Clowns to the left of us. Jokers to the right.

Lawyers and politicians in New Jersey can rest a little easier today: Clowns, apparently, are now hated by kids of all ages. Maybe people hate clowns even more than they hate attorneys and elected officials. Move over, Boffo.

A study done by the University of Sheffield in the UK has found that “children don't like clowns and even older kids are scared of them.” They took a poll of young people as they examined how to improve the décore of children’s wards in hospitals. Too bad, so sad, Bozo.

"As adults we make assumptions about what works for children," said Penny Curtis, a senior lecturer in research at the university. "We found that clowns are universally disliked by children. Some found them quite frightening and unknowable."

Wow. Sorry, Eric.

I guess none of those kids ever drove on Route 1 at 5pm or had to read a local property tax bill or drive to the Jersey Shore in July. Then they would know what scary really is.

Start the Jewish New Year with chutzpah, I always say.

This story is from the New Jersey Lawyer: (the only thing it has to do with New Jersey):

A DICTATOR STANDS UP FOR HIS GOOD NAME

A panel of three Indonesian Supreme Court judges has ordered Time magazine to pay $106 million for defaming the country's former dictator, Suharto, and Time's lawyers have vowed to fight the award in the name of press freedom. Time's Asian edition asserted in a May 1999 cover story that after four months of reporting in 11 countries, it had discovered that Suharto had secreted away more than $15 billion in European banks before he left office in 1998. The former dictator tried to sue Time in several Indonesian courts without success until the latest panel, which includes a retired general who rose quickly through the ranks during Suharto's reign, ruled in his favor. Attempts to bring Suharto to court for corruption and human rights abuses, meanwhile, have failed, with one judge ruling in 2000 he was too ill to stand trial.

Now, here is a guy who helped kill people, too:

"...a CIA study of the events in Indonesia assessed that 'In terms of the numbers killed the...massacres in Indonesia rank as one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century'..."

But he gets a good lawyer, and sues for defamation. So, lesson learned: Even dictators have legal rights to clear their good names in court.

I, Robo-call

"Hello, this is Bill Clinton. I am supporting Democrat Melvin Smendrovich for Borough Council in Jerseytown because Melvin shares my values on the 'kitchen table' issues that...."

"Hey folks this is Joe Piscopo. We both know that New Jersey needs Republican Petey McPeters to be the next governor. He'll work hard everyday to...."

We've all received the dreaded robo-calls come election time. Automated phone canvassing calls that come day and night. They come with increasing frequency as we get closer and closer to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

They block our phone service. They are annoying, coming at the most inconvenient time. Dinner. In the shower. During love making. However, they serve a purpose of re-minding voters over and over again to support Melvin in his race for Jerseytown Borough Council. That Melvin is the best person for the job. If Bill Clinton can take the time out of his busy day to call you [albeit automatically], then Melvin is the person you should support.

Unfortunately for the hapless Jerseytown resident, robo-calls are a part of campaigns because they’re cheap and they work to election advantage. So, what if robo-calls tick off a voter or two? If they get your candidate elected, they will be part of the campaign strategy.

Legislative Effort in Trenton

There is an effort in Trenton to curtail robo-calls or ban them altogether. While such legislation may run afoul of the First Amendment, several states have enacted laws impacting the practice.

For guidance in dealing with this issue, perhaps Trenton should turn to science fiction writer Isaac Asimov. In his novels Asimov developed the following Three Laws of Robotics ----[most likely not written by a lawyer from NJ]:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

These seem to be clear rules regarding what criteria the state legislature should use in adopting an anti-robo calls bill.

“No harm to a human being?”
Sounds good to me.

“Robots must obey orders”?
This will work just fine.

“A robot must protect its own existence”?
Well, maybe that one will get fixed in committee.

If you and your robot support such a bill, call your legislator's office over and over again----but wait until he or she is eating lunch or in the shower.