The New York Times today featured videos of each of the mayoral candidates responding to these questions: who is your favorite mayor; Mets, Yankees, or Red Sox; what makes you angriest about New York; what's your favorite movie; and where would you live if not New York. Two of those questions are completely worthless and the rest aren't the foremost questions I'd ask if I had a chance to talk with someone running for an election. I guess someone's favorite mayor would give a sense of what that person hopes to emulate. And living somewhere else would show what kind of city they would like New York to be. What makes you angriest about New York could be informative about what they'd like to tackle, but it doesn't address how they'd do it. For example, I really fucking hate people walking slowly and getting in my way. I have no idea how to change that without fundamentally hurting people's rights. Yeah, do you want to hear a mayor say that?

I believe the news asks these types of questions way too much. Seriously, I don't give a shit about what type of car they have, what's their favorite song, or what they have for breakfast. I don't actually know what to do with that information. The topic should be issues, issues, issues: What does the candidate find wrong, what does the candidate intend to do about it, and what methods will be employed. Otherwise we're just delving into gossip really. That's not to say we shouldn't examine the candidate's personality and private life because they can also demonstrate what kind of a leader a person would be. Anthony Weiner's case is a good example. Honestly I don't give a shit about adultery so long as there was no corruption -- you don't fire a McDonald's manager for sleeping around so why should a politician -- but this dude literally plastered his problems on Twitter for the world to see. Now it's our problem, and considering he seems to have no inclination to stop I can only imagine what kind of a work environment women in his office would have. There, that's something we can talk about. I don't really give a shit whether he supports the Yankees or Mets.

But I can't blame the news media for everything because they know their audience is eating this shit up. Seriously, how often do people vote for a candidate not because of the issues but because he/she feels like one of them? I think Sarah Palin is a good example. Many people reacted positively to her because she originated from the same rural environment as they, and conversely she represented everything someone from an urban environment disliked. Or how often does race factor in? A white / hispanic / black candidate can count on a certain percentage from their community just because of the color of their skin. If people were actually paying attention to the elective process, someone like Alvin Greene would never have won the South Carolinan primary.

Although we all complain about the inactivity in government nowadays, why the fuck are incumbency victories over 90%? If we really thought they were doing a shitty job, we'd just kick them all out and put in some more reasonable representatives. But we're not paying attention and consequently we get interviews with crappy questions.