPOLIS
Lawyers for Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Justice appeared this week before seven judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals in an attempt by the software company to overturn previous rulings that the software manufacturer broke U.S. antitrust laws.
We Americans have a strange, dichotomous relationship with the moneyed class. Because this nation was built on the concept of opportunity for all (no, seriously, look it up … it’s in The Constitution somewhere), we secretly believe that, with a bit of luck and perseverance, any one of us could become stinking rich. On the one hand, we admire the rags-to-riches story, but on the other hand, we resent and often detest the uber-wealthy.
Is there any non-elected public persona in this country (and by non-elected, I mean other than “President” Bush) who generates as much vitriol as Bill Gates? Through his scheming aggression and cutthroat business practices, this nasal-voiced thief of other people’s ideas has become the world’s richest man as chairman of the most successful company in history. Now, our own government, through the commanding rule of federal law, is attempting to break his grip on all that monopolistic power. The solution: split Microsoft into separate entities and force Bill Gates to become the chairman of the two most successful companies in history.
That’ll show him…