The Cat Sitter Formula for a Perfect President
I need to be honest with you: I have never looked at a Trump Tweet. That said, I did finally research this, and, as usual, I have solved all of the world’s problems and you are welcome in advance.
What follows is the perfect formula for hiring the best next president.
As happens with any great time of revolution or progress, our most important institutions are often the ones, unfortunately, left in the past. For example, there are kids learning how to code, memorize Wikipedia stuff and using calculators throughout the United States at this very moment.
This is simply a result of the fact that innovation breeds commercial opportunities, whereas status quo is the commercial glue of public and non-profit institutions such as schools, governments and churches, to name a few.
What we do know is that technology is not only profitable, but that it has changed each of our lives in ways that have both progressed commercialism and simultaneously evolved how we think and view the world. This obvious reality seems to get lost when it comes to tech applications in, for instance, developing a qualified candidate to lead our country.
Here is one such example of how technology can improve the hiring process. Thanks to the magic of the Internet, I found a recent job application on LinkedIn for a cat sitter.
Notice below that the job begins with an actual job description, and then follows with a list of responsibilities AND qualifications and skills that are required in order to even consider getting paid to stare at a cat.
Not only does an actual job description create a means of deciphering good cat sitters from bad ones, it also handles implicit opportunity costs as well. For example, while not explicitly stated, a candidate who applies under these criterion but has previously grabbed your pussy would be immediately determined to NOT be a suitable candidate for this $17 an hour gig.
You see, technology is a magical thing.
So much so, that perhaps we should start to use tech to our own advantage in everyday life.
Not just in the ways that companies profit from telling us to do, but by our own rational thoughts and reasoning.
Take, for example, the Commander in Chief of the United States Military…
By utilizing the power of tech, we should begin the hunt for a new USA President by crowdsourcing a collective job description that we could at least agree would cover the requirements for leaving someone alone in the White House for a period of four years, safeguarding all of our rights, freedoms and world decisioning powers, along with spending rights over our tax and retirement checking accounts, what our military does with every life we donate to it, and a host of other important things. We should then build this job description out into a summary, responsibilities and the qualifications and skills we desire to hire.
Like, knowledge of the law. Perhaps even a law degree. Perhaps even on-the-job experience and training.
I can imagine that there will be a solid debate around every requirement and skill, but at least we could then agree line-by-line, and not on some ridiculous binary system where you have to — for example — agree to give up human rights in exchange for lower taxes.
That just seems silly and antiquated. Heck, we can like whatever Facebook posts we want with reckless abandon these days. We should be able to do so with job description details as well.
To take things a step further, tech has enabled free and publicly available aptitude tests. Thanks to the internet, people can not only learn what their IQ score is with a level of precision, they can even discover other attributes like what film character they most resemble, or what they are most likely to Tweet in the case of an impeachment crisis.
It is highly possible that we could design a basic aptitude exam for the presidency. Like the one I had to take to practice law, or that my doctor had to take to ensure that he could remove my organs.
It’s important, at least, to know that someone qualifies for the basics.
What I’m saying here is this: we have every capability of creating an amazing country that leads the collective world toward a greater evolutionary state, in which we collectively publish a job description, a set of skills, and even an aptitude test to guarantee a basic level of performance. We then simply collect qualified respondents, and choose among them.
Because, let’s face it. This whole process of complete randoms raising their hands is just irresponsible. You wouldn’t hire your next cat sitter from a pool of people who have randomly decided they should be your next cat sitter. You would end up with an army of cat perverts inside of your home.
Sounds like a recipe for a bad cat sitting experience if you ask me…
Secondly, if you relied on a popular vote alone to find a cat sitter, you couldn’t trust those results. People love voting for things that have nothing to do with anything. In fact, by popular vote alone it is more likely that you would end up with a Jonas Brother dressed in an actual catsuit at your door than you would a real, qualified cat sitter at all.
Not a suitable cat sitter formula; not a suitable president formula. Just trying to be helpful.
So, while hand-raising and public vote was the greatest expression of democracy in 1787, it may be time to acknowledge that we should get with the times and stop letting people elect themselves and then use donor money to try to power through this country’s strangest popularity contest.
This isn’t high school, and this isn’t your prom queen or king. If it was, you would just pick the girl whose parents died and the guy who was hot enough to be disgustingly promiscuous, which is how my prom king and queen were selected and probably yours were, too.
My real point is to think wisely, America.
I am by no means suggesting that technology holds all of our answers but what I am suggesting is that we leverage these beautiful and complex computer systems that we have created for the collective common good to not only unlock new shareholder value for our companies, but to influence how we think and behave as voters because this is our country, we are its shareholders, and we have a duty to make good decisions.
Otherwise, thinking is just what Russia does for us.
The end.
