Archive for September, 2010
According to this BBC story, a rather seedy poem was discovered recently by scholars at Oxford University that was, at least by some, initially attributed to Milton. The eight-line poem dates from the mid-17th century, when Milton was writing, and has since been attributed to a scant few others authors, namely John Dryden, Sir John Suckling and John Wilmot. I know you can’t wait to read its (Miltonic?) devilishness, so here it is:
An Extempore upon a Faggot
Have you not in a Chimney seen
A Faggot which is moist and green
How coyly it receives the Heat
And at both ends do’s weep and sweat?
So fares it with a tender Maid
When first upon her Back she’s laid
But like dry Wood th’ experienced Dame
Cracks and rejoices in the Flame.
Here’s a brief summation of the poem from The Guardian:
The coarse, and frankly misogynistic verse likens a young woman to a faggot, a bunch of damp sticks, which, when cast upon the fire, produces moisture “at both ends”, like (according to the poem) a weeping virgin when sexually aroused. By contrast, the more sexually experienced woman is more like dry wood, which becomes joyfully enflamed when put on the fire.
Jennifer Batt, an English literature academic at Oxford apparently came across the poem while sifting through the Harding Collection located in the Bodleian Library. According to Batt,
To see the name of John Milton, the great religious and political polemicist, attached to such a bawdy epigram is extremely surprising to say the least. The poem is so out of tune with the rest of his work that if the attribution is correct it would prompt a major revision of our ideas about Milton.
It is likely that Milton’s name was used as an attribution to bring scandal upon the poet, perhaps by a jealous contemporary.
This is a pretty likely theory, since Milton didn’t make too many friends in his day. First, through his poetry, he constantly claimed and channeled divine inspiration for many of his works, inside the works themselves, as in the introduction to “Paradise Lost,” where Milton summons the Holy Spirit to guide him in writing the epic poem:
And chiefly thou O Spirit … Instruct me … what in me is dark / Illumine, what is low raise and support; / That to the height of this great argument / I may assert eternal providence, / And justify the ways of God to men.
Milton’s writing about his calling as a great poet is flush with examples throughout his poetic and prose works.
Second, he was against the rule of a monarch and seemed to set up an analogy between the king and Satan in “Paradise Lost” and advocated the execution of Charles I. He also wrote a tract called “Areopagitica” that served as an early call for freedom of speech in the wake of the government attempting to quell anti-government tracts from being published. After the king was restored following the English Revolution, Milton found himself in jail for a brief period because of his stance against the monarchy.
And on top of all that, he barely wrote about anything other than religion, politics or himself! While Milton was by no means a conformist on any level, topics like love and lust would have probably seemed beside the point for him, a man consumed with his own future celebrity, the fate of his home country and religion.
That said, John Wilmot, a writer known for his bawdiness, may indeed be a more likely culprit.
As a side note, a full reading of “Paradise Lost” is highly recommended, and the work approaches something like a transcendent experience. The poem itself is just, or more, sublime than the gods, angels and demons of which Milton chose for his subjects. I am currently watching a video lecture series on Milton at academicearth.org and may have more Milton-inspired musings as I go along.
Glad they cleared this up for us:
And here is the equally nebulous Athanasian Creed:
…. we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord.
Sounds like a lot of specious reasoning and begging the question to me. For all the Church’s accomplishments or good deeds in the world, lucidity would not be among them.
[Of course, I wouldn't bother with the last 1 1/2 minutes of the video because the site owner solicits donations. While I don't disagree with a person's right to donate to a certain charity they believe in, the bit at the end of this video seemed hauntingly like any other pleadings seen on religious channels. In other words, revolting. Thus, the same applies for believers and nonbelievers: if you want to produce free videos on YouTube or elsewhere, by all means, produce away. But do it with your own funds.]
Here in Northeast Georgia, plenty of day laborers make their living out in the fields in one of numerous plots of cultivated land, the fruits and vegetables of which support local produce stands in the county. I’ve seen them working the fields, men and women alike, the smarter ones of which wear large-brimmed hats and towels around their necks to prevent severe sunburn and/or skin damage. They make significantly below minimum wage and get paid a certain figure for each bucket picked. That, it seems to me, is a generous system. In other parts of the nation, I would be willing to bet that migrant laborers don’t receive minimum wage (especially if the farm hires illegals) and don’t get the bonus for picking X number of buckets.
Stephen Colbert recently spent a day as a migrant laborer and subsequently testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship & Border Security on the invitation of House Democrat and committee chairwoman Zoe Lofgren. Consequently, prior to the five minute message (Which was much longer than his officially submitted address), Colbert was asked by Rep. John Conyers to “remove himself” from the proceedings, saying “You run your show, we run the committee.”
Colbert then deferred to Lofgren, who confirmed that he could stay and deliver his short message. Here is the video:
In the video, as you will see, Colbert, and in characteristic irreverence, mocked Congress by, first, by saying, in character about the proposed agricultural jobs bill,
I’m not in favor of the government doing anything, but I’ve got to wonder, why isn’t the government doing anything?
Maybe this Ag jobs bill will help. I don’t know. Like most members of Congress, I haven’t read it.
Taking a more serious tone toward the end of the address, he said,
But maybe we could offer more visas to the immigrants, who, let’s face it will probably be doing these jobs anyway, and this improved legal status might allow immigrants recourse if they’re abused, and it just stands to reason to me, that if you’re co-workers can’t be exploited, then you’re less likely to be exploited yourself and that itself might improve paying working conditions on these farms and eventually Americans may consider taking these jobs again … Or maybe that’s crazy. Maybe the easier answer is just to have scientists develop vegetables that pick themselves. … The point is, we have to do something because I am not going back out there.
But the most memorable moment came after the speech during a question-answer portion, in which Rep. Judy Chu from California asked this question:
Mr. Colbert, you could work on so many issues. Why are you interested in this issue?
And, after taking a moment to think, he broke character and said this:
I like talking about people who don’t have any power, and it seems like one of the least powerful people in the United States are migrant workers who come in and do our work, but don’t have any rights as a result. And yet, we still ask them to come here, and at the same time, ask them to leave. And that’s an interesting contradiction to me, and um… You know, “whatsoever you did for the least of my brothers,” and these seemed like the least of my brothers, right now. A lot of people are “least brothers” right now, with the economy so hard, and I don’t want to take anyone’s hardship away from them or diminish it or anything like that. But migrant workers suffer, and have no rights.
Here’s the video:
Article first published as DADT Repeal Languishes in Senate on Blogcritics.
Here’s a look at the vote breakdown:
The controversy and debates surrounding the portion of the National Defense Authorization Act that would repeal “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” seem like a non-issue to me, at least to some degree, and there is one element here of which I might actually agree with some conservatives, but for a wholly different reason.
Admittedly, reading some portions of “10 U.S.C. § 654 : US Code – Section 654: Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces” makes me cringe a bit, particularly the part about forcing homosexuals to refrain from whatever it is they do in their private lives, or else, be discharged from the military. Presumably, straight people can go about their bedroom business unimpeded. Perhaps, that portion should be repealed. But I think the specific part about military officials being banned from asking about personal orientation and personnel being banned from talking about it seems to me to be sound. For, I don’t believe sexual orientation is or should be relevant at all in military life. Thus, if both gay and straight people simply banished any talk about who is or might be straight or gay seems to be the most constructive way to proceed. Or, maybe this is asking too much.
Regardless, the rational, I suppose, behind the code above is that military personnel live separate lives than you or I, that they are essentially public figures and are held to a higher standard. But it is here that the prejudice in the code against homosexuals, that they intrinsically live less moral lives than anyone else, seaps through with lucidity. If homosexual military personnel are essentially public figures and are conduits of taxpayer money, so are straight service men and women. So, where is the ban on heterosexuals admitting they are straight or the ban on heterosexuals engaging in their behavior?
I previously wrote a review of the movie, “Milk” with Sean Penn, in which I lauded Harvey Milk’s attempts to enact change in his community by doing it the right way: by running for public office, contrasted to those well-known gay pride parade attendees whose flamboyancy and flaunting of their gayness wins them few brownie points. Thus, I think there might be a measure of empowerment gained by paraders in providing shock value to the rest of us, sort of a way of taking comfort in their otherness. That’s something to which I can relate in some ways, but it seems to me that creating an atmosphere of otherness within the gay community to the rest of the world seems counterintuitive to what folks are attempting to accomplish. That is, equal rights. Thus, if homosexuals truly want to be “equal,” not just in word but in law, throw off the us-against-them mentality, run for office, say nothing about your private matters and enact change from the top down.
Again, regarding DADT, I think the best way to proceed in all this might be to ban conversation about sexual orientation altogether, from enlistment, to boot camp and beyond. For I can’t see how, in any way, sexual orientation, straight, bi or heterosexual, is relevant to any goal the military might hope to achieve, and this includes those who might seek to serve in the military as openly gay. It’s nobody’s business but their own.
Cooking my own food is something that I haven’t been particularly fond of or good at in the many years I’ve lived on my own (Think: lots of frozen pizza and hot wings), but here lately, I’ve been dabbling with a few things, like pork roast, ribs and, in particular, trying to perfect my own salsa. So, after about four batches, I think I have concocted a fairly definitive and unique recipe. Since I’m no chef, I can’t necessarily say it’s “unique,” but from the different styles of salsa I’ve ever had, from restaurants and elsewhere, it’s unique from anything I’ve ever tasted.
I thought I would post it here in case anyone might be interested in giving it a go. It is fairly straightforward. Named after that great piece of Medieval literature, here is Dante’s Inferno Black Bean Salsa. If I make future batches and feel tweaks are necessary, I’ll update this post or repost an updated recipe.
Let me know what you think if you decide to try it.
- 15 oz. can chili without beans
- 15 oz. can whole black beans
- 3/4 can zesty nacho cheese (of a standard 15 oz. can)
- 3 tsp chili powder
- 1 yellow or white onion, diced
- 10 oz. can Ro Tel diced tomatoes with lime juice and cilantro (or something similar)
- 4 oz. can diced chiles
- Pat of butter
- Mix butter and onions in a medium sauce pan. Cook over medium-high heat until onion is lightly brown. Drain the can of diced tomatoes and add to the onions, cooking on same heat for about 5 more minutes. Stir in chiles, nacho cheese, chili, beans and chili powder. Mix well and keep on medium heat until hot. Simmer until ready to serve. Cheese and chili powder may be adjusted to taste.
In a New York Times column titled, “The Angry Rich,” Paul Krugman writes about the growing vitriol among the rich directed toward President Obama’s efforts to let the Bush-era tax cuts expire and to levy tax increases to those who make more than $250,000 per year. Krugman says he’s not speaking directly about the Tea Party crowd (although I would argue there’s plenty of angry affluent Americans within that movement), but about Wall Street types earlier in Obama’s presidency (Here’s an excellent article) and today, more generally to others in upper echelons of the work force who simply want to hang on to their assets.
Tax-cut advocates used to pretend that they were mainly concerned about helping typical American families. Even tax breaks for the rich were justified in terms of trickle-down economics, the claim that lower taxes at the top would make the economy stronger for everyone.
These days, however, tax-cutters are hardly even trying to make the trickle-down case. Yes, Republicans are pushing the line that raising taxes at the top would hurt small businesses, but their hearts don’t really seem in it. Instead, it has become common to hear vehement denials that people making $400,000 or $500,000 a year are rich. I mean, look at the expenses of people in that income class — the property taxes they have to pay on their expensive houses, the cost of sending their kids to elite private schools, and so on. Why, they can barely make ends meet.
Yes, and with 14.9 million people unemployed in the United States at the moment, it’s hard to sympathize with their plight.
A letter-writer took issue with Krugman column, noting that
polls suggest that the affluent remain relatively supportive of Mr. Obama. A recent analysis of Gallup polls over the past year by the Web site RealClearPolitics.com found that Mr. Obama suffered his biggest drops in popularity among Americans making under $50,000 — while wealthier voters were more likely to continue their support.
But this writer seems to be referencing, “Wealthy Dems Stand By Obama,” which suggests that it’s only wealthy Democrats who continue to support Obama, not the affluent in general:
Obama has tested his upper class support more than any modern presidency. He’s continuously pledged to oppose tax hikes on everyone but the wealthy. That pledge is at the center of the current debate over extending the Bush tax cuts. The healthcare overhaul will increase wealthy voters’ tax burden. And financial reform was hardly celebrated by the investing class.
This is why The Wall Street Journal headlined a story last summer, “Democrats’ New Worry: Their Own Rich Voters.” But polls have continuously shown that Democrats have far more reason to worry about those who are anything but rich. This is partly because upper class Democrats are not voting on tax policy. If they were, they’d be Republicans.
True enough, and as it turns out, as Obama attempts to right the economy and replenish the labor force, mid-level wage earners, the one’s being hurt the most by the downturn, are actually the ones jumping ship the quickest. Obama’s approval rating among those making less than $50,000 per year has dropped 24 percentage points. And this makes sense.
While rich Democrats have the financial wherewithal to continue in their support for Obama through the storm, desperation is creeping in among others in the work force, and it’s only a minority of Democrat and most Republican politicians who are falling over themselves to gain support among the disillusioned proletariat on one end of the spectrum, and to continue coddling their rich interests on the other.
Or, as Krugman concluded:
You see, the rich are different from you and me: they have more influence. It’s partly a matter of campaign contributions, but it’s also a matter of social pressure, since politicians spend a lot of time hanging out with the wealthy. So when the rich face the prospect of paying an extra 3 or 4 percent of their income in taxes, politicians feel their pain — feel it much more acutely, it’s clear, than they feel the pain of families who are losing their jobs, their houses, and their hopes.
And when the tax fight is over, one way or another, you can be sure that the people currently defending the incomes of the elite will go back to demanding cuts in Social Security and aid to the unemployed. America must make hard choices, they’ll say; we all have to be willing to make sacrifices.
But when they say “we,” they mean “you.” Sacrifice is for the little people.
Article first published as What Was Behind Kenny McKinley’s Apparent Suicide? on Blogcritics.
One finds it hard to fathom that something dark may have been lurking behind what players and coaches have described as the lively and happy demeanor of Kenny McKinley, the former wide receiver and kick returner for the Denver Broncos believed to have shot himself at his Centennial, Colo., home this week.
He was always a guy that used to love to joke with me, and I would joke back and forth with him. But he had a big smile on his face. He just walked out of the building. And that’s the last thing we remember, that huge smile. Like coach said, he always showed every tooth in his mouth, just smiling and being happy.
As it turns out, investigator reports indicate that McKinley, who was on injured reserve in his second year with the Broncos, had dropped hints that he may have been suffering from depression about his knee injury:
The Arapahoe County Sheriff’s report quoted one investigator as saying McKinley had been depressed over a knee surgery he had a month ago.
“He had made statements while playing dominoes shortly after the surgery that he should just kill himself,” the officer reported. “No one believed he was serious.”
The report didn’t provide an explanation for the source of the investigator’s information.
The report also said McKinley had made statements about not knowing what he would do without football.
Thus, perhaps commentators on WCCP’s “The Score” radio show, a station based out of Clemson, S.C., were, at least in part, on target today when they seemed to suggest today that McKinley may have been overly stressed by the various pressures faced by professional athletes. Of course, it’s hard to sympathize with someone who had a four-year, $1.9 million contract with a professional football team in one of the most lucrative leagues in the world. But the radio commentators brought a great point to bear: professional athletes, some of whom have no other options outside of sports, depend mightily on their bodies to support their families and pay the bills, however colossal those expenses may seem to regular folk.
Woodyard made the point in the above article:
Well, you know, football’s a stressful job. … It’s the same thing with people in everyday life, you’ve got to talk to somebody in your life, so just to help you work out those problems.
In short, for McKinley, who holds the all-time receiving record at his alma mater, the University of South Carolina, one can only imagine that football was his life. And I suppose he felt that that life may be, or may have already been, taken away from him because of the injury, however short-sided that view may seem to us.
As if to make the posthumous point himself, McKinley left a clue at the scene: when police officers arrived to find his head under a pillow with a gun on top, they also noticed a telling detail: the NFL Network was droning in the background.
Previously, I wrote that Stephen Colbert might be the instigator of some sort of upcoming “Restoring Truthiness” rally to counteract Glenn Beck’s own “Restoring Honor” rally on Aug. 28, but as it turns out, Jon Stewart made the announcement Sept. 16 that The Daily Show staff (and most likely Colbert with him) are organizing an actual rally on Oct. 30 at the National Mall in Washington, D.C. Here is a link to the official site. And here is the video:
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c|
|Rally to Restore Sanity|
Correction: Colbert is, indeed, planning his own rally, and it’s called the March to Keep Fear Alive rally, and it will be held the same day in Washington. Here’s the announcement:
|The Colbert Report||Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c|
|March to Keep Fear Alive Announcement|
In an intriguing look at how I.B.M. is seeking to make new telecommunications footholds in Africa, a New York Times article yesterday offered another glimpse into how that continent may be edging closer to becoming an emerging market for technological growth.
According to the story, I.B.M. “will supply the computing technology and services for an upgraded cellphone network across 16 nations (Burkina Faso, Chad, Congo Brazzaville, Democratic Republic of Congo, Gabon, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Niger, Nigeria, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia) in sub-Saharan Africa,” and Indian cellphone company, Bharti Airtel, will be the customer and provide “hardware, software and services to run everything from billing and call-traffic management to delivering new services like music and video” in the region.
Basically, I.B.M will manage Bharti Airtel’s communications network in Africa. Here is a story from I.B.M. on the project. During the last five years, I.B.M. has already spent about $300 million in the continent setting up country offices, supporting technology training programs and adding information centers.
For I.B.M., the partnership signals further technological inroads into what can only be dubbed the slowest developing continent in the world. I.B.M. spokesman Bruno Di Leo said the project was “a huge step forward for I.B.M. in what we think is the next major emerging growth market — Africa,” and The Times article said I.B.M.’s overarching strategy “calls for the growth markets — not only the well-known BRIC countries, Brazil, Russia, India and China, but also dozens of others — to increase as a share of I.B.M.’s revenue from 19 percent to 25 percent by 2015. That is the equivalent of $1 billion in new sales a year. In these nations, I.B.M. is targeting the linchpin industries of economies including telecommunications, banking, transportation, health care and energy.”
Obviously, I.B.M., which saw its stock rise from 116 in May of this year to 130.60 at the close of the market Sept. 18, has the primary goal of moneymaking, as the above quote shows, but there’s an undeniable residual effect here. Although just 40 out of 100 Africans own cellphones, I.B.M. reports that demand is increasing about 25 percent per year, and even within agrarian and fishing industries, cellular communications have proven beneficial in helping businesses succeed by acquiring market values for products in real time, no matter where businessmen happen to be located, either on the farm or at sea.
So, while these are, indeed, very capitalistic undertakings by I.B.M., they do assist in helping developing lands improve their ability to conduct business and make operations, even on an agricultural level, more efficient and productive. Thus, it seems to me that with improved telecommunications infrastructure in place comes the possibility of increased modernization in other industries across the continent.
But that possibility doesn’t look like it can be fully realized in the immediate future, but there are points of optimism. Problems for modernity in Africa persist. If we look at the map below, we can see that most of the 16 nations falling under the telecommunications network blanket are within a fairly low GDP with respect to the more prosperous north and south regions of the continent, and the nation’s respective governments tell a lot about their abilities (and the leaderships’ willingness) to move forward into a more technological future.
Here are the basic governmental and, when relevant, economic situations of each:
- Burkina Faso — Semi-presidential republic. High emigration rate because of unemployment. One of the lowest GDPs per capita in the world.
- Chad — Corrupt parliamentary republic with powerful president at the helm. The Human Development Index (HDI) from 2009 ranks the nation as the 175th least developed in the world (45th in Africa) based on variables like literacy, life expectancy and standards of living. Larger numbers represent less developed nations. Libya is Africa’s most highly developed nation in Africa, but it’s only 55th in the world, by comparison. Burkina Faso is 177th in the world. The index lists Norway as the most developed in the world at number one.
- Republic of the Congo — Corrupt authoritarian regime. 136 on the above list.
- Democratic Republic of Congo — Again, one of the poorest, if not the poorest, nations in the world. Semi-presidential republic.
- Gabon — Presidential republic and one of the most prosperous in sub-Saharan Africa. If you will notice on the map, this is the only country of the 16 positioned in the dark green, representing a GDP above 4,000.
- Ghana — Constitutional presidential democracy and the second least failed state in Africa behind Mauritius, according to the Failed States Index.
- Kenya — Semi-presidential republic. Low GDP per capita but in the medium stratum, according to the HDI.
- Madagascar — Caretaker government, which can be read as unstable in the long term. Middle stratum on the HDI.
- Malawi — Low life expectancy, but a multi-party democracy. High population and little development.
- Niger — Lowest nation on the HDI. Government: military junta.
- Nigeria — Presidential federation republic. The United States’ largest trading partner in sub-Saharan Africa. Possesses an abundance of natural resources by which to benefit economically.
- Seychelles — Republic. Second highest HDI on the continent.
- Sierra Leone — Constitutional republic. High unemployment but substantial reserves of natural resources like titanium ore.
- Tanzania — Republic with a mostly agriculture-based economy. Resides with the middle stratum on the HDI.
- Uganda — A Democratic republic with a large reserve of natural resources, it rests near the bottom of the middle stratum of the HDI.
- Zambia — Republic. Some 68 percent live below the poverty level, according to the U.N. Zambia is in the lower stratum of the HDI.
So, from all this, we notice that most, but not all, nations in the 16-nation cellular network are, indeed, in need of immense economic, technological, and social development. But a nation’s ability to modernize itself seems to be bound up with the willingness or ability of its leaders to support and attempt to enact measures to further such advancements.
This brief look provides an optimistic picture in my view. Most are, at the very least, operating under ideal governmental conditions, if not economic, for technological changes. The question will be whether a more flourishing telecommunications presence within parts of sub-Saharan Africa can, indeed, foster the kind of economic progress that I.B.M. says it might. I.B.M., after all, has its own interests, with the interests of the African people, of course, being secondary to furthering a successful business. Past that, as ever, it’s in local hands, and in this case, Africa’s hands.
First, we have Glenn Beck and the Tea Party’s “Restoring Honor” rally (lame).
Now, we just may have a more entertaining one: a “Restoring Truthiness” rally, in which Stephen Colbert, and possibly Jon Stewart, parody the ridiculousness that happened in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 28. It’s preliminary, of course, and Colbert hasn’t said anything about an actual rally so far as I’m aware, but a group of supporters have begun a “Restoring Truthiness” campaign to try to persuade Colbert to hold one in Washington.
Supporters have flooded DonorsChoose.org with donations with the goal of raising $101,010 by Oct. 10. Colbert is a member of the organization’s national board of directors. As of 11 p.m. today, more than $167,000 had been donated to the charity with more than 45,000 students reached. After looking around for a few minutes at the DonorsChoose website, it seems like a well-deserving giving opportunity. Teachers or school administrators post items they need for their schools (new books, easels, etc.) and the amount that it costs, and donors can give as they see fit until the total is reached and the project is completed. Obviously, a site such as this is extremely useful in a time when many public school systems are attempting to educational opportunities at a high level with fewer resources.
Back to the rally. In response to the groundswell of support the organization has received thus far, Colbert penned this letter to the Reddit community, which has teamed with DonorsChoose, ColbertRally.com and the Restoring Truthiness Facebook page. Here’s an excerpt of the letter about a possible rally:
… You have inspired me by helping untold thousands of students; with the momentum you’ve created, we could stage a hundred rallies. I might just call on you, Redditors – for nothing is more terrifying than tens of thousands of Heroes taking to the streets with the faint odor of bacon wafting behind them. Except for bears, obviously.
One huge upvote for you.
Sir Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, DFA
We can only imagine that possibly Colbert’s truthiness rally will be laced with equal doses of truthiness, honoriness and satiriness.