dougv.com | The Web home of Doug Vanderweide

Published in a recent news story on the growing Justice Department prosecutor firings scandal:

DES MOINES, Iowa - Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday blamed the Bush administration’s fear of scandal for the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, dismissals she said were virtually unprecedented.

Come on, Associated Press.

Nothing can be “virtually unprecedented.” A precedent is absolute. It serves as a guide to all similar, subsequent events. Therefore, the absence of a precedent cannot be virtual. A precedent either exists or it does not, period.

Now, it may well be that mass firings of this sort are rare, or avoided at all costs, or not handled in the manner the White House has handled the situation. That certainly seems to be the gist of the matter. (Hell, I’d argue everything this administration has done since being elected is a new precedent in bad advice, poor management, arrogance and ham-fisted public relations.)

It may even well be that “virtually unprecedented” is an exact term Clinton used; Lord knows, attorneys, for as smart as they’re supposed to be, routinely mangle the language as effectively as they mangle fairness and common sense. But there’s no need for the AP to repeat such nonsense; just quote Clinton making a fool of herself.

It’s amazing to me this sort of grammatical gaffe can make it all the way through a cycle, especially on the national wire, and especially because Webster’s New World College Dictionary — the official dictionary of the AP — clearly says that yes, indeed, precedents either exist or they don’t.

Seriously, AP, get your heads out of your asses.

Many thanks to Jack Arute and Dan Leberfeld of Sirius satellite radio’s NFL Rewind show for noting this story in The New York Post, heralding the end of Joe Theismann’s presence on Monday Night Football:

Several sources told The Post yesterday that Joe Theismann has called his final Monday Night game for ESPN, and will likely be replaced by current network analyst Ron Jaworski. …
A possible explanation for Theismann’s removal is ESPN’s desire to find an analyst more compatible with Tony Kornheiser, who seemed reserved last season in his banter with Theismann.

(Mind you, it’s interesting this story was referenced on NFL Rewind, considering that Arute and Leberfeld have about the same chemistry as Theismann and Kornheiser: They bicker all the time. That’s mostly Leberfeld’s fault. He’s not nearly as smart, clever or mannered as Arute, and that’s consistently demonstrated each Sunday.)

Let me make this clear before proceeding: Which analysts you like and which annoy you are largely matters of opinion; some people hate John Madden, and some like Michael Irvin. I thought Theismann was bad. I don’t think there’s anyone who will work well with Theismann, be him an intentional clown, like Kornheiser, or an elder statesman of the game, like Jaworski. If you want to use Theismann in your booth, he’s the only analyst, period.

But I couldn’t agree more with Arute, who had two basic takes on the firing during Sunday’s show:

• As insufferably ostentatious as Theismann was, not many people would agree with ESPN that he was the one who should go. And to judge from the callers on his show, Arute called that one right.
• ESPN has strong feelings about what it should be producing and will stick with losers far longer than it should — be it Cold Pizza or Kornheiser — because they can and because they suffer from the same tunnel vision that affects all corporate giants.

Continue reading ‘Good Riddance To Joe Theismann: But Why Is Tony Kornheiser Still On Monday Night Football?’ »