Yuck.

I already have this New Year’s Eve planned.  I am going to express enough milk to get The Girl through a day or two, and then I am going to put The Boy to bed, sit down with Hublet and an entire bottle (or more) of champagne, and play a drinking game of my own devising entitled, “Thank God 2009 is OVER.”  The rules are simple:  every time you think of a stress-inducing event from the previous year, chug. 

It could take a case of champagne to get through, now that I think about it.

So the radio silence this week has been caused by The Boy’s acquiring some sort of virus.  He hasn’t been too bothered, and in fact was pleased by one aspect of being sick–it meant that when I took him in for his 8-year-old checkup he didn’t have to get the flu shot.

The doctor said it was either some random thing or a very mild case of flu, so I’m just trying not to breathe while inside the house for the next few days.  I would much rather The Boy spend a couple of days sofa-bound prior to the Blessed Event rather than afterward, but on the other hand the prospect of giving birth with the flu doesn’t really appeal to me. 

And speaking of things that don’t appeal…I’ve been following the Polanski/Letterman/yucky people threads on the intarwebs and I must say that it has all left me with an unpleasant yucky feeling, and one that apparently isn’t obvious.

Lost in all of the “the rich get treated differently,” “rape-rape,” “hollywood is moral because it has compassion,” “is it harrassment or not,” “but he isn’t a politician”  parsing of the standards to which we should hold people is this question:  if we’re spending all of our time defining standards downward in order to spare someone we may like personally, haven’t we then lost our standards?

Polanski is in a realm of his own.  In the immortal words of Dolly Parton, “turn that rooster into a hen.”  That’s all I have to say about that, notwithstanding Harvey Weinstein’s inability to understand that compassion by itself isn’t the same as morality. 

The Letterman issue is where I get puzzled about the parsing.  See, if we have standards, then that means that NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE, or HOW FUNNY YOU MAY BE, or HOW CONSENSUAL THE CHEATING WAS, or HOW MUCH OF A VICTIM OF EXTORTION YOU ARE, or HOW THIS IS A PRIVATE AFFAIR, if you cheat on your wife (or your girlfriend of approxmiately eight million years) you still are wrong.  Wrong, wrong, wrong.  And kind of a yucky person, to boot.

Yes, human beings are fallible.  Yes, forgiveness is possible and that issue is between Letterman and his wife and/or Letterman and God, though I doubt he’s the type to believe in any authority he doesn’t see in the mirror on a daily basis.

But going on t.v. and admitting you were wrong doesn’t make the behavior excusable or okay.  And it certainly doesn’t make it okay because you’re an entertainer as opposed to a cleric or a moralizer. 

Wrong is wrong.  Sorry if that harshes your mellow.