A Potpourri of Scorn

Been missing from the blog due to some overwhelming work demands. Don't you hate when they want you to work for your paycheck? Anyway, before getting back into the drudgery of the "How to Live Your Life" series, there's a couple of things that have backed up that I want to hit. Talk among yourselves.

Roger Clemens

Some of you may know that Rog, who by all measures was one of the most outstanding pitchers in baseball history, now finds himself pitching to a federal jury, battling against federal perjury charges. The Feds have accused Roger of lying to Congress about his steroid use (err...alleged steroid use...please don't sue me Rog!). Pretty much everyone else who's been busted for the 'roids has either fessed up and said they did it to help the team, or evaded the question. Like Sammy Sosa, who is more fluent in english than Professor Higgins in every interview, but seemingly didn't understand a single question when he testified before Congress. Roger, however, adopted a defiant, "I have not used steroids ever" defense. And, like you'd imagine, it was right up there with, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" or "Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES!" Inevitably, the Justice Department started investigating him. Cut to three years later and Roger is in the dock for perjury, making a false statement and obstruction of Congress. Not exactly how he wanted to spend his retirement.

So having dared someone to knock this battery off his shoulder and seen the Feds take up his invitation, he shows up for court looking like...that. Roger, what the hell? I mean, its one thing that you made all those millions and you still bought your suit/shirt/tie from Banana Republic, but what's going on with the hair, big fella? Look, just bed head by itself might have been ok. I've seen that look before. Usually its on skater guys or pedi-cab drivers under the age of 25, but whatever. At least it is a style. But what's up with the sweat? Did you get in a racquetball game on the way to court? Pick up basketball game? I'm sure its hot in DC right now, but really. You might want to take a Handi-Wipe or three to that mop. Looking like Sharon Stone or Ellen DeGeneres is no way to roll into court when you're looking at all that prison time. I mean, that work only looks for Prince Harry because he's got about twice as much hair as you. And Roger, was it really a good idea to spend your retirement eating ice cream 12 hours a day? That situps regimen doesn't look like its getting the trick done any more. Your head looks like it probably has its own gravitational field.

Now, other than it being fun to make fun of someone who was so full of himself for all those years, what does all this matter? Its just amazing how people don't consider how their personal appearance influences other people's evaluation. Would you wear a t-shirt with a marijuana leaf on it to go meet your new girlfriend's parents for the first time? Unless you live in California, probably not. Because that conveys a message about you and creates a negative impression from the very outset of your relationship with the parents. When you see someone who looks like a slob, you tend to think immediately that they're a slob. See a woman who looks like a hooker, your first reaction is "she's a hooker." Why don't candidates for President or ministers or accountants wear a beer t-shirt and flip flops to work? Why don't professional women (well, most professional women) wear plunging necklines and clear heels to work? How you look influences how people react to you, and how likely they are to believe or trust you. Its like that line from Bull Durham, "Think classy, you'll be classy." Look like the King of Prussia Macy's outlet's weekend assistant manager who just back from a three-beer lunch at Chili's, and chances are you're not going to be taken all that seriously. Look like 1992 Chris Farley and you likely will find your credibility with a federal jury somewhat diminished. No matter how many strikeouts you have or batters you hit or how many broken bats you've thrown at Mike Piazza.

Heathers

Speaking of appearances, here's yet another reason why you parents need to think twice, or in some cases 15 times, before you name your kid. You all know how I feel about this. Pick a real name, not some weird inanimate object ("Apple") or a last name ("Smith") or a place ("Houston"), so your kid won't get pummeled in the schoolyard. Soap opera names should be right out. Why? Because it provokes eye-rolling every time your kid has to introduce himself ("Hi, I'm Zowie Bowie"...one of these days soon, David isn't going to have enough swing to cover for his kid..."Oh, I'm David Bowie's kid" isn't going to stop the snickering). Its also selfish. Your kid isn't a canvas for you to decorate as you will, at least not once they figure out how to dress themselves. Would you tattoo your two year old? No. So why stick them with something else they can't get rid of the rest of their life that will fall out of fashion within a year? Put another way, name your kid something that's popular for two years tops, and you're likely digging a hole for your kid's future professional credibility.

All that's true, but we can add another reason to pick a reasonable, non-whorey name. I read an article yesterday quoting an analyst from a public official's office. "Speaking on behalf of ___, analyst Heather_____ said, "[something ridiculous]." Heather? Really? Heather's not such an unusual name anymore I guess, but "Heather" still sounds like a cheerleader mom, or the trampy girl in 7th grade that would kiss anyone, or your friend who always screams "WOOO!!!" at the top of her lungs every five minutes at happy hour. You to waitress: "Hi, yeah, I'd like to order a bottle of the Laurent Perrier champagne." Heather: "WOOOO!!!!"

Its a little hard to take "Heather" seriously as she tells you about some complicated policy issue. Maybe its me, but I get distracted imagining her doing jello shots and going to Target to get hair bows for her three little girls (by three different dads), before getting ready to pole dance that night. Or Britney. Or Savannah. Or Crystal. Or Brandi. Basically any name a stripper or ESPN sideline reporter plausibly could use.

This principle concerns men too. Its kind of hard to take Dwayne seriously when he's sitting at the opposing counsel table. I'm not going back to Dr. Dwayne. Same for Bubba, or Rod, or Troy, or Ricky, or any other NASCAR or Swamp People name. Or that some guy in porn might use. Or a guy who goes by initials. Initials guy is like Mr. Slate at the Quarry where Fred Flintstone works, but not anyone you'd hire to design your resort house.

So please think before you name your kid. It may seem cute to you, but he or she will be the one who has to wear it for a lifetime.

BTW, I occasionally work with someone named Heather. She's very capable and I don't think she's like I described. So, since I've gotten to work with you, I know you're an exception H!

This Just In: Jurors are Idiots Too

Everyone's all a-twitter about this Casey Anthony verdict. Literally. Including Kim Kardashian, who among her other talents apparently is a legal know-it-all, who was expressing outrage that the jurors found her not guilty. Hey, Kim, I don't know whether you thought about this, or anything else, but your Dad defended O.J. Simpson. Those who live in glass penthouse condos...

I haven't followed the trial, and didn't know anything about this until the National Conscious reacted with horror that 12 average people not smart enough to get out of jury duty found her not guilty of killing her kid. Little did I know the country was hanging over this verdict. Proof that its been a slow news year, or that we're in summer re-runs.

I have no idea whether she's really guilty or not, and neither do any of you. Unless you watched every minute of every day of the trial, you don't know all the evidence or testimony that the prosecutor relied upon to support the charges. Even then, you still don't know, because unless there's a video showing the crime being committed, all evidence is necessarily either circumstantial (like she didn't report her kid being missing for a long time) or based on some witness' possibly faulty recollection (the witness testifies he saw her do it, but turns out he had a concussion that day). Unless there's DNA evidence, and even then there can be problems (like the guy at the DNA lab spilled beer all over the sample). Juries have always had to make reasonable inferences from evidence and evaluate the credibility of witnesses. Judges have always had to decide whether evidence is sufficiently reliable for the jury to consider it. And the state has to prove guilt, and not just by the "more likely than not" standard. It has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Like it or not, this is our system. We should thank God for it. Unlike other countries, our Government officials can't just decide they know who did it and put you in some hell hole for 50 years without proving their case. Without proving a compelling case. This isn't Russia, is it? Anyway, remember how everyone is so quick on Memorial Day and Veteran's Day to thank soldiers for their sacrifice to protect our rights? Trial by jury and the "reasonable doubt" standard are among the most sacred rights in English and American law. The right to have a jury of your peers decide your guilt based upon evidence adduced at a trial in which you have the right to confront and cross-examine your accusers, and not by some official mandarin subject to pressure to please the angry mob (or a judge seeking re-election), is one of the core liberties we enjoy. If the right of trial by jury goes, so goes America as we know it.

What does that mean? Any system that relies on people is going to have flaws. People on juries make mistakes. People are dumb. People forget things. They don't always listen. When they listen, sometimes they remember something different than they heard. But that's true of witnesses as well, even so-called "forensic experts." Its especially true of cops. Its certainly true of judges. That's true of jurors too. You're not guaranteed a jury of 12 Harvard professors, or 12 people who made a perfect score on the SAT. You're guaranteed a jury of your peers. Average people. Simple people. The common clay of the new west. You know...morons. Sometimes they reach different decisions than most of us would. Sometimes that's a good thing, because they probably heard some key detail that the rest of us didn't Sometimes that's because they're just too stupid to know better. Sometimes its because they only heard evidence that the judge decided was of sufficient trustworthiness to be considered. They didn't spend six months listening to talking legal heads on MSNBC or CNBC or the like, pontificating about things they don't know about. But juries are going to let the blatantly guilty walk free from time to time. They're going to put innocent people away from time to time. Its not perfect. But no institution dependent on human beings as an integral component will be perfect. Like Catholicism. Or the Democratic National Convention.

I have a little experience in this area. I've always thought jurors take their position seriously. It may annoy them that they have to be there, but nearly all of them understand the seriousness of their position, and the responsibility it imposes on them. Nearly all jurors try to do a good job. That's all we can ask of them. And its more than most people can say about how they do their own job.

So get over it.

Having said that, they should have put Casey Anthony away for naming her kid "Caylee." See above.

NEXT-at some point, I will write about respect.