I was recently (at the end of December) talking politics with a DC-based acquaintance. In the course of the conversation, he asked me who I was supporting in the upcoming Presidential race. I told him that I was still undecided, because - as my own personal strike against the continuous election cycle - I wasn't going to pay close attention to the candidates and their policy proposals until the calendar year in which the election would be held.

Well, it really is an election year, and I am still having trouble paying enough attention.

Basically, I'm not sure I really want to know "what it takes" to win the White House. I know that any semi-close analysis will reveal any candidate, regardless of party, doing and saying all sorts of things that range from the offensive to the ridiculous. A one-word, thoroughly bipartisan example: ethanol.

And I know the candidates have no choice, regardless of whether they are smarter than the drivel they spout. From what I've recently read and heard, the one candidate in this election cycle with whom I might have been more impressed if I'd been paying closer attention, rather than less, was Fred Thompson. (Which is not to say that I would've voted for him.) And it was not coincidental that Thompson's candidacy never caught enough fire to flame out. As expertly detailed by Andrew Ferguson, the modern presidential campaign requires a level of both substantive pandering and personal exertion as to screen out virtually any normal human being. I think we should replace the "anyone can grow up to be President" mantra with "Mom, don't let your kids grow up to be a Presidential candidate." (This may be an underrated factor in the increase of political dynasties - they're the only ones who think of the lifestyle as normal.)

Similarly, not enough has been said about the extent to which steroid use in baseball is different in degree, but not in kind, from much of what else goes into a career as a top-flight career as a professional athlete. "What about the children?" is a mantra uttered by cretinous sportswriters and Congressmen alike bemoaning the health risks of steroid use. Well, how many sports fans level with their children about the ghoulish injury rates among young pitchers, or the need to schedule knee replacements in advance for catchers? (Megan had this right a while ago.) And baseball is spa-like compared to what football does to its participants. (I leave boxing out of this discussion, which is a world unto itself. And let's not get into women's gymnastics.) These health risks are, if anything, more demonstrable than those of professional athletes' use of PEDs (especially the HGH that has so captivated Washington and the sports media lately, which has virtually no effect on healthy athletes (unless it's "stacked" with steroids)). We sports fans who like to occasionally call ourselves "grownups" have to reconcile ourselves to the reality that the objects of our passion are harming themselves for our sakes. Denial, or refusal to tell the children, doesn't make it any less true.

And this is also true with respect to music: we might not be so quick to tell our children that virtually all of the good music of the last several decades has been created by people who were strung out on drugs and/or alcohol. As Mickey Kaus said in his pre-Slate days (scroll down to the 5/7 entry), whenever you hear a musician say that he or she is clean, sober and feeling better than ever, the next album is guaranteed to suck. The most prominent recent example is, of course, multiple Grammyist Amy Winehouse. After listening to her music for a total of ten minutes, I can confidently say that: (a) she is a transcendent talent, and (b) her music wouldn't be close to as good if she wasn't quite so self-destructive. (Proof of both counts is at the end of this post.) Unless we want to forswear any good music, this is another truth we have to recognize, even if we finess telling the children.