The difference between you and me, dear reader, is that we are not currently having sex. While that cannot be claimed a perfect definition (of sex), nor even a logical or grammatical sentence, it may suffice a little while. In due course as the full power of my argument is built upon the page, like a three slice sandwich, we may construct a a better one, but until that day, and I do expect this taking days, we must make do. We must show an economy of thought. Not a slight memory, fancy, or atom of analysis may go wasted. No backwater of your brain, currently storing the phrase ‘I’m lovin’ it’ for instance, may go unused for I shall be putting forward a most serious and elegant proof. I ask you please spend a minute removing the phrase ‘I’m lovin’ it’ and make way. Have you forgotten ‘I’m lovin it’ yet? Do not proceed until you have.
I refer of course to UK tax law and the ways in which it will interact with your sex having. Where sex is the aforementioned difference between you and I-not. If you When you die and if you are having sex with exactly one person (officially so/paperwork etc) then they can have your stuff tax free. Let us hencforward call this the romantic inheritance tax benefit. Let us call it that frequently and at high volume. The romantic inheritance tax benefit is now available to homosexuals. Something I strongly agree with as a monogamists rights activist. I don’t care if you have sex with men or women if you are a man or a woman or with women or men if you are a woman or a man so long as it is one on one. This is what a mathematician might call a one to one mapping. If that is the case then you should be able to take the other one’s stuff for free on the difficult day. I’m loving it.
Oh the vulgarity! This ether of vice that underlies The Discourse! The savage heart in all of us and how to legislate around it? This brutal element in us all must be tamed by the full force of UK tax law. It may be said that good prose style is that which denies the Daily Mail a quote to be used against you in the event that you commit a union of tax offence and sex offence (a breaking of the one to one mapping in particular). What can be quoted here? Those familiar with my writings will know my words to be beyond reproach and without any possibility of misquoting. Now that I have proved the excellence of my own prose style I move on to the real stuff of this paragraph: I therefore propose an Arousal Tax.
Modern technology permits a sensor located in either the mind or the groin which will tax arousal and aid a reduction in vulgarity. Something you must realise I abhor and wish to eliminate from my verse and soul.
I am quite literally loving it.
I propose 10p in the £ound over the twelvemonth. Enough to hit the savages where it hurts (emotional centre oblongata) but not too much so as to stifle innovation. I predict this will create a total of 1 billion new jobs. While this figure is greater than the total number of unemployed and even the total population. I propose a simple mechanism for ensuring its reality: Each job shall be decomposed into many smaller job. Every brick laid by the brick layer is now one job and said brick layer performs 250 jobs per day. You should now see how the figure of 1 billion is reached with the following simple formula:
$latex H_{tot}=\sum \dfrac{p_i^2}{2m}+\sum\dfrac{p_I^2}{2M_I}+\sum V_{nucl}(r_i)+\dfrac{1}{2}\sum_{i\ne j} \dfrac{e^2}{|r_i-r_j|}+\dfrac{1}{2}\sum_{I\ne J}\dfrac{z_Iz_Je^2}{|R_I-R_J|} $
However, the true complexity comes in when dealing with the following formula:
a + b = c,
Where a is taxation, b is borrowing, c is spending. This is such a complicated formula because the change in any one variable necessitates a change in the other two variables which can lead to equality in an infinite number for ways. I cannot have more taxation, more borrowing and less spending can I? Or can I? You see how impenetrably difficult this is? You need the attention span of saint and the moral saintlytude of a high level drug baron with a calculator to even begin. I can see that 1 + 2 = 3. but 1 + 3 = 4 at the same time as 2 + 2 = 4. And that’s before one even begins to talk about decimals, fractions, inflation and heterosexuals.
Let us regain some clarity. Let us simmer down from the giddy highs of mathematical analysis. Let us be no geeks nor no robots. Let every Conservative produce only two sentences; ones that contain the word chaos and ones that contain the phrase long-term. Let the ontology collapse to the lulling void of binary equations. One is so at home with:
x = y
That said, let us not worry too much about equality and while we’re talking about lefties. I hereby declare that they speak no word other than ‘better’.
No, but seriously, that’s why I believe in a better long-term chaos instead of a, b, and c all being bigger with more a, more b and more c and less x and more y and less a and less c but more b of the better alternative in the short term.
Nowadays has become a difficult subject in light of Einstein’s disruption of our conceptions of the present and past etc. And the other one too. That’s why I believe in the alternative chaos of a better past nowadays depending on your frame of reference. I really am lovin’ it. A Big Mac is mid gob now. The taste on my tongue rendering concentrating on the writing of this essay problematic. I can barely see the paper for ballistic gherkins and rapid chewing shaking my eyeballs beyond all visual coherence.
In conclusion, let us again return to the filthy potty mouth of the soldier. The stresses of battle dancing with their full vessel of courage and displaying itself in the vulgar stream of conciousness. Reams and reams of half nonsense half gibberish half fruity tongue in the voices of honourable men and women nowadays. All washed down with a lovable stream of dark sugar water. The real unspeakable It.
With love and sensitivity,
