THW REQUIRE WHITE SUITS FOR INDONESIA’S POLITICIANS

There is a solid image in every single perspective of human mind about meaning of color. Its common sense, when we talking about white it’s definitely representing a good thing in life. Agreed not only by “good nature” people as known as moderate normal people, but other side of thought, we could named them realist, Hobbesian, or perhaps other sadistic masochist leftist (I don’t meant any harm) who believe that world is anarchy also agree in this part.

Nature of white is not only symbolized the color of purity, peace, angel thing, light of heaven and so on and so forth, it’s also could be the symbol of top 1st class criminals (white collar) which simply agreed as “good people” by masochist community (again, because world is anarchy, you gotta be anarchy to survive, so anarchist include in the jail is good people). Predictable question such as: why white? Well because it’s universally acceptable, plus we don’t want to insult the conservative and bring other debate with homosexual if we put “pink” in this conversation. White is neutral in gender issue, that’s why.

The reason behind this idea to bring white outfit on this debate is because we as proposition think it’s a good way to strengthen the identity of Indonesia’s politician. We can’t underestimate the power of outfit, because old classic rotten people said: “you are what you wear” is so right. When you wear something clean, majority says you are a nice clean freak. They won’t check your room to clarify that. The same first impression when you wear white outfit especially when you come up with white suit, people will see you as Morgan Freeman in Bruce almighty. They think you are some kind of angel or saint (more-less). It’s all about how you can branding your image as good person by what you wear.

We think image relates to identity, and it’s important for any public figure to emphasizing this identity so public will have a hint to know what kind of figure they are. If people know about this figure, it will be easy to approach, the messages that the politician brought will be easy to inform, further if public is easy to approach and informed, then it will be a lot easier to provoke. That’s what all matter to politician, no? Public provoke (to get vote).

It’s also urgent to implement in Indonesia. We see that most of society paradigm already constructed by the idea that politics is a Satan strategy to invade poor human kind with injustice power, dirty business, corrupt and so… what we want to do is clarify this fatal error. We want to show the society even though the politicians are bad, greedy, dirty, hairless corruptors, they are not evil. They are just a slave (of evil). We want to restore the good side of Indonesia’s politicians, so public can trust them, see them with a little integrity, and in the end public can buy politicians word, and vote for them so god can save democracy.

The point is when politicians wear white not only show that they have pure intention to save this nation, somehow it will show that they are also feel sympathetic on Indonesia’s condition. They care that Indonesia is dying; the proper analogy to describe this is like, when you go to graveyard feel so morose even sad when you see death corps, wearing yellow will definitely not match, right? That’s why you need something to represent it. Black is so not Indonesian. That’s why white is necessary required in this case.

WOULD TAKE SERIOUS ACTION TOWARD IMPERSONATION OF MICHAEL JACKSON IN PUBLIC PLACES

We believe that MJ’s impersonates is outrageous, and can’t be tolerate any longer. What they did is simply indignity of king’s great masterpiece. They imitate moonwalker and make it like some kind of joke. It’s just not good!

Why MJ? Because Elvis Presley impersonators is so outdated and already have its own public judgment as moronic action, but not yet in MJ’s case

MJ’s creation should be protected as national heritage by US government (so does Stevie Wonder and Dave Barry) to avoid any misbehave which directly impact to quality reduction. We would start it with a new law proposal to make this impersonator as criminal, with national heritage annihilation charge and put them straight to jail

We don’t want to put human right as the main core argument of opposition in the corner. We still can fairly protect rights here. If they found guilty impersonate MJ but didn’t cause any tangible effect toward reduction of product’s quality, or proved been forced by other people to do so (perhaps lost the bet), then we give them chance to have amnesty or clemency by Prince, MJ son. Why Prince not Parish? Because Prince is the first child and the most important he is a son. According to Moslem Shareea law, son gets ½ of total inheritance, so he has that privilege (we still couldn’t believe they buried MJ not in Islam way, that’s cruel!). Plus we don’t want to add extra hour for Obama (he’s still busy dealing with Guantanamo detainee transfer).

If they argue that: “it’s a freedom of individual expression even if they impersonate other people” then this is what we’ll say: go find a room to express that ambition or better find a job! It’s already ban in public places because we identify it causing tangible harm as quality reduction, and we can’t allow you to have your freedom above the destruction of others rights. That’s a massive violation.

Beside, this will also impact to other things, such as changing paradigm of society and disrupt the good memories about MJ, he’s good creation will slowly disappear because of the quality reduction impact, and the only thing remain in society’s mind is his scandal like pedophile accusation, or other issues such as lack of confidence as reason why he did plastic surgery, (until he got that pale face) and assumption all of it caused by childhood trauma. This is what we afraid the most and we would like to prevent, by take a serious action to criminalize the impersonator of MJ

THW Have One Nite Stand

This case set in the New York City, where every body came from every where, gathers in this center spot of universe. The chance for each of these people to meet again is like 1 to 9889. The chance to realize that they’ve met before, when they actually met one more time, like 1 to 98899. High mobility of individual activity is countless speed. Live in NYC is about how you can manage every second of your precious time useful (include your private time like sleep, bathing, eating, or sex). There’s 24/7 demand of working hour, to be survive you gotta fulfill this requirement. Most of it cost them a healthy private basic needs fulfillment. They often neglecting their self pleasure as human being, they failed to keep social relationship even with their family because of this demand. So if you talking about marriage or serious commitment, it sound so impossible in this case. But however, the subject of this debate is human being. When we talking about human being, we definitely can’t get rid sex in this conversation. Despite the right or wrong of free sex, or betraying the holly concept of marriage, or fornication, or sin, this supposed to be nothing to do with any of it.

It’s 100 percent pure biological needs.

It’s obviously fine when individual who live in NYC, have short brief anonym one night stand relation. As long as no pressure, and both part have same mutual perception agreed with any consequences, and do it in responsible way, then it will be fun-fine activity. .

The urgency to bring this idea, because it’s not only happened in NYC.

People in other part of world did so. But the thing is, the situation sometimes not even precisely the same. If people in NYC unintentionally pick random guy into one night, because they don’t have much time to be in a real relationship, the other people in other continent did it because of curiosity. They try to imitate this kind of style although they had tons of time and already into someone; just because they want to know how does it feel. This is what so called as cheating, and it’s unacceptable in any circumstance and there’s no way to justify this behavior (this is what normative value, and the society uphold it as common sense).

But we as proposition don’t think curiosity as basic reason why people have one night stand is completely wrong. As a matter of fact we believe its okay to do so.

We believe it’s simply not wise when we blame someone’s passion to understand things, even if it’s about sex (or one night stands). We already allow parents to give sex education to their children ever since they asked about it (how come baby brother appear in our family, or why every month mommy got pissed? what is period? why dad has beard and mom hasn’t? why every ten o’clock mommy and daddy locked their bedroom?). We think it’s good to give the understanding to your children, answer to their curiosity, because we hope they will have provisions as basic consideration, basic knowledge to do rational calculation when they ready to have sex. So curiosity simply can’t be blamed.

Now we are agree on curiosity part, aren’t we? Now let’s talk about method

The proposition of sex curiosity not only valid for children, it’s valid for everyone, in any age, and it’s valid for lifetime. For the children, verbal explanation might enough, depends on who’s talking, with what method (you can use story book as tools and pick 9 o’clock in the evening as your timing, prince and princess as your subject, once upon a time as opening line of your bedtime story) and that’s it, they won’t bother you for next couple of years. It’s enough for children but don’t even think it’s cool for adult. They need more to satisfy this curiosity. Preaching in biology class or AIDS seminar is so 90’s, visual and sound effect or electronic devices are not enough, they need more than just demonstration, they need experimental research, observation is like quantifying method, and it’s still questionable. They have to try it, right there; with artificial instrument perhaps (they could invent it thou). While time goes by, curiosity never die; in fact Its sky rocketing. The need of curiosity is not only in form of understanding, now it turns to be a self experience satisfaction. People not only need to know about sex, they need to experience it. And the level is going advance, they don’t need to have sex only with their couple, they need to have sex with random people. That’s why they start to looking for one night stand. Bottom line is that curiosity is good. Because of this curiosity, level of knowledge is increasing; people start to make a legitimate research of this behavior and patent it to be a guide book (just ask sociologist, or psychologist, or Dave Barry)

You see, have one night stand is good thing to do. it doesn’t mean to be irresponsible, or legalizing free sex, you still can forsake them if you like (that’s immature dude,). We just want to emphasize there’s nothing wrong with one night stand as long as they did it in responsible way.