WINEHOUSE, JOPLIN, AND CLEMENS

Too much time on our hands. How else do you explain our obsession with celebs accused of drug use and abuse?

I bring up Janis Joplin because she was of my generation. All I know about the winner of 5 Grammies in 2008 is that she couldn't attend the awards show because of some US drug violation. Joplin, well, she was a mess in the 60's and 70's.

From what I can tell, neither Whitehouse or Winehouse or Whinehouse has much more appeal to me than Joplin did. Screaming, screeching, eating the microphone and having a smoky voice just don't add up to an enjoyable listening experience. Give me Warwick or Underwood or Streisand.

The Congressional hearing on steroids in baseball is no more appealing to me. Roger Clemens, certainly a gifted athlete, doesn't appear to be a gifted liar. But he has the public split as much as OJ did. That is about 20-80. Twenty percent believe both athletes. But again, why the insatiable interest? Why the wasted time, and in his case wasted tax payer money? What purpose does it serve? I mean, Andy Pettite seems to be the good guy in all this, and he admitted using steroids, he ratted on Clemens, and now he is preparing for Spring Training with the Yankees. So if there's no penalty for him, then why harrass Clemens who has probably pitched his last game anyway?

My point. We hypocritically denounce drugs and drug users, unless they're our drug user. It doesn't have to be that way. We could embrace cheating coaches who are drug free. Like Bellichek and Sampson and Pearl and....