Thursday, June 02, 2005


Suppose you went to an ATM machine to do some cash transfers.

Suppose the machine, instead of confirming, merely printed a cryptic message: "Are we having fun yet?"

Suppose the machine then refused to print you a reciept.

Suppose you then called your bank and they said that was just normal bugs in the machine and there was nothing they could do about it, no way to check to see if anything went wrong, and no reason to worry. Suppose they refused to even check up on it.

Suppose that, instead of an ATM machine and cash transfer, we're talking a Presidential Election.

Why do people seem to think that situation is unacceptable up until the last line and fine after that?


Anonymous tessmonsta said...

Perhaps because we ourselves see the consequences of the misaction of the ATM. It's a direct and personal "wrong", one that we can more easily understand.

An election, on the otherhand, is culturally percieved as a "carnival of madness". One only needs to hear the euphamisms employed by a news anchor to see it. Moreover, the scale of such a thing is also largely seen as "far away" in such that most people do not experience any personal and direct consequences of electing this president or the other. The scale is simply too large, and most fail to grasp the connection -- or, in the least, fail to put themselves to action to correct it. As a result, elections have become a kind of reality television, nothing more than entertainment in either acknowledgement or action.

6:14 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home