it's not him it's us.

Well, maybe he unleashed it, but that does not mean that the problem is not us.

Much has been made recently of various incidents, which ultimately have spewed the usual back and forth nonsense on the talking head stations and social media about whether or not he is to blame for various incidents that have occurred since the election by signalling to the clueless that it is okay to be an ass.  Indeed, it is not only okay to be an ass, it is preferable.  After all, you are your own man!  Nobody can tell you what to do!  We need a fresh start!

By this logic, it is also okay to step in a pile of dog crap on the sidewalk and walk straight into the Guggenheim to clean off your shoes on the floor.  After all, if you smear it the right way, it could be art.

Look at it this way --

He acted like a boor throughout the campaign.  He was crude.  He was clueless.  And we elected him anyway.  He did not elect himself, even if it turns out the Russians helped him.

We then elected a guy with a history of anger problems who body slammed a reporter the day before the election for having the gall to ask him a question about the c.b.o. scoring of the insurance company and rich guy bailout passed in the house of representatives being pawned off as health care.  Yes, the major newspapers in the state were all horrified and they all rescinded their endorsements, but then again, they endorsed him in the first place in a state where the majority of the electorate vote early, and once they do, are not allowed to rescind their vote, which is the only vote that counts, not the editorials.  A little bit of investigative journalism would have uncovered this guy's problem with his temperament before the endorsements.

And once again, it was not the guy in the white house who elected him.  It was not the newspapers or even the Russians.

It was us.

So, we get a guy who gets on a plane wearing a MAGA hat, who thinks it's okay to sit in an upgraded seat he did not purchase after he had been told upgrades were not available, and then stays there for seven hours holding up the plane and everybody else by refusing to take the seat in the back he had purchased and that he was supposed to occupy.

We get another guy on another plane, and presumably another MAGA hat, who thinks it's okay to stand in the aisle screaming that he and his pals are now going to get all of you illegals out of HIS country.  First off, how did he know that everybody else on the plane was an illegal alien.? How did they all manage to get on the same flight?  Did the Russians buy up all the seats on this flight?  Secondly, when was the referendum I must have missed that turned ownership of this country over to this guy?

The idiot in the white house did not send these guys onto these planes.  They purchased their seats themselves and  boarded all on their own, with our permission.  Judging from social media, some folks apparently seemed to think what they did was okay as well.

And then there was this.

Many of you know that I am a trial attorney.  Just after November 8, I was assigned by a client to represent a (legal) immigrant from El Salvador, who was suing a Hasidic Jew in Brooklyn for running him over on the street, clearly in an accident, and causing some moderately serious injuries.  For two days, defense counsel and I tried to seat a jury, but were unable to, primarily due to the fact that the jury pool ended up consisting of people who either were unwilling to believe a Jew or were unwilling to give the benefit of the doubt to a Hispanic from El Salvador, who obviously was here illegally in spite of what I had said about him being here legally and in spite of the fact that they knew nothing about him other than what they were told by not only me, but defense counsel as well.  Even the clerks running the jury selection were stunned.  We all agreed that the election had changed things.

But I do not think so.

The idiot in the white house did not send the jury pool to Brooklyn.  The idiot in the white house did not turn those jurors into bigots.

Maybe to some morons his behavior signaled that it is okay to act like this in public, but when push comes to shove, all of these examples of our fabulous citizenry acted on their own.  What was demonstrated for all of us by the MAGA plane guys and for me by my jurors is that all of this has been lurking all along just below the surface, and came out this past year in all its glory.  Maybe he unlocked the door and flung it wide open, but...

We can blame anyone we want for our own behavior or for accepting disgusting behavior from others, but when it comes down to it, when it comes to behavior, unless you have a serious mental or emotional disability, we are all responsible for our own behavior, for our own acceptance of behaviors and ultimately for what we have allowed ourselves to become.

So while we talk about impeachment, resistance and revolution, it is well past time for something else.

Hand out the mirrors, boys.

It's time for all of us to take a good long look.

on nixon, he who is president, and history

"Those who do not learn history are condemned to repeat it". -- George Santayana.

As with many other moments in history, people can remember precisely where they were and what they were doing when news that would change the world forever broke.  On November 22, 1963, I was a six year old first grader walking home from school, wondering why they had let us out early.  The teachers had been instructed not to say anything to us.  Just outside of school, Eddie Ferrara yelled out that Kennedy had been killed.  I punched him.  When I got home, I knew Eddie was right when I saw my mother standing in the kitchen.  While I am not sure if she had been crying, the stunned look on her face said it all.  On July 20, 1969, I was sitting on the bed in my parents' bedroom watching Neal Armstrong step out from the lunar rover, becoming the first man to step foot on the moon.  On September 11, 2001, I watched from my office at 111 John Street in Manhattan as the Towers fell, managing to get phone calls out to my parents and my wife to let them know I was okay before somehow managing to get to my car and figuring out a way out of Manhattan and home.

And on August 8, 1974, I was sitting in a coffee shop in Willow Creek, California, part of a summer long bike trip sponsored by American Youth Hostels, joking around with members of the tour, all of us in our mid to late teens, when word came that Nixon had resigned the presidency.  I have often thought it oddly wonderful that Willow Creek is considered the home of Bigfoot, our own American version of the Yedi.  In light of recent events, I find it even more wonderful that Willow Creek was originally named China Flat.  But I digress...

There have been many parallels to Nixon and the guy who now sits in his old office made by those much smarter than me over the past several months.  The Committee to Re-Elect the President (aptly monikered "CREEP" at the time) v. he who now holds the title's campaign committee.  The smearing of all political opponents.  Nixon's enemies list v. his "fake media" attacks.

And now we have the Saturday Night Massacre v. the Tuesday Night Massacre.  The only immediately discernible difference, thus far, is that in Nixon's time there were at least some people of principle who refused to carry out his directives to fire Archibald Cox, the independent prosecutor who was investigating Watergate.

There appear to be no such people in the neighborhood this time around.

As I recall, when the Watergate hearings first began, there was some level of partisanship in the committee, with a large number of very skeptical republicans insisting that Nixon had done nothing wrong versus a nearly unanimous democrat contingent insistent that we were in the midst of a constitutional crisis.  As the evidence bore out the crimes Nixon and his cohorts had committed, one by one, the republicans came around to the point where there were very few left defending the president by the time articles of impeachment were approved and he subsequently resigned.

Aside from expressions of "concern" from a few, there is nothing thus far from the right.  The hearings in the House have been a joke.  Even the Senate hearing with Sally Yates and James Clapper conducted what now seems like a lifetime ago, but which was really only two days ago, featured a number of senators on the right more concerned with how information was leaked to the press of possible crimes than of the crimes themselves.  Faced with the timing of his firing of James Comey, a man, who with all his flaws and who should have been called more to task AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME over his handling of the Clinton e-mails during the presidential campaign, but the one man who appeared to be conducting the only real investigation into whether or not he and his campaign colluded with the Russians to rig the election, we get:

Senator Lindsey Graham, noting that if there is evidence out there linking the guy in the oval office with the Russians, he would be happy to look at it.  Note that he does not appear to have done much of anything to date to actually get the evidence and look at it, nor is there any indication of what he may do if he does get it.  But at least he will be happy.

Senator John McCain and Senator Richard Burr have both expressed their "concern" over the timing of the firing and of what is clearly the pretense for Mr. Comey's termination.

Senator Robert Corker says it "raises questions".

Senator Mitch McConnell has only stressed the importance of confirming a new director of the FBI.

Thus far, there has been nothing from Paul Ryan that I have been able to find.

For all their "concern", I would note that each of the above esteemed senators and the speaker of th house "expressed concern" over and over again during the presidential election over his comments and his behavior.  The were very "concerned" about the Access Hollywood" tape.  They were very "concerned" over the "lock her up" chants.  They were very "concerned" over his refusal to say if he would accept the results of the election if he lost.

And every single one of them then voted for him, or at least encouraged the rest of the country to not vote for Hillary Clinton, which, in effect, is the same thing.

So what do we expect now?

How about an independent commission or a special prosecutor or at least a bipartisan investigation within the halls of congress.

Don't count on it.  Not with this bunch in office who are more concerned with their own positions first, the health and welfare of their family and friends second, the power of the GOP third, and perhaps as an afterthought, if there is any room for it, the good and welfare of this country a distant seventh or eighth.

He who sits in the oval office once said he could shoot a person in broad daylight on the street and people would still vote for him.  Well, he has now "shot" James Comey.  Thus far, the constabulary is moving people along and telling them there is nothing to see here.

I for one am willing to see if history does indeed repeat itself, and am willing to do my bit to make sure in this instance that it does.  I would be more than willing to get on my bicycle, which is presently sitting with flat tires in the basement, and trek out to the coffee shop in Willow Creek, California, nee China Flat, assuming it still exists, if it would result in his impeachment, and just as importantly, his prosecution, as I am firmly convinced at this time that he has committed or been complicit in treasonous acts against the country, all in the name of self-aggrandizement. I invite my fellow geezers and wheezers to join me.

And noting that history does have a tendency to repeat itself, considering that the Saturday Night Massacre was on October 20, 1973 and Nixon submitted his resignation on August 8, 1974, I am sure we are all looking forward to remembering where we were on February 28, 2018.

"Whether ours shall continue to be a government of laws and not of men is now for Congress and ultimately the American people".  -- Archibald Cox, October 20, 1973


UPDATE -- Senator McConnell has now come forward and supported the firing of James Comey and rebuffing calls for an independent prosecutor or investigation. He may be even worse than the (fill in the blank yourself) guy in the oval office.

health care

All you need to know about the fabulous American Health Care Act that passed the House of Representatives today is that it is sooooooo fan-freaking-tastic that the folks who wrote the act made sure to exempt themselves from it.

If that is not all you need to know, then try this one.

I got a call late this afternoon from my son. Jon has a blood condition that requires him to be on coumadin, a very dangerous blood thinner, probably for the rest of his life.  He is not supposed to, but every now and then he has tried to go without his medicine.  When he does, the usual response is that he throws a series of pulmonary embolisms.  Some have been enough to put him in the hospital.  So we know at least until a better treatment or a cure comes along -- not likely in the near future -- he will be on coumadin, and will be required to have his blood tested periodically and to have regular checkups at a specialized hematology clinic.  Jon's wife is a cancer survivor; therefore, she also requires periodic specialized checkups and treatment.  When he called, Jon wanted to know if his health insurance carrier can now drop him, even if his insurance comes through his employer.

Let me repeat that.

I got a call from my son, in effect, asking if insurance companies will now be allowed to potentially let him die rather than pay for medication and treatment that has been keeping him alive for the past six years.

What am I supposed to tell him?

And what is Jon's father in law supposed to tell his daughter when she calls later today to ask him the same question?

Should we tell our children to call their representative in congress and ask them?  I would love to hear what any of those guys are telling their children who might be asking them the same question...  Oh, that's right.  Their children won't be asking them that question.  They are exempt from this law.

In the so called greatest country on earth, we are now talking once again about pre-existing conditions, life time or annual caps on coverage, medical review panels, allowing carriers to throw those they do not want to cover off their policies -- i.e., those who need care and treatment.  We are talking about why it is necessary to charge older people more for their health insurance.  Why?  Because they are old and probably require more care, so they should have to pay more.  We are also talking about why it is necessary to make health care for the poor and sick so expensive that they cannot afford it.  What are they supposed to do?  I would say let them eat cake, but then again, they might be diabetic, which means they have a pre-existing condition, which means they should not be covered anyway.   The issues raised ignore any real issue on earth, but then again, some of these issues must be raised.

Such as...

On what planet is being a victim of rape a pre-existing condition?  I am no doctor, but I am unaware of rape being a medical condition.  What on earth did the rape victim do that is related to any physical, psychological or sociological health condition that caused her to be raped?  In the old days, and frankly even now in some places, you would hear some people saying the victim brought it upon herself.  Just look at the way she dressed, and that smile that melted any inhibition away from that knife wielding rapist.  Under this definition, dressing in an attractive manner should be a pre-existing condition.  After all, if she hadn't dressed that way, she would not have been raped.  So I guess Ralph Lauren should be declared an accessory to a pre-existing condition, and all his creations should come with a warning label that wearing this sexy outfit could cause you to lose your insurance coverage.

In a way, I understand the reasoning behind the pre-existing conditions argument.  After all, if you have had a heart attack, you may be more prone to suffering another one.  Would somebody please explain to me how being raped once makes you more susceptible to being raped again.  Are the insurance carriers putting the rapists back on the street and giving them their victims current addresses?  Are the carriers keeping a list of rape victims and deciding for themselves which ones are "easy"?

What sense does any of this make?  Then again, what do you expect from a sixty page piece of legislation that spends nearly ten percent of the space outlawing lottery winners from getting public subsidies for medical insurance.

Aside from the hideous nature of this particular piece of legislation that is so bad the Washington Post called it an abomination that should be a stain for life upon any legislator who voted for it, as I said in an earlier post, none of this legislation will do any good as long as the focus of the argument remains where it is.

The issue we should be talking about, as I said before, is NOT if people are entitled to medical coverage, but the unassailable fact that PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO MEDICAL CARE.

As long as the focus is on medical coverage, the insurance companies control the narrative; therefore, there will always be health insurers to limit access to medical care, because THE INSURANCE CARRIERS HAVE NO INCENTIVE TO PAY FOR MEDICAL CARE AND TREATMENT.  The only incentive health insurers have is to make sure their companies are profitable, especially if they are for profit companies, as most of them are.  When you allow for profit companies to control access to care and treatment, you will always be debating whether or not people are entitled to medical coverage, not medical care.

And why do we have this ongoing deflection?  Because when you focus the debate on where it should be, the simple fact that people are entitled to medical care, not medical insurance coverage, THERE IS NEVER ANY ARGUMENT.  Nobody argues that Jimmy Kimmel should be able to get his newborn son's open heart surgery.  We all pray for his son's recovery.  By the same token, nobody argues that a child of a welfare recipient born with the same condition as Jimmy Kimmel's son should be able to have his life saved by the same wonderful doctors and the same wonderful medical procedures.  And everyone would also pray for that child's recovery.  And nobody argues that my son should be able to have his blood tested and his coumadin prescription filled without having him be forced to declare bankruptcy.

And in a nutshell, this is why these three examples from different sociological spectrums are each in their own way why the insurance carriers and their shills in congress keep the argument focused on whether or not we are entitled to affordable medical insurance.  Once you focus on health care, rather than health insurance, the carriers have no argument.  Nobody wants to see anyone suffer.  Nobody wants to see anyone die because they could not get the care and treatment they need.  Once you focus on health care, rather than health insurance, nobody takes the side of the insurance carrier denying care and treatment by denying coverage.

ONCE YOU FOCUS ON HEALTH CARE RATHER THAN HEALTH COVERAGE, THE EYE ROLLING, BLUR INDUCING FOG LIFTS, AND THE CARRIERS HAVE NOTHING LEFT AND NOBODY TO SUPPORT THEM.

As such, until our representatives start talking about the right to medical care and treatment, we will always have this problem, because when you talk about medical coverage, you are always talking about the ability of insurance companies to make a profit rather than how to deliver care and treatment to a sick child, a cancer survivor, a rape victim, a person with emotional handicaps -- all the most vulnerable of our society, the ones we should care about the most.

The time is now to put the focus where it should be and where it should have always been.

MEDICAL CARE AND TREATMENT IS A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT.

Once you start with that premise, the rest of it should fall into place.

a healthcare rant, with thanks to jimmy kimmel

By now, many of us have seen the video of Jimmy Kimmel talking about the birth of his son, and the heroic efforts of the health care professionals at Cedar Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles and Children's Hospital Los Angeles.  I cannot imagine anyone who saw the video who was not touched by it.

On second thought, I can.

The talking head shows on all the cable stations showed the salient features of Mr. Kimmel's electrifying monologue discussing his anguish in learning his newborn child, only hours old, required immediate open heart surgery in order to save his life.  On each station, hankies were everywhere, even in the hands of those who thought it was a great time to debate whether or not the present legislation pending in congress should or should not include coverage for pre-existing conditions.  One after another, these disgraceful excuses for moving and talking, but not thinking protoplasm argued over each other, as they usually do, without listening to anything the others were saying, each claiming the high ground by starting off with their hearts going out to the Kimmel family.  It was topped off by the congressman interviewed by one station, who after dutifully sending his "heart" out to the Kimmels, immediately switched gears and announced that this "clearly" shows that "the former president" doesn't get it.

I beg to differ. 

Those who have no hearts cannot send theirs out to the Kimmel family, let alone anyone.

Those who have no brains or common sense have no business mentioning their hearts and the Kimmel family in the same breath.

Yes, the immediate issue was the health and well being of little Billy Kimmel, and the health and well being of Billy's family.  Mr. Kimmel took the occasion to address the big purple elephant in the room, making a point that none of the talking head jerks or any of the congressmen interviewed on television have yet to grasp, or worse, did grasp, but do not care.

"No parent should have to decide if they can pay for their child's life or death".

The congressman and the talking heads went on to debate not only if insurance should cover pre-existing conditions or if the pending legislation does. or does better than the existing law.  Hint -- it does not.  It is yet another sop to for profit insurance companies, but that is a discussion for another occasion. 

What all these jerks failed to grasp is that the debate and Mr. Kimmel's point was not about whether or not we are entitled to pre-existing coverage in our health insurance, or whether or not we are entitled to health insurance at all, as that vacuous boob, who somehow got elected to congress claimed.  The debate, which should not even be a debate, and which Mr. Kimmel clearly stated, yet nobody in front of the cameras got, is that we the people are entitled, or at least we should be entitled not to health insurance, but HEALTH CARE.

Let me say that again.

I do not give a damn about health insurance.  We, the People.  We are entitled to HEALTH CARE.  We are entitled to the right to appropriate medical treatment as determined by our own doctors when we are ill or injured, not the right to contribute to the profitability of health insurance companies.  The argument being conducted in Washington, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, etc. is the red herring that never goes away.  

Do I want a government bureaucrat telling my doctor whether or not he can treat me the way he sees fit?  Of course not.  But tell me how this is different than a dweeb in an insurance office denying my treatment, even if my doctor says it is the appropriate course.  

Think it doesn't happen?

Those of you who live in states like New York, where we have no fault insurance, know that eventually, patients are sent to "independent medical examinations" where doctors are paid to examine the patients and report back to the carriers whether or not the patient requires more care, or more insidious, if they are truly injured, but have reached the point where further care would not achieve anything, referred to in the business as "maximum cure".  Who pays these doctors?  The insurance carriers.  Some of these M.D.'s which in this case refers to "medical disgraces", make a living pretty much doing nothing but these "independent medical examinations".  At least the guy who examined me once told me at the outset that his job was to tell the carrier I did not need further treatment and my job was to convince him that I did.  Apparently, I failed.

Then there are the carriers who send their patients to doctors who so clearly have no business seeing some patients that the mere fact that the carriers sent them there in the first place amounts to bad faith both on the part of the carrier and the doctors themselves.  A member of my family whom I love with all my heart hurt her back so badly in an on the job accident, that she is in constant pain, has been for two years, and requires extensive surgery on her back to prevent further permanent damage.  The doctor she was originally sent to by the insurance carrier agreed and even offered to do the surgery himself.  The carrier's response?  They sent her for a second opinion.  This doctor issued the report that those of us who deal with these cases directly or even peripherally in the legal profession have come to expect.  Yes, she is not faking her injuries, and yes, she is seriously injured, but no, the surgery will not do any good.  The carrier, of course, immediately used the report to deny authorization for the surgery.  The original doctor then called this charlatan to find out how she would have treated the patient, and was told that she has never handled anything like this in her own practice, because she is a gynecologist an has no experience treating patients like this.

This deserves to be repeated.

They sent her to a gynecologist, who had never treated a patient with a spinal injury to get an opinion as to whether or not my family member should be approved for spinal surgery.

So, think about it this way.  When a government employee denies a medical procedure, who benefits?  When a for profit insurance company denies coverage, wanna take a guess as to who benefits?  Can you say "conflict of interest"?  Wanna take a guess as to why the cost of medical care and of medical insurance coverage continues to go up?

I do not give a damn if insurance companies make a nickel of profit.  The fact that they make any money at all off our health is obscene.  The fact that they have incentive that they use to deny service we are entitled to is more than obscene.  It should be criminal.  And then somebody thought it was a great idea to allow these companies to be publicly traded, which further incentivizes denial of claims in the name of profit.

Jimmy Kimmel is absolutely right.  

No parent should never have to make a decision as to whether or not a parent should have to decide if their child should live or die based upon whether or not they can afford health insurance.  Not in supposedly the greatest country in the free world. Not in any country.  No person should have to worry about whether or not they can see a doctor -- even for a freaking mosquito bite.

The health insurance model does not work and will never work, because regardless of the platitudes the companies put out claiming they are there for us, their interests will always be to spend as little as possible for you, and to line the pockets of their shareholders and themselves at your expense.

Jimmy Kimmel is right.

When will the rest of us listen?

a few random musings

Ok, I know it's been a while since the last post.  I am sorry.  Those of you who were on hunger strikes can now have a Milky Way bar.

We were in London recently, spending a great deal of our time hiding from our friends there whom I had confidently predicted the last time we were there that there was no way on earth he would be elected president.  I am surprised they let us back in.  Then again, since the last trip, the English have had their own cross to bear, what with the Brexit vote, so this could explain why very few locals brought up the present resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue this time.  After all, I am sure they did not want to deal with my rearing back in my fully pent up and mocked up outrage at being asked about he who is in office, with a mighty "Oh yea?"...

Of course, why would the subject of he who is the so called leader of the free world come up when the locals could ask me about United Airlines dragging customers semi-conscious, yet kicking and screaming from the planes for having the audacity of taking seats they had actually purchased.  I was asked about United so many times you would have thought I was the chairman of UAL.  I started practicing looking in the mirror in the hotel room and saying, "He brought this on himself".  Alas, my undergraduate degree is not in business, but in American Civilization, which is to say that I can tell you approximately when most older buildings in colonial Virginia were built, when an old bottle found in the woods was made, and the words to most old folk songs nobody bothers singing anymore.  I cannot, however, issue decrees making coach seating on most commercial flights small enough to make a munchkin uncomfortable, and then kick them off the plane if they take umbrage.  Being an attorney, however, I am qualified to tell you on behalf of my clients that he brought this on himself; therefore, practicing in front of the mirror did achieve a business purpose.  Maybe I should try to deduct the trip as a business expense.

But, as Gail Collins would say, I digress...

While a degree in American Civilization did not make me a history scholar, it did require me to have a certain level of knowledge of the history of this country, even if that knowledge was at a rudimentary level that most eight year olds would know.  The fact that I got my degree from the same Ivy League university he did is, to put it mildly, a bit disconcerting.  I may not have studied the abolitionist movement all that closely -- all right, I fell asleep during half the lectures -- but I did not need any prompting to know that Frederick Douglass unfortunately did not survive to his one hundred and seventy-fifth birthday, and therefore will not be helping us blow out the candles when he turns two hundred in February next year.  I may not be a Civil War scholar, but I am reasonably confident in saying that the Civil War did not happen in spite of the best efforts of Andrew Jackson to stop it, even putting aside the fact that he died fifteen years before the first shot was fired, and as family members have pointed out elsewhere, he may have theoretically tried to stop the war simply so he could maintain ownership of his slaves. 

So as a public service to the president, I offer these kernals of wisdom in case the subject comes up some time in the future, and if he ignores these pearls, I would ask my alma mater to strip him of whatever degree was conferred upon him.

1.  The new world was not discovered by Captain Jack Sparrow.

2.  The charge of the Rough Riders up San Juan Hill was not led by Millard Fillmore.

3.  Zelig aside, if you are looking for Woody Allen in a team picture of the 1927 Yankees, you can stop looking.

4.  Speaking of sports, the Black Sox scandal of 1919 was not caused by people wearing bermuda shorts hitched slightly above their naval.

5.  Moby Dick is not a venereal disease.*

6.  Elephants are not indigenous to Oklahoma; therefore, unless there was a breakout at the Tulsa zoo, when you hear an Oklahoman sing "the corn is as high as an elephant's eye", they are not singing about something they actually saw.

7.  Speaking of Oklahoma, Will Rogers may have never met a man he did not like, but then again, he never met you, especially considering he died about eleven years before you were born.  Then again, maybe he met Andrew Jackson and joined him in the heroic effort to stop the Civil War.

8.  William Henry Harrison did not have a really good first hundred days, especially after the thirty-first.

9.  It has been conclusively determined that the guy standing in front of the tanks in Tiananmen Square is not presently working as a traffic zebra in La Paz.  Bonus point -- La Paz is a city in Bolivia.  Second bonus point -- Bolivia is a country in South America.  Third Bonus Point -- South America is not anywhere in the United States located south of the Mason-Dixon Line.  Fourth Bonus Point -- the Mason-Dixon line is... oh never mind...

10.  I have it on good authority, even if I was not there at the time, that "Ivana" was not the actual response your first wife gave when you proposed.

I offer all this as a public service.

No charge

*I must confess.  This one was on the wall in the locker room of my high school track team.  Aside from the fact that Moby Dick is, in fact, not a venereal disease, this is still my all time favorite graffiti.