Trivial Events

I tend to attach a negative meaning to trivial events.  As a matter of fact, my former employer, the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, fired me because I attach a negative meaning to trivial events.  I'm serious.  I'm not making this up.  The firm decided that I was not suitable for employment because I see meaning in trivial statements, body language, speech inflection, whatever.  "Freedman worries about nothing."  "Well, then, we'll just have to fire him!  We can't have people around here who worry about nothing."  There's even a court case about my job termination and the fact that I worry about nothing.  Freedman v. D.C. Dept. of Human Rights, D.C.C.A. no. 96-CV-961 (Sept. 1, 1998) (employees who worry about nothing are not suitable for employment).

Actually, I was the first "post-modern" employee.  Most employees worry about something.  I worried about nothing.

Jerry Seinfeld said his show Seinfeld was a show about nothing.  My job termination was a termination about nothing.  Freedman v. D.C. Dept. of Human Rights was a court case about nothing.  Although, as a result of my job termination I will be collecting about a quarter million dollars from the federal government.  Now that's something!  (Although, apparently, to the federal government, that's still nothing.  They print up billions of dollars an hour.  Treasury has got those printing presses going nonstop, 24/7.)

On January 15, 2010 two officers from the Justice Department showed up at my residence.  They wanted to interview me about a law enforcement issue.  It was an investigation about nothing, really.

The officers were concerned about my blog, My Daily Struggles, and the fact that I had quoted a federal official as saying, "This case has been screaming for attention for years!"  One officer said: "You're trying to make your case look like it was about something.  That's deceptive.  Your case was about nothing.  Everybody knows you worry about nothing."

"Mr. Freedman, we're with the Justice Department.  You're in serious trouble!"



You may ask, given my tendency to attach a negative meaning to trivial events, do I see some meaning in the Justice Department's concerns, some ulterior motive?  Of course, I do.  In my mind, everything has a double meaning; everything is implied, everybody has an ulterior motive.

Oddly enough, on Saturday January 2, 2010 -- about two weeks before -- I had written a blog post with the title:  "Medicare: What More Could I Do? -- Scream From the Rooftops?"

http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2010/01/medicare-what-more-could-i-do-scream.html

Notice the word scream in the title of my blog post from January 2, 2010.  Is it possible that what the Justice Department was really interested in was that particular blog post -- and not the blog post in which I had quoted a federal official as saying: "This case has been screaming for attention for years?"  Maybe.

But then, I notice trivial events.  I attach a negative meaning to trivial events.  That's what I'm paid to do.  Yes, the federal government is paying me handsomely to worry about nothing.  I hope they know they're getting their money's worth!  My Social Security Disability claim is a claim about nothing.  Literally and figuratively.  On October 29, 1991, I became disabled by virtue of the fact that I worry about nothing.  Now, that's something for taxpayers to worry about.  As for me, well, I don't pay taxes.  So I can go on worrying about nothing.