Friday, October 08, 2004
A Lively Interpretation
One of the many memorable and insightful shticks that the late great standup comic Bill Hicks was one he performed soon after the Rodney King-LA Police community relations encounter. His take on the trial of one of the officers involved, an Officer Koons, (on which Mr. Hicks commented, "I swear. I could never have invented a name like that."), went something like this:
Judge (J): "Mr. Koons. How do you plead?"
Officer Koons (OK): "Innocent, your honor."
The jury gasped. They shook in fear and astonishment. There were witnesses! There was a video tape of the beating! This man has such chutzpah! He needs a wheelbarrow to cart his cojones around! He has incredible balls!
J: "Innocent?! And how do you make this claim? We have a video tape! We have witnesses."
OK: "Well, your honor, it all depends on how you look at it."
J: "How you look at it? And how do you propose we should look at it, Officer Koooooons?"
OK: "Well, like I said. It all depends how you look at it. See, if you play that video in reverse, it looks like I'm helping him (Rodney King) up off the street, And then, you see, I'm helping him into his car. Heck, I'm even waving him off. See, it all depends on how you look at things.
The second presidential debates took place tonight. With minimal recall cells active in my head at this time of the night, only two things stuck out.
1) Dubya's need to have the last dig overwhelmed any of the proper and civil manners that his parents had tried to drum into him. At one point in the exchanges with John Kerry, when Bush had his last ALLOWABLE say on an issue, Bush, shaking with ill-concealed anger, strode to the center of the stage, ignored the moderator's (Charles Gibson) repeated instructions that his allotted time was used up, and garbled something in anger for 20-30 seconds. I wish I could recall what he'd said; at least to see if the verbiage matched the emotions and the issue at hand. Physical violence actually seemed possible.
2) What speechifying I did remember of the President was his interpretation of the release of the CIA's findings that there were no WMD's in Iraq, nor any evidence of any in the past 4-5 years. How he was able to say, with that tightly drawn straight face, to those "town meeting" folks that he welcomed the report since it proved his point about the future intent of Saddam Hussein, irregardless of any physical proof now would have made Bill Hicks choke on his cigarette. Regardless of what other folks may say, I think George Bush has improved in office. Perhaps not grown into the office; those shoes are just too big. But you have to give him credit in developing that fine art of political twisting.
Even Bill Hicks, wherever he is now, would have appreciated it. You know Officer Koons is wondering if he'll be receiving a consulting fee for that lesson.
Yep, it all depends simply on how you look at it.
One of the many memorable and insightful shticks that the late great standup comic Bill Hicks was one he performed soon after the Rodney King-LA Police community relations encounter. His take on the trial of one of the officers involved, an Officer Koons, (on which Mr. Hicks commented, "I swear. I could never have invented a name like that."), went something like this:
Judge (J): "Mr. Koons. How do you plead?"
Officer Koons (OK): "Innocent, your honor."
The jury gasped. They shook in fear and astonishment. There were witnesses! There was a video tape of the beating! This man has such chutzpah! He needs a wheelbarrow to cart his cojones around! He has incredible balls!
J: "Innocent?! And how do you make this claim? We have a video tape! We have witnesses."
OK: "Well, your honor, it all depends on how you look at it."
J: "How you look at it? And how do you propose we should look at it, Officer Koooooons?"
OK: "Well, like I said. It all depends how you look at it. See, if you play that video in reverse, it looks like I'm helping him (Rodney King) up off the street, And then, you see, I'm helping him into his car. Heck, I'm even waving him off. See, it all depends on how you look at things.
The second presidential debates took place tonight. With minimal recall cells active in my head at this time of the night, only two things stuck out.
1) Dubya's need to have the last dig overwhelmed any of the proper and civil manners that his parents had tried to drum into him. At one point in the exchanges with John Kerry, when Bush had his last ALLOWABLE say on an issue, Bush, shaking with ill-concealed anger, strode to the center of the stage, ignored the moderator's (Charles Gibson) repeated instructions that his allotted time was used up, and garbled something in anger for 20-30 seconds. I wish I could recall what he'd said; at least to see if the verbiage matched the emotions and the issue at hand. Physical violence actually seemed possible.
2) What speechifying I did remember of the President was his interpretation of the release of the CIA's findings that there were no WMD's in Iraq, nor any evidence of any in the past 4-5 years. How he was able to say, with that tightly drawn straight face, to those "town meeting" folks that he welcomed the report since it proved his point about the future intent of Saddam Hussein, irregardless of any physical proof now would have made Bill Hicks choke on his cigarette. Regardless of what other folks may say, I think George Bush has improved in office. Perhaps not grown into the office; those shoes are just too big. But you have to give him credit in developing that fine art of political twisting.
Even Bill Hicks, wherever he is now, would have appreciated it. You know Officer Koons is wondering if he'll be receiving a consulting fee for that lesson.
Yep, it all depends simply on how you look at it.
Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home Verging on Pertinence Just some more disposable thoughts clogging up the hinterlands
<< Home Verging on Pertinence Just some more disposable thoughts clogging up the hinterlands
