BY JACKIE MASON AND RAOUL FELDER
Let’s get something straight right at the beginning! We are not in the business of making any moral judgments on the former President Clinton. The people who claim that his adultery prevented him from devoting himself completely to the Presidency are simply wrong. It took him twenty minutes to commit adultery and he had the rest of the day to be President. We do, however, have and had serious concerns because, when he turned the White House into a Holiday Inn, he was only a temporary tenant basically utilizing our real estate for which we all paid. His long history of allegedly pressing for unwanted sex, hitting on women, seduction, cheating - the recipients of his charms running the spectrum extending from trailer park to society women, etc. - should be his own business, the business of the law itself, his conscience (as diminished as it may be), his Minister or Rabbi and the women involved, except when, one way or another, he utilized the high public office to which the citizens elected him to further his obnoxious goals. Unfortunately this seemed to be the case most of the time. It is hard to imagine that if he were not President, and just another Arkansas clod-kicker, he would be able to hit so many home runs in this area of his special endeavor.
Getting to the point! If Hillary really did not know what was going on, while everybody else at the White House, from the fellow at the gate, to the stewards, to the Secret Service, to the porters, etc., knew that the girls were standing in line outside the Oval Office taking a number and waiting for their turn, she does not have enough brains to be President. How would she be able t o figure out what was going on in the rest of the world, when she could not figure out what was happening downstairs in her own home. Ms. Clinton, by knowing and doing nothing – even after the Monica Lewinsky affair monopolized the media - other than walking a few feet away from him with a glum face as they went to the helicopter, she sent a terrible message to wives: this is the way to deal with a husband who cheats, insults, and publicly embarrasses a wife. Further, by publicly putting up with his on-going nonsense, she basically enabled her husband to continue to degrade, demean and abuse women.
What we find to be particularly obnoxious is that she touts herself as being in front of the parade, a banner-waiver for women when, in fact, she should be at the end sweeping away the garbage.
Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Sunday, May 27, 2007
The art of effective communication by words is dying the death of a dog
By Jackie Mason & Raoul Felder
Because we both make a living by words we are very sensitive about them and more importantly, in our respective occupations, with better or worse results, we utilize them as a mechanism to communicate our thoughts. Sadly, from what we observe, the art of effective communication by words is dying the death of a dog.
People throw words around like indescribably: indescribably delicious, indescribably beautiful, etc. If something is indescribable, how does putting the word indescribable before the thing it is supposed to describe in fact describe or even help in describing that thing?
Before we receive e e-mails (excessive e-mails) we know that indescribably is an adverb. However, putting a respectable name on word that does not make sense, makes no sense, no more than putting on a Chanel dress on a streetwalker changes her profession.
Similarly, people also toss around the word fabulous. How was the girl? She was a fabulous girl. The chopped liver? It was fabulous. How can you use the same word to describe a girl and chopped liver — unless it's some of the girls we know?
Then we get words that really mean the exact opposite of what they say. When a girl says the boy she went out with is hot, she really means he is cool. When another girl is asked to describe the guy who just picked her up, the girl might say, "He is really Bad." Usually this is pronounced BAAAD, and of course she means he is real good.
How about, "The rain kept up for an hour"? If it kept up, it never would have come down. When somebody says "kept up," they mean down, unless, of course, they live in Australia, which is down from us, on the other side of the world, so when we are up, they are down. When it rains on them, in that case, we would be correct if we say the "the rain kept up," because their up is our down. However, if you stand on your head in New York, then in that situation up would then still be down. We trust that we clarified this matter.
The last place we expect to hear strings of words that are self-contradictory or that don't make sense is from the United States Supreme Court. But what did we just hear from it? It says it's legal to have the Ten Commandments outside the courthouse, but illegal to have them inside the courthouse. The unworthy thought occurs to us that to get inside the courthouse you have to walk there from outside, so the same person is walking from a legal environment into an illegal environment, and doing nothing more than putting one foot in front of the other. To make things more clear, the Court also said you have to consider each case on its own merits and its own facts, so theoretically, in certain cases, you could have the Ten Commandments outside the courthouse and it would be illegal, and yet inside the courthouse would be legal. Actually in terms of its own building where the Ten Commandments is inside the courthouse, the Supreme Court said that was legal. But if it were illegal outside, and legal inside the courthouse, people would have to walk on the outside where it is illegal to get to the inside where it is legal. And we didn't even discuss the cases where it is illegal both inside and outside, which seems to us to be a great way to get out of jury duty, or showing up to pay a traffic ticket.
In all this talk of language, we are not even mentioning expressions like "Keep your shirt on," when nobody in the house ever thought of taking it off. Or "Keep your eyes peeled," which we find too painful to contemplate.We like simple stuff — spit on the subway and you're fined $50.00. That we understand!
Because we both make a living by words we are very sensitive about them and more importantly, in our respective occupations, with better or worse results, we utilize them as a mechanism to communicate our thoughts. Sadly, from what we observe, the art of effective communication by words is dying the death of a dog.
People throw words around like indescribably: indescribably delicious, indescribably beautiful, etc. If something is indescribable, how does putting the word indescribable before the thing it is supposed to describe in fact describe or even help in describing that thing?
Before we receive e e-mails (excessive e-mails) we know that indescribably is an adverb. However, putting a respectable name on word that does not make sense, makes no sense, no more than putting on a Chanel dress on a streetwalker changes her profession.
Similarly, people also toss around the word fabulous. How was the girl? She was a fabulous girl. The chopped liver? It was fabulous. How can you use the same word to describe a girl and chopped liver — unless it's some of the girls we know?
Then we get words that really mean the exact opposite of what they say. When a girl says the boy she went out with is hot, she really means he is cool. When another girl is asked to describe the guy who just picked her up, the girl might say, "He is really Bad." Usually this is pronounced BAAAD, and of course she means he is real good.
How about, "The rain kept up for an hour"? If it kept up, it never would have come down. When somebody says "kept up," they mean down, unless, of course, they live in Australia, which is down from us, on the other side of the world, so when we are up, they are down. When it rains on them, in that case, we would be correct if we say the "the rain kept up," because their up is our down. However, if you stand on your head in New York, then in that situation up would then still be down. We trust that we clarified this matter.
The last place we expect to hear strings of words that are self-contradictory or that don't make sense is from the United States Supreme Court. But what did we just hear from it? It says it's legal to have the Ten Commandments outside the courthouse, but illegal to have them inside the courthouse. The unworthy thought occurs to us that to get inside the courthouse you have to walk there from outside, so the same person is walking from a legal environment into an illegal environment, and doing nothing more than putting one foot in front of the other. To make things more clear, the Court also said you have to consider each case on its own merits and its own facts, so theoretically, in certain cases, you could have the Ten Commandments outside the courthouse and it would be illegal, and yet inside the courthouse would be legal. Actually in terms of its own building where the Ten Commandments is inside the courthouse, the Supreme Court said that was legal. But if it were illegal outside, and legal inside the courthouse, people would have to walk on the outside where it is illegal to get to the inside where it is legal. And we didn't even discuss the cases where it is illegal both inside and outside, which seems to us to be a great way to get out of jury duty, or showing up to pay a traffic ticket.
In all this talk of language, we are not even mentioning expressions like "Keep your shirt on," when nobody in the house ever thought of taking it off. Or "Keep your eyes peeled," which we find too painful to contemplate.We like simple stuff — spit on the subway and you're fined $50.00. That we understand!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
