Beware Public Toilet Onanists!

I am no psychologist and have never had much respect for this particularly “soft” science. But life has taught me to trust my instincts. And what my instincts tell me about a certain local scribbler self-convinced he is a writer is that he knows not whence he cometh and therefore should be left to his vices.

Let’s face it, when a boy can conceive of no other way to deal with his frustrations and his seething anger than to seek relief in a hardly private public toilet at Marchand, what else is there to do but let the salty dog lie? Especially when years later—and Lord alone knows how many more prurient visits to his favorite pissoir—such salty dog continues to believe his particular proclivity is of such public interest as to warrant recording it in his self-published memoir!

The self-confessed masturbator also fancies himself something of an intellectual. Not so long ago he was lead among Timothy Poleon’s lunchtime mosquitoes that evidently could not accept the irreducible fact that “as soon as convenient” had no hidden meaning, that it actually meant just that: as soon as convenient. If only for a while the law shut him up: When interpreting statutory writing the ordinary meaning of words was what mattered, not the pants of closet perverts.

Then again, there was the famous Stephenson King speech, wherein the beleaguered prime minister acknowledged experiencing the depleting effects of constant opposition—until he read certain inspiring lines by Dr Martin Luther King Jr and the legendary U.S. President Thomas Jefferson. Like the prime minister, both men had admitted in their memoirs to moments of self-doubt, moments when they imagined themselves not up to the demands of their calling. Uplifted by what he had read, the local King had then told himself, in effect: If men as great as Dr. King and Jefferson had experienced moments of self-doubt, then why not him?

The admitted onanist could hardly wait to add his own voice to those that conveniently had misconstrued the prime minister’s humbling words. “I heard the speech,” he assured Newsspin’s host, “and I agree with your previous callers that Stephenson King compared himself with Dr. Martin Luther King.” As if indeed he were of a higher order of illiterate and his stupidity worthy of respect!

Last week he was at it again, insisting that something I’d said on TV a day or so earlier about having acknowledged a “vested interest in the success of the King government” wasn’t quite what I had said in 2006-7. By his recollection I had stated quite clearly that I had “a vested interest in the King government staying in power.”

I have no idea what was his point, except that it sought desperately to attack my credibility and make me a flip-flopper. I could not see the essential difference between wishing a government success (as should all right-thinking citizens) and wishing that same government stays in office. Governments are retained on the basis of their successful policies. In any event, I am well known as one who will praise a government today, then criticize that same government tomorrow. To borrow from John Maynard Keynes: “When the facts change, I change my mind!”

But according to toilet logic, evidently, you can’t with good reason say, as I did of Stephenson King in 2007, a particular leader is unfit to lead boy scouts and a short time later—also with good reason—say “he took his ship through stormy seas safely to port without any casualties.”

Said the admitted public-toilet masturbator, by my words I proved I was inconsistent. Otherwise, regardless of the contrary evidence, I would’ve continued to say “King is unfit to lead boy scouts!” Evidently my critic had never learned about the pitfalls inherent in foolish consistencies. Or maybe he did and forgot all he had learned.

Some psychologists insist that among the side effects of onanism, especially the public-toilet variety, is memory loss. I won’t say I agree, if only because that wouldcontradict what I said earlier. But then my instincts—and much evidence—suggest this time around the psychologists may have a point worth taking seriously!