The above are by no means the only ones - I was just getting on a roll - but they were the ones that leapt most quickly to mind.
I feel sort of bad about putting Tiger at the top of the list, poor kid. But heavens, just once I'd like to turn on the TV, pick up a newspaper. listen to the radio or thumb through a magazine without being assaulted by Tiger Woods.
As Mark Twain said about Michelangelo while traveling in Italy, "I do not want him for breakfast, lunch and dinner...why don't they lump the hole thing by saying that God created the heavens and earth on a design by Michelangelo."
Same goes with Tiger Woods. I do not want him with his dad/I do not want him in every ad.
Tiger Woods got more media coverage than any other golfer in last week's Kemper Open and he wasn't even playing. Enough.
And enough of Paula Jones and her bloodsucking lawyers. And enough of the feminists who got all huffy when Clinton attorney Bob Bennett threatened to bring up Jones' sexual past. Jones claims when Clinton came on to her she blushingly told him that she was "not that kind of girl."
Oh? Then she has nothing to worry about, right? A check of her past won't turn up any sleaze. But given the protest, one can only assume she IS that kind of girl. Which puts her credibility and her story in serious question. Why the heck isn't that relevant?
I like to think of myself as an equal opportunity crabby person, which is why I'm also disgruntled with John Huang, the president, the DNC and the entire money-politics-influence games on both sides of the partisan fence.
The DNC has had to give back so much cash, you wonder if any of the money it raised was through legitimate processes. And all the scandals seem to trace back to that scuzzy little Huang character.
Some people who are far wiser than me, like George Will, say limiting campaign spending infringes on free speech. Changing the focus from a money-power issue to a First Amendment issue is smart political strategy, but it ducks the problem. If it wasn't clear before that money buys influence, it sure ought to be now. At some point free speech stops and influence peddling starts. Free speech? My idea of free expression might be to club people like Huang and the DNC over the head with a bat, but would the courts and constitutional scholars like Will congratulate me for this? Oh no.
Heck, in France televised political ads are not allowed. But then just when you think the French might actually have a good idea about something, along comes president Jacques Chirac who calls for an election a full year before he needs to.
Jacques, Jacques, here were your options. A. Status quo. B. Call for elections, lose your prime minister, lose your huge majority in parliament, subject the French people to the turmoil of politics, open the door to the Socialists and Communists and throw all of Europe into a tizzy. And you choose B. Mon Dieu.
But then if he wanted the status quo, all he'd need do is move to Hollywood, which has failed to produce an original thought since "Leaving Las Vegas."
Batman? Again? Isn't this where we came in? Why stop there - why not Rocky CXVIII? Or here's a good one. Maybe they could re-release all three Star Trek Movies again! At the same time! Ha ha. What? Oh, never mind.
I forget why I'm tired of Dennis Rodman and I'm not tired of the Kennedys anymore. In fact, I think they are a symbol of how good the non-movie public has it here in the USA.
They prove that, as a nation, we are content and distracted at best, bored and distracted at worst. Consider. If we were at war would we really care which Kennedy trousers were around which Kennedy ankles? If were mired in depression would we notice when a sportscaster developed a taste for lats? If the market were in freefall and your 401(k) taking a beating would it matter whether a military officer had a fling a decade ago?
So you see? I bet you had no idea things were this wonderful.
Tim Rowland is a Herald-Mail columnist.