"Comedy and joking about our differences breaks tension and brings us together. ... Drawing dividing lines over what we can and cannot joke about does exactly that; it divides us. Most importantly, where does it stop."—Social justice crusader and professional dudebro Vince Vaughn, defending his right to make gay jokes. Because, you know, of their important unifying quality.
And he's right, obviously. I mean, where does it stop? First a guy can't use "gay" as a hilarious pejorative, and, next thing you know, women will start thinking that maybe they ought to object to "bitch" being used 9,000 times in every comedy vehicle for aging man-children.
Specifically, Vaughn is referring to Universal's decision to pull the trailer for The Dilemma, in which his character refers to electric cars as "gay," after people who aren't the Most Humorless Feminist in all of Nofunnington (i.e. Anderson Cooper) complained about it.
Don't worry, though—it's still in the movie!
Quote of the Day
Hey Nerdz!
Dear nerdz, wyzzards, LARPers, mathrockers, and technocrats:
You need one of these:
It's a magic wand TV remote control! Wingardium Leviosa! This piece of Old-World-Craftsmanship- (it's made by hobbits!) -meets-the-Technological-Age (made by hobbits in factories!) can learn (like a robot!) up to thirteen "commands"! Such as: Changing the channel, adjusting the volume (both up and down!) and I don't know what else!
Only $89.99!
Friday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, makers of Lissie's Crocheted Hats, for all your bedhead-disguising needs.
Recommended Reading:
Andy: Arkansas High School Student Suspended for Gay-Supportive T-Shirt
Echidne: [TW for sexual violence] Fraternity Chanting in the Rape Culture
LeMew: On the Potential Impeachment of Obama
Veronica: When will Chicago get to say Madame Mayor again?
Renee: Sesame Street: I Love My Hair
Tracey: [video] Jackass for Girls
Leave your links in comments...
Of Course They Do
Justice Department says 'don't ask, don't tell' ruling will harm troops:
The Justice Department asked a federal judge Thursday to set aside her decision stopping the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays and lesbians in the military until it can appeal the ruling, saying the decision would "irreparably harm our military and the national security of the United States."A. No.
B. No.
C. No.
D. No.
E. No.
F. No.
G. No.
Nope. (But you know what does ""irreparably harm our military and the national security of the United States"...? This.)
Government lawyers told U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips of Riverside that if she did not lift her order by Monday, they would ask the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to halt it. If the appeals court in San Francisco fails to act, the government probably will ask the Supreme Court to intervene to prevent an abrupt change to the military, which says it is not yet prepared to handle the transition."We haven't even written a huge check to Halliburton to build special gay housing yet!"
The confrontation comes at a politically awkward moment for President Obama. He opposes the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, but now — just weeks before the midterm election — risks alienating his liberal base by seeking to halt the judge's order.Aww, it's always so sad when refusing to champion the basic rights and dignity of institutionally marginalized people, despite having made a campaign promise to do so, is "awkward" for the president. Sad face!
LOL. Nope.
Of Bailouts and Bootstraps
So. The latest ginormous economic clusterfucktastrope is foreclosure fraud, caused (of course) by unregulated for-profit financial institutions operating without oversight or accountability because the government decided to trust them to behave honestly and wisely after the invisible hand gave Reagan a handjob with golden bootstraps or whatever. Krugman lays out the basics of the crisis here:
The story so far: An epic housing bust and sustained high unemployment have led to an epidemic of default, with millions of homeowners falling behind on mortgage payments. So servicers — the companies that collect payments on behalf of mortgage owners — have been foreclosing on many mortgages, seizing many homes.But, of course, the Obama administration is more interested in continuing to coddle the same financial institutions that got us into this mess, and the one before, and the one before: "True to form, the Obama administration's response has been to oppose any action that might upset the banks, like a temporary moratorium on foreclosures while some of the issues are resolved. Instead, it is asking the banks, very nicely, to behave better and clean up their act. I mean, that's worked so well in the past, right?"
But do they actually have the right to seize these homes? Horror stories have been proliferating, like the case of the Florida man whose home was taken even though he had no mortgage. More significantly, certain players have been ignoring the law. Courts have been approving foreclosures without requiring that mortgage servicers produce appropriate documentation; instead, they have relied on affidavits asserting that the papers are in order. And these affidavits were often produced by "robo-signers," or low-level employees who had no idea whether their assertions were true.
Now an awful truth is becoming apparent: In many cases, the documentation doesn't exist. In the frenzy of the bubble, much home lending was undertaken by fly-by-night companies trying to generate as much volume as possible. These loans were sold off to mortgage "trusts," which, in turn, sliced and diced them into mortgage-backed securities. The trusts were legally required to obtain and hold the mortgage notes that specified the borrowers' obligations. But it's now apparent that such niceties were frequently neglected. And this means that many of the foreclosures now taking place are, in fact, illegal.
This is very, very bad. For one thing, it's a near certainty that significant numbers of borrowers are being defrauded — charged fees they don't actually owe, declared in default when, by the terms of their loan agreements, they aren't.
Beyond that, if trusts can't produce proof that they actually own the mortgages against which they have been selling claims, the sponsors of these trusts will face lawsuits from investors who bought these claims — claims that are now, in many cases, worth only a small fraction of their face value.
And who are these sponsors? Major financial institutions — the same institutions supposedly rescued by government programs last year. So the mortgage mess threatens to produce another financial crisis.
...The excesses of the bubble years have created a legal morass, in which property rights are ill defined because nobody has proper documentation. And where no clear property rights exist, it's the government's job to create them.
I do understand the concept behind the "too big to fail" mantra, but letting the institutions that are allegedly "too big to fail" to continue to operate in ways that maximize profits but also the risk of failure is incomprehensibly stupid. I mean, we know what happens when you keep bailing out an irresponsible failure over and over.
[Image Description: George W. Bush, who was repeatedly bailed out of bad business deals by his daddy's business associates, before becoming President of the United States.]
That's only half a joke. The truth is, the US government treats the big financial institutions the same way that families like the Bushes treat their very privileged sons: They're too important to fail. And it's the same lack of discipline, unchecked entitlement, and voracious avarice that creates fortunate sons and the financial institutions that make them rich beyond the comprehension of the average US mortgage-holder.
Whose struggles are not worthy of bail-out, but merely admonishments about bootstraps from the people who own the bootstrap factory.
Which was recently relocated to China, because US workers were demanding a livable wage, and the shareholders didn't like the way that was cutting into profits.
[Image Description: A fake newspaper reading: "Invisible hand gives ironic finger to local workforce: After massive layoffs at the local bootstrap factory, workers facing foreclosure are failing to appreciate the irony of their circumstances..."]
We need a fundamental shift in priorities here. The seemingly intractable (hope! change!) insistence on saving the very institutions that are now routinely threatening the economy with their malfeasance, no less saving them without severe restrictions on their ability to continue to do business in such a wildly irresponsible (though highly profitable!) manner, is utterly ludicrous and equally unjustifiable.
Something's gotta give.
And the first thing that can go is the idea that any institution is "too big to fail." No institution is too big to fail: THEY'RE FAILING. If they necessitate bail-out—and, make no mistake, even refusing to take action on behalf of homeowners because the banks might pout and complain is a bail-out as sure as a fat government check—it's not because they're too big to fail; it's because they're too big to not rescue. (No financial institution should be allowed to be that big in the first place, but that's a whole other post.)
"Too big to not rescue" vs. "too big to fail" might seem like it's only a semantic difference, and maybe it is, but it's an important one. "Too big to not rescue," unlike "too big to fail," does not mask the despicable double-standard to which we're holding financial institutions and the people they serve (don't serve)—banks have a social safety net; individual people are on their own.
Well, maybe we can all get together and weave ourselves a safety net out of our fucking bootstraps.
Yet the narratives of irresponsibility are about individual people, rather than the systemic failures that bring us, again and again, to the brink. Which is, of course, precisely backwards—but just the way the emergent corporatocracy wants it.
A change in priorities, a change in narrative, a change in accountability and oversight, and political leadership willing to actually make these changes. That's what we need.
But it ain't what we got.
--------------------
Additional Reading:
Bloomberg: Securitization Flaws May Lead Investors to Fight Mortgage Deals.
WaPo: Lack of proper mortgage paper trail could leave big banks reeling again.
Digby: "Everybody needs to stop worrying about the moral hazard of letting average people off the hook for their mortgages and worry a little bit more about the moral hazard of continually allowing these huge financial institutions to get away with murder."
Question of the Day
Who is the most loathsome candidate, for any office other than US president or other national equivalent, whom you recall running for public office in a viable democracy your lifetime?
(Doesn't have to be in a US election. And no skirting the rules by saying "George W. Bush for Governor of Texas!")
I'm just going to go ahead and name the first dipshit who popped into my head: Rick Santorum.
Shiver.
Top Chef: Just Desserts Open Thread
[Image from last night's episode: Morgan, a heterosexual, likes sexy red shoes.]
Last night's episode will be whipped and folded, so if you haven't seen it, and don't want any spoilers, pack your ice cream scoop and go...
Today's Edition of "Conniving and Sinister"
See Deeky's archive of all previous Conniving & Sinister strips here.
[In which Liss reimagines the long-running comic "Frank & Ernest," about two old straight white guys "telling it like it is," as a fat feminist white woman (Liss) and a biracial queerbait (Deeky) telling it like it actually is from their perspectives. Hilarity ensues.]
Daily Dose o' Cute
This was shot last weekend: Dudley is desperate to go to the dog park, and I'm winding him up while we wait for Iain to be ready to go, by pretending I don't know what he wants. Meanwhile, Matilda is an adorable lazyass who purrs like a lawnmower. Full transcript below.
Also below: Pictures of Dudley and the girls. Who says greyhounds and cats can't be friends?
Dudley and Sophie.
Sophie and Dudley.
Olivia and Dudley.
Dudley and Olivia.
Dudley and Matilda.
Matilda and Dudley.
Transcript:
Dudley comes bounding into the living room from the kitchen and lies at my feet, touching her knee with his nose, because "touch" is one of his commands I taught him, and he's trying to be good to get what he wants, which is to go to the dog park. We're going to leave shortly, so Dudley is all wound up and I'm teasing him, pretending I don't know what he wants. "What do you wanna do?" I ask. "What is it that you wanna do? Huh? Do you wanna go somewhere?" Dudley gives his Big Yawn-Nip of Impatience and looks at me plaintively. "Where do you wanna go? Where do you wanna go, Dudley?" He looks around, toward the kitchen, where Iain is, and then back at me, whining. "Oh my goodness. That seems very desperate." Cut to footage of Matilda writhing around on the couch beside me, purring like a lawnmower. She licks her paw and looks at me with big blue eyes. Cut to Dudley running back in from the kitchen again. "Dudley!" He touches the camera with his nose. "Oh my goodness! What do you wanna do?" He runs to his bowl for a drink of water. Cut to Olivia walking by the couch. Matilda lazily reaches out and bats at her tail. Cut to Dudley standing at the front door; he looks up at me excitedly. "You wanna go somewhere? Huh, Dudz?" He walks around me, bumping against me and trying to get me to go out the front door. "Are you trying to herd me out the door?" He looks out the front door. "Where you wanna go? Are you looking at the car? Does that take us somewhere that you like to go? Where does that take us?" He whines and circles around me again. "Oh my goodness. Oh my goodness. Where do you wanna go?" He looks at the kitchen as Iain clatters about. "Ah! Oh my gosh! Is Daddy almost ready?! Ah! Where do you think we should go? Should we go to the zoo?" Dudley whines complainingly and sits. "Where?" I ask, trying not to laugh. Iain, walking out of the kitchen, says, "Are you torturing this poor dog?" I reply, "Basically. I mean, we have to wait for you anyway, so." Cut to Matilda rolling around on the couch again. She licks her paw and purrs loudly. Cut to Dudley jumping around excitedly as we walk to the car. He jumps into the backseat like a good boy. Cut to Matilda still being a lazyass on the couch. She makes cute, sleepy faces. Cut to Iain and Dudley playing tag at the dog park. Dudley comes racing toward me, then runs past, his feet thundering on the ground. He runs across the park, over to a Doberman, whose acquaintance he's decided he wants to make. End.
Speaking of Stupidity
...And ignorance. And bigotry:
This obnoxious billboard appeared in western Colorado this week. It depicts four caricatures of President Obama as a suicide bomber, a pimp (I think), a bandito, and a homo.
The four "Obamas" [are] sitting around a table with playing cards showing only sixes bunched in groups of three.
Also on the table is a copy of the Declaration of Independence, a liberty bell, a toy soldier and a statue of Justice holding a balance.
Beneath the Obama caricatures are numerous rats, some of which are labeled as the IRS, trial lawyers, the EPA and the Fed. Sitting above all that is a line, "Vote DemocRAT. Join the game," which is positioned between two vultures, one of which is labeled the U.N. and the other with the name Soros.
It's absurd. Really. It's practically a fucking parody. Like that theory that says after a certain point you can't differentiate between real conservatism and a satire of conservatism. ("Poe's law!" - bgk.)
Local Democratic Party Chairwoman Martelle Daniels said: "It's beyond disrespectful. You would like to think that we all would show respect for our commander-in-chief, but this is just beyond that. It's racist, it's homophobic, and it's really cowardly."
Republican Party chair Chuck Pabst: "It's reprehensible and disrespectful, and that's not what any honorable person would put forth. To ridicule somebody in this manner is juvenile."
Area politcal cartoonist Paul Snover, who created the image, said "I am not allowed to say who (paid for it) at this time. If it had been me, I would have included the Republicans as part of the problem."
Okay then.
He also said the image was designed to "get people to think a little deeper." Think what exactly?
I'm certainly not thinking too highly of your racist, homophobic billboard.
As an aside, I'll note the story's headline: "Caricatures are racist and homophobic, local Dems say." Really? I mean, there is no way that's not, objectively speaking, racist and homophobic. What's with the obsequity? No one writes a story and says "The rain was wet, according to some douchebag." That shit is just wet. The way that billboard is just racist.
Um
I'm catching up on some political news I missed over the past couple of days, and, honestly, this has got to be the stupidest election we've had in my lifetime.
I'm looking at you, Carl Paladino. Even though you're only the tip of the enormous, stupid iceberg.
News from Planet WTF
I saw this courtesy of Peter Daou (on Twitter), who called it "scary", earlier today:
Likely voters in battleground districts see extremists as having a more dominant influence over the Democratic Party than they do over the GOP.Ok, I know...polls (and it's The Hill). But still. What the hell? The Democratic Party is "more dominated than the GOP by extreme views"? What? Did they forget to finish that statement with ".... more dominated than the GOP by extreme views because they're so like the GOP and not like Democrats at all"? Who are these "extremists"?
This result comes from The Hill 2010 Midterm Election Poll, which found that 44 percent of likely voters say the Democratic Party is more dominated by its extreme elements, whereas 37 percent say it’s the Republican Party that is more dominated by extremists.
[...]
The polling firm Penn, Schoen and Berland conducted the survey, contacting 4,047 likely voters by phone between Oct. 2 and Oct. 7. The margin of error for this sample is 1.5 percent.
More than one in every five Democrats (22 percent) in The Hill’s survey said their party was more dominated than the GOP by extreme views. The equivalent figure among Republicans is 11 percent.
Results for independent voters reflected the larger sample. Forty-three percent of likely independent voters said the Democratic Party is more dominated by its extreme elements, compared to 37 percent who thought the GOP had fallen under the sway of extreme views.
The figures by party do come with one caveat: Because the voter sampling size is smaller, the margin of error by party is 4.5 percent.
The article notes that this suggests an image problem of being seen as "too liberal". Have they been listening to Shields and Brooks?
[P]olling data from congressional districts in Arkansas, Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Washington state, West Virginia and Wisconsin show that Democratic leaders are having trouble convincing voters that the GOP is more extreme.Just...what? How is that even possible?
Markos has a theory:
Liberal Democrats say that Fox News, Glenn Beck and other conservative broadcasters who frequently criticize Obama, Reid and Pelosi as extremists have an enormous influence on public opinion.I think Markos has a point, to a degree. Media like Fox and their hateful talking heads certainly make a lot of noise--and many people listen to that noise. This country seems to have drifted "right"ward, given how many people actually take it seriously--see it as a reasonable accusation--when Obama is called a socialist. He's a centrist, milquetoast Democrat. He's not a freaking socialist! However, a lot of people really seem to believe that some centrist positions are socialist (and un-American, to boot).
“Democrats haven't nominated anyone like Sharron Angle or Rand Paul or Christine O'Donnell or Rob Johnson or Joe Miller for Senate seats, much less the myriad of wackos in House races across the country,” said Markos Moulitsas, founder and publisher of Daily Kos, one of the nation’s largest liberal blogs. “We don't have media figures like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh calling the shots for our party.
“But they have built their alternate world courtesy of Fox News, thus making them impervious to reality. Is that a problem? Sure. Even more so when Democrats think they can reason with this crowd,” said Moulitsas, a contributing columnist for The Hill.
Just when I didn't think the article could be want to make me hit my head against a wall more, it reports:
The survey also showed that a majority of Democratic voters want their representatives in Congress to work harder to achieve compromise with Republicans.WHAT? Why?
Fifty-eight percent of Democrats said they would urge the lawmaker they supported to “look for compromises across the aisle”; only 35 percent would rather urge their representatives to “stay firm on their principles.”
The article points out that when talking about individual policy issues (health care, taxes), a majority of Dems don't want compromise, they want progress. Yet taken as a whole, many urge for compromise. It also notes that Republicans, however, would urge their reps to stand on principles. Compromise is not anything they particularly care for. Which...duh. That's obvious. What the hell, Dems? I don't just mean the elected officials, I mean people like those polled. What the hell? I don't get it. Why are so many calling for bipartipoop and so few for "standing firm on principles". Aren't those principles connected, in some way, to why you voted for someone?
Yes, Peter. I agree: scary.
The Overton Window: Chapter Sixteen
Part Two, here we are. Wasn't Part One thrilling? Not so sure? Let me recap:
There was lots of walking. In the rain. Down hallways. We were treated to no less than four speeches. There was a cab ride. Someone was murdered. (And never mentioned again.) There was a Powerpoint. There was a Toby Keith reference. Blackwater thugs walked the streets of New York City. Cops raid the Stars 'n Stripes pub. There's a lawyer, then a limo ride. And chicken and waffles. And "total horndog" Elliot Spitzer. Noah warns Molly "don't tease the panther."
If anything could be described as thrilling, maybe it's Noah's run-in with Blackwater. Or maybe the raid on the bar. And quite possibly, in the hands of a competent author, these events would have been. Unfortunately, our ghostwriter is not a very good one.
In no one's hands would Darthur's speech be compelling reading. Nor Beverly's. Nor Danny's. Nor Noah's. There is nothing inherently thrilling about the Federal Reserve. Or Social Security. Or Carrol Quigley. Or home schooling.
The story thus far is this: PR whiz Darthur Gardner is about to implement his plan to replace the U.S. government with a "new structure". His son, Noah, also a PR whiz, has fallen for a teabagger named Molly. That's it, more or less.
Molly, Molly's mother, Noah, and about 300 teabaggers are arrested on trumped up charges then released. Überteabagger Danny goes missing. Molly and Noah go home together, but not in that way.
That's Part One.
In Part Two, chapter sixteen, Beck and company get back to basics: Nothing much happens. We do get a new character. Yay for new characters!
Federal agent Stuart Kearns shows up at The Tombs to interrogate Danny Bailey. Yes, I know I said he was dead. Turns out he's not. He was just whisked away (is that an expression? whisked away?) to a "a cage full of the worst serial offenders this venue had to offer" instead of the holding tank with all the other teabaggers.
Kearns arrives at the jail and sits around waiting for Bailey to be brought in. This gives the author an opportunity to share Kearns' backstory and describe the furniture and lament bureaucracy for several pages.
While waiting, Kearns pulls out Bailey's rap sheet (do they still call them rap sheets?) and we get Danny's backstory as well. Good times.
This was an abridged version of the FBI file for the young man he was about to see. The guy was a marshmallow, he'd been assured, and by a covert order he'd just spent a long hard night in a cage full of the worst serial offenders this venue had to offer, so he would certainly be softened up even more by this morning. With luck, once a deal was on the table there wouldn't be too much time wasted in negotiation.
At this point, we're not supposed to know who Kearns is waiting to see. It's clearly meant to be a surprise when it's finally revealed. Danny's name isn't mentioned for quite some time, but, jebus, on the page prior Molly was saying Danny had gone missing. So who in the hell else would this be? Or were we to have forgotten all about him like Molly thought Noah might have?
Here's the big reveal:
Three corrections officers approached the open door with a heavily shackled prisoner in their charge. He could barely walk on his own, either from the effects of heavy fatigue, the abuse he'd obviously taken from his cellmates overnight, or both.
They brought him in, sat him down across the desk, cuffed him to the chair. The guy's head was hanging, chin to his chest. Without the arms of the chair holding him upright he'd probably have slumped right to the floor.
"Daniel Carroll Bailey?"
Insert music sting here. Bum-bah!
Oh, yes, gentle reader, look on, with shock and horror, how cocky young Mr. Bailey has been brought low by his night in The Tombs.
Okay, back to Bailey's rap sheet. Some coke busts. Tax problems. Caught with "a modest grow operation and a trash bag full of premium bud." (Premium bud! HA!) He rolled over on someone in that one, and Kearns hope to use Bailey's snitchy tendencies against him.
The latest entries concerned evidence gathered through recent home and business surveillance warrants, highlighted transcripts of a monitored ham-radio show, and a list of some videos he'd produced that were now circulating through the Patriot culture on the Internet. Hate speech/counterterrorism was the box that was checked on his first wiretap request, but the latest such authorization had been requisitioned by three cooperating divisions, as abbreviated in the margin: DC-JTTF, NM-DTWG, NM-WMDWG.
The Joint Terrorism Task Force, the Domestic Terrorism Working Group, and the Weapons of Mass Destruction Working Group. The last two offices were based in New Mexico.
Uh oh. Remember those missing nukes from the prologue? This thing is finally starting to tie all the pieces together. It looks like Danny's involved in that missing bomb business.
Or... maybe not!:
Based on this file and, more important, based on Stuart Kearns's own long experience in the field, this little guy didn't seem like he'd ever been much for the government to worry about. It was almost as though they decided years ago that they were going to get him, but they hadn't yet known exactly how. He didn't seem dangerous, only outspoken and troublesome.
Damn! I knew it! Danny's a troublemaker and a patriot! The government is out to get him! Like all patriots! The government hates patriots! Or something.
Okay, I need to tell you something. I have a headache. And I think this chapter is making it worse. So I am just going to wrap this thing up post-haste.
Danny has been roughed up in jail. He wants his lawyer. Kearns says that's cool. You can have your lawyer but...
If you decide to go that route I want to warn you. This is from a high authority, the highest; in fact with your past record, your charges from last night, and especially"—he patted the folder in front of him—"the evidence from an ongoing federal investigation, the best any lawyer's going to get you is fifteen to twenty years in a place much worse than this. That's a fact.
Kearns assures Danny that he is the only one that can help him.
Oy. So, what do you think? Will Danny squeal on his teabagger friends? Or will Danny fake squeal and pull a total double-cross on the Feds? I'm voting the latter.
Nope. No. Uh-Uh.
In ten minutes, I could come up with at least a hundred stories I've never seen told on the big screen, just by virtue of marginalized people's stories not being told unless they fit some pre-established pattern of overcoming adversity or being rescued or some variation on the usual Blind Side bullshit.
And yet—and yet—"20th Century Fox has teamed with Walden Media to buy rights to Bil Keane's venerable syndicated comic strip The Family Circus, and they've hired Bob Hilgenberg & Rob Muir to script a live action feature."
"Venerable" means saccharine, trite, repetitive, and uninspired, right?
Look, I'm sure there are people who enjoy The Family Circus for some reasons that elude me, and that's cool. Just because my personal aesthetic doesn't include an appreciation of "venerable" comics about never-aging children saying never-funny things doesn't mean you shouldn't love the fuck out of it, if that's your thing.
It's just that even if you love The Family Circus for whatever incomprehensible reason, the one thing on which I'm sure we can both agree is that making a live-action version of the comic is really just another excuse to make a film about a privileged white family.
And I'm sure Tom Arnold, Patricia Heaton, and Angus T. Jones, or whoever they cast in this dreck, would make wonderful supporting players in a movie about other kinds of people.
On the other hand, with imaginative casting, The Nietzsche Family Circus would make an excellent film.
I've Never Been To Bolivia
Though I hear it's quite nice for some.
Sometimes you encounter a piece of writing that's just so sharp, so perfectly incisive, that you can apply its lesson to a myriad of life patterns.
This is one such.
I Write Letters
Dear Koch Brothers,
I guess you really are fucking liars.
Kindly fuck off.
Love,
Space Cowboy
