Too Funny

I haven’t posted in a while because this is my funny blog and I haven’t been thinking funny thoughts lately. (Remember that line in “Arthur,” when Arthur burst out laughing for no apparent reason, and when questioned, he said, “Sometimes I just think funny things”?) Some of you are probably scratching your heads and saying, “This is her funny blog? I’d hate to see her unfunny one.” Funny is subjective. Since this is my blog, I’m the funny judge. If I laugh at least once while I’m writing a post, then it’s funny. Anyway, nothing has amused me lately. Until today. Today, I laughed twice so I thought I’d spread the wealth and give you the opportunity to laugh, too. If you don’t laugh, you can sue me in kangaroo court. I’ll win, though. I’ve got the judge in my pocket.

So, here goes: My husband, Frank, just called me. He said he talked to his friend, Joe, who is an elected official in our town. Joe proposed the creation of an unpaid position for himself. He would be the liaison between his office and another city office. Our local  newspaper today reported, in its online edition, that Joe proposed that he be named the lesbian between the two departments. Joe’s friends and colleagues thought this was hilarious. “Joe,” they said, “We hardly knew ya.” Or something to that effect. So Joe called the newspaper and pointed out that he wanted to be a liaison, not a lesbian. The newspaper updated its web page and now it says that he wants to be a “lisbon.” Joe’s friends are now accusing him of wanting to be a Portuguese lesbian. Apparently our newspaper’s Spell Check doesn’t have the word “liaison” in its dictionary.

Earlier today I was reading an account of the Casey Anthony verdict and how the prosecution missed several chances to prove their case (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0706/The-case-against-Casey-Anthony-The-slam-dunk-that-wasn-t). This is a direct quote from the article: “The jury also heard testimony from the handler of a cadaver dog who said his dog signaled to him that there might have been a body in Anthony’s car. Such testimony is unusual because there is no opportunity to cross-examine a dog.” Well, I beg to differ. There’s plenty of opportunity to cross-examine a dog. The problem lies in finding a reputable interpreter. Our dog, Rudy, is qualified for the job. Whenever my husband reprimands him for loudly demanding human food, Rudy argues back. The quarrels are sometimes quite lengthy and Frank eventually gets exasperated, hands Rudy the pretzel or the filet mignon, and walks off. Rudy is the same way with dogs. They bark when he steals their toys, he barks louder, they leave … without their treasures.  He clearly understands humans and canines and communicates his messages succinctly. The Anthony prosecution team should have gotten the word out that they had a job opening for a canine interpreter. They might have won their case, and Rudy could certainly use the money. He has very expensive tastes.

 

Check out what indie authors have to offer at www.spbroundup.com.