Phelps, Weed, the Journal, and Bisquick

I'm a little annoyed today, in large part because my kids are lazy mess-makers who won't eat a good meal their Mom prepares for them, and/or hackers with poor typing skills. You can also blame part of my mood on a cover story I saw today that chastised Michael Phelps for 'letting down his fans'.

Oh, for cripes sake. How???

First of all I don't buy the 'role model' argument. I wouldn't approve of my kids idolizing Manson, Hitler or Che for any reason, but when it comes to athletes and celebrities I'd stress their accomplishments and not their personal life. By my count most brand name actors, from Drew Barrymore to Sean Penn, are high school dropouts. Admire their resume and leave it at that.

Aside from that, I'm still stumped by how a society can condone and even celebrate booze, the maker of car accidents and bar brawls, while criminalizing marijuana - something that, at worst, encourages the consumption of Doritos.

Phelps shouldn't have broken the law, no matter how archaic it is, not unless the law is the Fugitive Slave Act or its equivalent. And he should have used some discrection. (If he wasn't going to smoke alone, at least use a more subtle and less photogenic one-hitter). All the same I default to something Saturday Night Live used in a skit last week.

To paraphrase: if you're at a party getting stoned with Michael Phelps, and you take and sell a picture of him instead of just thinking "Cool! I'm at a party getting stoned with Michael Phelps!" then you sir . . .are just a DICK.

* * * *

Bisquick wrote and apologized for the fly in the batter incident with a long winded letter. It explained the science behind how it could have happened (too much info)and included two six dollar coupons for General Mills products. I'll let you know how Bisquick's new 'Heart Smart' trans and saturated fat free mix tastes - and if there are any flies involved.

* * * *

I'm a little irked at the Journal. The 18th will mark two months since my first column was published and there have been none since. It isn't a matter of low production. I've submitted several pieces over the last month alone, bringing the number on file up to five.

Nor is lousy writing to blame. Of the five one has been published, one is being 'reviewed', two have been accepted for publication, and one has been rejected. That last one, believe it or not, is the real confidence booster. If they're willing to shoot one down, then I'm confident the ones they accept are solid and well done.

[a sixth piece, a book review, was rejected citing a company policy against accepting outside reviews]

In an email to me the editor wrote the delay off as nothing but mathematical, the result of a publishing schedule making room for everyone 'in their turn' and further interrupted by holidays and the inauguration.

Horsehockey. The same week I got that email the Journal sent a polite but pleading letter to all the writers asking for everyone to submit their second piece for consideration.

If you can't pull your weight, the heck with keeping your place in line. Let it go to someone who can produce copy, be it me or someone else.

(and by that, I mean to me and me alone, naturally)

* * * * * * *

Programming note: I have some 27 posts currently done and scheduled, with an equal number existing as 'drafts'. These are mainly book and movie reviews I've been sitting on in case of an extended hiatus from Slapinions. I need every spare moment I have for the job search, so you may see some of those make the grade in the upcoming days.