The Mediocre Experiment: Decisions

As I outlined yesterday, The Mediocre Experiment is just getting underway. Right now our fledgeling nation has three decisions before it.

Issue #1: It's time for the government to hire a new religious advisor. Your people have narrowed down the candidates to:

A) Catholic Archbishop Randy Shiomi: boasts an excellent track record, having rapidly increased church attendances in his constituencies through the "Reaching God Through Guilt" program. Seen as a solid choice.

B) New Age thinker Bianca Hendrikson: a left-field candidate with some radical ideas. "For me, it's not about the name of your religion. It's about discovering your spirituality in whatever guise that takes. Some people call that a cult: I call it taking spirituality to the people."

C) Finally, there's Calvin Jones. "If I am awarded the appointment, I will immediately resign," the ex-schoolteacher has declared. "Because, frankly, God is a big load of hokey. I'll be doing everyone a favor by just shutting up about it."

I'm going with A. Obama played on his religion a bit during the campaign. Not a whole lot, but enough.

Next up: Prospecting company Nukes4U has uncovered a large uranium deposit in The Magic O's south-west.

A) "This is a terrific find!" claims Nukes4U CEO Buy Li. "It will provide an enormous stimulus to our economy and create thousands of new jobs. It's win-win! All we need from the government is permission to bulldoze the rainforest that's on top of the deposit."

B) "You've got to be kidding," says Green politician Colin Hanover. "This rainforest is thousands of years old! This country needs more environmental protection, not less. And to destroy the environment in order to mine uranium that then goes into nuclear bombs--well, that really sticks in my craw."

C) "There's no need for an either-or decision," says the government's Minister for Mining, Clear-Felling, and the Environment. "We can preserve most of the rainforest and allow mining of a small part. After all, think of all the good that the money from this uranium deposit can bring to The Magic O."

This one is a no-brainer. It's B all the way. Obama, like many other politicians, is completely on the green train. Choo choo!

Finally: In response to a slow news week, certain highbrow newspapers have stirred up the debate over voluntary vs compulsory voting.

A) "Compulsory voting makes about as much as sense as having the death penalty for attempted suicide," says civil rights activist Peggy Li. "You can't force people to be free! You can only give them the choice. Besides, if all those derelicts who can't be bothered to get off their butts once every few years voted, who would they elect? I shudder to think."

B) "It's not contradictory at all," argues political commentator Larry Summers. "The fact is, if not everyone votes, the outcome isn't truly representative. Some groups--like elderly gun nuts--vote more often than others. That's why we always end up with such terrible politicians."

C) "This raises an interesting issue," says George W. McGuffin, your brother. "And that is: why do we need elections, anyway? Seems to me it would be much simpler if you just decided what was right, and did it. Wouldn't that save everyone a lot of time?"

B wins out again. You can't be relied upon to vote. So, the government will make sure you do. Sounds reasonable to me. How else can we be really representative?

Let me know what you think of my choices in the comments. I'll hold off on committing to the legislation for a bit. Remember, this isn't what you or I would choose. We aren't enlightened. This is what our fearless leader Comrade Obama would choose.