September 27, 2012
Let Freedom Ring! However, You’re Going To Need a Permit For The Bell. – “It’s For The Children” Edition“Let Freedom Ring! However, You’re Going To Need a Permit For The Bell,” is a periodic series in which we explore the new and exciting ways in which the notions of freedom and liberty are being interpreted in our modern and progressive world.
Out: National disgrace.
In: National Policy.
Nobody wants to see a child go hungry.
Unless you’re Michelle Obama.
As part of the First Lady’s war on obesity, new federal school lunch guidelines limit the number of calories that can be served and often substitute “healthy” foods that kids won’t eat anyway. These standards are uniform without making exceptions for more active kids, such as those on sports teams or who work before school.
Think of it as kind of the “Mao Jacket” of school lunches.
As far as Michelle Obama is concerned, no child in this great nation of ours should have to sit in school, unable to concentrate, just because he or she is too full. Not when we clearly have the means to dispose of all those carrot sticks and apple slices that end up in the trash.
Come to think of it, the Administration’s overall approach to economic policy makes a lot more sense now.
Giving Away Food to Needy Children
Out: A Charitable Act of Selflessness to be Celebrated.
In: A $600-a-Day Fine
In what is apparently a coordinated effort to see to it that kids go hungry, Philadelphia authorities cracked down on Angela Prattis for distributing food to needy kids at a gazebo on her property in the summer. While she was working with the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, and had all her other paperwork in order, she came up against what was apparently a zoning issue.
While the city cracked down on her, she obviously had good intentions, so Chester Township business manager William Pisarek was of course willing to go out of his way to help out:
"I don't think it's my responsibility to go to her to say, 'why don’t you come to talk to me to see if there’s something that we can do to help your program.’”
That word you're looking for to describe Mr. Pisarek? It's "hero."
Children Playing Outside in Front of Their House
Out: A timeless scene played out all across America.
In: Child abuse.
Tammy Cooper of LaPorte, Texas, made the mistake of letting her children go outside and ride their scooters rather than keeping them inside the house where they could be doing something less provocative, like staring at the television all day.
A neighbor, apparently disturbed at the unfamiliar site of children playing outside in the street, called the cops even though Ms. Cooper had been sitting on her front lawn watching her 6 and 9-year-olds. After careful consideration of the situation and taking into account the best interests of the children, the LaPorte police department decided to tear the woman away from her family while her daughter grabbed an officer’s leg and begged him, “Please, please don’t take my mom to jail. Please, she didn’t do anything wrong,” and lock her up for 18 hours.
It was kind of like a scene out of a Rockwell painting, only instead of an officer sitting with the boy at a lunch counter, it’s an officer hauling a mother off to jail for while her children cry because they were playing outside.
It kind of brings a tear of joy to our eye. At least we think that’s a tear of joy.
A Young Girl Drawing Pictures in Chalk on The Sidewalk
Out: A Charming and Harmless Display of Creative Expression and a Sure Sign That Summer Has Arrived.
In: Against the rules.
As “Innovations and Courtyard Traditions at Stapleton,” a sub-association of the Stapleton MCA (Master Community Association) in Denver, Colorado, points out,
“Anything that offends, disturbs or interferes with the peaceful enjoyment (of shared space) isn’t allowed.”
It was not immediately clear whether a three-year-old girl drawing pictures of flowers and hearts in chalk on the sidewalk was offensive, disturbing, or interfered with people’s “peaceful enjoyment” of walking along pale-grey slabs of concrete, but apparently some neighbors had complained.
Hey, it’s not like she drew a picture of chalk art Mohammad. Now that would be reprehensible and disgusting.
September 25, 2012
Obama Administration Match Game!
Carefully examine these three real-life situations currently in the news:
1) A government minister of one of our allies offers to pay for the assassination of an American citizen.
2) An artist dunks a the son of the Lord, Jesus Christ, in urine.
3) An amateurish video is posted on YouTube that is unflattering to the Prophet Mohammad.
Now, see if you can match each of those with one of the following official Obama Administration reactions:
C) "No comment."
If you are like most Planet Moron readers, you're probably thinking, "Hey, you said no pop quizzes!"
Also, "Well, number 1 is easy. Clearly, offering to pay for the assassination of an American citizen would garner the most vociferous and full-throated objection."
As it turns out, the Obama administration found Pakistan Railway Minister Ghulam Ahmad Bilour's offer of $100,000 to kill filmmaker Sam Bacile to be only "inflammatory and inappropriate." (It will be interesting to see what the Administration's reaction will be if Bacile is actually assassinated. Perhaps, they will view that as "unfortunate and ill-advised," or possibly "rude and discourteous.")
That still leaves two matches left. While you might think that dunking a crucifix in urine might qualify as at least "disgusting" (if only because dunking anything in urine other than maybe a pregnancy strip is disgusting), the Obama Administration actually has no comment on that bit of religious agitation, perhaps fearful that bloodthirsty Christians will surround the Edward Tyler Nahem Gallery in Manhattan and demand that they be allowed to hand out leaflets in an overly aggressive manner.
No, the Obama Administration takes on the role of "Film-Critic-in-Chief, and saves their greatest objections for an amateurish YouTube video.
Okay, let's give you one more try. Which of these things doesn't belong with the others?
1) Targeting Coptic Christians.
2) Bullying women.
3) Stealing a country’s resources.
4) Slandering the prophet of Islam.
If you chose, "4" because all the others are acts of violence or theft while "slander" in this case is really just a matter of exercising free speech, sorry, you got that one wrong too. It was a trick question.
Better luck next time!
September 20, 2012
Thanks to The Leadership of Comrade Obama, How Excellent This Water Tastes!If you are like most Americans, you probably worry that you are insufficiently reverent of our Dear Leader, Barack Obama. No doubt, you rise each day thinking, “I’ve got the yard sign, I’ve got the bumper sticker, I’ve fasted, given away my wedding gifts and am selling my belongings to support His campaign, and yet it all seems so inadequate.”
Fortunately, the Obama presidential campaign has a number of items that will help you to at least begin to demonstrate, as best as can be achieved in this earthly realm, your fidelity to Him.
Take, for example, this poster, suitable for either simple framing or to serve as the focal point of your home’s Obama shrine:
You know, that look on his face. It seems familiar somehow.
Oh, yeah, that’s where we’ve seen it before.
You may also want to consider this modern update on an old and outdated classic:
It's enough to make us want to break out in verse:
I pledge allegiance,
And the People’s Republic of America,
And to the Collective,
For which He stands,
With birth control,
Along those same lines, is this piece which we like to call, “The United States of Obama.”
We’re not campaign experts here, but we probably would not have chosen a motif that suggests that the country is awash in ever-higher levels of red ink.
And then there’s this.
Clearly, nothing says “I support Barack Obama” better than… whatever it is this is supposed to be. (NOTE: Planet Moron commenter "Michael" might have figured it out: "If you pronounce it out loud it does proclaim 'we owe!', so at least they have candor going for them.")
And finally, the Obama campaign has a special section for all your most popular ethnicities to pay their proper respects, including African Americans, Jewish Americans, Latino/Hispanic Americans, and:
Which, we’ll be honest, kind of sounds like “Etc., for Obama.”
But if you really want to go that extra devotional step, The Obama campaign hopes you will consider something a little more personal. Like defiling your body:
“There’s a new way to show that you’re voting for someone who represents us all. Choose one of your reasons for voting and write it on your hand, then pledge to vote. You can share a photo on Twitter and Instagram with #ForAll. Check out some of the photos—you might even recognize a few of the faces.”
Because when we think of a democratic process in which sovereign citizens gather to choose civil servants who will carry out the administrative functions of government, we think, “Hey, as a demonstration of our allegiance, let’s desecrate our flesh and then post the results on the Internet.”
Like this guy.
And these two.
Okay, we'll stop now.
September 19, 2012
OUT: “Helicopter Ben” IN: “747 Ben”
If you were faced with a lackluster recovery following the bursting of a massive real estate bubble in which housing prices had been artificially inflated through government action, what would you do?
- To ensure that such an artificial real estate bubble never occurs again, take aggressive measures that would allow interest rates and real estate prices to adjust to their natural levels according to the laws of supply an demand and in so doing stabilize the economy, eliminate malinvestment and the misallocation of capital, and set the stage for stable, long-term growth.
- Create another artificial real estate bubble.
If you said, “Create another artificial real estate bubble,” you just might have what it takes to be the Chairman of the Federal Reserve!
While you might have missed it last week, given the media’s understandable focus on the despicable attacks made on Muslim sensibilities by a filmmaker/free speech terrorist, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke announced a new round of “Quantitative Easing” known as, “QE3.”
No doubt, you have a lot of questions regarding this development, so we created the following FAQ:
Q: What, exactly, is “Quantitative Easing?”
A: It’s really very complicated, you probably wouldn’t understand.
Q: It can’t be that complicated.
A: Oh, yes, it’s all very complex involving advanced monetary theory, macroeconomics, and market equilibriums.
Q: Humor us. What is quantitative easing?
A: It’s printing up new money.
Q: Quantitative easing is just Ben Bernanke printing up new
money? What’s it called if we were
to do that?
Q: How is it different?
A: If you were to print up new money, you’d just go out and buy stuff.
Q: And if the Fed prints up new money?
A: They’ll use it to purchase financial assets thus driving down nominal long-term interest rates which will lead to lower mortgage rates, and thus higher home prices.
Q: Why do they want to do that?
A: So you’ll go out and buy stuff.
Q: Well, if they’re just going to print up new money and
debase the currency, why not cut out the middleman and just give it to us
directly so we can buy stuff?
A: Hey, someone has to buy all the debt the federal government is issuing!
Q: Okay, so why call it “QE3?”
A: Because there was already a “QE1” and a “QE2.”
Q: If they have to try it for a third time, it kind of
doesn’t work, right?
A: No, not at all. It’s like if your car won’t start, and you decide that maybe you’ve run out of gas, so you add more gasoline. And when that doesn’t work, you add some more. And if that doesn’t work, well, it’s obvious what you do then, right?
Q: Check to see if the starter is bad instead?
A: No! You add more gas. And you keep adding gas until it’s spilling all over the floor.
Q: And what happens if you actually get the car to start?
Q: Okay, to sum up, Ben Bernanke wants to artificially
create higher real estate prices using a mechanism that has already failed
twice before even though it risks debasing the currency, creating inflation,
and causing the same financial crisis we already had all over again. Why is that a good idea?
A: Because everyone else is doing it, too!
September 17, 2012
Sure, “Congress Shall Make No Law,” But No One Said Anything About The President…
Some people have suggested that perhaps it is unwise for the United States to appear to be suppressing free speech and sending armed police to seize someone in the middle of the night for totally 100% voluntary questioning because of a film he made. Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit, for example, registered some mild discomfort at the notion.
Apparently he and others believe that the Obama Administration is suddenly sympathetic to the notion of criminalizing blasphemy as some sort of panicky knee-jerk reaction to the unrest in the Middle East.
That is simply a vicious lie.
The truth is, they’ve been laying the groundwork for this for a while.
No doubt you feel better knowing that suppressing free speech isn’t some rash decision made in the heat of the moment, but rather part of a long-planned and dispassionate “pivot” towards protecting us from blasphemy of the Prophet Mohammed.
“Are as guilty as the terrorists who carried out those attacks against our embassy in Libya.”
The Reverend Steven Martin one-ups him by suggesting they are more guilty:
“I have no sympathy for anyone who would assassinate a U.S. ambassador. But I have even less sympathy for filmmakers who spread hatred and for pastors who knowingly incite violence.”
Okay, so maybe we’ve gone a little too far in condemning someone’s right to make a film but you have to admit, those attacks in Libya were pretty brutal.
In totally unrelated news, the film had nothing to do with those brutal attacks in Libya.
September 13, 2012
Frequently Asked Questions: Murders in Libya
Like most Planet Moron readers, you probably kept switching channels yesterday evening trying desperately to keep up with all the latest developments.
Why they would show the X-Factor and The Voice at the same time we’ll never know.
As a result, you may not be fully up to speed regarding the crises in Libya after a U.S. diplomat and three other Americans were killed during riots over an American-made film that depicted the Prophet Mohammed in a less-than-reverent light. Or, really in any light when you think about it.
Hopefully, this handy FAQ we prepared will help bring you up to speed:
Q: What are these
riots all about?
A: Muslims protesting an anti-Islam film released by American filmmaker “Bacille” and purportedly promoted by Pastor Terry Jones, killed several Americans including a U.S. diplomat in Libya.
Q: I assume we
have condemned the murderers and will seek justice against them.
A: Absolutely, we’ll get that filmmaker and Terry Jones and make them pay.
Q: Well, good,
because you can’t let something like that… Wait, what did you say?
A: As MSNBC’s Mike Barnicle and Donny Deutsch said, we need to prosecute them as accessories to murder.
Q: Weren’t these
people just exercising their inalienable right to free speech?
A: Not according to Anthea Butler, an associate professor of religious studies at the prestigious University of Pennsylvania who believes the filmmaker should be in jail because:
“Bacille’s film is not about expressing a personal opinion about Islam. It denigrates the religion by depicting the faith's founder in several ludicrous and historically inaccurate scenes to incite and inflame viewers.”
Q: Wait, plenty
of people have denigrated other religions including Christianity under the
protection of the first amendment. What’s the difference this time?
A: As Professor Butler patiently explains:
“The difference is that Bacile indirectly and inadvertently inflamed people half a world away, resulting in the deaths at a U.S. embassy.”
Q: So we have the
right to exercise our inalienable right to free speech as long as we don’t
think someone on the other side of the world might possibly be offended?
A: Again, we’ll leave it to the good professor:
“While the First Amendment right to free expression is important, it is also important to remember that other countries and cultures do not have to understand or respect our right.”
And therefore, neither do we! Get it, now?
Q: Not really,
but at least it’s just some professor no one ever heard of leaning on these
A: Well, the embassy in Cairo also apologized for us:
“We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”
Q: Didn’t the
Obama administration distance itself from that statement and condemn the
A: Eight hours after they were done condemning Mitt Romney for defending free speech.
Q: Well, we feel
a little better about that. Maybe.
A: And then they had General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, give Terry Jones a phone call and ask him to stop exercising his inalienable right to free speech because it could inflame tensions which could cause trouble for our troops, particularly in Afghanistan.
Q: A four-star
general in the United States Military is pressuring a private citizen to stop
exercising his inalienable right to free speech?
A: Sure, it happens all the time. Besides, the last thing we want to do is put our troops in a position of defending our inalienable first-amendment rights.
Q: What else
should they be doing that's more important?
A: Defending the rights of Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai to condemn our inalienable first-amendment rights.
Q: Okay, fine,
fine, so what’s the big lesson we should learn from this? Our foreign policy is in trouble? We
were unprepared to properly secure our embassies in a volatile region? Our commitment to free speech is under
A: No, the big lesson is that Mitt Romney is campaigning for President.
Q: This is
A: Shhhh! Someone might be listening.
September 11, 2012
Let Freedom Ring! However, You’re Going To Need a Permit For The Bell. – You’re a Racist Edition
“Let Freedom Ring! However, You’re Going To Need a Permit For The Bell,” is a periodic series in which we explore the new and exciting ways in which the notions of freedom and liberty are being interpreted in our modern and progressive world.
Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwiches
OUT: A common and economical lunch choice.
IN: An ethnonormative example of white privilege.
Fortunately, the thoroughly modern administrators of the Portland, Oregon school system can see right through the thin veneer of those who claim a PB&J “is just a sandwich” and expose it for what it is:
A sandwich with issues.
The problem came up when a teacher used a peanut butter and jelly sandwich as an example in the classroom. As local Principal Verenice Gutierrez points out,
“What about Somali or Hispanic students, who might not eat sandwiches?”
You might be thinking, “Exactly, what if they suffer from gluten intolerance or maybe are trying to lose a few pounds on Atkins?” But that’s not it at all. Principal Guttierrez offers an alternative to illustrate the real problem:
“Another way would be to say: ‘Americans eat peanut butter and jelly, do you have anything like that?’ Let them tell you. Maybe they eat torta. Or pita.”
Really, you have to stop being such a racist and treating everyone equally.
First, you need to assume that people who aren’t white are not Americans. In addition to ridding yourself of the racist assumption that anyone who is a citizen no matter where they are from “is as American as me,” you will also really be helping to streamline some matters in Arizona.
Second, you have to assume minority students are only familiar with their own ethnic food. You see a Chinese student? No way she's even seen a PB&J sandwich, never mind eaten one. Italians? They’re probably wolfing down plates of ravioli for lunch or something. Irish? A couple of pints of Guinness will do it for the drunk bastards. Estonians? Who knows, but it’s important we be as condescending to them as possible, too, so they don’t feel left out. White kids? Probably a mayonnaise sandwich on white bread with some more mayonnaise for good measure. Show that kid a taco and he’ll probably become confused and disoriented at the unfamiliar and exotic corn shell placed before him.
In totally unrelated news, Salsa surpassed Ketchup sales 20 years ago.
We simply have to break through the kind of rank racism that assumes a huge, inclusive, diverse, and dynamic, but ultimately common, culture binds us all together as individuals and instead assume that a person’s race or ethnicity is determinative of their behavior. For example, one of Principal Guttierrez’s initiatives:
Encourage “black and Latino” boys to join separate, segregated “drum groups.”
Do you think that perhaps setting up a drum group for minority students simultaneously plays to hideous racial stereotypes and is itself, racist?
“When white people do it, it is not a problem, but if it’s for kids of color, then it’s a problem? Break it down for me. That’s your white privilege, and your whiteness.”
You whitey white white whiteness white guy, you!
What if you feel that way but aren't white?
Regardless, Guttierrez has a plan:
“Our focus school and our Superintendent’s mandate that we improve education for students of color, particularly Black and Brown boys, will provide us with many opportunities to use the protocols of Courageous Conversations in data teams, team meetings, staff meetings, and conversations amongst one another.”
Equity training aside, Scott School must teach the same number of students with fewer teachers and resources. Down five full-time positions this year, including two reading specialists, Gutierrez is trying desperately to do more with less.
At least they have their priorities straight.
September 07, 2012
Night 3 of The Democratic Convention: They’re Yelling Again
It was not clear if any of the speakers understood that the Time Warner Cable Arena has a modern PA system, particularly former governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, although in fairness, she might have been having a seizure.
And of course, Vice President Joe Biden was on hand to give a speech several parts of which were coherent such as, "Hello, my fellow Democrats," and "Thank you."
In between? Not so much.
"My Dad Respected Barack Obama – Would’ve Respected Barack Obama If He’d Been Around."
"Ask Joe Biden's dad if he's better off than he was four years ago!"
But all of that was a build up to the final speech of the evening, when the legendary orator Barack Obama took to the stage to accept the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.
And let us know that Osama bin Laden was still dead.
It’s like that guy is never going to get better.
But that’s not all he told us. There were in fact many highlights, which we thought we would represent in song:
"Now, I won't pretend the path I'm offering is quick or easy. I never have."
"And the truth is, it will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over decades."
“Independent analysis shows that my plan would cut our deficits by $4 trillion. Last summer, I worked with Republicans in Congress to cut $1 trillion in spending.”
“I’ve signed trade agreements that are helping our companies sell more goods to millions of new customers."
“We will keep the promise of Social Security by taking the responsible steps to strengthen it — not by turning it over to Wall Street.”
If you missed any of the speech, don't worry, you've probably heard it before.
In totally unrelated news, “The U.S. labor market remains in a deep depression, generating few jobs and little if no income growth.”
However, according to Respected New York Times Columnist and Nobel Prize Winner Paul Krugman, there is:
“Nothing to see here.”
September 06, 2012
Night 2 of The Democratic Convention: Boo God!
As it turns out, all the angry women yelling at us yesterday were vigorously advocating the right to have an abortion.
Which reminds us, we would like to dispel once and for all the rumor that President Obama moved his acceptance speech from a 75,000-seat outdoor stadium to the 20,000 arena where the convention is being held because organizers were afraid they were not going to be able to fill the seats or because of the weather. In fact, they were afraid that with all the extra room, and with women having been whipped up into a pro-abortion frenzy the previous two days, that many would seek to have actual abortions right there in the stadium during his speech.
In the business, that’s what they call “bad optics.”
Speaking of bad optics, when it was pointed out the other day that this year’s Democratic Party platform had removed from it a reference to God and a statement declaring that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel, both of which had been part of previous years’ platforms, party leaders moved swiftly to take care of what was obviously just something that they innocently overlooked and couldn’t possibly have meant. Hey, these platforms have a lot of pages!
So, really, it was just a bit of routine business to fix the mere typos. That’s why convention Chairman Antonio Villaraigosa had to try three times to get the two-thirds majority he needed to get a measure passed fixing the oversights before finally deciding he had the two-thirds if by two-thirds you mean less than one-half.
Following the adoption of the language adding God back to the party platform, the delegates booed.
We’re not political experts here, but we’re pretty sure that “booing God” falls somewhere in the “Top Ten Things You Don’t Do at a Political Convention in America.”
Fortunately for the Democrats, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schulz was on hand to point out that what everyone just saw happen didn’t really happen and by the way, she didn’t really say what she was recorded saying.
Also, these aren’t the droids you’re looking for.
It was later learned that President Obama himself insisted on the change, after having not insisted on any changes the week before.
He’s probably going to want to have a word with himself on which one of him was responsible for that one.
Among the speakers last night was former House Speaker and California Congresswoman, Nancy Pelosi, who “fired up the crowd.”
This was useful information because otherwise we would have thought her speech was lifeless and enervating, sucking the enthusiasm out of the room like an air lock breach on a space station as she urged the crowd, which had assembled to vote democratically to nominate their candidate and then vote democratically to reelect him President,
“Vote for Democracy.”
Also speaking last night was Massachusetts Senate Candidate and proud Native American, Elizabeth Warren, who wants nothing more than to connect with “people like me.”
Unless, of course, it involves actually meeting any in person.
For those who missed it, here is a condensed version of her speech:
“The game is rigged.”
“The system is rigged.”
“We just don’t want the game to be rigged.”
Well, at least she wasn’t yelling at us about abortion.
All of this was just the big build up to the keynote speaker of the night, a figure who has become beloved in the Democratic party and representative of all it stands for:
“I don’t know about you, but all these issues, I know we’re better off because President Obama made the decisions he did.”
Also, these aren’t the droids you’re looking for.
September 05, 2012
Night 1 of The Democratic Convention: Why is Everyone Yelling at Me?
We attempted to watch last night’s convention in the early evening, but every time we turned it on, angry women were yelling at us, and frankly, we get enough of that at home.
After the angry women left, presumably because someone finally agreed to take out the garbage and maybe help a little more around bath time, it was time for a change.
So the angry men came out and yelled at us, too.
This included Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel who came on the stage to point out how very awful things were when President Obama first took office and how somewhat less awful they are now, kind of like the guy who comes to fix your garage door and only manages to get the cable untangled and then asks for four more weeks to finish the job.
Oh, and it’s going to cost you more than he originally estimated.
As it turns out, the notion that things are awful, and the best guy to make them better is the guy who has been president while things have been awful, was the evening's main theme. As Michelle Obama recounted her husband saying as he was going over letters one recent night:
"You won't believe what these folks are going through, Michelle...it's not right.”
Yeah, someone ought to do something about that!
But then, as Ms. Obama put it:
“…for Barack, success isn't about how much money you make, it's about the difference you make in people's lives.”
Perhaps the President should propose that we pay for his expansive new government programs by taxing people who make a lot of difference in people’s lives.
Incidentally, if you thought the First Lady’s speech was a self-absorbed, treacly mess that might have made sense had her husband not been president the last four years, you’d be mistaken. According to 100% non-partisan journalist experts all of whom went to better schools than you:
"Michelle Obama owned this convention in a way that no speaker owned the convention in Tampa."
"If they have two more nights like this, they can probably break this race open."
"Extremely impressive woman."
"Oh my god."
"Tonight we were reintroduced to a star."
And here we thought she was just another privileged Ivy League grad whining about having to pay for her own college degree:
“And believe it or not, when we were first married, our combined monthly student loan bills were actually higher than our mortgage.”
Can you believe that having among them, two degrees from Harvard, one from Columbia and one from Princeton might cost a lot?
Why should people who have highly marketable skills from prestigious universities have to pay for their own education? For that matter why should college students have to pay for their own contraception? Or their own abortions if the free contraception doesn’t work out?
In totally unrelated news, the national debt hit $16 trillion yesterday.
We’re not sure what to expect tonight, we’re just hoping we don’t get yelled at.