Man with 79 IQ wins governor seat in Arizona

FROM THE FUTURE: Phoenix, Ariz. Nov. 3, 2010. Madness swept the country on the evening of Nov. 2, as voters turned out in record numbers to cast their ballots in what has become the most derisive election year in recent history.

But not a single pundit predicted the unprecedented victory of Paris Hilton’s fingernail cleaner, Rufus Berkowitz. “The Berk,” as he calls himself, received 79 percent of the vote in his home state of Arizona, and became the first man with an IQ under 80 to be elected to public office in the United States.

“Arizona is [a] good state,” The Berk said in his victory speech at the Hooters near Metroman Mall in Phoenix. “Is really, really, really good that those dumb [expletive] ain’t gonna run the show.”

Arizona voters seemed thrilled to have The Berk as their next governor.

When Javier Perez heard the news he took off running like a madman, belting Spanish phrases of jubilation as police officers chased him around the block screaming for his identification. After a thorough background check, DNA analysis and full-cavity body search, the authorities released the 31-year-old painter from Mesa. But Perez would net let the police ruin this special day.

“This is a great day for everyone,” he said, as he removed a wedgie. “Not only is The Berk gonna clean house, he’s gonna make sure that all Mexican laborers get free sandwiches on Fridays.”

The Berk’s passion for Friday feedings of the entire Arizona populace was one of his main running points. Republican incumbent Jan Brewer was shocked at The Berk’s sweep of the election.

“I’m appalled,” Brewer said at her loser’s press conference. “It’s as if the great people of the state of Arizona would prefer to have a retard running things than Mr. [Terry] Goddard or I.”

Democratic candidate Goddard was equally bemused.

“You can’t have a person run the state who can’t even count to 10,” he said. “It’s just not good governance.”

When The Berk learned of his adversaries’ statements, he was filled with anger.

“I can count to 10,” he said. “One, two, [three], four, five, [six], [seven], eight, nine, 10,” he said, to a mix of thunderous applause and confused stares. “Eat that [expletive] Goddard!”

For Linda Brown, a retired court clerk, there was nothing interesting about Goddard or Brewer, but The Berk’s platform spoke to her core values. “Those two don’t have a clue, but The Berk’s a real man,” Brown said, over tacos and tequila at Don Juan’s Taco Taxi in Phoenix. “I worked for the state for 41 years, and I gotta tell you, there’s nothing but crooks and thieves running the place. It’s time for a change. Go get ‘em Berk!”

The Berk also promised to criminalize farting in public, with suggested penalties ranging from forced readings of Sarah Palin’s book Going Rogue, to changing the 13,000 compact fluorescent light bulbs in Al Gore’s mansion. Although harsh, The Berk claims these consequences will deter people from emanating disagreeable odors, a fact which The Berk said “causes the ozone to get [expletive]-up.”

Perhaps the leading factor in The Berk’s win was his impeccable military record, according to political analyst Darryl McCombs of the Nuremberg Institute for Genocidal Rehabilitation and Organizational Education. “A NIGROE poll taken a week before the election indicated that The Berk was favored because of his 139 confirmed kills in Iraq,” McCombs said in his busy office in Waco, Texas. “People also said that they felt like they could trust him, because Paris Hilton trusted him for several months with her fingernails – which aren't even insured!”

As an independent, The Berk stole votes from both sides of the isle, eliciting a fury in the House and Senate. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that she almost choked on her organic tofu tuna veggie burrito when she heard the news of The Berk’s victory. “I’m just glad he’s not coming to Washington,” Pelosi said at her sweatshop in Indonesia. “Arizona could use a little shaking up. Isn’t cocaine legal there?”

The Berk raised an impressive $342 million for the campaign, receiving money from donors such as Mariah Carey, Ryan Seacrest, Hugh Hefner, Lady Gaga, that creepy midget guy whose in all those movies, and Rush Limbaugh. In a statement, Limbaugh said that The Berk is “the right man for Arizona.”

“Listen, all this talk about intelligence is moot,” Limbaugh said. “If intelligence was a prerequisite for public office, how in the hell did George W. make it? Wait a second, are we on record?”

Not to be outdone by stupid statements, Sean “P-Ditty Daddy Corn Puffs” Combs said that he couldn’t believe that a “cream-colored man who hates tacos can be elected in Arizona... But I like the dude. He smells like Purell. I like Purell.”

After Combs’ statement, Purell donated $50,000 to Combs’ charity, Get Out and Vote Even if You’re Uninformed. The Berk was also endorsed by Purell, as well as Walmart, Nike, McDonalds, Starbucks, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, the Mortgage Bankers Association and the countries of North Korea, Iran and Israel. “Thank God for Citizens United!” The Berk said, in a rare moment of lucidity.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that he was thrilled to finally have something in common with Israel.

“Arizona, although part of the Zionist conspiracy, represents cool stuff,” Ahmadinejad said at a press conference for men. “If The Berk can take Arizona, maybe there is hope for United States and their scantily clad, cleavage-laden, voluptuous, curvy, nipples...” Ahmadinejad then quickly ran off the podium, holding his groin and muttering incoherently.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu mostly agreed with Ahmadinejad. “I sometimes have spontaneous emissions as well,” he said. “But only since we’ve been resettling in the Gaza Strip. It feels sooo good to be bad!”

When asked about The Berk, Netanyahu said that he respects the man’s straightforwardness and honesty. “He tells it like it is,” Netanyahu said, over pork sandwiches and oysters overlooking the destruction of squalid Palestinian houses. “Arizona needs a straight shooter, someone who can kick out all the immigrants. That’s the kind of man I would want in my government.”

At the top of The Berk’s list is to establish a public-private partnership with K-Y Brand to develop a sexual lubricant using DNA from pop superstar Madonna. “I used to bang Madonna,” claimed The Berk. “I used to bang all sorts of chicks. I had a threesome with Pelosi and Palin. I don’t discriminate.”

The Berk said that his goal is to save women the “trouble of getting turned on.” Sales of the lubricant will fund sex education in public schools, and could help to reduce tax rates. “It was Palin’s idea,” The Berk humbly admitted. “She’s truly brilliant.”

Palin could not be reached for comment, but her assistant’s personal assistant’s spokesperson said that “Mrs. Palin has never slept with Mr. Berkowitz. She only sleeps with her relatives, and she clearly has no polak in her blood.”

The Berk begins his four-year term in January. He is divorced three times and has nine children by seven mothers, and three children through sperm donations to gay couples.

Free market orgasms at thought of liquor store privatization

After nearly 80 years of state-controlled liquor sales, Virginians are on the verge of tasting booze not tainted by the hands of Uncle Sam. And thank goodness. The idea of having low alcohol-related death rates means nothing when there are millions to be made by the sale of the commonwealth’s liquor stores. God bless capitalism.

In a Sept. 13, 2010 press release, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli stated that “Virginians who are concerned that alcohol-related problems, such as under-aged drinking and drunk driving fatalities, will increase under privatization, they can be assured that the research has shown there is no greater incidence of alcohol-related problems in states with private ownership of liquor stores than in states with government ownership.”

Cuccinelli’s “research” reference is a report drafted by the Virginia Institute for Public Policy – a conservative think tank. In the report, objectively referred to as “Impaired Judgement: The Failure of Control States to Reduce Alcohol-Related Problems,” authors and economists Donald J. Boudreaux, PhD, and Julia Williams concluded that “the alleged health benefits of government-spirits monopolies are illusory,” and that “detailed regression analysis using data from all 50 states and D.C. finds no statistically significant relationship between the rates of drunk-driving fatalities in control states and such fatalities in license states.”

Gov. Bob McDonnell is certainly taking this information and running with it. At at time when state revenues are falling and unemployment is rising, the governor’s proposal to generate $500 million from the sale of the state’s liquor stores to fund transportation projects in the commonwealth seems a win-win. Jobs will be created as retail locations expand their staff to handle the new inventory, and liquor stores currently operated by g-men will turn over to Joe the (drunk) plumber.

Our fledgling Virginia Department of Transportation will get a much needed injection of capital so that we won’t have to weave around potholes on I-64 anymore. After all, $500 million represents a hefty 15 percent addition to VDOT’s FY 2011 budget of $3.3 billion. Annual liquor sales from ABC stores in 2009 only generated $111.7 million, and last time I counted to the millions, I remember arriving to 111 million waaaaay before I got to 500 million. So we’re making out like bandits, right?

But wait. I forgot. The $500 million is a one time deal. But surely the revision of Virginia’s Alcoholic Beverage Control regulations will ensure an adequate tax on spirits, as it currently taxes wine and beer which generate roughly $150 million in annual tax revenue for the state. Privatizing and taxing liquor sales would generate revenue, so the revenue question could be moot.

But what about the rock-solid data provided by the objective and agenga-free Virginia Institute for Public Policy? Who cares that the VIPP board of directors is strewn with die-hard conservatives with affiliation to all sorts of partisan organizations, like the Cato Institute, Radio America and Oliver North? It doesn’t matter, not when you’re talking about privatization. Privatization is always the way to go, look how well it’s worked in the health insurance industry. Every American has inexpensive health care and nobody experiences double-digit percentage increases in their annual health insurance costs. Give the lion the jungle and she will find her feast. Duh!

Boudreaux and Williams assert that there is no difference in alcohol-related health risks between the 18 states that currently control liquor sales verses the rest of the country that simply tax it. Their report is a testament to their strenuous and educated effort to illuminate this controversial issue with unbiased representation. It doesn’t matter that states which only tax liquor sales experience 79 more alcohol related deaths out of 10,000 auto fatalities than states which control sales. It’s only 79 more people dead. It’s not statistically significant.

Of course when you reduce the equation, the numbers do seem insignificant as Boudreaux and Williams are quick to point out:

What about drunk-driving fatalities? Here, too, there is no statistically significant relationship between control states and license states. The average annual number of drunk-driving fatalities for control states was 31.06 per 100 driving fatalities (or 31.06 percent of motor vehicle fatalities were alcohol related in control states) in 2008; the average annual number of drunk-driving fatalities for license states in 2008 was 31.85. The national average was 31.57 per 100 driving fatalities.

Now, I’m no mathematician, but I know a little about decimals. I also know that people are not decimal points. In 2008, drunk drivers accounted for 31.85 percent of auto fatalities in states that did not regulate liquor sales. But in the interest of human decency, let’s say that 3,185 deaths out of 10,000 auto fatalities were alcohol related in “free market” states. It doesn’t really matter that Boudreaux and Williams forgot to mention that these numbers are for alcohol-related fatalities, and not alcohol-impaired fatalities which are actually a greater percentage of driving fatalities. But that information wouldn’t support the privatization argument, so bury that data!

Now let’s look at the control states, and let’s see if we can use the same data Boudreaux and Williams used to put real numbers in a real context. In 2008, there were 84.5 million people living in the 18 states that control liquor sales. According to the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration, there were 9,754 auto fatalities in 2008 in those eighteen states, and of those fatalities, 3,029 were alcohol-related. But if alcohol was not state controlled, those numbers could have increased to 3,107 people, meaning an additional 78 people could have died in those 18 states.

But 78 people is statistically insignificant according to Boudreaux and Williams, especially when there’s bucks to be made.

The VPPI report indicated that the United States averages 3,157 alcohol-related deaths per 10,000 auto fatalities. So states that regulate the sale of liquor are lower than both the national average and the average of states that license the sale of liquor to private industry. Strange how the same data can be looked at through two completely different lenses. I just prefer to assume that human beings are better suited as whole numbers rather than fractions, but that could just be my narrow communistic perspective.

The convoluted term “statistically insignificant” refers to the deviation in the actual statistic, which in this case was plus/minus 5 percent, meaning that actual data does not reflect extenuating circumstances and other mitigating factors than can skew the data. So the numbers could be much higher or much lower. But in reality, we know that limiting access limits consumption. Improving access improves consumption. It’s not a scientific survey, it’s common sense. With more hospitals, prices go down and more people are served, right? The more grocery stores we have, the more food that’s available to be purchased, prices go down, and fewer people will go hungry, right? Isn’t that a basic tenant of economics?

But for some reason, the conservative businesspeople on capitol slope think that improving access to alcohol will only benefit the commonwealth because of the much needed jobs that will be generated. Who care that dozens more people could die per year? At least the family and friends of the deceased won’t have to drive so far to purchase their mourning-specific beverage of choice to help them dull the pain of their loss.

Give them games, declares Ceasar. Give them spirits to dull their minds. Entertain them. Keep them fat and happy and you can get away with murder. Fill the Gulf of Mexico with oil and then forget it all with the World Cup.

If the Commonwealth of Virginia is going to privatize its state-run liquor stores, then it’s high time it legalizes medicinal marijuana.

When alcohol prohibition was appealed in 1933, the state established the Liquor Control Committee to “examine and propose a plan for liquor control in the Commonwealth,” and so began our commie takeover of the booze business. Nearly 80 years later we’ve gotten to the point where we want to give the reigns to Joe the (drunk) plumber. Why can’t we start the same process with marijuana, so that 80 years from now we can hand control over to Joe the (high) plumber? Government has no business regulating the sale of drugs anyway.

Oh, wait a minute. What about the Food and Drug Administration? Let’s just get rid of the FDA, too. Pharmaceutical companies always have our best interests at heart. They never sell a drug with a laundry list of side effects that includes death (and if you experience death please be sure to contact your doctor right away).

But let’s be realistic. At least marijuana has documented medical effects. The drug Sativex was recently introduced in Europe and Canada, and its active ingredient is natural THC – the active chemical in marijuana – extracted directly from the cannibis sativa plant and used to treat pain and spasticity associated with multiple sclerosis. There are more than a dozen medications that use cannabinoid compounds which interact with the same neural receptors as THC. Fourteen states including Washington, D.C. have passed medical marijuana laws, and the FDA does not have a single death claim attributed directly to medicinal use of marijuana, whereas tens of thousands of people have died from other “legal” drugs.

But we’d much rather legalize something synthetic because it’s easier to control and it’s better for business. Criminalizing a natural plant that was here before we walked the earth is an exercise in self-deification, an unforgivable act of hubris that sums up everything that’s wrong with society. Why don’t we make avocados illegal, because they have so much fat? Fat kills people way faster than marijuana, there’s no disputing that fact. Of course, marijuana might make a person more susceptible to consuming fat after a bout with the munchies, but that’s an issue of self-control, not a legal consideration.

Legalize marijuana, tax it and reap the benefits. Especially now that ABC stores are going private. What better time to take advantage of the loosening of the Man’s grip on free enterprise than to introduce a medicinal plant to the marketplace? I’m sure that Phizer and Roche and Bayer and all the big dogs will come out with their heady brand of ganja-liciousness: Weedex. Herbitol. Reefergra.

Philip Morris will have it’s brand, it’s smooth smoking Greenports that will start off as medicinal and 50 years from now there will be a lawsuit against them because they added chemicals to the ganja to ensure maximum addiction. Then they’ll be forced to fund a campaign that tells everyone how bad marijuana is and they’ll begin integrating with other markets and business ventures to clean up their act in the public eye.

Sell them ABC buildings. What are they doing in the government’s hands anyway? Being controlled and regulated? PFF! Whatever. Let the Joes and Joans of the world handle it. The world is already overpopulated, and the more people who die will be good for the mortician business. Long live free market eugenics!

A Christian Defense of Socialism

Socialism. What a dirty word. It conjures up pink and red images that strike our inner Joseph McCarthy with paranoid precision. Not everyone, of course. But enough of us to communicate to the rest of the world that backward thinking is the status quo in America.

I don’t believe that any one type of government is right or wrong. We are so far away from perfection that it is silly to assume we will get there in the next 100 years. The travesty is the “good vs. evil” mentality that plagues American government and its politics like a ravenous cancer – unmitigated and relentless as it eats the raw talent and creativity of our increasingly disillusioned populace. Draped in good intentions, our leaders’ blind ambition leaves a trail of unintended consequences in its boastful wake, leaving people wondering why. Why are one-fifth of homeowners foreclosing on their homes? Why have banks gotten away with murder, and somehow proven that their victims are responsible for their own deaths? How is that even possible?

It is the failure of capitalism and the disastrous effects of an unrestrained free market and an incompetent government with ridiculous policies and economic demands. Make no mistake, whether the democrats or republicans are in power, neither will create a policy that hurts business, and why should they? Capital is the driving force of the modern economy. It’s not commodities or services, there is no scarcity anymore. It’s a manufactured scarcity, an elite propaganda that represents the fall of humankind and the strength of Babylon.

I’m sure I sound crazy to many people. That’s fine, I don’t mind that perception. What’s crazy to me is that we have all bought into this system, a system of valueless currency and manufactured scarcity. A system of vertical integration and underhanded monopolies. We accept our ridiculous fate because our own demands on our own lives are too much to reconsider, and to actually create substantial change would put our lifestyles at risk. It’s a style of life that we have manufactured, and that’s why we accept slaps on the wrist as consequences for murder. If we seek blood, we may have to do our part of the cleaning up, and that’s asking too much of us. We have our own blood to clean up.

This is the mentality that will be our destruction. This illusion that our individuality is more important than our infinite and primal connection to each other. It is here where I should quote Karl Marx, but in his stead I choose to paraphrase C.S. Lewis. We are all ships in a fleet heading towards the same destination. If one ship goes down, the entire fleet is hurt.

This is why we have law, isn’t it? To protect individuals from hurting themselves or from hurting society, right? Let’s say there is a man who consistently hurts himself – a perpetual perpetrator of “victimless” crimes such as drug use. Sure, he’s not directly hurting anyone other than himself, but what about the ramifications? Who is he hurting indirectly? Family? Friends? Coworkers? Strangers?

An odd element of life that I find fascinating is the ripple effect of our actions and how necessarily ignorant we are of the infinite consequences associated with even the most mundane tasks. Anyone who uses drugs to escape the pain of their existence has admitted to the world that the world is not worth dealing with and creating an alternate reality is their best option. Just being in the same room as this person, even if you never even make eye contact with him, takes away from your own ability to cope with reality. If he’s off in his own world and you’re here in the real world, doesn’t that make the real world that much more difficult? As if the daily rigors of life aren’t enough, now we have people who have decided their own rigor is not worth worrying about. It’s like trying to lose weight and being surrounded my overeaters. Life is difficult enough without others making it more difficult by the residual effects of their individual choices.

Think about it. Say you’re the only sober person in a room full of stoners, or acid trippers or smack heads, whatever. Is your experience going to be easier than their’s? The same? Harder? Of course there are numerous approaches to this situation, depending of course on your personal disposition. You could have the best time in the world. You could make your own fun at their expense. You could pity them and try to show them the way. You could run away in anger and disgust. Suffice to say people are already quirky enough in reality, and to deal with them during their moments of escape adds unnecessary stress and strain to the fledgling human condition.

This applies to “legal” pharmaceuticals also. Anything that effects our body chemistry in an unnatural way subjects our minds to alternate perceptions. Sometimes this is good, but it’s an easy answer to a long-term problem that only meditation and prayer and human interaction can truly cure. You can suckle on a tree all you want, but only a mother’s milk can make a baby grow naturally.

So where is the Christianity in all this? Everywhere. Yehoshua, also known as Jesus, spoke plainly about the importance of being your brother’s keeper. According to Yehoshua, the greatest commandment is to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself. To love your neighbor as yourself means that we should not separate ourselves from our neighbors, that we are united in one body.

The apostle Paul wrote scores of letters addressing this very issue. In his letter to the church of Ephesus, Paul asks the people to “Bear with one another charitably, in complete selflessness, gentleness and patience. Do all you can to persevere the unity of the Spirit by the peace that binds you together... If we live by the truth and in love, we shall grow in all ways into Christ, who is the head by whom the whole body is fitted and joined together, every joint adding its own strength, for each separate part to work according to its function. So the body grows until it has built itself up in love.”

The only difference between Christian philosophy and socialism is the apex of each ethos. Christianity has Christ, socialism has the state. The workers unite to work for the common good of the state just as Christians are called to unite to spread the light of Christ. Karl Marx asks for people to put aide their personal ambition and strive for societal equilibrium. Yehoshua asks for people to be reborn in the spirit, put aside their childish ways and love your enemies. Although Marx is credited with establishing the atheist state, in reality all he did was attempt to replace God with the state and replace worshiping God with worshiping your fellow human beings.

Communism failed in its idealism. It fails to see the effect of power on an institution’s ability to rule. It failed to grasp the power of power, whereas capitalism embraces our weaknesses. Capitalism exploits human desire and takes advantage of our innate selfishness. Neither path is correct for people. We can’t force people to be equal when our egos tell us otherwise, and we can’t expect equality when people will do whatever it takes to push themselves ahead of the others.

But socialism, without the political effluent of communism, is more meaningful and just for a society that calls itself Christian than a capitalist system. Again, socialism is not the answer, but it is part of a solution if carried out in a democratic fashion utilizing certain workable elements of capitalism. One could argue that the impotence of our social security system is evidence that socialism is wrong. I would argue that a bad policy doesn't destroy a good concept. Just because some Christians are lunatics and scream for war with Islam doesn't mean Christianity is a religion of hate. Bad apples.

To fear socialism is to fear ourselves, it’s to fear the very call to be united for the survival of each other.

I’d like to propose a scenario. Imagine if 50 years ago, the United States invested more money in its education system than in the military. What if we made it mandatory to learn three languages in elementary school? What if it were mandatory for high school students to spend one year in a developing country before graduation? What if we taught the essence of religion and philosophy through exploration and active community engagement? What if we taught math and science with practical applications using engineering and modern medicine as teaching platforms? What if the public educational experience became the one and only thing that was talked about during a political campaign? Imagine if those children grew up and took the reigns and led our country forward and were our leaders today. Would we still have had this mortgage collapse? Would we be hovering at 10 percent unemployment? Would we be at war in Afghanistan and in Iraq? Would Vietnam have happened? Would Watergate and McCarthyism have happened?

Obviously these hypothetical questions are pointless to ponder, but the possibilities are fascinating. Taking care of each other and each other’s children is vital for the survival of the human species and our planet. We want more people to become doctors, right? More doctors means lower health care costs, right? We want more people to become teachers and social workers and engineers and technology experts, right? Doesn’t that improve a society by having more skilled professionals? Or is it better to let people figure it out themselves, and thus perpetuate our Darwinist class system and deepen the divide between individuals and society?

Without each other what are we? A collection of atoms randomly floating in a mass until we are recycled back into the universe. That’s depressing. I prefer to be considered as part of a whole, a functional arm on the body of society. Not only are we responsible for each other, but for every living creature and inorganic molecule that has been entrusted to us. We are stewards of the earth and of each other, not self-absorbed tourists infatuated with consumption at all cost.

René Descartes’ concept that thought creates existence is incorrect. It is positive interaction with life that creates existence. Existence without meaning is not existence, it is immaterial being. No man or woman is an island, and until we can learn that we are each a functional ship in a fleet trying to make our destination before sunset, we will continue to hurt ourselves – either consciously or otherwise – in our attempts to improve our individual situations.

The only true path to enlightenment is to lift someone else up. Until the day comes when all hands are held together and falling will be a distant memory.