Hipster Lobby Unleashes Obnoxious Irony Throughout Washington DC

Today, Atticus Kingsley made his first rounds in the halls of DC as the social subculture movement known only as "Hipsters" acquired another asset to their ever influential activist empire. Mr. Kingsley, renown for his work with the pharmaceutical and tobacco lobbies, has become the lead figure of DC's newest "Hipster" lobby. Estimated to be making considerably more money than the highest paid lobbyists on the hill, Mr. Kingsley was contracted by the conservative leaning organization known as the Movement of Elite Hipsters (MEH) in an attempt to further the Republican cause of passing as little legislation as possible.

In an interview with renown conservative pundit Rush Limbough last week, Eric Leech, the chairman of the MEH, announced the newest addition to DC's ever-evolving lobby scene. "The constituents of MEH have been up in arms about the many rampant actions taken by our federal government in only two short years. We join our conservative brethren in the defense against actually getting things done on the hill", said Mr. Leech in the interview last thursday. "We've hired Mr. Kingsley to represent our interests due to his renown political prowess as well as his ability to persuade Republican and conservative Democrats in congress to stop legislation from being passed."

Republicans across the board appear joyful about the presence of the MEH on the hill. Prospective Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R- VA) was quoted by the Washington Post this morning on the subject, saying "We've long wished to reach across the socioeconomic aisle to our hipster constituents. The interests of the American electorate is reflected by their own, as is made evident in their ability to do absolutely nothing while maintaining a sense of intellectual accomplishment, as well as their reading several Kurt Vonnegut books in a single week, and courting an obnoxiously celebrated sense of irony."

Mr. Kingsley joined prospective House Speaker John Boehner (R- OH) on Hannity last friday after the MEH's official announcement. "I'm excited about having a presence in Washington best resembling the conservative platforms that won us the House majority this past election cycle.", said Mr. Boehner. When asked about the MEH agenda in Washington, Mr. Kingsley replied "The American public is sick of being put in a position to do stuff. [MEH] is made up of Americans like you and I, Sean. Americans that are annoyed by squares, shop exclusively at thrift stores, and don't actually have any plans for the near future outside of getting that sweet barista job at the espresso joint down the street. We lead simpler lives."

The close relationship between conservative legislators and the hipster lobby has without doubt been held in question by progressive Democrats and liberal political commentators alike. Famed left wing commentator Rachel Maddow last Saturday, tweeted "Look at this f**king hipster!", presumably in response to Mr. Kingley's recent appointment.

Despite left wing criticism, MEH is preparing it's first series of power plays for the coming congressmen in January. Unable to get a meeting at the MEH office on D street, I was lucky enough to corner Mr. Kingsley in a dim-lit back alley as he made his way home from the 7-11 on H street and Penn Ave. When asked about the first item on his agenda, Mr. Kingsley replied "Whatever you want, please just let me go home. I have kids.."

The American public can rest sound knowing that the reshaping of our troubled country will in fact have considerable opposition, now that the hipster agenda is being represented in our nation's capital. Mr. Kingley's critical appointment stands true to the MEH's rally cry, engraved across the entrance arch of their headquarters: "We Shall Overcome All Of This Overcoming".

Yeah It's Art, What The Hell Of It?

Late last week, I sat in my living room writing an article on my MacBook Pro on the evolving face of contemporary art, while downloading James Joyce’s Dubliners on my Ipad and listening to music on my $200 Bose stereo system. My roommate, who desired anonymity in accordance to a recent cocoa plant excursion, entered our living room with the ivory fruits of her journeys and a couple other new possessions amounting to a copy of Milton’s Paradise Lost, and a quill to match the small jar full of ink she had bought just days before. It was a sign from the patron saint of irony, as I thought, “Milton’s paradise is lost indeed.” The fact is that art has changed drastically from the days of Milton, Joyce, and even Vonnegut. So the question stands, are these developments detrimental? Have we established such a lack of confinement of expression through these, our Jetson-esque technological assets, that our expression is in turn made languid in depth and substance? Often, the answers of such inquiry are subject to mutation via generational gaps. The fact is that we, the willing and almost able youth, see these developments as integral to the evolution of contemporary art as a whole – a post-post modernist agenda of sorts. The argument usually takes place between my beloved Jon Stewart subscribing Gen Y, and the surviving cornerstones of the ever impressive twentieth century art scene, lighting red candles on the mantles of giant radios in lieu of Catholic saints, to call back that “fire side chatting” voice. With that in mind, let us navigate the two sides of this argument point to point before casting it to the fire the in the court of public opinion.

Most obviously, the technological development that has had the greatest influence in contemporary art has been the internet. This PC-charged, MacBook Pro world has mutated the once organic chemistry of the creative process. Now that information is available at the click of a “mouse,” whatever the damn thing is, people can perform the tasks of informed judgment, criticism, and learning with the ease and clarity once afforded by a renaissance brush stroke. Sharing artistic history, influence, ideas and developments are of highest priority in the photoshopping sophistication of contemporary artistic culture. But is it effective?

Many argue that the abundance of information flowing through the G.W. entitled “Internets” lead many to assume the false identities of articulate, well read art critics. The fact of the matter is, to the many supporters of said argument, that reading several articles and memorizing famous names of works and artists who contributed in large to artistic movements does not constitute an art expert. But is art a medium dictated by experts and critics exclusively? Was not Duchamp the son of a notary? The fact is that many of the celebrated artists of the last century have buried the ballast of their fame in the grounds, outlying the establishment. So does expertise make good art? Obviously, Duchamp could paint in the classicist style with the best of them, and thus one may argue that one cannot break the rules one does not know. But art is more than rules and the lack thereof. Art is an exercise in cognition, expression, and communication. One of which, the MacBook generation, surely knows a hell of a whole lot more about than any “Great Generation” artist may hope to learn.

Artistic rendering of cognition, expression, and communication in this technological heyday is not ill-afforded, or so it may be argued. People in large, with the grand schemes of information at their near and present disposal, may educate themselves on a level unseen by history. This grand education, in turn, realizes a broad cognition of human and universal conditions. It is in the expression of said cognitions, brought forth by these extensive systematic means of communication, that art may flourish; and it damn sure doesn’t hurt to have a means in which art may be made further aesthetically stunning. This is the stem of the pro-technological artistic movement which uses the many previously mentioned assets as well as developments to the tune of 3D film, digital photography, and digital sound engineering to bring forth tools to employ at the whim of any artist. While one can see the obvious detriments of said technologies, even Jay-Z would agree “Auto-tune” has overstayed its welcome. These are precious assets to the artistic community that can amount to just as much progressive works, in a similar fashion as the advent of canned paint amounted to in the realms of Pollock’s abstract expressionism.

Whether one stands firm against the technological developments, or employs them intelligently and creatively in one’s own work, it is impossible to disagree with the idea that the world’s means and artistic manifestations are changing. But not all change is bad. As a recent cell phone ad campaign on the train pronounced: “Some change is 4G.”

Dept. Of Homeland Security Releases New Alert Update In Time For The Holidays: 'Four Ways To Know If You're Dating A Terrorist'

Just last Thursday, while the world as we know it (and by the world I mean the U.S.) was celebrating the American yearly ritualistic slaughtering of our would-be national bird, the U.S. Deptartment of Homeland Security finished its touches on its newest security alert update. Produced in conjunction with Costcopolitan Magazine, a magazine born in response to the developing literary movement history is calling the “Movement Of People Who Buy Magazines For The Pretty Pictures, Not All Those Stupid Articles” (MOPWBMFTPPNATSA), the department of the Obama administration has released “Four Ways To Know If You're Dating A Terrorist,” an inoffensive, question-based guide to straying away from the kind of boyfriend who may wage holy war on you.

In accordance with a 2009 bill that forces American publications to print any national security update published by the nice people at Homeland Security, we’ve brought you said update to employ during your usual dating security measures:

1) Does He Only Buy Hideous Shoes?

A Recent poll taken by Princeton University, in conjunction with the Department of Defense's "Fear Your Peers" campaign, shows that 92.6% of terrorists exclusively buy hideous shoes often at lower prices than an aesthetically pleasing pair of shoes. Department officials have commented on the trend, citing the limited amount of time terrorists usually spend with their shoes as the logic behind the terroristic trend. Robert Blacken, spokesman for the "Fear Your Peers" campaign, confirmed it earlier this week on CNN, telling Wolf Blitzer, "I wouldn't waste $60 on shoes if I were going to blow up next week either. It's a good economic move in these rough economic times."

2) Does He Usually Have A Face? If So, Does He Lease Or Own?

Investigations into terrorist organizations across the world have led investigators spanning the length of the international community to note that most terrorist attempts – foiled or otherwise – are enacted by persons who either own or lease a face, the latter being much more prominent. Consuela Bibliotheca, a lead investigator part of the U.S. and Spain’s joint venture "Credit Checks for Cheeks," recently spoke with Bill O'Reilly on the matter of the increasing numbers of the facial leasing markets of the world, focusing exclusively on the billion dollar industry of the American Facial Leasing Market. "From 2000 to 2010, the number of leases signed per year has increased exponentially. It's up 217% from what it was in 2005." Developments in cheek and chin leasing have been responded to with calls from the left to regulate the market, a prospect Republicans and fiscally conservative Democrats oppose altogether. "It's a building crisis," concluded Mrs. Bibliotheca. "Most terrorists have been throwing off authorities by leasing to own, clearly with every intention of breaking their leases."

3) Does He Wear Weird/Unusual Clothes?

A recent interview with controversial terrorist turned activist Kerri Jestwin caught the eye of millions across the country. Sean Hannity sat with Mrs. Jestwin on Oct. 14 to discuss why she left the Hi- Pster terrorist organization (an organization funded exclusively by known terrorist organizations the world over) during her training before she was able to break any laws in the name of the Hi-Pster holy war on the “American Square.” “I cannot do it Sean. I simply will not,” Mrs. Jestwin said to Hannity. "Terrorism, in my experience, Sean, is for those with little to no fashion sense. I don't mean to be offensive, but that's what my experience is saying.” Mr. Hannity proceeded to straighten his tie in response to a suspicious look Mr. Jestwin posed as he signed off.

4) Does He Spend Several Months/Years Planning To Execute A Violent Act With The Intent Of Murdering Innocent Civilian Bystanders?

The latest numbers from studies done at universities across the world, including Harvard, Princeton, University Of Cambridge, Oxford, and Yale, have come to the conclusion that anyone meeting said criteria is a terrorist and should be treated as such. Furthermore, the studies show that there are absolutely no benefits to generalizing the idea of a Middle Eastern Muslim, or a Muslim of any ethnicity for that matter. When asked if profiling would be an effective means of security, Professor of Global Politics Edward Army, a lecturer on the subject of homeland security, was quoted as saying: "You have to be sh***ing me.... The answer is no, please leave my office."

So? How did you fare? Is your boyfriend a terrorist? The Department of Homeland Security asks that you share the questions with your friends and family over a nice fun dinner! Also, please contact the Dept. in the event of large, socially relevant realization at 1-888-NOT-REALLY.

Republican John A. Boehner's Tan Ready To Rally Conservatives Against Obama In 2012!

Ideas for the 2012 Republican ticket for US president has been kicked around since the day after 2008 election results became known. People across the country have been pressing this hot button, but it's looking like a couple of people have solidified the American expectation for Republcan candidacy. Still in the more hectic, ad-filled seasons, like the midterm we just experienced, we always get strong reminders of the otherwise moderately touched issue. And in 2012, there is but one candidate that's definitely taking the popular vote for the Republican ticket. It's a patriot. It's not a quitter, and It's damn proud of it! It's popular amongst low to mid income moms due to It's known "momma grizzly" status. It's not scared to combat the left-wing incumbent administration, and It's been wowing people since birth. And the most revealing fact for It's new found expectancy as top pick for the Repub's 2012 ticket? It has Sarah Palin's endorsement! You've definitely heard of It's many endorsers that account for a huge part of the youth vote as well as the MTV audience. It's bright and exceptionally outspoken! It's hilarious! It's John A. Boehner's Tan!

Now, the tale of Mr. Boehner's Tan goes back before the Tan officially announced on It's Twitter account that It would be running. And while the Tan has gained both fame and notoriety in DC's ever evolving political scene, the usual famed pundits haven't spared a chance to hypothesize the true meaning of this particular candidate's nomination, specifically in regards to Sarah Palin's endorsement of the previously unexpected candidate. Speculation by said pundits is centered around the nomination being subsequent to Mrs. Palin's own announcement for candidacy. Mrs. Palin, referencing herself in her October 28th interview with Mary Hart of Entertainment Tonight, reminded the electorate of her desire of running only "If there's nobody else to do it."

Much to the dismay of some 'Momma Grizzlies', someone was actually willing to run for president on the Republican ticket. Michael Steele announced last Wednesday afternoon on The Fox News Channel that the Republican National Committee had conferred with Rush Limbough as well as the asset portfolio's of the country's wealthiest 1% and come up with the reasonable conclusion that the only candidate able to pull together the conservative electorate against Obama's reelection campaign would be John A. Boehner's Tan. "The Tan has everything the conservative movement needs in a leader right now", said Mr. Steele on the faux news channel. "We need someone who can rally conservatives the way Obama rallied the left in the 2008 campaign, baby. That constitutes firing-up not only our upper and upper-middle class constituents, but also all those other poor people and the increasingly influential 'MTV youth'." Consequently, Mr. Boehner's Tan announced last night, in what has turned out to be the most politically controversial decision since McCarthy laid foundation for Glenn Beck, that Jersey Shore's own Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi would lead the effort as campaign manager. Subsequently, "Snooki" will be leading the campaign from her home in Marlboro, NY; citing prospective court-appointed community service as her reason for being unable to leave the state. "That's the thing about Snooki", said Mr. Steele on Fox. "She's just a regular girl. And that's what this country needs in it's leaders. Not latte drinking elites like Barack Obama, but just regular people who may or may not be fined several hundred dollars as a consequence of their public behavior. You know, the everyman."

Although "Snooki" was unavailable for comment, (she would only concede to interviews taking place in her favorite New York nightclub after 9 p.m.), I was able to secure an interview with John Boehner on the grounds that I didn't address the Tan directly. Despite my having to face the wall during the interview, I was able to ask Mr. Boehner about the effect his Tan's announced candidacy has had on his career as well as his personal life. "It's been tough", he said on the subject. I could hear his words quivering in his mouth as he slowly broke into his signature soft sob. "It's just that I thought, you know, being elected Minority Leader in 2007 and then being the number one choice for Speaker in this last election, that I would have a shot. But I guess the RNC knows what's best." The congressman was referencing a statement the RNC released just days before my interview with Mr. Boehner commenting on it's overlooking the prospective House Speaker. "Somebody's got to knock down every proposition put forth by House Dems. Congressman Boehner is already in place so it just made sense to keep him there." After comforting the congressman with tea and biscuits my crew had prepared for the expected emotional encounter, Mr. Boehner commented on the political implications the nomination would have for the Republican party and the country's conservative movement. "In 2008, the democratic ticket broke barriers with the election of Barack Obama. Still, putting our best foot forward means more than just changing history. I mean, it's fantastic that the American people get an opportunity to elect the world's first tan president. But more important is the plans the Tan has for the country which exemplify the conservative ideals of restrictive government, lowered taxes, and restricted government spending."

Liberal pundits prove their disconnect to the American people with their criticism of the Tan as a candidate. Award winning pundit Keith Olbermann, on his radical leftist opinion show Countdown with Keith Olbermann, commented on the RNC's announcement on the same evening calling it "Ridiculous", and citing the nomination as "Evidence that there is no one in the Republican leadership that is making any kind of sense really." Olbermann did have some praise for the RNC's nomination, despite his criticisms saying: "It may be sad, but the Tan is simply less insane than any of the other proposed candidates on the right. And for that, I have to commend the RNC on their decision." When asked about Olbermann's comments, Mr. Boehner stated that "He, and frankly liberal democrats altogether, clearly doesn't understand the dire situation Americans are in. My tan's nomination is a direct response from the Republican leadership to the concerns Americans have. It's the same response we had for the Tea Party when they became an even further conservative arm of our party, and it's the same response we have for the country every time we let Sarah Palin loose."

The often radical left has also attacked the nomination on the record front just yesterday, employing the same battle cry they deemed ineffective in 2008 against Obama. "The tan has no damn record! It's a God-damn tan! It can't vote!", said radical left wing political commentator Bill Maher on his HBO show Real Time With Bill Maher on HBO. Conservative commentator Rush Limbough countered with reason saying on his radio show "I've yet, in my life, seen such blatant disregard for civility in this country. The fact is that we need a non-establishment leader! Washington has been taken over by the establishment! The Tan will be the most powerful everyman on the Hill."

The 2012 elections are a long ways away, but the campaigning thereof is set to begin this January. That in mind, it's evident that the Republican leadership has answered the conservative call for action against the establishment. The nomination of John A. Boehner's tan for President not only is a step in making history, but it's an extension of the country's anger with the current ruling class, as displayed in this last election which almost exclusively owes it's result to anger amongst the electorate. We must, as a country, act progressively and displace the progressive movement. We must not let our anger with the government get in the way of sane and reasonable decisions. America has a chance, with this nomination, to fast track the almost overwhelmingly reasonable conservative agenda and put the country back on track while making history. To quote Sarah Palin in her ET interview, in the realm of sanity and reasonability amidst the Republican leadership, "There's nobody else to do it".

Kieth Olbermann Offered A Position On Fox News... Kinda?

Journalism, as defined by the first thing that came up on my Google search, is "a person who keeps a journal". Now that may be fair and balanced, still recently the idea of "Journalism", (and when I say recently I mean in the last 30 years), has become a hot button issues since the days when The Fresh Prince's "Life got twisted upside down". More recently still, the argument of what exactly is "Journalism" was tested by MSNBC's Kieth Olbermann. The host of MSNBC's Countdown With Kieth Olbermann was suspended "Indefinitely" just last week! But wait! Quick! Don't stir into a panicked rage! The gentleman is due back hosting his show this Tuesday the 9th of November after four solid days in "exile" as he called it on his Twitter update.

While some have turned Olbermann's welcome back to his comfy MSNBC chair into an outward attack on the meaning of the word "Indefinitely", others see it as part of the greater argument as to whether political commentators should be considered "Journalists". Olbermann was suspended from his chair, 'indefinitely', after he reveled to Politico.com that he had contributed to the campaigns of three Democrats in this last midterm election. MSNBC has a clear policy that states that none of it's employees may contribute to political campaigns or organizations without the consent of MSNBC. The rule was put in place in order to avoid the obvious conflict of interest, and as MSNBC political commentator Rachel Maddow said on her own show about the suspension: "The rule applies to us host here at MSNBC and to NBC news staff. CNBC is not under NBC news so CNBC staffers are not bound by the same thing." While the network has been criticized for allowing Olbermann to come back on the air after only four days of suspension, MSNBC president Phil Griffin was reported as saying, "I have determined that suspending Keith through and including Monday night's program is an appropriate punishment for his violation of our policy."

While the network has made it's decision, much to the liking of Rachel Maddow who suggested Olbermann be allowed back on the air before Griffin's public statement made it so, it's obvious that Kieth Olbermann is making a personal mistake by returning to his show on MSNBC. Our friend, and host of Fox News Channel's Red Eye, Greg Gutfeld touched this subject slightly on his November 6th broadcast, which was more than likely viewed by myself, eight other politics geeks, and a cat being strapped down to a chair against his/her will. Gutfeld had this to say on the subject, "Everyone knows, like I said, that he's a pinko comunist. So, why does it matter who he gives his money to?" Furthermore, the satellite guest of Gutfeld's seemingly elusive show that night was commentator Stephen Kruiser who was quite blatant about MSNBC's ethical role in all this. "I was pondering the irony of a network that would hire Kieth Olbermann suddenly claiming it had journalistic ethics and standards and things like that.", he said on Gutfeld's show last Saturday.

While Gutfeld and friends don't come out and say that Olbermann should quit MSNBC and join them over in the Fox News Channel, let's look at the implications here. Rachel Maddow, in the same previously stated segment, revealed that famed Fox commentator Sean Hannity had raised over $7 million to conservative campaigns during the same midterm election. Fox News did not suspend Sean Hannity. If given anything, Fox News Channel president Roger Ailes probably gave Hannity a coke and a hug. The same was to be said about several other Fox News Channel constituents, as provided generously by Mrs. Maddow. These include former GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who host a show on Fox, Neil Cavuto, who's political contribution we partly owe the great mastery of the "Bush-ism", and who hosts a show on Fox, and even former GOP vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin who is a paid Fox News contributor.

That's where I have to agree with the genius Mr. Kruiser when he "ponders" the integrity of MSNBC. Atleast Fox News just comes out and says it, right? Isn't that what they mean by fair and balanced? That they pay a former vice-presidential candidate and prospective 2012 presidential candidate to surf their outwardly GOP supporting conservative airways? Yeah, that's as fair and balanced as you get! So what's the implication? Olbermann should step down from MSNBC and go join Fox News Channel as fast as possible, so he won't be constrained by any types of "journalistic ethics and standards". I doubt he'll get along with his co-workers much, but everyone's got to make sacrifices right?

Still, there is a misunderstanding in the country about the likeness between MSNBC and the genius behind the Fox News Channel. MSNBC is definitely not a moderate news channel. It does in fact, and I say this as an avid observer of all cable news, support liberal ideals because, as Maddow points out, "Yes, Kieth is a liberal and so am I, and there are other people on this network who's political views are shared openly." But the vast and important difference between Fox News and MSNBC is that Fox, counting Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch up at the top, is the Einstein to MSNBC's Herbert York in the famed spectra of "spin". Now, if you're yet pondering who Herbert York is.. that's kind of the point.

Kieth Olbermann deserves to be part of an organization that does not limit his ability to do... anything really. So in the great tenure of his suspension, he should have seen MSNBC for what it's worth and left to a place who's "journalistic ethics and standards" are barren, maybe even Sahara-like. Now, look to the person to your left, and then the person to your right. The three of you, if asked of the existence of such a place, would probably have a fast and easy answer.

Rampant Shortage Of Closets Devastates A Homophobic Uganda!

For a seemingly gorgeous perpetuity, man has had the common decency to restrict his innate desire to screw his fellow man to a discreet physical action. We screw our best friends, our co-workers, and pretty much anyone who stands in the way of anything we want. But the innovations in moral and common decency and the restrictions these assets to the world's societies impose have created a strong moral fiber for which we urge, please, that if you must screw your fellow man, don't tell us a thing, because we promise not to ask. And though everyone quite outwardly seeks gaiety, I wouldn't think it wrong if a couple hundred thousand Boston residents got a letter from the D.A. reminding us politely to keep our gayness to a minimum, maybe citing the work of Edgar Allen Poe as a great start. But what if said letter never came? What do you do when radical groups speak out in their efforts to disrupt the perfect little blue balls, (after all there is a second and third world, you know), we live in? How do you deal with a group that is obviously, despite their own acknowledgement thereof, targeting innocent people with harmful and dangerous rhetoric? Before we examine the problem at hand, I will ring the Hannity-an call to calm by reminding you that we don't have to worry about this issue in this country, since we have all agreed without any remarkable dissent to ignore that specific nine ton gorilla in the barracks. As such, please, "Let not your heart be troubled". But according to a BBC News article entitled "Attacks reported on Ugandans newspaper 'outed' as gay", across the universe in a seemingly backwards place named Uganda they are actually giving a platform to these agitators by printing their names in the news paper! Yes as difficult as it may be to believe, Uganda's infant so called news publication, (those damned radical leftists!), The Rolling Stone has published the 15 names of homosexuals in their paper, and threatens to continue to do so. The whole of the civilized world has condemned these actions, obviously in an effort to keep the homosexuals out of the public light. I was able to speak with Rainer Williams, 22, a third year Harvard undergrad and renown Boston closet homosexual on the subject at a chance meeting at Jacques Caberet last wednesday. "I don't understand", said Mr. Williams as I handed him his Guinness Extra Stout and calmly sipped my Cosmo. "Why would anyone commit to the obvious social irresponsibility of publishing the names of closet homosexuals? It's obviously just a radical activist group's attempt at giving these people a platform for which the world can sympathize with homosexuals and harvest support for their cause." I find the idea absurd myself, especially when I came across reports that suggest Ugandan homosexuals themselves don't want their names to be published either! Though they describe their hardship having more to do with the rampant discriminatory policies being pushed by the Ugandan government as well as radical homophobic tendencies in the country that are amounting up to open threats and acts of violence, (sometimes by the hands of the victim's own family); I can't help but think maybe they just rather not be asked altogether.. you know.. to avoid moments of social awkwardness. Unfortunately, I was short for time with Mr. Williams as I had a garden to tend to and I really wanted to pop in my new Liza Mannelli: Greatest Hits CD. In the event of your concern, it was fabulous. Still I was lucky enough to meet with one of Mr. Wiliams' famed 'un-outed' counterparts.

Deniss Wheeler, 36, Boston's own reputed closet heterosexual was available for comment on the subject last thursday after the release party of his highly awaited autobiographical fiction "In Wolves Clothing: The Struggles Of Men Who Might Be Closet Heterosexuals, But Would Certainly Never Bring It Up In Conversation Due To The Inappropriate Direction The Conversation Would Clearly Take". When asked his thoughts on the supposed news paper's practices, Mr. Wheeler expressed a sobering thought. "It's one thing to tell someone they're not worthy, due to their sexual orientation, of performing the tasks they have, for the most part, already honorably performed in the interest of their country and their society. Thats simply an accepted contention in every country around the world, except for every major active power in most of the world... but Europe and most other places have always fell behind on the times. Still it is different and highly inexcusable to allow us homosexuals a platform with which we can gather support from anyone who is in their right sense of mind." Truer words were never spoken.

The stance the Ugandan government is taking and promoting to it's people on the issue of homosexuality is radical at best, and it is quite honestly shocking that a policy like our military's own Don't Ask Don't Tell would be an anti-gravatational leap from where they are currently. I was able to ask Mr. Wheeler his thoughts on The Rolling Stone as a news organization. Again, it might have been all the O'Douls, but sobering thoughts ensued. "Any news organization that profits from the targeted detriment of any one member of the society it supposedly serves is not a news organization. It is, at best, a menace to society and should be dealt with accordingly with swift eradication from said society by said society.", he said as he reached in his quite stylish man bag and offered me a piece of fruit gum. Again, in the event of your concern, it was fabulously fruity.

The sir's thoughts appear to shape the world's contention as it concerns Uganda's and The Rolling Stone's stance on the issues of homosexuality. And while I think both groups are highly radical and hinder the growth of their own country with their lack of social morality, I find that I and the two groups have something in common. They seem to keep to the belief that people should Not be treated as people regardless of sexual orientation. And I have to agree with their pair-of-dimes. My own two cents can't help but conclude that people should be treated as people specifically regardless of anything. And so to that effect, permit your heart be troubled.

It is the common thought on the social responsibilities of social media, and the abuses thereof running rampant in our own society and more radically across the world, that bring us today's Less Than Modest Proposal.

"We the People of the United States of America"

Do you often loose sleep over the fact that you have still yet to locate Waldo? If so, then have I got some news for YOU! On Saturday October 30th, 2010 at approximately 1:45 p.m. I stepped onto the grounds of Washington DC's National Mall where Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert, (one of which has been argued to be the most trusted "newsman" on television), manifested their long awaited Rally To Restore Sanity And/Or Fear. At that moment, with the Capital building and the Library of Congress not too far from plain sight, I found him. That's right. For those of you who have wondered where Waldo is, on Saturday Oct. 30th, 2010 at approximately 1:45 p.m. Waldo, along with what has been reported and seemed like tens of thousands of people of every stripe, was at The Rally To Restore Sanity And/Or Fear. Mr...Waldo... was unavailable for comment on what must have been an insanity filled trip to the sane-fest. Luckily for you, I am. And my trip to the rally, (though I'm the first to admit, I am no Waldo), was anything but bland. So let's walk through it, shall we? Alright.

Recently on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Arianna Huffington announced that she will be bussing anyone who wants to go to the rally for free. I saw this myself, as did hundreds if not thousands of people, and jumped at the opportunity. The trip, I knew, would be demanding. A four hour bus ride from Boston to New York and then a four-and-a-half hour bus ride from New York to DC and then back. But I was up for the challenge. And so like a good neighbor, Fung Wah was there; and $15 later I was on my way to New York City on Friday October 29th at 7 p.m. I arrived promptly approximately at 11 p.m. and followed my prescribed plan, spend the entirety of the night walking around New York City interviewing people on the Rally To Restore Sanity And/Or Fear in the wee hours of the night in every borough I can get to before 5:30 a.m. when The Huffington Post had told me via e-mail that I had to check in for my free bus ride to DC at Citi Field where the Mets more dwindle than play. I was off!

The first person I met, and arguably the most demanding of all my interviewees, was Lisa, 35. Lisa, who I met in Times Square at approximately 11:46 p.m., was like a soft drink in the desert. She was a Russian immigrant and held a giant sign across her body that helped her spread her political message about George Bush being a criminal. The conversation was... interesting. "People look at the US dollar like a coupon overseas", she'd say in her rough Russian accent. She managed, in between taking photos with empathizing tourists and handing out political literature, to string together an anecdote about a trip she took to Italy last summer where several shops refused to take her American currency, claiming it has no value and she should have it exchanged immediately. It was obvious that Lisa had some strong sentiments in opposition and in favor of the former and the new US Presidents respectively, but when I asked Lisa, who clearly was quite well read on past and present politics, about The Rally To Restore Sanity And/Or Fear, I received the first of a multitude of the same answer I would receive in my pilgrimage through New York City's latest morning hours. "Nope, never heard of it", she said, maintaining her accent's Russian garb. The word rang in the concrete jungle of New York's late night sidewalk crawlers like a mating call. By the time I had sat to notice my notes and interviews, at approximately 1:32 a.m., I had interviewed 11 people who all had political cognizance and opinion. Still none of them had ever even heard of Mr. Stewart and Mr. Colbert's rally. So I thought to myself, how is this? How is the birth city of both shows known across the country so unaware of the rally? For the answer I was able, at approximately 2:11 a.m. , to turn to Kendia, 26, who I met earlier at her job at the Bubba Gump Shimp Company in Times Square where she worked as a hostess. "I totally wish I could have gone", she said as we walked towards the subway entrance where I eventually dropped her off. "I think people don't know too much about the rally because [they] watch the show for a laugh, not for information. Uninformed people, I mean.", she said when I asked about the seeming ignorance towards the rally. Kendia herself seemed better informed about the rally than the politics it was due to discuss. As my wee hours dwindled down in the NYC sidewalks and subways, I managed to make my way to Brooklyn and caught my first sight of the Brooklyn bridge at approximately 3:27 a.m. Not 15 minutes later, I was huddled in conversation with Nizar, a 20 year old Brooklyn native whom traded me a cigarette for an interview. Nizar and I stood outside a closed deli as he tried to convince me of his political points. Amidst a conversation which I'm sure would have made a beautiful ad for the rally, I asked young Nizar his thoughts on the rally. His response gave me my first glance at what would eventually become apparent in the rally itself. "The rally seems like a reasonable call to reason. It appears to be a more of a point than an event. Saying 'Hey, would you stop the anger and actually have the conversation, because the bullshit clearly isn't working.'", he said in his deep New York accent. "For one, I wish I could have gone. But I'm just another guy with a job, you know?" So with that I shook the young man's hand, offered him another cigarette for his time, and made my way to Citi Field to prepare for another long bus ride with my fellow DC pilgrims. I arrived at Citi Field at approximately 5:40 a.m. and became a leg of a seemingly perpetually winding centipede of a human being lined up to take up Arianna Huffington's generous offer. The air was electric with political conversations, jokes, and conversations about the rally and it's fabulously famous hosts. Renald, 32, or 'Remmy' as I later learned to call him had made his place immediately after me in the line. I took out my pad and started my inquisition. "The Rally is just what it insinuates, a call for normal people to hold real conversation." I asked the sir about the political nature of the rally and it's ghost like political message, to which he replied "It's not pushing politics. It's pushing reasonable politics. It's pushing reason in conversation. It's pushing... Sanity!", he said as he sipped on his Gatorade. Eventually the busses came in sight and we all made our way at random into our vessels and began the four and a half hour trip to The Rally To Restore Sanity And/Or Fear. The bus ride was itself interesting and filled with all types of people having all types of conversations ranging from political and religious to instructions on how to make a legitimate "Snooki" Halloween costume. We all made it to our destination about 2 miles away from the Rally at approximately 1 p.m. Charged with enthusiasm and unable to conjure expectations, the masses from the busses made the walk or took the train to the rally grounds. In order to catch a glimpse of the environment the event took place in, I joined those walking to the rally. The capital of our country, for those who've never seen it, is absolutely gorgeous. People obeying stop signs and walking signals. A DC native, when observing a NY native walking across the street, asked the J-Walker what she was doing. In stereotypical New Yorker fashion, the NY native yelled back "I'm New York baby! I make my own green lights." As the Capital building came into view, the faint bass of the giant rally speakers came into the air. And about a half hour after I made my way to what I understood was DC, my Rally To Restore Sanity And/Or Fear began.

I made a strong effort to not note or write down any signs on the way to the Rally in order to accurately and honestly report the following two sentences, (and dammit did it pay off!) The first sign I read at The Rally To Restore Sanity And/Or Fear was held by a young woman, (who's age later became a topic of conversation with rally goers.) It said "I Have A Sign". It wasn't far from that moment in time that I met Mathieu, 25 from Canada. The first clue I got that Mathieu was from Canada was his sign, which read "Dear America, Don't Give Up. Love, Canada." The sign evoked thoughts of beauty that were confirmed by the ensuing interview. "This rally is monumental because it reminds you that there are still reasonable people in the world.", he responded to my question on what the rally was to him. "This is beautiful. People feel like they belong." I asked Mathieu what made him make the pilgrimage all the way from Montreal to Washington DC for a rally that only addresses his own personal interests in a completely indirect manner. His response was.. well.. judge it for yourself: "We need to feel universal. Our issues are, no matter who or where you are or what you believe in, universal. And we need to be united. I'm apart of something, even if I wasn't supposed to be. People are contrasting colors of the same photograph. Blue or red, it's not important because we only make starry nights when we work together."

In accordance with Mathieu's response, the rally moved forward to prove his point. In 3 hours at the rally, I decided to ignore what was happening on stage, for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, it was just so damn hard to see or hear. The shear amount of people made it difficult to listen to Stewart make some hilarious comment or listen to Jeff Tweedy play some beautiful guitar riff. And though people were standing atop many an object, from benched to climbing trees, to watch the events unfolding on stage, I felt it was more important to go to the reason why we all had gathered. The masses at this rally, or a lot of them at least, gathered with the ambition to see Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert for themselves. But they also gathered to simply be together. This rally, or at least what I was able to take most from it, was about one not so simple simple concept. Being together. As Americans, as human beings, as sinners, liars, anything we were. We were together bound by the idea of a sane unity. In this rally I met 911 truthers,tea baggers, socialists, anarchists, Prop 19 advocates and admitted pot smokers, old people, young people, conservatives, satirists, feminists, happy people, liberals, angry people, sad people, sarcastic people, even people who simply wanted you to have safe sex (and so they passed out free condoms.) I think what I'm trying to get at is that at this rally, for the first time ever, I met people. Let me clarify. I met People. They disagreed with each other, and they disagreed with me, and I disagreed with them, and A LOT of them disagreed even with Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. But there they were. United and universal, like Mathieu had told me. They were people. Not all American, not all funny, not all not funny, not all angry, not all serious, and not all anything really. There was no ideal demographic, in my experience. The idea that this was a liberal or even a radical liberal meeting is false. I know! I was there! The press, of any political stripe, may report it that way. Well, I was on the ground. I experienced the rally. It was not that. My mind was not built for objectivity. Unfortunately, my DNA lacks that gene that makes you a kind of eunuch of opinion. But if, let's say 40 years from now, I was asked "Hey, you went to The Rally To Restore Sanity. How was it?" I would think, for fondness more than lack of memory, about it for a moment before I can honestly answer. "It was, like Mathieu said, beautiful."

Currently, I'm on a bus back to Boston where I will chop this document up to a tiny version of it and make it more objective, or at least as objective as I can get it. But I wanted, even if briefly, to let you know of my account. It's hard to be descriptive and as honest as possible, and for obvious reasons I can't account for every single person I met, whereas I met probably over fifty. But this was a brief history of my weekend at the Rally to Restore Sanity And/Or Fear. An event that scarcely had a political reason of being, and yet brought together people of different ideas and beliefs together to finally talk, cheer, sing, or sometimes just stand and stare. Regardless of what anyone did, we were all there. And finally, I've seen what they meant when they said "We the People of the United States."

The Home Depot Liberates The US Free Market From The Hands Of Private Enterprise Profit Dependency!

Swaying to the sleepy jazz guitar based sounds of NPR loosing a fight to it's current, and more Tourettes-prone rival, Fox News, I received an email that shocked myself, and the country as a whole. As I rushed immediately out of my bipartisan bed, put on my liberty boxers, and made my way to the freedom thrown where I sat occupied dropping a democracy deuce, I made the call and confirmed what seemed impossible and yet obviously inevitable. Congress had passed legislation that single-handedly allowed 'The Home Depot' to bail out the American free-market system of economics!Now, it's been a long road. For those of you that have suffered through a Fox News-like amnesia, I'll go ahead and stumble through it with you for just a moment.

It all began after the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, or as most of the American populace knows it, the 'Holy Crap Did We Just Spend 700 Billion Dollars To Bail Out A Bunch Of Rich Assholes' Act... of 2008. What this piece of legislation did was appoint the United States Department of the Treasury the authority to establish and manage the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which in turn led to the US buying up to $700 billion of troubled bank assets to avoid bankrupting the countries biggest financial institutions. Such an event would've crippled the American economy enough to compare it to a kid who can't swim well, has a large rock tied to his ankle, but decides that soggy twinkies floating in the middle of a moldy lake is worth the risk. The legislation itself was born out of response to the 2008 mortgage crisis, where millions of people were hoodwinked into buying homes they couldn't afford by banks that knew they couldn't afford them, but handed out the bad loans to make outstanding profits in the short term. It was at this point where the outcry against large government began. People immediately blamed the new President of the United States, Barack Obama, for the piece of legislation, citing his affiliation with the American Socialist Party as a problem. Still the bigger problem, and thank God for American leaders and citizens alike being intelligent enough to recognize and do something about it in a typical unbiased and productive fashion, was clearly the dependency of the American economy on private bank profits.

Austan Goolsbee, yes the man's name is actually Goolsbee, was taking a lot of heat in that time as he chaired Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. In an interview in May 2009, when asked about the governments plan to address the issue, Mr. Goolsbee replied "We have an idea we're working on that would not detriment the banks, [which we own], and holds the American people's best interest at heart." The genius economic foresight of the Obama administration, as well as the coming together of liberals and conservatives incited by these economic hardships, is arguably the single strongest hand in the power play the federal government would put on the banks that had nearly crippled the United States.

The federal government then went on what history would call the "Ghost Hand" campaign where the government instituted an 'absolute zero' in terms of regulation on the banks who had received $700 billion in relief from the American people. They did this believing that at heart the heads of these institutions were greedy bastards... and they were right. We've all heard of the massive foreclosures that ensued where literally millions of people were put out of their homes. The banks had instituted a robo-sign policy where most of the foreclosure documents were hardly reviewed before being signed off, approving the foreclosures of millions of homes and in turn millions of people were thrown on the street. The Obama plan took like a gull to the wind as our capitalist system worked it's charm. With zen-like wisdom... they did absolutely nothing.

"The greatest asset of the free market is that people have always and will always decide what's important to the market.", said Austan Goolsbee when asked his take on strengths of the market in a press conference this afternoon, after 'The Home Depot Bailout' was signed into law by President Obama. "Americans did what we've always done. We chose what was important in our market."

And that we did! As families by the millions were thrown onto the street by a rigged bank-profit based system, people took to their local Home Depots and incited what is now being called 'The Brown Box Hike'. As I'm sure you already know, Home Depot sells Large Moving Boxes (LMB's) measuring 4.5 Cubic Ft. for $1.37 each. At those prices, homeless Americans took to their local Home Depots and purchased LBMs by the millions, building shanty towns all over the country with them. The Home Depot in turn saw a rise in revenue approximated around $178 billion in the first six months of the 'robo-sign foreclosures'. In turn the Home Depot stock, (HD), soared from it's tenure at $31.40 a share up 2,140 points to $2171.40 a share. The Home Depot, in order to capitalize on this new instant demand, built and opened new sites in record time and hired three-quarters of the countries unemployed workers in 2010, dropping the national unemployment rate from 9.6% to under 3%! Still, there was a stir amongst officials about Americans being back at work. Fearful lawmakers cringed at the idea of the new work force inciting a perpetual drop and rise of the markets as they followed their materialistic American dream back to the mortgages they'd been forced out of. But Goolsbee held tight to his plan despite panic in the ranks, for he had prepared for the raw power of a previously ill-equipped weapon in American economics. The power of the American trend!

Despite people being able, via HD employment, to afford their mortgages, shanty towns had become the new substitute for city life! A more compact, reasonably spacious, and yet decently accommodating LMB from Home Depot was just as good as a flat in New York City ever was! I wouldn't have to tell you the perks, but here's a couple pleasant reminders! Less traffic, not a single person had bought a car in almost a year, (not much need for one in such tight quarters.) And the conservative battle cry rang more than ever as the people literally "LIVED WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THEIR MEANS!" People were excited to work again and no one wanted to return to the old tales of high rises and big city flats. People were all about the shanty! Here Goolsbee instituted the final part of his plan.

The banks, by September 2010, had thrown everyone out of their homes so they can resell and not loose money from defaulted mortgage payments. But now that no one wanted a mortgage, the banks were useless and broke, as were the bank's new owners the American government. So Goolsbee swept to quick action and propositioned that The Home Depot buy the American government's assets and bail out the American free market system of economics! Today, they did just that! We are no longer dependent on those greedy bankers! We can now depend on the nice orange aprons at The Home Depot! And as I awoke in my bipartisan bed of plastic Home Depot bags, and made my way to my freedom thrown, (a Medium Moving Box (MMB) measuring 3 cubic feet, (only $.47 with the employee discount!)),I did so in my liberty boxers made from white colored HD plastic bags to drop my democratic deuce when the call was made and it was confirmed. The American dream was back on track, and America can prosper as it's now rid of it's dependency on profiting private enterprises! And in every 4.5 cubic feet of moving box across the country, a truly free market and an American dream lives on!

This truth that our free market can now operate truly as a free market, where every American can fail or succeed equally depending on their private assets and talents, unlimited by a rigged system made to benefit those who can never fail, that brings us today's Less Than Modest Proposal.

There Ain't No Party Like A T Party 'Cause A T Party Don't Stop!

If you live in Boston, around the Boston area, or have ever taken a single step in the New England region, you probably have a very close connection to the movement that is sweeping the nation currently. Yes you've probably heard all the crazy stories from the base ball bat cleaning practices to the rampant witchcraft being performed, but all of it is made possible only by America's new darling, a party we here in Boston know and love the most, the T Party! The events orchestrated by this concentration of mental and often unintelligible people that society has coined "T Baggers", are equally as bizarre as the T Baggers themselves. Now, everyone knows where the name comes from, especially if you take up residence here in Boston, and you frequent the harbor where "Tea Bagging" was first conceived! But this movement is taking across to cities and metro systems all over the country! Yes, the T party has been seeing it's rhetoric coming almost systematically in and out of the mouths of American political pundits and news casters since it's inception, when a bunch of displeased Americans were "sick of the same old practices and looking for a new way to please themselves."

I caught up with a spokesman for the original T Party here in Boston, Rudey Beaver, at the Semi-Outdoor Boston Jockstrap Rally (SOB JR) last Thursday at the Hynes Convention Center to discuss the T Party movement and it's almost perpetually progressing influence. "We're a people brought together by the ideals of the original 'T Baggers', men like Jefferson, Washington, and Adams", said Mr. Beaver. "Bottom line, we stand for less government. We don't want to be restricted by administrations that have lost touch with the American people." And most of the American populace would agree, restriction is definitely not on the tea bagging docket. But what exactly is the T Party? What do they do? What do they stand for and how do they manifest their opinions? Mr. Beaver had some food for thought on the lot of inquiry. "The T Party is a movement named and recognized for it's iconic events. These events, here in Boston, usually take place on the T where T Baggers, after long hours of pre-assembly, convene on the T and exercise their American right to free speech and assembly." When asked what other criticisms of the current local, state, and federal government the T Party may have, Mr. Beaver seemed a tad ill at ease with the line of questioning. "The T Party is concerned with American freedom, sir", he said when I asked what makes up the party's political platform. "We are fiscal and social conservatives gathered to make a stand for what we believe in. Any question anyone may ask about our core beliefs can be answered with a quick glance at our 'Contract By America'." The 'Contract By America' is a document quite few people have seen really. Written in half red pen, half 'Mac-and-cheese' colored pencil, it outlines the beliefs of the T Party down to 10 simple agenda items the T Party demands all representatives of government at any level follow. Unfortunately the bright yellowish nature of most of the document's font, coupled with a large coffee stain at the upper third of the document, deemed it illegible for my purposes of examination.

Though Mr. Beaver was short for time to elaborate on these issues, I was able to schedule a meeting with T Party head political strategist Clara DeTurtoga. When asked about the fiscal legislations supported by the T Party, Mrs. DeTurtoga replied "Our organization supports fiscal conservatism. That means less spending which in turns means permanent and increasing tax cuts." When asked about the obvious effects lowering taxes would have on increased government borrowing, Mrs. DeTurtoga replied "Well if we just stopped spending so much, we wouldn't have to borrow." When asked about the services that would be affected by the loss of funds and how the failing of the banking system without the bail-out would have meant the failing of the American economic system altogether, Mrs. DeTurtoga seemed confused and began to speak to her assistants in pig-latin before she excused herself from the meeting citing a scheduling conflict. While I was unable to seek out conference with any other T Party representatives, I was still able to meet with a couple T Baggers themselves!

Stacy and Owen Park are a married couple native to the Boston area and currently residing in Back Bay. I was able to ask them about their political views outside of a T stop where a T Party demonstration would be taking place later that night. "The current President and his entire administration along with the elites of the democratic party is what's wrong with the American system of governance today.", said Mr. Park as he held close to his scarlet foam 'T' finger. "This 'T' finger and this movement is a living statement saying 'We're here and we have a voice, and you can't stop us... until 12:30am when the T closes down... But that's ok because we'll be here tomorrow... maybe... if we can get a sitter.." Mrs. Park had equally strong sentiments on the T Party events. "I feel these events best explain what we're going for in a political sense. Freedom. Freedom is the be all end all for us. And if we can't have it, then we're going to party on the T until we can have it." Still it's these events along with their awkward political ideals that put this movement in jeopardy of loosing the quick relevance it's received in the American socio-political scene. There seems to be a big disconnect with the ideals being preached by the T Party and the T Parties themselves. "It is our right granted to us by the greatest men in our country's history.", said Mrs. Park before her and her husband made their way underground. "The right to speak our minds in assembly!"

And assemble they do! Anyone who has ever been caught trying to get home after a long friday night or tuesday night or sometimes even monday night will probably encounter the T Party on their way home. It may be a less than quaint and inescapable bout of words where the sober individual will not understand what the party stands for, or maybe just a T Bagger regurgitating his or her 'political ideals' all over your shoes. Here in Boston, the locals have coined a term to describe the encounters with the T Bagging populace. "Scrotumnizing", said Boston native and Suffolk Prof. of Sociology Dr. Ezra Brooks when asked about the term, "Is the act of coming across a T Bagger and finding his or her inability to communicate their political agenda to be the most potent asset to the interaction as a whole." Mr. Brooks, who claims to be amongst the casualties of last Tuesday's October 19th T Party, had this to say on the encounter: "It was horrible. I've never been so thoroughly confused. It was like they were angry drunk children who had no understandable point to make and yet felt the need to voice a loud and unintelligent opinion rather than propose an idea that makes any kind of sense. I exited the train 12 stops early and had to walk home for about an hour in the cold just to get away from it, but I couldn't escape the smell of sweaty... Well.. You know... The air was filled with the musky smell from sweaty T Party-ers, so much so that I could taste it in my mouth.. The..You know.."

These movements, whether you agree or disagree with them in any way, are a clear and present response to the lack of satisfaction with our current and past governance. While it is always an act of patriotism to respect and defend the rights of others and to use your rights to voice your own worries and concerns, it is also a civic responsibility to do so responsibly and to fully understand what it is that we are saying in the event that we do say it. It is this desperate attempt to relinquish our anger with our governance, albeit in the form of angry belligerent protesters with insane claims, or in the form of crazy blame games and unmindful political movements birthed strictly from the lack of reason afforded to anger that brings us today's Less Than Modest Proposal.

How Punching Massachusettes Children Can Save You Hundreds Of Dollars At Cash Registers Statewide!

On November 2nd, all registered Mass voters have a civil responsibility to hit the ballot boxes and vote not only for the men and women who have invested several weeks and millions of dollars in America's most reliable and glorified name calling contest, but also for state statutes that will line the public policies of our state. One statute specifically has pressed plenty of reasonable dissent in the usual 'monkeys-throwing-shit-at-each-other' traditions that make up our election seasons. You may have heard of it. It may have showered itself into conversations on the T, or in the university halls much like pinata candy green cards at an anchor babies' birthday party. But if you're like millions of voters across the country, odds are you don't give a damn, and you still can't believe House is playing grab ass with Cuddy, that lucky pimp-limping bastard! Regardless, the fajita hot statute this Mass autumn is the highly contested Question 3 AKA the 3% Sales Tax Relief Act AKA the Initiative to Roll Back Sales Tax AKA the Take A Child's Lunch Money Right Now Act. The proposed law, supported by almost Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Christy Mihos and sponsored by The Alliance To Roll Back Taxes, offers an amendment to the state sales tax currently at 6.25% down to 3% in the event that Mass voters rally in it's favor.

It's difficult to deny an effort to pay less cash registers statewide. So why would anyone offer anything but appraisal to such a proposition? Why would anyone, in their own Right mind, offer anything but support for a state statute that would clearly put money back in the pockets of millions of Mass residents and visitors alike? Why would anyone, anyone at all, maybe even... I don't know.. a small child.. maybe even specifically a small child.. Maybe some kind of genetic issues... Maybe his dad was kinda small too, and he doesn't get much in terms of first pick in the after school dodgeball game.. Maybe people call him short and poke him in his little tiny-person face, and he's decided he's going to study his physiologically underprivileged ass off, (be damned that flawed educational system that will make him pay tens of thousands dollars to do so!!), to get back at all of those tall good looking kids all the popular girls in the fifth grade have crushes on.. Yeah.. Why would the wimp kid slump into Napoleonic fetal position under his nuclear winter fearing desk at the idea of such a law?! Could it be, as the Gates Foundation warns on their article: 'Top Ten Fast Facts About Post-Secondary Education', conveniently located on their website, (www.gatesfoundation.org), because "The average cost of tuition and fees at a public four-year college in 2009-10 was $7,020 – a 235-percent increase since 1980-81.", (numbers which many studies strongly suggest are not in line with inflation)?Or could it be that the current cost of post-secondary schooling in conjunction with the fiscal effects officials say the ratification of the 'Question 3' law would impose on elementary and secondary school budgets would mean that tiny Johnny boy better get real used to rejection? I wouldn't know personally, because I'm attractive. Still, for some hardly intelligible reason, plenty of people across the state, especially teachers and public education officials, are standing up against the proposition in an effort to stop a supposed $2.5 billion reduction in local aid for the state.

Critics of the proposed law argue that the kind of loss observed by a "yes" vote would deplete all public services enough to give us nightmares of FEMA showing up fashionably late to our "Oh Lord Please Help Us We're In Dire Need!" Mardi Gras party . The indiscernible verbal ass kickings on the subject appear to come down to a fundamental disagreement in the country, radiating in every election this fall. Taxes. In Massachusetts, a historical reference is never lost during these debates, as proved by the vice president of the Massachusetts Package Store Association Ron Maloney when claiming that the recent tax on alcohol in the state has already contributed to a large drop in his store's sales, suggesting that without implementing the law Question 3 proposes, the situation may become dire. "Forty to nearly fifty percent of what you pay for a bottle of alcohol is tax. I remember some guys throwing some tea into the harbor over just such an issue", said the gentleman in an interview with Metro West Daily News Correspondent Brittany Danielson. And he's damned right! I too remember some guys who threw some tea into the harbor over not being able to get shit-faced at tax free prices! Who wants to think about paying taxes to big government when they're out getting plastered and trolling for BU undergrads who may be confused and intrigued by the thought of experimentation?!

Still the opposition stands stronger than the hold Rush Limbaugh's ass has on Michael Steele's pursing lips. While the concern is entirely composed of the depletion of all state funded public services, the greatest concern on the side of the naysayers seems to be the proposition's effect on the public school systems of Mass. It is specifically this argument that I find as difficult to keep down as a drunken late night menu order after a trip to the Allston bar scene and a night with a Craigslist "masseuse".

Strong and true patriotic Americans, such as the Boston Herald Editorial Staff in their October 7th Editorial 'Yes on Question 3', are standing up in defense of this proposition saying: "Sometimes a proposition is known by the enemies it makes - and lining up against the tax rollback are all the usual suspects." God bless them for standing up against the radical left wing elementary, middle, and high school students who want to kick-start their American dream with a valid and adequately funded public education system! These parasitic little mini-persons hardly understand the real America composed of what patriots like Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck have so rightly named 'The Folks'! Seriously.. They actually hardly understand 'The Folks'... In their ill deserved defense, a lot of them just got over their object permanence dilemma. And in all fairness.. 'The Folks' hardly understand 'The Folks'... 'The Folks' seem harder to recognize and locate than diversity in the history of US presidents... Though there is that one guy... But he's a socialist.... Regardless, the Boston Herald Editorial Staff is making a strong patriotic point! As such, you know the radical left wing media is going to claim their 'disconnect' from the American voter. So let's go straight to the source and access the thoughts of voting supporters for some feedback!

Reporter and editor Nancy Reardon, in an article made available on Wickedlocal.com entitled 'Sales Tax Cut Ballot Question Is Causing A Stir', spoke to Sandra Plasical, 18, a student at Quincy College and a supporter of the law Question 3 proposes. She was quoted on the policy as saying, "It benefits people who aren't financially stable and people who are financially stable probably don't care." And she's right. The most financially stable people in this country are elementary and secondary school pupils! For the most part they don't even pay taxes! They can't even reach the counter where the registers are! Why would they care about a tax decrease, (other thanall the points previously outlined)? Even further in the same article, Reardon questioned Quincy resident Dan Cotter, 30. The sir had this to say on the matter: ""It's a tough economy, and I think that Massachusetts already has a pretty high sales tax". And that's a damned good point Mr. Cotter! Massachusetts, with a 6.25% sales tax, as Reardon adequately points out, "Falls in the middle nationwide". It is in this regard that we as Bay State citizens need to heed the wise words of Lil Jon & The Eastside Boyz and "Get Low", (feel free to disregard their slightly less relevant policies on "Windows","Walls", and the target route of "sweat").

Yes the consensus seems to be that we should "Get Low"-er, as Question 3 proposes, than the state of Alabama which currently employs a 4% sales tax, (though the state also employs additional local taxes which can "Get Low" to the tune of a combined total sales tax of 12%, (as provided by the Alabama Department of Revenue)). Or maybe we should try and compete with the lowest state taxes in the country, states like Alaska, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, and O'Donnell's seemingly 'wicked' Delaware, all of which employ a 0% state sales tax! Further research revealed small discrepancies to the argument unfortunately as Alaska, Oregon, and New Hampshire municipalities often levy up to 7.5%, 8%, and 9% sales taxes respectively. But don't let the facts stand in your way! Fox News doesn't, and they make a killing!

The most important fact is that the passing of Question 3 will put on average $688 a year back into the pocket of every Massachusetts resident, according to www.Bollotpedia.org. So what's the big deal? Who cares if we have to cut school programs and maybe even close a couple dozen schools to get our thousands of tiny increments that, though worthless in and of themselves, will amount to about $700 dollars at the end of the year? It's these tough decisions that are testing the values of our country's ill informed and yet highly entertained voters. And it's this argument on the effects of the proposition on public school funds that brings us to todays Less Than Modest Proposal.