Goodness Gracious, Great Balls For Hire

I think that the people of America have learned a great deal from this past election. With George W. Bush winning by 51% of the vote (hardly a mandate), it is obvious that the candidates chosen were far too polarizing. (In fact, I think you could call the election "the polar express." *ducks from thrown ballot counting machines*) The solution to this problem is not, as some have suggested, to have a more centrist candidate. If 2008's candidate, Democrat or Republican, is too heavily centered in ideology, he or she would have little support based on their ideas. They would be too wishy washy to appeal to either side. This is why we need a new third party. None of the old third parties really appeal to the masses; they all are not only too extreme, but they all seem to labour under the mistaken assumption that the very fact that they are running will make a difference. That's loser talk, and we all know it (even Ralph Nader knows it. Why else would he willingly release this DVD? Since he wasn't allowed in the debates, he decided to debate little action figures of Kerry and Bush. Seriously. That's pathetic, Ralph. Debating inanimate objects? That's not something you even admit to doing, much less release a fuckin' DVD of on your website. I hope the .5% who voted for him feel like total fuckwits now.) We need a brand new party with ideals that will change the world for the better. We need a candidate who can espouse these ideals effectively and with a minimum of flip floppery. We need someone like...me.

Yes, I know that I'm entirely too young for the position. In fact, my first act in office would be taking away the necessity for a minimum age for running for president and any public office. (Yes, I am quite aware of the obvious fallacy in such a concept. If you comment about it, I shall consider you completely unashamed of being a total dillhole. -The Management) I wouldn't think that the DNC or RNC would consider, say, The Olsen Twins as a worthy ticket (of course, the drug addict one would be vice president), but if a sensible candidate such as myself were to come along, there should be no problem in allowing them to run. The way I see it, if you can get a majority of Americans to support your beliefs and believe you to be a worthwhile leader, there's no reason not to vote you into office. And I do have many beliefs I believe many Americans will find it easy to support. I have previously outlined some of my plans regarding cannibalism and making gym class optional; these will remain important issues in my presidency. However, here are just a few more of them:

First of all, we have to do something about Haiti. (I know it's a Republic and not a territory of America, but that never stopped any other president from butting into other countries' affairs.) It's currently the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere and it has been plagued with political instability, hurricanes and roving bands of hostile youth. Often, I've found, the first, simplest step can be the best and most effective step. So here's my solution: a country can't go far with a name like Haiti. Far too negative. We should have the name officially changed to Lovey. This name will make the people much happier and more likely to instill government stability (honestly, who would want to be the president of a place seemingly named after hate? Why else do you think President Aristide would leave?). And, in keeping with America's growing Francophobia, we should change the capital from Port-au-Prince to Love Love Bun Bun. With an irrepressibly cute name like that, how can you stay mad at it? (The answer, of course, is that you can't!)

Secondly, we make clothing optional. Outlawing clothing is not a viable solution, seeing as how many people are currently extremely shy about their bodies, not to mention the comfort factor. I am not espousing nuding it up in the winter time; the adverse effect to one's body would be plain to see (especially without clothing). However, on extremely hot days, or just whenever it feels comfortable, I think that nudity should not just be permitted, but encouraged. If the nation was more open or desensitized to nudity, many of society's biggest problems would go away. Putting a halt to the spending of way too much time and money out of outrage for a simple wardrobe mishap at the Super Bowl is just the beginning of it. If people are more desensitized to the concept of nudity, they will tend to be less panthappy at the sight of nudity. Less arousal begets less sex (especially rape), which begets less STDs and less babies, which begets an end to overpopulation. It would also break down the barriers between classes. If you see a man in a nice Italian suit, you're 83%¹ more likely to talk to him than if he was wearing ripped jeans and a stained t-shirt from the Bicentennial. If we all stripped down to the natural flesh underneath, we wouldn't care as much about people's social status. Finally, if men saw the real size of each other's manhoods, there wouldn't be the insecurity and continuous competition that is subconsciously derived from it. 75%² of men buy fast cars, play sports, or start wars just to overcompensate for their penile shortcomings. Thus, a more lax nude attitude will make men much more comfortable with their bodies. (Provided, of course, it isn't 10 degrees below freezing.)

Third of all, while legalizing gay marriage is a no-brainer, I shall also take steps to stop criticism of it. It's extremely hard to debate the issue of same-sex marriage because its opponents have so many ways of perverting the truth. First of all, when accusing an opponent of same-sex marriage of being intolerant, they will often turn that around on you and claim that YOU are intolerant for not understanding their position. This is, of course, total bullshit. It's the kind of argument the KKK uses to further its agenda. The fact is that if your point of view prevents other people from fulfilling their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then it is intolerant. If it makes you happy to take away other people's rights, that's your problem. In this case, your happiness is canceled out by other people's happiness being infringed upon. Thus, this argument should be exposed for the unenlightened bullshit it is and be made into a taboo. How do we do this? Not only by turning our noses at those who use such faulty logic, but by airing a series of advertisements explaining how lame this argument is. Also, using the term "activist" as an insult should be given a similar treatment. Calling judges fighting for civil liberties an "activist" is technically accurate, but by no means a bad thing. Wasn't Abraham Lincoln an activist? What about Martin Luther King? If you celebrate Martin Luther King Day, I will ask you to kindly shut the fuck up about "activist judges". Extended misuse of the word "activist" shall constitute a hate crime.

Lastly, ICP is outlawed. Anybody caught listening to, wearing clothing promoting, applying graffiti mentioning, or otherwise referring to Insane Clown Posse (exemptions: when the phrase is preceded by "Don't you hate" or followed by "sucks") will be fined severely (and jailed after repeat offenses). Claiming to be a "Juggalo" will be seen as an agreement to be caged in a zoo with creatures of a similar IQ. The members of the 'group' themselves will be made to work at makeup factories where they can watch other people wearing makeup but never being able to apply it to themselves again. Also, we shall take out a restraining order stating that the former members of ICP can not come within 20 feet of instruments or any other piece of equipment that makes a noise exceeding 10 dB. If you think this is too harsh or that it infringes upon the 1st Amendment, I invite you to download a few of their tracks (I hestitate to call them songs). We are often told there are exemptions to the 1st Amendment when people fraudulently yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater; I think you'll agree that their little ditties should fall under the same category before the first song is finished.

That's just the tip of the iceburg; what can I say, I'm an ideas person! If you have any other ideas or suggestions that can improve life, just comment and I'll give them to my committee (snicker snicker), debate them (giggle giggle), and add them to my platform (chortle chortle).

Today's cover is Young Cleopatra. The song was written for XTC's 1983 album "Mummer" but never made it past the rehearsal stage. Seeing as how it is a top-drawer song, it may be hard to agree with this decision, but it may have been influenced by the fact that the song is, in writer Andy Partridge's own words, "the rock and roll adoration of a regal young girl." I figured that, since Miss Cleo is 14 years old in the song, it was best to record the song now when I'm 17 than record it next year and be hunted down by the CSOM. Granted, it's still a bit creepy, but at least it's not illegal. I wonder how Mr. Partridge got away with writing it at the age of 30?

¹ source of these numbers: my ass.
² ibid.