I don't think that people should have political careers. It's not that politics and politicians shouldn't exist, they should. What I mean is that if someone decides to work in politics, then I believe that they should only be allowed to do so for a predetermined amount of time.
This would serve multiple purposes and hopefully resolve some problems. Today, many politicians are not willing to make tough calls or unpopular decisions. They are worried about making everyone like them, so that they can get reelected. But if reelection didn't matter, if they weren't selfish, then they'd be able to take on these challenges.
Running for office should be a public service, a selfless act. So, why has it become a selfish one? Money plays an entirely too big of a role - from campaigns to conventions. If political careers didn't exist, then there would be no room for selfishness, the type of people running for political office would be different, and there would always be new blood.
I know that this little dream of mine will never happen. We're too entrenched in our old ways. Everyone reaches for white or black, calls themselves a republican or democrat, and forgets that there are more colors in the crayon box, more directions to go. Our current government shutdown (which is absolutely ridiculous) is evidence of this my way or the highway mentality.
I could write about this a whole lot more and invest more energy into coming off a bit more eloquently, but then I'd just end up losing myself in frustration and rage over our current political system.
*raises glass* Here's to change.
Showing posts with label Brilliant Ideas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brilliant Ideas. Show all posts
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Two Changes That Victoria's Secret Can Make to be More Guy-Friendly
I don't shop at Victoria's Secret as I am not a woman nor a cross-dresser, but my girlfriend does. I have spent more time than I would like to admit or care to remember, standing in place in the corner of a Victoria's Secret store, waiting for my girlfriend to come out of the changing room. I am rarely the only male there as other boyfriends, fiancees, husbands (whatever) get dragged along as well. During this time I have had to revelations as to how this store can make all of the men like me more comfortable.
1. Give Us Someplace To Sit - This goes for all department stores, but especially Victoria's Secret. The store is almost always busy and because there is not designated "Sit here until your girlfriend is done" waiting area, I am always in someone's way. I attempt to cram myself into the most disused corner of the room, away from the lacy undergarments and PINK t-shirts, but it doesn't really work. At some point I have to move because someone wants to look at whatever it is I happen to be blocking; so I do move. Then, like clockwork, I find myself in another shopper's way and scuttle somewhere else. I already get death-glares and odd looks just for being there, I don't want to be on the receiving end of even more negative attention.
Perhaps more importantly the the fact that I always find myself in someone's way, a chair would be nice for my achy body. It sounds pathetic, but if you are standing (mostly) still for upwards of 20 or 30 minutes, you start to feel a bit stiff. Should I have someplace to sit at my disposal, that could be prevented. Chairs would be good for women, too as oftentimes ladies shop together. Those who are not trying things on themselves or are waiting in line for a free dressing room, would probably love to take a seat.
2. Stop Spewing Pink Everywhere - Seriously, didn't whoever designed all Victoria's Secret stores have more than just pink in their Crayola box growing up? I understand that they are trying to be feminine and sexy, but that does not mean that everything outside of (some of) the closing (literally in some of their stores) has to be pink. Red and black are supposed to be sexy colors, too - use those and accent with pink. Last time I was in a Victoria's Secret, the walls, shelves, drawers, countertops, ceiling, just about everything was pink. I would think that even if this was your favorite color, you would recognize that there is such a thing as too much of a good thing.
Please Victoria's Secret, recognize that your customers and employees are not the only people that set foot in (sometimes unwillingly) your stores. Please, help a man out. With the alterations in place, I might not feel so miserable the next time my girlfriend asks me to go to the mall with her (maybe).
1. Give Us Someplace To Sit - This goes for all department stores, but especially Victoria's Secret. The store is almost always busy and because there is not designated "Sit here until your girlfriend is done" waiting area, I am always in someone's way. I attempt to cram myself into the most disused corner of the room, away from the lacy undergarments and PINK t-shirts, but it doesn't really work. At some point I have to move because someone wants to look at whatever it is I happen to be blocking; so I do move. Then, like clockwork, I find myself in another shopper's way and scuttle somewhere else. I already get death-glares and odd looks just for being there, I don't want to be on the receiving end of even more negative attention.
Perhaps more importantly the the fact that I always find myself in someone's way, a chair would be nice for my achy body. It sounds pathetic, but if you are standing (mostly) still for upwards of 20 or 30 minutes, you start to feel a bit stiff. Should I have someplace to sit at my disposal, that could be prevented. Chairs would be good for women, too as oftentimes ladies shop together. Those who are not trying things on themselves or are waiting in line for a free dressing room, would probably love to take a seat.
2. Stop Spewing Pink Everywhere - Seriously, didn't whoever designed all Victoria's Secret stores have more than just pink in their Crayola box growing up? I understand that they are trying to be feminine and sexy, but that does not mean that everything outside of (some of) the closing (literally in some of their stores) has to be pink. Red and black are supposed to be sexy colors, too - use those and accent with pink. Last time I was in a Victoria's Secret, the walls, shelves, drawers, countertops, ceiling, just about everything was pink. I would think that even if this was your favorite color, you would recognize that there is such a thing as too much of a good thing.
Please Victoria's Secret, recognize that your customers and employees are not the only people that set foot in (sometimes unwillingly) your stores. Please, help a man out. With the alterations in place, I might not feel so miserable the next time my girlfriend asks me to go to the mall with her (maybe).
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Another Brilliant Idea: Limit Political Campaign Spending
Political campaigns, especially presidential ones, spend an absurd amount of money in an attempt to get their candidate into office. I want this to stop.
Political offices are essentially bought. The candidate that spends the most tends to get the most publicity and in turn, the most votes. There are limits as to how much individuals can contribute to campaigns now, so campaigns now need to work harder to get more people to donate money, but I want to take things further.
Right now, our global economy remains in the gutter. We live in a world where children are starving, wars are raging, Honey Boo Boo exists, and instead of remedying these catastrophes, money is spent on smear ads that don't seem to ever go away (please make it stop). Apparently, all American politicians were never told the ole "If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all" from their parents.
By limiting spending, all campaigns are forced to become smarter and more creative. Those with the best brains instead of those with the best pockets will win.
Am I alone in this train of thought?
P.S. Go vote.
Political offices are essentially bought. The candidate that spends the most tends to get the most publicity and in turn, the most votes. There are limits as to how much individuals can contribute to campaigns now, so campaigns now need to work harder to get more people to donate money, but I want to take things further.
Right now, our global economy remains in the gutter. We live in a world where children are starving, wars are raging, Honey Boo Boo exists, and instead of remedying these catastrophes, money is spent on smear ads that don't seem to ever go away (please make it stop). Apparently, all American politicians were never told the ole "If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all" from their parents.
By limiting spending, all campaigns are forced to become smarter and more creative. Those with the best brains instead of those with the best pockets will win.
Am I alone in this train of thought?
P.S. Go vote.
Friday, April 27, 2012
Another "Brilliant" Idea: Downsizing Pro Sports
Professional sports leagues have always gotten bigger and bigger, adding more teams. I think now would be a good time to eliminate a few franchises.
Charlotte Bobcats (NBA) - Does this team really need to exist? Michael Jordan is considered by all to be the greatest basketball player of all time, but he is a terrible executive. He is a co-owner of the team and has helped run the organization into the ground. To be fair, they've never been too far above the gutter. The Bobcats are perpetually bad and they just ended this season with a 23 game losing streak. More importantly, the 2011-2012 Bobcats finished the season with the worst winning percentage in NBA history.
Kansas City Royals (MLB) - I know that the Royals have had some good years, but most of those predate my birth and I'm 21. The team is in a small market, does not have a lot of money to spend, and does not like to spend what is does have. Free agents don't want to go there and the players that they do develop leave. Every year they tend to be the bottom feeder of the AL Central. They show flashes of life at times, but never fail to disappoint.
Cleveland Browns (NFL) - It's true that the Browns have made some important picks in the ongoing NFL Draft. If they end up panning out, the Browns can be removed from this list. However, since the Browns are horrible and tend to draft plenty of busts, it is fairly likely that they will remain on this list. Cleveland does posses four NFL championships, but they all took place before the Superbowl Era. The Browns have never actually played in a Superbowl, let alone won one. The Pittsburgh Steelers, the Browns' division rival, has six Superbowl championships. I would not want to be a Browns fan and have that rubbed in my face all the time. What makes the Browns even worse is that they can be a tease. In 2007 the Browns went 10-6 and their starting quarterback at the time, Derek Anderson, made it to the Pro Bowl. The team missed the playoffs by one game, but showed some promise. The next year they went 4-12. During the 2010 season, running back Peyton Hillis had a breakout season and made it onto the cover of Madden. This past season Hillis spent much of the season injured, proved to be ineffective when healthy, contemplated leaving football, and was cut after the season ended. Cleveland fans have it rough.
Does there really need to be 32 teams in the NFL? Are there enough good basketball players to have 30 competitive teams in the NBA? Do enough people in America care about hockey to warrant having 28 teams? I don't think so.
Charlotte Bobcats (NBA) - Does this team really need to exist? Michael Jordan is considered by all to be the greatest basketball player of all time, but he is a terrible executive. He is a co-owner of the team and has helped run the organization into the ground. To be fair, they've never been too far above the gutter. The Bobcats are perpetually bad and they just ended this season with a 23 game losing streak. More importantly, the 2011-2012 Bobcats finished the season with the worst winning percentage in NBA history.
Kansas City Royals (MLB) - I know that the Royals have had some good years, but most of those predate my birth and I'm 21. The team is in a small market, does not have a lot of money to spend, and does not like to spend what is does have. Free agents don't want to go there and the players that they do develop leave. Every year they tend to be the bottom feeder of the AL Central. They show flashes of life at times, but never fail to disappoint.
Cleveland Browns (NFL) - It's true that the Browns have made some important picks in the ongoing NFL Draft. If they end up panning out, the Browns can be removed from this list. However, since the Browns are horrible and tend to draft plenty of busts, it is fairly likely that they will remain on this list. Cleveland does posses four NFL championships, but they all took place before the Superbowl Era. The Browns have never actually played in a Superbowl, let alone won one. The Pittsburgh Steelers, the Browns' division rival, has six Superbowl championships. I would not want to be a Browns fan and have that rubbed in my face all the time. What makes the Browns even worse is that they can be a tease. In 2007 the Browns went 10-6 and their starting quarterback at the time, Derek Anderson, made it to the Pro Bowl. The team missed the playoffs by one game, but showed some promise. The next year they went 4-12. During the 2010 season, running back Peyton Hillis had a breakout season and made it onto the cover of Madden. This past season Hillis spent much of the season injured, proved to be ineffective when healthy, contemplated leaving football, and was cut after the season ended. Cleveland fans have it rough.
Does there really need to be 32 teams in the NFL? Are there enough good basketball players to have 30 competitive teams in the NBA? Do enough people in America care about hockey to warrant having 28 teams? I don't think so.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Another Brilliant Idea: Party System
Why do we have two political parties? Politics is not black and white, but we try to make it that way. For everything our party system gets right, there is something that it gets wrong. We need an update. America has had to make changes over its 200 plus years, why not make another one?
Right now, so many times, politicians vote based on party lines and make decisions based on party beliefs, even if they don't support those beliefs. The two-party system has broken down. Nothing gets done because republicans and democrats can't get along. Its always a stalemate unless one party gets more power than the other. If then, that just happens in the short term. Eventually, the power shifts and then that party makes it miserable for the other one. Lets just get rid of parties.
It could be chaotic if not handled properly, but we don't need parties, do we? People wouldn't have to follow a particular party structure or pledge allegiance to a single believe system with no room for change. In America, we support people being themselves and being individuals (supposedly). Right now, politically, we don't allow for that to happen. This structural change would enable people to be themselves.
While we're at it, lets get rid of national conventions. The Democratic and Republican national conventions used to serve a purpose; they used to announce each party's candidates for the presidency. Now, we already know who the candidates are by the time the conventions come around. So, millions of dollars are spent on announcing nothing. It would more smarter and more economically to spend that money on almost anything else (literally). In a down economy, we can't afford to waste even more money.
Feel free to start poking holes in this "brilliant idea."
Right now, so many times, politicians vote based on party lines and make decisions based on party beliefs, even if they don't support those beliefs. The two-party system has broken down. Nothing gets done because republicans and democrats can't get along. Its always a stalemate unless one party gets more power than the other. If then, that just happens in the short term. Eventually, the power shifts and then that party makes it miserable for the other one. Lets just get rid of parties.
It could be chaotic if not handled properly, but we don't need parties, do we? People wouldn't have to follow a particular party structure or pledge allegiance to a single believe system with no room for change. In America, we support people being themselves and being individuals (supposedly). Right now, politically, we don't allow for that to happen. This structural change would enable people to be themselves.
While we're at it, lets get rid of national conventions. The Democratic and Republican national conventions used to serve a purpose; they used to announce each party's candidates for the presidency. Now, we already know who the candidates are by the time the conventions come around. So, millions of dollars are spent on announcing nothing. It would more smarter and more economically to spend that money on almost anything else (literally). In a down economy, we can't afford to waste even more money.
Feel free to start poking holes in this "brilliant idea."
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Some of My "Brilliant" Ideas
Occasionally, I'll think up something that I consider to be groundbreaking. Some of these ideas fade fast, while others float around my mind for years. However, each one of these brilliant ideas often times has at least one major flaw that I simply didn't realize when I first conceived the idea.
One idea that I had about a month ago involved our current roads and how they affect water. Asphalt can be a problem, particularly in cities. Rainwater can't get absorbed by it, so the rain doesn't make it back into the ground water supply, lowering the water table, and causing floods. So, I thought, "wouldn't it be amazing if at some point, someone, somewhere, invented a replacement for asphalt that can be used for roads and absorb water."
Later, I realized that if it could absorb water, it would most likely be able to absorb other liquids, too and that could be a problem. It would be pretty bad if antifreeze and all of the other chemicals that reach out streets, seeped into the groundwater.
My most recent idea is about agricultural fines. There are all kinds of fines for pollution and simply not running your farm how it is supposed to be run. However, many of these fines are too small for a lot of people to even care, so they do what they aren't supposed to do anyway. Also, some of the fines aren't properly enforced, causing more problems. I propose that fines be based off of income. Instead of fining everyone $1,000, why not fine a specific percentage (say 10%) of their income?
It would be fair because everyone would be paying the same percentage, so it wouldn't affect small operations more than factory farms and everyone should actually care about the money they would lose. So far, I have yet to discover any major faults with this idea, but I am sure that one will arise soon enough. Until then, I'll just keep thinking that I'm brilliant.
One idea that I had about a month ago involved our current roads and how they affect water. Asphalt can be a problem, particularly in cities. Rainwater can't get absorbed by it, so the rain doesn't make it back into the ground water supply, lowering the water table, and causing floods. So, I thought, "wouldn't it be amazing if at some point, someone, somewhere, invented a replacement for asphalt that can be used for roads and absorb water."
Later, I realized that if it could absorb water, it would most likely be able to absorb other liquids, too and that could be a problem. It would be pretty bad if antifreeze and all of the other chemicals that reach out streets, seeped into the groundwater.
My most recent idea is about agricultural fines. There are all kinds of fines for pollution and simply not running your farm how it is supposed to be run. However, many of these fines are too small for a lot of people to even care, so they do what they aren't supposed to do anyway. Also, some of the fines aren't properly enforced, causing more problems. I propose that fines be based off of income. Instead of fining everyone $1,000, why not fine a specific percentage (say 10%) of their income?
It would be fair because everyone would be paying the same percentage, so it wouldn't affect small operations more than factory farms and everyone should actually care about the money they would lose. So far, I have yet to discover any major faults with this idea, but I am sure that one will arise soon enough. Until then, I'll just keep thinking that I'm brilliant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)