4/26/04

The Fourth Branch

by Rick Rucker

My fellow Americans and citizens of the web: let me say, firstly, that I have the greatest respect for our system. You know, as I, that our democratic governmental structures, taken partially from the British framework and further inspired by great enlightenment philosophers, have served us well. All over the world, hopeful nations have adopted the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government with some success. The horrors of unlimited executive power, crying out plaintively both from history and the present, continually reaffirm the compromise of our constitution as the best hope for containing megalomaniacal lunatics by forcing them to compete with other megalomaniacal lunatics in a kind of game that the people can watch and bitch about.

While few but on the wackjob fringes would advocate scrapping our system entirely, the faults therein are vast and frequently cited. Narrow special interests bankroll campaigns. Politicians play upon an oft ignorant public's baser sensibilities with PR salvos unrelated to real issues. Monied interests disproportionately affect decision-making. A dearth of real variance exists between agendas of politicians of both parties, fostering continued public apathy.

Robert Byrd's "honest," "rational" approach to discourse routinely baffles fellow senators. Unfortunately he's a pork-mad tool, but we take what we can get.

While checks and balances are essential, old critiques of democracy are yet affirmed. Mob rule is still a liability. Despite the widely held aversion to war in Iraq all over the world, the hubristic culture of American national interest in conjunction with demagoguery led to disproportionately large levels of support. The soundbite-inclined senators reaffirmed what is now known to be bullshit about Iraqi WMDs, challenged seriously only by Real Man Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia. His fiery oration, emitted ironically from his near-death body, must embarrass his fellow senators, whose rhetoric is closer to Romero zombies hungry for brains than Thomas Jefferson.

Self-interest and often sheep-like party politics infect our system. A truly wise and benevolent monarchy would be optimal for governance, but history has demonstrated the impossibility of this "perfect" person. But might it be possible to integrate a modicum of monarchic advantages into the current framework without disturbing the current checks and balances too radically? I believe so. And if we can do it here in the USA, reform may follow everywhere, thusly Changing the World.

In the event Mr. Rucker cannot fulfill his duties, Joe Don Baker will act as enforcer.

Section 1. Mr. Richard Allen Rucker will henceforth be immune to executive authority, and in himself constitute a new branch of government, called the Hit People with a Large Stick branch.

Section 2. This stick will be 2 inches by four inches, and a yard long, made of good lumber, repaired or replaced as needed.

Section 3. Mr. Richard Allen Rucker will hit any citizen in any state of the United States of America with this stick whenever he wants, as many times as he wants. For this task Mr. Rucker may temporarily utilize a state's police force. Mr. Rucker will yell anything he pleases while he hits the person with the stick.

Section 4. Mr. Richard Allen Rucker will appoint his successor, whereupon the powers granted to Mr. Rucker in this article shall be transferred to his successor.

Section 5. The Congress and the several states shall have no power to alter this article with legislation.

[END]

Good people, by granting me power to hit people with a stick, things will change--fast. I know we'll never get this thing ratified without overwhelming public support. So I aim to convince you that I'll be acting in your interests. For instance, want to know where Kerry really stands on the Patriot Act? He's been flip-flopping. We'll find out as I allow Fox to broadcast this particular session. A few hits to the leg, stomach and a tap to the head to let him know I mean business, and he'll shriek to whatever God he believes in precisely what he plans to do when in office. When he tells you, feel free to decide whether to elect him or not. I won't be beating him to extract the answer I personally want to hear. Just the truth.

However, say Kerry's elected and reverses his position. I will still be personally constituting my branch of government and have complete powers to call in Mr. President for another session. Are you beginning to see the merits of the fourth branch? Just a little monarchy --a touch of absolute authority. No purges or anything on that order. Just a realization for the swine that they might have to answer to someone. Someone with a stick. I won't even beat anyone to death with it intentionally. I will be objective and bipartisan.

Of course not all my decisions will necessarily please the majority of the populace. That's tough love. The Legislature, for instance, will hate me, but I think 20-30 years of sessions, and they will begin to see the advantages of telling the truth as best as they know how. I do promise that for each person I beat, I will release a justification letter. The public is free to debate these letters, and like a kind monarch, I will not beat them for criticizing my actions. I may even listen to suggestions.

I will beat rich and poor alike with my stick, but mostly those in the public sphere, well-known figures that prior to Amendment 28's ratification felt secure in their ethical squalor. Much as selective law-enforcement and selective lawsuits alter people's conduct on a large scale, selective beatings will force a self-awareness that will eventually permeate the highest levels. Especially the highest levels.

Situation 1: A politician campaigns on the platform "immigrants are stealing our jobs."

Rhetoric: "You want some more?! Bitch. You want it? Stop with the bullshit campaign! You're manipulating vulgar xenophobic tendencies! Get the fuck out of my sight. If I see another commercial like that one you had out there, I swear to Christ you'll be back here. And it'll be a lot worse."

Situation 2: President continually, intentionally conflates vengeance for terrorist attack with going to war with an unrelated country.

Rhetoric: "How's that feel? Why don't you cut the Goebbels shit, fuckface. Who you think you're talking to? Do I look like a fucking clown to you? Goddammit! Maybe now you'll think twice. What are you crying for? Owww...whis da little baby crying? Why don't you be a man? Look at yourself. You're the president of the United States and you're blubbering like a little baby. Go ahead, cry little baby. It won't help you."

Solution: Moderate Beating

Rhetoric: "Take it, take it bitch, take it, how's that, take it."

Situation 4: Major Coffeeshop rejects categories of "small, medium and large" for some frou-frou European-y names that mean the same thing.

Solution: Warning Letter

Rhetoric: "Cease and desist from aforementioned stupid designation for sizes or stick-beating will commence upon your upper management."

Situation 5: The FCC violates my sense of decency

Solution: Heavy Beatings

Rhetoric: "Who do you answer to, again? Oh yeah, you answer to me now." etc.

As you can see from these examples, the world should soon be a brighter, better place to live. Put democracy to work and alert your elected representatives today.