Saturday, December 10, 2016

A Satire Piece: The Anecdote to Rationality (Sorry I'm going Political and Hippie on you Again) Re posted because it looked strange last time

(So Punny) 

I'm sorry but we had to write a satire piece for English and I chose the ridiculous way politics are handed it (I'm not immune to this either but if you haven't noticed by now, I hate it): 

The Anecdote to Rationality

In recent times it has become very apparent to me that reaching an agreement when it comes to American politics is impossible.  It should be quite easy considering that one side is right and the other side is completely, totally, and utterly wrong but it turns out people can't agree on who is completely, totally, and utterly wrong, since argument are all or nothing. It happens in our government and in our everyday American citizen discussions.  However, I have come up with a very simple plan to solve this problem.  Rather than try and understand each other's viewpoints and come to a logical comprise (what a truly ridiculous idea), we should instead have a contest to see which party can hold a louder scream for the longest amount of time. 
Here's how it would work in terms of the government, in each branch of government each party would have a designated screamer.  To avoid possible corruption, such as a party choosing a professional screamer, the screamer should be chosen by an indifferent third party, preferably not an American citizen. Then when a disagreement arises in a branch of government between the two dominant parties, democrats and republicans, they would call on their screamers to settle it.  There would be a referee to determine the results of the contest.  The competition would occur in front of the whole branch of government to prevent one side cheating, for example bribing the referee.  Using a microphone and a scream analyzing machine, like those used in the popular movie, Monsters Inc., the two screamers would give the scream their best shots.  A coin toss would be used to decide who would take the first turn. After both screams had been recorded the referee would review the results and declare the winner.  Who ever wins the screaming competition won the argument and their desired and correct legislation could be passed or they could shoot down clearly awful legislation for fate is on their side so they must be right. 
Now personal arguments would be handled much more informally.  For example when disagreeing with a family member on Thanksgiving over a particular political view, the two parties would take their turns screaming and the other members of the family would decide who won.  However, if one party's view had already gone through a scream competition in the branches of the government they are allowed to claim that scream as their and win the argument.  Thus may seem unfair to some but remember once an argument has won it is always correct no matter the consequences. 
It is really quite a smart solution to such a complex problem.  I mean, respecting other people's opinions and reaching common ground, as I already mentioned, it just preposterous! Instead we should return to the simplistic ways of children. Children are smart enough and experienced enough to know that no argument is solved through logic.  It is only solved through competition.  And since there is an abundance of loud, frustrated, childlike yelling (or as some might call it, debate) in politics already, why not just reduce the future of our country to a simple screaming match?

I hope you have a fantastic day, 

Megan
  

No comments:

Post a Comment