Thursday, February 17, 2011

2/17 - Get Ready to Match the Snarks

How I wish I had the time to do a full-length episode - maybe some week in the future. I have just been given GSN on my cable system, and am now living in hope of completing my little collection of great moments in game show history. It so happens that some years ago the USA network reran the Scrabble series, so that I had the good fortune to record the four-day relationship between Chuck Woollery and three-time champion Terry Wray (Ray? One only heard the name and never saw it). I live in hope of seeing the episode of whichever Pyramid it was when Jack Klugman tried to list What Peter Pan Might Say only he got everything slightly wrong (even better than the time they gave William Shatner 30 seconds to see if he could switch chairs and give both the clues and the answers to himself and he just failed, Mr Clark's theory proving correct that he'd get too caught up in devising the clues and waste too much time), and eventually (all the details escape memory) the only time on Match Game I can remember anyone actually matching Eva Gabor.

L1: Mizz Liz Probert would have a field day with your husband. This letter is a cross-examiner's dream. LW1's husband is uncomfortable bathing in the presence of his 5-year-old daughter? Clearly he's a pervert, because only a pervert would have that sort of thought about his 5-year-old daughter. And the neat thing is that it works just as well the other way around. If LW1's husband were not uncomfortable bathing in the presence of their daughter, then he would clearly be a pervert for thinking it acceptable for a girl that young to be in the presence of a naked male member. Give the case to a Radical Feminist Lawyer and just watch LW1 rake in a Massive Divorce Settlement. And witnesses like the husband are usually so easy to trip up that one would not need the skill achieved in the art of cross-examination by Her Ladyship Mrs Justice Erskine Brown to get him so caught up in his own testimony that he would end up admitting to being a paedophile.

The Prudecutor, who is, of course, proven many times over to be irredeemably heterosexist, is entirely in the wrong. Even with all the young people who have recently come to the general notice as being the intended audience for the It Gets Better Project (or perhaps in particular *because* of them, if my little theory that the Prudecutor is at least in part seething inside that a punk of a colleague of hers has done something Relevant), it would of course never occur to her that there might be as much need for same-sex modesty as for opposite-sex modesty. I think both she and LW1 want LW1 to become the Good parent in all this who doesn't get squeamish, whether either of them ever admits this. I'd say it should be a Both or Neither deal.

Moral: "It's okay; you can say it. I'm a wimp."

L2: And once again, we have everybody's favourite dog that does not bark in the night. Yet another letter from a married woman making no mention whatsoever of the actions or even the opinions of her husband relating to the question she poses. The Prudecutor, who doubtless considers husbands to be as unnecessary to daily life outside the bedroom as bicycles happen to be to the continual well-being and self-fulfillment of fish, does not even see this glaring omission. Whether H2 is on the brink of filing for divorce or whether H2 is more supportive than 99 people out of an hundred apparently is immaterial.

My instinct is to punt on the question, although I suppose LW2 might as well just save time and get a divorce now. She will later, and this incident is showing that she and her husband come apart under pressure rather than drawing together. For the short term, LW2 might send her husband to do everyhting she does for her parents, and then ask him what to do to proceed.

Another solution, such as occurred in the case of Sir Daniel Derwent only in reverse, would be to acquire pamphlets on suicide and leave them in strategic places where, if either parent finds them, (s)he will think the other is contemplating ending it all. If they resist the suggestion, then feed them poisoned omelettes.

Moral: "You should wait for me to call out your name." "Sometimes I call out your name... but you never give me the answer."

L3: Clearly LW3 has been passive-aggressive about the pregnancy. All this false pretense about caring that he and his wife have spoiled the biggest day of S3's life. Sure and they did it deliberately! Unplanned my Aunt Norris! They probably calculated exactly when to procreate and in what positions to give themselves the best chance at a pregnancy falling in the right time period and they hit the jackpot - well done indeed. Now he could just pull on his Big Boy Pants and admit it, but - No. He's too twisty to do anything such as to stand up and take credit for a job well done. Death and defeat to all Bridezillas! Even the Prudecutor would have sufficient sense to support such a worthy cause.

Unfortunately, if LW3 and W3 really cared about ruining S3's wedding half so much as he claims to do, they would already have opted for the obvious solution. Or, of course, they would have been clever enough not to boink during the very limited period of time that was known to create a conflict with the wedding, or at least would not have done so without triple protection. But there is another obvious answer. Get W3's best friend to seduce SF3 while acquiring plenty of hard evidence. Much easier to break up the engagement than conceal the baby. If they are real experts, they can follow the pattern set by Julius King in *A Fairly Honourable Defeat* and manipulate the fiance and the chosen partner in the case against the will of the both of them.

Moral: "You may get an overpowering urge to hug me if you win." "Don't do it? Well, you'll just have to worry about that... I might really hug you if I lose."

L4: Oh, good grief. LW4 even admits to being aggressive and thinking it a positive quality as well as one that is an asset in her chosen field and the Prudecutor can't pick up on it? It's very difficult to pick a side here, as Job Interviewers are of course among the Lowest Forms of Life on the Planet. They revel in making applicants try to second-guess and third-guess and fourth-guess them, and then try to jump through real or imaginary hoops blindfold while tap-dancing and reciting *The Walrus and the Carpenter* backwards in Hungarian. In a way, perhaps LW4 could make a virtue of her failing to please such revolting and disgusting specimens of humanity. However, as she persists in the ridiculous notion that her True Self would be a Desired Commodity (and the Prudecutor even blindly supports the idea), I can hold out no hope for her, alas.

LW4 might apply to the Sisterhood of Radical Lawyers, so ably headed by Mizz Liz Probert. As it is clearly established that any woman is automatically the superiour to any man, while at the same time an obvious victim of Male Privilege and Male Oppression, she ought to be able to carve out a nice little niche among those who excelled in Women's Studies programmes. And why not? After all, a good barrister doesn't need to have any knowledge of the Law.

Moral: "Who are they kidding, One Size Fits All?"

No comments:

Post a Comment