Judge Judy comes on everyday at four and four thirty and because I am rarely, if ever, home at these times, I record it. I realize this is somewhat strange. I mean, who DVRs daytime television? Especially when said program is mostly re-runs of episodes that first aired five or ten or even fifteen years ago. I believe Judge Judy, the program not the person, and I are roughly around the same age but some days there are new episodes and those days are joyous.
Judge Judy has four types of cases which I like to categorize as follows:
1) Dog Attack
2) Craigslist Sales Gone Bad
3) Somewhat Legal or Somewhat Illegal Evictions
and finally my favorite,
4) Disgruntled ex room-mate-lovers and the Sears bill.
On a good day, I'll catch at least one from two of these categories and to quote Ice Cube (with whom I've become somewhat obsessed after seeing Straight Outta Compton), "Today was a good day."
The first case involved two farmers. Farmer #1, Jim, had twenty-five sheep but now only has eighteen because the second farmer, Allen, has a dog who seems to really like sheep. Jim is suing Allen for the value of his "dead property," which are Jim's words, not mine. I realize this is probably the best way to describe the gone but not forgotten mutton but something I can't quite pin-point makes me uncomfortable about "dead property." Once something is property, is it not already dead? I don't know man, I don't know.
Regardless, Jim is suing Allen and Allen's defense seems to be, "itwasntme." Judge Judy didn't buy what Allen was selling but she also didn't agree with Jim's estimate of how much those sheep were worth. He wanted five thousand dollars for seven dead sheep and I believe Judge Judy's exact words were: "Cows, I could understand, but five thousand dollars for sheep? No way, Mister." Hm. Thoughts? On one hand cows produce milk, leather, and meat and if you're not a Brooklyn Vegan, those things are relatively important and although I'm not exactly sure what sheep do because I rarely think about sheep, I imagine it's important to someone. Someone, like for instance, Jim. Again, I don't know, man. I don't know.
The second case was about room-mate lovers, which I've already admitted is my favorite type of case. They were arguing about rented furniture, who got to keep it and who still had to pay for it. Judge Judy hates room-mate lovers and usually disposes of them quite quickly because she claims, "You can't live together like married people and then expect courts to handle your mess. Next time, get married." I rarely disagree with Judge Judy but anybody who has ever had to pay rent might realize the classism in such a statement. However, these room-mate lovers were being a bit petty and she might've been right this time. It was a dining room set and some bowls. Judge Judy told them both she "didn't go through seven years of graduate work to discuss bowls," which is somewhat funny because it is, however, "small claims court." It doesn't get much smaller than bowls. The roommate lovers talked about each other's drug-histories, run-ins with the law, mothers, and (lack thereof) cleanliness habits on national TV, all for the sake of these bowls, and all I could think about while watching was, Will I ever love a bowl this much? I don't know man, I don't know. Probably not. Probably. Not.