Thursday, August 29, 2013

Retro-spective

This Saturday (Aug. 31) I will celebrate (?) the fifty-ninth year of my birth.  As such, I thought, embarking on my sixtieth year would be an excellent time to ruminate (No, I am not chewing cud… look to the second definition) on what I have witnessed.  I will respect your time by promising to ramble no longer than two type-written pages.  You’re welcome!  Also, I will make a concerted effort to avoid inserting my tongue into the folds of my wrinkled cheek as I normally do.  I apologize.

Where to begin?  I suppose the obvious answer is at the beginning.  Truth be told, I have no clear recollection of the beginning but I suppose it is safe to make some assumptions based on available evidence.  Now as I believe that human life begins at conception, I have to assume that the very start of my life began with my parents engaging in sex.  Okay, then… we have just proved that one should not consider the absolute beginning of one’s own existence.
So what then of the second milestone; birth?  Well, I have no real memory of that either.  Any time I questioned my mother about her maternity experience; she would slap my face and run out of the room crying.  This continued until I learned to avoid the issue somewhere around my fortieth birthday.  It wasn’t that I had lost interest but the dentist suggested if the beatings continued I would develop TMJ.
Ah, the sweet innocence of childhood in the golden age of America when Communists were scary and Nazis were funny.  I remember some neighbors added fallout shelters to their backyard landscape design.  I guess when you count your age in single digits, global political threats to survival are difficult to assimilate into one’s world model.  But oh what fun we had playing in the dark where are parents couldn’t find us; although, I don’t remember them looking for us all that diligently.  There seems to be consensus that those times were much simpler and children could frolic safely through the neighborhood.  But perhaps the reality is, our parents knew we were easily replaced (I refer you to paragraph 2).
The summer of love: My teen years were spent in the halcyon days of the flower generation.  Hair grew longer and toleration shorter.  It seemed that everybody was angry at someone over some thing.  I was angry because I couldn’t find anything to be unhappy about, except that NBC cancelled the Man from Uncle.  And they wouldn’t answer my letters of protest.  I do blame Laugh-in for my recently detected brain damage.  The most pressing issue requiring rigorous debate was, “Genie or Samantha?”
All Hail to Monte Vista…  Oh, the sweet memories of high school.  I have often heard that the teen years are fraught with emotional danger; pitfalls of discovering one’s true identity.  Many of my friends have related tales of woe because they did not fit in.  I had no trouble in that regard.  If there wasn’t enough room, I’d just shoved the guy next me over until there was ample space.  If the dork on the end of the bench wound up on the floor that was his problem, he should have spent less time in the library and more time in the weight room like me.
College: The foundry that forges us into the productive adults we are destined to become.  Well, as I graduated from high school in 1972 and the date on my college diploma reads 1981, and I promised to keep this missive at two pages or less, there is not enough room to go into detail.  Suffice it to say that there was a false start or two.
I heard the call of public service.  It was a wrong number.  It’s not that I don’t hold the highest respect for those who commit their lives to the betterment of society, but they will have to proceed in their vocations without me.  Police officers, fire fighters, teachers, Cal-trans workers are all irreplaceable cogs in the machinery of civilized society.  But my contribution will be limited to the egregious taxes I paid en route to financial independence.  I sure hope those government pensions hold up against the Obamanization of the economy, boys.
On to my career in business: Well, if you saw the wisdom of limiting my comments on college, you’re going to be ecstatic over my self-restraint on this topic.  To summarize: Everything I needed to know to be an effective leader in business could be found in the Boy Scout Handbook.  It really is a shame I never cracked it open. Well, I did read their essay on masturbation.  The Boy Scouts of America are okay with it, as long you’re fantasizing about someone of the opposite sex.
And now that I’m retired (have been for nearly ten years-nyuck, nyuck, nyuck), what do I think of life?  Well, it sure seems better than the alternative!
***

This week’s punch line:
“Would I! Would I!”
“Hair Lip! Hair Lip!”

 

 

 

 

 

Thursday, August 22, 2013

How or Why ?


“There are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don’t” – Robert Benchley
WAIT!  This is not a summer rerun.  But you are correct; you have read this quote in an earlier post.  That’s because one of the simplest styles of analysis is compare and contrast.  And we all agree, I am nothing if not simple.
While the concepts here are not nearly as globally important as the dissertation on “cat people” vis-à-vis “dog people”, I will be treading into territory rife with metaphorical land mines.  Today’s cerebral wanderings concern construction and causality.  So I proffer, there are two kinds of people, those who ask “How?” and those who ask “Why?”
I do not speak specifically of any individual among my readers.  I suppose that is unusual in this case as I normally type people I know.  You needn’t admonish me, I am aware that stereotyping or profiling is currently considered bad form, but every breathing (and some perhaps who are not) human being has behavior tendencies and it is essential for effective communication that a writer or speaker recognize those personality definers.  It is equally important that would-be communicators know their own personality definers as they shade the message and may make it unacceptable to the targeted audience.  But I digress.
We have, I am sure, experienced the interposition of the two questions and perhaps have even committed this error ourselves.  “How could this happen?” and “Why does a lead to b?” both mean the opposite of the definition of the operative words.  How indicates a desire to understand an association, operation or evolution of some phenomenon.  Why assigns a philosophical quality to an observed event.
“How?” is the realm of engineers and scientists.  They spend their labors investigating the chain of causality and applying the truths uncovered toward the development of technologies targeting humanities challenges from hunger to electronic social networking.  If they can quantify it, apply it, predict it and document it they are happy.  They don’t care why it works… as long as it works within acceptable ranges of statistical predictability.
“Why?” then is the fairy land of dreamers.  It was my good luck to have worked for an employer which recognized the value of continual professional development.  As a result I participated in countless critical thinking and analytic tools seminars.  Among the plethora of techniques to which I was exposed was the Five Levels of Why.  To describe it simply, the technique purports that attacking any problem (unacceptable error rate, in geek speak) by asking and answering “why?” five times, the investigator will uncover the true root cause.  The technique has its merits and I have used it successfully on several occasions.  The problem with this technique is that it is misnamed.  We are not really searching for “why?” the error occurs, rather “how?” does the system produce the unwanted result. Why it happens is of no consequence to the solution.
At this juncture you may be thinking, “Dale, you effete snob. You are simply parsing words!”  To which I reply, “You don’t understand the meaning of the word effete!” To prove my point, let me take you through a mental exercise.
The earth orbits the Sun.  Do we all agree this is simple statement of fact borne out by observation of the evidence available?  Good!  If not, please go to Google! and look up Nicolaus Copernicus.  Go ahead, we’ll wait here.
Ah, you’re back. As I was saying, the evidence at hand demonstrates that our test statement is true (meaning factual, not morally correct… now, that is parsing words, in case you were confused a bit earlier) and any parent, god-parent, au pair, or teen-age babysitter for a three-year old can tell you the next question is, “Why?”  And you would reply, “Gravity!”
Now you are thinking, “But Dale, you are hoist on your own petard!  You have given us the very ammunition we need to blow up your thesis.”  To which I ask you to advance the conversation to the level of a five-year old, “What is gravity?”  Okay, hot shot, give that one a tumble.  Aha, you can’t!  Because nobody knows what Gravity is.  You might say, “That’s silly, everyone knows that gravity is a bending of space-time by the presence of matter.”  And you would be correct. If you are of a scientific bent, you would most probably be able to apply the calculus tools necessary to predict the behavior of orbiting bodies (and no, I cannot).  But application of said tools would merely demonstrate how gravity works.  I challenge you, answer this question: why does it work?  Go ahead and think on it a bit, I’ve got a good twenty-five years, give or take, left.  I’ll be glad to entertain any theory on why gravity works.
Now, back to the purpose of “Why?”  At some point in the discussion of any physical system (or process) we come to the technological limit of current knowledge.  This is the parking lot where we leave our “How?” tractor behind and change to the “Why?” star ship because continuing this journey is going to take us into the realm of fantasy and myth.  Whether you believe God set the universe into motion or Tinkerbelle sprinkled fairy dust on it; whatever the subject at hand, when you drill down into why deep enough, you come up with the same answer… because!  And from that point on, it is all conjecture based on faith, no matter what faith you have chosen.
The answer to the question posed by this missive doesn’t really matter except that it clarifies how one sees one’s self.  When handed a poser do you ask, “How?” or “Why?” 

***

This week’s punch line: “This morning they were all in the bed of the truck and one of ‘em was in the cab honkin’ the horn!”

 

  

 

Thursday, August 15, 2013

Superfulous Dictum


For those of you who have a passion for writing, you will most probably in very short order recognize this missive as an exercise in narcissism if you have not already.  The topic of this week’s self-indulgence is writing; or more specifically, why I write.
Do you remember in your days of youth (not so long ago for some of you, eh Swee’pea) the pain you associated with written assignments; book reports, themes, essays?  Are you still the victim of psychosomatic hand cramps and migraines delivered of minimum page counts?
Well, I was like you at one time.  My parents could drive me to a desk with whip and chair.  They could super glue a Bic pen to my hand.  They even threatened to confine me to my bedroom during the Thursday televising of Batman (always the sucker for a good cliff hanger, I am).  But they could not compel me put words to paper.
“What changed?’ you ask.
Hmm, I don’t know.  But I do remember that I was not a reader either. In the days of my elementary school studies, I would never read the assigned text book passages.  I would go to the end of the chapter and see how much of the material tested in the study questions there I could answer without benefit of the prescribed lesson. If I was successful at conjuring up reasonable answers to say seventy percent of the questions, I considered myself well versed in the topic and therefore in no need of further edification.  On the other hand, if my life experience proved a bit lacking, I would scan the assigned reading material for key words mined from the study questions and commit a few passages to memory.  That was me, the “C” student par excellence.
The same pattern seemed to work through most of high school.  I was compelled to read a few books though.  It seems I remember A Tale of Two Cities (Charles Dickens, I recommend it) and The Tragedy of Julius Caesar (William Shakespeare… skip right over this one and go to Hamlet… just as much carnage and way more humor, in a sick and twisted way); I was able to successfully avoid Great Expectations (Dickens again… too many pages) and Les Miserable’s (Hugo… more pages than GE, and way more depressing). To this day I cannot differentiate the Greek Gods from the Roman Gods and have no idea how Thor is related to Aphrodite.  But for the quirky ability to remember key phrases from the teachers’ classroom dissertations and regurgitate them during the appropriate test, I would not have graduated High School.  My 3.0 GPA was purely a gift of the Criminology vocational program in which I spent my Senior year.
My first tour of Community College was a snap as I didn’t encounter any knowledge not previously mastered.  Achieving an Associate’s Degree with honors proved not that difficult and lulled me into a false sense of my own academic prowess as I transferred to San Diego State University.  I flunked out in two semesters. Can you imagine, those professors actually expected written demonstration of assimilation of concepts and original thinking to boot?  I was mortified too!
Once it became clear that I was not suited to a life-long career in Law Enforcement, I felt compelled to return to academia and secure a degree with some market potential.  I used a very scientific method to determine which career path offered the greatest opportunity for gainful and continued employment.  I perused the San Diego Union help wanted ads.  Now for you youngsters (yes, you Swee’Pea), back in the days before personal computers and the World Wide Web (yes, when the dinosaurs roamed the earth), the prescribed method for recruiting workforce talent was to place and ad in the local newspaper.  During this time, solicitations for accounting positions consistently comprised an average of one-third of the job offerings.  I therefore surmised that the best course of action was to obtain a degree in accounting.  I mean, how hard can it be to count money?
Well, I quickly learned that business school is not like any other academic program I had previously defeated by use of the above listed techniques.  For the first time I was compelled to read, study, produce.  Unlike history, literature or the behavioral sciences (snicker, snicker), business professors actually assign homework… especially for accounting classes.  And I dutifully put every effort into this iteration of my academic career even while working full time and supporting myself.  “What,” you may ask, “Precipitated this change?”  Did business foster some previously untapped scholastic passion?  Was the spirit of personal achievement suddenly awakened in my breast?  Could the proximity to attractive coeds fuel my efforts to excel?
No to all of these!  I was scared; scared that this was my last chance to avoid a life of menial, low-paying, unrewarding jobs. So I embraced the challenge and chewed my way through the curriculum, twelve units per semester, three semesters per year (yes, I attended summer school… I wanted this chapter of my life to close as quickly as possible).  This self-induced stress was unbelievable. I was so addicted to constant cerebral activity I found I could not relax my brain during the semester breaks.  To fill the vacuum, I began to revisit the literary tomes I had avoided earlier.  I wanted to read something that would soften the edge of business school.  And as I worked my way through Dickens and Scott and Dumas, and yes even Mallory, I found that it wasn’t just the story, but the language they used to tell it.  I fell in love with words.
I am sad to say, I have no talent for fiction.  I have tried. But I find I bore myself because everything I write feels like something I’ve read. Why not?  George Polti (French writer, 1867-1946) identified thirty-six dramatic situations as the limit for story plots. But as you have witnessed, I have no lack of energy (I’m not sure it qualifies for talent… you decide) for recounting stories of my life and sharing my observations on societal behavior and the current state of human knowledge.  And I do it all for you.
Well, that’s not entirely true.  I do it to show off by using big words and elegant phrasing.   Like the title of this missive promises: Superfluous dictum.
***

This week’s punch line: “…be a shame to eat him all at once!”  

Thursday, August 8, 2013

Darwinism Debunked!


I can foresee that even the title of this offering will cause some readers to get their hackles up.  Stop thinking! Take a deep breath.  If you take a moment to consider the authorship you will most probably realize that the content herein is unlikely to offend any reader, much less offer a cogent debate of what some consider the definitive question of our very existence.  However, to consider the hypothesis offered here, we must first explore the current state of scientific thought on the matter.
We all know of Charles Darwin (1809-1882), his voyage on HMS Beagle (1831-1836) and his dissertation that turned the world of biological theory on its head, On the Origin of Species (published November 24, 1859).  The meat of the matter is the role natural selection plays in the diversity of life witnessed on this planet.  In a nutshell: Every species reproduces as a rate faster than the food supply can support.  Therefore, in any reproductive generation, those individuals best equipped with natural attributes suited to their environment will live to reproductive age passing on their genetic tendencies while those less adapted will perish before reaching sexual maturity, causing their inferior characteristics to be lost.  Other than technical advances in understanding the actual biochemical mechanics (i.e., DNA mapping, et al) facilitating said reproductive operations, the theory stands as the hallmark and can be expressed in the aphorism, only the strong survive.  While concise, convenient and comfortable, this statement is belied by even your most casual observation of those humanoid creatures encountered during your last trip to the mall!
Human failings aside, Darwin’s work is a rather complete thesis on how we got to where we are now, unless you happen to be standing on a platform awaiting the arrival of a public transportation vehicle. Then it is my sad duty to inform you, dear reader, that you belong in the lower half of the evolutionary population and should just return home, crawl into bed and wait for starvation to consume you before you procreate.  I bought my first car at the age of seventeen and I was a late bloomer.  But I digress.
Darwin’s postulate rests heavily on the presumption that any species must compete for survival.  Yet as one can deduce from a trip to the mall or a glance at the bus stop as we cruise by in our privately owned motor vehicle, for humans this is not the case.  We have achieved the ability and formulated the philosophy to bring every one along, regardless of their attributes or relative contribution to the advancement of society as a whole.
As with most of my ideas, this one was born while engaged in an activity not remotely related to the subject at hand.  I was eating.  And it occurred to me the assumption of scarce food supplies was the petard that Darwin would be hoist upon.  We do not compete for food.  Our superior development of agricultural technology has resulted in an ability to feed the world’s human population many times over.  The reason people starve to death in the modern world is that we cannot efficiently transport the sustenance needed from where it is produced to where the starving people are.  At this point you probably expect me to deliver a treatise on how to solve this logistics dilemma.  If so, you will be disappointed.  Those knowing me well realize that my intellectual capacity falls far short of that challenge.  And then there is the more important reason that frankly, I don’t care.  I am more interested in demonstrating where Darwin got it wrong.
In the dawn of humanity, Homo sapiens sapiens were foragers.  They lived off the land by means of nomadic wanderings shoving into their mouths essentially anything that didn’t eat them first; raw meat, insects, low hanging fruit.  Then, on one glorious day some obscure band leaving no written record of the event stumbled upon a piece of animal flesh that was being charred by fire, most probably the result of a lightning strike.  It was the serendipitous discovery of this unlucky eland (I’m guessing, it might have been a kangaroo rat for all I know) that launched modern man onto his trajectory into gastro-epicurean sophistication.  If man truly had followed the Darwinian path, his development would have been staid in that moment.  For he had discovered the perfect cuisine, Bar-b-que!
Imagine the idyllic existence we would enjoy if our day was devoted to nothing but hunting meat then smoking it to perfection over the coals of our communal fire: No salad, no lumpy oatmeal, no Brussels sprouts.    
But as we know from the anthropological and archeological record, the ancient bipeds did not stop here.  Cooking, allowing them to eat more and preserve surplus meat, lead to substantial intellectual advancement.  And from there they progressed to fixed site agriculture and the milling of grains; bread.  While I like a good Bar-b-que brisket sandwich as much as anyone, we are learning that the gluten in wheat products is likely the cause for our current obesity epidemic.  Have you ever seen a fat caveman displayed in a natural science museum exhibit?
So, if Darwin’s conclusions had been based on sound science, man would have stopped evolving when fire charred animal flesh made its way onto our menu.  And there would be no Souplantations, just Dave’s Famous B-B-Q… unless you felt compelled to stand in line.  Then you would go to Phil’s.
***

This week’s punch line: “Sorry partner, the doctor said you’re gonna die!”

Thursday, August 1, 2013

Miracle on Fifth Avenue


For those of you who are not familiar with my entire history, I offer the following preface to the subject story. I worked my way through Business School (my second college career) in the employ of an iconic regional department store chain shagging shoplifters.  Now back in the day, shagging was not a reference to sex as popularized by the Austin Powers franchise; it simply met apprehending.  As a security agent for this mercantile enterprise, I spent eight hours a day, five days a week with my attention riveted to nefarious elements of society seeking to gain possession of goods outside of the prescribed method of exchanging cash for stuff.
As referenced above, this was my second tour through the hallowed halls of higher education and as such, I was bit older than my academic peers.  I also had some small amount of law enforcement experience which added to my value.  Many of my coworkers were aspiring to police careers; I was on a trajectory in the opposite direction.  I was here because the threshold was low and for retail, the pay was decent.  While most entry level retail workers can expect to earn minimum wage, we in security were on average compensated at about twice that rate.
There were two reasons; the need to exercise good judgment when making an arrest, and more importantly, the potential for violence. It is the latter of these that I’m sure the Director of Security was thinking when I was hired.  I was young, big, fit and suitably aggressive when switched on. That my surprise some of you who have known me only for a few years.  As accounting and business rarely require the application of physical force to resolve issues, I have learned to keep my Incredible Hulk persona locked away in a dark and rarely visited place. Not so the case during the time of my life herein described.
I believe it was my third year working for the department store and my first at San Diego State University. As a third year accounting major in one of the most impacted academic regimens, my registration priority necessitated I take night classes.  I was fortunate that the store’s Director of Security did everything he could to accommodate my scheduling needs (thank you D.F.) and assigned me for this particular school year to the Downtown San Diego store located at Fifth and Broadway. Typically, agents were assigned to different stores on a daily basis and new schedules were posted each week. They might start their shift at store opening and end at five o’clock or start midday and go home when the store closed.  But the Downtown store, due to the nature of inner city shopping traffic patterns, opened at nine in the morning and closed at five that evening.
The Downtown store was unique in other ways as well. It was in an eight story building but only five floors were used for public retail activity.  The others had been abandoned to storage use. The square footage of each floor was relatively small. The first floor was connected to the second by the first escalator installed in San Diego. All other floors, basement to eight, were connected by manually operated elevators necessitating the retention of professional elevator (now there’s an oxymoron for you, Tink) operators.
Because Downtown was so unique, the agent assigned there was so fulltime, for a year.  Because this unusual schedule fit hand in glove with my class load for the year, I was the lucky man for the 1979-80 school year.
One shiny winters’ day I was joined by a colleague who was scheduled to testify at the trial of a shoplifter he had arrested at some past date. We will refer to him as Agent Bozo. Because of the Downtown store’s proximity to the courthouse, it was customary that an agent appearing in court would begin their daily shift therein, walk to the courthouse at the appropriate time and once released travel to another store to finish their shift.
As Bozo and I were surveying the morning store patrons, paying particular attention to the female trade, we noticed what appeared to be a downtown rustic (that’s code for homeless or indigent person) enter the store via the Broadway door.  He was a white male, approximately sixty years old, sported long white hair with a full beard and was less than sanitary by the standards of polite society.  He proceeded quickly, as with a sense of purpose, directly to the stairs leading to the basement where the Men’s attire department was housed.  As the stairs were hidden behind the escalator it seemed obvious to us he was more than passingly familiar with our layout. His demeanor caused our antennae to rise.
In a brief tactical communication comprised of eye direction and head nods (yes kids, just like on TV) it was determined that I would follow the suspect’s path while Bozo would retreat to the top of the secondary basement stairs that led to a door opening directly to the street.  It just so happened that our miscreant had left a bicycle parked at that location.
When I achieved the bottom of the back stairs, the subject of my pursuit was not to be seen.  I crossed the floor and headed up the alternate stairs as that was the most likely route for escape.  When I reached the door, there was our perpetrator in the clutches of agent Bozo wearing a brand new, fleece lined, Levis band, denim jacket not worn on the way in. Our spidey sense had proved accurate.
I opened the main floor door so Bozo could escort our quarry inside the store.  Once inside, my partner produced his hand cuffs and advised his prisoner that he was under arrest and should place his hands behind his back to facilitate the application of mechanical restraints. As most prisoners do at this point in the proceedings, ours made a reflexive move to jerk himself free of the clutches of Bozo.  Bozo responded by shoving our boy forward, slamming him into a sales desk and in a raised voice repeated his command.  This commotion now alerted the staff and customer population that some bit of action was unfolding that might be more dramatic than say, those panty hose they were preparing to purchase.
Based on my experience and observation of the present brouhaha, I believed that the rate of elevating violence was caused more than somewhat by Agent Bozo’s over aggressive approach to restraining what I recognized as a little old man.  But I felt expediency was the best tactic so I joined in the fracas by applying a control technique known as the carotid restraint to our prisoner.  It is, if applied properly, the fastest way to subdue a resisting subject while minimizing the potential for injury to all concerned.  (You might be asking at this point why I felt it necessary to throw my hand in against this unfortunate urchin. When you find your partner is engaged in a fight, no matter how lopsided, you throw your hand in.  If you don’t, you are saddled with a reputation that might prove disastrous for your own safety in some future confrontation.) This particular tactic often causes the receiving subject to emit a vocal gurgle and hoarsely claim, “You’re choking me!” (You’re not really, it just looks that way.)  From somewhere out of sight I could hear an excited juvenile voice retort, “Mommy, those men are killing Santa Claus!”
After a few seconds of the previously described restraint tactic, our boy calmed right down and Bozo was able to complete his application of the handcuffs. We escorted Santa upstairs to my office.  Bozo looked at his watch and announced that it was time for him to head to the courthouse.  I was left to deal with the agitated merry old elf and write the report.  The responding San Diego Police Officer (store policy was to arrest and prosecute all shoplifters) thought the written description of events was quite amusing. As per standard operating procedure, I took a Polaroid photograph of the jacket and returned the garment to the Men’s Department to be placed in inventory.
Some months later, when the memory of the event was awash in a sea of apprehensions, Bozo and I received subpoenas to testify in the criminal case against Santa Claus for petty theft.  This was unusual as most of our arrestees would plead guilty.  Our cases were pretty open and shut.  I saw him/her/them approach the merchandise; he/she/they picked up the blouse/necklace/jacket; I followed them to the door where he/she/they they exited the store without attempting the pay for the merchandise in his/her/there possession. Veni, vidi, vici!
At the appointed date and time, Bozo and I presented ourselves to the court as per the subpoena.  On this occasion, Bozo recommended we bring a jacket to court to present as evidence.  I followed his direction, retrieved a jacket from the Men’s Department and brought it with me.
As is customary, as one witness testifies, the other is directed to wait outside the courtroom so as to ensure there is no collusion between the witnesses.  On this occasion, Bozo testified first as I waited.  When Bozo had been thoroughly examined and cross-examined, I was called into court to give my testimony.  Under direct examination by the Deputy City Attorney, I relayed my version of the events as described in the preceding narrative. The attorney from the Public Defender’s office (defense counsel) then began his cross-examination.  He asked me one question, “Is this jacket the jacket described in your testimony as the article allegedly stolen by the defendant on or about the date and time indicated in your testimony?”
I looked at the jacket.  I noticed that thereon attached was a cardboard marketing panel used to describe to potential purchasers the features designed into this excellent sartorial offering.  I looked at the Polaroid photograph attached to my copy of the arrest report.  No such panel was evident. I thought carefully about my answer.  “Yes”, I averred.
The defense attorney dismissed me.  The prosecutor rested his case.  The counsel for the defendant then opened by calling Santa Claus to testify on his own behalf.  While he mounted the witness box and was sworn in: “…and nothing but the truth, so help you God?”  I was beginning to wonder if anyone else had noticed the inconsistency between the photograph and the jacket we had presented as evidence.  “I do!”
The defense opened with some preliminary basics then began his inquisitory, “Mr. Claus, could you relate to us your recollection of the events of the date and time indicated?”  I began a search of my mental rolodex trying to remember the penalty for perjury, and wondering if they would let me complete my current school semester before reporting for incarceration. Santa Claus turned to the judge (he had selected, as was his right, a trial by judge in lieu of jury), “Well sir,” he stroked his beard, “I went into the store and I stole that jacket.”
Edmund Gwenn couldn’t have played it better. 

*** 

This week’s punch line: “Slow Pygmies!”