I am not a fan of O.J. Simpson (nor do I play one on TV), and I’m tempted to revel in the idea that he might finally get a comeuppance.
You know, payback. What went around.
But I’ve got mixed feelings about the convoluted circumstances surrounding his latest foray into the headlines, which I don’t really understand.
On one hand, I’m thinking, this is a variation of a food fight, and the “fallen football star” — as the Associated Press insists on calling him — has been charged with eight felonies. Is this a bit of, uh … I was going to say “overkill,” but that might not be a good choice of words, given that this is O.J. we’re talking about here.
Let me put it this way: Are authorities just picking on him because they’ve maybe got a chance to punish him 13 years after the fact?
That’s on one hand.
On the other hand, I’ve been told by several Johnsons that I’m, well, a moron.
“Bullcrap,” I think was the word one of the Johnsons used.
The Johnsons said anyone else in similar circumstances would be charged and held accountable if proven guilty. Simpson, argued the Johnsons, shouldn’t be treated differently from anyone else.
Ergo, he shouldn’t be prosecuted just because he’s O.J., nor should he get a pass just because he’s O.J. and some have wondered if it’s just payback.
So who’s right — me or the Johnsons? One of us definitely is. Glad to clear that one up for you.
Oh, and another concern from your cat juggler: If O.J. does end up pulling chain, it’s going to interfere with his search for the real killers.
Pulling chain? Ya, it’s a new phrase I learned recently.
Speaking of the Johnsons, one of them told me I remind him of someone, but he couldn’t figure out who. Then he made a reference to “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.”
Now why would he say that?
And another Johnson story: one of them just stared at me recently when the topic of cat juggling came up. Why, she’d never even heard of it!
Scandalous, that’s what it is.
I explained that I, the cat juggler, am a Brownwood landmark — part of the cultural landscape, don’t you know. Like the Red Wagon.
And I’m envisioning a giant picture of myself with multiple cats next to the Underwood’s cowboy.
And speaking yet again of the Johnsons … someone recently quizzed me after reading my columns. It mentioned online comment forums in which people boldly attack people they don’t like while hiding behind anonymity’s skirts.
This person — who isn’t named Johnson — axed me, how is that any different from all the Johnsons who get quoted in my columns saying all kinds of things?
First of all, how do you know that these people aren’t really named Johnson? Hmm?
But let’s say for the sake of argument, only one of them is really named Johnson, but not the others.
This is twice in two weeks someone has challenged my logic (the second time being the O.J. situation). Let me attempt to spin it this way.
I don’t allow the Johnsons to carry out personal attacks on people, although they are kind of mean to your cat juggler sometimes, don’t you know. The Johnsons help me make observations about circumstances, events, faulty thinking or otherwise flawed logic, i.e. (any thinking or logic I don’t like is hereby deemed faulty and flawed).
Whether you believe Johnson is their real name, their quotes are real, and they’re usually conveying far better thoughts than I could come up with on my own. Let’s face it, I’m just not that original. What I’m basically saying is, “yeah, what he/she said. I wish I’d thought of that,” and I’m basically endorsing their comments, vicariously making them my own.
That’s my story and I’m sticking with it.
I probably should, however, review the Johnsons’ comments before proclaiming such a blanket endorsement — make sure none of them said “Castro rocks” or anything like that.
Steve Nash writes his column for the Brownwood Bulletin on Thursdays. He may be reached by e-mail at email@example.com.