Smurf-tacular!

Pretty crappy week for news. Unless you count another meaningless Democratic debate in which the candidates spend 90% of their time nodding in agreement with each other. I don’t count that sort of thing. But I love my readers. Both of you. So I soldier on.

As previously mentioned, the two remaining Democratic candidates held the first of two debates to be held prior to the primaries March 4 at the University of Texas in Austin this past Thursday evening. If this event was Senator Clinton’s idea, she needs to fire the genius that scheduled it against American Idol. I’d be willing to bet two, maybe three dollars that more people are reading these words than watched that dog and pony show. Generally, the purpose of a debate is to highlight the differences between the candidates - primarily regarding the issues. The problem in this case is that the differences between these two on the issues are so minimal, the debate just turns into an exercise into determining how many different ways one can agree with an opponent without using those words. The reason Senator Clinton has fallen behind in this race is the same reason she feels she should be winning this race. Despite all the talk about the importance of substance, this race has turned into an image contest, precisely because the substance is so similar. All the pundits and probably her advisors continue to tell her that her only chance to win the nomination is to promote to voters that Obama is nothing more than a voice and some words, while she has the issues all figures out. But a closer examination of the facts reveals what is essentially a distinction without a difference. And all other things being equal, voters seem to simply be choosing the character they like better. Not good for Senator Clinton.

In a very loosely related story, at a campaign rally in Dallas last week, Senator Obama had the good fortune to be introduced by all-time NFL rushing leader Emmitt Smith. In Texas, that’s about the equivalent of being endorsed by Jesus. If he can win the support of the Father (Troy Aikman) and the Holy Ghost (Michael Irvin), who can stand against him?

The New York Times ran a rather bizarre story on Senator John McCain this past week. The article seemed to suggest that McCain may have had a romantic affair with a female lobbyist ten years ago in exchange for some favors for several of her clients. The problem with the story is that despite the insinuations, the Times made no allegations and offered no real evidence of either an affair or a quid pro quo. Instead they cited anonymous disgruntled ex-McCain staffers who claim they may have warned McCain about the possibility of an appearance of some kind of impropriety so long ago that no one actually remembers what happened, all of which McCain and the lobbyist vehemently deny. All this adds up to absolutely nothing, and if the New York Times - the paper of record - didn’t know that, they should have. Unless they have a stained dress or text messages to underaged Senate pages locked away in the basement of the news room, a story that weak, about a presidential candidate, simply does not run. If the Times has evidence and/or sources willing to go on the record, let them print that. If not, move on.

Stanford University has decided to eliminate tuition for undergraduate students of families earning under $100,000 per year. In addition to tuition, they will also waive room and board for undergrads of families earning under $70,000 per year. This comes no the heels of Harvard limiting undergraduate tuition to 10% of family income for students of families making less than $180,000 per year. It’s part of a trend. Ivy League school - and their West Coast equivalents - have decided to do more to ensure that low-income students qualifying academically for a top tier education are not excluded because they can’t afford one. The reforms aren’t entirely altruistic. They began as an attempt to head off a Congressional investigation into why these school are not using more of their enormous multi-billion dollar financial endowments to assist needy students and lower the ridiculously high cost of post secondary education. But who really cares why they’re doing it. Somebody get me some sweats, flip-flops and an 18-pack of Ramen noodles. I’m going back to college baby!

Finally, in a surefire sign of the apocalypse, the Smurfs are making a comeback. The little blue critters, their mushroom houses and the inept black-robed wizard have returned to ruin the childhoods of a whole new generation of kids. But in response to criticism that the original show is no longer relevant to children of today, the Smurfs will be receiving an update. Gone are the days when the wise elder Smurf makes all the decisions, the males are responsible for all that is good in Smurf village, and the only attractive female sits around all day combing her hair. Specifics are in short supply, but rumor has it there will be several new Smurfs in the village. And as much as I hate to speculate as to who they might be, I’m going to anyway. Gay Smurf? Negro Smurf? Vertically Challenged Smurf - only two apples high. Feminine yet Staunchly Independent Female Athlete Smurf? Perhaps Gargamel will be given a wardrobe upgrade from basic black. A soft Egyptian cotton perhaps? With a nice collar? Maybe some tassels?