Funny Friday

Following on from yesterday’s item about going apeshit (some reader comments this weekend on that, by the way), I wanted to post some monkey related jokes today but the only ones that I could come up with that raise a good laugh have all been previously posted on Bytes. Then it hit me (old joke: I wondered why the baseball was getting bigger. Then it hit me.): I was enjoying reading those same jokes again so no doubt others would as well. There is no unwritten law of the universe that thou shalt tell a joke only once. Enjoy the following, even if you have heard them before . . .

* * * *

A guy walks into a bar with his pet monkey. He orders a drink and while he's drinking the monkey jumps all around the place. The monkey grabs some olives off the bar and eats them, then grabs some sliced limes and eats them, then jumps onto the pool table, grabs one of the billiard balls, sticks it in his mouth, and to everyone's amazement, somehow swallows it whole.

The bartender screams at the guy, "Did you see what your monkey just did?" The guy says "No, what?" "He just ate the cue ball off my pool table ... whole!" 

"Yeah, that doesn't surprise me," replied the guy, "He eats everything in sight, the little bugger. Sorry. I'll pay for the cue ball and stuff".

He finishes his drink, pays his bill, pays for the stuff the monkey ate, then leaves.

Two weeks later he's in the bar again, and has his monkey with him.

He orders a drink and the monkey starts running around the bar again. While the man is finishing his drink, the monkey finds a cherry on the bar. He grabs it, sticks it up his bum, pulls it out, and eats it.

The bartender is disgusted.

"Did you see what your monkey did now?" "No, what?" replies the guy. "Well, he stuck a cherry up his bum, pulled it out, and ate it!" said the bartender.

"Yeah, that doesn't surprise me", replied the guy. "He still eats everything in sight, but ever since the cue ball incident, he measures everything first."

* * * * *

This is better told, rather than written, in that telling allows a Northern English accent to be used. I have written some of the words phonetically to preserve that feature...

A man takes his young son to the London Zoo to see the monkeys.

Alas, when they get to the monkey enclosure, there is not a monkey to be seen, so he calls over the attendant and asks”

“’Ere, where’s all the moonkeys then?”

“They’re all in the ‘uts,” says the keeper. “It’s the matin’ season, they’re all ‘avin’ sex.”

“Do you think they’d come out if I threw a peanut?” asks the father.

“Would you?” asks the keeper

* * * * *

Breaking News: 

Archaeologists digging at the site of Shakespeare's house have uncovered thousands of monkey skeletons.

* * * * *

A woman got on a bus holding a baby.

"Blimey," the bus driver said, "that's the ugliest baby I've ever seen."

In a huff, the woman slammed her fare into the fare box and took an aisle seat near the rear of the bus. The man seated next to her sensed that she was agitated and asked her what was wrong.

"The bus driver insulted me!" she fumed.

The man sympathised and said, "He's a public servant! He shouldn't say things to insult passengers."

"You're right!" she said. "I think I'll go back up there and give him a piece of my mind."

"That's a good idea," the man agreed. "Here, let me hold your monkey."

* * * * *

Someone just called my mate an ape.

I took offense because he's my prime mate.

* * * * *

This item is essentially visual, hence difficult to tell in written format . . 

A busload of footballers celebrating their end of season crashed, killing all on board. The only survivor was a chimpanzee.

At the coroner’s inquest, the police sergeant assisting said “Your Honour, we’ve had some difficulty working out exactly what happened, the only survivor was a chimpanzee, the club’s mascot. It seems pretty intelligent. I suggest we call the chimpanzee and ask it a few questions.”

Well, that’s most unusual,” said the Magistrate, “but if you think it will help, “I’ll allow it.”

The chimpanzee is called and takes a seat.

The sergeant says “Can you understand me?”

The chimpanzee nods its head up and down.

“What were the footballers doing?”

The chimpanzee raises an imaginary glass to hsi lips, head tipped back, and pretends to drink.

“They were drinking alcohol?”

The chimpanzee nods yes again.

“Were the footballers doing anything else?”

The chimpanzee nods yes and pushes the plunger on an imaginary syringe into his arm He also pretends to inhale from an imaginary cigarette held between thumb and forefinger.

“They were taking drugs?”

The chimpanzee nods yes.

“Was there anyone else on the bus?”

The chimpanzee nods yes and uses his hands to outline a curvy figure.

“There were women on the bus?”

Yes.

“What were they doing?”

The chimpanzee makes a circle with thumb and forefinger, then pushes the forefinger of his other hand in and out of the circle.

“The women were having sex with the footballers?”

The chimpanzee nods yes again.

“And what were you doing while all this was going on?”

The chimpanzee strains to look at the back of the bus over his left shoulder as he holds an imaginary steering wheel.

* * * * *

London Zoo acquires, at great expense, a very large female gorilla of a particularly rare species. Right from the outset she is very bad tempered and very difficult to handle. The zoo's vet, after examination, boldly announces that her problem is that she's in heat. If she was to be mated she would become docile and adjust to her new surroundings. But what to do? There are no males of her species available and the other male gorillas are terrified of her.

The zoo administrators remember that one of their zoo-keepers, an Irishman called O'Reilly, who is responsible for cleaning animals' cages, is a large man and notorious for his abilities with the opposite sex. Perhaps they could persuade him to placate the gorilla. 

So they approach O'Reilly with a proposition: would he be willing to have sex with the gorilla for five hundred pounds?

O'Reilly asks for the night to think things over and on the following day, says that he'll accept the offer on three conditions: "First, dere's to be no kissin’. Second, if dere’s any children, dey have to be raised Roman Cat'lic."

The zoo administrators quickly agree to these conditions. "But what about the third?" they ask.

"Well," says O'Reilly, "You've got to give me some time to come up wit' de five hundred quid...."

* * * * *

This last item is an illustration of a truth, rather than a joke, but it’s still pretty funny and worth inclusion:

How To Create Bureaucracy, Policy, And Procedures 

1. Start with a cage containing five apes. In the cage, hang a banana on a string and put stairs under it. Before long, an ape will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the Banana. 

2. As soon as the ape touches the stairs, spray all of the apes with cold water. After a while, another ape makes an attempt with the same result-all the apes are sprayed with cold water. 

3. Turn off the cold water. If, later, another ape tries to climb the stairs, the other apes will try to prevent it even though no water sprays them. 

4. Now, remove one ape from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new ape sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his horror, all of the other apes attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted. 

5. Next, remove another of the original five apes and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm. 

6. Again, replace a third original ape with a new one. The new one makes it to the stairs and is attacked as well. Two of the four apes that beat him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs, or why they are participating in the beating of the newest ape. 

7. After replacing the fourth and fifth original apes, all the apes which have been sprayed with cold water have been replaced. 

Nevertheless, no ape ever again approaches the stairs. Why not? 

"BECAUSE that's the way it's always been done around here." 

* * * * * * * * * *

Limerick Spot

There was a young lady named Gloria

Who was had by Sir Gerald du Maurier,

Then by ten men,

Sir Gerald again

And the band at the Waldorf Astoria

* * * * * * * * * * *

Crazy, Baby

When driving home with No 1 son last week and discussing the views of Christopher Hitchens, No 1 son used the expression “go batshit” to describe the reactions of some church groups towards Hitchens' views. It started me thinking about the origin of the expression, as well as of the related expression “go apeshit”. Was it related to the belief that disturbed monkeys and apes throw faeces? If so, then what do bats do?

Some comments:

* * * * *

The Oxford English Dictionary lists “to go apeshit” as being a variant of “to go ape”, an expression meaning extreme anger, rage or disturbed behaviour, to lose control, to go crazy, much like the behaviour of enraged and disturbed monkeys and apes. 

* * * * *

The earliest citation dates from 1955 where it has been identified as Air Force slang. It is likely that the expression was in use at Air Force bases, and possibly Marine bases, in the early 1950’s. 

US Flying Magazine in November 1954 records that the term “go ape-sweat” was in use at a US base in Greenland and meant “a guy has snapped his cap for some reason or other, usually because he got bad news from the girl friend.” It may very well be that the term “ape-sweat” was a printed substitute “for ape-shit”.

* * * * *

It has been suggested that the addition of the word “shit” to the phrase “to go ape” acts as an instensifier, as with words such as chickenshit, bullshit, horseshit and dipshit.

* * * * *

Which brings us to “batshit”.

Here again the Oxford English Dictionary provides assistance as to its origins, meanings and earliest recorded usages, with Australia also getting a guernsey: 

A worthless or contemptible thing; rubbish, nonsense. Cf. bullshit n. (1950 M. Shedd Return to Beach ii. 156: "I felt the minute hand of that bat shit of a Judas clock stand up to me.")  

Austral. Used in similative phrases as the type of something dull or uninteresting. Chiefly in boring as batshit. (1964 G. H. Johnston My Brother Jack iv. 58: "He would describe somebody as being ‘as silly as a two-bob watch’ or ‘dreary as bat-shit’.")  

Crazy, mad, insane. Cf. bats at bat *n*. 1 b. Orig. and freq. in to go batshit (cf. to go ape-shit atape n. Additions). (1971 W. Calley Lieutenant Calley 104: "Most of America's males were in Korea or World War II or I. They killed, and they aren't all going batshit.") 

As an intensifier, esp. in batshit crazy. (1993 Toronto Life Aug. 6/4: "His mug is emblazoned with the words: full-blown bat shit crazy.") 

* * * * *

The association of “bats” and “batty” with insanity dates from the beginning of the 1900’s by reason of the phrase “bats in the belfry”. 

The term “batshit” appears to have originated about the same time and in the same circumstances as “apeshit” but at that time it meant nonsense, bullshit.  

From the 1970’s it came to mean insane and gave an overlap with “apeshit”; from the 1980’s the term “apeshit crazy” came into use.

* * * * * * * * * * *

More Creative Street Art

* * * * * * * * * * *

Elephants in Rooms

TIME magazine has been criticised for its latest cover. The main story is about Chris Christie, the plain-speaking governor of the US state of New Jersey, who is tipped to be a future president.

He's also overweight, which is why TIME magazine’s cover featuring Mr Christie and the headline 'The Elephant In The Room' was savaged as a "cruel" fat joke this week:

- News report

Reading the above started me wondering as to the origin of the expression. Some info and trivia . . .

* * * * *

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the phrase as meaning “A significant problem or controversial issue which is obviously present but ignored or avoided as a subject for discussion, usually because it is more comfortable to do so.”

* * * * *

According to the OED, the first recorded usage of the phrase as a simile was in The New Your Times on June 20, 1959: "Financing schools has become a problem about equal to having an elephant in the living room. It's so big you just can't ignore it."

The OED also states that the first published reference for this usage is the title of a 1984 book, An Elephant in the Living Room: A Leader’s Guide for Helping Children of Alcoholics, by Marion H. Typpo and Jill M. Hastings.

* * * * *

Originators of the expression and similar concepts date from much earlier than the above recorded instances.

In 1882 Mark Twain wrote a story, The Stolen White Elephant, which looks at the bumbling efforts of detectives trying to find an elephant that was right on the spot after all. 

The expression appeared in a British journal in 1915 where it was presented as a trivial illustration of a question British schoolboys would be able to answer, e.g., "Is there an elephant in the class-room?"

In 1935, comedian Jimmy Durante starred on Broadway in the Billy Rose stage musical Jumbo, in which a police officer stopped him while leading a live elephant and asked him, "What are you doing with that elephant?" Durante's reply, "What elephant?", was a regular show-stopper. Durante reprised the piece in the 1962 film version of the play, Billy Rose's Jumbo.

* * * * *

In 2006 British street artist Banksy had an exhibition in Los Angeles entitled “Barely Legal”.

The centrepiece of the exhibition was an elephant painted to resemble the wallpaper of the room in which it was standing:

The elephant, named Tai, was painted in that fashion to sumbolise how the problem of world poverty is ignored.

Although Los Angeles's Animal Services Department had given a permit for the 38-year-old female elephant to appear at the exhibition, officials later said that they regretted granting the permit and ordered Tai's owners, Have Trunk Will Travel, to remove the floral spray-paint.

According to ASD head Ed Boks "I think it sends a very wrong message that abusing animals is not only OK, it's an art form. We find it no longer acceptable to dye baby chicks at Easter, but it's OK to dye an elephant. Permits will not be issued for such frivolous abuse of animals in the future."

* * * * *

The Elephant in the Room

Terry Kettering

There’s an elephant in the room. 

It is large and squatting, 

so it is hard to get around it. 

Yet we squeeze by with, 

“How are you?” and, “I’m fine,” 

and a thousand other forms of trivial chatter. 

We talk about the weather; 

we talk about work; 

we talk about everything else— 

except the elephant in the room. 

There’s an elephant in the room. 

We all know it is there. 

We are thinking about the elephant 

as we talk together. 

It is constantly on our minds. 

For, you see, it is a very big elephant. 

It has hurt us all, but we do not talk about 

the elephant in the room. 

Oh, please, say her name. 

Oh, please, say “Barbara” again. 

Oh, please, let’s talk about 

the elephant in the room. 

For if we talk about her death, 

perhaps we can talk about her life. 

Can I say, “Barbara” to you 

and not have you look away? 

For if I cannot, 

then you are leaving me alone 

in a room—with an elephant.

* * * * * * * * * * *

11 November

* * * * * 

On 11 November 1880, Irish Australian bushranger Ned Kelly was hanged at Melbourne Gaol. His last words were “Such is life” and “Ah, well, I suppose it has come to this.”  He was aged 26 and he, his brother Dan and friends Steve hart and Joe Byrne had been outlaws for 2 years.  At the final stand at Glenrowan on 28 June 1880, where Ned and the other members of the Kelly Gang fought the police wearing home made armour, all except Ned were killed.  

Kelly Death Mask

* * * * * 

On 11 November 1975 the Queen’s representative in Australia, the Governor General Sir John Kerr, dismissed the elected government of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, and installed the leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Fraser, as the head of a caretaker government pending an election being held. Fraser, having a majority in the Senate, had blocked the money Bills (similar to what happened to Obama recently) to force an election to capitalise on Labor's unpopularity but Whitlam refused to go to the polls.  

After Kerr had sacked Whitlam and his government, Kerr sent his Official Secretary, David Smith, to proclaim the dissolution from the front steps of Parliament House. The sacking had become known and an angry crowd was gathered at the front of Parliament House. Smith read the proclamation and concluded with the traditional words “God save the Queen.” 

Whitlam, who had been standing behind Smith, stepped forward and stated:

"Well may we say "God save the Queen", because nothing will save the Governor-General! 

The Proclamation which you have just heard read by the Governor-General's Official Secretary was countersigned Malcolm Fraser, who will undoubtedly go down in Australian history from Remembrance Day 1975 as Kerr's cur. 

They won't silence the outskirts of Parliament House, even if the inside has been silenced for a few weeks ... Maintain your rage and enthusiasm for the campaign for the election now to be held and until polling day."

In the election that followed, on 13 December, Fraser’s Coalition won a record victory, with 91 seats in the House of Representatives to Labor's 36 and a 35–27 majority in the expanded Senate

* * * * * 

On 11 November 1918 at 5.00am, the Armistice was signed which formally ended hostilities in World War 1. It provided that fighting would cease “at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month”.  The delay was to enable the news to reach the many parts of the Western Front.

Although the news that fighting would cease at 11.00am was quickly spread, intense warfare continued right until the last minute . . .

* * * 

Many artillery units continued to fire on German targets to avoid having to haul away their spare ammunition. The Allies also wished to ensure that, should fighting restart, they would be in the most favourable position. Consequently there were 10,944 casualties on the last day of the war with 2,738 losing their lives.

* * *

The Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC) states that their records show that 863 Commonwealth soldiers died on November 11th 1918, though this figure also includes those who died on that day but of wounds received prior to November 11th.

* * *

The Americans took heavy casualties on the last day of the war when General John "Black Jack" Pershing, believing that the terms of the Armistice were too lenient and that the Germans had to be taught a lesson, ordered that German positions be attacked. The US Marines took over 1,100 casualties in attempting to cross the River Meuse. The 89th US Division suffered 300 casualties in capturing the town of Stenay on the morning of 11 November 1918. 

When the losses became known in the US, Congress held a hearing via a House of Representatives Committee on Military Affairs that examined whether senior army commanders had acted appropriately in the last few days of the war. Pershing remained unapologetic, stating that although he knew about the timing of the Armistice, he did not trust the Germans to carry out their obligations. He therefore, as commander in chief, ordered the army to carry on as it would normally do as any “judicious commander” would have done. Pershing also pointed out that he was merely carrying out the orders of the Allies Supreme Commander, Marshall Ferdinand Foch, that were to “pursue the field greys (Germans) until the last minute”.

* * *

Information about German casualties is more difficult to ascertain. It is believed that the last casualty of World War One was a junior German officer called Tomas who approached some Americans to tell them that the war was over and that they could have the house he and his men were just vacating. However, no one had told the Americans that the war had finished because of a communications breakdown and Tomas was shot as he approached them after 11.00am.

* * *

Augustin Trebuchon was the last Frenchman to die when he was shot on his way to tell fellow soldiers that hot soup would be served after the ceasefire. He was killed at 10:45 am

* * *

The last soldier from the UK to die, George Edwin Ellison of the 5th Royal Irish Lancers, was killed earlier that morning at around 9:30 am while scouting on the outskirts of Mons, Belgium.

* * *

The final Canadian, and Commonwealth, soldier to die, Private George Lawrence Price, was shot and killed by a sniper just two minutes before the armistice to the north of Mons at 10:58 am, to be recognized as one of the last killed with a monument to his name.

* * *

American Henry Gunther is generally recognised as the last soldier killed in action in World War I. He was killed 60 seconds before the armistice came into force while charging astonished German troops who were aware the Armistice was nearly upon them. 

Gunther's squad had approached a roadblock of two German machine guns in the village of Chaumont-Devant-Damvillers. Gunther got up, against the orders of his sergeant and close friend, Ernest Powell, and charged with his bayonet. The German soldiers, aware of the armistice that would take effect in one minute, tried to wave Gunther off. He kept going and fired "a shot or two". When he got too close to the machine guns, he was shot and killed instantly. 

The writer James M Cain, then a reporter for the Baltimore Sun, interviewed Gunther's comrades afterward and wrote that "Gunther brooded a great deal over his reduction in rank, and became obsessed with a determination to make good before his officers and fellow soldiers." Gunther had earlier been demoted from sergeant to private for having advised a friend to do anything to avoid being drafted.

His divisional record states “Almost as he fell, the gunfire died away and an appalling silence prevailed.”

* * * * * * * * * *

More Great Moments in Law

Some amusing legal incidents from the last few days plus an item from the US . . .

* * * * *

Great Moment 1:

“You will have to delete that expression from your lexicon when we go to trial.”

- Barrister (who shall remain nameless) to my ethnic client in conference this week, referring to an expression the client uses. The client has poor English language skills and an interpreter has been ordered for the hearing that is coming up.

* * * * *

Great Moment 2:

Myself to client: “You have shown your family dog, along with your daughter, as a financial dependent?”

Client: “Do you know how much that dog costs me with food and vet bills?”

* * * * *

Great Moment 3

No 1 son had a mention in the Court of Criminal Appeal last Thursday. I went with him because I had a matter in a nearby tribunal a little later.   Whilst we were waiting in court for his matter to come up, the Registrar dealt with a matter where the other party was representing himself and appeared via audio visual link insofar as he was in custody.

Inmate: “It’s like this, Your Honour.”

Registrar: “Address me as ‘Registrar’ “

Inmate: “Okay, it’s like this, Your Registrar . . .”

* * * * *

Great Moment 4

(This has been the subject of an earlier, briefer post in Bytes).

As has been seen in past Bytes, American judges are much flamboyant, eccentric, bizarre and just plain weird than those in England and Australia.

The following case continues that tradition.

People v. Arno

153 Cal. Rptr. 624, 628 n.2 (majority), 644 n.14 (dissent) (Cal. Ct. App. 1979).

http://jweinsteinlaw.com/pdfs/People%20v_%20Arno%20(1979)%2090%20CA3d%20505.htm

In 1975 Norman Arno and Leonard Steer were convicted in the municipal court of three counts of possessing obscene films with intent to distribute. Whilst in an office suite, from where they ran their business, they had been kept under observation by police officers in the opposite building, looking into their windows with 10-power binoculars.

Arno and Steer appealed their conviction, the appeal coming before the California Court of Appeals in 1979. Sitting on the appeal were Judges Thompson, Lillie and Hanson.

The main issue was whether evidence based upon a view of business premises aided by the use of high powered binoculars was illegally obtained evidence. At that time the issue of optically aided view had not been addressed in California.

The majority, Judges Thompson and Lillie, decided as follows:

1. the use of optical aids in the nature of binoculars, telescopes and the like is not itself determinative of the admissibility in evidence of the product of the observation; 

2. the primary determinative factor is the presence or absence of a reasonable expectation of privacy of the person whose conduct, property, or documents is observed; 

3. reasonable expectation of privacy in the context here is tested by the extent to which the person has exposed his conduct, property, or documents to public view by the naked eye; 

4. if the purpose of the optically aided view is to permit clandestine police surveillance of that which could be seen from a more obvious vantage point without the optical aid, there is no unconstitutional intrusion; and 

5. if the purpose of the optical aid is to view that which could not be seen without it, there is. 

The majority also said:

“We recognize that special circumstances involving a high degree of danger to life or property may permit an optically aided view and that there may be situations in which probable cause may be established to the satisfaction of a magistrate so that the aided view may be authorized by a warrant. We do not reach those latter issues on the record here.”

Put simply, the surveillance was unlawful because the defendants’ constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy was breached by the use of high power binoculars, the evidence was out and the conviction was overturned.

The majority decision did not sit well with Judge Hanson. He wrote a strident, lengthy and detailed dissenting judgment which included the following:

The majority opinion appears to me to be somewhat unclear and contains some contradictory statements. However, as I read it, it has either misapplied the irrational exclusionary rule . . . or has ignored judicial precedent . . . 

. . . the majority opinion as I construe it has the net practical result of unduly restricting law enforcement officers' utilization of binoculars while engaged in their official duties of detecting and acquiring evidence of a wide range of criminal activities involving pornography, narcotics, prostitution, pimping, bookmaking and the like, irrespective of the magnitude of the operations. This latter group of crimes has been loosely referred to as "victim-less crimes" which is a gross misnomer. There are no victim-less crimes. Society is the victim. {Page 90 Cal.App.3d 538} The majority opinion in my view unduly restricts law enforcement officers from protecting society's interest in respect to the commission of the types of crimes mentioned above. 

So Judge Hanson got it off his chest, implying that Judge Thompson, who had written the majority judgment, and Judge Lillie, who went along with it, were pro-smut.

This time it was Thompson and Lillie’s turn to be pissed off. They added a footnote to the case report:

FN2 We feel compelled by the nature of the attack in the dissenting opinion to spell out a response: 

1. Some answer is required to the dissent's charge. 

2. Certainly we do not endorse "victimless crime." 

3. How that question is involved escapes us. 

4. Moreover, the constitutional issue is significant. 

5. Ultimately it must be addressed in light of precedent. 

6. Certainly the course of precedent is clear. 

7. Knowing that, our result is compelled. (See Funk & Wagnall's The New Cassell's German Dict., p. 408, in conjunction with fn. 6 of dis. opn. of Douglas, J., in Ginsberg v. New York (1967) 390 U.S. 629, 655-656 [20 L.Ed.2d 195, 212-213, 88 S.Ct. 1274].)

As one writer has put it, look at the initial letters of the 7 points and then recall Country Joe McDonald at Woodstock shouting “What’s that spell? What’s that spell?”

The word “schmuck” is Yiddish in origin where it means “penis”. It has also come to mean someone who is stupid or foolish, or an obnoxious, contemptible or detestable person.

Judge Hanson, maintaining the dignity of the bench, let the matter rest there. Well, actually, no, he didn’t, I made that up. He added his own footnote in reply:

FN14 I have heretofore eschewed responding to footnote 2 of the majority opinion in kind since it would be beneath the dignity of this office. Although I still will not respond in kind, with the filing of a modification to footnote 2 on March 20, 1979, some comment is compelled. 

I decry the lack of propriety, collegiality and judicial temperament displayed in footnote 2. I abhor the loss of public respect for the legal profession and the judiciary footnote 2 has engendered by reason of the report in the Los Angeles Times on March 13, 1979 (circulation 1,034,329). One certainly cannot fault the Los Angeles Times for using an English dictionary (Webster's) since California published opinions for over 125 years have been written in English and our jurisdiction obviously does not extend seven thousand miles to the Rhine in Germany. 

I construe the Ginsberg reference in footnote 2 within the context of the case at bench as a personal affront to every California citizen and their duly elected representatives in the California State Legislature who have deemed it a wise public policy to enact our criminal obscenity laws and to all public servants charged with the responsibility of enforcing those laws. It is no wonder that California has the odious distinction of being the porno capital of the world.

They do things differently in America.

* * * * *

Bonus Great Moment:

Speaking of brief, this must be the shortest judgment on record.  It is the entire judgment in 1970 case in the Michigan Court of Appeals:

“The appellant has attempted to distinguish the factual situation in this case from that in Renfroe v. Higgins Rack Coating and Manufacturing Co., Inc. (1969), 17 Mich.App. 259, 169 N.W.2d 326. He didn’t. We couldn’t. Affirmed. Costs to appellee.”

Michigan Court of Appeals Judge J. H. Gillis

Denny v. Radar Industries Inc., 28 Mich. App. 294, 184 N.W.2d 289 (1970)

 * * * * * * * * * * *