Tom the Dancing Bug by Ruben Bolling for January 27, 2001

Transcript:

What is "IT"? Rumors have been buzzing all over the web about a mysterious earth-shattering invention that will change the world. Bigger than the internet, more profitable than software, society will be rebuilt around "IT." What could "IT" possibly be? Frantic searches of patent applications have yielded a few candidates... Title: "Compassionate Conservatism" Abstract: Regardless of the individual's (12) intelligence or ability, repeated utterance of this phrase will lead to inexplicable leaps in the individual's power and position (provided the individual's father is a former President of the United States). Further coupled with the insistent use of the phrase "I'm a uniter, not a divider" and photo-ops at elementary schools (31), this will enable the individual to make old-school conservative, and breath-takingly divisive, decisions once in power. Title: Ultra-Teflon Presidency Abstract: An improvement on the existing Teflon Presidency, described in U.S. patent no. 56925645-2 (Reagan et al.), this combines a bubble economy with empathetic lip-biting (24) to amazingly allow the user (16) to avoid the consequences of any action, even criminal behavior, such as perjury. While in office, prosecution is avoided because it is a private wrong that should not have a political punishment. When out of office, prosecution is avoided because there is no political will to pursue a private wrong. Title: Political-Power-To-Money Conversion Device Abstract: Most methods of converting political into cold cash (19) are inconvenient, cumbersome and time-consuming. This invention finally perfect the smooth an instantaneous sale of such power to media interest (7) through the artifice of an advance on a publishing contract (11). Some ostensible reason for the large cash pay-out must exist, such as promised revelations regarding the Ultra-Teflon Presidency of the user's (3) spouse (patent pending). Title: Strict Constructionist Activism Abstract: It may appear that blending two incompatible judicial philosophies is an innovation that would have little practical consequence. But by allowing judges to be unabashed activists in the name of advancing a strict constructionist agenda, this invention can actually decide an election and topple a government.