Jackie Mason was (past-tense) one of the greatest stand-up comedians but he has long since turned into someone doing a sad, unfunny impression of Jackie Mason. In an attempt to hasten his descent into embarrassment, he co-authors occasional political columns with a lawyer named Raoul Felder. They're not particularly clever and rarely in sync with reality, and I have to remind myself that, just because I once liked Mason, I don't have to read them.
The Washington Times — which is nearly incapable of criticizing a Republican or praising a Democrat — sometimes runs them. They ran one the other day which included this line which I find incredible, even for a rabidly right-wing newspaper…
Remember the Paula Jones case? That was when Mr. Clinton, the president, supposedly the representative of the highest American values, was fined $1 million when he was convicted of sexual harassment.
Did I miss something? I don't recall Bill Clinton being convicted of anything in that matter. I recall the judge tossing Jones's case out of court as without merit. Then, when it looked like it might get reinstated, Clinton settled out of court for $850,000. Mason and Felder even got the amount of money wrong.
I'm kinda dismayed to see this in a real newspaper. Did the editor not read it? That would be gross incompetence. Did he read it and think it was true? Also, gross incompetence. Did he read it, know it was untrue and print it anyway? That would be pretty irresponsible. An editorial page can present a wide range of opinions but those opinions are supposed to be based on some genuine facts.
It's also dismaying to see this coming from Jackie Mason, a man who has spent his career claiming — with some merit — that he'd been unjustly lied about. He was effectively blacklisted when Ed Sullivan claimed Mason had made an "obscene gesture" on a broadcast. He had bullets fired at him when it was erroneously reported he'd ridiculed Frank Sinatra in his act. I seem to recall several other such incidents, including a paternity suit from a stripper. (Mason claimed it was bogus. Wonder if he settled out of court…) Of all people, you'd think Jackie Mason would be certain that when you convict someone of wrongdoing, you have your facts right.
I doubt there will be a retraction or correction. The Washington Times doesn't like to do that, and the column will not attract much attention, anyway. I just felt I oughta remark that my low opinion of a once-admired comedian has hit rock-bottom. (Here's a link to the entire column if you want to read it, God knows why.)