A man known as Outraged Richard commented on the nearing presidential election as the inanity wound down:

The qualifications for president seem to have boiled down to the parroting chatter of “Kerry good, Bush bad” drowning out the din of “Bush good, Kerry bad,” or was it the other way around? As the forced choice vote between two unqualified candidates draws near, the realization that this year’s presidential race was a complete sham is soon forgotten. From the slinging about of meaningless statistics to the last minute pandering to the parades of externally motivated victims, it makes me want to vomit.

Short of a terrorist attack tomorrow (in which case, I believe Bush would be more suited to handle such an attack), I will be casting a “Candidates Are Unqualified” vote in the write-in section. Despite the election ballot not specifically allowing that choice, I should be able to cast a “No” vote if I believe the candidates to be unqualified. Should not the politicians know of the dissent of the citizens?

What about the definition of family, values based education, illegal immigrants, prison reform, and the environment, to name a few issues, to be addressed in the right way which a qualified presidential candidate would wholeheartedly address?

Some may argue Bush is better than Kerry and I may agree with that. Bush acknowledges that he has to do what is right for the country even if it is unpopular. Kerry seems to be swayed to pander to popular opinion which is nothing more than what a majority of people happen to think. Now if Bush would carry out his “doing what is right” principle more consistently we might have some solid direction in America.

In conclusion, I think a bit on the future First Lady is in order here, because she plays an integral role in the presidency. Well, that is until they finally remove the distinctions and values of being a man or a woman, and two men or two women would be just as good for the presidency. There is a sweetness about Laura Bush where Teresa Heinz has a repulsiveness. If being a woman means something good, Laura exemplifies that and Teresa abhors it like a vampire shying from the light.

What's really wrong with the Middle East? What won't your worthless local newspaper tell you? That Middle Eastern people have twisted their religion into a female-based religion, hence the restrictions, veils, beatings, and honor-killings on women.

The religion of Islam should point men and women equally to God as the higher authority. Instead, the Islamic religious fervor seeks God through the fallible nature of female attention which results in earthly concerns and emotional excitement.

Making sure the woman is wearing a head scarf to the market, or some other conforming nonsense, becomes important only in the emotional mind of earthly attachments. Women treated in these ways cause them to resent men because women know in their hearts that their subjugation is wrong. Women then become a hateful guiding influence and a reinforcement for the trivial thoughts bouncing around in men's heads.

Oddly, their inept religious "leaders" tell them this way of relating to other people is right. Males and females in Middle Eastern countries are thus locked into a violent embrace: females stewing with resentment and males acting out their hatred through violent means. Everyone here, even God, is floundering around on an absurd level of human existence.

While foreign terrorism is promoted as our main threat, the U.S. is cowering from an unrelenting assault by its own inhabitants. Despite statistics that claim violent crime is reducing, U.S. violence and crime is still a massive ongoing problem, even if it were cut by 75% or more. Criminal gangs, thieves, and drug pushers tyrannize American society with murders, beatings, and intimidation on a grand scale.

Since police are not maintaining the peace, it has been proposed by a man named Outraged Richard that the National Guard should be promptly activated to patrol problem areas of all large cities, and a curfew initiated and ID checks conducted on all suspected rabble-rousers. Concurrent with the National Guard deployment, Mr. Outraged recommends a general promotion of moral family values, in order that the youthful generation should find greater things past thieving and maiming.

As obesity rates skyrocket in America and health experts provide statistics on our burgeoning rolls of flab, the correct understanding of why a person is overweight is drowned out by the innumerable gnashing of jaws eager to force down that last pound of greasy burger.

Telling a person to eat a smaller portion of that greasy burger, however, or even to exercise more addresses not in the least the motivations for gorging on that burger.

First to understand is that you have a wrong relationship with food and that the food isn't the problem. What is wrong is the wrong that enters into you when you eat: pride, forgetfulness, guilt, and other failures of the human spirit. You overeat to reinforce this wrong in you. Overeating even serves to redirect the blood away from the brain to prevent you from realizing this.

Eating should be a little thing, but it has become a big thing. We should eat only to revitalize us towards achieving higher levels of human existence, such as understanding why we had formerly eaten too much.

The presidential elections are coming soon and a poll shows that George Bush's smooth comb job has an edge over John Kerry's vicious pompadour, according to Wahl Clipper Corporation. Currently, voters have no other criteria to determine the better president, especially after the tightly controlled debates of only 2 candidates consisted of the flinging about of statistics that, as factcheck.org points out, are often wrong or misleading.

But because of U.S. Code 12.3.656.9 (It shall be unlawful for any citizen to make a value judgment that one thought, thing, or action is better than another) the hair pollsters and participants are under investigation now for their hair judgments.

Those close with the investigation say the hair judging case will come to trial well after the presidential elections, and because hair judging has not been specifically disallowed by the courts, voters are still able to have at least this one criteria to reason their vote on.