A brief time-line of civilization's punishments for criminals:
2000 BC - 500 BC
You, your family, and your dog are brutally killed for just about any offense.
500 BC - 1500 AD
Now, only you are brutally killed for just about any offense.
1500 AD - 1800 AD
You are still killed, but now humanely and only for the most severe offenses.
1900 AD - 1970 AD
You are imprisoned for the rest of your life for committing the most severe of offenses, or for possessing marijuana.
1970 AD - Present
You are elected to the Senate.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Confession of a Guilt-Free Mind
In my previous post, I referred to myself as "a humble servant of truth."
At no time should the word "humble" have been used to describe me.
This is a bold-faced lie.
I am not sorry.
At no time should the word "humble" have been used to describe me.
This is a bold-faced lie.
I am not sorry.
Confession of a Guilty Mind
As a humble servant of truth, I must make this confession. In my post on protests at the DNC, I wrote the following:
Negative reinforcement rewards someone for not doing an undesirable behavior. Thus, if we look at peace as simply the absence of open, armed conflict between nations, by saying that "peace is good," we are, in fact, engaging in negative reinforcement.
This analysis, of course, is dependent upon three rather shaky assumptions:
1. Being told that "war is bad" is undesirable to those who wage war. Protesters often seem to believe that "Neo-cons" and "chicken-hawks" would savor nothing more than frequent opportunities to spill blood. How they then conclude that being told that war is not good would punish said "warmongers" puzzles me.
2. Being told that "peace is good" is desirable to those who wage war. If it's a war for peace, doesn't it seem that they already accept this? Is it really desirable to be told what you already know?
3. Defining peace as simply the absence of conflict is not specious. See: Chamberalin, Neville; Appeasement; Czechoslovakia.
Such is the result of a journalism major attempting to make jokes about psychology. My apologies are extended to all, Pavlov in particular.
We all know war is bad. That's why it's called "war" instead of "happiness." But people keep protesting it and somehow it keeps on happening. My theory is that this is because we keep saying that "War is bad." This is negative reinforcement. What we really need is some positive reinforcement. Let's turn to the other side of the obvious coin and say "Peace is good." The power of positive reinforcement will surely overcome the evils of the world.This is not correct. Saying that "war is bad" does not constitute negative reinforcement in classical conditioning. Rather, it is called punishment. Punishment inflicts some sort of undesirable consequence upon an agent for engaging in an undesirable behavior.
Negative reinforcement rewards someone for not doing an undesirable behavior. Thus, if we look at peace as simply the absence of open, armed conflict between nations, by saying that "peace is good," we are, in fact, engaging in negative reinforcement.
This analysis, of course, is dependent upon three rather shaky assumptions:
1. Being told that "war is bad" is undesirable to those who wage war. Protesters often seem to believe that "Neo-cons" and "chicken-hawks" would savor nothing more than frequent opportunities to spill blood. How they then conclude that being told that war is not good would punish said "warmongers" puzzles me.
2. Being told that "peace is good" is desirable to those who wage war. If it's a war for peace, doesn't it seem that they already accept this? Is it really desirable to be told what you already know?
3. Defining peace as simply the absence of conflict is not specious. See: Chamberalin, Neville; Appeasement; Czechoslovakia.
Such is the result of a journalism major attempting to make jokes about psychology. My apologies are extended to all, Pavlov in particular.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
For the Record
Today was all the hoopla about the particle accelerator. I just want to go on the record predicting that a movie featuring a particle accelerator as part of the plot will come out of Hollywood in the next year and a half.
Monday, September 8, 2008
A Dialog Concerning Things That Go Bump in The Night
[Ed stirs in bed, waking Mary.]
ED: What was that!?
MARY: What is it, honey?
ED: I thought I heard something.
THIRD VOICE: You heard nothing.
ED: Oh, perfect! Back to bed then.
MARY: Didn't you hear that?
ED: Hear what?
MARY: That voice.
ED: Yes. But he said I heard nothing and put my concerns to rest. I intend to follow their lead.
MARY: But you heard him! He's something!
ED: Conceded. But that was after I thought I heard a noise that could indicate some sort of malfeasance afoot. The voice was dissimilar enough to assure me that it wasn't the same noise I thought I heard, so I'm quite happy to return to sleep if you'll let me, dear.
MARY: But couldn't he have been what you heard in the first place?
ED: Based on the dissimilarity of the sounds, I doubt it. Particularly given that I have now been assured that I did not, in fact, hear a first noise. The voice could hardly be responsible for something that didn't happen.
MARY: What if he was what you heard in the first place? Might not the same thing be responsible for two sounds?
ED: You seem to keep forgetting that I don't believe the first sound existed. The question hardly seems relevant when I will only admit to hearing one sound. However, if it will set your mind at ease, I speak for the moment as if I had heard a noise before the voice. In that case, I don't believe that there is any compelling reason for you to believe that the two noises are connected.
MARY: You heard one noise, then the voice seconds later.
ED: If I were to sneeze right now and the neighbors' house exploded moments later, would you accuse me of blowing up the neighbors' house?
MARY: Hardly! But -
ED: They operate on the same principal, darling.
MARY: But surely the two being so close together in space and time must make some difference.
ED: So if I were to sneeze in the neighbors' house, I would then be responsible for the ensuing explosion?
MARY: No. But there's a chance you could have if your sneeze somehow caused a spark due to static electricity which subsequently ignited natural gas that had rather unfortunately accumulated in the house as a result of some other happenstance.
ED: I've never said the two can't be related, simply that there is no compelling reason to believe that they are. I believe that once you see this, you will sleep soundly, aware that the fear that seems to be bothering you is baseless.
MARY: So you are of the opinion that the two noises are not connected?
ED: I am of the opinion that there was only one noise. I had only conceded to the existence of the first noise in an attempt to persuade you to stop worrying.
MARY: It would seem to me that what you have presented is hardly a case to stop worrying. There is little compelling reason to accept a view other than the view that the sounds are connected. It comes from the axiom that the simplest theory is most likely correct. What is simpler: two unusual things creating one unusual noise each or one unusual thing creating two unusual noises?
ED: The question hardly seems relevant, given that I have not admitted to hearing a first noise.
MARY: But you thought you did.
ED: Indeed. It was a misperception. Frankly, I think the simplest theory at this point would be that the second noise was also a result of a misperception on my part.
MARY: In that case, my only worry would be for your hearing. However, I, too, heard the voice. Is it simpler to say that you and I had identical misperceptions or that we had identical correct perceptions?
ED: Likely the latter.
MARY: Then the second voice was real!
ED: You've showed very little. I had conceded to this. It was, in fact, one of the premises that drove me to conclude I had not heard a first noise.
MARY: But how can you trust it?
ED: You heard the same thing I did, and we've agreed that it's more likely we both accurately perceived it than misperceived.
MARY: No! How can you trust what it said? It can't possibly know what you did or did not hear.
ED: I agree that it couldn't be privy to my inner mental states. However, it could be aware of the environment and aware that the conditions required for me to hear something were not met.
MARY: In other words, it heard nothing, so you couldn't have heard something?
ED: Exactly. So long as we are using "hear" as a technical term that denotes the ability to detect sound waves.
MARY: But what if it's lying?
ED: Why would it do that?
MARY: If it created the first noise and wanted to hide its presence.
ED: While I have maintained that there is was only one noise, you have held that there were two, and that they were created by the same thing. If I accept, again, that there were two noises, it hardly seems to me that that object, if its goal were to be clandestine, would create a second noise. As such, the precepts of your theory leave me unconcerned. They should leave you in a similar state.
MARY: But, perhaps by your theory you should be concerned. You believe the second noise - or the only noise in your theory - was caused by something that can both speak and hear?
ED: Yes.
MARY: And isn't it a bit unusual for something that can speak and hear - and isn't us - to be in this room?
ED: Yes.
MARY: Given that unusual circumstance, shouldn't you be concerned?
ED: Indeed.
MARY: Well, aren't you going to get concerned?
ED: I am now.
MARY: You don't seem to be.
ED: I said I am. Does that not lend itself to the perception that I am, in fact, concerned?
MARY: I expected more of a show of concern.
ED: More of a show than an explicit admission?
MARY: Tension in your voice, or springing to your feet, or... or....
ED: So, you don't believe that I am concerned if I am not acting in those ways, my explicit admission to the contrary?
MARY: Might not one lie about being concerned?
ED: Might not one behave in those ways without being concerned?
MARY: Touché.
ED: Mary, I am concerned. But I am also tired. Let us go to sleep and worry tomorrow about whatever unusual thing in our room can speak and hear.
MARY: And if it means us harm?
ED: It had ample opportunity while we spoke. If it meant us harm, we would be harmed by now. Go to sleep, my love.
[They kiss goodnight.]
ED: Goodnight.
MARY: Goodnight.
THIRD VOICE: Goodnight.
ED: What was that!?
MARY: What is it, honey?
ED: I thought I heard something.
THIRD VOICE: You heard nothing.
ED: Oh, perfect! Back to bed then.
MARY: Didn't you hear that?
ED: Hear what?
MARY: That voice.
ED: Yes. But he said I heard nothing and put my concerns to rest. I intend to follow their lead.
MARY: But you heard him! He's something!
ED: Conceded. But that was after I thought I heard a noise that could indicate some sort of malfeasance afoot. The voice was dissimilar enough to assure me that it wasn't the same noise I thought I heard, so I'm quite happy to return to sleep if you'll let me, dear.
MARY: But couldn't he have been what you heard in the first place?
ED: Based on the dissimilarity of the sounds, I doubt it. Particularly given that I have now been assured that I did not, in fact, hear a first noise. The voice could hardly be responsible for something that didn't happen.
MARY: What if he was what you heard in the first place? Might not the same thing be responsible for two sounds?
ED: You seem to keep forgetting that I don't believe the first sound existed. The question hardly seems relevant when I will only admit to hearing one sound. However, if it will set your mind at ease, I speak for the moment as if I had heard a noise before the voice. In that case, I don't believe that there is any compelling reason for you to believe that the two noises are connected.
MARY: You heard one noise, then the voice seconds later.
ED: If I were to sneeze right now and the neighbors' house exploded moments later, would you accuse me of blowing up the neighbors' house?
MARY: Hardly! But -
ED: They operate on the same principal, darling.
MARY: But surely the two being so close together in space and time must make some difference.
ED: So if I were to sneeze in the neighbors' house, I would then be responsible for the ensuing explosion?
MARY: No. But there's a chance you could have if your sneeze somehow caused a spark due to static electricity which subsequently ignited natural gas that had rather unfortunately accumulated in the house as a result of some other happenstance.
ED: I've never said the two can't be related, simply that there is no compelling reason to believe that they are. I believe that once you see this, you will sleep soundly, aware that the fear that seems to be bothering you is baseless.
MARY: So you are of the opinion that the two noises are not connected?
ED: I am of the opinion that there was only one noise. I had only conceded to the existence of the first noise in an attempt to persuade you to stop worrying.
MARY: It would seem to me that what you have presented is hardly a case to stop worrying. There is little compelling reason to accept a view other than the view that the sounds are connected. It comes from the axiom that the simplest theory is most likely correct. What is simpler: two unusual things creating one unusual noise each or one unusual thing creating two unusual noises?
ED: The question hardly seems relevant, given that I have not admitted to hearing a first noise.
MARY: But you thought you did.
ED: Indeed. It was a misperception. Frankly, I think the simplest theory at this point would be that the second noise was also a result of a misperception on my part.
MARY: In that case, my only worry would be for your hearing. However, I, too, heard the voice. Is it simpler to say that you and I had identical misperceptions or that we had identical correct perceptions?
ED: Likely the latter.
MARY: Then the second voice was real!
ED: You've showed very little. I had conceded to this. It was, in fact, one of the premises that drove me to conclude I had not heard a first noise.
MARY: But how can you trust it?
ED: You heard the same thing I did, and we've agreed that it's more likely we both accurately perceived it than misperceived.
MARY: No! How can you trust what it said? It can't possibly know what you did or did not hear.
ED: I agree that it couldn't be privy to my inner mental states. However, it could be aware of the environment and aware that the conditions required for me to hear something were not met.
MARY: In other words, it heard nothing, so you couldn't have heard something?
ED: Exactly. So long as we are using "hear" as a technical term that denotes the ability to detect sound waves.
MARY: But what if it's lying?
ED: Why would it do that?
MARY: If it created the first noise and wanted to hide its presence.
ED: While I have maintained that there is was only one noise, you have held that there were two, and that they were created by the same thing. If I accept, again, that there were two noises, it hardly seems to me that that object, if its goal were to be clandestine, would create a second noise. As such, the precepts of your theory leave me unconcerned. They should leave you in a similar state.
MARY: But, perhaps by your theory you should be concerned. You believe the second noise - or the only noise in your theory - was caused by something that can both speak and hear?
ED: Yes.
MARY: And isn't it a bit unusual for something that can speak and hear - and isn't us - to be in this room?
ED: Yes.
MARY: Given that unusual circumstance, shouldn't you be concerned?
ED: Indeed.
MARY: Well, aren't you going to get concerned?
ED: I am now.
MARY: You don't seem to be.
ED: I said I am. Does that not lend itself to the perception that I am, in fact, concerned?
MARY: I expected more of a show of concern.
ED: More of a show than an explicit admission?
MARY: Tension in your voice, or springing to your feet, or... or....
ED: So, you don't believe that I am concerned if I am not acting in those ways, my explicit admission to the contrary?
MARY: Might not one lie about being concerned?
ED: Might not one behave in those ways without being concerned?
MARY: Touché.
ED: Mary, I am concerned. But I am also tired. Let us go to sleep and worry tomorrow about whatever unusual thing in our room can speak and hear.
MARY: And if it means us harm?
ED: It had ample opportunity while we spoke. If it meant us harm, we would be harmed by now. Go to sleep, my love.
[They kiss goodnight.]
ED: Goodnight.
MARY: Goodnight.
THIRD VOICE: Goodnight.
Monday, September 1, 2008
On Shit Talk
I received the following e-mail in one of my fantasy football leagues:
1. We believe this is a new era in the fantasy football league.
This is a factual statement. There are new players and new rules, thus engendering a new era. Your statement as such cannot be considered shit talk as the only factual statements that can be considered shit talk are those that point out the ways in which your team is considerably better than another team.
Consider:
"My team is called Barbie Dream Draft. Ha ha ha." Not shit talk.
"Your starting quarterback just tore his hamstring. Ha ha ha." Definitely shit talk.
2. Not only do the Barbie Dream Drafters know good football
Doubtful. You drafted Brett Favre in the Fourth round. (See previous statement on factual statements being acceptable as shit talk.)
To stay on point, however, this statement lacks status as shit talk because it is a normative evaluation of your football knowledge rather than a comparative statement about your knowledge and that of your opponent. To be shit talk you would have to make it very clear that your normative evaluation of the quality being discussed somehow makes you better than your opponent.
Consider:
"We know good football." Not shit talk.
"My expansive football knowledge dwarfs the pathetic handful of factoids you cling to as your hope for success." Definitely shit talk.
3. but this is the year
This transition when coupled with the statement that follows it does not fulfill the requirements set forth in point number two to create shit talk. The word "but" coupled with the language "not only" functions essentially as the word "and" would, thus creating two unrelated statements. To properly link these two statements in such a way to form shit talk, they should be linked causally.
Consider:
"We know good football and we are gonna teach you blah blah blah." Not shit talk.
"We know good football, so come week six when you're trying to figure out which of your third-stringers to start in place of your injury-prone starter, we'll be trying to figure out which of our four top-performers to bench because we have such a glut of talent." Definitely shit talk.
4. the dudes are gonna be taught what it's like to be overpowered and outsmarted by these intelligent feminine football masterminds!
This is the closest the e-mail ever comes to shit talk. However, its great flaw is that rests on the assumption that women are worse at fantasy football than men. This isn't a problem because it's untrue. (I'm guessing that it's usually true, in fact.) It's a problem because accepting this assumption causes the shit talker to take the lowest pedestal from which to shit talk. One should always talk shit from the highest position, as the whole point of shit talking is to remind your opponents that you are better than they are.
Consider:
"I know you think of me as your inferior, but the season's results will force you to accept that I am not." Not shit talk.
"All the people of the world will be forced to take notice of my greatness because it will be drawn in contrast to my opponents' inferiority at a level of comparison last experienced when God said 'let there be light.'" Definitely shit talk.
5. Saddle up folks Prepare for an amazing adventure in our pink Barbie convertible!
An amazing adventure in a pink convertible hardly seems like a threat. In fact, it sounds like the plot of a sleazy movie. When making threats, aim for a humiliating reminder of the fact that you are better than your opponent.
Consider:
"Prepare for an amazing adventure in our pink Barbie convertible." Not shit talk.
"When I win, you'll be scrubbing my pink convertible with your tongue just to get a taste of what it's like to be as amazing as I am." Definitely shit talk.
If you were wondering, I sent this friendly primer on shit talking to the Barbie Dream Drafters along with this last warning:
"If you think I tore that e-mail to pieces, wait until I face your fantasy team." Definitely shit talk.
We believe this is a new era in the fantasy football league. Not only do the Barbie Dream Drafters know good football, but this is the year the dudes are gonna be taught what it's like to be overpowered and outsmarted by these intelligent feminine football masterminds! Saddle up folks Prepare for an amazing adventure in our pink Barbie convertible!I'd like to address this supposed "shit talking" on a point-by-point basis here, as I believe shit talk is woefully lacking in the text I just presented:
1. We believe this is a new era in the fantasy football league.
This is a factual statement. There are new players and new rules, thus engendering a new era. Your statement as such cannot be considered shit talk as the only factual statements that can be considered shit talk are those that point out the ways in which your team is considerably better than another team.
Consider:
"My team is called Barbie Dream Draft. Ha ha ha." Not shit talk.
"Your starting quarterback just tore his hamstring. Ha ha ha." Definitely shit talk.
2. Not only do the Barbie Dream Drafters know good football
Doubtful. You drafted Brett Favre in the Fourth round. (See previous statement on factual statements being acceptable as shit talk.)
To stay on point, however, this statement lacks status as shit talk because it is a normative evaluation of your football knowledge rather than a comparative statement about your knowledge and that of your opponent. To be shit talk you would have to make it very clear that your normative evaluation of the quality being discussed somehow makes you better than your opponent.
Consider:
"We know good football." Not shit talk.
"My expansive football knowledge dwarfs the pathetic handful of factoids you cling to as your hope for success." Definitely shit talk.
3. but this is the year
This transition when coupled with the statement that follows it does not fulfill the requirements set forth in point number two to create shit talk. The word "but" coupled with the language "not only" functions essentially as the word "and" would, thus creating two unrelated statements. To properly link these two statements in such a way to form shit talk, they should be linked causally.
Consider:
"We know good football and we are gonna teach you blah blah blah." Not shit talk.
"We know good football, so come week six when you're trying to figure out which of your third-stringers to start in place of your injury-prone starter, we'll be trying to figure out which of our four top-performers to bench because we have such a glut of talent." Definitely shit talk.
4. the dudes are gonna be taught what it's like to be overpowered and outsmarted by these intelligent feminine football masterminds!
This is the closest the e-mail ever comes to shit talk. However, its great flaw is that rests on the assumption that women are worse at fantasy football than men. This isn't a problem because it's untrue. (I'm guessing that it's usually true, in fact.) It's a problem because accepting this assumption causes the shit talker to take the lowest pedestal from which to shit talk. One should always talk shit from the highest position, as the whole point of shit talking is to remind your opponents that you are better than they are.
Consider:
"I know you think of me as your inferior, but the season's results will force you to accept that I am not." Not shit talk.
"All the people of the world will be forced to take notice of my greatness because it will be drawn in contrast to my opponents' inferiority at a level of comparison last experienced when God said 'let there be light.'" Definitely shit talk.
5. Saddle up folks Prepare for an amazing adventure in our pink Barbie convertible!
An amazing adventure in a pink convertible hardly seems like a threat. In fact, it sounds like the plot of a sleazy movie. When making threats, aim for a humiliating reminder of the fact that you are better than your opponent.
Consider:
"Prepare for an amazing adventure in our pink Barbie convertible." Not shit talk.
"When I win, you'll be scrubbing my pink convertible with your tongue just to get a taste of what it's like to be as amazing as I am." Definitely shit talk.
If you were wondering, I sent this friendly primer on shit talking to the Barbie Dream Drafters along with this last warning:
"If you think I tore that e-mail to pieces, wait until I face your fantasy team." Definitely shit talk.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
A Hard Day's Night
Consider the following, which is a good reconstruction of what I think through the course of a given night at my job working security for a retail store:
18:06
The tedium grows with every minute. What little energy can be diverted from the fanatical self-hatred that is a result of volunteering for this assignment must be used in a vain effort to stay awake. I take solace in the fact that this will later pay for beer. (Every 13 minutes is a beer on $2 pint night.)
18:11
Still no improvement.
18:19
Have earned one beer since beginning log.
18:24-18:25
Watched cursor blink for one minute. 56 blinks. 728 blinks = one beer.
18:40
Discussed with dock guys whether or not it is funny when numerous customers arrive to pick up merchandise at the same time. Their consensus: not funny. I disagree. Tomorrow's topic agreed upon: practical applications of existentialist thought in contemporary retail sales.
18:50
Just saw a homely girl in fragrances. Gross.
19:10
Have been watching customers for the last 20 minutes. No one stole. What assholes.
19:55
I was going to buy a rice krispies treat, but the bookstore was out. They did have a really cool coloring book, though, so the trip wasn't a total loss.
20:07
Started to observe a woman because she was carrying a wal-mart bag. Saw she had a mullet so stopped surveilling; figured it was her purse.
20:48
Banged knee on desk. it hurt like hell, but it was a little reassuring to know that i can still feel feelings.
20:55:32
In love!
20:55:38
Out of love. Should have left the camera unfocused.
21:11
Almost done for the day, but retirement still out of reach.
18:06
The tedium grows with every minute. What little energy can be diverted from the fanatical self-hatred that is a result of volunteering for this assignment must be used in a vain effort to stay awake. I take solace in the fact that this will later pay for beer. (Every 13 minutes is a beer on $2 pint night.)
18:11
Still no improvement.
18:19
Have earned one beer since beginning log.
18:24-18:25
Watched cursor blink for one minute. 56 blinks. 728 blinks = one beer.
18:40
Discussed with dock guys whether or not it is funny when numerous customers arrive to pick up merchandise at the same time. Their consensus: not funny. I disagree. Tomorrow's topic agreed upon: practical applications of existentialist thought in contemporary retail sales.
18:50
Just saw a homely girl in fragrances. Gross.
19:10
Have been watching customers for the last 20 minutes. No one stole. What assholes.
19:55
I was going to buy a rice krispies treat, but the bookstore was out. They did have a really cool coloring book, though, so the trip wasn't a total loss.
20:07
Started to observe a woman because she was carrying a wal-mart bag. Saw she had a mullet so stopped surveilling; figured it was her purse.
20:48
Banged knee on desk. it hurt like hell, but it was a little reassuring to know that i can still feel feelings.
20:55:32
In love!
20:55:38
Out of love. Should have left the camera unfocused.
21:11
Almost done for the day, but retirement still out of reach.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Hail to the Chief
I’d like you, before you read any further, to concede that politics is really just a grand show for our amusement. Given that, we should choose the President most likely to entertain us. I’ve thought long and hard about who we ought to choose as the star of this show we call “popular sovereignty,” and I’ve come to the conclusion that it would have to be Bob Dylan. The man is the elder statesman of rock ‘n roll and is, thus, eminently qualified to run the country.
Here’s how I picture one small moment during President Dylan’s first term:
GOVERNOR: I need highway money.
PRESIDENT DYLAN: How many roads must a man walk down?
GOVERNOR: We don’t need roads for walking. We need them to drive, and ours are in atrocious condition. Consider –
PRESIDENT DYLAN: Positively
GOVERNOR: No. Just plain old
PRESIDENT DYLAN: Subterranean Homesick Blues?
GOVERNOR: No. Infectious disease is what I was thinking of. Could you put the guitar down and discuss this with me seriously for a moment, Mr. President?
PRESIDENT DYLAN: Certainly. But it’s not me you need to talk to. You need to talk to the appropriations committee. They decide who gets money. Not the President.
GOVERNOR: Conceded. But the money always gets –
PRESIDENT DYLAN: Tangled up in blue?
GOVERNOR: No! In red tape! I didn’t come to literally ask you for money. I just want you to get the ball rolling.
PRESIDENT DYLAN: Like a Rolling Stone?
GOVERNOR: No, not like a rolling stone. Like a bunch of highway money.
PRESIDENT DYLAN: I thought we were done with the highway issue. I told you, you need to speak to the appropriations committee.
GOVERNOR: Well, if it’s alright I’d like the issue of –
PRESIDENT DYLAN: Highway 61 Revisited?
GOVERNOR: No, dammit! I just want to talk with a sane person.
PRESIDENT DYLAN: It’s been a long time since the American people made one of those President.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
