Madame President

You may have heard that Hillary Clinton is running for President in 2016.

Alternatively, you may have cotton batting stuffed in your ears.  And be living in a hermetically sealed soundproof room.  And be dead and decayed to a moldering mass of maggots.  [clever use of alliteration by me]

 

Those being the only two possibilities.

 

Now, you may consider this good news.  Or you may consider it bad news.  In either case, you are wrong.  This is great news!  Because once again, the United States of America can show the rest of the world what democracy is all about--freedom and opportunity for all!  And by "opportunity for all", I--needless to say--mean all potential presidential candidates born into the upper middle class, with a personal net worth of millions of dollars, and rich friends who will give her or him millions of dollars more, and a high enough national profile that his or her campaign will get free national news coverage.  You know, all of us!

 

Hillary Clinton would a first for American presidential politics.  There have been dynastic political families before in U.S. history:  John and John Quincy Adams; Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt; William Henry and Benjamin Harrison; George H. W. and George W. Bush.  But this will be the first time that the second member of the dynasty was not known for wearing a skirt.  ("Oh, George, you little devil!") 

 

Also, I am told, that Hillary would be the first female American president, which would be quite groundbreaking--if not for the fact that it had already been done by Ireland.  And Scotland.  And Finland.  And Britain.  And Germany.  And Norway.  And Iceland.  And India.  And Bangladesh.  And Costa Rica.  And Liberia.  And Chile.  And Canada.  And South Korea.  And just about every other country that has democratic elections.

 

But to be fair to the United States, although voters have not yet selected a female president, we did grant women the vote  .  .  . well, not as the first country to do so, nor the second, nor the twentieth, but at least American women got the vote at the same time as women in that other progressive beacon of democracy: Albania.  Which is good enough reason for me to put in some pictures of the great sights to be seen by tourists to Albania, "the Other America."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All of you Fox News viewers are now saying, "I get it!  You can't write about Hillary Clinton without talking about Lenin and Stalin!"

 

Actually, I could, but what's the fun in that?  It's so much more enjoyable to stir up the anti-Hillary faction.  And then to give them the news that will really make them foam at the mouth:  "There is absolutely nothing you can do to prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming the next President of the United States!"  As much as it pains me to tell you this--that delighted smile you see on my face is only there to mask the pain--it is an actual, factual certainty.

 

Even if you repeat to everyone you know any crazed, rabid, made up, paranoid ideas you hear on Fox News--or, to express my point in simpler language--any ideas you hear on Fox News, it won't matter.  Even if you get all of your neighbors to go to the polls and vote for the Republican candidate--or, if their standards are too high to vote for the Republican candidate, to vote for a dead dog--it won't matter.  Even if you get everybody interred in the local cemetery to vote against Clinton, it won't matter.

 

Because you tried all that last time, and the time before that, and IT DIDN'T MATTER!  Barack Obama still won 332 to 206 and 364 to 174. 

 

Think about that for a minute.  The Republicans couldn't beat a black Muslim from Kenya with a foreign-sounding name, who inherited the worst economy of my lifetime.  In fact, they couldn't come within 100 electoral votes of him and Joe "Everybody's Looney Uncle" Biden.  And yet you think you can beat a nice white lady from the suburbs of Chicago?!  Sorry.  While I am willing to entertain the possibility that you are right about the earth being 6000 years old and about Adam and Eve riding dinosaurs out of the Garden of Eden, when you start trying to deny the one true God--by which I mean, MATHEMATICS, well, I have to draw the line.

 

Let me show you what I mean:

 

 

 

These are the results of the 2012 Presidential election.  In case you can't make out the numbers on this chart, Barack Obama won by a margin of 126 votes, by prevailing in every state in which "school" and "Bible school" are not the same thing.

And what that means is the following: If you live in one of the Romney Red (a new color selection available at the paint department of your local WalMart) states, you don't matter in 2016.  Other than North Carolina and Georgia, every red state voted for the Republican by roughly 110% for Romney, minus 10% for Obama.  And still, Romney got thumped (so much so that the Washington Generals were embarrassed for him).  So Hillary knows she can win without you.  As for the blue states, there were 4 that Obama won by less than a 5 percentage point margin:  Florida, Ohio, Virginia and Colorado.  Without those 4 states, the Democratic total would be 262 electoral votes:  8 shy of victory.  Winning any one of those states, or North Carolina, or Georgia, or using the Joseph Kennedy strategy of buying all the votes in West Virginia (gotta love a man who's there for his son at a time of need), and Hillary is the next president.  

 

 

And if Bill Clinton can't cajole all the pot-smoking hippies in Colorado to wander into the polling booths and light a doobie--I mean, pull a voting lever--for Hillary, then Bill is in danger of losing his legacy as the most devious rascal in the history of American politics, and I just don't believe he would let that happen. 

 

 

(If you are bored and have A LOT of time to kill, do a Google picture search for "Bill Clinton women".)

Not to mention that it's hard to imagine how Hillary Clinton does not win Ohio.  Can you explain to me who that voted for Barack Obama would not vote for Hillary Clinton?  On the other hand, consider the large blue collar white vote in Ohio.  Not Barack's core constituency, I'd guess.  I can't picture Obama going into working class hangouts, having a shot and a beer and arm wrestling the local union rep.  And I can't picture Hillary doing anything but that!

 

This is not to say that Hillary Clinton really will be the next President of the United States.  She has an archenemy that seems totally committed to thwarting her every hope and dream.  Someone so clever and diabolical that it's hard to feel that this conniving, scheming evil shadow-figure will not defeat even the most powerful of forces for good--meaning, MATHEMATICS.

 

And, no, this demonic figure is not her husband Bill.  (Though that was a good guess on your part.)  Nor is it that person whose picture is in the dictionary beside the term "conniving, scheming evil shadow figure."  Which is to say, Karl Rove.  Because, compared to Hillary Clinton, he is just a feckless clown.  (Come to think of it, compared to Bozo the Clown, Karl Rove is just a feckless clown.  Take a look at his 2012 Presidential Election electoral map, which he put out the week of the 2012 election:

 

 

For those keeping score at home, Karl only missed by six states and 79 electoral votes and by who was going to win--in other words, a blond pig could have done better. (I meant to say "a blind pig", but what I accidentally wrote sounds better.)  Apparently, Karl Rove made the silly mistake of believing what he heard of Fox News--not remembering that what he was hearing was bullshit that he himself had made up to appeal to Fox's core audience of old, scared white people. 

I suggested earlier that the Republicans might do better to run a dead dog as their presidential candidate, which all reasonable people would agree with.  But even unreasonable people--aka, Republicans--should agree that the Republicans would do better with a dead dog as their political strategist than Mr. Rove.  And, I am told by my good friend George W. Bush, the dead dog would smell better.

 

But, as to the one person who could thwart Hillary Clinton's presidential ambitions  .  .  .  it is Hillary Clinton.  Obviously.  Because no one in modern politics has mastered the art of treating people like morons better than Hillary Clinton.  Of course, compared to Hillary (Wellesley '68 and Yale '71), most of the people she encounters are morons.   But there are two important ideas that she needs to learn about people dumber than her (I am now speaking as one of those people): (1)  We dumb people can live with knowing that someone is smarter than us; but we expect them to have the good taste not to point it out to us; and (2)  As Winston Churchill observed: "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes."  So she needs to listen to other people's ideas and worries, and to consider the possibility that these ideas and worries--even if not shared by her--could be legitimate.  If she makes that simple adjustment, she really will be unbeatable.

And I don't ask for anything in return from Ms. Clinton for my brilliant advice.  Except for this.  The day of your inauguration, give me the job of going to every Republican Senator and Representative to deliver the message that all federal funds to their district have been discontinued immediately.  And we can all rest assured that that will happen. Because from the time she was First Lady up through the present, Republicans have hated her; and like any Chicago politician, Hillary knows that "getting elected" is synonymous with "getting even."

Not to mention that federal money should go to "winners." (To quote the great philosopher, Donald Trump.) We can't be throwing away the people's money on a bunch of losers.  But don't worry, there are still some non-governmental opportunities out there for you Republicans.

 

My Civic Duty

With the Finnish Parliamentary elections now only 17 days away, it is incumbent (ha, ha--what a clever pun) upon me to advise all of my readers about the proper choice for them to make when they cast their ballot. 

 

Let's start with a careful examination of the eight political parties which currently have representatives in Parliament.  And by "careful examination", I of course mean, let's look at the slogan of each party, pick the one that has a good beat and that we can dance to, and vote for that party.

 

So here are the slogans (translated for the 99.922% of the world's population that would rather go through life with a live rat in their mouth than learn Finnish): 

 

• "Bravery"
• "We Will Fix It"
• "The Way for Finland"
• "The Way of Business"
• "Finland to Fitness"
• "The Finnish Party"
• "Now, If Ever"
• "Close to You" (actually, a better translation of this would be "Near You", but I wanted to honor those musical geniuses, The Carpenters)

 

  

As you can see, you are now a fully informed voter and can easily distinguish the party that best reflects your values from all the others.

 

But, in the unlikely event that you want even more information before making your voting decision--which is another way of saying, "in the unlikely event that you are not a Hoosier voter"--I will provide you with a translation of my translations.
 

"Bravery" - "If you believe that the role of government is to act as the Old Testament God and to smite anyone who strays from your own personal religious beliefs, then we are the party for you!"  This party, Kristillisdemokraatit, also takes the position that some immigration should be permitted into Finland--but only if the immigrants are Christians.  (This is true.  If you think this position is somehow at odds with "freedom of religion" then you weren't listening when I explained the plague-of-locusts governmental model, were you?)

By the way, let me just point out to all my Tea Party readers that this immigration rule is not one that I support for America, and nor should you.  Because even if we had adopted this policy two hundred years ago, it wouldn't have kept the Irish out.

 "We Will Fix It" - "If you believe that the role of government is to give you everything you want at no cost to you, then we are the party for you!"  Now, because you are a Finn, and therefore have actually received an education during your years at school, you know that this makes no sense.  But you also know that there's no way in hell that this party, Vasemmistoliitto ("Leftist Group"), will ever be a major political party, so a vote for them is a vote to keep the right-wing nuts from being the only cuckoo birds in the Parliament.  And, besides, as long as they don't get ahold of the checkbook, Vasemmisto will advocate for things we like: gender equality; marriage equality; ecological responsibility; public education; building a statue to Joseph Stalin.  (Well, maybe the last one might meet some opposition from extremists, such as those shown in the following photograph.)

"The Way for Finland" - "If all of your friends are voting for the Leftist Group and you want to pretend to be progressive, but you really don't want any changes, vote for us!  Our official name is the Social Democratic Party but our real name should be the 'Don't Make Waves' Party.  We are usually in the governmental coalition, no matter how right-wing the lead party of the coalition is.  Because we really don't have any firmly held beliefs!"  For my American readers, just think of the SDP as the Indiana Democratic Party, if the Indiana Democratic Party were being marketed by Hallmark.

 

 Actual Campaign Photo of the SDP

Because, contrary to my diatribe, the SDP

is willing to take a firm stand

in favor of cute little girls with backpacks.

 

 

"The Way of Business" - "If you think that all of your problems are caused by Finnish CEO's not making 1000 times the income of the average worker--such as is the case in the United States--and that getting prompt, reliable and courteous service from government agencies is proof that we need to change how those agencies do business, then we are the party for you!"  We are the pro-business wing of the American Republican Party, only without the political necessity of giving a rat's ass about social issues.  Marry who you want.  Believe or don't believe in what you want.  Pick the sins that suit your dysfunction.  Just join us in reducing upper income taxes, business regulations, and--most importantly--reducing salaries for workers.  Can you believe that some of these people want jobs AND wages?  The temerity of workers these days.  This party also suggests that if you vote for another party, you will end up either on the road to Subsistence Living or on the "Greek Road."  As for the latter, I'm not sure whether they are suggesting it's the road to national bankruptcy or to deviant sex practices.  I'd better find out, as that will strongly affect my choice of parties to support.

 

 

 

"Finland to Fitness" - "If you grew up in the countryside or a small town and never left, because you heard wild stories of the big city--restaurants that don't serve boiled potatoes and fried meat; buildings where people go just to look at pictures that other people drew; brown people; electrical music; dancing; even all of the last three things in the same place!--then we are the party for you!"  We think it was a good thing when Finland got its independence in 1917.  And that every change since then has been for the worse.  But with your support, and our total disregard for reality, we can return to that wonderful time!

 

 

"The Finnish Party" - "If you are suspicious of everything--immigrants, intellectuals, women, people who read books, the police, that neighbor who looks at you funny each morning when you come back from the grocery store carrying only six cans of beer--then we are the party for you!"  This party is roughly equivalent to the U.S. Tea Party, but not so vocal, nor so given to getting worked up at every crazy rumor they hear.  In short, there is a lot to be said for the six-cans-of-beer-a-day principle as an essential part of the political platform of most political parties.

 

 

"Now, If Ever" - "If you care about nature and the environment and haven't figured out that there is no chance in hell that America will ever get serious about reducing carbon emissions--which renders pointless all of the good works that Finland has done or could ever do to save the planet, then we are the party for you!"  This is the party for people who studied Emmanuel Kant in school rather than John D. Rockefeller.  And, like the Leftist Group, the multiparty system in Finland means that the Green Party's 8% of the vote is enough to be heard in Parliament and maybe even to get a spot in the ruling coalition.  Until it's time to build a nuclear power plant in Finland, and then it's "Hit the bricks, Treehugger!"  (Actual occurrence in Finnish politics in 2014, complete with rude English-language proclamation by the pro-business party.)

 

 

 

(It's true.  The Green Party in Finland embraces not only trees, but

also diversity.  You can be a Green even if you have red hair.  Amazingly.)

 

"Close to You" - "If you are Finnish but your first language is Swedish, you will vote for us.  Period.  We don't stand for anything.  Because we don't have to.  We're the only politicians that can understand that gibberish that you speak--not even actual Swedes are quite sure what you're saying most of the time--so you will vote for us.  And that's why we can use a sappy love song as our political motto!"

 

 

And The Winner Is . . .

With Finnish national elections less than two months away, the campaigns are in high gear.  One would assume.  But as a survivor of US national elections, I am hard-pressed to find evidence of said campaigns here.  No billboards telling me which candidate will save America/Finland.  Not even any TV ads warning me which candidate hates America/Finland and/or is a known thespian.  And I have yet to hear those magical campaign words "legitimate rape."

 

So one has to wonder, is there really a political campaign occurring here in Finland right now, or when I was told that Finland is having national elections, was I actually an unwitting victim of a Finnish version of Punked, with a Finnish version of Aston Kutcher?  (Now, there's an idea that should give you nightmares.)

 

 

But I'm not as gullible as you might think.  I have not blindly accepted the word of a Finnish person that there is an election in Finland.  Instead, I investigated, examined and analyzed the question with all the skill of an American college student.  Which is to say, I googled "election in Finland" and skimmed the first randomly selected Internet page I came across.  So now I can tell you with full certainty that there is a national election in Finland scheduled for April 19, 2015.  And Barack Obama has introduced secret legislation that makes us all subject to Sharia Law.  And Elvis is still alive, but has been kidnapped by aliens and transported to a strange, distant world where he is worshipped as a god (and, surprisingly, the name of this strange, alien place is NOT Mississippi).  And Dan's hand tremors will be cured on Days of Our Lives, probably by Jack Deveraux when he returns once more from the dead.

But back to the Finnish election.  Apparently, the law in Finland is that candidates and political parties cannot start their campaigns until two months before the date of the election.  I guess the idea is that these people should spend the other 3 years and 10 months between elections actually doing their jobs!  That damn work ethic they have here.  Luckily for me, since I am an American, I am not afraid of hard work.  I can always fall asleep sleep right next to it.  Ho, ho, ho.

 

 U - S - A !  U - S - A !

 



 But back to the Finnish election.  The political parties only have two months to get their message to the voters.  So why am I not being besieged by slanderous, foaming-at-the-mouth accusations about the opposing party?  Probably because there is not ONE opposing party, but ONE DOZEN.  The Finnish system, I have learned, uses proportional D'Hondt representation, so that there is not a head-to-head, winner-take-all vote for each separate legislative seat but a sharing of the seats based upon the relative popularity of the different parties' ideas. 

Sorry.

I apologize.

I strayed into factual information.

Lucky for you, it's a lot like hard work--I'm sure you can fall asleep right next to it.

Anyway, there are currently 10 different parties with representatives in parliament, plus several other parties that came close last time.   (By the way, the top vote-getting party among the "also-rans" was The Pirate Party.  For real.  Unfortunately--this being Finland--even The Pirate Party has political principles and a platform.  And--anticipating your feeble attempt at cleverness--no, the platform does not have a "plank" for landlubbers, swabbies and Johnny Depp [real 18th Century pirates really hate that guy, I am told].  Among other things, they are against the current patent laws and daylight savings time.  Which are two things that, to be honest, I really did not anticipate would be things that pirates would give a flying f**k about.)

So, with so many different candidates to choose from, you can see why that staple of American politics, the "my opponent is a Satanist who drinks the blood of babies" campaign slogan, wouldn't play well here.  Because the candidate would then have to add "And so is my other opponent   .   .   .   And my other other opponent   .   .   .  And those ten other opponents as well."   Not all that credible a campaign tactic, I suspect.  Not to mention the fact that, if people are willing to support pirates, what makes you think they won't vote for Satan?

Moving on--if people here don't cast their votes on the basis of negative advertising-induced fear, panic and greed, then how in the world can they make their choice?

Well, it turns out that there are these things called "issues" and candidates and political parties are expected to state their "positions" on these "issues."  Even more surprisingly, these "issues" are more controversial than "foreign terrorists attaching the United States--for or against?" or "Do you favor or oppose allowing Americans to go to Christian churches?"

Instead, candidates and parties are asked, on the record, about economic policy--deficits, spending on social services, tax rates on upper income Finns, the bailout of Greece; foreign policy--joining NATO; health policy; education issues; and values--same sex couples, accepting political refugees, etc.  And most surprisingly of all, these candidates and parties state their positions on the issues!

Last week, the Helsinki newspaper compiled the answers from candidates and parties to about 30 questions and then let voters answer the same questions.  Then it matched you with both the parties and the individual candidates that most reflected your views.  Although I am, technically, not supposed to vote in the election (some nonsense about not being a citizen), I also did the matching.  After which, I realized that the Finnish election laws are wise not to let me have a vote.  The three parties I matched best with were: (1) The Greens; (2) The Commies; and (3) The Left Alliance.

   So, either I've found a country where the ideals of the 60's counter-culture are still admired or all of this is actually a flashback to when I dropped acid at Woodstock.  Although, I never dropped acid, and I wasn't at Woodstock.  Which is what most of the people who dropped acid at Woodstock would now say.  Say, is that Hendrix starting his set?

 

What Were They Thinking?

This is the story of a lawyer who caused justice to prevail in a lawsuit conducted under the American Judicial System.  He is currently being disbarred for conduct unbecoming an attorney.  Needless to say.

 

Not really.  At least not yet.  Right now he is basking in a well-deserved success.  It is a tale fraught with anguish, pain and insanity.  It wasn't any of those things when it happened, but now that I am telling it, it has all of those things in great volume.  And from the horror that is my thought process, only I alone am escaped to tell thee the tale. 

 

Yes, yes.  You should now call me Ismael.

(If you are not of such a literary bent, then in the alternative you can refer to me as "the man from Nantucket.")

The heroic lawyer in this tale is my buddy, Cory Brundage.  And if "heroic" seems a, well, generous choice of words to describe Cory, it will all make sense when I tell you that on the opposite side of this case in the courtroom were a bunch of lawyers on the payroll of an auto insurance company.  You have to see how that would make Cory a shining pillar of moral goodness by comparison (notwithstanding those convictions for consuming "lite beer" and for watching an entire episode of "The Bachelor").

 

Now, it is not in my nature to hold anyone up to negative comment, so the actual auto insurance company will remain anonymous.  Though it couldn't hurt for me to tell you that the company is not All STATE; and neither is it FARM Bureau Insurance.  (Nod, nod, wink, wink.)

 

 

 

The key facts are as follows.  A nice, middle-aged woman is driving along a quiet street, peacefully and sensibly.  As she crosses an intersection, a car driving at the speed of a Shenkansen bullet train comes over a rise, runs the red light, and explodes the car of the nice woman.  And, for that matter, pretty much explodes the nice woman, too.

 

 

It turns out that the driver of the bullet train does not have any insurance.  And why would he, since he also doesn't have a driver's license?  But that's not a problem for nice lady because she has faithfully paid premiums to [delete company name before publishing] Insurance Company for "uninsured motorist coverage."   Which means that they pay the same as if they had insured Johnny Jetpack.

 

Except that they don't.  Of course not.  What's the point of taking people's insurance premiums if then they are going to come back and hassle you to pay for things?!  Just drag you feet and tell them 'no' until they get that crazy idea out of their head.

Then in steps Cory Brundage, in the uncomfortable position of being on the side of Truth, Justice and The American Way.  And tries to get the company to pay the nice woman.  Who, by the way, has terrible, permanent injuries, ongoing medical bills, and chronic, persistent and excruciating pain.  Oh, wait.  That latter problem only occurs when she has to listen to Cory explain the law.

Nonetheless, when unnamed insurance company with the initials S- F- suggested that the right amount of money to fix all of the nice woman's problems was   .   .   .   wait for it   .   .   .   wait for it   .   .   .   a payment of less than $22,000, it makes you suspect that you can get a job in that company's claims department without having completed your Ph.D in mathematics.  Or, for that matter, your preschool course in number blocks.

However, it is possible that the decision-makers actually went through some sort of thought process to arrive at an offer that can best be put into words as "Take us to court!  We double-dog dare you!"  And I can think of two scenarios in which that would have seemed to them to be the epitome of cleverness.

The first scenario is that the Einsteins at the insurance company thought that the fear of having to conduct a trial would cause Cory to accept a payment of the loose change found in the sofa cushions in the company's break room.  Their reasoning would have been:  He's a solo lawyer, while we have an army of lawyers--so while we can spread the burden of a trial, he is facing days or, more likely, weeks of misery, grindingly hard work, too little sleep and caffeine-fueled monomania.  So he'll take our offer.

If that was their thinking, it gets the honor of being the greatest, most boneheaded misreading of another person since George W. Bush looked into Vladimir Putin's eyes and thought he saw a soul.

 

 All you really need to know to understand how bad the misreading of Cory was is to know that he doesn't just run marathons; he runs ultramarathons; and not just ultramarathons, but super-long 100-mile ultramarathons.  Through the Arizona desert one time; and through the highest mountains in Colorado another time.  When I say that these races are crazy hard, what I mean is that at the end of the race, most competitors are greeted with the enthusiastic greeting, "Great job!  Now get back in your straitjacket so that we can take you back to the asylum!"

 

Since Cory is not legally committed to an insane asylum--and, no, living in a state governed by Indiana Republicans and Governor Mike Pence does not qualify as being in a looney bin--okay, it almost qualifies, but not quite--the only explanation for Cory's participation in these events is a deep, turbulent wellspring of self-loathing at his very core.  His inner hatred--well founded, we can agree--drives him to make himself miserable.  Like Dunbar in Catch-22, Cory is only truly happy when he is completely miserable.  So forcing him to go to trial is like a belated Christmas present.

 

So that is scenario one of the possible thought process.  Scenario two is even more concerning, in terms of disturbed, delusional thinking.  In that scenario, the insurance people want to go to trial.  They want a jury of ordinary civilians to make a decision as to whether to side with a nice middle-aged lady with a verified, documented collection of injuries that would put to shame the collective rosters of the entire NFL; or to side with a gaggle of lawyers flying the battle flag of corporate greed. 

 And how would that thought process have gone?  Given that ordinary people view claims adjusters, insurance company lawyers, and insurance executives less favorably than the IRS or the Taliban--or even an IRS operated 100% by members of the Taliban?  I can only assume that these decision makers had been watching too many of their own commercials, which take place in some nonexistent, glossy, heartwarming, scripted world, in which your hypothetical good, neighborly insurance agent is always be there to find your hypothetical lost dog, give a hypothetical doll to your hypothetical sweet, adorable daughter, and to save you from your own stupidity of wandering into a herd of angry buffalo.

 

Maybe the folks at this unnamed insurance company convinced themselves that jurors for a trial in the real world would think they were living in the advertising world.  It would explain why they made sure that they did not make an offer to pay the claim that came within 100 miles of being reasonable.

And it would qualify as the stupidest idea to ever cross the human mind since the beginning of prehistory.  Hey, somebody has to be Number One in Stupidity.  And auto insurance companies are starting that race in the front of the pack.

(By the way, if you keeping score at home and want to see the rankings of the top five dumbest ideas of all time, the second through fifth, as determined by Stephen Hawking, Sir Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Rene Descartes and Lindsey Lohan, are as follows:

 

2.  "Let's develop a new line of cars called the Edsel!"

 

3.  "I think I'll enter into a relationship with Madonna!"  (Ranked No. 2 in the Coaches Poll.)

 

4.  "I'm going to invade Russia as winter is about to start."

 

5.  "I need to write a blog because people are so eager to hear what I have to say.")

 

And now the happy ending to my story.  Cory stuck in his thumb and pulled out a plum and said, "What a good boy am I!"

 

 

 (Actual Courtroom Artist's Drawing)

 

 

Jury Award:  $750,000.