Chapter 59.
Just Because I"m a Catholic, Don"t a.s.sume That a Priest Has Touched Me.
Were you around in the 1970s to watch one of the great TV series, The Odd Couple The Odd Couple? There was this line in one episode that was so cool, I"ll never forget it. You can still hear folks quote it. Check out the Internet, you can even find the clip floating around there. It went like this . . . Felix Unger was warning someone about a.s.suming things. His line was, "You should never a.s.sume, because when you a.s.sume, you make an a.s.s of U and ME."
Brilliant!
But I have to ask, why are we all still doing so much a.s.suming?
Example? How about the Tiger Woods situation? You have the incident that Thanksgiving night at his place in Florida. The story is that he comes out and he hits a fire hydrant and a tree. Then a rumor flies around that he and his wife were fighting about another woman. And then a rumor comes out that there are other women women. And then all these women start showing up. We all pretty much know about the rest. The separation, the s.e.x rehab, the press conference, the divorce decision. We don"t need to get into all that.
What we do need to remember is this . . . What the Tiger story was all about for months-months-was rumor. And speculation. And, wait for it . . .
a.s.sumption.
Folks were a.s.suming he was doing this. Folks were a.s.suming his wife was doing that. They were a.s.suming he was in seclusion. Then they were a.s.suming he was on his boat. Folks were a.s.suming everything, and you know why? n.o.body knew.
Look, whether it"s Tiger Woods, or Governor Somebody, or that neighbor or nice aunt who suddenly checked into rehab, here"s what we need to remember. n.o.body really knows what happens in a personal situation except the people involved. But that doesn"t stop anybody from a.s.suming. Making a.s.ses of U and ME . . .
Well, I"ll tell you what we should be doing instead. We should be saying, "We don"t know. "Cause we"re not there."
So it sells newspapers to put the pictures of some chick on the cover with the screaming headlines saying this is the woman, and all. But the bottom line is: . . . And? And?
For me, I want to ask those "journalists" why they try to give me information that they don"t actually have have-and call it news. And why am I accepting of that as fact? People would have much less to talk about if they had to stick to the facts. And then what the h.e.l.l would the tabloids do?
The reputable newspapers have a policy of verifying facts with independent sources. Doesn"t mean they always do it. But that"s what they"re supposed to do. And then it makes you wonder-or should-what it means when they report something but won"t name their source. When they do that, they say they"re reporting news, but what they"re really saying is this is what we hear hear happened. Look for the wording. It"s usually something like, "A source close to this says this is what happened." Or "Sources with knowledge of the situation indicate . . ." Hey, if you trust your newspaper or news station . . . that may be all right for you. For the reputable media, what they are doing is using careful language to say that they have done their homework and have verification. They just can"t name the names. happened. Look for the wording. It"s usually something like, "A source close to this says this is what happened." Or "Sources with knowledge of the situation indicate . . ." Hey, if you trust your newspaper or news station . . . that may be all right for you. For the reputable media, what they are doing is using careful language to say that they have done their homework and have verification. They just can"t name the names.
But not all media are to be trusted. I know know. Can you believe that?!?
And even the trustworthy newsrooms are cutting back so much on staff that the verification can get sloppy. They mean well but don"t have the bodies to do the homework. And then it goes out.
And these days, once you put it out there, it"s out. It"s out there for a lifetime. And it doesn"t matter whether it"s true or not. It doesn"t matter what the innuendo is. h.e.l.l, for some, innuendo isn"t shameful . . . it"s their specialty. They should have promos that say, "We"re your twenty-four-hour source for rumor and innuendo!"
Innuendo sticks . . . sticks like bus station TP to the bottom of your shoe. Smells about as good too.
There was plenty of innuendo with Michael Jackson. The frowning newscasters with the big voices said, "The FBI followed Michael Jackson for seventeen years." And the people watching TV all nod and say, "Uh-huh . . . You know what that that means, don"t you?" No, I don"t know what that means. means, don"t you?" No, I don"t know what that means.
The FBI also followed Dr. King. They also followed John Lennon. Yeah, they followed a lot of people. And, as I understand it, Michael had one trial and he was acquitted. Now, some people say he paid someone twenty million dollars. Well, what was he paying twenty million dollars for? To keep them quiet? Obviously that couldn"t have been all. So maybe he was paying twenty million dollars to just have them stop messing with him.
I don"t know. Know why? Because I wasn"t there.
So unless we were there, we can"t take it at face value. Unless we were in the house with Tiger and his wife, or unless we spent time with Michael . . . unless we were there . . . we don"t know.
We can only a.s.sume.
Ask Felix Unger what he thinks of that.
Oh, wait . . .
Chapter 60.
There Aren"t Enough Jails.
Picture this. Some guy driving the car in front of you is just sitting there after the light turns green, not moving. So neither are you. He"s got his head down in that "I"m texting" pose. Five seconds pa.s.s. Ten seconds. Somebody leans on the horn but he"s still too busy thumbing an urgent message about the egg salad he had for lunch. Wouldn"t it be great if-Bam!-a cop shows up and yanks him out of the car and takes him away to jail. And the jail is right there, of course, so we could all see and enjoy it.
Wouldn"t it be great?
Maybe this would work: For a minor infraction-you know, the bad mannersbad hygienebad language stuff-we could do what they do in hockey. Blow a whistle and stick the selfish jerk in a penalty box for a short period to reflect on his a.s.sholian behavior. Yeah, but those things would fill up awfully fast . . . So maybe not.
It"s one thing to get p.i.s.sed off at folks who transgress. The problem is what to do with them.
Don"t we believe that the punishment should fit the crime? Isn"t that what justice is? Lately, though, I wonder if we"ve gotten more into vengeance than justice.
I got thinking about all this when Ted Haggard and his wife, Gayle, were on The View The View one day. In case you don"t recall, he was that evangelical minister who got caught up in a scandal. Hm . . . guess I"d better be more specific. His was over accusations of h.o.m.os.e.xual behavior and drugs. If I say "meth and ma.s.sages," does that ring a bell? Thought so. one day. In case you don"t recall, he was that evangelical minister who got caught up in a scandal. Hm . . . guess I"d better be more specific. His was over accusations of h.o.m.os.e.xual behavior and drugs. If I say "meth and ma.s.sages," does that ring a bell? Thought so.
Anyway, hearing the Haggards talk about their lives now, and how they, along with their five kids, had fallen on hard times, got me thinking about the belief of Christian forgiveness . . . and how none of it seems to have gone to him. Not by his own congregation. He was cast out and now is scrambling to make ends meet. Couldn"t they have just sent him away for a year to rehabilitate? Instead, he was kicked out with a small severance and gets nothing more from his church in support. This was the pastor of a Christian church.
Is there any forgiveness? If somebody does something wrong, we now have copped this "off with the head" att.i.tude, which, I confess, feels great great sometimes, but come on. Why do we paint everyone with the same brush? Why does it seem more and more we want people ruined rather than rehabilitated? sometimes, but come on. Why do we paint everyone with the same brush? Why does it seem more and more we want people ruined rather than rehabilitated?
We do forgive some people. Even if it takes a while . . . But we do.
Richard Nixon is getting cut some major slack these days. Back then, what does he have . . . ? He has his Watergate burglary and cover-up. He gets rid of the tapes. He resigns before he is impeached and leaves office in disgrace. But while Nixon was president, he was a foreign policy genius. He opened China. Engaged the Russians. Give the man that. Thirty years later, he is no longer the villain he was. A major movie is made about him. His statements are put in a new context. We have sympathy for him as a man. Richard Nixon . . . oh yes, he wasn"t so much a bad man as misguided, and awkward. Oh, yeah and sweaty-lipped. People forgive him.
Ronald Reagan didn"t have all of Nixon"s baggage, not even close, but there were plenty of folks who didn"t like him a bit. He talked the talk all right. He told us it was "Morning in America" and accepted his second nomination: ". . . Recognizing the equality of all men and women, we are willing and able to lift the weak, cradle those who hurt, and nurture the bonds that tie us together as one nation under G.o.d."
. . . But wasn"t he the one who let people out of the asylums, creating a homeless crisis? And busted the air-traffic controllers? And gave no AIDS help? And tried to get ketchup cla.s.sified as a vegetable in school lunches? And wasn"t his solution to the hole in the ozone layer to tell people to wear hats? And didn"t he have his scandal too, the arms-in-exchange-for-hostages "enterprise"?
I"m just asking "cause now he"s revered. No one cares that he screwed up thousands of lives. They"re talking about b.u.mping President Grant off the fifty-dollar bill and putting Reagan on it. OK. I have a feeling the people who didn"t dig Reagan won"t be seeing a lot of fifty-dollar bills anyway.
We forgive sometimes, and sometimes we don"t. One thing that"s consistent is, at least in the early going, we love to punish and we need to find a villain.
Is everybody a villain? Or do we need to back up and draw some distinctions here?
THE TRANSGRESSORS.
The people who have transgressed fall into two categories. First . . . true villains villains for whom there is no forgiveness. In my book, there are: for whom there is no forgiveness. In my book, there are: THE a.s.sHOLES:HitlerStalinOsama bin LadenSaddam HusseinIdi AminAugusto PinochetTimothy McVeighMussoliniCharles MansonLee Harvey OswaldJames Earl RaySirhan SirhanTed BundyJohn Wayne GacyJeffrey DahmerRichard SpeckRichard RamirezBoston Strangler Albert DeSalvoBalkans war criminals Karadzic and MilosevicCanadian pig-farm serial killer Robert William PicktonThe Connecticut home invasion killers (alleged)Charles WhitmanMark David ChapmanReverend Jim JonesFt. Hood shooter (alleged) Nidal Malik HasanTruck bombers, including of the U.S. Marine dorm in BeirutVirginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui ChoFBI traitor Robert HanssenBernie Madoff. . . and so on.
We"re talking about context.
Villains are vilified.
Can you really put villainy in the same context as . . .
a.s.sHOLIAN BEHAVIOR:Michael VickTiger WoodsCharlie SheenJon GosselinJimmy SwaggartTed HaggardPistol-packin" Washington Wizards players Gilbert Arenas and Javaris CrittendonPlaxico BurressBalloon Boy"s parentsPat RobertsonRush Limbaugh (for the Haiti comment)Heidi FleissPete RoseMark McGwire, Sammy Sosa (and all of the "Roidian Slicks in sports)South Carolina Governor Mark SanfordEliot SpitzerEx-Senator Larry "Wide Stance" CraigAndy d.i.c.kJesse JamesWhoopi GoldbergOr . . .
Your name here?
. . . Just asking.
Chapter 61.
Take Your Stinking Paws Off Me, You d.a.m.ned Dirty Ape!
I don"t like to be touched . . . I mean by strangers . . . And people who have no business doing it. If we have that kind of relationship where we can be touching and squeezing and rubbing each other, you would be the first to know it. And it would be wonderful.
But we don"t have that relationship, so don"t presume it.
I don"t understand why it is that so many complete strangers are so touchy-feely all the time. There are basically two kinds of touchers, I think. People who have no sense of boundaries . . . and people who violate boundaries and don"t give a rat"s a.s.s.
But wait, Whoopi, you say. Aren"t some folks just warmhearted nurturers who not only mean you no insult, but on the contrary, are offering their touch as a gift? Do you want to have an issue with someone who is sharing their warmth through physical contact?
Yes. Because they a.s.sume an intimacy we do not have. It"s bad manners wrapped up in a bear hug.
Still makes it bad manners to me.
Some folks will introduce themselves to you with an embrace that should be reserved for their wedding nights or dance club grinding. Or some come up behind and tug your elbow at the dinner table. Or try to say something they think is funny, and to make sure you are enjoying their joke . . . they"ll vise grip your forearm and give it a squeeze. Or sock you on the shoulder. Or shake your hand and will not not let go. They talk and smile and keep squeezing . . . and squeezing . . . let go. They talk and smile and keep squeezing . . . and squeezing . . .
If you are one of these clutchers and don"t know it-you do now. Think about it. Do you know you are doing it? Now that you read this, maybe you do.
Respectfully? Please stop . . . Please? If it"s cool to cross that physical line with a person, they will let you know.
And unless you are the Savior Almighty . . . and you are invited . . . don"t touch. Same goes for touching pregnant ladies. Ask Ask, and most mothers-to-be will tell you how creepy it is to have folks both known and unknown to them placing one hand, and sometimes even two, on their bellies.
To be real clear, I"m not talking about some display of warmth from a soul mate. No, this is something else. And whether it"s an unwelcome s.e.xual come-on, or some kind of display of power, or just some warm and fuzzy personal contact . . . unless this is the day spa and I have hired you for a licensed ma.s.sage . . . don"t touch.
Thank you. Now give yourself a hand.
But just yourself.
Chapter 62.
A Civil Person"s Truly Handy List: The Hands-Off List.
To help you respect personal boundaries, here are a few touching behaviors to avoid: Unwanted hugs Tugging sleeves or elbows Prolonged or intimate hugs Touching pregnant bellies b.o.o.b grazing. You fool no one. Arm slugging Arm squeezing Lint picking Hair fixing Tickling "Free" shoulder ma.s.sages Leaning Goosing
Chapter 63.
A Civil Person"s Handy List: Behavior to Avoid in the Workplace.
Beyond the obvious legal and ethical b.o.n.e.rs, you know, small things like embezzlement, fraud, misappropriation of funds, corporate spying, toxic dumping, and gunplay are the day-to-day, ground-level behaviors that you might want to stay away from at work. Things like: Gossip Office politics Desk snooping Boisterous behavior in an open office s.e.xual hara.s.sment Stealing food from the office fridge Leaving your rotten food in the office fridge Trashing the break room with your mess Taking the last of the coffee and leaving it empty Using the last of the copy paper and leaving it empty Eavesdropping on your workmate"s conversations Ignoring emails and phone calls Being late, disrespecting other people"s time Chewing out a coworker in a group setting Making fun of a coworker when they aren"t there Lying Lying about lying Taking credit for someone else"s work Shifting blame from your failed work Blatant a.s.s-covering Secretive a.s.s-covering a.s.s-kissing, both blatant and secretive Sneaking smokes in the office or bathroom Getting on the elevator reeking of smoke, perfume, or cologne BO is no picnic either
Chapter 64.
Simple Requests for Portraying Black People.
If you are making a movie, or a TV show, or a play, or a book with black characters in it, please remember: It"s a baby"s mama, not a baby mama.
There is a k k in "ask." There is no in "ask." There is no x. x.
And there are tenses: past, present, and future.
I asked.
I ask.
I will ask.
I repeat, there is a k k in "ask," not an in "ask," not an x. x. An ax is something you chop wood with. Unless you"re an ax murderer. And if you do need to chop some wood, you don"t ax to use the ax. An ax is something you chop wood with. Unless you"re an ax murderer. And if you do need to chop some wood, you don"t ax to use the ax.
And please put the consonants in all of our words. Especially a letter g g at the end of words that have them . . . at the end of words that have them . . .
. . . If that"s not axin" too much.