Recently during the campaigning for president, Mr. Hale and Mr. Brady, began to notice that certain candidates for president seeemed much more qualified than others. As we began to work numbers, we realized that there was in fact a mathematical relationship between the approximate maturity level of a candidate and his actual age. The formula to determine this maturity level is as follows:

         NA        ?
        ----  =  ----
         CA       AN

Where NA = the normal age at which people do a certain thing, CA = the age at which the candidate does this thing, and AN = the candidate's age now. From this, we can solve for ? which is the candidate's maturity level. Let us take, for example, George W. Bush:

We decided that most people stop drinking (heavily) at about age 25, wheras Bush stopped drinking (according to him) at age 40. After putting in Bush's current age of 54, it is simple to determine that his approximate maturity is 33.75 years of age. Thus, he isn't old enough to run. Using numbers based upon candidate Ralph Nader's writing of Unsafe at Any Speed, you can determine that he is in fact somewhere in the neighborhood of 180 years of age. Thus, you should do everything in your power to prevent the constitutional problem of having an ineligible president be elected. Thus, you must vote for either Gore or Nader, depending on the closeness of the race in your state: If it is a Bush landslide in your state, vote Nader. Otherwise, vote Gore.

My esteemed partner and I wish to include another variable in this formula: 'L' for number of lives saved. That means Bush would have around -143 for everyone he's executed, and Nader would have something in the neighbourhood of 10,000. If anyone has any ideas about how to fit this variable in (without a figure for Nader's age that makes him older than the Universe itself) add away.

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.