Rhodes Warrior

The kid to your left is an all-American safety for Florida State's football team. Highly recruited out of high school, Myron Rolle has lived up to his promise at FSU and will almost surely be a high draft pick in next spring's NFL Draft.

But after today, the big question won't be who drafts him, but whether he decides to play in the NFL or take a year off and ... go to England.

The thing is Myron Rolle isn't just a gifted athlete, he's smarter than most people. Way smarter. Today he became the first major college football player of his generation to win a Rhodes Scholarship.

Rolle will have to make a decision whether to go into the NFL if he's drafted -- and all indications are he will be -- or go to Oxford to study (his subject of choice is a one-year master's degree in medical anthropology). The riches of the NFL vs. a prestigious graduate degree may seem like an easy decision for the few athletes who get a shot at pro football glory, but Rolle has bigger plans for his life than stopping opposing receivers. He wants to become a doctor and open a clinic to help the poor in the Bahamas, where his recent ancestors are from.

Frankly, I don't see how he can pass up the chance to study at Oxford. He can always start his NFL career a year from now. As rare as it is for a young kid to make it to the NFL, it's rarer still to earn a Rhodes Scholarship. He was only two of 13 candidates chosen out of his group -- the other was a former member of the Duke womens tennis team.

What a time to be a big brain.

What with Barack Obama's capacity to speak in complete sentences, unlike George Bush and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and now a football player winning a Rhodes Scholarship, smart is the new cool.

Whatever Myron decides, I wish him well. After all, the world really is his oyster. He could someday even be President of the United States, just like former Rhodes Scholar Bill Clinton. Cause we all know now that's possible. Kinda makes the world much cooler, don't it?

Getting It

I am so uncool.

I'm also a bit of a music snob. There is some stuff on my iPod that I don't like to share with anyone. That's why they call them guilty pleasures, you know?

The thing is I keep my distance from popular pop music pretty much. When everybody was listening to Janet Jackson, I was discovering Joe Henry. When Brittany Spears or Radiohead were charting, I was still working through John Hiatt and Lucinda Williams, discovering Whiskeytown (where Ryan Adams got his start) and taking some side trips through country blues and alt country and sometimes down my parents' memory lane, stopping to visit with Billie and Frank and Tony Bennett. I figured there wasn't enough time to listen to everything, so I decided to stick to my own backroads, wherever they would lead me. Along the way, I checked out Eminem (and liked some of it) and had a White Stripes phase and even heard my first Justin Timberlake song. But none of it stuck. I kept going back to my old familiar places.

Yesterday, I heard my first Beyonce song.

I know, I know. I had no idea what I was missing. None.

But now I get what all the fuss is about. First thing, girl's got serious pipes. The song I heard, "If I Were a Boy," from her new album I Am ... Sasha Fierce, kills. (Great title too.) Seriously. Not that anybody wants this picture in their head, but S.O.L. was dancing around the living room. I kid you not.

I listened to a couple more songs from the record and while they weren't as fun as this one, it made me want to dig a little deeper. One cut is a kind of rif off of the choral piece Ava Maria (the Charles Gounod version I believe), an old favorite of mine. Makes me wish she would stretch out and away from hip pop, maybe even record a CD of American Standards. Who wouldn't pay to hear Beyonce sing Billie Holiday? Not that she hasn't skimmed the surface -- after all she portrays blues legend Etta James in the upcoming film Cadillac Records. I don't know if there's any footage of her doing "Sunday Kind of Love," but I'd be curious to see if she could pull it off. Check out blogger Undercover Black Man's post on the movie here. And of course, she was in Dreamgirls, which now I have to see.

You can be a music elitist, but if a song makes you happy than there's gotta be something right about it in my book.

I dare you not to dance around your living room, too. Check out "If I Were a Boy" streaming on my Vox Stash and listen for yourself.

Pug-O-Rama

I'm addicted to pugs.

Ever since I rescued a half-blind, half-deaf pug three years ago, I have fallen head over tail for the breed. At the risk of further alienating my well-meaning friends who think I've gone completely batshit, I'm going to explore my obsession a little deeper over the coming weeks.

You may still think I'm crazy, but at least you'll understand me better. My opening salvo is this link to a live webcast of two pugs hanging out at home. The webcam was set up by the pugs' owners, so they could keep an eye on their dogs from work. Okay, so not much happens for the most part but it's also not like watching paint dry either. The pugs -- Scooter and Kiki -- hang out, sleep a lot and watch TV. Every so often, one or both of them will charge the TV or the cat who shows up occasionally. The owner has a mic at work and he talks to the pugs sometimes and plays them stuff -- they love one of the Geico commercials apparently.

And if you have the sound up, you can hear them snoring while they sleep. Some might find it annoying but it's a natural sound in my office at home, as my pugs sleep at my feet. I'm so used to the snoring that it's strange when I'm working away from home (like now). Check it out and see for yourself. One note: the live broadcast is only up from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. EST .

Barack and Hillary, Together Again?

If the latest news reports are correct and Hillary Rodham Clinton joins Barack Obama's White House as Secretary of State, it would be a fascinating development in what has certainly been a long and winding -- and surprising --  trip for both figures. Talk about strange bedfellows.

The New York Times is reporting on its website tonight that former President Bill Clinton has agreed to a number of restrictions for his "future business and philanthropic activities" in order to the pave the way for his wife to become the nation's top diplomat.

Bill's relationship with Obama has been strained since he took on and pretty soundly defeated Hillary in a bruising and grueling primary. Full disclosure: I'm a big, big, big fan of Bill, but even I will acknowledge that he has not comported himself well, even when Hillary so graciously and completely threw her support behind Obama. 

Allow me a little pop psychology, but I think Bill is feeling guilty about stepping out on his wife back in the day, and figured the only thing that could make up for it was by getting her into the Oval Office. Now that dream seems gone -- if she were to run again, she would be faced with the near impossible challenge of beating an incumbent President in the primaries or wait eight years, by which time she will be pushing 70.

All this may be why all indications are that Hillary has ruled out another run at the White House -- she has even publicly said she won't run in 2012.  So, it would make sense then that she would consider a high-level job in Obama's White House -- an idea that until the last few weeks seemed near impossible to picture.  

Yet, there is still much debate on whether Hillary would or should take the position.  There are valid reasons for both arguments.  Secretary of State is a powerful position to be sure but she would be giving up her seat in the Senate, where she has a great deal of influence and would be considered as a candidate move up to a senior senate position, now that Robert Byrd has announced he's stepping down as Senate pro tempore for the next Congress.  (Note to Al Haig: that's number three in the line of succession, one spot before S.O.S.).  

I think a lot of this depends on what she wants to accomplish.  Certainly Hillary could cement a legacy away from the shadow of her husband as Secretary of State.  Reshaping the world and America's place in it after eight years under George Bush's ideologically-motivated and arguably failed Neo Conservative agenda,  would seem as daunting a challenge as rescuing the nation from a recession.

After all, the U.S. is involved in two wars, Islamic Fundamentalism is stronger than ever and Osama Bin Laden is still out there. There are fences to be mended among our friends and peace to be brokered with enemies and having a smart, strong, respected, independent force as S.O.S. is imperative. Whatever you think you know about Hillary,  she has a keen world view, developed in part, not only by her time as a Senator, but also from her experience as First Lady -- she's literally dined with kings and presidents. And whatever you say about Bill, it sure can't hurt to have as a sounding board, a two-term President who was beloved, not only in his own country, but all over the world -- and still is thanks to his philanthropic endeavors. 

If Obama's White House succeeds in righting the crippling errors of the last administration, it will be in large part to the key members of his cabinet -- State and Defense especially -- and also to Vice President Joe Biden, a foreign policy heavyweight.  Having Hillary Clinton has one-third of this triumvirate would seem to me to be an advantage.

UPDATE: It's apparently unofficially official -- Hillary has, according to the New York Times, accepted the post as Secretary of State.  Well, this should be a fascinating four years, not to mention the final nail in the coffin to the PUMA contingent. RIP, nutjobs.

Reading Between the Lines

Each Sunday in the NY Times Magazine, there's a first-person Q&A with all sorts of people in the news. It's done by Deborah Solomon and consists of a short transcript of questions to the subject and

 his or her answers. This week, Karl Rove is in the spotlight. 

I'm not fan of Rove's -- in fact, I'd say he's up there with some of the worst people to ever inhabit Washington and that's a long, long, long list. But however you feel about him, it's hard to not come away from even this brief interview and not get what he's about.

Pretty chilling, if you ask me.

The entire article is on the New York Times website, but here is a taste. (The questions are in bold; Rove's answers follow on the next line).

Do you see the election results as a repudiation of your politics? 
Our new president-elect won one and a half points more than George W. Bush won in 2004, and he did so, in great respect, by adopting the methods of the Bush campaign and conducting a vast army of persuasion to identify and get out the vote.
But what about your great dream of creating a permanent Republican governing majority in Washington? 
I never said permanent. Durable.
Do you have any advice for him? You already criticized Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s new chief of staff, as a sharply partisan choice.
I raised a question as to whether this would be the best use of Rahm Emanuel’s talents. If you’re trying to work through a big legislative priority, it is sort of hard if you have a guy who has a reputation as a tough, hard, take-no-prisoners, head-in-your-face, scream-and-shout, send-them-a-dead-fish partisan.
Do you like Joe Biden? 
I think he has an odd combination of longevity and long-windedness that passes for wisdom in Washington. 
Do you regret anything that happened in the White House during your tenure?
 Sure.
Do you have any advice for [President Bush] at this point?
With all due respect, I don’t need you to transmit what I want to say to my friend of 35 years.
Remember, attack politics are out. It’s a new age of civilized discourse. 
You’re the one who hurt my feelings by saying you didn’t trust me.
Did I say that? 
Yes, you did. I’ve got it on tape. I’m going to transcribe this and send it to you.

Excerpts from an interview conducted, condensed and edited by Deborah Solomon.

S.O.L. Goes to Washington!

That's right, sports fans. On the historic day that Barack Obama puts his hand on the bible and does solemnly swear to uphold the Constitution as the 44th President of the United States of America, I will be there bearing witness.

Thanks to my Very Important Brother the (Washington) Doctor, I have a ticket to the dance, baby. I'm going to Washington, D.C. for the Inauguration. Bro nabbed the tickets from a patient, a Republican legislator who for some reason isn't hanging around D.C. for the big event.

His loss. S.O.L.'s gain.

I can't wait to be there, back in my former home town, watching history. And taking part in what is sure to be the World's Biggest Party.

You know, thinking about it has just put the picture in my mind of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts giving the oath of office to Obama, knowing that he's about to lose any chance of presiding over a Conservative court, which likely would have happened had a Republican won the White House this time. Poor guy. He's going to have to work really hard now to get his way.

From all that we've learned so far about Obama, you can put it in the bank that whoever he nominates for the court during his term is going to be one smart jurist, an independent thinker with a respect for the law and judicial temperament that has marked the most distinguished Supreme Court Justices. Not a crazy liberal or a strict constructionist or a member of the Federalist Society who believes the President should have unfettered powers to do whatever the fuck he wants. (See Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia). Ah, but why dwell on the heavy stuff now? Be plenty of time for that once Obama is finally in the White House and The Current Occupant as Garrison Keillor so aptly calls him, is on a ranch in Crawford doing damage to a tree stump instead of the damn country.

I'm so excited I can hardly contain myself. Don't you worry, I will share the experience with you, my eight loyal readers. Stay tuned.

Tell Them Everything

I got some advice for you, son. Don't write down anything. Ever.
If you haven't noticed yet, I'm back. And I'm going to roll with the political stuff for awhile. Forgive me, but it's the first time in forever that I'm jazzed about Washington again.

I promise to drop a sports post in the mix soon. After all, my Giants have been way hot since this here blog predicted their shocking Super Bowl victory last January (yep, that's me giving me props). I knew they'd be good this season and I knew the Cowboys were overrated (I am so over Tony Romo) but I didn't expect them to be the best team in the NFC after Week 10. Anyway, I'll get back to that stuff soon -- I'm waiting for the NBA season to get interesting.

So, The New York Times has a little story posted on the front page of its website tonight that I think is going to turn into a big deal on the news shows this week -- and not in a good way, either. Basically, the gist of the story is that if you're interested in a high-level position in the Obama Administration, you'd better be prepared to dig deep into your past.

The Obama Transition Team has sent out a seven-page questionnaire which the Times has put up on its website, calling it perhaps the "most extensive — some say invasive — application ever."

The questions range from the simple to the ridiculously complex, a document only a lawyer could love -- and considering a lot of Washington insiders are lawyers anyway, I guess that works. But the questions themselves ask for an amazing amount of detail and background information on job applicants, their spouses and even their relatives.

Here are two examples:

• 13) Electronic communications: If you have ever sent an electronic communication, including but not limited to an email, text message or instant message, that could suggest a conflict of interest or be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family or the President-Elect if it were made public, please describe.

• 17) Please list each membership, including any board memberships, you or your spouse have or have had with any political, civic, social, charitable, educational, professional, fraternal, benevolent or religious organization, private club or other membership organization (including any type of tax-exempt organization) during the past ten years. Please include dates of membership and any positions you mayhave had with the organization.
  

There's questions asking if you or any family member has a connection or affiliation with any of the recent failed financial institutions. That would count me out as my ex-husband worked for Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae for years (I can't remember which one). But then again, I'm sure I'd fail on the embarrassing email front too.

I understand what they're trying to do -- at least I think I do -- but it seems to me that there has to be a better way to ensure a conflict-of-interest-free administration, then a ridiculously over-the-top invasion of privacy. Seriously, if these guys are that paranoid, I'm worried for them.

White the Times story notes that small stuff like traffic tickets with fines less than $50 don't have to be reported, the breadth of the requests have sent "job-seekers to rummage from basements to attics ... to document both their achievements and missteps."

You even have to give them all your aliases, including any screenname you might have used online. I guess moFOpimp$$69 would raise a red flag. Apparently even though the vetting processes has been getting more arduous with each new administration, Obama's goes even above and beyond any previous questionnaires. Technology plays a large role -- the article points out, "there was no Facebook the last time a new president came to town."

Critics of the questionnaire say the inclusion of family members' histories, including grown children, is too invasive. I tend to agree. I have a feeling that in trying to avoid future embarrassment, the Obama team might have walked into it with this questionnaire. I suspect it's going to get talked about a lot over the next few days.