she has a point.
in all this week's craziness surrounding our (crazy) governor's (crazy) attempt to turn his administration into a mirror image of the 18th century french court, the words crazy, delusional, insane, psychotic, sociopathic, unhinged, unbalanced, etc., have been thrown around with glee to describe g-rod's possible motivation.
(i'll admit it. i'm one of the gleeful ones.)
but last night, at a little cocktail party with some non profit chief execs, the ceo of a children's aid agency said, 'what if he is mentally ill? is it still funny?'
and we stopped laughing.
because, in all reality, mental illness isn't funny.
which is why, from now on, i'm no longer going to refer to the governor as crazy. not just because it's not funny to make fun of the mentally ill but because i really don't believe he is.
he's just crass, corrupt, venal, dishonest and overwhelmingly stupid.
which begs the question: is it ok to make fun of the stupid?
and i say, of course.
holding up the stupid to ridicule is permissable when the formula follows thusly: stupid + power + (crippling pride - impulse control) = target.