High School Musical 4

A few months ago I went through this phase of watching bad high school musical theater on YouTube. As somehow who sings so poorly I only ever acted in one musical in high school, I certainly have sympathy for how much effort these poor souls put into the work and yet . . . if there's anything more thrilling than brilliant musical theater it's atrociously awful musical theater.

And this little gem has to win some sort of Awful High School Musical lifetime achievement award, even considering what a terrible idea it is to have high school students from a place called "Blacklick" to attempt Les Mis. You know things are going south when the cast is less intelligible during the portions of the song where everyone's singing the same frickin' words! And, seriously . . . Marius? If the only semi-decent singer in the cast wasn't already playing Eponine, I'd say you were woefully miscast!


And for those of you who are interested in hearing how this song actually sounds:

Ted Kennedy, R.I.P.

Even after a year-long illness as serious as brain cancer, it's hard to wrap my mind (let alone heart) around the fact that Ted Kennedy is dead. In our liberal, Irish, post-Catholic family, Teddy was a hero, the great roaring lion standing in defense of everything we believed. He was also, of course, a more complicated person than that idolatry suggests.

I'm not talking about the drinking, or the the dead girl, or even the weight of grief and expectation that should have crushed him. Rather, I'm talking about the unlikeliness of it all. He wasn't Jack or Bobby. He was supposed to be the weakest, the least smart and charismatic, the laziest and least ambitious. But after his brothers' deaths, Ted Kennedy emerged as the most successful and powerful Senator in the modern landscape. The invocation of his name alone could raise more money for Republicans than anything else, even as he quietly and doggedly compromised his way to major legislation. He became the righteous champion of liberalism without ever become the self-righteous, self-destructive Senator so many before him had.

And he seemed, somehow, enduring, indestructible. His booming Irish voice has always been there when we needed it most. To imagine it silenced so completely, after months of hoping he could muster the strength for one more charge of the cavalry, is impossible. We've lost a great Senator, but we have also lost the jolly, grandfatherly patriarch of our party and our ideals.

And who will take his place?

Confirmed!

Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed by the Senate today in a 68-31 vote!

I don't now why I even bothered with the "!" about, since a 60-member Democratic caucus had assured her of confirmation from the start. But it's still nice to know that she'll be on the bench when the Court convenes at an abnormally early hearing in September.

But just a note on the vote breakdown: I realize that both political parties prefer to blame the other for the hyperpolitical mess that is the modern confirmation process. Democrats blocked Bush nominees! But Republican wouldn't even give Clinton nominees a vote in Committee! But Republicans confirmed Ginsburg virtually unopposed despite what Democrats did to Bork and Thomas! But Reagan nominated Bork in the first place! Really, the blame lies with all parties concerned -- and although Bork was the watershed moment, I'd say that the real trouble started brewing perhaps as far back as the 60s, perhaps with the nomination of Thurgood Marshall but certainly by the nomination of Abe Fortas for Chief Justice. His withdrawal was followed by two consecutive rejections of Nixon nominees. It just took a while for the culture to adapt to the new reality. Presidents consider politics in choosing judges. Therefore it was only a matter of time before the Senate decided to consider politics too. And, in my view, that's absolutely appropriate. I don't agree with Senator Graham and his "elections have consequences" view. Yes, a president should have the Cabinet he wants, but when it comes to a coequal and independent branch of the government, I think it's vital that the Senate play an active role in both advice and consent.

Still, I gotta say that the whole "we confirmed Ginsburg practically unanimously" argument has just been flushed down the toilet. During the hearings, various Republicans talked about how they felt Democrats treated John Roberts poorly. But when the vote came down, an absolute majority of the Democratic caucus voted to confirm (the vote was 23-22 among Democrats). This was, of course, a product of Roberts himself but also of the basic facts of reality. In replacing Rehnquist, very few nominees could possibly be worse than their predecessor from the Democratic perspective. So, why not be magnanimous?

But, when confronted with a nearly identical situation -- Souter is deeply reviled by virtually all Republicans and has become in recent years one of the most fiery members of the liberal bloc, and he was being replaced by a liberal woman -- not even one in four Republicans voted to confirm. Democrats were able not only to survive, but to triumph, in the wake of voting to confirm Roberts. The Republican machine is so hostile to even judicious moderates like Sotomayor that not one of the nine Republicans who voted to confirm her are up for re-election in 2010.

Whoever started this fight, it's clear that the Republicans are the sorest losers.

It's Wednesday And I'm Offended!

By Toby Keith's new song!

Now, I realize this is the guy who has had a number of hits in the Patriotic American genre. These songs aren't offensive to me, per se, they're just generally stupid, pandering and shallow. When Keith stays away from politics and patriotism he's capable of some pretty good songs (by far the best is his Willie Nelson collabo-fabbo "Beer For My Horses", though "As Good As I Once Was" is a rather clever song about getting old) but when he doesn't the results are usually disastrous. Either overly sentimental and chock-a-block full of cliches ("American Soldier") or childish and loutish ("Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue").

But nothing really compares, for sheer nonsense, with "American Ride." Boiled down to basics, this song is Michelle Malkin's website transformed into song. Which makes it the "We Didn't Start The Fire" of right-wing wackiness. Toby Keith, Michelle Malkin and Billy Joel rolled into one? Even that is less offensive to me than some of the weird archaisms ("spilled hot coffee made a million dollars" seems to me only to prove that the anti-litigation crowd still haven't managed to find more than one example of a truly absurd lawsuit), fogey-ish denunciations of technology ("Kids on the YouTube learnin how to be cool.")and inexplicable sexism ("Momma gets her rocks off watchin' Desperate Housewives/Daddy works his can off paying for the good life.")

And even then it's not worth getting offended over. But I'm still offended. Which lyrics do you think I find most offensive?

1. "Winter gettin colder, summer gettin warmer/Tidal wave comin cross the Mexican border."

2. "Both ends of the ozone burnin. Funny how the world keeps turnin."

3. "Look ma, no hands. /I love this American ride."

Anyone who knows me at all well is likely to select 3, at leat if they've actually listened to the song. 1 and 2 are offensive all right, particularly taken together (seriously? Immigration is a going to destroy American but global warming is no big whoop?). But 3 drives me crazy for very simple poetic reasons.

Keith rhymes hands with American. There's no conceivable way these two words even form a slant rhyme. So Keith pronounces the last syllable of American as if it were a can of soup. Seriously weak, dude. On top of that, Keith, probably out of some sense of the inherent pansiness of complex rhyme schemes, employs an internal rhyme but then sweeps it under the rug by overpronouncing CAN (just to drill it into our head that these two non-rhyming words somehow do rhyme)and the taking a gigantic pause before saying "ride."

Ugh. Jingoism, nativism, scientific ignorance, hostility to the courts, women sitting around watching TV while their husbands work all day, YouTube corrupting our children's minds, bad singers with record deals, the War on Christmas? No, none of that bothers me half so much as Toby Keith's lack of poetic flair.

Party n' Play With Jeff and Pat (and maybe Sonia too!)

Greatest quote in the history of SCOTUS nomination hearings? You be the judge!

From the original transcripts and not from the Fagistani translation:

JEFF SESSIONS: Senator Leahy and I are talking, during these hearing, we're going to do that crack cocaine thing that you and I have talked about before.

And the video in case you don't believe me:

Snarlin' Arlen and Stoic Sonia

It always amazes me that these poor nominees are capable of making it through their hearings at all. There has to come a certain point when they think to themselves, "is a lifetime on the Supreme Court really worth listening to Lindsay Graham's whiny condescension for another twelve hours?" I wonder how often in the last week Judge Sotomayor has considered tape-recording her answers to questions about Wise Latinas and Dyslexic Honkies, concealing the tapedeck in her cleavage, and just hitting play when Senator X asks her the same question a fortieth time.

Still, today's hearing was actually more interesting than yesterday's. As a result of seniority and accident, many of the best questioners come at the end of the line, including a former chairman named Arlen Specter who has been subjected to the indignity of being senior only to Al fucking Franken.

As with Day One, I'm gonna resort to a brief paraphrasing of the proceedings, since that seems funnier and more useful to me. The only intelligent thing I'll say is that Senator Cornyn's (and every other Repbulican's) line of questioning about the "two Sonias" (one of whom actual sits in judgment and issues opinions and the other of whom gives speeches with no binding legal force) seems not to prove that she's some kind of crazed liberal but to prove that she in fact can set aside her prejudices and beliefs to rule on the law as it exists. Or, you know, she's just a giant bitch. One or the other!

SENATOR CORNYN (R-TX): Here's the deal. In your actual work you've been deliberate, thoughtful and thorough. But then you go out with the girls for Cosmos and turn into a raging Puerto Rican Dyke. What gives?

SOTOMAYOR: What girl doesn't like Cosmos? And I stand by my words, except that I'm going to pretend I said something totally different. I didn't mean that white people don't make good judges, I just meant that "Total Eclipse of the Heart" is my favorite karaoke song.

SENATOR CARDIN (D-MD): Once upon a time, ladyfolks couldn't vote. I never even met a lady until I was 30. And I thought to myself, "wow, she's just like me." Then she tried to do sex to me and I realized she belonged on the Supreme Court. Do you agree?

SOTOMAYOR: Well, as you know, I'm a raging bulldyke who hates men, white people and cock. But, I bet I'd still do sex to you.

SENATOR COBURN (R-OK): Is death within the scope of your judicial powers? I don't mean, as I once asked John Roberts, if "death is the opposite of life", but rather I'm asking about your terrible power and the unspeakable suffering you are capable of unleashing upon the people of this nation by speaking aloud the Twelve Thousand Names of The Eternal Evil.

SOTOMAYOR: As the issue of the ancient prophecy granting me demented power over the beasts of the field and the elements of the Earth, as well as the Demon Host that lives to serve me in these times of impenetrable darkness might well come before the Court, I cannot answer your question. However, I will say that I disagree with Chief Justice Roberts. Death is not the opposite of life. I AM THE NEGATION AND RUIN OF ALL WHO BREATHE!

SENATOR WHITEHOUSE (D-RI): Can anybody tell me what the deal is with juries?

SOTOMAYOR: Juries are rad. I once had a juror who lit herself on a fire, threw herself from a window on the 25th floor of Trump Tower, landed in a pile of broken glass and HIV-tainted needles, tore her throat out with her bare hands and begged passersby to "kill me, please . . .kill me!" And yet, the next day she was in court, on time, ready to work, despite severe blood loss and a charred, baked zitti torso.

SENATOR KLOBUCHAR (D-MN): My mom doesn't love me.

SOTOMAYOR: I don't blame her. Jokes! Let's watch Perry Mason and make out later.

SENATOR KLOBUCHAR: Awesome. Also, can you please tell me how to pronounce my last name?

SOTOMAYOR: That was very racist of you. Just because I'm Latina doesn't mean I speak Caveman.

SENATOR KLOBUCHAR: Sorries!

SOTOMAYOR: That's cool.

SENATOR KAUFMAN (D-DE): Listen, I'm not even sure I know who I am.

SOTOMAYOR: Okay.

SENATOR SPECTER (D-PA): The Supreme Court is full a lazy, fat-assed bitchboys. Will you work harder than them?

SOTOMAYOR: Well, I don't want to speculate until I've experienced it myself . . .

SPECTER: I can tell you're not going to answer my question.

SOTOMAYOR: You scare me.

SPECTER: They're making a horror movie about me. Who do you think should play me?

SOTOMAYOR: I wouldn't want to specu--

SPECTER: I see you won't answer that one either. I'll tell who should play me -- Jane Fonda!

SOTOMAYOR: That's cool . . .

SPECTER: I, umm, misspoke. Not Jane Fonda . . . I meant to say . . . Henry? Fonda? Is that a person?

SOTOMAYOR: I wouldn't want to sp--.

SPECTER: I gave you notice that I'd be asking this question!

SOTOMAYOR: . . .

SPECTER: Hey, fuck you guys! Why do I have to sit next to Al Franken?

SOTOMAYOR: I can't --

SPECTER: Oh, just shut up!

SENATOR FRANKEN (D-MN): Let's talk about an extremely technical administrative law case relating to the internet and then end it with a sweeping categorical proclamation of my novel theory on the First Amendment, which has nothing to do with the case. Sound good?

SOTOMAYOR: I hate my life.

Me Tarzan, You Sonia!

Finally we get to actual questions! Which Sotomayor actually gets to answer! Well, okay, maybe that's going too far. At the very least we can all agree that these are "questions" that she "answers", right?

Senator Leahy starts off talking about Sotomayor's record as a prosecutor [incidentally, I was a little surprised to discover that none of the current members of the Court were ever prosecutors!] in Manhattan, under the guidance of 5,000 Year Old Mummy Lord Robert Morgenthau (which the transcripts misspell as Morgenthal for some reason) and a case she tried against a guy called The Tarzan Murderer, a case right out of Law & Order! It involved a guy who used acrobatic tricks and swinging ropes to enter homes, rob people and kill them! Totally amazing! And Sotomayor rooted through some dusty law text books and came up with a novel theory for trying all of his crimes as once case.

It's a great story because, well, it involves a guy called the Tarzan Murderer first of all, but also because it helps her describe how she truly learned to be a lawyer. "The law isn't legal theory, it's facts."

Unfortunately, we don't get to hear more sexy details about Tarzan because everyone else prefers the completely unsexy details of Mr. Ricci. Listen, I think Ricci got the raw end of the deal on that test. And I think that it's very probable that the law New Haven applied is unconstitutional. However, just hearing his name makes me want to scream. My sympathies are always with illiterate firefighters, because nothing is hotter than that. But the way this case has been mangled, abused and mistreated by a bunch of Republican asswipes makes me hate this guy!

So much time is spent today bemoaning not only Sotomayor's ruling itself but the brief per curiam nature of the opinion. Frankly, this annoys me more than anything else. As she points out without actually choking the fuck out of Jeff Sessions, there was already an opinion by the district court judge in the case. The panel upheld that decision. The notion that upholding a decision requires another 100 pages of legal gobbledygook is completely stupid. If the panel agreed with what had already been said on the case, why not just say so and be done with it?

And hey, I'm hardly the first to point this out, but isn't funny to hear Republicans make an argument that Sotomayor is an activist, racist judge precisely because she took no action in Ricci? Sessions even says, rather snidely, that the Circuit Court could've overturned it's own precedent. So, overturning precedent is now a sign of judicial minimalism? [It's not like Sessions doesn't have allies in this front, like the five members of the Supreme Court who admit that they overturned precedent and created a new set of rules in their own Ricci decision.]

Give me a break!

Other than that there was precious little of interest here. On the most interesting cases (somewhat surprisingly, given her rather idiotic behavior during previous hearings, it was Senator Feinstein who raised many of the most complex and important issues on national security, executive power, etc. I say "somewhat" only because Feinstein is, generally speaking, an extremely intelligent and diligent Senator, which only made her weirdness with Roberts and Alito more troublesome) Sotomayor rightly refrains from taking any definitive approach. Not only are a lot of these questions unsettled and almost certain to come before her on the Supreme Court, but the issues themselves are so complex that a single, definitive answer is impossible.

Senator Leahy did get one amusing, and revealing, little anecdote in:

Judge, I once on a television interview said, if I could do what -- anything I wanted to do in life, I said, "Well, if I ever have to work for a living, I want to be a photographer," because I do, at which point, two minutes after the interview, the phone rang. My mom was still alive. She called. She said, "Don't you ever say that. They'll think you don't work." (LAUGHTER) Actually, I don't. I just recognize senators here. You're doing all of the work. And I -- I appreciate the way you're doing it.

Oh, Leahy. Sweet, giant-headed, lazy Leahy . . .

Then Grassley, after a protester interrupted Sotomayor's answer on a property rights question, got this one in: "People always say I have the ability to turn people on."

Chuck Grassley is fast becoming one of my favorite Senators. His hilariously angry tweets on health care reform were pure political genius. Who would've thought that it would be a grouchy, elderly, Midwestern Republican who first used Twitter for its intended, nonsensical purpose? I assure you, Chucko, you definitely turn me on! Call me!

But Sotomayor manages at least one humorous moment of her own. Russ Feingold manages, for once, not to speak about himself and heaps effusive praise on Sotomayor's "obvious, tremendous understanding of the law" and that she should consider allowing cameras into the Court [a particular pet cause of Feingold's] so that all of us might have the joy of watching her in action.

Sotomayor, that lovely sphinx, replies, "You were a very good lawyer, weren't you Senator?"

Sotomay-boringer!

The first day of the Sotomayor Hearings was so boring that apparently even the transcription services took a nap, since I can't seem to find an actual transcript of anything but Sotomayor's opening statement.

Which, frankly, is for the best. Reading that shit would fuck you up more than two Ambien and a martini!

We all know that Senators love nothing more than talking about themselves. These hearings are a perfect opportunity for them to do so at irritating length. The fact that Joe Biden didn't show up this time around only makes things slightly more bearable. [While also removing any chance of Sotomayor being asked what she thinks of the coming war against cyborgs. At least Tom Coburn's still here, so we might still get to see a pantywaist US Senator weep like a fucking bitch on TV!]

I only watched bits and pieces, and that's all it took. Everyone repeated the same stupid shit, which is basically a preview of what's to come. The notion that all 19 members of this committee deserve or need to ask questions is totally insufferable. If I was the boss, I'd lay down the law on asking the same question twenty six trillion times. But, I'm not. So, we might as well sit back and "enjoy" the ride!

Here's a little transcript I put together myself from memory:

CHAIRMAN LEAHY: My head is enormous. You were born poor and rose to the height of your profession through hard-work, determination and switchblades. I like lady judges.

SENATOR SESSIONS: I forgot why I'm even here. Oh, yeah, now I remember. Because you're a racist.

SENATOR FEINSTEIN: As a lady Senator with no legal experience, I have to point out that Chief Justice Roberts murders puppies and is a terrible umpire for the Inter-House Softball League.

SENATOR HATCH: I really hate the standards Obama used to evaluate Roberts and Alito, but still intend to use them to evaluate you.

SENATOR SCHUMER: Does anybody actually like me? Let me repeat that thing about umpires, because that's bound to be a metaphor nobody else on the committee uses!

SENATOR GRAHAM: I'm going to vote for you, but it's important for you to know that you're a racist. Also, Miguel Estrada was from Honduras, so that makes him awesomer than you, but not as awesome as me, because I'm gay.

SENATOR FEINGOLD: I am interested to know your position on the erection of a giant Russ Feingold monument made entirely out of foreskin.

SENATOR COBURN: Hey, don't you guys even care that I sterilized women against their will?! Why are we talking about Roberts? I thought this was supposed to be a hearing about some racist chick. Did I mention that Miguel Estrada was from Honduras?

SENATOR FRANKEN: While I really have no fucking clue why they gave me a seat on this committee, a committee which possesses only one woman (who isn't even a lawyer!), I'm still gonna act like I have opinions. These include: judges aren't umpires and you're a lady.

SENATOR GILLIBRAND (introducing Sotomayor): I got this jacket at Filene's Basement. Judge Sotomayor and I are both ladies, but she's also Puerto Rican. I'm not sure if you people realize it or not, but she was born poor. And she's not a lesbo. I checked that one out for myself!

JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: Thank you for all the nice things you said about yourselves. I will make an awesome judge. You can tell how impartial I am because my face hasn't moved one time during the last fifteen hours of listening to you call me a racist lesbian bitch. I look forward to not answering all the questions you're going to pretend to be asking in the next several days.

Wimblefag: We Hardly Knew Thee

It seems an occasionally-blogging fag just can't catch a break!

I sat out the entire French Open, which seemed lucky for me since after finally, for once, picking Rafael Nadal to win the whole thing, dude lost in the fourth round to adorable Swede Robin Soderling. Which means Federer, fucking Federer for Christ's sake, won the title, tied Pete Sampras's record and got the career grand slam all in the course of two weeks. Which basically means I wish I were dead.

It also means that I didn't bother to blog about Wimbledon, because I was pretty sure Federer was going to win and in the process eclipse Pete Sampras altogether. My instincts were correct, but what's got me seriously bummed out is that for once my predictions would've been almost perfect!

Sure there were a number of surprise quarterfinalists, but two of them (Lleyton Hewitt and Tommy Haas) I picked anyway! Only Juan Carlos Ferrero was a surprise, and since he remains one of the absolutely hottest tennis players alive I couldn't have been more delighted by his incredible return on the wild card investment. Yes, Goran Ivanisevic won Wimbledon as a wild card, but he was probably the greatest grass court player who had never won it, so that wasn't as big a surprise as El Mosquito buzzing and blood-gorging his way to the quarters.

But get this, sweet delicious fag-crumpets, I correctly predicted all four women's semifinalists and also correctly predicted that Dementieva would almost beat Serena Williams while Venus Williams would pound the ever-loving shit out of poor Dinara "The New Kuznetsova" Safina, setting up a second consecutive, and fourth overall, all Williams Lesbo Incest Final! And then I went a step further and predicted Serena would win it! And she did! And none of you will believe me because I didn't declare it publicly!

But that's okay because I fucking hate your guts!

Also, I got three of the four men's semifinalists correctly and the one I got wrong (I picked Djokovic over Haas) was the one I was least certain of, since good old Tommy had beaten Djokovic on grass just before the tournament. And, since sometime earlier this year, I've been hyping Andy Roddick as a Wimbledon finalist, and maybe even a champion. But all you dumb cocks were all "Murray mania! Breaking the Fred Perry/Tim Henman Curse!" Well you can all suck my dangly, furry, yeast-encrusted balls! Because Murray ate it hardcore against Roddick.

I'm still depressed, because the one prediction I desperately wanted not to come true did anyway. Federer beat Roddick, for the third time, in the final. But holy motherloving vagina-surfers was that an intense match! 5-7 7-6 7-6 3-6 16-14? Seriously? 16-fucking-14?! Roddick was only broken once in the tournament, when he was serving to stay in it at 14-15, after he'd held strong in the same position all the way since 4-5. I thought it could be close, but if you'd said there'd be a five set match with two tie-breakers I'd have assumed those were Roddick's wins and not Federer's.

This has got to be a hard one to swallow for Andy. Closer than he's ever been to the title that means more to him than anything and to have it snatched away by a greasy Swiss! On the other hand, he should look on the bright side. So far this year he's tied his best finishes at the Australian and Wimbledon (in fact this is clearly his best Wimbledon finish ever), and made it to the second week of Roland Garros for the first time. If he keeps this up, he may well have a second US Open title in the fall. And in the mean time, he has his new wife, Brooklyn, to console him. But if she's not enough, my throbbing cock is here for you Andy!

It was a great Wimbledon. One of the best I can remember in a long time. Men's, women's, doubles (the Williams sister win again!), all of it had so many excellent matches including not one but two all-time classics (Serena's 6-7, 7-5, 8-6 semi was a brilliant performance from both players). Still, I leave it more depressed than ever. As Andy said to Pete Sampras, looking on from the Royal Box, "I'm sorry I couldn't hold him off, Pete."

So are we!

Now we'll really never get anyone to shut up about how Federer is the Greatest Player Who Ever Lived And Also Did You Know That His Penis Can Cure AIDS And Tuberculosis Not To Mention He Invented Kittens?.

For the record: Federer isn't the great player of all time. The only correct answer to that question remains Martina Navratilova. Federer can call me when he wins 44 more major titles. In the mean time, I still think that Rod Laver (who missed 5 years of majors at the height of his career) would easily have had more than 15 had he played those years. Don Budge won 6 in a row and then went pro (and then WWII came along). Bill Tilden won 11 without ever playing the Australian and playing the French only a couple of times. There's no way that even 15 major is definitive proof of All Time Absolute Greatness.

Oh well. Maybe I'll actually put my meaty cock-lobster back in my pants long enough to blog a bit at the US Open. We'll see! Tennis is suddenly sexy again!

That Whole Sparking Thing

I don't think there's an adequate word in English to describe my reaction to the Mark Sanford scandal except to say: Holy shit!

This, my friends, is what we call an interesting scandal! As a lot of people smarter and faster than me have already noted, Sanford's rambling, heart-rending, down-right bizarre press conference was so different from the usual pageant of insincerity that we've grown used to that it's hard even to process a reaction. So soon after John Ensign joins the interminable list of disgraced politicians who appear for a staid, mock-somber press conference accompanied by their dutiful wives, Sanford appears alone and reveals far more about his affair than would seem imaginable in these days.

I'll admit that I've always rather liked Sanford. Despite his politics, I've found him to be a refreshingly interesting fellow. This only seals the deal. His career is almost certainly over, but there's no better way to leave the show than belting out an aria like that.

I don't have a lot, really, to add that you can't read almost anywhere else. But I do have a couple of thoughts. One is that I'm very satisfied to finally see a wife, any wife, of any politician, refusing to degrade herself in public for the sake of her husband's future. Maybe they all think it's perfectly dignified, but Jenny Sanford's refusal to cover for her husband while he was gone and her refusal to stand by him when he came back is as daring and groundbreaking a sex-scandal performance as her husband's, so she deserves some credit too!

The other is that while I'm usually equal-parts delighted and mortified when I read the personal e-mails, letters or IM chats of pervy pols, I found even this aspect of the story almost dreadfully romantic and very interesting.

Sanford, it would appear, has more than a bit of the poet in him. While this is probably as attributable to the rambling weirdness of his delivery than to his deep inner thoughts, the phrase he used to describe falling in love with a woman not his wife, "that whole sparking thing", is such a marvelously apt description of the muddled emotions of love that it might've come out of any of the best literary novels on the subject.

Secondly, the dirty e-mail that's been making the rounds is wonderful for two reason: the governor spells almost all the words correctly while stringing them together in actual sentences, and the e-mail actually is sexy and romantic and, I imagine, rather moving and arousing to its recipient.

Remember Portland Chief of Police Derrick Foxworth's e-mails, which included such steamy passages as, "you spread your legs and [I] slide my huge hard cock into your sweet, wet, tight pussy"? or Spokane Mayor Jim West's IM's, with that whole "we'll rub our dicks together" thing? Or how about those completely icky slash hilarious IM's proffered by Mark "I'm an Alcoholic" Foley? Even the teenagers who were the focus of the attentions of two of these men couldn't possibly have found such things sexy.

But here's Sanford:

I could digress and say that you have the ability to give magnificently gentle kisses, or that I love your tan lines or that I love the curves of your hips, the erotic beauty of you holding yourself (or two magnificent parts of yourself) in the faded glow of night’s light.

Okay, is it cheesy? Undoubtebdy (I think even romance novelists have mostly forsaken cliches involving moonlight) but it's actually very sweet, and shows that Sanford was, like actual normal human beings, attracted to this woman for many reasons, not just her pussy's ability to accommodate his huge throbbing cock. And that parenthetical isn't nearly as raunchy as it would surely be in the erotic writings of so many of his fellows , "or two magnificent parts of yourself" is an actually sexy description of what he's talking about!

I sense a great new career opportunity for our South Carolina Lothario!