Planet Utah

Applying CPR to a dead horse

I was listening to talk radio this morning, and again I heard the now-hoary argument: "What a president does in his personal life has nothing to do with his performance as president."

I'm going to use an example I've used before: what if you knew that the president spent an hour a day looking at hard-core pornography on the Internet? And what if you learned that he had a special "thing" for amputee sex? I mean, what if that's what he liked to watch? What if he began corresponding with one of his favorite "actors"? Nothing salacious -- just basic, mutually admiring letters and emails back and forth.

That's it. Nothing illegal here, and it's purely personal behavior, not involving any of his colleagues or his professional responsibilities.

You got a problem with it?

You better.

The president needs to be trusted and respected by the American people, Congress, the media, and foreign leaders in order to do his job. I'm guessing that if the story above broke, a lot of the relevant stakeholders would say, "The president is an absolute FREAK" (and not in a good way). The presidency would most likely be crippled.

This is admittedly a bit more extreme than an affair with an intern. But I've got to believe there's some zone of personal behavior in which people would say, "You know, I don't care if this stuff IS off-the-clock. I don't care if it doesn't interfere with the president's work in any way. I'm just not comfortable with a guy who does THAT serving as the most important political figure in our country."

P.S. As always, I could be entirely wrong. It might be the case that after some initial shock, people would say, "Well, geez, if he's not going to have the decency to resign, I guess we'll just have to learn to live with him, and work with him." In a way, isn't that what's going on with Larry Craig?

Unrelated notes from a conference

I was at a conference this morning, in a room full of 300 or so people. I noticed two phenomena there that have been on increasing display lately.

First, the keynote speaker repeatedly used the meaningless phrase "another words," when he meant to use the meaningful phrase, "in other words." I hear "another words" a lot these days. It's right up there with "supposebly," "doggie-dog world," "for all intensive purposes," and "just between you and I" as increasingly common and highly annoying verbal mistakes. So come on, people -- let's be careful out there.

Second, there was a guy at the next table who was repeatedly making a sucking sound, as if trying to dislodge a piece of bacon from his teeth. I'm talking about maybe 10 or 15 times every couple of minutes. Highly annoying. I've noticed the same thing with regard to loogie-generation, booger extraction, eye crust removal, ear wax reduction, and so on: people are now doing stuff right out in public that they used to excuse themselves to do privately. I'm not sure who's responsible, but for now I'm going to blame Hillary Clinton.

If you ever find yourself at a Renaissance festival...

...please don't make the mistake of saying "from whence," as in, "We shall send the lusty troll back from whence he came!"

"Whence" means "from where." Accordingly, "from whence" means "from from where." That doesn't make sense.

Stick with plain old "whence" and you'll be fine.

Speaking of Charlie Weis...

I think it's finally safe to believe in ASU football. But I can't help but wonder if we might be seeing the first, euphoric stages of Charlie Weis Syndrome. You know, new coach takes over the reins from a highly disappointing predecessor and--WHAMMO!--turns the program around. Happy days are here again. But then, a few years pass, and the team comes crashing back to Earth (or in Weis's case, not just to Earth but through Earth, all the way to its molten core). You find yourself asking, "Hey, what happened to the guy we were calling a genius just a few years ago?"

Will we see that here? Is Erickson really that good? Was Koetter really that bad? Is this year just a fluke?

I don't know the answers, but I'm going to enjoy it this year, while it lasts.

Is rooting for the Red Sox conservative?

This is going to be a brief, ill-considered post that would draw a huge outcry--from baseball fans, liberals, and conservatives--if I had any sort of audience. It's the kind of thing I can imagine Jonah Goldberg writing, but doing a much better job of it.

Anyway, I'm rooting for the Red Sox to complete their sweep of the Rockies and win the World Series. Even if they don't sweep, even if it gets to seven, I'm still rooting for the Sox.

Why? Well, as I've mentioned here before, I like sports dynasties. Now, I'm not saying that the Sox are a dynasty, but some of the same logic applies. There's something impressive to me about the old, the long-standing, the established, the perennially respectable.

(Again, if I had an audience, that previous line would open me up to this cheap shot: "So, you must have been a huge fan of Jim Crow." Response: "Hey, I said 'perennially respectable.'" Rebuttal: "But it was respectable in the South!" And that's when the baseball fans would get involved, too, particularly in Boston: "The Sawx? Perenially respectable? How 'bout '79 to '85? Dahk times, my friend, wicked dahk times.")

You have to ask yourself this: if the Rockies beat the Sox, what fun is that? That would be like Big Surf picking a fight with the Grand Canyon...and winning. I mean, a thousand years from now, the Sox will still be around, still playing in Fenway. But the Rockies -- who knows? There could be a small photo of them hanging in a dark corner of the Coors Museum, where the tour guide will say, "This was a once-promising but ultimately unprofitable division of the company. We had to shut it down in 2019."

Please, rank me low! (Even better, don't rank me at all.)

This was already one of the craziest college football seasons ever, with underdogs knocking off overdogs like Wal-Mart knocks off Mom & Pop shops. Today was more of the same, with another four upsets thus far. The most noteworthy was the loss by South Florida to Connecticut.

Yup, South Florida, you got beat by a basketball school. Instead of Cinderalla, you're headed for cellar-dweller.

So who doesn't love this game?

Footnote: brutal but satisfying--in a schadenfreudish sort of way--article about Charlie Weis.

What the hell? (quoting Tom Servo)

Let me tell you about two movies.

The first is called "Deathtrap." It was directed by Sidney Lumet. Christopher Reeve and Michael Caine were the stars. Caine is a washed up playwright. Reeve is his student. Reeve writes a brilliant play and submits it to Caine for  review. Caine sees his redemption in the manuscript: he will kill Reeve and claim the manuscript as his own, recapturing his former fame and glory. The thrills proceed from there.

The second is called "Night Shift." It was directed by Ron Howard. Henry Winkler and Michael Keaton were the stars. Henry Winkler is a milquetoast mortician who works the night shift. Michael Keaton is a fast-talking, wise-cracking, big-thinking guy who joins the mortuary staff and quickly becomes yin to Winkler's yang. Together, they establish and operate a prostitution ring out of the mortuary. The comedy proceeds from there.


Okay, so these two movies have about as much in common as, say, Rutger Hauer and a goose feather. So who in God's name decided to package them together in a two-disc DVD set?

P.S. And now you know what I want--no, what I absolutely MUST have--for Christmas.

Teachable moment

You probably saw this on Drudge -- a protester confronts Condoleezza Rice and shouts, "The blood of millions of Iraqis are on your hands!"

Condi should have responded, "I think you mean, 'The blood of millions of Iraqis IS on your hands.' Anyway, thanks for coming. Keep in touch."

Footnote: how the hell does a crazy lady with bloody hands get THAT close to the Secretary of State?

World Cup vs. World Series

I get why the World Cup is called the World Cup -- "football" teams from all over the world compete for a global championship.

But why is the World Series called the World Series?

Nice job

Here's Pete Stark giving a sincere, and completely warranted, apology for his suggestion that Iraq war casualties are a source of amusement for President Bush.

It's not unusual for MC's to say something as offensive as what Stark said. It is unusual, however, for them to catch themselves and acknowledge that they've stepped over the line.