About Wayne A. Schneider

I'm a Liberal, Libertarian, Atheist Humanist. I believe that though the world is a dangerous place, it can be made better if we stop dividing ourselves by how we're different from each other, and reach out to each other through what we have in common. And that is that we are all human beings on this planet. Please remember that.

The Weekend Hole, Sat-Sun, January 14-15, 2017: Everything’s Alt-right (A Song Parody)

One of the greatest rock operas (and one of my personal favorites) is “Jesus Christ Superstar,” a story about a nice Jewish boy who went into his father’s business. (A Jewish friend from the development I grew up in used to tell me that joke.) This particular parody is based on the very popular song from that musical, “Everything’s Alright.” I feel bad because try as I might, I could not find any suitable video, or even audio clip, to post so you can follow along. But it MUST be from the original Broadway musical, and NOT the film which sucked hugely. If you use a clip from that, it won’t match the lyrics because they sing it wrong in the movie. You know how these parodies work. Can’t have that. So you’ll have to drag out your CD and play along. Then again you should know how the song goes, especially once you start going through the words. I hope you enjoy it. Let me know what you think, and if you like it, please share it. Thank you very much. Oh, and, yes, the Trump lines are deliberate.

Everything’s Alt-right
Original words and music, “Everything’s Alright” by Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber, 1970
Additional lyrics by Wayne A. Schneider, 2017

Kellyanne Conway
Try not to get frenzied, try not to log onto
Forums that upset you so don’t you know
Everything’s alt-right yes Nazis online
And we want you to tweet well tonight
Let the world turn around you tonight
And the lies will get by so retweet all about them tonight

Steve Bannon
Everything’s alt-right yes everything’s alt-right yes

Kellyanne Conway
Tweet and it shall soothe you calm you then annoy you
Stir up your poor hothead so then you’ll see
Everything’s alt-right yes Nazis online
And they’re cool; your appointments, sweet
More the liars in your stead and fleet
Post your lies post your lies
Then relax think of Nazis tonight

Steve Bannon
Everything’s alt-right yes everything’s alt-right yes

The Thinking People Who See Trump For The Fraud He Is
Donald your appointments brand you an extremist
Could we be paced for a war?
Why are your days wasted? You could have placed maybe
Three hundred better people or more
People who aren’t angry people who aren’t raving
Matter more than your tweets and hair

Kellyanne Conway
Try not to get frenzied try not to log onto
Forums that upset you so don’t you know
Everything’s alt-right yes Nazis online
And we want you to sleep well tonight
Let the world turn around you tonight
And the lies will get by so retweet all about them tonight

Steve Bannon
Everything’s alt-right yes everything’s alt-right yes

Donald Trump
Surely you’re not saying we have the resources
To save the poor from their lot?
There will be poor always pathetically struggling –
Look at the good things you’ve got!
Think! while you still have me
Move! while you still see me
You’ll be lost and you’ll be so sorry when I’m gone

Kellyanne Conway
Tweet and it shall soothe you calm you then annoy you
Stir up your poor hothead so then you’ll see
Everything’s alt-right yes Nazis online
And they’re cool; your appointments, sweet
More the liars in your stead and fleet
Post your lies post your lies
Then relax think of Nazis tonight
Post your lies post your lies
Then relax think of Nazis tonight

All
Everything’s alt-right yes everything’s alt-right yes

Everything’s Alt-right (Reprise)
Original words and music, “Everything’s Alright” by Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber, 1970
Additional lyrics by Wayne A. Schneider, 2017

Kellyanne Conway
Try not to get frenzied try not to log onto
Forums that upset you so don’t you know
Everything’s alt-right yes Nazis online

Donald Trump
And I think I shall sleep well tonight
Let the world turn around me tonight

Kellyanne Conway
And the lies will get by so retweet all about them tonight

This is our daily open thread.

The Watering Hole, Mon-Tue, Jan 9-10, 2017: Donny’s A Liar (A Song Parody)

In case it isn’t obvious by now, I think Donald J. Trump is more than just a bullshit artist, he’s a flat out liar.

Donny’s A Liar
Original words and music “Baby’s On Fire” by Brian Eno, 1973
Additional lyrics by Wayne A. Schneider, 2017

Donny’s a liar
Never toes the line he ought to
Look at him laughing
Says he’d like to date his daughter

Donny’s a liar
And we’re all laughing at his bitching
Hating those photos
Oh, they spot his double chin thing

Continue reading

The Year End Hole December 31, 2016: A Year We’d Like To Pretend Didn’t Happen

The year 2016 will likely be remembered for the pain and grief of losing so many famous people, as well as the pain and grief of our country’s losing its collective shit and electing as President a man whose only qualifications for the job are the bare minimum spelled out in the Constitution: he was born here, he’s old enough, and he’s lived here along enough. It would have been nice if the Framers had the foresight to add a few more requirements to be president, such as knowing what the hell you’re talking about, being able to talk about it coherently, and understanding what the responsibilities and sacrifices of being a public servant are. I see none of those very desirable qualities in the man chosen by the Electoral College to be the 45th President of the United States. Nor do I see any of those very desirable qualities in the millions of people who voted for him.

I can believe a great many of them, but not a majority, were not so much voting for Donald Trump as they were voting against a version of Hillary Clinton that simply did not match the one who exists in the real world. They voted against a myth. Then there are the ones who voted for Donald Trump, but who also voted for a myth. They believed that he was a very successful businessman because he said he was one. They believed he was worth billions of dollars because he said he was. (The estimates of what his real estate holdings are worth come from him, and him alone. And they can go up or down depending on whether there are tax considerations at stake.) They believed he could do all the things he promised to do as president because he said he could do them, not because he actually had the legal or constitutional authority to do them. I could go on, but you get the idea. Neither Trump nor the people who voted for him understand the first thing about governing and being a public servant. And let’s not even talk about who Trump’s most vocal supporters were: Nazis and the KKK. And they got their reward with a senior advisor to the president whispering sweet bigotry in his ear.

I would certainly like a do-over on 2016. Bring back all the wonderful people we lost and throw out the ones we elected to run our country. I want to be hopeful about 2017. I want to think that it can’t be any worse, but then I thought 2016 couldn’t keep getting any worse and it did, day after day, right up to losing Princess Leia AND her mother on consecutive days. So it’s hard for me to believe things are going to get better just because our rocky little blue dot completed another revolution around a hot ball of gas that simultaneously gives us life and tries to take it away. But the alternative is too depressing to contemplate, so we pretty much have to hope it gets better. (Insert forced smile here.)

For a better and more humorous take on 2016, check out Dave Barry’s Year in Review. He always makes me laugh though he has yet to make my drink come out my nose. And whatever your plans this weekend, please enjoy a safe, happy holiday, and may you have a happy, healthy and prosperous 2017.

UPDATE: And just to show us 2016 wasn’t through making our lives miserable, another popular actor, William Christopher, has died. Christopher was best known for playing Father Mulcahy on both M*A*S*H and AfterM*A*S*H.

Thanks for all the jocularity, Mr. Christopher.

This is our weekend open thread, as I probably won’t post something else on Sunday. Feel free to discuss any topic you wish. Consider signing up to post your own weekly column at The Zoo. Several days available. Happy New Year.

The Weekend Holiday Hole, Sat-Sun, Dec 24-25: Happy Holidays

The next few days bring several holidays not only to the US, but to the world. At sundown, Saturday, Dec 24, Jews begin celebrating the liberation of Jerusalem from the occupation of Antiochus IV, king of the Seleucid Empire in 165 BCE, which you know better as Hanukkah. And on Sunday, Dec 25, Christians throughout the world celebrate the birth of Jesus, which you know better as Christmas. Of course, in both cases there are many non-religious observations of the holidays by hundreds of millions of people throughout the world. And there are several billion people, about two-thirds of the world’s population, who observe neither holiday. So people like Bill O’Reilly need to understand that it is no more appropriate to wish strangers a Happy Hanukkah if you don’t know they’re Jewish than it is to wish strangers a Merry Christmas if you don’t know they’re Christian. Either way, there’s a two out of three chance you’re wrong. And since the entire point of saying anything is to tell them you hope they enjoy the upcoming holidays (including the ones that follow over the course of the next week), and not to offend them, it’s completely appropriate to say to them, “Happy Holidays,” and thank them for whatever they wish back at you, even if it doesn’t apply to you. They’re trying to be nice to you even if they loathe you as much as I. So, in the spirit of the holidays and because I just know it pisses you off so much, I want to say to you, Bill O’Reilly, “Happy Holidays.”

And happy and safe holidays to Everyone. May you find joy and happiness in the comfort of friends and/or family, or peace in the solitude of contemplation. And may the world go just one day without people trying to kill each other. Is that really too much to ask?

Happy Holidays. This is our daily open thread. Feel free to discuss any topic you wish. Peace.

The Watering Hole, Monday, Dec 19, 2016: How He’ll Screw Ya (A Song Parody)

The people who voted for Donald Trump have no idea what trouble they’ve caused themselves. Trump never did anything for anybody that didn’t also help himself, even if it was just to stroke his amazingly fragile ego. His Trump Tower Headquarters on 5th Avenue in NYC has become a Mecca for favor seekers and mendacious speakers, including The Donald himself (as he is [dis]affectionately known in his home city.) This is a parody addressed to the ill-educated, short-sighted, bigoted white idiots who voted for Trump. I hope that the rest of you enjoy it at least as much as they’ll hate it.

How He’ll Screw Ya
(Original words and music “Hallelujah” by Leonard Cohen, 1984
Additional lyrics by Wayne A. Schneider, 2016)

Now we know it was no secret chord
That Donald played and it pleased the horde
But you don’t really care for truth now, do ya?
It flows like piss, goes forth from 5th
The minor lies, the major grift
The awful king exposing how he’ll screw ya
How he’ll screw ya, How he’ll screw ya
How he’ll screw ya, How he’ll screw ya

His facts were wrong but you ceded proof
You saw him tweeting like a goof
His duty to the alt-right overthrew ya
He lied to you in bitching where
He broke the rules he claimed unfair
And from his lips we knew just how he’ll screw ya
How he’ll screw ya, How he’ll screw ya
How he’ll screw ya, How he’ll screw ya

Maybe I’ve heard this before
I know this gloom, I’ve fought this war
I used to fight alone before I knew ya
I’ve seen his plans and they’re really poor
He’d love to take a victory tour
He’s so bold and he’s not jokin’ how he’ll screw ya
How he’ll screw ya, How he’ll screw ya
How he’ll screw ya, How he’ll screw ya

There was a time I told you so
What’s really going on you know
But now you never listen to me, do ya
And remember when I proved it true
And the wingnut right was crying boo
And every thing he’d do was how he’ll screw ya
How he’ll screw ya, How he’ll screw ya
How he’ll screw ya, How he’ll screw ya

Maybe there’s a lesson here
All you ever learned from fear
Was how to shoot at someone who’s new to ya
And it’s no surprise that he cheers alt-right
He’s somebody they’re pleased is white
It’s been told and it’s all spoken how he’ll screw ya
How he’ll screw ya, How he’ll screw ya
How he’ll screw ya, How he’ll screw ya

This is our daily open thread. feel free to discuss any topic you wish.

The Watering Hole, Monday, December 5, 2016: Deadly Force Is Not Always Justified

After posting some cryptic messages on his Facebook page on the morning of November 28, 2016, 18-year-old Abdul Razak Ali Artan, a refugee from Somalia, drove his car over a curb at Ohio State University into a crowd of people, then exited the car and began attacking people with a butcher knife. Officer Alan Horujko arrived on the scene within a minute and, as a police spokesman put it later, “eliminated the threat.” That’s cop-speak for “he killed him.” But did he really have to? Was killing Artan the only option available to “eliminate the threat”? You and I weren’t there but, even so, I seriously doubt Officer Horujko had no other option to “eliminate the threat.” And what exactly does “eliminate the threat” mean? Which was the “threat”? Artan himself or the butcher knife he was using on people? If Artan was disarmed of the knife, can one automatically assume he was still going to continue to try to kill people? It’s certainly possible, I agree, but can it be automatically assumed, and therefore used as justification to say that killing him was the only option available? Don’t cops carry several kinds of weapons? Don’t they have batons with which to beat down on someone’s arm to knock a knife out of his hands? Don’t they have tasers? Don’t they have any other options besides guns? And even with the guns, do they always have to shoot to kill? Is it because they’re such bad shots that the only chance they have of hitting a suspect is to aim for the torso? That’s what some argue. Well, they don’t call them bad shots (which many street cops appear to be based on the news reports of how many shots were fired versus how many times the suspect was hit), but they seem concerned that having to shoot at a knee or leg would be too chancy, and might result in a missed shot. They miss anyway, so I don’t understand that argument.

Ross Elder is a military veteran (he served in Operation Enduring Freedom) and freelance writer for Soldier of Fortune Magazine. Thank you for your service to our country, Mr. Elder. He believes that Americans simply do not understand why it is justifiable for police to use deadly force against even unarmed people. As he puts it, “The problem with the public outcry and the rioting in pursuit of “JUSTICE” is that most people know exactly nothing about physical combat and life threatening situations. They assume that if a person is unarmed that deadly force cannot and should not be employed. And they are wrong.” I couldn’t disagree with him more because there are several things wrong with what he said. First of all, we understand that there will be times when deadly force must be used, but they should always be as a last resort, not the first option, which is what appears to be happening with many of these cops killing unarmed black men. Second is his framework. He equates the situation of a police officer confronting an unarmed person (male or female) behaving in a potentially dangerous way with that of a soldier in a war facing an enemy in combat. They are not at all equivalent. The soldier has a duty to kill, distasteful as I find it. The police officer does not. The cop is not a soldier in a war, no matter how often you may hear some describe themselves as such. Their duty is to protect the public from the bad guys.

But that doesn’t mean their job is to find the bad guys and kill them. They’re supposed to stop the bad guys from doing any bad things they’re doing, and then bring them to justice for the bad things they did. By law there’s a process to which everyone is due, and it’s called “due process.” So important is due process that it’s enshrined as a guaranteed right in the US Constitution. That process involves many different people working in many different roles across many different government agencies. There are checks and balances along the way to ensure that the guarantee of due process is not ignored with impunity. And there’s a point early on in the process where the role of the police officer who first encountered the suspect no longer involves protecting the public from him, or even physically handling him in any way. He may testify against him during the trial, where his proper role is to present evidence. But he does not determine if the suspect is guilty of violating the law. And he does not determine what punishment the convicted will face. And he does not carry out that punishment. And even if the charge was “Failure To Obey The Lawful Orders Of A Police Officer,” the punishment would not be execution. Sadly, that has often been the punishment meted out for just such a crime, but without the whole due process thing.

Mr. Elder’s argument goes further astray when he starts equating the situation of a police officer confronting an unarmed person (male or female) behaving in a potentially dangerous way with that a civilian being attacked by a mugger or rapist, or even a killer. Again, the two are not equivalent at all. As a private citizen, you do have the right to defend yourself. And if you have a REASONABLE belief that your life is in danger, you can justify using deadly force. But civilians are not police officers, and do not have to concern themselves with protecting the rights of their attacker during the attack. And, yes, they do have rights. Once there is no longer a threat to your life (a real threat, not just a hypothetical one, or the old standby of the existential threat), there no longer exists a justification for the civilian to use deadly force. He’s not allowed to go after the attacker and kill him. Now some may say that states with so-called Stand Your Ground laws do allow such behavior if you continue to believe your life is in danger. But, again, it has to be a reasonable belief. And that’s part of the problem. People who are frightened, especially when they think their life is in danger, are usually unable to think reasonably.

Though I have no legal training, I don’t understand how a state law can override your federal right to not be deprived of life, liberty or property with out due process of law. It doesn’t matter that we may be talking about a civilian doing the killing and not the government. That’s irrelevant. The power to deprive someone of their life is not the government’s to give away to civilians. You can’t say that enumerated right only applies to police and judges trying to take your life and not to civilians. That’s stupid! It doesn’t say anything about to whom that power is denied, and it certainly would not be the framers’ intent that civilians be allowed to go around killing each other for whatever reasons they wish. So letting a state write a law that specifically allows someone to do that would clearly be unconstitutional. So, no, Stand Your Ground laws must be struck down and the old standard of Duty To Retreat must be reimposed.

Perhaps you’ve seen this meme:

americadoingitwrong

Mr. Elder says this meme “is not only misleading, it’s just plain stupid”. He writes, “First, let’s talk briefly about combat and self-defense.” Well, no, let’s not. A police officer on Main Street, USA, is not a soldier in Afghanistan. But he continues, again, based on the very false idea that what the cop is doing is exactly the same as what the soldier is doing. “When it comes to shooting an attacker, there is no school of training that directs you to take one shot then wait to see the reaction of the person you just shot. Then, if they are still a threat, if you actually hit them, take one more shot and, again, wait to see the reaction of the attacker before repeating this process until the threat is no longer present. If there IS such a school of training out there, please let me know. Then, run screaming from the building because you are being improperly trained by really stupid people.” No, they are not. It’s only stupid if you believe your one and only objective should be to kill the person you’re confronting. But it’s not. The street cop’s job is not to kill. That’s usually left to SWAT teams and Hostage Negotiating Teams. The street cop is there to make sure as many innocent lives are protected as possible while making sure the suspect is not denied his rights under the Constitution. He’s supposed to arrest the perpetrator, not skip the arrest, decide he’s guilty, sentence him to death, and then carry out the execution. All within a minute of arriving on the scene. Or in the case of Tamir Rice, two seconds. What gave those police officers the right to claim a life-threatening danger existed anywhere outside their own minds? And therein lies the crux of the problem. We allow someone’s frightened state of mind to become a justification for using deadly force in a situation where it clearly ought not be warranted. And with Stand Your Ground laws, sometimes the killer only has to tell the cops, “I swear, I thought he was going to kill me,” and the questioning of him as a murderer stops, no arrest is made, and he never has to prove that what he said was true.

I realize the law may be written differently, but it should not be so that merely believing your life is in danger justifies the use of deadly force. What if it’s not? What if it never was in danger? Are you still going to say that the use of deadly force was justified when in reality no actual threat to your life existed? How? To defend it is to say that you imagined a situation that just wasn’t real, and then acted on that false belief to take another person’s life. And you think that should be a valid, legal defense? “I swear, I thought he was an alien from outer space, and I had to kill him before he returned to his natural form and killed us all. It’s okay. We’re all safe now. You’re welcome.” What if he really, truly believed that? And what if, just what if, he was actually right? I know, it’s highly unlikely, but you have to agree it’s not totally impossible, is it? But, no, he probably killed that guy because he’s a murderous asshole who just didn’t like the guy he killed for some other reason having no connection to reality. But why give him some potentially legal excuse at all? Why not make the law say he has a Duty To Retreat, and can use deadly force only when confronted with no other options? Stand Your Ground laws pretty much make deadly force your go-to option, since they allow you to assume the other person is going to kill you if you don’t kill him first. What if, in your twisted little mind, you assume the other guy will kill you because of the color of his skin or the religion you believe he practices? Because there are people out there who will kill another person for those reasons. And it doesn’t matter if they’re made to answer for them or not, because their victims will still be dead.

The average police officer on patrol is not a combat soldier in a wartime situation. Nor is that officer a civilian under assault without the benefit of a police officer nearby to assist. They are trained in self-defense techniques, including unarmed combat. Are they unable to utilize those techniques, or feel they are just not good at them? Then why are they graduating the academy? And because they are not in a combat situation, they can’t think of themselves as soldiers whose goal is to kill. Their job is to subdue the suspect (thus eliminating the threat to public safety), arrest him, and bring him to face the due process of law to which he is entitled. We say that people in America are innocent until proven guilty. It may surprise many Americans to know that’s not how it works even in some of our “friendly” foreign countries. If enough evidence exists to believe you might have done the crime, it’s up to you to prove you didn’t. You should feel lucky we do it the right way here, assuming the right way means not convicting innocent people for crimes they didn’t commit. Assuming, of course, you live long enough to enjoy that due process of law. Your chances of enjoying that due process are better if you’re white. Which is a whole other side to this problem into which I do not wish to go.

[This post originally appeared on Pick Wayne’s Brain on December 4, 2016.]

This is our daily open thread. Feel free to discuss anything you wish.

The Weekend Hole, Sat-Sun, Nov 26-27, 2016: Have You Read The 25th Amendment?

In his series “The Resistance” (formerly known as “The Closer” until the election of Donald J. Trump), Keith Olbermann spells out how Republicans in Congress can remove Trump from office without going through the process of an impeachment. And it’s all perfectly legal and constitutional, because the procedure is spelled out in Article of Amendment 25, Section 4,of the US Constitution. It reads as follows:

4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

So how would this work? Well, upon returning from the swearing-in ceremony, Vice President Pence and a majority of the heads of the cabinet departments (and it could be the ones still in office on January 20, or even the ones who act as heads of the departments should the heads all have resigned effective at noon that day) could write a letter to Speaker Paul Ryan and President Pro Tempore of the Senate Orrin Hatch (the President Pro Tem is the oldest serving member, not the Majority Leader) simply stating the Donald is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. They don’t have to give a reason. They don’t have to prove anything. No hearings. No nothing. Just a letter.

Now, of course, the Donald could fire back a letter within minutes (and I’d bet he’ll have such a letter pre-written, ready to go) saying no such inability exists. Within four days (in case there’s a holiday weekend in there), Pence and his department heads could fire back another letter (again, they should have this one written along with the first because it would be needed) saying the inability does still exist. Then the matter would go to the Congress. It would require a two-thirds vote of both the House of Representatives and the Senate to remove Trump from power permanently.

I can only hope the Republicans in Congress recognize the danger of having Trump be POTUS and take the legal, constitutional path to remove him from being able to do damage. He could keep the title, since I’m sure that’s all he really wanted out of it, but he wouldn’t have the authority to do anything. Not that I would be much happier in a Pence administration. Unlike Pence, I actually like women and want to see them have the autonomy over their bodies that men take for granted. That’s even less likely to happen under Pence than under Trump, but at least Pence knows something about governing. Trump does not. In fact, based on his comments on the campaign trail, I’m convinced Trump doesn’t understand how government works at all. He talked as if the POTUS had powers he doesn’t really have. In fact, at times it sounded like he thought a POTUS was a dictator, possibly because a lot of Republican citizens think he is. That’s just projection on their part.

And while it is perfectly constitutional to remove Trump from power (if not office) in this matter, it’s actually harder than impeaching him. Invoking Article 25, Section 4, requires two-thirds of both Houses to remove him. But to impeach him (for Treason, Bribery or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors) would require only a simple majority of votes in the House of Representatives. It would still require a two-thirds vote in the Senate to remove him. But you’d have to produce actual charges and conduct an actual trial for that process to work. And while Trump will be in violation of the Constitution at 12:01 PM EST on January 20, 2017, it will not be because of a crime. Instead, and possibly among other reasons, it will be because he had a group of foreign dignitaries come to his hotel in Washington, DC, and encouraged them to stay there when they visited the United States. In other words, he would personally profit from his job beyond what the Congress provides as compensation. (It’s called an Emolument, and its definition depends on what the Framers took the word to mean, not what it may have come to mean since.) Unless, of course, he lets them and their entire staffs stay there completely free of charge, including meals. Then he might argue that he’s not receiving any emoluments. But does anyone believe a man driven by the lust for money, who campaigned on a bigoted platform designed to make white people feel good about themselves, would let foreigners stay at his hotel completely free of charge? I don’t. And I wouldn’t believe a word Trump said about whether or not he was making any money on it. He’s a billionaire because he says he is. He’s the one deciding how much his properties are worth, not an independent auditor. There is very little that Trump says that can be taken at face value. And that’s one of many reasons why he should never be allowed to be POTUS. Also, he’s a bit of an asshole, but there’s no law against that. Otherwise I’d be in a lot of trouble, too. 🙂

This is our weekend open thread. Feel free to discuss anything you wish.