It may not be logical, but it seems natural to associate nightclubs with sarcasm. Sarcasm has many variations, and many different types of mode, but as an abstract idea I don’t see a reason to not think it illogical to connect sarcasm to nightclubs – which is what gets me to my next point.

I have a suspicion, that since nightclubs and sarcasm have provoked a need to be connected to each other, that that means that nightclubs and sarcasm are actually enemies of each other. Or, at the very least, that nightclubs is an enemy of sarcasm or that sarcasm is an enemy of nightclubs. With this in mind, it’s possible that either sarcasm or nightclubs has concocted a means to destroy the opposite: create philosophy, and use philosophy as a way to fool Dick Cheney into not protecting either sarcasm or nightclubs from either sarcasm or nightclubs.

Should it be Dick Cheney? Cheney suits the formula, inasmuch that he’s career represents corruption, and the Bush administration represents corruption (although to be fair, can there ever be such a thing as a US administration let alone a Republican administration which doesn’t represent corruption?).

On the condition, that Cheney has been fooled by philosophy – with philosophy just being a device by either nightclubs or sarcasm – the natural response is so what. Because assuming that any of this is true, what on earth could anyone – let alone Dick Cheney – do about the predicament? Redundancy in the face of magic is the ultimate cliché – and in all seriousness, that could just be the reality, as in that feeling redundant because of magic is just downright silly and incorrect.

From the perspective that all of reality is magic, all opposition is possible. As a result, on the condition that nightclubs are hurting sarcasm by fooling Dick Cheney into believing in philosophy, the consequence is that Cheney has the ability to pull the rug out from either nightclubs or sarcasm – probably nightclubs, if you ask me – and to prevent any further destruction to either nightclubs or sarcasm.

For what it’s worth: the reverse of nightclubs destroying sarcasm by getting Cheney to believe in philosophy is philosophy being the absence of belief in Cheney as a way to connect sarcasm to nightclubs.

The connection between nightclubs and sarcasm is the means to destroying both – since both are incorrect – but the irony to this is that the means to the mutual destruction has been the result of the solution having imitated the problem.

Are you taking the piss Mason?