I deleted this blog post because it was kind of stupid, and it doesn’t fit this blog’s purpose. At the time, I was experimenting with search engine algorithms (that’s a whole different topic), and I learned what I needed to learn (and I can write about that another time), but I ended up with dozens of stupid blog posts that aren’t appropriate for my blog’s purpose anymore. I’ve kept other stupid blog posts that actually are appropriate content for Dysfunctional Literacy.
A politician died and found himself in heaven (okay, you already know this isn’t a true story), but instead of being grateful, the politician demanded to speak directly to God.
“God!” the politician ranted. “You told me to run for president, and it was the worst decision in my life. I looked stupid in the debates. All my mistakes in my past were made public. I was humiliated, and my political career was turned into a national joke. How could you give me bad advice like that?”
“It is not your place to judge my advice,” God said. “When I told you to be honest, you did not listen. When I told you not to sexually harass women, you did not listen. When I told you not to accept bribes, you did not listen. When I told you not to drink, you did not listen. The only time you listened to me was when I told you to run for president.”
The politician was dejected. “I cannot believe that God lied to me,” the politician muttered, not seeing the irony in his remarks.
“I did not lie to you,” God said. “I told you to run for president. I never said that you would win.”
President Obama on The Daily Show. President Obama will never go on Red Eye. You be the judge. Image via Wikipedia
The upcoming presidential election is going to be intense. Republican candidates have been debating way too many times for far too long, and the Democrat candidate has been campaigning nonstop since 2006. With the next wave of political proliferation about to be pushed upon us, we dysfunctional literates need some relief, some levity. And for that, we turn to shows like Red Eye and The Daily Show.
The Daily Show is a political humor program on Comedy Central, a comedy network that really isn’t funny very often. Red Eye is a political humor program on Fox News, a news channel that covers a lot more opinion than news.
A lot of people claim to watch The Daily Show, but I’m not sure they do because when I ask them specific details, they can only talk about clips they saw on the internet. Nobody that I know watches Red Eye or has even heard of it (though a couple people have mentioned with disgust a really horrible movie called Red Eye, so maybe that’s why they don’t watch the show). When I mention Red Eye to people who watch Fox News, they look at me strangely, and then suddenly exclaim, “Oh, you mean THAT show.”
WHY IS DYSFUNCTIONAL LITERACY COVERING THIS?
Well, part of literacy is staying informed. And supposedly a high percentage of young people (I didn’t research the ages and percentages of these ages because I don’t do research) get their news from comedy shows such as (and maybe only from) The Daily Show.
As a dysfunctional literate (and a former college student, one who got a job right after college), I’m concerned by this. When I was a college student, I got my news from a newspaper (whippersnappers, please don’t make me explain what a newspaper is). Then, when I watched Johnny Carson (whippersnappers, don’t make me explain who Johnny Carson is) or a very young David Letterman (whippersnappers, don’t make me… aw, never mind), I understood the references that the comedians made. Even at that age, I never would have thought of getting my news from a fake news program. Then again, I knew some college students back then who would have, but they were the kind that didn’t get jobs after they graduated.
If you’re going to be misinformed by watching fake news, at least watch the best show that does it.
WHICH SHOW IS FUNNIER?
Humor is subjective, so there’s no fair and balanced way (an unfortunate choice of words) to measure it. Therefore, we have to find more concrete ways to determine which show is better.
THE STUDIO AUDIENCE
Performers need an audience, so I don’t have a problem with a live studio audience. I have a problem with the obnoxious live studio audience. Oprah’s obnoxious audience cheers (or cheered) too much to make her sound more profound than she really is. Ellen’s claps too much to make her look like a better dancer than she really is. Judge Judy’s audience giggles too much to make Judge Judy sound wiser than she really is (Yeah, I’m taking on the judge. You’re in my court room now!). And The Daily Show’s obnoxious audience laughs too much to make Jon Stewart seem funnier than he really is.
Whether you think Red Eye is funny or not, at least it doesn’t use a laugh track or a studio audience. When something is funny, it’s funny. And when the humor is flat, the host or the other guests can pile on whoever made the lame joke. And that’s pretty funny.
The Daily Show has an obnoxious studio audience. Red Eye does not have a studio audience.
FORMAT
On The Daily Show, Jon Stewart does a fake news monologue, maybe has a couple skits, and then does an interview. On Red Eye, five people sit (well, four sit and one stands) around a table and talk about current events. Then halfway through the show, another guy corrects everybody else’s mistakes (some of the mistakes are intentional). Sometimes there’s an interview or a man on the street segment.
The format favors Red Eye. When Jon Stewart is (or his comedy writers are) having an off night, The Daily Show has an off night. When Greg Gutfeld (the host of Red Eye… I guess I should mention that) has an off night (some would say every night is an off night), he has three guests and two co-hosts who can (and usually need to) save the show. Because of this, Red Eye is more consistent.
THE LEG CHAIR
If you aren’t familiar with a “leg chair,” the concept is simple. You have an attractive woman with nice legs sit in front of the camera during a panel discussion. The panelists in Red Eye are seated in semi-circle fashion around a round table, and the leg chair is the near edge of the semi-circle with the camera at an angle to allow a clear shot of a woman’s legs. It is the woman’s responsibility to have great legs and to display those great legs. Insightful or humorous commentary is a bonus but not required.
The only problem with the leg chair is that a couple of the regular leg chair guests don’t offer much in the way of leg and they don’t offer much in the way of insight or humor. I won’t name those guests because that would be tacky of me.
The Daily Show does not have a leg chair.
THE DAILY SHOW or RED EYE?
If you are a liberal, or a progressive, or ever say Faux News (and still laugh), or ever say “tea bagger” (and still laugh), or still call George Bush “shrub,” or if you agree with the political leanings of people who say such things but don’t do it yourself, then you should probably choose The Daily Show.
If you are a conservative, or ever say MSDNC (instead of MSNBC) or Communist Central (instead of Comedy Central) or call President Obama “Obummer” or “Nobama” (and still laugh), or if you agree with the political leanings of people who say such things but don’t do it yourself, then you might choose Red Eye.
If you are a moderate (yeah, you know, you’re probably not really a moderate), then choose Red Eye. It has a leg chair. And it doesn’t have an annoying studio audience. And you might think it’s funny sometimes.
A lawyer was on the phone in his office, and a client was waiting patiently next to the lawyer’s desk. While the lawyer was still talking quietly, his secretary strolled into his office. The client raised his eyebrows at this vision of beauty. She wore a tight dress which displayed ample natural cleavage and curved smoothly around her backside. She confidently placed a file on her boss’s desk, bending down a bit so that the lawyer and his client could get an eyeful.
“Thank… you,” the lawyer said, almost mechanically, not making eye contact with the secretary. “I… appreciate… all… the… competent… work… you… do.”
When the secretary left the office, the client almost commented about the lawyer’s self-restraint, but the lawyer signaled him to be quiet for another moment.
After the phone conversation was over, the client said, “Time’s have changed. A few years ago you would have said something lewd or suggestive to that babe.”
“Yeah,” the lawyer said. “But I’ve learned that sometimes I have to be careful with what I say.”
The client shook his head. “It’s that sexual harassment political correctness run amok.”
“No,” the lawyer said. “That was my wife on the phone.”
Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game by Michael Lewis
WHY I DON’T WATCH BRAD PITT MOVIES
I avoid Brad Pitt movies. Nothing against Brad Pitt. He seems to be a cool guy, and I like cool guys, but every time I see him in a movie, I think to myself “Hey, that’s Brad Pitt pretending to be an ancient Greek demi-god,” or “Hey, that’s Brad Pitt pretending to be an American commando during World War II,” or “Hey, that’s Brad Pitt pretending to be a guy helping out hurricane victims in New Orleans… Oh yeah, that’s actually Brad Pitt! That’s so cool!”
Therefore, I haven’t seen the movie version of Moneyball, so I’m judging the book on its own merits.
CAN YOU LIKE THIS BOOK AND NOT LIKE BASEBALL?
Some reviewers claim they don’t like baseball but were still fascinated by Moneyball. I don’t see how. This is a statistics analysis book with some baseball anecdotes added to support the statistics. Now, I appreciate (but don’t like) baseball, so I can enjoy the statistical side of it without getting bored. But somebody who doesn’t like or doesn’t appreciate baseball? I don’t see how.
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS FROM MONEYBALL
My biggest problem with Moneyball is that it asked a lot of philosophical questions about baseball but then didn’t use any historical perspective to answer them.
WARNING!! THIS PART MIGHT GET REALLY BORING TO PEOPLE WHO DON’T LIKE BASEBALL!!
For example, I grew up watching the St. Louis Cardinals of the 1980’s, a fast base stealing team that was built to win in a park where it was tough to hit home runs. This team “manufactured runs” in a way that Billy Beane from Moneyball would have disapproved of (“How many innings did they run themselves out of by getting caught stealing bases?” he might ask). This franchise designed to steal bases and manufacture runs went to three World Series in the 1980’s, won one (1982 against Milwaukee), got cheated out of another (1985 against Kansas City… long story) and lost another in seven games (1987 against Minnesota) because it was the American League’s turn to have home field advantage.
These Cardinals weren’t just a base stealing team. They played great defense (another trait Billy Beane thinks is overvalued), but they also probably had a great on base percentage (a trait that Billy Beane thinks is undervalued). The point is not whether Billy Beane is right or wrong because the Cardinals were great in the 1980’s (they probably had a very high payroll, but I don’t know because I don’t do research). The point is that this book would have been more fulfilling if there had been more historical perspective to it. It’s still enjoyable, but it felt incomplete.
WHY BASEBALL MAKES COOL BOOKS AND MOVIES
Baseball is considered to be a boring sport, yet baseball is the subject or backdrop to a lot of popular, non-boring movies. Bull Durham, Field of Dreams (okay, kind of boring in its non-baseball scenes), Major League (I lost count how many there are), The Natural, The Rookie, (maybe) Moneyball. How can a boring sport make for exciting movies?
It’s the pitcher-batter duel. From the stands or from your television, it can be kind of dull to watch a series of these pitcher vs. batter contests, but a movie director can take these mini-conflicts and make them very dramatic. The internal dialogue of Crash Davis while he’s batting in Bull Durham is more entertaining than a full count, bases loaded, two outs, bottom of the ninth at bat in a real baseball game. Any decent director can take this conflict and build an entire story around it, even if most of the story has nothing to do with baseball. If Major League Baseball would put microphones on baseball players so that we could hear their (profanity filled) commentary during at bats and on the base paths, television ratings would go up.
THE PURPOSE OF BASEBALL
You go to a football game to get pumped up, yell the entire game, and maybe get into a fight afterward. You go to a basketball game to be seen. But baseball, you go to a baseball game just to hang out. You grab your hot dogs and beer, sit down, and hang out for a couple hours. Maybe you get up to cheer for a couple seconds a few times a game, but during the regular season you really don’t care that much if the team wins or loses. You’re hanging out. George Will might try to romanticize baseball with a bunch of big words, but the rest of us are just hanging out.
The Baseball Codes: Beanballs, Sign Stealing, and Bench-Clearing Brawls: The Unwritten Rules of America’s Pastime by Jason Turbow
Everybody alive in the 1990’s knows what I’m talking about. It’s almost like JFK’s assassination; you know where you were when you saw it. I was at a non-sports bar, my attention on something that wasn’t baseball, when a collective gasp arose from the crowd of men and scantily clad women running around the … establishment. The overhead televisions ran replay after replay of a young punk baseball player charging Nolan Ryan and then that same young punk baseball player getting beat up by Nolan Ryan. Boy, that young punk baseball player looked stupid.
The thing is, what most people didn’t know (including me) was that there was a long chain of events beginning years before that led up to that one-sided fight. I’m not going to explain it, but the history of the Nolan Ryan/Robin Ventura fight by itself is almost worth the price of The Baseball Codes.
Okay, now that I know what really (according to the book) happened, I no longer think of Robin Ventura as a young punk baseball player. He was a reluctant fighter (for reasons explained in the book), and Nolan was a nasty old fart who probably needed to get punched out. But still, it sure was funny.
The Baseball Codes gets into the unwritten code of baseball. Why a bench clearing brawl will break out over a seemingly minor offense. When it’s okay to steal a base and when it isn’t. I’m not a baseball expert, so I wasn’t familiar with most of the anecdotes and rules. Now that I’ve read the book, I’m a little more observant when I watch the game. I won’t say it makes me like baseball, but it makes me pay closer attention during a game.
WHICH ONE (if you have to choose)?
If you don’t like baseball, or if you know nothing about baseball, read The Baseball Codes.
Moneyball is good, but Michael Lewis has made tons of money already off his books, and this one isn’t really his best one, and it looks like the movie (which I haven’t seen) makes it a feel-good story, and this book (as much as I liked it) is not a feel-good story; it’s a stats book, albeit a cool stats book. And if you don’t like baseball, you definitely don’t want to read a stats book about baseball. If you don’t like (or appreciate) baseball, you probably want to read the one that explains why fights happen.
And that would be The Baseball Codes.
Contrary to popular belief, Kim Kardashian is NOT “famous for being famous”; she’s famous for looking like this and dressing like that. Image via Wikipedia
Soon after filing for divorce and making millions of devoted fans feel cheated, Kim Kardashian fell in love. Really, Kim Kardashian fell in love. I’m serious, Kim Kardashian truly, truly fell in love, and it was like nothing she had ever felt before. Confused by these new emotions, Kim decided to (put on a really tight dress and) talk to a trusted friend.
After excitedly telling her trusted friend about this man with whom she fell in love (his name must remain secret), Kim said, “I know that it sounds cynical and insincere, but I’m really in love with this wonderful man. I’m really in love this time. You must believe me.”
Kim’s trusted friend looked around the room, perplexed, and then looked at Kim. “I believe you,” the trusted friend said.
“Thank you!” Kim said, excited and relieved. “How can you tell that I’m really in love this time? Is it the rosy blush in my cheeks? Is it the passion in my voice?”
“No,” Kim’s trusted friend said.
“Then how can you tell I’m truly in love?”
Kim’s trusted friend looked around the room and said, “Because you forgot to bring your camera crew with you.”
The English teacher won't be smiling so much after he's read around 200 really bad compositions. Image via Wikipedia
“Write about whatever you want to write about,” the English teacher said to his class as he paced across the room. “You have 10 minutes to express yourself through your writing, and fill up the entire page.”
“I don’t know what to write about,” a kid said, with a pen in his hand and paper on his desk.
“Write about what you are feeling,” the teacher suggested. “You have ten minutes.”
“I still don’t know what to write about,” the kid blurted out.
“Think about it quietly for a few minutes, so other students can concentrate while you decide what to write about,” the teacher said.
“I still can’t think of anything to write about,” the kid complained.
“Then just write ‘I don’t know what to write’!” the teacher finally snapped.
The kid scribbled furiously for about ten minutes but at least was quiet. When the teacher collected the assignment, he praised several students who had written in great detail about their feelings. When he got to the struggling kid’s assignment, he noticed that the entire page was composed of sentences saying: “I don’t know what to write about.”
The teacher crumpled up the kid’s (kind of) composition and stomped on it. Outraged, the kid shouted, “Why did you stomp on my essay?”
“Because you didn’t put any thought into it,” the teacher stated.
“Are you kidding?” the kid retorted. ‘That’s the first time I’ve ever written a whole page.”
*****
BAD WRITING AND ITS EFFECTS ON LITERACY
Bad writing is kind of like porn; we can’t really define it, but we know it when we see it. Personally, I prefer porn over bad writing, but I’d rather read bad writing than watch bad porn (barely).
Writing for the sake of writing can lead to lots of bad writing. Teachers who have their students write frequently for the sake of writing will be frustrated by the low quality of their results. Contests or challenges like “100 posts in 100 Hours” or “Write a Novel during a Football Game” will lead to lots of bad writing (except for the writer who has a novel already written and then claims that he wrote it during the football game, but nobody would lie about something like that). Fiction writers who get paid by the book will churn out way too many books filled with bad writing.
All of this encouragement of bad writing means that somebody has to read it, and sometimes that person is me. Therefore, Dysfunctional Literacy proudly declares this month (whichever month it is when you happen to be reading this) “STOMP OUT BAD WRITING!” Month.
WHY IS BAD WRITING BAD FOR LITERACY?
Because bad writing makes people like me not want to read.
WHY “STOMP”?
We don’t want to “burn” books. Burning books has such a negative connotation associated with it, and I live in a drought area where burning a book might cause an environmental disaster. Plus, I’ve always thought Fahrenheit 451 was an overrated book, and I don’t want any anti-censorship guys giving me a hard time.
So let’s get this straight. If a private citizen burns a book, it’s free speech (unless you’re violating fire ordinances). When the government burns books, then it’s censorship.
Next, we don’t want to “throw away” bad books. I gave myself a herniated disc a couple years ago by throwing away all my Tom Clancy books at the same time. If you throw away your Tom Clancy books (a wise person probably wouldn’t buy them in the first place), throw them away one at a time.
We “stomp out” bad writing because to stomp out something, we have to use our feet, and using our feet on somebody is often seen as an insult (or a fetish, depending on how you look at it).
WHAT CAN WE DO TO STOMP OUT BAD WRITING?
1. Stop buying books from authors like Tom Clancy, John Grisham, Stephen King, Sue Grafton, and any other writer that publishes more than one book every two years. I have no problem with authors getting as much money as they can (I’d like to be one of those authors), but we don’t have to help them scam us… unless you really like their (mediocre) books.
2. Take your time with your own writing. There’s nothing wrong with writing every day, but if you’re a blogger you might not want to publish everyday. If you want to see bad writing, check out some of Dysfunctional Literacy’s posts from June where I was trying to write something every day. I’m tempted to take them down, but they serve as a bitter reminder for me to publish a post or article only when I think something is truly ready.
3. Protest. Normally I don’t approve of protesting. Even if I agree with the protestors, I find them annoying (which is probably why I like to write jokes about them). But here’s an issue I can get passionate about. Let’s make some signs and protest Stephen King and other authors who make their fortunes by writing too much. After all, they’re 1%ers, and we’re 99%ers (the 99% that haven’t been published yet because their books keep undiscovered talents like us from… cough… I’m sorry, I couldn’t refer to myself as an “undiscovered talent” with a straight face.).
4. Celebrate STOMP OUT BAD WRITING MONTH!! By celebrating, we need to come up with our own challenges and contests. Here are a few suggestions:
a. The Spend a Month Revising and Editing your Best Post Challenge!
b. The Write a Novel in the next Ten Years Contest!
c. The Help a Struggling Blogger by Donating to his Tip Jar Paypal Account Campaign- no, I don’t have a tip jar.
d. The Limit Yourself to Three Books per Modern Author Challenge
e. The One Star Review Campaign- Leave a bad review (but logically explain why it’s bad) for a bestselling novel.
Bad writing will never go away, but by participating in “STOMP OUT BAD WRITING!” Month, we can support good writing and put a dent in bad writing. Think about it! If people like us don’t do what we can to stop bad writing, then who will?
A young college graduate returned home for a holiday family reunion. He hadn’t been able to find a job since graduating, and he’d spent time protesting at several Occupy Wall Street rallies. Being unemployed, he had lots of time to occupy.
“I demand that the government forgive all student loans,” the college graduate protestor announced at the dinner table, eliciting several groans from family members who were hoping for a peaceful holiday feast.
“Oh yeah?” the graduate’s dad responded angrily, eliciting even more groans (now that a peaceful dinner was out of the question).
“When I was your age,” the protestor’s dad continued, food spraying out of his mouth as he spoke. “I worked three jobs while I was in college so that I wouldn’t need to take out a stinking loan. I paid for my cars in cash so that I wouldn’t have to take out a loan. I’ve paid for our house, without ever asking for my loan to be forgiven. I even paid for half your college expenses while you partied and chose a major that makes you unemployable. Now, give me one good reason why you think the government should forgive all your student loans.”
The protestor smiled at his aggravated dad. “Because if the government doesn’t forgive all my loans, I’ll have to move back in with you.”
Sometimes we just couldn't tell if this store was open or not. Image via Wikipedia
Two guys were standing outside an old Borders store that had just closed down and were peering through the windows at a large vacant darkened lot.
“I really miss Borders,” the first guy said. “I could browse through this store for hours and hours.”
The second guy pulled out a smart phone and began playing with it. “Oh yeah? Well, I can browse through books for hours and hours on my phone.”
The first guy said, ‘I could pull out any book in the store and read the first few pages to see if I liked it.”
“I can download free samples of any book on my phone and see if I like it.”
“I could purchase an overpriced cup of coffee and just relax in a literary atmosphere for as long as I wished,” sighed the first guy.
“I can use my phone to find the closest place where I can purchase an overpriced cup of coffee and enjoy a literary atmosphere… ugh! That sucks!”
“What’s wrong?” the first guy asked.
“The closest place to buy an overpriced cup of coffee and enjoy a literary experience is Borders,” the second guy said. “This stupid app hasn’t updated yet.”
*****
We dysfunctional literates love to read, but sometimes we don’t want other people to know we love to read. If you’ve got buddies who love football, or video games, or topless clubs, it’s tough to explain how reading a good book is better than those other activities (It’s cheaper. It’s less mind numbing. It’s less likely to give me a transmittable disease.) .
I also love to browse through book stores. When I was a little kid, I hung out at a Book Nook. The Book Nook shut down when a B. Dalton Bookseller (or was it a Waldenbooks?) opened nearby. Later on, the B. Dalton closed when a Borders opened up. When the Kindles and the Nooks came around and could be downloaded for free on smart phones, the Borders closed down.
At any rate, having an electronic reader on my smart phone has changed the way I read books. And if it’s changing me, it’s probably changing others (an anecdotal assertion with no statistical proof to back it up).
I used to be self-conscious about reading books in public. I didn’t mind strangers seeing me read a book in public (like a restaurant or movie theater), but there was always a chance of running into somebody I knew. Getting caught reading a book in public was an admission of guilt. It was like admitting you didn’t have friends. It was like admitting nobody liked you. It was like admitting you hid from your personal problems behind the pages of a book (which is better than hiding from your problems behind booze, drugs, or promiscuity).
The Kindle (or Nook) helped out with that because a lot of people didn’t know what an electronic reading device was and instead of seeing a lonely (from their point of view) guy reading, they saw a cool guy with a cool electronic device. The problem with the Kindle when it first came out was that curious strangers wanted to know what it was, thereby interrupting my literary experience. Instead of asking me, “Is that a good book?” the question was, “What is that?”
Now that I can download the Kindle, or the Nook, or any other e-reader whose name I do not know, onto my phone, I can read a book, and nobody will bug me because everybody knows what a smart phone looks like. And I look like a cool guy because I’ve got the latest in cool technology (nobody can see that I’m using it to read an uncool book). I might look like one of those tools who fiddles with a smart phone in public, but it’s better to look like a phone tool than a book nerd.
Reading a book while everybody else thinks you’re messing with cool technology? That’s a genius way to improve literacy!
RULES FOR READING IN PUBLIC
1. Be stationary. Walking while reading (or texting, or Angry Birding) can be dangerous. Sit or stand while reading. I’m just trying to look out for you. The world loves seeing a phone tool stumble in public, and somebody else with a smart phone will capture it and put it on the internet for the world to mock you
2. Look up a lot. No matter how caught up you are in your book/ text/game, be aware of your surroundings. You might be in your own little world while you’re on your phone, but in the meantime you are still surrounded by a very dangerous world filled with creeps who prey upon the oblivious.
3. Not in the car. Not even at red lights. Put that phone away while you’re driving. When you’re in your car, you are moments away from death at any given second.
Follow these rules, and you can be a cool technology guy (or babe) without getting conked on the head by a deviant, or hit by a car while you’re walking, or stumbling into a food table with a bunch of phone camcorders focused on you.
Read! But be safe!
“REPENT, THE END IS NEAR!!” a grizzled old man yelled from the top of a bench in a popular public park. “THE END OF THE WORLD IS NEAR!” he kept shouting.
A radio preacher walked by and stopped to watch the old man’s performance. When the old man was catching his breath, the radio preacher said, “You need to get with the times. Instead of preaching from a park bench, you need to get on the radio, start a web site, and then predict when the world ends every once in a while. It’s a great way to get publicity, and you don’t have to scare little kids in the park.”
After screaming “REPENT!” at a young couple who hurried away, the old man calmly turned to the radio preacher and said, “Predicting the exact day the world ends is counter productive. When you’re wrong, everybody laughs at you. When you’re right, there’s no one around to brag to.”
Then the old man jumped from the bench and said, “Come with me, and let us enjoy our final minutes together.” The old man went to a vendor, bought a couple hot dogs, and sat back down on the park bench with the radio preacher.
As they were enjoying their snack, a fire ball flashed down from the Heavens and smashed into the earth. Cities were burned. Countries were flooded. The earth was thrown off its orbit, causing instant catastrophe.
The old man calmly ate his hot dog while the world perished in its final moments of chaos. The radio preacher turned to the old man and exclaimed, “You knew this was going to happen today? Why didn’t you tell anyone?”
The old man took his last bite and said, “Nobody would have believed me.”
