THOUGHTS ON FREE SPEECH

As you may recall, last month former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich made a statement that raised a few eyebrows, saying that the first amendment to the Constitution may need to be reevaluated. Well, recently he “defended his call to limit freedom of speech to combat terrorism.” Good for him. So far as I can tell, the only people who can logically be opposed to curbing the speech of terrorists are the terrorists themselves.

Now, I guess one could say that if we don’t allow speech for those whose opinions we disagree with, then we don’t have free speech at all. And since freedom of expression is one of our most treasured American values, we’d be sacrificing part of what makes America great in order to protect America — but if the America we’re “protecting” no longer possesses the qualities which make it America, then we have, in effect, shot the horse to keep it from getting stolen.

Glenn Greenwald, who writes from Unclaimed Territory, said that “if you advocate the criminalization of ideas which you don’t like (or which you believe are “dangerous”), you really have no ground to object to efforts to do the same thing […] when applied to ideas that you do like…”

And Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would sacrifice freedom for temporary security deserve neither.”

But come on, we’re talking about terrorists who are trying to terrorize!

Now, of course, a liberal could point out that there are already laws that outlaw speech which incites immediate violence, so Gingrich must have been talking about some other kind of speech. In fact, he pretty much says he is. He says that suspected terrorists should be “subject to a totally different set of rules.” So, it’s not just the kind of speech he wants to limit, but who can speak. And who can’t? Suspected terrorists. And the problem liberals have with this is that, in their hyperbolic language, besides slicing away our free speech with a rusty machete, it completely eliminates due process, which the Bush administration is not a big fan of anyway, as it has claimed the right to simply disappear indefinitely anyone it suspects is a terrorists, such as Pulitzer winning photojournalists who take pictures it doesn’t like.

As is obvious, these liberal arguments are dangerous in part because they can be rather convincing to soft minds. Which is, of course, part of the reason we must support Gingrich in his reevaluation of the first amendment and free speech. And once we have erased free speech for suspected terrorists, we must label the entire liberal media as suspected terrorists…for their liberal arguments which would grant suspected terrorists free speech are knowingly enabling terrorism, which, I’m fairly certain, is illegal.

And then, well, then if someone has a problem with something I say, I can tell them to shut up about it, because I support my government, and their disagreeing with me is terroristic.

I can say, “Shut up!” while smirking my best Jack Bauer smirk. And when they say “Why?” I can say, “It’s the law.”

KEITH ELLISON & THE KORAN

You guys are all probably well aware of the news that the first Muslim elected to congress, Keith Ellison (D-MN), “has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the Koran.” And that it has raised some ire among my Christian brethren. For instance, at Townhall.com, Dennis Prager has written that:

[I]t is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism — my culture trumps America’s culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Now one could argue that what Americans in general hold as their holiest book is not what “America” holds as its holiest book, that America’s culture, being a nation of immigrants, is multiculturalism, that the American government, being a secular institution, a nation of laws, does not, in fact, have a holiest book, and that the first amendment, stating that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” pretty much says exactly what Dennis Prager complains that leftists are saying, namely, that what is of most importance is what “any individual holds to be his holiest book,” as well as his right to express that belief (or lack of belief in the case of atheists — yuck). One could even argue that since Keith Ellison does not hold the Bible to be his holiest book, his swearing on it could, to him, be the equivalent of swearing on an equally fictitious Stephen King novel (I recommend The Stand, for obvious reasons — and I hasten to add that he would in fact be wrong, as the Bible is obviously not fictitious), and he might feel no obligation to stand by his oath, but that, since what matters is the oath itself, not the thing that makes the oath important to the individual, his swearing on the Koran, which he views as holy, and which adds importance to the oath to him, makes him more likely to take the oath seriously, which is better for all Americans. And further, one could argue that since “no religious test” may be required of a person before they can hold public office, and requiring one to swear on a specific religion’s holy text would be the definition of a religious test, requiring it would be doubly unconstitutional.

All right, so those are the arguments that could be made in favor of Keith Ellison being allowed to take his oath of office on the Koran rather than the much, much better Bible. I want to say, in case it’s not obvious, that those, however, are not arguments that I’m making. I do not in fact hold to any of those views, much less all of them. Americans have decided by majority vote that we are a de facto Christian nation, because the majority of them are, in fact, Christians. They say they’re Christian, and I’ll take their word at that, because a Christian wouldn’t lie about being a Christian if he wasn’t. And so they expect their congress to have Christian values.

So, sure, it’s unconstitutional to require that Ellison take his oath on the Bible — I’ll agree with that and even agree that’s it’s doubly unconstitutional; I do not deny “reality” — but so far as I can tell, and I think most Americans would agree, that is a flaw of the constitution, not of the Bible.

Which is awesome. After all, the Bible was written by God. The constitution was only written by a bunch of aristocrats with bad teeth.

PERSONAL UPDATE

I know I haven’t posted for a long time, and for that I am deeply sorry. How deeply? Real deeply. If my remorse was a hole, it’d be about seventeen feet deep. Maybe eighteen.

I know it’s no excuse, but with school and my job at Hot Dog on a Stick I have been impossibly busy. But I now have a little reprieve from school, as I have been expelled (more on that in a moment), and so I thought I would pop in with a new post, update on my life, and maybe, with the Dumbocrats having evilled their way into both houses of congress,  I can even pick up where I left off in more posts, since, with school no longer a concern, I have a bit more free time on my hands.

As I said, I have been expelled from school. I can’t go into great detail, as I signed an agreement with the college that I would not discuss the matter, and I try to be an honest Christian, so I’ll just say this: I have — had, in fact; the past tense is important — a roommate who got Tom Waits’s new album, which is called Orphans, and he was listening to it while I was trying to do my homework, and I suddenly felt this chill in my bones. I had never heard Tom Waits before, nor had I heard of him, but I knew immediately I was hearing the voice of Satan (“Well, they call me William the Pleaser / I sold opium, fireworks and lead / Now I’m tellin’ my troubles to strangers / When the shadows get long I’ll be dead,” he sings in a voice that sounds like the bubbles that surface in a tar pit), so I picked up the boom box on which the album was playing — moved like a puppet by the power of God — and I threw it through a window. It stopped the music. It also fell two storeys and hit an important faculty member on the head, putting him into a coma for three weeks. When I explained what happened, I voiced my opinion that, since I was obviously moved by the power of God, God wanted this person to be put into a coma — for reasons obviously beyond our understanding — and who were we to question God, but for whatever reason, stupidity is my guess, the dean did not quite follow my argument, and my academic career at the bible college was finished.

Truth was obviously too much for the dean, and he turned his back on it in favor of “reality.” As I walked out the door, still emoting my protests, the dean even said, “Maybe God wants you to be expelled, for reasons beyond your understanding,” but since he wasn’t moved by the power of God, that was obviously crap he was spewing.

When will people learn that they can’t just say something is God’s will, it has to be true? It was obviously God’s will that I throw a boom box out a window; my being expelled for it was the dean’s choice.

That the dean of a bible college turned his back on God only goes to show how corrupt this world has become.

AND THEY SAY REPUBLICANS DON’T HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR!

I was sent in an email a link to a Boing Boing item today, regarding a Republican candidate’s fundraiser which invites people to shoot doves! Boy, that’s a knee-slapper if I ever heard one. You see, it’s bird hunting, but the bird in question is a dove, and anti-war people are also referred to as doves. I don’t think that will ever get old.

Anyway, I thought I’d use this just hysterical bit of news to share some other Republican humor, to show that we too can be funny. For instance, here’s one of my favorites:

What do you get when you cross a Democrat and a pilgrim?

A God-fearing tax collector who gives thanks for what other people have!

Funny, right? Take a minute to catch your breath before you read on. I don’t want you to get a tummy ache from laughing too hard. Okay, ready? Here’s another one:
What’s the difference between a Democrat and a catfish?

One’s a scum-sucking bottom-feeder and the other one is a fish!

That right there is comedy gold! And classy to boot. And now, one more.

What’s the difference between a Democrat and a bag of dog poop?

The bag!

Another timeless joke, if I do say so myself. Now obviously I didn’t write those jokes. They were told to me, and because they are so funny, I am telling them to you. Because people always say, “Republicans just aren’t funny. Look at the best comedians — Bill Hicks, Richard Pryor, George Carlin — all of them lean toward the left.”

Well, no sir!

Okay. Maybe those three do, but they’re not the only funny comedians. What about Larry the Cable Guy? Huh? That guy is funny, I don’t care what anyone says! He’s easily as good as the three guys I mentioned above.

I mean: Larry the Cable Guy is proof, hard evidence that Republicans are easily as funny as Democrats, and more importantly, Republican humor is true! And to prove it, I’ll end with one more joke. I know I said “one more” one joke ago, but I’m in a giving mood!

How many Democrats does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

Just one, but that light bulb REALLY gets screwed!

(I just can’t stop laughing!)

BACK AT SCHOOL

I am back at school, which is why I haven’t been posting as regularly as before. Out of my parents garage, everything packed up and back in the dorm. My new roommate is a guy named Brett, who I caught reading Darwin’s book about his travels on the Beagle on our first day together. I’ll tell you what, I gave him a piece of my mind. Or would have, if he weren’t so much bigger than I am.

Anyway, once I get back into the rhythm of school, and I get used to my schedule at Hot Dog on a Stick, which is where I will be working starting this Wednesday, I’ll try to start posting more regularly again.

About Hot Dog on a Stick: My parents thought it would be a good idea if, since they are paying for my college education, I pay for my own food and such.

“You’re in your mid-twenties, Jon,” my dad said, “and always talking about how people have to pull their own weight, so it’s time you start pulling yours.”

Which is quite a task, as heavy as I am.

In any case, I’m still getting used to this schedule. I never imagined pulling one’s own weight could be so time-consuming.

AL GORE: BIG BABY

If he’s not traveling around, plugging his book and his movie on TV and in magazines, Al Gore is whining about the fact that the “person who has the most money to run the most ads usually wins.” I don’t disagree. It’s true. Something like 90% of the time, the candidate who spends the most money on his or her campaign wins. I just don’t get what the big deal is. That’s how oligarchical republics work! The candidate who can convince the most corporations to spend the most money on his or her campaign wins. But of course, Al Gore doesn’t like that. He would like it, one imagines, if people’s decisions were based on the substance of campaigns, and not on whose face showed up the most times in commercials on prime time. Well, give me a break.

The American people can’t be trusted to vote for the right candidate based on his or her politics.

WOMEN ARE EVIL

I met a girl at church last Sunday. Her name is Rebbecca. She was very flirtatious with her eyes. She looked at me funny when I was trying to sing hymns. It distracted me. It confused me. I am fat, I am obnoxious — I know these things, I embrace them. Why was this pretty girl giving me “the eye”?

After church, she walked up to me and she said, “Hi, I’m Rebbecca.”

“Jon Myers,” I said.

“I know. I’ve read some of your writing.”

Was this why she was talking to me?

“I was wondering,” she said, “and I know this is forward, if you might want to go out tonight.”

This had never happened to me before. Usually, I walk toward a woman — just any woman — on the sidewalk, and she quickly crosses the street, glancing at me nervously. Normally, I sit down in one of the pews in church, and everyone, women and men both, slide to the opposite side, turning the bench into a very unbalanced teeter-totter. Normally, when my mom has gatherings of friends, she makes me stay in the garage.

And yet here was this pretty girl and she was asking me out.

“Okay,” I said. “But I don’t have a job. I’m a student.”

She said it didn’t matter, she would pay.

We went out that night. And then the next night.

And then the next night.

We talked. I found myself attracted to her. Sexually. I couldn’t believe it. The guilt. I remembered Paul saying it is better to marry than to burn — but I was just burning and burning for Rebbecca with no chance of marriage in sight. Plus, I don’t think sex should be used recreationally, even if one is married. That’s what Kirk Cameron films are for: entertainment. Not sex. Wait, I meant Kirk Cameron films are for entertainment, and that sex is not for entertainment. I did not mean that Kirk Cameron films are, themselves, not for sex, though that too is true.

Where was I?

Right. I don’t think sex should be used recreationally, even if one is married. But here I was so attracted to Rebbecca, and I wanted to have sex with her. But I knew she would never permit that, despite her mild — and surely brief — infatuation with me. But then last night, we were sitting on her couch watching LEFT BEHIND: WORLD AT WAR, and she turned to me, and she said, “Jon, has anyone ever told you how sexy you are?”

“No,” I said, truthfully. “No one’s even hinted at it.”

She put her hand on my thigh.

I felt something stirring beneath my corduroy.

I swallowed.

“Well, you are. And you know what else?” she said.

“What?”

She leaned forward and kissed my mouth. I had eaten some garlic fries before we watched the movie and I was very self-conscious about it, but she didn’t seem to notice, perhaps thanks to the Altoids I had eaten afterwards.

Anyway, after kissing me she said, “I want to take your virginity.”

I stood up quickly, knocking Rebbecca over. She hit her head on the coffee table. She said the eff word. Twice. “Fuck,” she said, “what the fuck is wrong with you?”

And then I knew, I undestood completely. She was only pretending to be a Christian.

“How did you know I was a virgin?” I asked.

“My head is bleeding.”

“How did you know?”

“You wrote about it.”

“Is that the only reason you wanted to go out with me?”

“I just thought it would be funny,” she said. “You’re so self righteous. Really, you’re just such a little shit. I thought it would be funny to prove to you that you’re human too.”

“You think sin is funny!?” I shouted. The entire situation was compounded by Kirk Cameron on the television screen.

“I don’t think sex is a sin,” she said.

“Get out!” I shouted. “Just get out of here!”

“It’s my apartment,” she said.

“Fine,” I said, “then I’m leaving!”

“Good, you fat-assed little shit.”

I walked to the door, grabbed the knob, pulled. It didn’t move. The devil was holding me in here with this evil woman, holding me here, trying to make me sin. I shook the door, yanked as hard as I could, but it wouldn’t budge. Oh, darn you, Satan!

“The dead bolt, Jon,” Rebbecca said.

I stopped, unlocked the dead bolt and opened the door. I walked out. I couldn’t say anything. My face felt hot and cold simultaneously. I walked home. I couldn’t expect Rebbecca to drive me home after what happened.

When I got home, my mom was in the kitchen doing the dishes. She asked how my night went but I couldn’t even stand to tell her. I just grabbed a quart of ice cream and headed out to the garage. I forgot a spoon, but I didn’t want to see my mom — a woman — again, so I just scooped it out with my fingers. Rebbecca had fooled me. For an entire week, all I could do was think about her. I thought I might marry her and make babies. And then I found, she had no interest in me at all. She just wanted to have sex with me to prove a point.

Oh, women. They are just evil. From Eve on down. Every single one off them.

If it wasn’t a sin, I might turn gay.

MUSIC, PAVLOV & “BUSTING NUTS”

A recent study found that teens who listen to “raunchy” music are more likely to have sex. According to an AP article written by Lindsey Tanner:

Teens whose iPods are full of music with raunchy, sexual lyrics start having sex sooner than those who prefer other songs, a study found.

Whether it’s hip-hop, rap, pop or rock, much of popular music aimed at teens contains sexual overtones. Its influence on their behavior appears to depend on how the sex is portrayed, researchers found.

Songs depicting men as “sex-driven studs,” women as sex objects and with explicit references to sex acts are more likely to trigger early sexual behavior than those where sexual references are more veiled and relationships appear more committed, the study found.

Teens who said they listened to lots of music with degrading sexual messages were almost twice as likely to start having intercourse or other sexual activities within the following two years as were teens who listened to little or no sexually degrading music.

Now, of course, it could be pointed out that the majority of teens who take chastity vows start having sex within one year, which means chastity vows may be twice as dangerous as dirty music, which is why I support living in such a way as to promote flaccidity in males — smoking, eating fatty foods — because that lowers the chances that one will be able to act upon temptation. I know it has saved me from sinning on many occasions. But this piece isn’t about flaccidity enhancers. Or chastity vows. It’s about raunchy music. Music with sex. I once heard a song by a rapper called Too Short, and it had some of the dirtiest lyrics I have ever heard.

I almost bust two nuts back to back / Never seen a bitch work head like that

No wonder teenagers are stripping off their clothes and “busting nuts” all over the place. Now, I know that people might argue that correlation doesn’t necessarily equal causation. They might argue that teenagers who — for whatever reason — are already more likely to have sex, who already have sex on the brain, could possibly, maybe, listen to songs with lyrics about “busting nuts” and “working head” because those are subjects they’re particularly interested in, while more pure teens will listen to songs about, say, genies in bottles, who have to be rubbed “the right way.” But I don’t buy into that. People — especially teenagers — are obviously so dumb that if you plant sexual messages, subtle or otherwise, in music, and they hear it, eventually they become the sexual equivalent of the programmed hitman in The Manchurian Candidate, and start humping uncontrollably, no matter who’s there — and maybe they even do it in church.

It’s disgusting.

And that’s why I support strong government control of the music industry. Parenting, you see, is just too important to leave to parents. As a Christian nation, we must send a strong, governmental message to our sinning, Pavlovian populace.

“No!” we must shout. “You will not be busting any nuts today! And no!” we must shout. “You will not be working any head today! Working head and busting nuts is henceforth against the law, premaritally speaking, and listening to songs about such is a federal crime!”

And if that doesn’t deter them, mandatory chastity belts for unmarried females age thirteen and up.

KNOW YOUR ENEMY #1

Today we begin a new feature called “Know Your Enemy,” in which I interview, well, the enemy. I’m a firm believer in understanding the opposition so that you can then misrepresent them with believability, and that’s why I sat down with Bora Zivkovic, who, according to his biography, is “better known online as ‘Coturnix’, [and] writes ‘A Blog Around The Clock.’” In addition to blogging, he spends a lot of time being a “Jewish atheist liberal PhD student.”

That sounds exhausting.

Bora and I met in my family’s kitchen and I had my mom make us some lemonade. I was thirsty, and I had some real “hard hitting” questions.

“Why do you hate God?” I asked, squinting at him like Jack Bauer in the interrogation room.

“Which one?” he said. “There are as many conceptions of God as there are religious people.”

I admit I wasn’t expecting that answer, otherwise I would have thought of a witty response. Instead, he continued.

“I don’t mind, really, when people imagine God as Faceless Nature or Mysterious Power or a Sweet Old Grandpa. What I have a problem with is the Angry Vengeful God who, like Big Brother (or Huge Father or Enormous Holy Ghost) watches over your shoulder all the time, making you nervous and making you do vile things to fellow human beings, animals and nature.

“I don’t hate God as I cannot hate something that does not exist, but I am deeply worried about the people who are living in a moment-to-moment fear of a spiteful, whimsical, inconsistent God who appears to be suffering from a bad case of gout, and thinking that this God is talking to them personally. When their darkest wishes from the deep subconscious flow to the surface, they think it is an order from high above and tend to act upon it — act upon their darkest wishes! That is scary.”

I could just tell that after that speech, God was itching to strike Bora down with lightning, and I’m convinced the only reason He didn’t is because father just had the roof re-tiled.

“Yeah,” I said, sarcastically, “well are there atheists in foxholes?”

“Apparently,” Bora said, “there are two meanings of the phrase, both incorrect.”

“Is that so?” I said.

“I, personally, never encountered an atheist in a foxhole, but that may be because I tend not to spend much time in them.”

“And why not?” I eyed him suspiciously.

“As skinny as I am, it is really hard to get down one of those narrow tunnels, and foxes are not very good hosts.

“Anyway, back to the two original meanings — it takes more courage to die in battle if you know there is no Heaven waiting for you, so I’d argue that atheists are braver than the believers. They truly sacrifice themselves for their country, not asking anything in return and not expecting any post-death rewards. That is as selfless as can be. That takes much more courage than dying and expecting to spend millenia sleeping with the lion and the lamb, or sleeping with a bunch of virgins.

“On the other hand, atheists, being in general more thoughtful and educated, may be more likely to question the causes and reasons for any particular war, as well as the practice of war in general. Thus, being braver would lead to more atheists joining the military, but being educated would lead to fewer atheists joining the military. As we can see from the statistics, the two effects cancel each other as the proportion of atheists in the military is equal to their proportion in the general population.”

“Oh,” I said. “So the percentages are the same as in the general population?”

Bora nodded.

“There aren’t fewer atheists in the military?”

Bora shook his head.

This was not going as well as I had thought it would.

Maybe because I was flustered, I blurted out, “What about foxes? Are there foxes in foxholes?”

“Foxes tend to live in foxholes.”

“I see,” I said. “One last question. How can you say that a natural explanation is better than a supernatural explanation when supernatural has the word ‘super’ right in it?” I knew I had him here.

“Because bigger is not neccessarily better. Why do so many Americans fall for terms like ‘super’?

“Now, if you could offer me an ‘unleaded’ explanation, or ‘organic’ or ‘natural’ or a ‘sustainable’ one, I would take a second look, but supersizing does not impress me at all.

“The term ‘supernatural’ has such a corporate sound to it, like something invented by PR guys in the smoky backrooms in order to fool us into buying their lousy unnecessary products, or to vote for their unethical, duplicitous, corrupt political candidates. Isn’t that what Intelligent Design/Creationism is all about, after all?”

I looked to the ceiling, knowing if God struck, my dad would be so mad at me. Fortunately, God waited till Bora was outside. Now, I admit, I didn’t see anything bad happen to him. In fact, he seemed pretty happy. But one doesn’t necessarily see everything that happens.

It’s the nature of the supernatural.

WHAT’S WRONG WITH REVEREND GREGORY A. BOYD?

According to a NEW YORK TIMES piece written by Laurie Goodstein, Reverend Gregory A. Boyd “was asked frequently to give his blessing — and the church’s — to conservative political candidates and causes.” The piece continues:

The requests came from church members and visitors alike: Would he please announce a rally against gay marriage during services? Would he introduce a politician from the pulpit? Could members set up a table in the lobby promoting their anti-abortion work? Would the church distribute “voters’ guides” that all but endorsed Republican candidates? And with the country at war, please couldn’t the church hang an American flag in the sanctuary?

After refusing each time, Mr. Boyd finally became fed up, he said. Before the last presidential election, he preached six sermons called “The Cross and the Sword” in which he said the church should steer clear of politics, give up moralizing on sexual issues, stop claiming the United States as a “Christian nation” and stop glorifying American military campaigns.

Reverend Boyd says he first became concerned with the mixing of Christianity and politics “while visiting another megachurch’s worship service on a Fourth of July years ago. The service finished with the chorus singing ‘God Bless America’ and a video of fighter jets flying over a hill silhouetted with crosses.

“’I thought to myself, “What just happened? Fighter jets mixed up with the cross?”‘”

I’d like to know what happened too — what happened to Reverend Boyd? Maybe he’s been replaced by a pod preacher or something, I don’t know. But I do know this: his attitude is just not right. Now I know there are liberal Christians — oxymoron, anyone? — who feel that Jesus was just a swell guy and probably really cuddly and pacifistic and such, but Reverend Boyd claims he is no liberal; he just doesn’t think that Christianity should be corrupted by politics. He believes, like Truman did, that politicizing Christianity, corrupts it.

And to that I say, “Huh?”

I mean, if you aren’t going to politicize Christianity, what’s the point? It’s just a really good way to get people to the voting booths, all indignant, ready to vote counter to their own best interests. That’s not easy to do, but politicizing Christianity is one good way to do it.

The liberal Christians — always the liberal Christians! — might argue that the point is finding a personal relationship with God, and letting that personal relationship guide you without politicizing an entire religion which can be interpreted so as to encompass almost every political ideology, in part because people inevitably bring their political beliefs and prejudices to their religion and project them onto it, finding religious justifications for positions they already hold — and there’s just no way to be sure exactly who — if anyone — is right.

And to that I say, “Huh?”

Of course there’s a way to know who’s right. It’s the guy who speaks the loudest, the longest.

How many people have heard of Reverend Gregory A. Boyd? Some, sure, but not as many as have heard of Jerry Falwell. And so we know, Jerry Falwell is right. Obviously. He’s been standing up there, shouting angrily, little white gobs of spittle forming in the corners of his mouth as he preaches, for so long that if he was wrong, he surely would have been discredited by now. But he never has been.

I think that speaks volumes in and of itself.

You say religion is about a personal relationship with God; I say the personal is political, and I feel personally that God hates liberals. And he probably doesn’t like super old people, either. He thinks they smell funny and are annoying, especially when He goes to the theater to catch Monster House, and some old fart is sitting behind Him, coughing on the back of His freakin’ neck, ruining the entire experience, so that He has to change seats and because He’s in the middle of getting re-situated He misses a really cool scene. Man, that makes Him mad.

And that’s why we need to finally get rid of Social Security.