At first blush, you might think that this was the coolest in the world to prevent employees from pocketing bribes: ban pockets. On second thought, this may not be as helpful as it appears at first thought. I.e., wasn't in Jack Kennedy who was notorious for wearing suits with no pockets, so he could never be impelled to pick up a tab.
And as I recall, the President of Kazakhstan used to boast about the fact that he wore suits with no pockets. Didn't stop him from becoming one of the world's richest men.
Geeky Aside: Which brings me to the ancient principle that "there are no pockets in a shroud." I think this is often taken as equivalent to "you can't take it with you." But couldn't it just as well mean that if you kill them, you don't need to bribe them?
1 comment:
Forgive the double negative, but you don't need not to have pockets.
On an ocean voyage once, back in the days when a buck was still a buck and the Queen Mary was the way to travel between continents, the Duke of Windsor (he who gave up his throne to marry a homely American commoner) dropped 25 grand at a poker game.
The winner demanded his money.
"See my man," said the Duke distractedly, pointing to his valet and hightailing it back to his state room, not to be seen again for the rest of the voyage.
"Terribly sorry sir," said the valet, when asked for the money, "but his higness never pays his debts."
On the other hand, had the Duke won the 25 grand, he'd have had a pocket to put it in.
Yours crankily,
The New York Crank
Post a Comment