Yet another stupid article from the LA Times:
A week ago, when President Bush met with Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III to interview him for a potential Supreme Court nomination, the conversation turned to exercise. When asked by the president of the United States how often he exercised, Wilkinson impressively responded that he runs 3 1/2 miles a day. Bush urged him to adopt more cross-training. "He warned me of impending doom," Wilkinson told the New York Times.
Am I the only person who finds this disturbing? I don't mean the fact that Bush would vet his selection for the highest court in the land in part on something utterly trivial. That's expected. What I mean is the fact that Bush has an obsession with exercise that borders on the creepy.
Given the importance of his job, it is astonishing how much time Bush has to exercise.
Speaking of "finding the time" to exercise, who wants to take bets that our friendly editorial writer finds ample time to watch television, go to movies, and dine at expensive restaurants? Why is okay to have the "time" for unedifying leisure activities, but not okay to find the time to improve one's health and mental clarity?
I've been on both ends. In college, I was in excellent shape - 200lbs with 7-10% bodyfat. And I felt great. I gained a lot of weight in law school. And I felt sluggish. I still had an impressive work capacity, but it was at least 15 - 20% less than when I'm fit. I've since been losing the law school weight, and sure enough, I have more energy, and I'm more productive. Isn't this a painfully obvious point?
Of course it is. Except that editorial writers gladly ignore the painfully obvious when it gives them an excuse to attack Bush. It's getting tiresome. So tiresome that the subscription I recently bought from some kid who, if he sells enough subscriptions gets a savings bond or something, is getting cancelled. (The kid already got his "points," so he won't be harmed.) Seriously, I'm done with the LA Times. Any paper that attacks physical fitness is unfit for print.