JFK Fifty Years Later: Asking the Unanswerable

Like all Americans, I’ve been overwhelmed by coverage of the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy.  There have been movies, reenactments, documentaries, docudramas and replays of contemporary news footage.  I have concluded two things:  1) JFK is dead; and 2) Someone or some thing shot him.  The rest is subject to debate.

Unlike many scholars who have devoted decades to detailed analysis of the evidence, my research has been limited to two or hours of disinterested television watching.  Much of that has been obscured by the mad cacophony which is a sort of background theme music in my home.  Nevertheless, I am now armed with enough information to wildly speculate about those tragic events.

The Warren Commission was the body charged with investigating JFK’s assassination.  Headed by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren, the Commission concluded that  Oswald, acting alone, shot JFK and Texas Governor John Connally from the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas.  Oh, if it were only that simple.   It has become quite clear to me that I know more than the Commission, plus I have no fear of reprisal since I don’t know what the hell happened, either.

This “single gunman” theory has been largely rejected by many erudite scholars, students of history and crackpots.  It is just as likely that JFK was killed as part of a conspiratorial cabal which may or may not have included Lyndon Johnson, the Mafia, the Teamsters, Fidel Castro, Commies, J. Edgar Hoover, the Amish, the Boy Scouts, Israel, the John Birch Society, Opus Dei, the Kiwanis Club and Joe DiMaggio.  I am willing to consider–and embrace–any and all theories.

In 1969, New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison tried Clay Shaw for conspiring to kill JFK, resulting in an acquittal after less than an hour of jury deliberations.  Garrison was either a visionary who dared take on the establishment or a complete crackpot.  You decide.

With 50 years of study behind us, you might think that there are unexamined issues left.  Of course, you would be wrong.  I now am willing to ask the tough questions–the real ones–from which others shrink.  Among the questions which no dares ask are:

  • Why was LBJ conveniently in Dallas on that fateful day?
  • Why was Lady Bird Johnson so quickly dismissed as the likely second gunman or gun person, as it were?  From her position in the car behind the President, she alone had a clear shot at his head.
  • Why was suicide ruled out?
  • Earl Warren was a well-known champion of so-called civil liberties.  Isn’t at least reasonable to assume that he may have been a communist sympathizer?
  • How come no one killed Jim Garrison?
  • Where are the suppressed photos of Oswald and LBJ at Jack Ruby’s strip joint?
  • How do you explain the deaths of Earl Warren and Clay Shaw within one month of each other in 1974?
  • Speaking of Earl Warren’s death, why doesn’t Wikipedia tell us the cause of his death at the relatively young age of 83?  Who is editing that page to delete all references to his mysterious passing?
  • Within a year of Warren’s death, Jimmy Hoffa disappeared and mobster Sam Giancana was murdered.  Coincidence or silencing?
  • What deal was struck with Warren Commission member Gerald Ford for his complicity?  Could it have included the Presidency of the United States?
  • Only one year after Warren’s untimely passing, Lynnette Fromme and Sara Jane Moore attempted to assassinate President Ford.  Why have they never denied being part of a conspiracy to wipe out all Warren Commission members?
  • Why didn’t Richard Nixon ever publicly address his relationship or lack thereof with Jack Ruby?
  • Why, when filming such an important event as a Presidential assassination, was Abraham Zapruder’s film of such poor quality?
  • What kind of name is Zapruder, anyway?
  • Why are so many assassins known by three names?
  • Is there anyone under age 50 in the United States named Lee Harvey?  If so, why?
  • How was Jack Ruby so skilled in human anatomy that he knew that shooting Oswald in the stomach would be fatal, as opposed to a head shot which he would have likely survived?
  • Fidel Castro has said that killing Kennedy would have been an “act of insanity” insuring the immediate destruction of Cuba.  Why would anyone believe that Commie?
  • By the way, how in the Hell is Fidel Castro still alive?
  • When Oswald was arrested, he was watching the film War Is Hell  starring Baynes Barron.  Barron was born on the same day as JFK.  How do you explain that?
  • Was Oswald’s wife really as big a nag as portrayed in the TV movie Killing Kennedy?
  • If Oliver Stone’s film JFK isn’t true, how could he make a movie out of it?
  • How powerful is Oliver Stone that no one has killed him yet?
  • What better way would there be for the Mafia to get the Feds off their backs than to murder the President?
  • What is a grassy knoll?

If you can answer any or all of these questions, you may be on to something.  Or not.  We know JFK is dead.  Oswald? Dead.  Ruby? Dead.  LBJ?  Dead.  Connally? Dead.  Warren? Dead.  Garrison? Dead. Lady Bird?  Dead.  Are we seeing a pattern here?  I’ll ask the questions.  You answer them.  It’s safer for me that way.

©thetrivialtroll.com 2013

What Every Foreigner Should Know About An American Scandal


The bizarre official seal of the IRS combines scales, a key, stars and an upside down V.

A lot of people in other countries (I call them “foreigners”) read my blog posts.   In fact, folks from dozens of countries have done so.  I know that’s weird, but it’s true.  It causes me to wonder what our foreign friends think of America, beyond our well-known Western decadence.

You may wonder if you’re a foreigner.  If you live in a foreign country, you certainly are one.  Of course, you might live here in America.  If so, ask yourself these questions:

  • Am I dressed in swaddling clothes?
  • Do I have a funny accent?
  • Do I speak some odd Martian-sounding language?
  • Am I wearing a fez?
  • Do I own a prayer rug?
  • Have I ever stoned anyone?
  • Have Americans ever invaded my hometown?
  • Do I throw shoes at people?
  • Have I sworn allegiance to a king, queen or other potentate/monarch?
  • Is my facial hair bizarre and unkempt?

If you answered “yes” to any of these, you’re probably a foreigner.  If not a foreigner, you just could be a typical American weirdo.

Even if you’re an American, imagine if you were a foreigner.  We’ll call you “Vlad.”  In your country, such things as child slavery and genocide are scandalous.  As a result, you might be quite confused by what passes for scurrilous behavior in the Greatest Nation on Earth™.

Do foreigners follow American politics? If so, it must be confusing.  Then again, maybe it’s just like things in their countries.  Regardless, as a service to foreigners, I have penned this simple primer on the latest American political scandal.

You foreigners may not be familiar with the Internal Revenue Service or the “IRS” as we Americans call it.  The IRS is a cabal of tax collectors formed many decades ago by the United States Government.   I shall attempt to write in a way that explains the IRS to the uninitiated.  (Also, you may be an American but not a tax payer–like my children–and unfamiliar with the ways of the IRS.)

As we know from Judeo-Christian lore, tax collectors are reviled and for good reason.  They take our money. No one likes that.  That is the function of the IRS.  They collect our taxes through a system only slightly less complicated than the plot of the film Dune. In return, we hate them.

Each year, we voluntarily fill out tax returns and send them to the IRS.  This squares us with the government.  Some people don’t do this. They are known as “tax cheats.”  Some are known as “convicts.”  Some people don’t think they really have to pay taxes.  They are called “tax protestors” or “nuts.”  Many of them, too, as known as “convicts.”

The IRS is in the news now because it has been picking on people–and not just any people, but conservative people–really conservative people.

Most conservatives in the U.S. are members of the Republican Party.  Wealthy people are usually Republicans.  So are a lot of old people.  We have Nazis here, too, but they usually aren’t Republicans.  Conservatives are called the “Right” or “Right-Wingers.”

Most liberal folks in our country are Democrats.  A small number are card-carrying Communists or Socialists.  Some belong to the Green Party, the sole function of which is to nominate unelectable candidates for public office.  Young people are Democrats.  According to Republicans,  all the poor and unemployed are also Democrats.  Liberals are called the “Left” or “Leftists.”

Here in America, we have a group called the “Tea Party.”  It’s really just an offshoot of the Republican Party, but even more conservative.  Some of my Leftist friends call them “Tea Baggers,” which is just sophomoric, yet still funny.

The Tea Party is a so-called grassroots political group (not a real political party, mind you) which named itself after the famed Boston Tea Party which occurred way back in America’s colonial days.  That Tea Party protested taxation of the colonies without representation in Parliament.  Now, this Tea Party–being citizens of our Republican form of democracy–actually has representation in Congress, but they still call themselves that because…oh Hell, it makes no sense.  They just call themselves that.  It’s okay.  We’re Americans and can call ourselves anything we want.

The Tea Party is basically against the government, unless the government is wildly conservative (if one can be wild and conservative).  They don’t like taxes or immigration or government spending or much of anything else related to the government.  The don’t like our current president.  I don’t think they liked our last president, either.  I pretty sure they didn’t like the one before that or the one before that.  I think they like Ronald Reagan, but I don’t think they would have liked at the time he was president.  Maybe they don’t like anyone.  They might like our Senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul.  After all,  they helped get him elected.  Soon, they’ll find out he’s a closet Libertarian.  Then, they won’t like him.  Or maybe they will.  I don’t really know.

I’m not sure anyone likes the Tea Party, unless they are, of course, in the Tea Party which–as we noted above–isn’t really a political party.  The Libertarians are an actual party, although Ron Paul (Rand’s dad) might be the only member.  Democrats certainly don’t like the Tea Party.  Republicans don’t much like it, either.  Thus, it would seem to be a prime target for persecution.

If you are a foreigner, you probably don’t know that Americans love to be persecuted.  I’m not talking about real persecution, to which you might be subjected in your country.  We just like to think our politics or religion or sports teams are persecuted.  Everyone is against them.  Why do we like that? It just makes us feel self-righteous, like we’re the underdog.  We like that.

Now, you might be reading this as a foreign resident of the American prison known as Gitmo.  If so, you will not find any of this to even remotely qualify as persecution.  Well, let me ask you this:  Where the hell did you get access to a computer?  You’re not even a U.S. citizen (hopefully).

Occasionally, though, there is real persecution or at least bullying that goes on.  The IRS has been caught doing just this very thing.  How?  It turns out that they’ve been scrutinizing conservative groups, including Tea Partiers, to determine if they really qualify as “tax exempt.”  What is a tax-exempt group, you ask?  Well, I’m a lawyer.  Allow me to explain.

Americans pay taxes on damn near everything, except for the 50% who don’t.  Corporations pay taxes, too, except for the ones who use our Byzantine tax code to avoid paying taxes.  Some corporations don’t have to pay taxes, because the IRS doesn’t make them.  These are “non-profit” corporations, an oxymoronic designation if there ever was one.  Our churches and charitable organizations typically qualify for that status, even though people can get incredibly rich working for them–especially churches.  Don’t you wish you were an American?

Other groups qualify, too.  Oh, I could go into great detail to explain the criteria, if I knew what they were.  Just trust me on this one.  One such group is what is known as a 501(c)(4) organization which includes civic leagues, social welfare organizations and associations of employees.  Here is a link to a mind-numbing IRS brochure on the subject.  One of the things the IRS doesn’t like is when such groups are formed to promote or elect candidates for political office.  That’s a no-no.

Evidently, the IRS embarked on a project where such terms as “Tea Party” or “Patriot” would draw special scrutiny with invasive and downright loony inquiries into the organization’s workings.  The obvious problem is that any such group in our country is bound to be a Right Wing organization which oppose anything the current Presidential administration says or does.  (As an aside, should any of you foreigners move to the United States, be very wary of any thing dubbed “Patriot.”  Those things tend to be sketchy and even frightening.)  It also just seems nasty and unfair.  We don’t like that kind of stuff, especially when it happens to us.

Now, we have a full-blown scandal on our hands.  Americans love scandals, too.  Scandals here tend to be given the suffix of “-Gate.”  Soon, this will be called “IRS-Gate.”  Why do we do that?  Because we had a political scandal almost four decades ago involving the Watergate Hotel.  Again, don’t ask too many questions.

The outrage is now palatable.  Congress is outraged–Republicans and Democrats alike.  The Tea Party is outraged.  The President is outraged.  So is the IRS.   When did the IRS start this kind of nonsense?

I suspect this kind of behavior dates back to 1918 when the Bureau of Internal Revenue changed its name to the Internal Revenue Service. Our greatest American criminal was arguably Al Capone, a Chicago gangster who ruled a vice kingdom in the 1920’s that grossed $100 million a year.  He spent many of his last years in prison, his brain rotting from syphilis.  Why?  It wasn’t for the many murders, gambling, bootlegging or prostitution for which he was responsible.  It was tax fraud.  That’s right.  He crossed the IRS.  Bad move. (Just to be clear, the IRS put him in prison.  It didn’t give him syphilis, at least as far as I know.)

Why should anyone be surprised that the IRS would attack people?  Well, truthfully, no one should be surprised.  The IRS is viewed as either a gang of incompetent government bean counters or jack-booted thugs ready to take everything you own.  You probably have something similar in your country.  It’s probably called the Ministry of Finance or some other haughty foreign title.

As a foreigner, you are likely confused.  Why is this a scandal?  In your country, something like a military coup might be considered scandalous.  Understand the Right and the Left  hate each other, probably much like in your own country.  Folks on the right hate, hate, HATE President Obama.  They condemn everything he does.  Everything.  They don’t like his economic policies or tax policies or foreign policy or domestic policy.  They don’t like his vacations or his golf game.  They don’t like his wife.  Or his mother.  They say he’s dumb, lazy and out of touch.  People call him a criminal.  Every bad thing is his fault.

You may be thinking that these Right-Wingers are awful.  There is only one group as bad as they are.  That group is the Left.  The Left hates, hates, HATES President Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush.  They hated his economic policy, his tax policy, his foreign policy, and his domestic policy..  They hated his vacations.  They didn’t like his family  The Left said he was dumb, lazy and out of touch.  People called him a criminal.  Every bad thing was his fault then and now.

Since these two groups hate each other, they’ll stop at nothing to discredit the other.  The Left now uses the IRS to attack its enemies, just as the Right has done in the past.  The Left even has the hubris to say:  “Why didn’t you say anything when the Right was doing it?”  Well, when the Right was doing it, they liked it, so there was no need  to protest.  Pretty simple, really.  Besides, didn’t your mother ever tell you “Two wrongs don’t make a right?”  If not, what kind of mother did you have?

You might wonder what the fall out will be.  We have something called “Congressional Hearings.”  These are dog and pony shows where people are called before our government representatives to either answer inane questions or listen to long-winded speeches which aren’t really questions at all.  These are mostly designed to help our representatives get re-elected.  Think of it as reality television with less dignity.

It’s also possible that there could be criminal charges, although no one is sure that any crime has been committed.  That doesn’t matter.  We Americans like to threaten criminal charges even when there is no crime.  Treason is one of our favorites, even though our courts don’t really know what that is and no one is ever prosecuted for it.

We will also talk of removing the President from office.  We love to talk about that, even though it would result in the Vice-President becoming President.  We have a storied tradition of our Vice-Presidents being blithering idiots or dangerous sociopaths, yet we wouldn’t mind them assuming the highest office in the land.  Go figure.


Impeaching President Bush was a popular notion.

impeach obama

We  would like to impeach Obama, but without all the apostrophes.

One thing that won’t happen is that the people who actually did all the bad stuff getting fired.  They’re civil servants.  They just stay right where they are.  Count on it.

There is, of course, the endless media blathering, too.  We have a phenomenon here where every city in our country has at least one radio station devoted to 24 hour a day talking heads from the Right.  They spend most of their time talking about subjects which they say the media doesn’t talk about it as though they aren’t part of the media.  Odd.

What makes IRS-Gate so appealing is that it involves taxes, one of the lines of demarcation between the Left and the Right.  The Left believes that taxes are good and should be increased on the rich, so that our government can use that money to benefit the poor.  The Right hates taxes and believes they should be decreased, especially on the rich, so that the rich can use that money to benefit the poor.  Both positions ignore two very real problems:  The government tends to waste money, and the rich tend to keep it.  To have the Left seek to tax groups on the Right goes to the very heart of this philosophical conundrum.

So, what we have is a confluence of all things American:  Taxes and the government; the Right and Left; over-the-top media; paranoia; and general hatefulness.  The only thing missing is some sexual aspect to it all.  Don’t give up hope–there is still time.  Perhaps someone will blame it all on an outbreak of syphilis at the IRS.

As a foreigner, you might not want to visit America now.  Don’t be foolish.  We’re still better than your country.  Now, that’s not to say you’ll be welcome.  We’re a nation of immigrants with a long history of hating immigrants, but that subject will have to wait.  In the meantime, enjoy the show.

©thetrivialtroll.wordpress.com 2013

Acorns, Bombs and Guns: The Falling Sky

Chicken Little once famously declared “THE SKY IS FALLING!”  Of course, he (she?) was wrong–it was an acorn.  Sadly, Chicken Little terrified his barnyard companions until they sought shelter in a fox’s den.  Only the unfortunately named Cocky Locky survived.  The lesson? It was a freakin’ acorn, you moron.  Now, Ducky Lucky, Henny Penny and the rest of your friends are dead meat–literally.

We can all agree that Chicken Little was a damn moron.  Plus, he was a chicken.  Chickens are filthy and disgusting.  Why the hell would the other animals listen to one of them, anyway?  Now, you probably think I don’t eat chickens, but I do.  Why?  Because I want to.  They’d eat me if they could.  Where was I?  Oh, yeah, Chicken Little.

(By the way, I have an idea for a post about chickens.  I’m not sure the public is ready for it.)

We Americans have much in common with Chicken Little.  I’m not saying we wallow in our own filth and stink like hell, although some of us surely do.  We do, however, get hit with the proverbial acorn and then scurry about the national barnyard in a panic.

Our latest acorn is the Boston Marathon Bombing.  Here’s what we know (or think we know):  Two brothers born in the Caucasus region of Russia are alleged to have detonated homemade bombs at the finish line of the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013.  One of them is dead and the other is hospitalized.  Since these two were identified, here are just a few of the things I’ve heard from folks, most of whom I consider intelligent (my comments are in red) :

  • These guys should have been sent back to Chechnya.  First, Chechnya isn’t a country. Second, when would we have sent them back?  One of them has been in the U.S. since he was 8 years old. 
  • The FBI had been asked to check out the older brother.  It’s the FBI’s fault.  How do we know the FBI didn’t check him out?  There’s no law against being sketchy. 
  • Pressure cookers aren’t designed to be used as bombsNo shit?  All this time, I thought KFC was a terrorist front.
  • All terrorists are Arab.  Ahem, Chechnya is not an Arab region.
  • All terrorists are Muslims. Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Eric Rudolph, Ted Kaczynski–Not Muslims.
  • Muslims are dangerous and should be watched.  Some are. So are some Christians, Jews and atheists.  There are 2.5 million Muslims in the U.S.  If they were ALL terrorists, don’t you think we’d notice the constant terrorist attacks?  The last time we demonized an entire group of people, we put them in interment camps.  No one looks back at that with pride.
  • No one is safe!!  Technically, that’s true.  The U.S. has 15,000 or so homicides a year.  You can’t really call that being “safe,” but it begs a question:  If terrorists are responsible for three of those, who’s killing the other 14,997?
  • We can’t try these terrorists in civilian courts.  Why not?  We have a great and fair legal system.  It affords the accused many rights but also arms the government with ample resources to prosecute crimes.  We become outraged if American citizens aren’t afforded these same rights when accused of crimes in other countries. 

Here’s what appears to have happened in Boston.  Two followers of some radicalized version of Islam took it upon themselves to build homemade bombs and blow up people.  They succeeded.  The Muslims in our country aren’t all banded together to destroy our way of life.  Relax, Chicken Little.

These weren’t criminal geniuses.  They learned to make bombs on the Internet.  You can, too. You can also get helpful advice from a book called The Anarchist Cookbook.  It wasn’t even written by a Muslim.  It was published in 1971.  My brother owned a copy.

We also have acorns bouncing off our heads over gun control:

  • People don’t need ANY guns.  Perhaps that’s true, but it’s irrelevant.  The U.S. Constitution protects the right to own guns.
  • You’re wrong!  The Constitution only allows a “well-regulated militia” to own gunsNo, I’m right.  At least that’s the U.S. Supreme Court says.
  • I must have a gun to protect my family.  Where exactly do you live?  I’d like to know so I don’t move there. 
  • I must have a gun to protect myself against the government.  Which one?  If you mean the U.S. government, good luck with that.  Have you seen the firepower of the U.S. government? 
  • Well, I have other good reasons to own a gun.  You well may, but here’s the deal:  You don’t need a reason.  You can own one just because you like guns.  Hell, you can even own one for the sole purpose of wanting to shoot someone with it. 
  • The Second Amendment is bad. Let’s get rid of it.  Interesting take, but here’s your problem–and it’s a big one–it’s very difficult to amend the Constitution.  That’s a good thing.  It keeps us from tearing it apart with knee jerk reactions.  If you can’t get a few guns law passed, your chances of amending the Constitution are less than nil.  Move on to something that’s at least possible. 
  • Expanded background checks are the beginning of a police state.  No, they aren’t.  If that’s true, let’s just get rid of ALL background checks. 
  • If we pass new gun laws, the government will come and take our guns. The only way that can happen is if the government decides to ignore the Second Amendment and a host of other Constitutional rights.  If that happens, a few new gun laws will be the least of our problems.
  • We don’t need new gun laws, because criminals won’t obey them.  That’s probably true.  Law-abiding citizens obey the law, and criminals don’t.  That axiom applies to all laws.
  • Guns don’t kill people.  Again, that’s true.  It’s also true that Sarin gas, rocket launchers, grenades and flamethrowers don’t kill people, either.  You need a better argument. 

The truth is that a few new gun laws won’t hurt us.  Who knows?  They might even help.  I doubt we’ll find out any time soon.  My advice?  Relax.  We have a violent country full of people who like to hunt humans for sport.  If you’re one of them, you’ll still be able to get a gun.  If you’re a law-abiding citizen, you’ll also be able to get one. If you’re on the other side of the debate, think of this:  If you’re right and over 90% of the public wants stricter laws, there will be political backlash.  Count on it.  Relax.

Bombs and guns.  Terrorists and criminals.  Law-abiding citizens and victims.  Black and white.  Acorns and the end.  We live in a world now where we can get real-time news reports.  During the pursuit of the Boston bombers, you could follow it almost moment-by-moment on Twitter.  The news of the world in 140 characters.  That’s how we think now.  We hear something, and it requires an immediate response.   There’s no time to think.

Perhaps this is why there is a visceral reaction to everything now.  We color it black or white.  I suppose a lot of things are black or white, but those aren’t colors.  There are a lot of colors out there.  Take a look at the world and you’ll see them.  The same thing applies to the big issues of the day.  Maybe they’re black and white.  Maybe not.  It’s at least worth looking at them long enough to tell.

We are an odd people. Most of us, regardless of political leaning, are proud Americans.  We love our Constitution and cherish our rights.  But, when we thinking the sky is falling, we’ll gladly give up those rights in order to assuage our fears. Could it be that this is the reason that people–whether terrorists, politicians or our friends–try to scare us with the black and white of the world?  Maybe the fox tossed that acorn at Chicken Little.

Now, back to acorns.  An acorn hit my head once.  It hurt–a lot more than you’d expect.  It actually raised a knot on my head.  So, I’m not saying that terrorist attacks and gun control aren’t painful topics. They are.  Just don’t confuse them with a hunk of the sky. The fox awaits.

©thetrivialtroll.wordpress.com 2013

Gunning For Answers

The gun control debate rages again, this time in the harsh light of the Newtown, Connecticut school on December 14, 2012. This shooting is the latest in a troubling series of such acts dating back to the 1997 Heath High School shooting in Paducah, Kentucky.

We have the predictable responses from those who want strict gun control to those who want none. After a week of silence, the venerable National Rifle Association weighed in with its views. As might be expected, the NRA does not view this as a gun control issue. It is, rather, a question of defending the public against homicidal gun owners whose minds have been warped by violent video games and the desire for media attention. To those at the other end of the spectrum it’s all about the guns.

As a lawyer, I prided myself on my ability to digest large volumes of information and distill it into easily understood concepts. In this instance, I’ve opted for a shallow understanding of the issues and flippant set of suggestions. Each, however, is based upon very real suggestions offered by each camp. Understand that I am not making light of the violence which brings these issues to the front now. Rather, it is my analysis of taking these suggestions to their logical (sort of) conclusion.


Few people actually advocate banning all guns or even handguns, but a few people do. Others do so by implication pointing to countries such as Japan as a model for gun control. Let’s just dispense with this one. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents it. End of story.


If by “assault” we mean “shooting humans,” we have a problem: THEY’RE ALL ASSAULT WEAPONS! Okay, not all of them, but most of them. Handguns, in particular, are made for human game. I know that some folks hunt with handguns. Not many. Gaston Glock designed the popular line of Glock handguns for shooting people. They are an engineering marvel. Lightweight, easily assembled, simple to use and low maintenance. Law enforcement loves them–and for good reason–they are great guns, but they are intended for human targets. That’s the purpose of handguns. Try hunting with a snub nosed .38. Unless you are planning execution-style kills, it won’t be much use in the wild. Stick it in a human’s ribs, though, and it’s damn effective.

If you only own a gun for self-defense, it’s an assault weapon. You only intend to use it to kill another human. If you like target practice, maybe it’s not–unless you use the popular targets that look like–you guessed it!–humans. In that case, you’re practicing for human-shooting should you ever have the opportunity. “Assault” weapon makes as much sense as “stabbing” sword.


There is a small (I hope), but vocal, contingent who see murderous attacks at our schools as a result of the lack of prayer in school. They ignore the fact that the Heath High School shooting in Kentucky, which has the dubious distinction of starting all this slaughter, took place in a prayer group. What was God’s point with that one?

I’ve heard that we prayed in school when I was a kid. I don’t remember any organized prayer, but I prayed. I prayed for each day to end, to never go back, etc. As far as invoking God’s hand as part of our curriculum, maybe we did. I just don’t remember it. Clearly, it made a strong impression on me.

Let’s just leave God out of this one. He gets blamed for too much stuff anyway.


This stuff includes items which technically aren’t guns. They are gun accessories. Large capacity magazines, types of ammo, body armor and other items are all on the table. This has some merit, but coming up with a comprehensive list is daunting. At the end of the day, there will be still be guns. Lots of them. By some counts, there are 270 million guns in American. That’s 9 for every 10 people. They can all be used for killing people and most are designed to do exactly that. Banning their accessories is like telling people they can’t eat with forks anymore. It may be inconvenient, but they’ll still eat.


This is the NRA’s position or, as NRA President Wayne LaPierre said: “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” This isn’t exactly true. A grenade, flamethrower, pack of pit bulls, truck and knife in the back are a number of other ways to stop a bad guy, too. Even another bad guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. Of course, this only creates the problem of how to stop a really bad guy who can stop other bad guys.

Don’t count me among the folks who think the NRA is a cabal of evil thugs. In fact, I am a former NRA member. Former? I enjoyed reading Guns & Ammo Magazine, but I finally tired of the NRA’s lobbying efforts. Understand that this isn’t because I’m against gun ownership. I just thought they went too far on many occasions. That said, I know lots of fine folks who belong to the NRA.

Even the NRA’s staunchest allies know that the NRA’s position will always be more guns, not less. In other words, confront violence with violence. Some may consider this the same philosophy that seeks world peace through killing all one’s enemies. Nevertheless, it is a mistake to attempt to marginalize the NRA. It has a place at the table. In fact, its political power means that it may well own the table.

The NRA sees four causes of school shootings: 1. Lack of security at schools. 2. Violent video games 3. The media; and 4. Crazy people. The crazies are inspired by video games to seek fame through the media by attacking schools because the schools lack security. There is probably some validity to each of these points. The NRA hasn’t specified exactly what should be done but promises to enlist a vast cadre of law enforcement, military and concerned people to come up with something. We’ll see.

So, with all these ideas swirling about, what is the answer? I’m certainly not qualified to come up with a plan, but then again no one else is, either. With that in mind, here is my modest proposal:


Nothing sends Americans scurrying to the local gun store like the word “redistribution.” They imagine hunkering down with their personal arsenals to fight off jackbooted government thugs. These thugs will be roaming house to house to take away our hard-earned stuff and giving it all to people on welfare. I’m a free market guy and would never suggest such socialism.

No, I’m talking about redistribution of our weapons. With 270 million guns floating around, there’s no excuse for people not being armed. The problem–as with wealth–isn’t that there isn’t enough of it. It’s a matter of disproportionate distribution. For example, my father owned 12 guns. That means that there were 10 or 11 people without guns. He was in the gun 1%.

Here’s what we do. Gather up all the guns and distribute them among the public. Make sure everyone has his or her own. Even better, just by my typing this, gun sales will increase, and there will be even more guns to hand out. What if we’re still short? We’ll invoke Obamacare and create a Gun Mandate. If you don’t go buy one, we’ll tax your ass to death.

Once we’re all armed, the playing field will be level. Someone pulls a gun, and it’s the OK Corral. Let’s throw lead. Every man, woman and child will pack iron. Child? If these kids can learn how to use an iPad, a pistol is snap. Plus, real guns will pull them away from the dangers of video games. This is a win-win-win.


The NRA suggest that a national database of the mentally ill is needed. No, it’s not because they want a more comprehensive mailing list. They want to keep track of dangerous people. Predictably, this has been met with hoots of derision. Some believe that violating numerous federal laws and constitutionally protected privacy rights is too high a price to pay to protect the Second Amendment. Of course, the NRA disagrees. Hell, they’d trample the Third Amendment and quarter soldiers in our homes if meant we could keep our guns. But, the database (of “Loony Log,” as I call it) could work:

  • According to the National Institutes of Health, there is a dizzying array of mental illnesses and an almost uncountable number of related medications. Here’s the deal: If you take one of these, you’re on the list.
  • We can use Obamacare to help us tag other dangerous mental defectives. If you have seen a psychiatrist, psychologist, clinical social worker, clergyman or school guidance counselor, you’re on the list.
  • ADD, ADHD, schizophrenia, depression, bi-polar disorder, borderline personality disorder, autism, moodiness, PMS, anxiety, angst and prickliness all qualify. You’re on the list.
  • If you’re over 65 years old, there’s a good chance you’re not firing on all cylinders. You’re on the list.
  • If you dress funny, look weird or are just odd, you’re on the list.
  • If you’re not on the list, this means you are in a tiny minority. Clearly, there is something bad wrong with you. You’re on the list.

Once we’ve compiled the list, a crack team of retired police officers, soldiers, militia men and security guards will constantly monitor the list to track your every move. You may ask: Will this affect my ability to acquire a gun? Are you insane in addition to your mental illness? There’s nothing in the Second Amendment stripping the rights of crazy people. Strap down, my nutty friend.


This is my own idea, and I’ll confess that it’s a bit radical. It is a long-held belief that an armed citizenry keeps the government in check. If they come after us, we’ll fight them off with our guns. The problem–and it’s a really big one–is that they control the military. Now, I know many folks are quite skilled with guns, but this is a question of firepower. No army on Earth can even seriously oppose our military. I’m confident that a disorganized band of the mentally ill randomly firing handguns will fare poorly.

Better weaponry will allow us to even the odds in a civil war. An added bonus will be curbing crime through superior firepower. Imagine the second thoughts which will be caused by the prospect of facing down not only a general public armed to the teeth with guns but also of a grenade or flamethrower being whipped out. If your neighbor builds an unsightly fence on your property line, a little napalm will take care of it. We’ll bring all this foolishness to an end through the threat of mutual destruction.

If a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with one, a good guy with a LAW rocket will stop 20 of them. Of course, bad guys might have the same weapons. But, remember–most of these freaks are loners. They won’t be as organized as we are. Think scorched Earth.


My little diatribe above is all tongue in cheek, of course, but it were printed as an op-ed piece, I am sure that many folks would agree with parts of it. Honestly, is it any crazier than some of the ideas being floated now? If there is a point to any of this it is that these simple answers can create as many problems as they solve.

What is the real answer? Complex problems often require complex answers. Americans like simple answers. Ban guns. Arm school teachers. Pray. These public gun attacks (or “sprees,” as the press says) continue to occur even as crime rates, including violent crime, decline. It is a political, social and even moral issue. Unfortunately, we live in a time when compromise in any of those areas seems impossible.

I own guns and grew up around them. They don’t scare me nor do they give me any particular comfort. I know people who have been shot, including two family members. I also know people who have shot people. Sadly, I know far too many people who have taken their own lives with guns. I know they can easily and legally get into the hands of people who will wreak havoc with them. THAT is serious issue which should be addressed with all the urgency of the response to 9/11. We’re a bright people. We can explore answers that don’t require stripping rights or just admitting defeat.

The NRA, the anti-gun lobby, politicians and the public have common ground here. No one wants to read about mass killings at schools, malls, churches or anywhere else. Addressing that concern would seem to be in everyone’s interest.

©thetrivialtroll.wordpress.com 2012

The American Sport

The shootings in Aurora, Colorado have predictably sparked debate about gun control. That debate is easily rekindled. Sadly, we have many such opportunities in America.

I’m not part of that debate and neither is this post. I have nothing to add to the countless talking heads and political opportunists who stand on such tragedies as a platform to hear themselves speak. Although I am an attorney, I also won’t belabor the many court decisions interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution which guarantees the right to bear arms. We have that right, subject to limits.

I will offer this disclaimer: I have no problem with gun ownership. I own guns. I grew up around guns. When my father died, he left a veritable arsenal of weapons. The Second Amendment exists, and I wouldn’t support repealing it nor would I support leaving it to the states to decide. If this makes me a Second Amendment advocate, so be it. I don’t hunt, carry a gun or belong to the NRA. You be the judge.

I’m not foolish enough to say that what happened in Colorado had nothing to do with guns. Of course it did. I also recognize legitimate questions about how a person purchases body armor and thousands of rounds of ammunition without detection. That said, I leave it to others to decide what the legal reaction, if any, should be.

For me, the broader question, the American question, is Why? Why do we Americans kill each other for sport? We do, you know. We always have. It happens in other countries, but it is as American a sport as football. We’ve had our share of political murder, assassination and domestic terrorism. But, hunting each other remains an American past time.

We’re hardly the most violent or dangerous country on the planet. Many countries are little more than disorganized war zones. Organized crime permeates some societies. Our distinction is in the random or so-called “senseless” murder.

In our age of information overload, we tend to think that these things are a modern phenomenon. Nancy Grace will jump on one of these stories every day. My favorite cable channel is Investigation Discovery, an entire TV network built around people killing each other. Think about that.

We have school shootings. SCHOOL shootings. That should be unthinkable, but it isn’t. Here’s a story you probably haven’t heard. Andrew Kehoe was the Treasurer of the Bath Township Consolidated School board in Michigan. Like a lot of folks, he was against tax increases. The board approved an increase in property taxes to fund the schools. Kehoe owned a farm and was very much against this increase. He was legitimately concerned with his ability to pay the tax increase and keep his farm. He made his objections known but to no avail. Here’s what he did next.

He bludgeoned his wife to death and set off explosives in all his farm’s buildings, destroying his farm and all his livestock. The previous day, he planted explosives in the Bath Consolidated School. They detonated almost simultaneously with those at the farm. Over 30 died, most small children, while Kehoe watched from his car. The school Superintendent was at the school and approached Kehoe’s car. This time, a bomb exploded in the car, killing Kehoe, the Superintendent and an 8-year-old girl. In all, 38 people died. If Mr. Kehoe had committed his crimes today, he would be the subject of 24 hour a day coverage.

Why don’t you know about this? Because it happened in 1927. Our history of violence is as long as it is disturbing. Ted Bundy was the first murderer that I can recall being called a “serial” killer, but he was far from the first. Google the name Carl Panzram, and you will read of one of the worst of God’s creatures, an unrepentant misanthrope whose last words were: “Hurry up, you Hoosier sonofabitch! I could have hung ten men in the time it’s taking you!” He was hanged in 1930. There was Albert Fish, child killer and cannibal, a predator so vile that prosecutors weren’t sure how to even present his crimes to a jury. He was electrocuted in 1936. What of Ed Gein, a mild-mannered farmer from Plainfield, Wisconsin? When he wasn’t farming, he was a murderer, graverobber and necrophile and the inspiration for Norman Bates and many other fictional killers. He committed his crimes in the 1950’s and died as a model prisoner in 1984.

Read Erik Larson’s excellent book The Devil and the White City for an account of the crimes of H.H. Holmes during the Chicago World’s Fair in the 19th Century. The 1920’s saw The Wineville Chicken Coop Murders near Los Angeles. So common were child disappearances that as many as 20 children may have been killed before authorities acted.

Howard Unruh was a decorated World War II veteran. He was also a dangerous psychotic who woke up one morning in 1949, shot his mother and then roamed the streets of Camden, New Jersey shooting and killing 13 people at random. American as apple pie.

Charles Starkweather, Edmund Kemper, John Wayne Gacy, Richard Ramirez, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy–the list goes on and on. These are the ones we remember. In 1984, James Huberty prepared to leave his home when his wife asked: “Where are you going?” He responded: “Hunting humans.” He went to McDonalds and killed 21 people. Remember that? Maybe not. After all, there have been so many since then. Murderers all, but they all don’t have guns in common. What they have in common is murder for sport.

Why? Maybe it’s because we have so much freedom that the dangerous and demented feel free to cut loose. Because of our freedoms, the police are often left only to pursue criminals, rather than prevent crime. That’s a trade-off for freedom. We don’t have tools to apprehend those with the potential for mayhem. The odd, curious or even dangerous person is free to roam the streets. You see them everyday. You might be one of them.

Of course, we can curtail some of this if we’re willing to pay the price. Nowadays, folks are fond of saying “Freedom Isn’t Free.” This is a mostly empty platitude said by folks like me from the comfort of our living rooms. When it comes to crime, that old saw is certainly true. We can restrict the Second Amendment. While we’re at it, why not the 4th and 5th Amendments, too? Allowing the state to randomly search us and extract confessions could well prevent the next Aurora. Too extreme?

Have you noticed the fine job the federal government has done apprehending potential terrorists? How do they do it? Whether you like the Patriot Act or not, it has been effective. The government can tap your phone, read your mail and pretty much track your every movement based on nothing more than suspicion. Add to that a prison in Cuba where suspects are held forever without facing charges or trial and you have a pretty effective crime prevention system.

We won’t, can’t and shouldn’t ever go down that road, of course. The swap of liberty for security is rarely a fair trade. Does this mean there should be no gun laws? Of course not. But taking the rights of the many because of the acts of the few is dangerous territory. The Aurora gunman (I will not dignify him by mentioning his name) is to the Second Amendment what the Westboro Baptist Church is to the First Amendment. Both abuse their rights to harm others, but neither is worth taking the rights of those who don’t.

Despite what some think, we aren’t easy on crime. Our prisons are bulging at their seams. We also execute people, putting us in the same class as Iran, China and North Korea when it comes to jurisprudence. Regardless of how brutally we’ve done it, killing people never seemed to help. Hanging, shooting, stoning, electrocution–they just keep on killing. We could hang every convicted killer tomorrow, and I can guarantee that there will be murders that afternoon.

The big question is never debated. What is it about our society that lends itself to these crimes? England and Japan, hardly police states, see almost no predatory murder. Yet, we see it daily. Someone smarter than I am will have to find a way to detect and stop these folks before they strike.

Despite all this, it is a mistake to condemn society. Most people–almost everyone–are good people. They work, help their neighbors and are good to their families. The exceptions scare us and fascinate us.

Where are these exceptions? Everywhere. Our towns, neighborhoods–maybe even our own homes. We can’t hide. We can’t pray our way into a protective bubble. We just have to hope we don’t cross paths with one of these folks at the wrong time.

We feel for the people of Aurora, although most of us, thankfully, can’t imagine what they feel. I imagine the sadness and terror are palpable. On a random night, they were visited by the worst in us. Hopefully, they will now see the best in us.

By chance, I once spoke to a man whose sibling had committed a notorious and brutal crime. He said he his family had no idea that it was coming and many years later couldn’t come to grips with it. He said: “He just had something bad going on with him, and no one could see it.” The question, which I certainly can’t answer, is Can anyone see it?

©thetrivialtroll.wordpress.com 2012

No Happy Endings in Happy Valley

During Jerry Sandusky’s trial a lot of thoughts came to mind. I jotted some down and pondered others. Here they are:

  • How many people had an opportunity to stop Sandusky? We know that there were several at Penn State–administrators, coaches, even a janitor. There were social workers and concerned parents. No one stopped it. If  there is anything in this sad tale that rivals Sandusky’s actions, it’s this silence.
  • As a lawyer, I like the way the prosecutor handled its case. The case was strong, and it was tried that way. The jury’s time wasn’t wasted. This wasn’t what I call a “California” trial where seemingly straightforward cases take 6 months to try.
  • A lot of folks enjoyed deriding Sandusky’s lawyer. I can’t imagine defending that case. What would I do? Probably no better than he did.  Sandusky was entitled to a trial and lawyer.  He had both.
  • Sandusky is a pedophile and fits the profile. I had heard of this profile, but this is the first time I’ve seen what it really looks like.
  • Sandusky isn’t a monster. He’s a football coach.  A father, a grandfather.  He’s your neighbor.  You go to church with him.  He volunteers in the community.  He does good things.  If he were a monster, it would all seem more palatable.  He is the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing who preyed on the poorest and the weakest.  We can no more pick this monster out of crowd than we can tell what flavor ice cream a person likes by looking at him or her.  That makes him more frightening than any monster.
  • All that said, a Sandusky doesn’t operate in a vacuum.  People turn a blind eye.  Some are willfully ignorant, for sure, but others give the benefit of the doubt when such doubt has long since stopped being reasonable.  From abuses in churches to homes to this, the stories seem to have common theme of missed opportunities to stop this abuse.  Worse yet, there are those who know or at the very least should know and do nothing.
  • One can’t help but wonder how many other people operate the same as Sandusky.  He got caught.  It is reasonable to assume that many, many others haven’t been and won’t be.
  • The victims who testified deserve admiration.  They are men now, no longer scared into silence by a criminal.  They stood up to him, and he had nothing.  No explanation.  No excuse.  No threats to silence them.  Stripped of his power over them, he was just what he appeared to be–a pathetic, perverse criminal.  He could resort only to what he surely would have done had they come forward as children.  Accuse them of lying and hope he would get the benefit of the doubt because he was Coach Sandusky.  The easy path for these men would be to continue to hide and push this into the past.  By facing Sandusky, they put him where he needed to be long ago.  One can only hope that this will give them each–and the others who did not come forward–some measure of peace.
  • At the outset of this sorry tale, there was a feeling that the folks of Happy Valley would never turn against mighty Penn State.  Sandusky surely would be in good shape with a jury full of fans.  As it turns out, the power of football collapsed under the weight of a small town’s shame over one of its own.  When Sandusky’s conviction was announced, all reports are that there was cheering outside the courthouse, followed by jeering of Sandusky as he was led away in handcuffs.
  • I didn’t spend much time wondering if Sandusky did what he was accused of.  I’m a big believer in the criminal justice system.  Even those who commit crimes are entitled to put the government to its proof.  The jury did its job and not just because it returned convictions.  Their job was to reach a verdict based upon the evidence, and they did.
  • Justice was served in the only way it can be.  Let the court and jury decide his fate.  But make no mistake, there was no winner here.   Even if they gain some measure of peace now, the victims can’t undo the damage done to them by a person who came into their lives to help, not hurt them.  Sandusky gets to live the rest of his life in protective custody–23 hours a day in a 6 x 8 cell.  His wife and children have this hung around their necks like millstones.  Penn State will be scrubbing this stain for a generation.  The administrators, coaches, social workers and no doubt others who could have intervened will live with the knowledge that much of this could have been stopped.  This sad, shameful story had many authors, and no one could come up with a happy ending.
  • I can’t help but wonder why these things happen.  No one asks to be a victim nor do they invite such attacks.  Really, there is no answer.  As surely as there are good people, there are bad ones.  We cross paths with both every day.
  • When this story broke, it was largely a Penn State football story.  Who exactly was this Sandusky? What did Coach Paterno know?    We needed to know more about Mike McQueary.  Paterno was fired–an unthinkable act before Sandusky became a household word.  As the victims made their stories public, football faded away–even in Happy Valley.  When Paterno died, that marked the symbolic–if not actual–end to the football story.
  • The story isn’t over.  Like the abuses in the Catholic churches, you can expect years of civil litigation.  There will be more stories, more brutal details, but none will have quite the impact of what we heard the past two weeks.
  • Despite the horrific details of Sandusky’s behavior, tempering our reactions is necessary.  Sports are not over-run with pedophiles.  Our children are not in constant danger.  We would do well to remember the McMartin Preschool case and its surrounding mania.  Such accusations are easy to make and difficult to defend.  I knew a man who was tried and acquitted on molestation charges.  It didn’t matter.  His life was substantially destroyed.
  • Following the trial, I was surprised at how important it became to me that Sandusky be convicted.  As a lawyer, I’ve become conditioned to allowing these things to play out.  I was glad he was convicted, and I’m equally glad that he will spend his remaining years in prison.  I have no interest in seeking revenge on him by turning him loose in the general prison population.  That won’t help the victims.  It will only turn Sandusky into one himself.
  • I still don’t know what I learned from this, other than there is bad in the world.  I already knew that, of course.  I guess I need a reminder some times.

©thetrivialtroll.wordpress.com 2012

The Night I Fought A Girl

I never was a skilled fighter.  I’m small and have a big mouth, especially when primed by strong drink.  So, I did get in fights, but I fought dirty and usually ran at the first chance.  As a result, I don’t have good fight stories.  Except one.  Well, it may not be a good story, but it’s a story, and it’s more or less true.

I fought a girl.  There, I said it.  It wasn’t the only opportunity I had for such a fight, but it was the only one that turned into a real brawl.  Oh, I’d been hit two or three times before, had a couple of drinks thrown on me and been cursed at often.  I was quite the charmer in my youth. But, there was only one fight.

It was Oktoberfest 1986.  I had a friend who was working in the beer garden.  She told me that if I came by and helped her, I could have free beer.  Since she was also a fetching lass, I agreed to help.  I helped for a while and sold a bunch of these buckets of beer.  I had a few buckets myself (Note: If you measure your drinking in “buckets,” you may have a problem).  After a short time in the beer garden, I wasn’t really much help, but I kept working.

Toward the end of the night, a good friend of mine happened by, and I generously served him several buckets.  The evening wound down, and I was having no luck with any lasses, fetching or otherwise.  My friend (I shall call him “Stu” to protect his identity.  He is a respectable citizen now) offered to give me a ride home.  I closed up the beer garden and we left.

On the way home, Stu suggested we stop at Jerry’s Restaurant.  Jerry’s was notable for two things.  One, it was open 24 hours a day; and, two, it served breakfast all day and all night.   It was a favorite for late night dining.  We sat down and ordered.  I ordered the Big Breakfast.

While we waited for our food, two young couples came in.  Without any provocation on our part, one of the young ladies pointed at me and shrieked:  “What are you looking at?!?!”  Now, these are well-known fighting words, right up there with “What’s your problem?!?!”  My food had been served, and I wasn’t in the mood for any conflict.  So, I tried to defuse the situation by asking:  “WHAT THE —— DID YOU SAY?” The young lady then fairly screamed:  “Don’t make fun of our dates!!!”  This struck me as odd, since we hadn’t paid any notice to this girl or the “dates.”  Stu, being the peacemaker, said:  “Hey, shut the —- up. We’re eating.”  You would think this would have ended the potential conflict, but no.  It seemed to enrage her further.

She repeated her earlier demand stating: “STOP LAUGHING AT US!  DON’T MAKE FUN OF OUR DATES!”  Stu stood up.  He was a big dude, 6′ 3″ and about 230. I was a much less impressive 5′ 8″ 140.  Stu’s witty rejoinder was: “We weren’t making fun of those two —holes, but we will now.”  Well, that didn’t go over well with the girls or their dates.  The dates attacked Stu, who proceeded to beat the crap out of both of them–quickly.  He hit one guy in the chest with a forearm, and he just collapsed.  Stu grabbed the other guy and threw him into the coat rack.

Like I said, I’m not a fighter. I was watching.  I had a mouthful of food when the big-mouthed girl somehow sneaked up behind me.  Quite unexpectedly, I was being strangled.  Not just strangled, but strangled while swallowing a big forkful of pancakes.  Oh, and the fingernails.  They were digging into my jugular vein.  Now what?  She had come over the back of the booth and was literally choking the life out of me.  If I had my wits about me, I would have stabbed her in the neck with my fork, but I was disoriented.  As the life was draining from me, I reached behind me and managed to grabbed her hair.  With Herculean strength I pulled her over the booth and was prepared to beat the stuffing out her.  Here was the problem:  If a drunk chick is strangling you in a public place and you rip big chunks of her hair out, it is a mistake to pull her on to you.  It was like someone tossing me a wolverine.

Needless to say, Big Mouth and I spilled into the floor where she was wild-eyed and clawing at me like one of the Walking Dead on a meth bender.  For a split second, I realized I was fighting a girl and in real danger of an ass whipping.  This was all I needed to regain my composure. She came at me once more.  Mistake.  As she flew toward me, I grabbed her hair again.  This time, I slammed her face-first into the floor.  She didn’t look so tough after that, what with all the crying and carrying on.

That was it.  The fight was over.  The manager of the restaurant apologized to us and gave us free meals.  The scratches on my neck weren’t that bad.  Oh, the whole fight lasted maybe 30 seconds.  Seemed like a lifetime. Stu said it was one of the funniest things he’d ever seen.  Guess you had to be there.

©thetrivialtroll.wordpress.com 2012