“During the mid-1980s dairy farmers decided there was too much cheap milk at the supermarket. So the government bought and slaughtered 1.6 million cows. How come the government never does anything like this with lawyers?” (P.J. O’Rourke)
“A Dublin lawyer died in poverty and many barristers of the city subscribed to a fund for his funeral. The Lord Chief Justice of Orbury was asked to donate a shilling. “Only a shilling?” said the Justice, “Only a shilling to bury an attorney? Here’s a guinea; go and bury 20 more of them.” (UNK)
“A man walks into a bar. He sees a beautiful, well-dressed woman sitting on a bar stool alone. He walks up to her and says, “Hi there, how’s it going tonight?”
She turns to him, looks him straight in the eyes and says, “I’ll screw anybody any time, any where, any place, it doesn’t matter to me.”
The guy raises his eyebrows and says, “No kidding? What law firm do you work for?” (UNK)
CHICAGO, September 20, 2012 — In the early 1990s, lawyer jokes were ubiquitous. They were popular with stand-up comics, late night television hosts, and audiences. Pundits wrote clever funny opinion pieces demeaning the haughty practice of law. By the way, why would any sane person hire and pay someone who merely practices?
Lawyers are professional arguers. Most spouses would tell you their mate or mother-in-law would be better than any lawyer.
Humor about lawyers was compared to something termed hate speech, whatever that is. Whenever people feel hostility towards a group it is reflected in humor. The profession of law did not want to discover why the public held attorneys in such low esteem and correct that perception.
Instead, lawyers decided to try to ban free speech and expression. And lawyers wonder why used car salesmen, politicians and terrorists are more favorably viewed than they are.
More jokes were made about the joke ban, at the profession’s expense. The movement was quietly dropped. Why is this important?
Cranston, Rhode Island’s school district is banning father daughter dances after a group of lawyers, the ACLU, notified them a client was suing for gender discrimination under Rhode Island law. They found a single mother who claimed her daughter could not attend the dance, as the father was not part of their life.
The district also banned mother son baseball games while they were at it. Evidently the ACLU and the school district agreed the 21st century demands traditions are passé, antiquated, and the modern new world order must be politically correct, palatable, and gender neutral.
This action proves there are only very few actual lawyer jokes. All the other stories are true.
“I acknowledge that many of these events have long traditions and for many parents, these types of gender-based events are not an issue.” However, this is a public school system and under no circumstances should be isolating any child from full participation in school activities and events based on gender. Please be all-inclusive when planning your events.” (Letter to parents/Cranston Public Schools Superintendent Judith Lundsten)
Did Lundsten or the ACLU write that tripe?
Cranston Mayor Allan Fung said he was “utterly” disappointed that the school superintendent stopped the traditional activities in the name of political correctness. The mayor’s office was flooded with calls and emails protesting the cancellation of the events. Other school board members and a candidate for the state senate have vowed to change the Rhode Island law. Federal Title IX laws exempt these types activities from discrimination complaints.
ACLU Executive Director Steven Brown said, “Not every girl today is interested in growing up to be Cinderella ― not even in Cranston. In fact, one of them might make a great major league baseball player someday.” It is hoped no girl in Cranston ever grows up to tarnish her reputation by becoming an ACLU attorney.
The ACLU has long been the self-proclaimed defenders and guardians of civil liberties. They continually fight for the rights of others to deny rights to others. It is a nice vicious circle bringing in good money. Seven months ago the ACLU billed Cranston, Rhode Island $173,000.00 in legal fees over a case involving a religious banner in a school. Remember, it is always about the money.
That legal bill is probably the real reason the school board declined to fight the ACLU. Fighting the ACLU is costly and they like it that way.
What will be banned next? Bake sales, because women traditionally bake and men don’t? Mother’s Day and Father’s Day because some children do not have mothers or fathers in their lives? Boy and Girl Scouts because they discriminate against the opposite sex? Mother’s and Father’s clubs because they are not inclusive?
Of course the ACLU would never try to ban Black, Hispanic, or LGBT student or parent organizations on the basis of racial neutrality. There is no money in that.
Maybe the ACLU will intervene to eliminate the terms “mother” and “father” for something more gender neutral. Why not just eliminate male and female, man and woman? While we’re at it, why not eliminate human, because it has a male connotation? Why not just create terminology to create a unisex society?
How far will the ACLU go to create a gender neutral, politically correct society in their quest for money? Even prostitutes stop screwing you when you are dead. ACLU lawyers are comparable to that annoying pink battery bunny. They just keep screwing and screwing, and screwing.
The ACLU is turning into a joke. They are a bad joke, taken seriously by too many people and worse, too many judges. Common sense, the sense horses have that keep them from betting on humans, is lost in our so-called legal system.
When are judges going to wake up and realize people are against these attacks on traditions, values, mores, and society in general; that most people value tradition and values over non-existent violations of rights. Just once it would be nice if a courageous judge called an ACLU suit frivolous, lashed out at them, punished them, or better, denied tax payer money be used to compensate them. The ACLU does have a prodigious fund raising arm, so they really do not need the high fees.
The ACLU is better than organized crime. They are a perfectly legal extortion and intimidation enterprise protected by the courts.
By the way, a young ACLU attorney went to a brothel and asked for Nancy. The madam told him Nancy charges $1000.00. He said that was fine. He and Nancy went to the room. He paid Nancy the thousand dollars. The ACLU attorney returned the next day, requested Nancy, went to the room with her, and paid the $1000.00. He did the same on the third day. After he paid, Nancy was curious asked why he paid her a thousand dollars a day for sex for three days. The ACLU lawyer told her she was part of a class action discrimination suit filed some years ago. She was awarded $3000.00. He was assigned to deliver it.
Peter V. Bella is a retired Chicago Police Officer, freelance journalist and photojournalist, cook, and raconteur. He likes to be the irreverent sharp stick that pokes, prods, and annoys. His opinions are his and his alone. Mr. Bella is a member of the National Press Photographers Association and the Society for Professional Journalists.
This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.