A NIGHT AT THE OOLISEUM

A NIGHT AT THE COLISEUM, I.E., BREAD AND CIRCUSES, DEMOCRATIC STYLE

In ancient Rome, the government had a problem: how to keep the poor and unemployed entertained and occupied. No Tik-Tock, no Facebook, no Tucker Carlson.

Ah, the solution: bread and circuses. The former was easy, the latter involved some originality.

The were several possibilities for a Roman Circus, and, as the demand increased, the government provided a variety of events with greater frequency. Blood and gore was much in demand. Unarmed slave vs. lion was a guaranteed sell-out. So too was bull vs. bear, or, when available, elephant vs. tiger. You get the picture.

So last night we had another Circus, this time on CBS. The network went all out for as much blood and unintelligent chaos as possible. Like the Roman ones, this Circus had a format designed to sate the crowd's demand for slashing attacks that left the stage littered with wounded warriors at the end.

This "debate" was allegedly designed fairly to inform the public about the political views of the gladiators. Duh, how could we do that? For openers one could hire a mathematician to assure that each participant had a fair opportunity to actually explain his or her views. Tools like slide rules, abacuses, computers, could be employed. Let's see:120 minutes of air time, subtract 15 minutes for commercials, that leaves 105 minutes for intelligent discourse, divided by 7 yields 15 minutes for each candidate to express his plans, proposals, and philosophies in an effort  to persuade the coliseum patrons.

Instead, CBS just threw some food in the center of the ring, and let the mob scratch, kick, and bite to get at it. Nice.

The CBS plan: ask a question, and give the contestant one minute and fifteen seconds to answer it. There was nothing in the plan to deal with a contestant who went past, or even way past the time limit, so the pushy ones like Sanders and Warren got more time than the others. Also part of the plan was to give response time to anybody who was attacked. Again, no discipline. So if a candidate said something,--- anything at all-- hands went up like third graders who needed to pee. Mention your mother and Elizabeth Warren insisted on telling a story about her time as a pregnant school teacher. Mention health, and Bernie had to give a lecture we've all heard before about single payer government insurance and the literacy program installed by Fidel Castro. No clock, no restraint, people shouting over each other, ignoring the moderators' pallid efforts to control the elephants.

Duh, this is not hard. Did you know that in the Supreme Court of the United States, litigants must stop speaking when their allotted time is up even if they are in mid-sentence? This is not rocket science. For a few bucks, one can buy a silent timer to keep on your lectern, and you can see your time tick away. It encourages discipline to get to your point, and skip the stories about your mother's job knitting woolen caps for the eskimos.

When I argued in an appellate court, and knew I had a specific time, I always took off my watch, put it on the lectern, and made my points fit the time allotted. Even arithmetically challenged people like me can do that, and unlike in televised debates, lawyers need constantly to adjust for court interruptions.

I suggest the networks who run these Circuses intentionally encourage the chaos. Some programming geniuses in their midst are convinced this is hot-shot television. Shame on them, and shame on the candidates who let themselves be used in this manner.

The merits? Nothing has changed much. Klobuchar and Buttigieg are great and have no shot at the nomination. Steyer is just wasting everybody's time, and so is Warren, who, as one reporter put it, stomped her high heel shoe on Bloomberg's neck the first time she opened her mouth. (I was surprised to see Mike shake her hand at the end of the program. Me, I would have stepped on her foot, hard.)

That leaves i) Bloomberg, (who continued his stick-up-his-ass performance, but at least mentioned some of his qualifications for the job,) ii) Biden, and iii) Bernie-the-Red.

I will vote for whomever gets the nomination. But I wince when I play out the campaign and the debates between Trump  and Bernie. There will not be enough sawdust on the floor to soak up the blood. The Republicans will inflict a thousand cuts on the Democratic Socialist. Socialized medicine, open borders, social programs that cost so much that even Bernie can't count that high, 20% of every corporation's stock transferred to the workers, nice words about Castro (I can see the Republican commercials putting Bernie in the middle of the Cuban Missile Crisis) etc., etc. There is no end to the disaster. And last night we got the cherry on the ice cream float: Bernie pissing away what remains of his Jewish vote with his comments about the Israeli conflict with the Palestinians. OY.

That leaves Biden and Bloomberg. I would much prefer Mike for two reasons. One, I think he will be a better candidate and a better President, and Two, I fear Trump will chew up Sleepy Joe and then we'll end up with four more years, and a 7-2 Supreme Court.

I remain an optimist. Not so much because I think the Dems will choose a winning candidate, but because I believe that Trump will defeat himself, if he hasn't already done so.

That make sense? Even though I am not sure about how we'll beat this narcissistic child-king, I am confident we will.

A bientot.

......................................

As my regular readers know, there is no fixed schedule for these posts. If you want a notice of each new posting, send me an email and I will add you to the notice list.  mlondon34@gmail.com