Court

Court: (n) a tribunal presided over by a judge

I’ve only been in a courtroom twice. In both cases, I was innocent. In both cases, I walked in innocent and walked out innocent.

But not really.

Contrary to popular opinion from television shows, once you are summoned to the high court, the low court—or even a medium court, you will always be considered suspect.funny wisdom on words that begin with a C

Matter of fact, I have never spoken on the subject before. Why? Because I would not want to deal with what you would think.

Even though I committed no crime, discussing being accused of misbehavior only makes people believe that I found a slick way to weasel out of it—or there just wasn’t enough evidence to produce the desired verdict.

Just as we have faith in our doctors, we also have an unrighteous allegiance to the legal profession—and also the police force.

I do not think it’s good to be critical of those who serve us, but I think it is foolish to contend that their decisions are free of error, and even might occasionally be marked by folly.

Once you find yourself in a court, you must never refer to it again, and you must be fully aware that if anyone finds out about it, they will assume that “where there’s smoke there must be fire.”

It’s very interesting to me that a burning fire produces less smoke than a fire that has been extinguished. That seems to escape us when we’re trying to evaluate, judge and even condemn other people.

So the best thing to do is stay out of court unless you make your living as a lawyer, stenographer, judge or baliff. They are the only ones who seem to escape being tainted by the spirit of the room.

  Donate Button


Subscribe to Jonathan’s Weekly Podcast

Good News and Better News

 

Advertisements

Borrow

Borrow: (v) to take and use something that belongs to someone else with the intention of returning it.

I have an inkling that determining whether people are getting older can be evaluated by judging the shows they watch on television.Dictionary B

For instance, when I was younger I would never have watched “Wheel of Fortune.” And even though I would not call myself an avid viewer now, it is occasionally on in the background while I do other things.

Likewise, I would have made fun of myself for watching the judge shows like “People’s Court.”

I bring this up because on these court TV shows, each case finishes up with an interview in the outside hall, where the announcer asks the litigants what they learned from the experience. Universally, the eternal truth that falls from their lips is, “Don’t trust anybody.”

Benjamin Franklin intoned, in his pseudo-intellectual way, “Neither a lender nor a borrower be.”

It is a wonderful philosophy–if you are never in need.

But since my life has been bespeckled with all varieties of poverty and prosperity, I can appreciate the fact that every once in a while … you are one cup of milk and one bowl of cereal short of breakfast.

Donate ButtonThank you for enjoying Words from Dic(tionary) —  J.R. Practix 


Jonathan’s Latest Book Release!

PoHymn: A Rustling in the Stagnant

Click here to get your copy now!

PoHymn cover jon

 

 

Bigot

Bigot: (n) a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

Dictionary B

No sane people would ever admit they were intolerant.

It is easy to tuck and hide intolerance behind the holy pillars of experience, education, religious affiliation, racial discoveries and traditions.

In other words, tolerance cannot be defined by merely claiming that no intolerance exists.

To avoid being a bigot, it may be necessary to accept a universal definition for intolerance. Arriving at this proclamation–or getting any group of individuals to agree on it–may be completely impractical.

So let me just say that I’ve developed my own definition which lets me know when I have slipped into the role of being a bigot.

It is as follows:

Intolerance is a smugness that prods me to change someone’s mind.

Whenever that creeps into my soul and churns with an evangelism to chase down an infidel idea, I know that I am flirting dangerously with, or have even consummated the action of becoming a bigot.

It should be satisfactory to possess a truth that enriches our lives.

There is nothing wrong with living that truth out boldly, allowing the fruit of that tree of knowledge to sprout evidence.

But the minute we begin to judge others by whether they are planting a similar seed is when we literally end up … with bigotry.

Donate Button

Thank you for enjoying Words from Dic(tionary) —  J.R. Practix 

 

Applicable

dictionary with letter A

Ap·pli·ca·ble (adj): relevant or appropriate.

Sometimes I feel like a helpless city with no defenses, being bombarded by a society which senses no responsibility for viciously attacking in the pursuit of gaining its will.

It doesn’t matter what the issue is–every advocacy group is obsessed with its own form of tunnel vision, and contends that if you do not agree with them in every principle, that somehow or another you are suffering from a phobia against their cause.

No one is stopping to ask an important question: what principle is really applicable to the ongoing sanity and peaceful coexistence of human beings?

Let me explain.

I have lots of foibles. I suppose some people would even consider them sins. I am fat, bald, somewhat lazy and silly. There are individuals who would take any one of those and isolate me off in a box for direct FedEx shipment to hell. I have no malice toward them. I do not wish that they, too, would experience a fiery end. I just think their cause is overwrought and is trumped by a greater good which is often ignored in the pursuit of these pundits proving their point.

I just believe that the only applicable statement for those dwelling on Earth and confined by mortality is “no one is better than anyone else.”

  • So on the issue of abortion, I have empathy for both mother and child, so I grant freedom for choice and discovery of restraint.
  • How about racial issues? Since no one is better than anyone else, having God color you in with a different hue doesn’t seem very important.
  • Homosexuality? Since I probably will not be joining you in your bedroom, I would rather appreciate your company in the fellowship hall.

Life is not nearly as complicated as angry pollsters and protesting advocates try to make it out to be. I cannot judge you because if I were judged by the same standard, I would be weighed in the balances and found wanting.

Therefore what is applicable becomes that which is relevant. And what is relevant is that I have no control over your happiness–only the ability to hurt you and take away your joy.

So I shall not.

“No one is better than anyone else. ”

That is applicable.

Everything else is merely conversational, aggravating bullshit.

 Donate Button

Thank you for enjoying Words from Dic(tionary) —  J.R. Practix

Admissible

Words from Dic(tionary)

dictionary with letter AAdmissible (adj.): acceptable or valid, especially as evidence in a court of law.

Now THIS is interesting.

What if we conducted our relationships with one another with the same meticulous style that evidence is procured, packaged and presented in a courtroom?

What does constitute a case?

In relationships we think that all we have to do is express that we FEEL something, have an inkling, “we’re afraid,” or we’re just in a bad mood. We consider that to be sufficient circumstantial proof that our partner should bend his or her will in our direction.

Of course, that would never be admissible in a court room.

Can you imagine the prosecuting attorney rising to his or her feet and turning to the jury box and saying, “I don’t know.,.. maybe it’s because I didn’t get enough sleep last night, but I just really feel like Bob, sitting over in that chair, killed his friend, Phil, and even though I’m not positive, if you love me, you’ll go along with it …”?

No, that wouldn’t be acceptable. The defense attorney would lodge an objection which would be sustained by a judge, who would frown at the prosecutor for such presumptuous allegations.

So if we DID conduct our personal affairs with the same litigious demands required in the justice system, would we be better or worse off?

  • First of all, we couldn’t make accusations without evidence. And by the way, that particular proof would have to be obvious AND not merely hearsay on what our friends and neighbors allegedly believe.
  • Secondly, it would help if the culprit’s fingerprints were all over the weapon. The fact that our loved one OWNS a knife does not necessarily mean that he or she used it to kill somebody.
  • How about this one? We’d have to allow for cross-examination. Once we presented our case we’d have to be willing to listen to someone disagree without copping an attitude or stomping out of the room.
  • Eye witnesses would be helpful.
  • Photo evidence?
  • A video loop?
  • Past deeds could not be brought into play, because prior acts cannot be used in a present case.
  • And no allegation can be spoken aloud without evidence already being put forth and accepted.
  • We then would have to turn it over to either a judge or a jury of our peers, who would not be in our back pocket, but would swear impartiality to both parties.

In other words, we’d have to make a case instead of just have an attitude.

In order for our particular assertion to be admissible, it would have to be based on the facts instead of merely our feelings. We would probably end up with fewer fights … but more grudges.

Please make note: I am not suggesting that we do this, but I am saying that the same amount of effort it takes to convict someone of shoplifting should be granted as a courtesy to anyone we love.

Adjudicate

Words from Dic(tionary)

dictionary with letter A

Adjudicate: (v) make a formal judgment or decision about a dispute

Courts freak me out.

I suppose there are very few people, except lawyers who make $750 an hour, who find them appealing. I guess a judge might enjoy the atmosphere, since he or she gets to wear the robes. But if you’re not making the bucks or not getting to judge, that particular arena can seem like the Coliseum in Rome on a lions-chomping-Christians mid-afternoon.

I sometimes think about the fact that even though I am a law-abiding citizen, toeing the line and trying to be faithful to my responsibilities and as honest as I can possibly be, I do realize that if someone had a vendetta against me, they could probably dig up something which could be misconstrued as criminal.

Isn’t that weird?

Sometimes in life, it’s not the piss in the pot that gets you in trouble, but rather, who you piss off.

About seventeen years ago, I took three children into my home. They were going through a rough time with their father, who certainly had some difficulties and struggles, and was not treating them up to par. I thought I was being generous. Damn–I thought I was being Christian. I thought I was helping a lady out, who was being abused, and her children, who were being somewhat neglected.

But this fellow took the legal system and used it against me, making up stories and twisting situations to get those in authority to adjudicate against me, forcing me into a courtroom to explain my actions.

As his lawyer sat in that room accusing me of everything except the Kennedy assassination, I realized how fragile we all are, and how we should never become so arrogant as to believe that our actions could not possibly be viewed as questionable.

So even though this gentleman was proven to be a charlatan, I still had to go through a grilling process which made me empathetic to a two-inch sirloin steak.

So what is my point?

None, really.

It’s just that legalities are filled with so much legalism that no one could ever escape if the law was determined to get them.

That’s why I tip my hat to policemen, stay away from downtown areas where there are lions sitting next to lots of steps in front of courtrooms, and I try to keep all of my disagreements simple, discussed and resolved.

Because if I ever started being adjudicated … I don’t know how well I’d hold up.

 

Abutment

by J. R. Practix

dictionary with letter A

Abutment: (n.) a structure built to support the lateral pressure of an arch or span, e.g., at the ends of a bridge.

There you go. I’ve been looking for the right term, and I think I’ve found it.

I want to be an abutment.

For many years I have been fully aware that there is a need for bridges between people in our society and the cultures in our world. Bridges are easy to understand–they’re just roads we pave to get from one place to another.

But because they have to go over circumstances and the rough terrain of bad attitudes, these bridges between people need to be lifted high, suspended in the air. To do that requires a structure that stands tall and firm in order to uplift the path and permit the bridge to be completed to the other side.

I want to be one of those abutments.

I want to be stubborn about the things that set people free instead of being stubborn about my prejudices.

I want to stand tall on principles that have lasted for thousands of years instead of ideas that have just been hatched and blogged in a thousand words.

I want to hold up the road that crosses the angry waters that exist between human civilizations.

What do I think makes a good abutment?

1. NoOne is better than anyone else. Superiority is the best way to keep us on the low road instead of suspending great ideas to the stars.

2. I’m going to stop blaming everybody for my problems. The day that we started blaming instead of claiming responsibility is the day we found excuses for failing instead of ways to correct error.

3. And finally, I’m not going to judge anyone because I can’t stand to be judged.

Can you imagine, if we just took those three abutments of great ideas and built them up strongly in our culture–how it would sustain a bridge for us all?

Yes, I want to be an abutment. I don’t have to be the bridge. I just need to learn to be strong about the things that are lasting, and admit my weakness about the things that are stupid.