Boutros Boutros Clinton?

So once again the always entertaining, yet seldom accurate, political rumour mill is brimming with talk that impeached former President Bill Clinton is seeking the Secretary General position at the United Nations. I say, if the world at large and that corrupt organization wants him in, so be it: they get what they deserve. Just the fact that this mouth-breather has the audacity to think he can offer some much needed guidance and leadership to an otherwise sinking, obsolete, and worthless organization at a time when it needs precisely that, is astounding.

I by no means take credit for this, but I do want to further the notion that it is high time the U.N. picked up and moved to one of the third world countries for which it feigns such compassion. After all, it is currently taking up a very coveted strip of New York City real estate that I'm sure Trump and his ilk are dying to get their hands on. Should the headquarters be relocated, the change in it's collective disposition towards the United States would be palpable. Of course a better plan, despite a new found worldwide appreciation for America, would be for us to simply bid them all adieu and withdraw from that despicable fraternity of dictators.

And what better time? When the rube from Arkansas is sworn in as Secretary General. It would be perfect. I'd love to see Clinton running that meaningless (implicitly meaningless because the U.S. would not be there to give it the street cred it so desperately craves) organization from the confines of his heavily guarded compound deep in the Congo. But alas, it will probably stay in New York, and even if Clinton finagles his way in, we will probably remain members, because rocking the eco-political boat in today's world is reserved solely for the bad guys.

It's all Arthur C. Clarke's Fault

It's 2005 now, and I think it's high-time we as a society adopt a more succint way of referring to the years in this century. Something happened five years ago when we lost the very familiar and comfortable "nineteen", we now had a whole new century and it was simply cool to say "two thousand". So for a year it was "The Year 2000 (two thousand)", the next year inevitably was to become 2001, or two thousand and one. I thought for sure this would stop, but it hasn't.

What I'm proposing is for us to get back to the way we were for the previous several hundred years. So join me in ringing in the New Year 2005. Of course with my new plan, we won't say two thousand and five, but simply twenty o'five. Afterall, one hundred years ago, no one was saying, "It's the year one thousand nine hundred and five!" It just makes sense.

That's my hope for the new year; you're either with me or against me...