On, like, totally questionable nominations

Okay, so we all pretended to be surprised when Bush announced that he was bringing in none other than Condoleezza Rice to fill the SecState position gladly vacated by Colin Powell. This is the woman who was able to stare down the barrel of a memo titled "Bin Laden determined to Attack Inside the United States" and come to the conclusion that, hey, bin Laden wasn't going to, like, attack or anything, certainly not inside the United States. And then she had the balls to lie about it under oath, and while I'm normally all about (rhetorical) balls on a woman, they are a power that should be used for good and not evil. But we only really feigned surprise about her nomination, 'cause we'd already had one term with Bush in office and this seemed like exactly the kind of thing that he'd do.

Then came the announcement that the proposed replacement for John "All Your Ovary Are Belong to Us" Ashcroft would be Alberto "Big Al" Gonzales, the former Bush advisor who told him that the whole torture thing was, like, totally legal and ethical and is now giving us the faaaaaar more palatable option of exporting our prisoners so we don't have to torture them our ownselves. This was more of a shock because it came at a time when, hello, we were under fire for our treatment of detainess, and hello, scrutiny hasn't exactly let up since the initial wackiness at Abu Ghraib. And while I must admit that his confirmation came as a bit of a surprise to me, it is just par for the course with Bush (who surrounds himself with people who tell him he's right) and the Republican-heavy Congress (who, as wel all know, are so far up his behind that they can't see daylight).

Then came the nomination of John R. Bolton as US ambassador to the UN. This is, of course, similar to appointing Bill O'Reilly to head the ACLU; this is the guy who once said that "if the UN secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." And am I surprised? I am not! And not just because this is par for the course.

This is merely one more aspect of Bush's groundbreaking strategy of destroying all of these villages in order to save them. At first, it was just Iraq, which he bombed to hell and back in order to bring peace and democracy and purple fingers and cuddly puppies. We all know that he's intent on destroying Social Security in order to save it - so intent, in fact, that he's taking 60 days off of his president gig (which, in his defense, was more of a part-time deal anyway) to tour the country convincing the American people to give Social Security a nice pimp slap as he brought it down. And he spends so much time clearing brush in Crawford that he's got to have designs on clearcutting the family ranch.

But this one, this is more ambitious. This is obviously the next phase in his plan to bring democracy and fluffy clouds to the whole world - and what better way to save the world than to destroy it, bit by bit, starting with the UN? This presidency is going to go down in history. Assuming, y'know, that there actually is history when he gets done with it.

On the end of an era

Okay, so as much as I hate to say it, it's time for us all to bid a fond adieu to George W. Bush, Would You Please Go Now?! I seriously do hate to see him go - not just because he's funny (I happen to be related to the dude, so I can get the snark at home), and not just because I gank his material all the time (there are other, not nearly as funny blogs that have just as much news and commentary), and not because most of my traffic comes from his links (come on, people, isn't it about time to throw a girl some blogroll love?). I hate to see him go because the world benefits from the folks who are absolutely passionate about... something. GWBWYPGN?! ranges from the snarky to the wholly profane, frequently insulting, always with feeling, and while sometimes he does more harm than good with his approach, it's good to be reminded that, in this day when it seems like the entire world is going to hell in the same handbasket, some things are still worth getting excited about.

Anyway, RIP, GWBWYPGN?! We hardly knew ye. It's good to know that Doug will be coming back, eventually, in all of his snarky goodness, with a slightly broader target. Until then, Practically Harmless isn't going anywhere, at least as long as I can continue to find superior blogs to rob of their content.

On chick bloggers

Okay, so I was going to leave this one (and its followup this one) alone. Plenty of others have addressed it more eloquently than I ever could (and special props to Mary at Naked Furniture, who addressed it more succinctly and profanely than I ever could). But then, this weekend, I was told that I was smart and had a big vocabulary - but that was okay, 'cause I'm cute anyway. Blogosphere, feel my wrath.

It goes without saying that, whether or not Kevin Drum recognizes their existence, the Internet is chock full of blogs run by chicks or with significant female participation. The majority of them aren't terribly well-known; notoriety depends on gratuitous linkage from The Big Guys, and The Big Guys (who tend to be guys) tend to link to other Big Guys. For any blogger, regardless of gender, breaking into the cycle is a challenge; for whatever reasons, it's even more of a challenge for women.

Here, on my very own blog, I blather about politics. I like politics. I find politics interesting, I feel that I have a responsibility to know what's going on with the people who run my country, and it's nice to have a soapbox to stand on when I'm feeling particularly passionate about a certain issue. I also, on occasion, blather about non-political things. Religion is a favorite topic of mine, especially as it relates to politics, and there's also the occasional vent about family stuff, dating stuff, whatever - it's my forum and I'll gripe if I want to. Everything that I post is basically stuff going on in the world, filtered through my own personal viewpoint. That viewpoint is colored by a lot of things - my job, my lifestyle, my environment, my friends, my family, my socioeconomic status, and, yeah, my gender.

One of Kevin's more moronic commenters makes this point:

Women writers seem too often to address every issue through the prism of being a woman first and their self images as women whether it be as a feminist or a soccer mom. A litmus test should be this: a reader should be able to read an oped piece without knowing the author and should not be able to tell whether it was written by a man or woman. I believe Anne Applebaum would meet this test but I can't think of any other woman writer, certainly not Maureen Dowd or Susan Estrich.

I tend to be an open-minded person, and I don't throw words like "stupid" around lightly, but that is one of the most stupid, stupid, stupid things I've heard in my life. Why should we expect any opinion columnist to hide his or her own perspective in their writing? Newspapers are filled with writing devoid of bias; it's called the news. We turn to the opinions section to read what other people think about the news.

Wwren doesn't care about perspective; he's asking, "Why can't a woman... be more like a man?" Male opinion columnists are just as influenced by their gender as women are; it just so happens that, for whatever reason (and I could rattle off a bunch of them), in this still-patriarchal-after-all-these-years society, the male perspective is accepted as the default. My writing isn't identifiable as chick blogging because I make an effort to reference my ovaries in every post; I just have the occasional perspective that men can't immediately relate to, 'cause they're carting around a penis. Does this make my opinions any less valid than corresponding male opinions? Only, apparently, if you're Kevin Drum.

For the record, here are some invalid reasons that women are underrepresented in the top eschelons of the blogosphere:

• Women don't enjoy the vicious atmosphere of opinion writing. Bollocks. I love it. I love love it, and plenty of other women do as well. The fact is, half the time that we speak up, our voices are interrupted and drowned out by the much louder basso profundo of men who have, like, totally important things to say. And when we finally raise our voices loud enough to be heard above the fray, we're the shrews, and no one is interested in listening to us because we must have PMS or something. Oh, screw you so much.


• Women are slower at picking up the technology. Double bollocks. Blogger is as easy to use as Hotmail, and there tons of women who are bright enough to, like, type stuff into it and click "publish post." Why do these women not get linked by The Big Guys? You'll have to ask The Big Guys.


• We're all off popping out babies. Must... not... crush... computer. Guess what? The archetype of woman-as-baby-factory was out of style as of WWII. Some of have jobs. Some of us have hobbies. And some of us - not me, but plenty of others - have kids and yet still manage to post regularly - even on non-baby topics. I'm sure this revelation will shake the very foundations of our society; please remember to credit Practically Harmless.

For me, it's not a big deal. I started this blog as a clearinghouse for my own opinions, and the fact that I wasn't actually getting any traffic didn't bother me, 'cause at least I was out there. In recent months, when my traffic moved from "nonexistent" to "not a whole lot" (and for all I know, that's just due to my mom hitting "refresh" a couple of times whenever she visits), I thought it was spiffy that people were actually reading it. I'm not saying that I'm on any kind of level with Atrios or Kos - or Kevin Drum, for that matter. But don't you dare look me in the eye and wonder where I am. I'm handing it off to Kevin's commenter Morgan to sum it up quite nicely:

Fuck you asshole. The reason there are no 'women bloggers' is because you ass-hat men are not linking to them. They are everywhere. I read at least a fifty women bloggers who have a lot to say about politics and religion. But you're to busy jerking-off to see it. It's called a search engine shithead, use it.

Isn't that the cutest thing? The girl has a little opinion-winion! Yes, she do! Yes, she do! Don't worry, Morgan; you're cute anyway.

Update: Check out a pretty comprehensive overview of the entire controversy at Victory Soap.

One one question answered

Okay, so I pondered, in a recent post, how I could be so scandalized by Europe and the US's inactivity in response to the genocide in Rwanda but still be opposed to Bush's actions in Iraq. I mean, if you think about it, Saddam Hussein's mass graves and torture chambers and rape rooms are just as horrific as the mass murders in Rwanda; why is one more worthy of intervention than the other?

Well, ask and ye shall receive. Commenter Festinog over at GWBWYPGN?! gives us this credible explanation:

One should have been a UN led Policing Action (which is VERY different from a war, not just in terms of its mandate, but how it is actually enforced on the ground), the other WAS a unilateral military invasion.

And that's it. What was needed in both cases was international forces marching in, the world united against what amounts to the forces of evil, to defend those in need of defense and lawfully remove all of those individuals - be they Rwandan rebels or Hussein's entire government - responsible for the atrocities in question. What was not needed was a unilateral action by a Western president grown too big for his britches, who went in unprepared for the sheer size and responsibility of such an invasion.

Had the US responded to news of the genocide in Rwanda by bombing the everliving crap out of the country, killing many of the people we intended to save and leaving the country with very little infrastructure worth rebuilding, we would have ended up with what we're facing now in Iraq: one group of grateful survivors, another group of seriously ticked-off insurgents, and one really awful reputation in the world. We can't change the past, can't change our actions or lack thereof. But we can - and should - learn from the past, and that involves cooperation with a coalition of the enthusiastic, not just the willing, and the realization that destroying a village in order to save it is a pretty crappy strategy. We can't ignore evil when it crops up in the world, but we also can't respond with such overwhelming force that when we're done, there's no one left to save.

On Nicene Christianity

Okay, so I know I've been on just the tiniest Christianity kick of late, but I think it's not entirely inappropriate, considering how religion seems to be heavily contributing to today's global climate of generalized insanity. Fundie Islam is struggling for power in Iraq, fundie Christianity already has plenty of it here, lesbian Wiccans are saving the world in "Buffy" reruns, and now the Reverend Dr. Giles Frasier over at the Progressive Blog Alliance HQ" introduces us to the idea of "Nicene Christianity":

Nicene Christianity is the religion of Christmas and Easter, the celebration of a Jesus who is either too young or too much in agony to shock us with his revolutionary rhetoric. The adult Christ who calls his followers to renounce wealth, power and violence is passed over in favor of the gurgling baby and the screaming victim. As such, Nicene Christianity is easily conscripted into a religion of convenience, with believers worshipping a gagged and glorified savior who has nothing to say about how we use our money or whether or not we go to war.

The Good Reverend Doctor goes on to expound upon the institutionalization of Christianity throughout the ages, subverting its revolutionary message of, like, peace, and being nice to people, and loving thy neighbor and stuff, and neutering Jesus Christ into "a gagged and glorified savior who has nothing to say about how we use our money or whether or not we go to war." This carries all the way up to modern times, where Bush The Younger perverts the presence of Jesus in his life in order to start wars, contramand the Constitution and lay the smackdown on gays and old people. Per Rev. Dr. Frasier, "Bush may have claimed that "Jesus Christ changed my life", but Jesus doesn't seem to have changed his politics."

Amen.

Much thanks to Nick Lewis over at The American Street for the link.

On kangaroo courts/witchhunts/what have you

Okay, so courtesy of Kevin Drum we have the very reasons that the questions I asked in my last post may never be answered. We might never know, really, whether the invasion of Iraq has netted good stuff in the end, simply because we keep coming up with stuff like this from a military tribunal of a Guantanamo detainee:

"This is something the interrogators told me a long while ago," Idr complains during his so-called trial. "I asked the interrogators to tell me who this person was. Then I could tell you if I might have known this person, but not if this person is a terrorist. Maybe I knew this person as a friend. Maybe it was a person that worked with me. Maybe it was a person that was on my team. But I do not know if this person is Bosnian, Indian or whatever. If you tell me the name, then I can respond and defend myself against this accusation."

The tribunal president then responds, presumably with a straight face: "We are asking you the question and we need you to respond to what is on the unclassified summary."

Now, for all we know, this guy could be an al Qaeda operative planning terrorist attacks in his head while he's talking to the tribunal. Or he could be a taxi driver who got picked up in the expansive sweeps the US did at the beginning of the war years ago. If this is the way they're going to try him, we'll never really know; it's like dragging a random homeless guy off the street and saying, "Prove to me you're innocent."

And that's just the fit-for-TV version. The cable version includes what New York Times columnist Bob Herbert calls an "exercise in extreme human degredation" to the tune of abuses not conveniently caught by the camera of grinning Abu Ghraib MPs:

We know that people were kept in cells that in some cases were the equivalent of animal cages, and that some detainees, disoriented and despairing, have been shackled like slaves and left to soil themselves with their own urine and feces. Detainees are frequently kicked, punched, beaten and sexually humiliated. Extremely long periods of psychologically damaging isolation are routine.

And that's why we might never know if our intervention was really the best thing for Iraq - which should not be a question. What if European troops had charged into Rwanda to stop the genocide, only to lock up thousands of random Hutus and Tutsis, beat them into unconsciousness, and shackle them to the ground in a puddle of their own waste, all in the interest of putting down future rebellions? Would the net value of that intervention have been good or bad?

I realize that the following news is far from groundbreaking, but it's true: the tanner you are, the less value you have to much of western society. The Rwandans were dark enough that no one wanted to get involved at all. In Iraq, we were willing to get involved, but only on the condition that we could treat anyone like crap, lock anyone up, beat anyone down for information, in the name of peace. These guys are brown; if they're not terrorists, they know terrorists, or they could become terrorists, or at least they have no one to complain to. For a country that supposedly has so much respect for human life, we have a seriously funny way of showing it.

On Hotel Rwanda

Okay, so I saw "Hotel Rwanda" with my brother on Saturday, and I have to say that that's probably the most powerful movie I've seen in my entire life. And I don't say that lightly. "Schindler's List" is a very close second, but "Hotel Rwanda" is first, probably because it's about something that happened in my lifetime. The Holocaust was truly horrible, but it's something that I read about in books and saw on the History Channel; the genocide in Rwanda happened while I was alive, while I was even old enough to remember it, and that makes it that much more real.

And it makes it that much more shameful. Watching the atrocities of that conflict, the things that people did to each other for no other reason than that this guy is a Hutu and this guy is a Tutsi, two completely arbitrary designations, is absolutely mind-blowing and made me ashamed to be a human being. I'm not saying that I'm a wonderful person or without stain or anything like that, but I can't imagine taking another life in cold blood. I have enough trouble imagining being able to take a life in self-defense, killing just one. But my brother pointed out that during that period in Rwanda, there were literally millions of murders. Not only were these people willing to look another person in the eye and then take his or her life, they were willing to do it again and again and again. Not even dropping a bomb on millions or herding millions of people into a gas chamber - killing millions of people one at a time, killing friends and neighbors one at a time. And for no other reason than that the people were in a different group as decided by their height or the width of their noses or the whim of a bunch of Belgians.

Watching the American and European reactions to those atrocities, though, made me ashamed to be a white human being. One of the characters mentioned that people would see news footage of the dead bodies and the men marching around with machetes and say, "Oh, my God, that's horrible" - and then they'd go back to eating their dinners. And that's what happened. I mean, I remember hearing about it, and wondering why the Hutus wanted to kill the Tutsis and vice versa, and thinking that it's horrible and I wouldn't want it to happen to me - but that's as far as it ever got. That's as far as it ever got with anyone - countries would come in, armed to the teeth, with thousands of troops to pluck out their own white citizens, and then the citizens and the troops and the arms would take off, leaving all of the brown people to get hacked to death with machetes. And we, the rest of the world, were okay with that. Three thousand UN troops for millions of people was plenty. As long as it was just "isolated acts of genocide" instead of genocide proper, no one had to intervene.

That made me think about my own attitude toward the current war in Iraq. Hadn't I really kind of been saying the same thing? "Yeah, Saddam Hussein is a bad guy, and there were the rape rooms and the mass graves and the ordered executions, but is that enough to intervene? Is that enough to risk American lives?" And as horrible as it sounds, I don't really have an answer to that question. Why are the two situations different? Is it because the atrocities are on a different scale, or because one was government sanctioned? Or am I just too stubborn to admit that Iraq needed outside intervention just as much as Rwanda did?

Stubborn or not, I've got a lot of questions that will only be answered with time. Reconciling more than a thousand coalition dead and thousands of Iraqi civilian dead with thousands of Iraqis murdered by Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction that never existed with democratic elections with America's loss of credibility in the world with... whatever might mean that the questions will never answered, or never answered to anyone's satisfaction. But they're questions worth discussing, if only to find out what we can do as people such that Rwanda and Iraq - and the Holocaust, for that matter - can be prevented in the future. And if there's a movie that can facilitate that discussion, I think it's beyond Oscar-worthy.

On snappy answers to stupid questions

Okay, so Newsweek's Rod Nordland did a live chat on MSNBC yesterday to discuss the leadup to and results of the Iraqi elections. Some of the questioners seemed to have their stuff together, which is always a good thing; some seemed more intent on making their points than actually getting their questions answered, which is to be expected. Rod certainly seemed to have his stuff together. Read the whole thing, 'cause it's good reading, but do take note of the question that people keep asking and the best answer I've heard yet:

Dallas, TX: The pictures of voting Sunday in Iraq and the incredible turnout demonstrate the determined will of a courageous people. Even if President Bush was wrong in invading Iraq, doesn't the result make it all worth while?
Rod Nordland: It was indeed a very heartening occasion. Still, Bush didn't invade the country to bring it democracy. By that reasoning, we should also invade Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, etc., none of which have anything even remotely resembling democracy. No WMD, remember, which was one reason, and no al Qaeda, the other reason - until after we invaded. And Iraq now is the biggest producer of terrorists in the world, which it wasn't before.

... which barely topped this runner-up:

Hopatcong, NJ: Do you, Masland and Dickey mean "F---ing Murderers" when you say "insurgents" and "fighters" in your STUPIDITY? I've grown sick and tired of you "politically incorrect" reporters. Why don't you have the gumption to call a spade a spade?
Rod Nordland: OK, you're an idiot. How's that?

On a lazy Wednesday evening

Okay, so it's one of those cold and rainy days in Atlanta where all you really want to do is curl up on the sofa with a cup of tea and/or a bowl of Italian wedding soup and watch "The West Wing" because we all want to be Allison Janney when we grow up. Alas, tonight, "The West Wing" is being pre-empted by a State of the Union address by a far inferior president. Now, I intend to watch the SOTU anyway, if only because I've been suffering of late from a low-grade nausea that I'm waiting to develop into something serious, but it would appear that The Regular Staple has plans tonight, because they've already done us the courtesy of pre-blogging the speech (and welcome to the blogroll, by the way, TRS, 'cause you made me snort Diet Dr. Pepper all over my keyboard).

I do have another reason for watching tonight's address, though. I'ma be listening hard for three specific words, and if I hear them, I will donate one hundred of my very own dollars ($100/VO) to a charity of my reader(s) choosing. Throw down suggestions under Comments, and anyone who watches the speech should let me know if they hear the words, just in case I miss them.

The words of the evening are Osama bin Laden.

On jumping on the courage train

Okay, so far too much of my really good really bad material comes from Atrios. In this case, we hear tell of Congressional Republicans who intend to show up at tonight's SOTU with purple fingers to show solidarity with Iraqi voters.

Okay, Repubs, it's time to get off the freaking train. Off. Off! You've never figured it out before, so I don't know why I'd expect you to get it this time, but this is not your moment. You didn't and have never and would never need to face down the danger they did in order to do something as simple as vote, and you've never and most likely will never feel the fear that they live with every single day. They didn't do it so that you could congratulate yourself on a half-assed job well done and take credit for everything that they accomplished, or so that you could wave your purple fingers around and pretend that all of the American and Iraqi lives lost are suddenly hunky-dory.

As with so many other things, someone else has said it better than I could; in this case, it's Charles Pierce (also, of course, courtesy of Atrios):

You do not own their courage.

The people who stood in line Sunday did not stand in line to make Americans feel good about themselves.

You do not own their courage.

They did not stand in line to justify lies about Saddam and al-Qaeda, so you don't own their courage, Stephen Hayes. They did not stand in line to justify lies about weapons of mass destruction, or to justify the artful dodginess of Ahmad Chalabi, so you don't own their courage, Judith Miller. They did not stand in line to provide pretty pictures for vapid suits to fawn over, so you don't own their courage, Howard Fineman, and neither do you, Chris Matthews.

You do not own their courage.

Read the whole thing. It should make all of us, on both sides, at least a little ashamed and embarrassed about the way we've ridden this election for our own purposes. It's time to get off. This isn't our train.

On democracy in Iraq, f'real

Okay, so it would appear that elections in Iraq went off without any major hitches, which is fantastic. Despite threats of violence from, let's face it, lots of folks, Iraqi election officials estimate somewhere around a 60 percent voter turnout for Sunday's election, which is better than a lot of the elections here in the US (and American voters don't have to face down crazies strapped with explosives on their way to the polls). And while it sucks to say that the deaths of 44 Iraqis comprise a hitchless election, the fact that it happened at all is a good, good sign for Iraq.

Of course a shout-out goes to the Iraqi security forces that managed to keep the (relative) peace with such success, and an even bigger shout-out goes to the US troops that trained them - and especially those who gave their lives to make this happen. You'll never hear me say that the initial invasion of Iraq was a good idea, and I can't think of a single argument that will make me believe it, but the world is certainly better off without Saddam Hussein in power, and this first step toward real democracy for Iraq means that the abject chaos of the past few years might end well after all. Is it worth it? I'll have to get back to you on that. But in today's international climate, "ending well after all" is certainly better than nothing, and I'll be the first to admit that it's better than I had predicted.

So what happens next? Good question. Ted Kennedy seems to think that we need to pull our butts out of Iraq, and as much as I hate to say it - no, Teddy, no, for a lot of reasons. The first reason is the classic: we broke it, we have a responsibility to fix it. I won't argue that the presence of American troops isn't an irritant to most of the insurgents that are causing the trouble, but that isn't a reason to pull out before the job is done. I think that a scheduled pullout can be effective as long as departing US troops are replaced by equally trained and equipped Iraqi troops; otherwise, we're not only removing any source of authority but also telling all of the neighborhood kids when Mom and Dad are going out of town. As much as I hate to see Americans over there in the line of fire, I recognize that it's because Iraq isn't ready for us to go.

However.

Bush has said that if the newly elected Iraqi government tells him to get out, he'll get out. Mr. President, I'm going to hold you to that. Among the many and ever-shifting goals you've listed for your invasion of Iraq is the spread of democracy to an undemocratic land, and that's done. If the democratically elected government says that they're ready to handle this on your own and that you need to be on your way, you have to respect that - even if you disagree. You can only give them as much help as they're willing to take, they'll have to have total self-government sooner or later, and a continued military presence in Iraq will do nothing but further chip away at your already shaky credibility. This is their party now, and you've given your word. Be a man for once.

On a completely unrelated lighter note - saw Laura Bush on the Today Show this morning, and she looked faboo. A woman her age needs to wear a little color around her face, as long as the color isn't that Barney-the-Dinosaur purple that she wore to meet Hillary Clinton at the White House. Laura, America loves you in that red suit - don't ever change.

Update: Sigh. Such is the price of premature blogging. I had only just hit the "publish" button when I came across this letter in the AJC, "Liberals owe Bush an apology." The letter writer says, "Now that the Iraqi elections have been held, I wonder whether the Democrats will have the character to congratulate President Bush on a job well done[.]"

Wonder no longer, Mr. Kazmarek - the answer is not no but hell no. Bush didn't do this. Thousands of coalition and Iraqi troops did this while he sat back and snarked for the cameras. Plus, while I'm still madly optimistic about peace and democracy on Iraq's horizon (which is odd for me, because I'm not the optimistic type), I also have to acknowledge the fact that this election isn't a magical Band-Aid that will quiet the insurgency, bring peace among Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, and make lions lie with lambs. The withdrawal of US troops - which has to happen sooner or later - might well lead to the collapse of an unstable country further destabilized by Bush's invasion. So no, I'm not going to congratulate President Bush on anything other than his own dumb luck. I'm going to congratulate the American and Iraqi security forces that made this possible, and I'm going to congratulate the ballsy Iraqis who took their lives in their hands for the opportunity to vote.

On religious freedom

Okay, so I know I've been remiss in my updating lately, and with the recent re-inauguration and the quote-crisis-unquote with Social Security and Condi naming "outposts of tyranny" and all, I've got metric buttloads of material. And it'll all come, fear not. But until I've got a few things nailed down in my own life, you're going to have to settle for this paragon of wingnuttery, courtesy of Atrios:

As Mr. Scott points out, the glorious Constitution is there to protect the rights of Christians to profess their faith. This country was founded by good Christians and the Constitution guarantees our right to express our religion.

It just is completely beyond me how we have allowed Liberals to deny us this guaranteed right.

Oh, they raise ridiculous arguments like other (false) religions would be "upset" if they were forced to pray alongside the righteous in schools or council meetings.
Surely those others would appreciate the opportunity to be saved. As God's chosen people, we Christians have the right to express our religion and praise tolerant, patient and merciful God, and I don't want to read any more letters from Liberals suggesting non-believers should be allowed to express their superstitions just because we Christians can express ours.

Although it does seem to be one "heterosexually yours" away from a missive from our friend Jesus' General, it looks like this might be one of those things that's just way too weird to be a hoax. It's been said before, by people far wiser than me - God, please protect me from your followers.

On harmless puppies

Okay, so the first Totally Random Yahoo! Search of 2005 is...
what kind of puppies are harmless for children?

I'll look beyond the fact that Yahoo! doesn't really respond to direct questions so much and move straight into a good chuckle about the shock that some poor mother is going to get looking for harmless puppies on this blog. Yes, ma'am, we've got puppies here, but they're not really appropriate for children.

And confidential to What Kind of Puppies: try a Brittany. They're cute, bright (generally), energetic and child-friendly.


Aww.

On New Year's resolutions

Okay, so it really has been a while, but I've had my stuff to do lately. Mostly, it's just been the wackiness involved in making Christmas happen, and then New Year's after that (and might I say, go Dawgs). And while I have to say that I wasn't as overflowing with the Christmas spirit as I have been in past years, it's never a bad thing to spend time with your loved ones, especially if there's free loot involved.

Of course, all of that is over now, and we've got 362 days of 2005 lying before us like freshly laid linoleum, just waiting for someone to Rollerblade across it and leave little black brake marks that Mom will yell about for days. This is the time when people start making resolutions, telling what they're going to do differently, how they can improve their lives in the fresh, sparkly New Year.

Now, I'm not usually one for New Year's resolutions. They aren't usually kept. The best resolutions happen not because last year's Dilbert desk calendar has gone in the trash and the cellophane is off of this year's Dilbert desk calendar; the best resolutions happen because something has changed in your life that causes you to realize that maybe a Denny's Scram Slam isn't the best breakfast every day, that maybe your persistent cough is related to the unfiltered Marlboros you've been smoking since you were in the womb, that maybe your neighbors would like you better if you kept the goat sacrifice to Saturday nights only. So I've got some changes that I'm going to make, not because my DayRunner now says January in the corner but because things have come up in my life that indicate a need for change. So here goes.

1. I resolve to shut up about politics already
Now, before you get all excited, this blog isn't going anywhere. But I've come to the realization that the vast majority of my political discussions come to one of the following two ends: one, they agree with me (almost exclusively my fellow Dems, so that's just preaching to the choir) or two, they disregard my argument entirely and brand me a liberal kook (hard-core Kool-Aid Republicans). It calls to mind the old adage of wrestling with a pig, or teaching a pig to whistle, or dancing with a pig, or something. The point is the futility of making a pig do what a pig doesn't want to do. So I'm out.

Fear not - I'm still going to be all up in your grill bemoaning the injustices of the world, slagging off dumb, puppety Republicans, and blatantly stealing content from other blogs. But the focus is going to be less on basic whingeing and more on doing something about it - I resolve to light a candle instead of just cursing the damn darkness.

2. I resolve to pay more attention to the people who actually have power
And, by implication, less attention to the people who just piss and moan. Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are really annoying. They say things that aren't true, and they encourage bad thoughts and bad thinking among their (considerable) audiences. But in the end, they don't mean that much. The people to worry about aren't the ones who say bad things but the ones who do bad things. And while I don't feel that I've been remiss in exploring the faults and foibles of the Bush administration, I do feel that I need to concentrate more on the folks in power, rather than the folks who, being largely powerless, sit around on their bony/fat asses and encourage uber-conservative America to be more judgmental, more xenophobic and more self-satisfyingly moralistic than they were going to be anyway.

Which is not to say I'm not going to pin Ann Coulter to the mats and make her my bitch if she says something even remotely stupid. I'm just going to give the rest of the country more credit for recognizing that she's stupid.

3. I resolve to be a better Christian
And I mean a better Christian Democrat. As if you hadn't noticed, conservatives have basically co-opted Christianity for their own nefarious purposes. They've become the party of goodness and morals simply because they were quick enough to claim it first. From an advertising/marketing standpoint, it's a bright move; brand yourself as the party of values and Jesus and apple pie, and the other guy is reduced to "me too" marketing.

Well, I'm not buying it. Conservatives don't get to corner the marked on Christianity and then live as an example of What Would Jesus Never Do. Doug's got a great take on it over at GWBWYPGN?!, but basically, here's the deal: the Bible tells us to be generous to those who are less fortunate (and I will give props where props are due, as President Bush recently upped our contribution to the tsunami victims by a factor of ten; hello to $350 million aid). The Bible tells us not to judge, lest we be judged. The Bible tells us that it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven. If you want to really live by the word of God, remember these words: "Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me." I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I really don't think I'd be one to spit on The Almighty, even if he did look kind of like a homeless veteran. Every person who dares call him- or herself both Christian and Democrat has a responsibility to live up to both of those names, if only to show the conservatives how it's supposed to be done.

If you get the chance, run to your local Blockbuster and pick up Saved!. In addition to being an interesting commentary on the tactics of the Religious Right, it's also funny as all get out.

4. I resolve to date more civilians
Just a little personal resolution there. I want to make it clear that I don't chase uniforms (although it has been argued that they chase me). I actually believe that military men should wear their uniforms everywhere they go, to make them easier to avoid. It's just not fair: you walk into a bar and sit down next to a heterosexual man who has a nice body and a decent haircut and knows how to iron. What girl wouldn't go for that? It's entrapment.

Regardless, I have, to date, been screwed over by four out of five branches of the uniformed services. Unless anyone knows a Coastie who's interested in using me and discarding me like a Jiffy Lube shop rag, I think it's time for me to find myself a nice accountant.

5. I resolve to chill
That's it. I resolve to blog more, work less; party more, obsess less; read more fiction and less fashion; drink more decaf and less high-test. Even if my first four resolutions go to hell and I find myself a whining, impotent, judgmental little shit dating a man in uniform, hey, I've been there - I like to call it 2003. The least I can do, the smallest gift that I can give myself, is to be a whining, impotent, judgmental little shit dating a man in uniform and sleeping nights.

Merry Christmas, happy New Year, and good luck with 2005. Practically Harmless isn't going anywhere - same bat time, same bat channel.

On the importance of adhering to gender stereotypes

Or, you go on a date with the gender roles that you have, not the gender roles that you might want or wish to have.

Okay, so every couple of years, a new theory is born on men and women and how they should or should not relate to each other. A few years ago, the big deal was The Rules - quite literally a rulebook for women, an instruction manual to teach them how to take back the power in their interaction with men, pretty much by playing hard-to-get. When to call, when not to call, how far in advance to set dates, how long to wait before sleeping with a guy - Rules. And it was a big deal. And some women thought it was a great idea, and some thought it was a lousy idea, but most people had something to say.

Now, the newest and biggest is He's Just Not That Into You, a phrase which "Sex and the City" viewers will recognize from that show because the book was written by the writers of, well, that show. The idea behind this book is that women always make excuses for guys, why they don't call, why they're inattentive, when, for the most part, he's just not that into her. It's refreshing, really, kind of a strong cup of coffee for women who try to relate to men the way they relate to other women. It doesn't ask anyone to change their ways for someone else; it just requires men to be men and women to accept that. And I can accept that.

Except.

Except that men aren't always men. Sometimes, men are just as womany as women are. Despite the fact that men are supposed to be predictably and penis-centric and generally mannish, some men will insist on being multifaceted and multilayered and on playing little mind games. And while everyone has the right to be only as straightforward as they choose to be, it really confuses the hell out of everyone when some crazy rebel man chooses to reject the stereotype and play mind games. Or, for that matter, when a woman chooses to reject the stereotype and be straightforward and upfront (and guys, don't even pretend you don't know what I'm talking about).

So here's my pledge to men: I promise to be the girliest damn girl out there. I promise to never really tell you what's on my mind. I promise that if you ask what's wrong and I say "nothing," there really is something wrong. I promise never to remind you in advance of special occasions, and then to get my feelings hurt when you forget. I promise to take two hours to get ready for a date, to have the chef prepare my entire meal without butter, and to drag you only to movies with a John Williams score and actors far hotter than you. I promise to get offended when you don't call, to smother you with affection in front of your tough-guy friends, and to smack you publicly for checking out a perfectly attractive girl in a short skirt. I promise to push for girlfriend status two weeks into the relationship, to keep a toothbrush at your place, and to give you cutesy stuffed animals at every gift-giving occasion.

In return, I ask you to be mannish. Not manly - mannish. You must always speak your mind, even when tact would tell you to shut up. You must wear jeans to nice restaurants, and ripped jeans on more casual outings. You must ignore me whenever you work on your car - and you must spend at least two hours a day working on your car. You must call me up only when you're looking for tail. You must show affection with a firm slap on the ass, never commit to a date more than two hours in the future, and blow off dinner and a movie if one of your friends just bought a new firearm. You must tell wild stories to your friends about what a firecracker I am in the sack so that they leer at me whenever they see me. When I start talking to you, your eyes must glaze over a minute and a half into the conversation.

It's not pretty, but it's consistent.

Now, you might ask, wouldn't it just be easier to be straightforward? Would the world truly implode if a woman said what was really on her mind, instead of trying to figure out in advance what his reaction might be and adjust her statement accordingly and then complain because he doesn't know the real her and she just isn't being fulfilled? Could the apocalypse really come of a guy telling a girl that he's not interested in her romantically but would love to get a beer sometime - or, alternately, that he's interested in her only sexually and that she should expect attention from him only when he's trying to get some?

Well, uh, yeah.

On going to war with the Army you have

Okay, so Donald Rumsfeld has a message for American troops stationed in Iraq: Go home and die.

Okay, well, not really, but he got pretty close to it in Wednesday's "town hall"-style meeting at Camp Buehring in Kuwait. Spc. Thomas Wilson had the testicular fortitude to stand up at said meeting and ask, "Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?"

Good question, really. And Rumsfeld's answer, after he hemmed and hawwed and had the question repeated like a contestant in the national spelling bee, came up with a peach of an answer: screw you. "You go to war with the Army you have," he said, "not the Army you might want or wish to have," then went on to explain that "you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can (still) be blown up."

Wow, that's profound and comforting. And not at all negligent of his responsibilities to the soldiers and Marines that, as Secretary of freaking Defense, he is personally sending into battle. How the man can be so blase about the issue of properly arming and protecting his troops is beyond me. Or maybe it's not. I mean, if you think about it, Rummy isn't in any danger. Outside of his occasional Iraqi field trips, in which he tries to raise troop morale by telling them that he needn't bother arming them 'cause they could just die anyway, he splits his time between the Pentagon and the White House. The man's idea of body armor is having the right kind of cup on when he plays squash on Thursday. The thought of actually having someone shoot anything harder than a marshmallow at him is beyond his ken. Which is why when the troops actually wanted his support, it was "you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can still be blown up," but when he needed to save face and look like a team player, "we must prevail" and "we must win."

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I will point out the recent discovery that the National Guardsman posing the question in question was actually coached by a reporter. Embedded reporter Edward Lee Pitts, upon hearing that troops and only troops would be allowed to ask questions at the meeting, got together with a couple of guardsmen beforehand to make sure his question was asked. In a further completely boneheaded move, considering that things like this always come out in the end, Pitts failed to mention his own role in the proceedings when he filed his story that evening.

As a journalist (such as I am), I'm kind of pissed at this guy. With all of the recent controversy over the role of embedded reporters in the War on Terra, this Pitts guy certainly isn't making us look any better. The general sentiment from much of the military is that the media is sneaking around, looking for all kinds of underhanded ways to nail them, and as good as Pitts's intentions might have been, that's kind of what he did here.

None of that, however, changes the question that was asked and the answer that was given. It doesn't change the fact that our troops are scrounging in junkyards to ghetto-rig armor for their Humvees, it doesn't change the fact that families are saving their pennies in order to send body armor to their sons and daughters in Iraq, and it doesn't change the fact that, when faced with all of this head-on, Rummy threw up his hands and said, "Wow, that wacky war! What can you do, huh?" Here's a thought, Rummy: you're driving around downtown D.C. when you hit the brakes, fail to stop and slide right into the back end of a van full of special-needs children on their way to the Washington Zoo. When you hit the OnStar button to chew out Keith on the other end, he's unsympathetic. "Listen, Mr. Rumsfeld," he says, "you drive that Cadillac with the brakes you have, not the brakes you might want to have."

On liberals in academia

Okay, so Steven Lubet responds to conservatives who cry discrimination in higher education:

Beyond the ivy walls, there are many professions that are dominated by Republicans. You will find very few Democrats (and still fewer outright liberals) among the ranks of corporate CEOs, military officers or professional football coaches. Yet no one complains about these imbalances, and conservatives will explain that the seeming disparities are the result of market forces.

And they are probably right.

It is entirely rational for conservatives to flock to jobs that reward competition, aggression, self-interest and victory. So it should not be surprising that liberals gravitate to professions - such as academics, journalism, social work and the arts - that emphasize inquiry, objectivity and the free exchange of ideas.

Uh, I'm not sayin'. I'm just sayin'.

On catching up, and on morals

Okay, so in the hustle and bustle of all the hustling and bustling I've had to do lately, I've gotten a little behind in my slinging of snark and airing of the world's dirty laundry. I've got some time to catch up now, and I'll start at the top with the A's: from Atrios comes some interesting news about morals and voters, and who really cares about what. Says Frank Rich of the New York Times:

It's beginning to look a lot like "Groundhog Day." Ever since 22 percent of the country's voters said on Nov. 2 that they cared most about "moral values," opportunistic ayatollahs on the right have been working overtime to inflate this nonmandate into a landslide by ginning up cultural controversies that might induce censorship by a compliant F.C.C. and, failing that, self-censorship by TV networks. Seizing on a single overhyped poll result, they exaggerate their clout, hoping to grab power over the culture.

Snip.

It took a British publication, The Economist, to point out that the percentage of American voters citing moral and ethical values as their prime concern is actually down from 2000 (35 percent) and 1996 (40 percent).

So let me take a beat to get this entirely straight: in 1996, when 40% of Americans had morals on the brain, they chose to re-elect lyin', cheatin', Big-Mac-eatin', b.j.-in-the-Oval-Office-gettin' President Bill Clinton. Eight years later, Bush gets re-elected with just over half of that "morality vote," just over half of the popular vote, and suddenly he has a mandate. Not to mention the fact that every Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson is now demanding that Bush kowtow to the supposedly ubermoral conservative majority by appointing conservative Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade and pushing for a federal gay marriage amendment.

Now, I actually have conservative friends (as a matter of fact, two out of three conservatives declare me "too cool to be a liberal," which may or may not be a good thing), and none of them are the hyperreligious wingnut types that are currently pushing for the Jesusland concept of America. And they - even the religious ones - all view morals completely differently from the extremist Evangelical Jesus-pimps who are currently taking credit for Bush's slim victory and who won't rest until every school teaches creationist science, every sex education program is abstinence-only, and every single American citizen is as judgmental as they are.

I want to make something clear: I have nothing against Christians. I am one. I like it a lot; it's a good train. I have Evangelical friends and family members who are lovely and loving and generally peachy. But I, as well as the aforementioned religious friends/family, have nothing in common with the Religious Right nutcases who give Christianity a bad name. We're reading the same book and getting two completely different stories. And if that's what it takes to be "moral" in America today, I guess I don't want to be right. But it's sure looking like the numbers are in my favor.


Slightly off-topic: New Practically Harmless hanger-on and conservative bass fisherman Ryan points out that the blog seems to view all Bush voters as naive little toddler types who have been tragically misled by the President of the United States. As a person who watches the news and researches issues thoroughly before taking a political position, he objects to this. Reasonable and open-minded as I am, I agree to make the following concession: While many Bush voters are, in fact, tragically misinformed and led astray by the administration, a good many take a great interest in the issues and voted for Bush with all of the facts firmly in place, which makes them merely stupid.*

Note: This statement was made completely tongue-in-cheek, in a sense of fun and joking. Recent family conflicts and a particular post on GWBWYPGN?! have called attention to the fact that since the election, Democrats have consistently stereotyped Bush voters as stupid for voting as they did. While in some ways, this is only fair, as Republicans consistently stereotype Kerry voters as immoral, it's also a huge and inaccurate generalization. The management of Practically Harmless recognizes that both parties are resplendent with brilliant minds, and that in light of that, those brilliant minds need to get a sense of humor. I kid because I love. So choke on it.

On good deeds

Okay, so many of you have wondered why I haven't been updating in the past couple of weeks. Or, rather, I'm sure you've been wondering, and it's only the fact that you're paralyzed with worry over my wellbeing that has prevented you from at least checking up on me or something.

Anyway. The answer is basically that I've been hella busy with work and whatnot, the majority of the "whatnot" being preparations for the holidays (shopping, decorating, selling my kidneys on E-bay to afford the whole thing). And actually, that's something that you, my darling reader(s), can help me with - I'm looking for charitable swag. Check out Doug's post on the subject at GWBWYPGN?! for the full poop, but basically, we're not doing the usual Christmastime Parade of Useless and Unwanted Crap in the Practically Harmless household this year. Instead, we're taking the money that would have been spent on presents that would, in all likelihood, go unused and/or unappreciated and just take up space in an already cluttered world, and donate that money to a worthy charity.

I'm breaking the rules a litle this year - darling brother pointed out that "don't buy me anything for Christmas" is kind of this family's "please oh please don't throw me in that briar patch," and besides, everyone likes opening up stuff at Christmas, even if it's not a lot of stuff. So here's your assignment: coe up with worthy charities that offer swag. I'm compiling a list of those that I've already found, but as you come across spiffy items whose proceeds go to a charity, throw me a note under Comments, and I'll give you appropriate props. And of course we can't ignore those good causes that don't offer swag - there are multitudes of folks out there who are, in whatever way and for whatever reason, less fortunate than I/you/we are.

Peace. Merry Christmas. Happy Hannukah, joyous Ramadan, perky Kwanzaa.

Charities with merchandise:
Until There's a Cure - $25 gets you a silver-plated cuff bracelet with raised AIDS ribbon; feel free to go crazy and drop $400 on the same in 14k gold. Both fashionable and socially conscious, the bracelets have raised over $6,000,000 for HIV/AIDS charities
America's Second Harvest - $25 buys you a pack of five holiday cards that are, in fact, kind of cute - even to me, and I abhor cuteness. And the money goes to feed the homeless.
Miracle Ties from Jos. A. Bank - $49.50 gets you a silk necktie designed by pediatric oncology patients at Johns Hopkins Children's Center. 100% of the profits go to benefit the Children's Center.

Charities that are way worthy anyway:
Wounded Warrior Project (from Ryan) - $99 will buy a backpack filled with clothes, toiletries and "comfort items" for a soldier wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan. If that's a bit pricey for you, smaller donations are happily accepted.
American Red Cross - Accepts donations of not only money but also stock, spare change, "in-kind" products, and even airline miles.
Books for Soldiers (from B) - Accepts donations of new and used books and DVDs to hand out to bored soldiers - those deployed and those in VA hospitals. B points out that shipping has actually stopped until after the holidays, but I see that as the perfect opportunity to make a rather important point - chartiy doesn't have to stop just because the dried-out carcass of the Christmas tree is sitting on the curb. Poor people are still hungry, homeless people are still cold, shut-ins are still lonely, troops are still bored, and injured people still need blood, even when it's not a holiday. Bookmark this one for future reference.

On Christmas wishes

Okay, so I'm busy-busy today and all you're getting from me is a quickie. From comments on this post at World O'Crap:

Dear Santa,

All I want for Christmas is incontrvertable proof that George is banging Condi. You can forget the pony and Donald Rumsfeld's fingerprints on the Plame case. Thanks.

Keith

On the coming of the apocalypse

Okay, so posting might be slow the next couple of days as I recover from the alcohol poisoning from which I plan to suffer tonight. Why, you ask? Lemme see:

Packers over Redskins, 28-14
Bush over Kerry, 286-252
Miami over Virginia, 30-21
Auburn over Georgia, 24-6

and we earned every point scored against us.

Dammit.

Update: Bengals over Redskins, 17-10. Why do I bother? Why do I freaking bother?

On becoming randomly and spontaneously safe

Okay, so Attorney General John Ashcroft resigned on Tuesday.

In other news, a wolf at Zoo Atlanta was observed lying down with a lamb; leopards were seen lying down with kids at the National Zoo in Washington, DC, as well as a calf, young lion, and fatling together; and several witnesses reported that a little child was leading them.

"In a five-page handwritten letter of resignation, Ashcroft, who made headlines by periodically placing the country on high alert for terrorism, asserted that the task of safeguarding the country against terrorist strikes 'has been achieved.'" [Emphasis mine]

Well, it looks like the Bushies were right after all. They said that the only way to protect the country from the threat of terror was to re-elect Dubya. And look! It worked! I can't believe I didn't have faith in them before. I'm even on the record as saying that you can't win a war against an abstract concept like terror or poverty, and that we can't give up our liberties in the interest of security - and here it looks like all of our objectives have "been achieved" and we're safe now. Now if someone could hand me a washcloth to get this egg off of my face.

But really, John, this is just great. Just great. So our guys are coming home, then? 'Cause I can put together a welcome-home party like that. You just let me know when. I can get munchies, a band, everything. And I guess we're going to drop the terror warning level to green, since we're safe from terrorists now, right? Right? John?

John?

On an unexpectedly crappy day

Okay, so by now you've figured out that what happened with last night's election is what I really, really, really really didn't want to happen. I'm not pleased with the results, not even a litle bit. I think the biggest disappointment for me - well, okay, obviously the biggest one is the re-election of the man whom I firmly believe will be the downfall of our country - but a great big disappointment, one of the top three, is Georgia's passage of Amendment One, which outlaws not only gay marriage but also civil unions and many same-sex domestic partner benefits. Living in Atlanta, within the protective embrace of the Perimeter, it's easy to forget that the vast majority of the state consists of backwards, homophobic redneck hicks who would be perfectly happy to bring back lynching because Jesus tells them so. Think I sounds elitist and judmental? I care.

I'm having a really hard time dealing with a lot of Bush supporters this morning. Most of the Bushies in my office have been really decent (as decent as I hope I'd be in their shoes), but there have been some that I just wanted to thump on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper. One in particular was updating us with election results via e-mail all night last night, crowing over each new state and signing each e-mail with "Go W!" "Go W!"? Because this is some sort of a football game? Because all that matters is that her team gets the trophy, and then they all get to celebrate over malteds at the Dine-O-Mat?

I really think that a lot of Republicans have missed the gravity of this election, and it makes sense that they might. For so many Bush supporters, their entire policy knowledge base comes from what Bush himself told them. They don't think that our economy is in trouble, or that the war in Iraq was a bad idea, or that his education plan is ineffective at best, because he told them that things are just peachy, and they believed him without question. They think that Bush is the best choice because he's the candidate that Jesus would chose. That attitude is astounding to anyone who has any grasp of the current situation both at home and abroad and realizes that the wrong choice on November 2 could - and I don't mean to overdramatize here, but it really could - result in chaos in the Middle East, economic collapse or near-collapse, and the appointment of our country's most conservative Supreme Court ever (and all that accompanies it).

I've got to quote some poor, sad woman who tried to look earnest and intelligent as she gazed into the TV camera outside of her hurricane-ravaged home and said, "I do not know what have happen, but something have got to be did." And indeed it do. At this point, I have no idea what that something might be. I'm still in the recovery stage, sifting through my options, trying to decide whether to fight against the inevitable or just close my eyes for the next four years and let it all run over me.

Had a discussion with my dad the other day re: the upcoming election. He shared with me some trends and projections that made me less-than-comfortable about Kerry's chances and the discussion turned to what we would do if, God forbid, Bush should get re-elected. I pulled out the comment about making a run for it, leaving the country, going to Canada. Daddy said that he wasn't about to do that. He said that he was an American before all else, that this was his country, right or wrong, and he wasn't going to leave it. I made the point that watching Bush lead the US for the next four years would be like watching intruders rape your wife in front of you while you sat bound and helpless .

I haven't figured out where I am on that now. I know I'm not going to leave any time soon. And for all I know, the future isn't nearly as bleak as it seems right now. But it does seem pretty bleak, and pretty scary, and pretty frustrating that only 49% of the US population can tell when they're being taken advantage of by the most powerful man in the world. Later on, when passions have cooled a bit and we have some idea of the changes that Bush might make in the future (God willing), I'll look at it all a bit more closely and figure out where I'm headed after this. I hope it's here; I love America, and I really do want to stay. But something have got to be did.

Update: From Wonkette, Harper's offers helpful instructions for those who decide to leave the country after all. Mary at Naked Furniture says what I'm feeling, better than I could say it. And Matt at Basket Full of Puppies says the other thing that I'm feeling, which at first glance might seem to contradict the first thing but if you read it through, actually doesn't.

On the absolute most important thing you can do today

Okay, so vote, y'all.

On real, visceral fear

Okay, so this morning, I've been talking with The Family about the upcoming election (or, really, the ongoing election, since early voting in Georgia started a week ago), and my father brought up the point that most incumbents who poll this well this close to the election end up back in office. That's a scary, scary prospect. Sure, most of Dubya's leads fall within the margin of error, but the same can be said for Kerry; at this point, the election really is too close to call.

It's no surprise that the prospect of another Bush presidency scares me. For one thing, it would only be confirmation to him that all of the crap that he's pulled over the past four years has been okay - not only okay, but good. Worse than more-of-same, I can see us facing four years of worse-than-same as Bush and his evil advisors take all of his past policy and multiply it by three. And then there's the Supreme Court to think about; W II could be in the position to replace three or four Supreme Court justices, with the result that, as my dad so eloquently put it, "the Christian Coalition could put their brand on the Constitution for the next twenty years."

I don't like to pray about politics or football. Both, I think, are too trivial to bother The Almighty, and I know that both sides are usually praying for a big win anyway. But this election strikes me as worthy of a rosary or two. This election affects not just our country but really the entire world. And right now, precisely fifty percent of American voters want Dubya back and the rest of the world wants him gone. I'm sure that God knows that already, Him being omniscient and all. That's not going to stop me from reminding him, though. I know where my vote is going; all I do is hope - pray - that there are legions of Eminem voters out there ready and willing to vote the same way. I have faith.

On celebrations

Okay, so obviously the good-good news of the day is UGA's righteous victory over the Gators after, like, a million years. For those poor sots who missed it, it was a really fantastic game; both teams had their rockin' moments and their suckin' moments, and both teams were in it until the very end. I'll have to attribute our victory in some part to the chicken quesadillas I cooked before the game; Georgia has never lost on a day that I ate quesadillas. Y'all can thank me later. The bad news is that I re-injured my hamstring in my ecstatic dance of celebration; those cheerleader high-kicks aren't for sissies.

In other good news, commenter Tami had the dubious honor of watching my little counter thingy turn over from 999 to 1,000. For her diligent attention to a blog not really all that worthy of diligent attention, Tami wins a pleasant sense of self-satisfaction, an Attagirl from the management, and a suggestion that she devote more of her free time to volunteer work. Way to go, Tami.

On another one of those round numbers

Okay, so we're cruising up on one of those numbers with a comma in it. If you're fortunate and blessed enough to watch the counter turn over 1,000, put it in the comments and I'll see about getting you a t-shirt or something. Or a button and a rubber band. Or a swift kick in the ass. Whatever.

On being smart and insightful?!

Okay, so what the crap?

You Are a Pundit Blogger!

Your blog is smart, insightful, and always a quality read. Truly appreciated by many, surpassed by only a few.

What kind of blogger are you?

Blame World O'Crap for pointing me at that little disaster.

On physical beauty

Okay, so this past weekend, my ego got stroked like a cuddly kitten. Over the course of three days, I was told that I was gorgeous/beautiful/hot etc. by probably a good half-dozen guys. Granted, a respectable number of these were trying to get into my pants, but the words were spoken.

Here's the thing: I'm pretty sure I'm not gorgeous. Don't get me wrong, I'm plenty pretty; I'm just not about to loose a thousand ships at their mooring. But with all of the exhortations that yes, I really am beautiful, and that I would look still more beautiful with my sweater in a pile on the floor, I got to wondering: what is beauty, anyway?

This isn't one of those deep philosophical questions. I'm actually curious about current standards of female beauty. Working in the industry that I do, where cadaverous runway models are held up as the gold standard, it's not unlikely that my perception has been skewed a wee bit. So all you guys who have stumbled here in a fruitless search for Michelle Malkin naked: What makes a girl hot?

We'll make it an informal survey. Forget the Gisele Bundchens and Tyra Bankses of the world; they get paid for being hot. We're talking that girl at the bar on Friday night. What about a girl makes you walk over to the end of the bar and talk to her? Conversely, what about her makes you just sit with your friends and say, "Dude, I would totally tap that," and then your buddy says, "Dude, I did tap that," and then you say, "Dude, you're so full of shit," and he says, "Dude, I'm not," and then your other friend says, "Dude, that's my sister, dude," and then you shut up and drink your PBR.

Throw your answers down in the comments section below.

On The Record

Okay, so I watched the Dick Cheney interview on the Today show this morning, and he kept telling us to check the record. Kerry as a legislator? Check the record. Kerry on terror? Check the record. Kerry as president of the US? Check the record. And while I will concede that Kerry does, in fact, lack experience at being the leader of the free world, Cheney's suggestions inspire me to actually go and check the record.

So here, for your viewing pleasure, is George W. Bush: The Record.

Coalition troops killed in Iraq: 1,243, and counting

Of those, number of US troops: 1,104, and counting

Civilians killed in Iraq: approx. 14,000, and counting

Iraqi presidents involved in the 9/11 attacks: 0

"Most Wanted" al Qaeda leaders killed and/or captured: 3

Osama bin Ladens killed and/or captured: 0

Quite a record.

On big fat liars

Okay, so lazy as I am, it being a Monday and all, I'm just going to kick you over to Kevin at Political Animal. It seems that the clever man has come up with a fairly spiffy system to qualify and quantify the lies told during last Friday's presidential debate and come up with what amounts to a Big Fat Liar Score for each candidate.

The result? Bush was the winner with 18 lies for a total of 118 points; Kerry trailed far behind with only 10 lies and 51 points.

And speaking of point disparities (and big fat liars, while we're at it), great big ups to Your Georgia Bulldogs, who whupped Vanderbilt 33-3 in honor of UGA's Homecoming. Sure, yeah, whupping up on Vandy isn't exactly a feat of football wonder, but considering that this is all in the face of thirteen - count 'em, thirteen - bullshit penalties, for a loss of 120 yards, I think we did fairly well. This was almost exactly the morale boost we needed after our less-than-stellar performance against Tennessee. It would have been exactly the boost we needed had the stupid refs not thrown a damn flag on a timeout.

A timeout.

On the closing of debate season

Okay, so after three presidential debates and one vice-presidential debate, I can state conclusively that I'm going to vote for the guy that I was going to vote for anyway. I really do wonder if any undecided voters had their minds made up by the four largely content-free moderated games of grabass. If anyone knows of anyone who was convinced - and I'm not talking about the "I'm thinking Kerry but I'm not sure" types, I'm talking the "I seriously have no idea who should get my vote" types - let me know, because I'd really like to know what they saw and I didn't.

I know that Bush's supporters are probably all patting themselves on the back until it hurts right now because their candidate didn't blink and pout and smack his lips like a meth addict and he didn't shout like the crazy lady down the street. It's so easy to be impressed when your candidate sets his expectations low. Regardless of Bush's performance by his own standards, I feel quite comfortable in saying that Kerry met or exceeded his own standards, which meant that he still kicked ass, even if it wasn't the overwhelming ass that he kicked in the first two debates.

People who know me know that I really, really don't like being lied to. I don't. I would rather hear the dirty truth than a pretty half-truth. So you can imagine how pissed I was when Bush kept lying outright. Ooh, that got to me. Like that comment about how he never said that he wasn't concerned about Osama bin Laden - dude, I watched that press conference. Everybody did. It's on tape. We've had this conversation already with Dick Cheney - don't tell a lie if the public has a videotape of the truth. And the majority of his tax cuts go to the middle class? Say what?

But what pissed me off even more than that was his assertion that everything comes down to education. Or trial lawyers. Mostly education. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all about education. I've been to good schools and crappy schools, and I can tell you for a fact that good schools are better and teachers don't get paid enough and cafeteria pizza never tastes good, ever, even if you put sausage on it. However, I don't think that a good, solid grasp of division and subtraction is what's standing between today's newly unemployed and a steady job. Somehow, Bush expects No Child Left Behind to magically retrieve tech jobs from India and re-employ the recently downsized.

When asked what he would say to a guy who had just lost his job because it got sent over to Bangalore for half the pay, Bush basically said he would tell the guy to go to community college. What a freaking huge insult. I can't even express it. Kevin Drum did, and I thank him for it. All I can say is that my bachelor's degree (with honors, beeyatch) got me a job that just barely pays the bills. On the off chance that my job gets outsourced, a semester at Atlanta Metro and a job flipping burgers will do nothing but get me evicted for nonpayment of rent. So here's what you say to Mr. My-Tech-Job-Got-Sent-to-India, Mr. President: "Wow, sorry we don't have any job protection for you there, Mr. Master's-in-Information-Technology. Why don't you get yourself an associate's degree and work at one of the gazillion new minimum-wage jobs I've created to replace the two-million-plus jobs lost in the last four years? Sure, it won't pay the bills, but Susie didn't really need braces, now, did she?"

Vote for Kerry, people. Please. Eighteen days from now, we decide whether we want a president with real, viable plans for national security and domestic tranquility, or one who will lie his freaking ass off, when he's not spouting crap that he doesn't even know is untrue. Eighteen days from now, you've got the opportunity to save the world. Don't fuck up.

On weapons that aren't there

Okay, so the conclusive report has finally come out stating that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when the US came in with shock and awe and bombs bursting in air. Obviously, this comes as a huge shock to me, as I was totally convinced that Saddam was sitting on stockpiles of nuclear weapons that he was just waiting to send our way and that he cleverly flushed down the toilet when he heard SWAT breaking down the door. I mean, the Bush administration said so, they said that's why they invaded Iraq in the first place, and they wouldn't, like, lie, right?

Yeah, I know, we're all shocked, but it looks like, per the report, Saddam Hussein hasn't had the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction, or even weapons of mass destruction-related program activities, nor was he making any "concerted efforts to restart the program," since Gulf War the First in 1991. No stockpiles. No stocks. No materials. Charles A. Duefler, personally chosen by the Bush administration to come up with something to support the invasion, came out and told a Senate panel that "we were almost all wrong" on Iraq.

Nice.

Of course, Bush and Cheney immediately apologized to the nation for sending their sons and daughters to war over weapons of mass destruction that most of us knew never existed in the first place. Facing the nation with a tear in his eye, Bush took a deep breath and said, ""There was a risk -- a real risk -- that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks. In the world after September 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take." Yes, heaven forbid that Saddam Hussein should pass on weapons that didn't exist and information that he didn't have. That would be tragic.

But how did the rest of the world respond to the news? Sadly, No! points us to a comment by Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh "pointing to evidence that Saddam was diverting money from the U.N. food-for-oil humanitarian program to buy new weapons." Thus, per Sadly, "There's evidence that Saddam was diverting money to buy weapons of which there is no evidence."

Mr. President, feel free to leave your apologies and excuses in the comment section below. I'll just wait here until I hear from you.

Update: German intelligence services tell us that Osama bin Laden is still alive, kicking, and leading al Qaeda with an iron fist. News just gets better and better.

On something completely unrelated to politics

Warning: The following post is completely unrelated to politics.

Okay, so sometimes I indulge in that self-indulgent practice of telling a story that no one cares about, just because it makes me grin. And this one does, it makes me grin. And every time I tell it, I grin a little more, so let's call this'n self-indulgence for the sake of a big grin.

Some of my lovely readers (hi, Daddy) know that I've got an ex. To avoid revealing any sensitive details, because I'm cool like that where others might not be, I'm going to call him Farley, which is obviously a fake name because I'd never date a guy named Farley. But let's say that I did, and let's say that we were together for four and a half years and engaged at one point but no longer together because he dumped me unceremoniously for a chick named Sunny - and yes, actually, that is her real name, although in the realm of fake names, it seems to me that a guy named Farley would dump me for a girl named Sunny.

Anyway, I've moved on (couldn't you tell?). I actually had a date today - nothing huge, just a pleasant lunch date with a guy we'll call Todd, again a fake name because I'd never date a guy named Todd (although I'd be more likely to date a Todd than a Farley). Anyway, we're going to say that Todd is a bricklayer (not his real occupation). As you know, Farley is also a bricklayer; I don't chase after bricklayers, but it has to be said that bricklayers usually fit my "type" as far as guys go.

Anyway. I'm out with Todd, and during the course of the conversation it comes out that Farley, my ex, is also a bricklayer. And of course Todd asks where Farley lays bricks, since there aren't that many places to lay bricks in town. And when I tell him where Farley lays bricks, Todd immediately recognizes him and goes. Freaking. Nuts.

"Oh, my God. You dated him? Oh, my God! Everyone hates him. He is such an asshole. He's the biggest asshole. Nobody likes him, because he's such an asshole. I can't believe you dated that asshole. How did you date him? I can't believe it. Oh, my God. He's just such an asshole."

Word for word, I swear. And Todd goes on to tell me about a dozen stories about how horrible Farley is to work with, what an asshole he is, how everyone hates him, and how unfathomable it is that I ever actually dated him. And I'll tell you, the stories differ quite a bit from the hero stories that Farley used to tell, the stories where he used to deliver babies and rescue kittens and compose magnum opi between bricks and everybody just lur-hur-hurved him, and if Todd's stories are true, Farley is, in fact, a real asshole. Really, I can believe it - throughout the relationship, Farley exhibited a gracious many characteristics that, allowed to run unchecked, could rocket him into asshole territory. Todd said that next time he's at the brickyard, he intends to go on and on about how he banged this totally hot chick named ACG the other day, that she was just incredible, like some kind of jungle cat and/or Chinese gymnast, and gosh, Farley, your face is turning red.

And that's pretty much the story, in the end. Nothing huge or earth-shattering; just a really satisfying story from a really nice guy for a girl who's still at the gosh-I'd-like-to-back-over-him-in-my-friend-Jiho's-Touareg stage of the breakup process. Did it make me a better person? Hell, no. Was it satisfying? Indubitably.

Oh, and I didn't actually sleep with Todd. But I'm okay with him telling Farley that I did, just to hear about his reaction.

On the Veep debate, again - post-debate AM update

Okay, so a good night's sleep has given me time to sort through the mass of crap spewed at me by last night's debates (and to have a wholly pleasant dream involving Jason Statham and an Audi A6 - you call me, baby). And a lazy morning has given me time to sift through other bloggers' thoughts on said debates so that I can steal their ideas and blog them myself. But being the good girl that I am (snicker), I'll give credit where credit is due, 'cause I'm cool like that.

Debate-blogger wrapup:

Political Animal's Kevin Drum liveblogs the debate, then follows up a little. High points: "Cheney: Americans aren't taking 90% of the casualties in Iraq, we're only taking 50% of the casualties — if you count all the Iraqis who are dying. Something tells me that's not going to fly." Also, the whole factcheck.com versus factcheck.org issue - vive la difference! Furthermore, Dick's inability to stick with the truth - I've never met John Edwards, I never said that there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11. Dick, Dick, Dick - don't lie publicly if there's videotape that contradicts you.

Basket Full of Puppies summarizes the debate, and it's, like, totally funny. Hee.

The Daily Kos gives us pictures of Dick Cheney not never having met John Edwards. Oh, Dick.

World O'Crap does her best to bring us the debate from the perspective of an undecided voter. High points: the hell was up with that whole "discuss your platform but don't mention your running mate by name" thing? Gwen, you lose. You just do. By WOC's calculation, it looks like Edwards beat Cheney 5.9 to -8.8. Go figure.

Further updates as events warrant.

On the Veep debate

Okay, so this one wasn't nearly as easy to call as Thursday's presidential debate. That was easy - Kerry came off as twenty-six and a half times smarter, more put-together, and more presidential than the current President of the United States. This one was far more even - both candidates made a good showing, if for different reasons.

I don't think that John Edwards made as much headway with the Democratic platform as Kerry did before; he did, however, directly address a lot of the attacks that had heretofore been unaddressed. I just don't think he did it well enough. Assuming that anyone besides myself was actually watching the debate, I think we needed to see John Edwards leap out of his chair, overturn the table and come after Cheney fighting. As it was, he came across as just a little bit tame. His general attitude, though, seemed to be very open and direct and approachable, which is a nice contrast to Kerry's relative austerity. Edwards seems like the kind of guy that you could just sit down with and say, "Hey, John, what's up with Medicare?" and he'd say, "Yeah, sure, what do you want to know?"

And I'll say that Cheney did a good job, too. Compared to Bush, I'd say he did a fantastic job. He did little to nothing more than spewing the same damn Republican talking points that were spewed on Thursday and at every opportunity before that - but he did it in an intelligent, articulate way. Dick Cheney came across as twelve and a quarter times more presidential than the current President of the United States. One of the Repub pundits made the comment that it's good to know that Cheney is just a heartbeat away from the presidency (and I know he didn't mean to sound like he wished Bush were dead) - I would agree, 'cause Cheney sounded really good, if I didn't know that he was inherently evil and will go home and eat two babies to recover from the debate.

So I'm calling this one a draw. If anything - choke - Cheney came out a little bit on top. I don't, however, think that it's going to have a lot of effect on the polls, and it's not going to convince any swing voters, because both were really playing to their bases. But I think that Cheney regained some of the credibility that Bush seriously lost less than a week ago ("You forgot Poland," hee hee).

Question, though - what's the point of Spin Alley? Is anyone even a little bit surprised by the spinning done by the pundits? Karen Hughes pretended to believe that Bush won Thursday's debate; it's just more political crap identical to the political crap that we've been getting for the past year, except now they're spreading it for free.

And a final point - NBC held up Ana Cox, Wonkette herself, as an example of a liberal blogger. Don't get me wrong - I love Wonkette, read it every day, frequently laugh out loud and/or spit coffee over my computer monitor - at work. I just wouldn't really call her a political blogger. Now, if Dick Cheney had worn, like, totally the wrong tie, or if John Edwards had slipped up and implied that he was boinking an intern, she'd be all over it; under current circumstances, I might have gone with a Kos or an Atrios. Or, y'know, a Practically Harmless. That's all.

On cross-dressing baseball players

Okay, so Cleveland Indians pitcher Kyle Denney avoided serious injury after being shot in the leg late Wednesday night. What saved him? Unarguably it was the white leather go-go boots from the USC cheerleader uniform he was wearing.

Hey, I don't judge.

On a kickass presidential debate

Okay, so if last night's debate was a portent of things to come, this election's in the bag. Of course I knock on wood as I say that, and of course I'm completely biased toward the Kerry camp, but I've got to say that last night Kerry came off looking intelligent and thoughtful and clever and poised and, 'kay, presidential while Bush came off looking like an petulant, eye-rolling, lip-smacking frattie who still - still - can't pronounce the word "nuclear." Kerry was concise and showed that he does, in fact, have a plan for both foreign and domestic policy; Bush spluttered, called terrorists "some folks" and couldn't remember whether we're after Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden. And had this bizarre obsession with Poland.

Moreover, though, Kerry had the opportunity to really explain his policy. Bush has an advantage in that "stay the course, even if the course is wrong" can lead to quality soundbites that fit nicely into a fifteen-second TV spot or a newspaper sidebar. The thing is, life doesn't fit into soundbites. You can't lead a country with soundbite policy. Kerry's policy is a little more complex, dare I say nuanced, and harder to fit into a ten-second quote on the evening news. Last night, he had the opportunity to say exactly what he thought was wrong with Bush's approach to the war on terror and homeland security and exactly what he would do differently. And his plans are good ones. A lot of people have been wondering why they should vote for Kerry (outside of the "anyone but Bush" meme), how he'll handle the tough issues and why he's better than Bush. There's your answer, folks.

My fave highlights:

Bush's "Saddam Huss - er, Osama bin Laden."
Followed by his "[bin Laden]'s isolated. Seventy-five percent of his people have been brought to justice." Unfortunately, not the seventy-five percent in charge of kidnapping and beheading.
Bush's "You know, it's hard work to try to love her as best as I can." Now, it's none of my business what he and Missy do in the privacy of their own homes, but I think this just reinforces the idea that America is being screwed by the Bush administration.
Kerry's "Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be like FDR invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor."
The whole Korea thing. Friend, editor, and slavedriver-in-chief Georgia made an interesting point this morning as we lazily stirred our coffee and tried to avoid getting to work. Why is it that we absolutely had to go into Iraq without any international cooperation, but as far as Korea is concerned, it's crucial to have a six-nation summit?
Poland. Poland, Poland, Poland, Poland, Poland. Poland-Poland.
Every single Bush stammer and long pause. Your president, live, unscripted, and unrehearsed. He's winging it, and it's hi-larious.

On a sidenote - I think that if you're going to be talking to the press after a debate, it would help to actually watch the debate. Yes, I'm talking to you, Mr. Giuliani. The flip-flopper label doesn't work any more, if it ever did. You can't say, "Oh, well, John Kerry said that Saddam Hussein was a threat, and then he said he wasn't a threat" - it's all on tape, he didn't say that. Kerry said that Saddam Hussein was a threat, but that Bush went about addressing the threat the wrong way. You can't say, "Oh, well, John Kerry voted for the war and then said it was wrong" - on tape, didn't say it. He voted to give the president authority to use force if necessary, and Bush abused that authority. This isn't criticism, Rudy, it's advice - before you open your mouth, make sure they can't go to the instant replay and make you look like a big fat stupe.

Update - I'm not alone on this one. Via the Daily Kos, a whole slew of conservative bloggers who think that Bush was kind of lousy.

Freepers agree with me. Ew. I feel all dirty now.