On happy gray areas

Okay, so following the spectacular drubbing of the Republican party in this year's midterm elections, all of the commentators who'd been calling it for the neocons since back in August are now falling all over themselves to assure us that Democratic voters weren't really voting for Democrats - they were voting for the center, and that's just where the Dems happened to be. See, the Dems knew that they could never win on their own merits, so they all moved right, which pushed the Republicans even more right, and the Republicans got pushed out of the center and the Democrats took their place and that's where all the voters were and... what? What?

The Repubs are having a hard time accepting the fact that the Democrats won because they ran better candidates. And when I call them better candidates, I do mean by their constituents' standards, because I don't know if I'd consider a candidate "better" who voted for the Military Commission Act, Sherrod Brown. But, speaking of Brown, that one vote notwithstanding, he tends to fall under the umbrella of "progressive," as do John Hall and John Conyers.

Voters gave Congress to the Democrats because they were sick of the way the Republicans were handling things and didn't feel that Republican values, if I may borrow that word, were really in line with their own personal values. They put Bush in the White House and the 190th Congress in the Capitol because they were willing to be convinced that that was the way to keep America safe and strong in the wake of terror attacks and the midst of war. This year, they showed that they don't believe that anymore - and that they don't trust the neocons. The Democrats didn't have to get more conservative; they just had to show the voters that they were more liberal than they'd ever thought.

I will give the centrist-ists some credit, though; although a vote for a Dem wasn't necessarily a vote for the center, it was a vote for moderation. Because that's what the Democratic party is about. And don't think that Dems haven't gotten the short end of the stick for it, either. John Kerry took a beating for his use of the word "nuance" in the 2004 presidential elections. Liberal positions on things like abortion and gay marriage aren't nearly as succinct as the bumper-sticker talking points the Republicans favor ("stay the course," anyone?). The convenient model for pundits and news media is to view the country as evenly divided along political lines, with Dems to the left and Republicans to the right. But a more accurate model shows how the Republicans like their extremes, while the Democrats favor the moderate view embraced by most Americans.

Never has the Republican party been as binary as it is now. Neocons love extremes because they're clear and simple; you're either with us and our good things, or you're with them and their baaaaad things. They're the party of false dichotomies. Either you support a total abortion ban, or you want to kill babies. Either you support a border fence, or you want the borders wide open. Either you support warrantless wiretapping, or you want to give rights to terrorists. Either you support the war, or you hate America. Either you support a Christian foundation for our government, or you want to ban Christianity. Either you oppose gay marriage, or you want everyone to be gay. Either you stay the course, or you cut and run.

It's nice. It's simple and convenient. But anyone who hasn't grown up in a hermetically-sealed bubble knows that life is rarely either of those things. And why should politics be unrepresentative of real life? Life has middle ground and gray areas, and so does liberal policy. No one wants to kill babies; we just support a woman's right to determine what happens to her own body. No one wants open and unregulated borders; we just don't think that xenophobia and a 700-mile fence will solve the problem of illegal immigration as effectively as a guest-worker program. No one wants to give rights to terrorists; we just want the government to get a warrant before tapping an American's phone.

And that's what voters recognized on November 7. They recognized that their own feelings on issues like national security and terrorism and domestic policy fell into gray areas, and that this clear, neatly delineated policy concept that the neocons were trying to sell them wasn't representative of their reality. I think that in coming months, the 110th Congress will reflect the realism that voters are looking for. Not giving free rein to terrorists, but not giving untrammeled authority to the president, either. Not pulling troops out of Iraq all at once, but not laying our hopes of victory in Iraq on a plan that isn't working. Not thinking in terms of liberal or conservative, red or blue, but in terms of what will work, what is realistic, and what is best for America.

On something that really does matter, in a time when things rarely matter as much as we think they do

Okay, so I know the holidays are fast approaching, and what money we have, we're stockpiling in preparation for The Great November Turkey Nap and gift-giving holidays to follow. But honestly, we're a nation of fatties, no one really needs four side dishes alongside a turkey, and half of those toys are going to be broken by New Year's anyway.



This is Leola Kinchen. She has Neurofibromatosis-1, a genetic disorder that causes tumors to grow on nerves and produces abnormalities in skin and bone tissue. Manifestations of NF1 range from mild to debilitating; Lee's are severely so, and it's only through her own determination and the generous help of her caretaker Susan that she's been able to keep her job in retail (although she's becoming physically unable to do so) and stay clothed and fed.

The NF1, which can be a heartless bitch of a disease, has resulted in a brain tumor that is pressing down on eight of the 15 major nerve branches in Lee's brain and causing blockages and constriction in most of the major blood vessels. Lee needs surgery, and she doesn't have insurance, and the state of Louisiana, in their wisdom, has decided that she isn't eligible for SSI/SDI or Medicaid. The necessary series of life-saving operations will cost in the neighborhood of $200,000, which she simply can't afford. The only remaining charity hospital in Louisiana won't be able to take her until March or April, at which she'd probably be dead.

We must not live in a country where people die from lack of access to adequate healthcare.

One of Lee's most passionate advocates, who goes by the charming nom de blog Anntichrist S. Coulter, has started a blog in the hopes of raising enough money to offset surgery costs or, barring that, at least make Lee's life a little more comfortable. An account has been set up in Lee's name, and donations can be mailed to

Fund For Leola Kinchen
Bank Of St. Francisville
P.O. Drawer 818
St. Francisville, LA 70775

or go to For Lee and click on the Paypal button to make an online donation.

As of this post, over $1,000 has been raised. If you have any money that's been sitting around, waiting for a good cause, or that's been earmarked for a pair of peep-toe platform Louboutins you don't really need, or that would normally go toward making your house more of a strobe-lit Christmastime monstrosity than your next door neighbor's, consider donating. Rarely are we given the opportunity to do something that actually makes a difference in someone's life. Don't miss this one.

On a story too bizarre for The Onion

Okay, so November 27 and 29, those illustrious and oh-so-classy execs at Fox will be airing a two-part special with OJ Simpson titled, "O.J. Simpson: If I Did It, Here’s How It Happened."

I'm serious.

No, really, I'm serious.

Seriously, OJ Simpson, former football star and center of a lengthy trial in 1994 after which he was acquitted for the death of his ex-wife and her friend, is now coming forward to say that no, he still totally didn't kill them, but if he had killed them, this is how he would have killed his children's mother.

Stop it, I'm serious.

The TV appearance coincides with the November 30 release of his book, If I Did It, which "hypothetically describes how the murders would have been committed.” Which he totally didn't, he swears. If he had done it, why would he spend so much time looking for the real killers at golf courses and all-inclusive resort spas across the country? He's just saying that if he had committed the murders, which he categorically denies, he knows exactly how he would have done it. If he'd done it. Which he didn't.

Really, y'all, I'm serious.

I give up.

On religious persecution

Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!

Okay, so even though we're barely past Halloween, persecution complexes know no calendar, and folks are already getting their Pampers in a bunch over the words "Merry Christmas." As our men and women in uniform fight and die overseas to bring peace and democracy to two countries where women are forced to cover themselves from head to toe, girls aren't allowed to go to school, and people are blowing other people up not even because of their religion, but because of a sect of their religion, Christian volunteer martyrs in the US show solidarity with their despised Muslamofascist brethren by boldly and unashamedly wishing people Merry Christmas! (Gasp! Where are my pearls? Oh, there they are!)

Yes, once again, it's "onward, Christian soldiers," marching as to Best Buy, armed with their "Just Say Merry Christmas" jelly bracelets that unarguably answer the question, "What Cheap-Ass Piece of Rubber Crap Would Jesus Buy?" Because remember: It's not enough for you to practice your faith. Everyone else has to practice your faith, too, so if the greeter at Wal-Mart wishes you happy holidays, you're being oppressed.

Speaking of oppression, how 'bout it? Much chatter for the past few years has centered around the influence of the Christian religious, particularly evangelicals, in American government; they're either a crucial and growing segment of the electorate, or they're "nuts," "ridiculous," and "out-of-control," or they're shifting left, or they're not really shifting at all. For a country founded on freedom of religion; settled by a people trying to escape religious persecution; fathered by a bunch of guys who were mostly deists (including the guy who wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom); and that protects an individual's right to practice their religion more fully than just about any other country in the world; the US, it seems, is full of the whiniest little titty-babies imaginable when it comes to their right to cram their religion down other people's throats.

And that's what it comes down to, in the end. In the past five years or so, or as I like to call them, "The Great Endarkenment," the vast majority of "religious persecution" against Christians has consisted of the state not insisting that everyone be Christian. A Christian kid will be told not to witness at show-and-tell, or a Christian mom will be told not to bake Bible verses into the cupcakes for her kid's second-grade class, or a Christian organization won't be allowed to hang the Ten Commandments in the courthouse, or the school system will identify the Christmas holiday as "Winter Break," or a middle school will throw a "holiday party" for its students, or somebody's water bill will come with "Season's Greetings!" stamped cheerfully across the bottom, and some Christian will throw a very public nuclear shit fit. "They're taking Jesus out of the schools!" they moan. "There is no freedom of religion! They won't allow me to practice my faith!" Because, as Chapter 5 in the Book of Matthew states, "How blessed are they who set up a lighted, animatronic creche with authentic animal sound effects on the front lawn of city hall, for all others shall suffer eternal damnation."

Christians, and I say this is an observant Catholic, love persecution. They love it. They worship a guy who did good deeds and was rewarded by getting stripped, beaten, nailed to a cross, fed vinegar, stabbed, and featured in a Mel Gibson snuff flick. The Bible tells them that they will be hated because of Jesus' name, and they. Can't. Wait. And if no one is going to persecute them on their own, they're going to go out and find it. They're going to stand on a street corner and condemn everyone to hell, and then when someone points out how obnoxious they are? Jackpot. "You hate me because of Jesus!" No, asshat, they hate you because you're an asshat.

So here's my question, and this is where you come in: To what extent is Christian persecution still a problem? And I'm talking about real persecution here, not "the state won't endorse my religion and make everyone else practice it, too" faux-persecution. Not "I'm free to put my religious displays on private property, but I want to put them on public property" faux-persecution. Not "that store owner, in the interest of catering to his multicultural clientele, made a business decision to wish me 'happy holidays'" faux-persecution. The real thing.

We live in a country where you can build a church anywhere that's zoned for churches, you can pray wherever and whenever you want (provided that you do so in a way that doesn't disturb people or obstruct traffic), build a compound where only other members of your faith can live, start a school just for your religion, use that school to teach the precepts of your religion as fact, wear funky clothes that your religion tells you to wear, read books and listen to music and watch movies that cater specifically to members of your faith, purchase those items at stores that deal in nothing but items specific to your faith, and eat or not eat just about any plant or nonhuman animal according to your religious precepts. What the hell does a person of faith have to do to get a beat-down for Jesus?

Have you (or someone you know) ever been persecuted for your religion? I want to hear from everyone of every faith, and I want details. Who was doing the persecuting? Was it a representative of the state or a private citizen? What was it that you wanted to do (or not do)? What actions did you take as a result of it? I'm not saying it never happens. In fact, I'm very interested to hear about situations where it truly does happen, because those situations have been entirely overshadowed by seven-year-olds who aren't allowed to read aloud from Leviticus during First Grade Story Time.

On - on - but I - with the - I didn't...

Okay, so Saturday, everyone was all - and me, too, I was - but - and - there was - and, oh, so cold - rain, oh, my gosh - but - and I wasn't even going to, but - I did - and - and -

and we were all



and our D was all



and oh, my gosh, you know? And then Tra Battle was all



and we were all, "Aaaaaaugh!" And Kregg was all



and then Matt Stafford - Matt Stafford - was all



and



and



and they were all



and we were all



and Mark Richt was all



and it was all



and oh, my gosh, it was awesome.

On Nancy Pelosi: This Is Your Soundtrack

Okay, so I promise this'll be the last time I do any kind of actual, overt gloating (in the future, I'll keep it to little hoots of joy when no one's around, and maybe crack that bottle of cheap spumante that's been hiding in the back of my fridge). Three days of celebrating are plenty, after which it's time to pop an Advil, drink a couple of bottles of water, and get down to the real business of governing once again. So this is the last of it.

Woohoo! And, of course, when I say, "Woohoo," I mean "Suck it." Suck it, Ken Mehlman and your predictions; suck it, Karl Rove and your math; suck it, President Bush and your "bipartisanship." That's why this Friday Not-Even-Random Ten goes out, along with a big "Woohoo," to Nancy Pelosi, the first-ever woman Speaker of the House, who knows what needs to be done and wants to do what needs to be done and, moreover, is just a wayward pretzel and a heartbeat away from the presidency. Let's save the country now, shall we?



The Ten:

1. Lenny Kravitz, "American Woman"
2. Velvet Chain, "Strong"
3. Naughty By Nature, "Hip Hop Hooray"
4. The Isley Brothers, "It's Your Thing"
5. Blossom Dearie, "Wait Till You See Her"
6. Kaiser Chiefs, "I Predict a Riot"
7. Gorillaz, "Rock the House"
8. Jeff Buckley, "Hallelujah"
9. The Farm, "All Together Now"
10. Shakira, "Ready for the Good Times"

Aaaaand I'm done. Your Ten (or, as appropriate, Two and a Half) go below.

On Practically Harmless: now all-Britney, all the time

Okay, so I was going to let the poor kids alone for a while, but then Amanda at Pandagon pointed me at this Salon interview with Kevin Federline just days before Brit gave him the heave-ho, and all I could think about was worthless, talentless, platinum-level turd he is. But don't take my word for it. Here's the interview, along with a few comments that were edited out at the request of KFed's publicist.

So the reviews were pretty harsh.
I expected that. That's what they do. That's what they've been doing to me from the beginning, and eventually my spirit will shine through that. People will see my passion for this. It's slow and it's not an easy road, but I don't like taking the easy road. I'm all about hard work and really proving myself -- especially to the hip-hop community.

Dude, marrying rich, spending your wife's money on shoes, and sitting on your ass nine days out of ten is a tough damn road. You don't see a lot of men doin' it, 'cause not a lot of men can handle it.

Would it have been easier if you weren't famous?
Probably. I think it definitely could've been. If people didn't know who I was, a couple of the records that I've thrown out would've probably blown up huge by now. It would've just come out of nowhere -- people wouldn't know what to expect.

I think the fact that I got a lot of stuff built up behind me, you know, I gotta kinda battle that. But at the same time I'm really learning that I don't have to battle that. What I gotta do is get my ass out and go walk around these streets and talk to people because that's what's gonna get it done.

She's just holding me back! If my superstar wife weren't famous enough to have given me a job as a backup dancer in the first place, and if she weren't rich enough to fund my talentless hip-hop-ish blatherings, I'd have blown up a long time ago! I'd be the superstar, yo!

[You expect your album to succeed t]hrough word of mouth?
Very much so. It's good. I just went to the radio with [radio DJ] DJ Clue and gave him the record -- he hasn't heard any of the music at all -- so I think he's really gonna be inspired. That's what it is -- I need to get with artists on that level. I need to get with people in the industry and let it be heard, because radio ain't really trying to play it too much. It's gonna be about word of mouth, man. It's gonna be about people picking it up, listening to it, talking about it, going to their friends and telling them, "You know what?" And it's already happening. Yeah, the critics and whoever -- who is a critic? You know what I'm saying? Who deserves to be a critic?

Shit, y'all, my album is so awesome, radio stations won't even play it, it's so awesome. Them critics are just jealous, 'cause you know they want a rich wife to support them while they record "Popozao."

To a certain extent you invite questions about your family by talking about it so much on the record.
Not really. I spoke on there because it's been out there so much; because I don't have a choice. If I had a choice I would keep my family just completely away from everything. But that's not the way it is. My family is talked about, and my family is judged, and people in my family are judged, and I'm judged. It's not right, but at the same time it's fine because it's the ammunition that I used for this album. This is my foot in the door in telling people that I'm standing up for myself, I'm standing up for my wife, I'm standing up for my kids. Go ahead and keep messing with us, and that's fine. This is my shot at you. I'm not going to do it too much anymore. The rest of my music is going the universal route. I think that's where I'm going to win.

[Editor's Note: I... I got nothing here. Feel free to submit your own translation. Otherwise... Nothing. I've got nothing. Moving on.]

Why do you think it is that a lot of people have a negative reaction to you?
I think the media played a big part of that. I think the beginning of my introduction to the world was not the greatest. When people first saw me and first heard about it, and it became global news ... within one week almost the whole world knew who I was. Within one week. So, you really have to look at that and take into perspective that the first light that you're shown is like them judging a book by a cover. That's all they've seen -- the cover of the book. They haven't really thought past that or tried to look past that.

All they saw was this guy who was a marginally skilled dancer who was determined to be a rapper even though he sucked at it and who had one kid already and had knocked his girlfriend up again and she was actually pregnant when he started boning Britney Spears and then stopped working. And they judge me for that, and that's wrong, yo.

You said it yourself, in the space of one week your life changed. How did that affect you?
At the time it was great, because I didn't pay attention to it. It helped me out all the way through to where I am right now, because I didn't pay any attention to it, because I was falling in love with this girl. I didn't see her as Britney Spears. People look at her and there's fans and there's "Oh my god, celebrity" and all that. I was never the guy that was star-struck. I've never been that person. I've never been the person that was, "Oh let me have your autograph and let me have your picture." That's not me. Not since I moved to L.A. eight years ago and started dancing for all these artists. I've never been that way. I brought the real dude and she fell in love with that, and I fell in love with her for the country girl that she is. I look past all the other stuff. I don't care about your money. I don't care about your fame. I don't care about any of that,

I didn't see her as a celebrity or nothing. I saw her as a hot piece of ass. And a meal ticket! And that's love, right there.

The watch you're wearing is worth more money than I've made in the last five years.
That's my baby. Whenever I made some money that's the first thing I went and bought.

I call it my baby 'cause Britney sent me out to buy diapers for the first kid, what's his name, and I got this watch instead. It's fly.

How many shoes do you have?
Probably like 80 to 100 pairs. My watch game is ridiculous -- just jewelry in general. It's an investment. I bought this [points to his watch], and it's already gone up in value. All the jewelry I'm wearing has already gone up in value.

The dude who sells this stuff to me on the corner of South Market and La Brea, he says that all this shit'll double in value in two, three weeks. My shoes might triple.

You're not planning on selling it anytime soon are you?
Hell no. I ain't getting rid of it. I'm going to go out and get some more. It's great to be able to go and do that stuff, but you really sit back and think about it ... You could have all the money in the world and within two months of having that ... Say you hit the lotto, right? Two months of having that money, you go and buy a mansion, you buy a big-ass boat, you travel all around the world, you do everything in two months. That's not gonna buy you happiness. That's not gonna define who I am. It only goes so far. There's something way beyond that that's deep that I have with my wife that nobody will ever understand.

And, see, that's why I say Britney's not like a celebrity to me. She's like a lotto ticket. What we got is deep, so deep that I can go out and spend all her money on watches and shit, and if I throw the receipt away, I can tell her, "No, baby, this ain't new, this is somethin' I had already." We're deep like that, and nobody will ever understand.

What's the last book you read?
Last book I read was either -- man, somebody just asked me this shit today -- it was either Russell Simmons' or Puffy's book. I'm really studying people who have been in this business and people who have really made themselves into a business from nothing because basically that's ... you see the watch and you see the jewelry and even though, yeah, I do have money, in a sense, I act like I really don't. Right now the way I look at it is that I'm broke and I'm struggling to get this shit off.

Even, like, just when I was leavin' the house today, Britney was all, "Kevin," she calls me Kevin, she said, "Kevin, you need to quit acting like you're rich. You need to act like you're broke and struggling. Because you are. I'm skinny again and I'm hot and going on Letterman, and your ass is broke and all alone." And I was like, "That's deep, Britney. That's way deep." And people don't understand.

On a plan for victory

Okay, so in his Wednesday press conference, President George "The W Stands For Bipartisanship" Bush announced that he was disappointed that the Democrats won and that the our enemies shouldn't take comfort just because the Party of "Terrorists Win, America Loses" has taken Congress. Obviously prepared for a term of bipartisan cooperation, Bush also said,

See, if the goal is success, then we can work together. If the goal is, get out now regardless, then that's going to be hard to work together.

or, in English, "It'll be easy to compromise as long as they always want to do what I want."

Bush also said, several times, that he's committed to "victory" in Iraq, that we aren't going to pull out until we "win." Conveniently, the administration's definition of "victory" is just as nebulous as their motivation for going into Iraq in the first place. Just as Bush has never been able to truly define his job as President, he's never really been able to say why we're in Iraq at all, which may lead one to wonder if he even really knows.

I'll admit up front, in case anyone has been misled by my expert grasp of military strategy: I'm not a military strategist. I don't know military campaign from an advertising campaign. Except - wait! That's one thing I do know. It may be the only thing, but I do know advertising campaigns.

ADPR 3110: Never, ever, ever try to go into an advertising campaign without knowing your target market and establishing an explicit plan to reach them effectively. Many execs like the GOST model for account planning: goal, objective, strategy, tactics.

You always, always, always start at the top and work down. Your goal is simply what you want to accomplish. Your objectives are specific, measurable, time-sensitive benchmarks that will ensure your goal is met; you have to know who you're trying to reach, how many of them you're trying to reach, and in what time frame, or else you'll never know when that objective has been met. Strategy is the methods you'll use to meet that objective, and tactics are the specific actions you'll take as part of that strategy.

I can't speak for the guys at the Pentagon, and I certainly can't speak for the guys on the ground, but President Bush hasn't gotten past the G.

Granted, it's a nice goal. "Make peace in Iraq." Or, at least, I think that's his goal; in his presser, he says that "victory" is "a country that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself." Fair enough. So what are his objectives? Reducing the number of insurgency- and civil-war-related civilian deaths by 70 percent by March of 2007? Equipping 250,000 Iraqi police officers to stand up by June 2007 (and that means 250,000 actual, working officers, not just 250,000 guys who put on the uniform, punch their time cards, and then go back home)? Disarming 40 percent of regional militias by the end of December?

Bush doesn't like numbers. He says that numbers and deadlines just tell our enemies what we're doing so that they can plan around it and take a terrorism minibreak until the US is out of the country. But to be suspicious of "Oh, I totally know what I'm doing; I just can't tell you 'cause of the terrorists" brands you as an anti-American terrorist-lover. So instead, we're just given "Victory! Victory! Victory in Iraq!" and expected to believe that the administration knows what that is and how to get there.

Everyone wants to know what the Democrats' plan is for Iraq. I want to know what Bush's plan is for Iraq, and here's how I want to know it: The administration has already shown that they have no problem with putting sensitive information online to let bloggers look at it. Now I want my piece. I want Bush and Rumsfeld and The New Guy and General Abizaid and General Casey and maybe Michael Hayden to get together in a nice, quiet conference room with a bottomless pot of coffee and a bunch of legal pads and pens, and I don't want them coming out until they've got a GOST plan that they can post on the Internet.

I'm not looking for classified information or anything that might put our troops in danger (any more than instructions on how to make sarin gas and an atomic bomb would, at the very least). Particularly where tactics are concerned, I'd be perfectly satisfied to know that the generals in charge knew what steps they needed to take without them actually telling me (and any Internet-equipped terrorist types) knowing what those steps will be. But the Bush administration is using our tax dollars and the authority conferred by our elected representatives to wage a war that kills our sons/daughters/fathers/mothers/neighbors/best friends, and we deserve to know precisely what they're fighting for.

And you know what? It might be an awesome plan. It might be the best plan known to man. It might be the kind of plan that would blow the pumps and pantyhose right off of Nancy Pelosi, making her say, "Wow, this is a great plan. We underestimated you before, because there are truly no plans that could match this plan." And then she would dramatically pick up her own plan, which Congressional Dems had been working on while Bush and pals were in the conference room with the coffee, and fling it with great force into the nearest garbage can, declaring, "There goes a vastly inferior plan."

But first, there needs to be a plan. And not just, "Oh, we're going to make the Shias and the Sunnis stop blowing each other up, and we're going to train up some cops and Army d00ds, aaaand we can probably get some kind of a consensus in Parliament," because that's not a plan. That's a musing scribbled on a cocktail napkin. GOST. Specific, measurable, time-sensitive. And on the Internet. We don't need anyone to pass along any crucial military secrets. But we do deserve to know that our government has thought this through beyond the point of "collect underpants."

On the very best kind of riddance

Na-na-na-na. Na-na-na-na. Hey, hey, hey. Goodbye...

Okay, so on Tuesday, I said that a Democratic majority in Congress wouldn't be some kind of magic wand that would fix everything and make the world bright and happy and safe again. But I'm a big enough person to admit when I'm wrong.

Cue the rainbows and the gold-coin-showering unicorns, because Donald Rumsfeld is stepping down as Secretary of Defense.

It would be petty of me to suggest that Rummy is probably doing this at the peak of a post-midterm-election snit, or, alternately, out of some fear that a more authoritative Congress is going to start calling him on the lousy job he's done as defense secretary lo these six years. But I choose not to look a gift horse in the mouth. Bush has nominated as his replacement Robert Gates, a former Director of Central Intelligence who served on the National Security Council under no fewer than four presidents from both parties. He faces confirmation by the newly-Democratic (w00t!) Senate, and while there have been rational arguments for and against him for previous nominations (particularly in re: his involvement in Iran/contra), I choose to suspend judgment until his confirmation hearings. I don't trust Dubya not to put forward a complete lunatic/incompetent/corrupt sociopath, but I do trust a Dem-heavy Senate Armed Services Committee to weed his ass out if he did.

As for Rumsfeld - whatever. Go. Find a hobby or something. Vaya con Dios. Don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you. And remember that you march back on home to "spend more time with the family" with the retirement plan you have, not the retirement plan you want or would like to have.

On a new hope

Help me, House Speaker Pelosi, you're my only hope.

Okay, so tonight, the Democrats took the House, surprising no one but Ken Mehlman (suck it, Ken!). More surprising is the cliffhanger in the Senate, which could go either way pending recounts for too-close-to-call races in Virginia and Montana (advantage Democrats, w00t). Obviously, I think the new House leadership is a good thing, and not just in a "change for change's sake" way. I have actual hopes and even expectations for our newly Democratic Congress. Since the beginning of October, Nancy Pelosi has been not for her first 100 days as Speaker of the House, but her first 100 hours, looking to address the deficit, enact the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, raise the minimum wage, cut the interest rate on student loans, lower drug prices for Medicare patients, and roll back Bush's tax cuts for the rich as soon as the new Democratic majority takes its place.

And that's what's exciting to me - that there are plans for the future. That this isn't just gettin' rid of the Republicans 'cause they suck; it's a matter of replacing a do-nothing, rubber-stamp Congress with one that actually sets realistic goals, acts independently, and takes seriously the responsibility of representing the American people. That's exciting. And if Cthulhu is truly smiling upon us, we'll have an actual bipartisan effort to get those goals accomplished, and we'll have a cooperative president who realizes that, divisive campaign speeches notwithstanding, he must now play nice with the majority party to get things accomplished.

I know there are things I'm forgetting to say, but I'm just in a really great place now. I'm relieved. I'm excited. I'm hopeful. I'm energized for the next few years. I'm realistic about what can/will/should be accomplished, certainly, but it's a hopeful realism. It's new. It feels good.

And so, in the interest of bipartisan cooperation, I have a few personal notes for our newly empowered senators and our new Republican partners.

(The following personal notes are rated M for language and mature subject matter.)



Dear President George W. Bush,

I realize that you had your heart set on a continued Republican majority; you probably wouldn't have spent the entire campaign season slagging off the Democrats if you'd thought for a second you'd have to be working with them for the next two years. That staggering lack of foresight aside, it's time to sack. The hell. Up. Good Lord - you're so intent on pouting a-'cause you didn't get your way that you can't even bother to call the new Speaker Elect and say, "Hey, congrats on the election, I hope we can work together in the best interest of the American people." I don't care how hurt your fee-fees are that voters have roundly rejected your sockpuppet Congress; you're the president of the damn United States, and it's time to put on your big boy pants and start acting presidential. Don't look more like a joke than you have to.



Dear Ken Mehlman,

Here's a bit of advice for starting fresh with the new Congress: try not lying. As a matter of fact, that's pretty good advice for all GOP leadership and administration officials: Try not fucking lying. Try telling the truth. Not sure what that is? I'll give you a hint: Whatever you're tempted to say to national news media, the truth is the opposite of that. Good Lord. In honor of this fresh majority and this new opportunity, let's get into a new habit and try telling the truth.



Dear news media, Evil Liberal and otherwise,

That goes for y'all, too. Tell the truth, and moreover, call folks on it when they aren't telling the truth. Y'all are the fourth fucking estate; you're supposed to be holding the government accountable for whatever they try to pull. Instead, you just, for some reason, assume that no politician would ever try to use your medium as a sounding board for their own propaganda and that they'd never say something on your show if it wasn't the truth. Huh?! When the hardest-hitting, most insightful half-hour of evening news is the fucking Daily Show, you aren't doing your job. Stop being such a bunch of pussies, stop worrying about losing access, and start worrying about being complicit in the royal fucking over of an entire country by the people who are sworn to protect it. Go ahead and ask the tough questions; President Bush has been told to be a big boy and answer like a grownup.



Dear House Speaker Elect Nancy Pelosi,

Do not let me down. Do not. Let. Me down. I'm watching you. The entire country is watching you, and, no pressure or anything, but if you fuck this up, the Democrats will have lost all credibility for decades to come. And, as the first woman ever to be third in line for the presidency, you've now got every feminist and anti-feminist watching your every move, secretly praying that you'll either a) bring new life, liveliness, and accountability to the role of Speaker of the House, or b) screw it up and prove that women are icky. You've got the entire Democratic party, the entire female gender, and, hell, the nation as a whole riding on your smartly-suited shoulders, so do not let us down. But have fun with it. Best of luck! Love the scarf.



Dear Vice President Dick Cheney,

Just - just try to smile more.



Bleh. Don't smile.






Dear y'all,

These midterms have been tougher than some presidential elections; there was an awful lot at stake. It's going to keep being tough, too, because we need big change, and big change doesn't happen overnight. We can see this new Congress as the great liberal threat that will weaken our morals and embolden the enemy, or we can see it an effective alternative to our current strategy of "keep doin' what you're doin', keep gettin' what you're gettin'." We can see it as a new set of eyes on an old set of problems, and a new opportunity to solve those problems using resources and initiatives we haven't had before. In other words: Step back, take a breath, and give it some time. We deserve to go into the next two years with the government we want, not the government we're forced to have.

Haha. Y'all thought you were going to get yelled at, didn't you.

On being stronger than yesterday

Her loneliness ain't killing her no more.

Okay, so it's a good thing I got my Pregnant and Trashy Britney costume in while I could. Two reasons: One, she's cute again. Two, she's gotten smart.*

Lost weight, got a great new hairdo, remembered how to dress again... and kicked K-Fed to the curb? I'm sure the one has nothing to do with the other. Nooooo. Complete coincidence.

We are speaking in relative terms, here.

On why to bother voting Democratic (and you really, really, really should)

Okay, so this is a big week for what's next. Today, as you might have noticed, is Election Day (and anyone eligible to vote who chooses not to will get nothing but derisive and mean-spirited ribbing from this blog). Ever-tightening polls seem to indicate that the Dems may well be able to at least retake the House of Representatives (God willing and the creek don't rise, knock on wood). In international news, on Sunday Saddam Hussein was (shock) convicted of crimes against humanity and sentenced to death by hanging. Both of these milestones call up the inevitable question: So?

What if the Democrats do gain a majority in the House (or, by the grace of God, Congress as a whole)? One thing to remember is that they wouldn't suddenly be in charge of the government. In fact, they'd be riding shotgun to a president who, despite his protestations of bipartisanship and his self-identification as "a uniter, not a divider," has so much contempt for the Democrats that he'd probably sooner set Nancy Pelosi on fire than negotiate a compromise on any anti-terror or Iraq War legislation. Unless the Dems can somehow acquire a veto-proof majority (and it's a slim chance, but it's a chance), they'd be fighting an uphill battle against a man who is entirely uninterested in being their ally.

It may sound like I'm making excuses for a potential do-nothing Democratic Congress, but that's not it. Congress should always do something. It's been a major sin of the current Congress that they haven't done anything, haven't accomplished anything, haven't used a red pen when they've got a rubber stamp handy. I'm just trying to keep expectations realistic. The sky would not open up into a beautiful rainbow as unicorns fly down and shower gold coins on the grateful people of America simply because the party of accountability was back in power. But marking the bubble next to "D" instead of "R" isn't some fruitless action resulting in "new boss, same as the old boss;" it is worth it, and it can make a difference. Even without a majority in the Senate, and/or without the cooperation of our toddler of a president, there's a lot that the Democrats could accomplish:

Money. When Bush took office, he had a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion at his disposal. Today, we're looking at a deficit of $2.9 trillion for that same period. Even taking into account the ever-mounting costs of the Struggle to Halt International Terrorism, that's a lot of Junior Bacon Cheeseburgers lost to no-bid government contracts and tax cuts for the ridiculously wealthy. With the Republican rubber stamp well and truly retired, Bush's Paris-Hilton-esque government shopping sprees would have to come to an end. Taxes are going up, people, and you're going to have to suck it up; that's how the government gets money to run things. But with Bush's tax cuts redistributed to actually benefit the middle class, and with fat-trimming on irresponsible government spending, that necessary tax increase could have a lot less impact on your standard of living. Hello to fiscal responsibility.

Oversight. Does anybody wonder anymore exactly how we ended up in Iraq? How the administration got all of this intelligence, and some of it said, "Saddam is coming to get you!" and some of it said, "Chill out and think this through," and we ended up at war anyway? Does anyone wonder exactly what Bush is doing/has been doing/plans to do with his newly-legalized imperial authority to detain and wiretap and torture at will? Does anyone else wonder exactly how many Republican Congressmen have lascivious interest in the pages, and how they've gotten away with it? Does anyone else wonder how Halliburton has squeezed so much money out of the government and the Iraqi police have poo dripping through the ceiling? No? Just me? Moving on.

Domestic policy. Faced with the idea that most Americans aren't nearly as chuffed with our progress in Iraq as he is, Bush has recently pulled out the old, rusty saw of Social Security reform. Majority Dems could get to work on legislation that'll actually help the people they represent. They could wrestle energy policy away from the oil companies. They could wrestle Medicare prescription drug coverage out of the hands of the pharmaceutical companies. They could wrestle a minimum wage increase out of the pockets of big business. And maybe they could shut some folks the hell up about "protecting traditional marriages." Y'all, get over it.

But what about Iraq? Isn't Saddam's conviction supposed to be some shining beacon of hope in the Middle East? Does that make our efforts in Iraq worthwhile? Does Saddam Hussein swinging from a rope stop civil war in Iraq? Will it make his Sunni supporters and his Shiite detractors hug and go get an ice-cream cone? Are an estimate 400,000-600,000 Iraqi civilian deaths since the initial US invasion now justified by his execution? Death squads, torture, women in burqas, no electricity? Weren't things supposed to become hunky-dory as soon as we pulled him out of a spider hole in his grungy BVDs?

The aforementioned unicorns say no, and that's why foreign policy would still have to be the Democrats' steadiest focus. And it'd be more of a challenge, to boot, since it could only happen with the cooperation of The Boy Who Would Be King. But he's at least gotten as far as abandoning "stay the course," so we can give him that much credit. What Democrats need to do is chart a new course - and fast. It has to be with the input of the analysts and civilian and military leadership Rumsfeld and Bush have been so quick to push aside, and it has to include verifiable benchmarks and deadlines both for our military and for the Iraqi government. And as much as it pains me to say it, the US has to put its daddy pants back on; the Iraqi government is obviously not ready to govern on its own, but if US troops are going to remain in harm's way, the US government has to have some measure of authority over the country they're fighting for. Maliki can either accept both the help and the guidance and oversight of US forces, or he can accept none of it and we'll pull back to the borders. But our troops aren't beat cops in Los Angeles, and it's not fair to treat them that way when the enemy has IEDs and American-made firearms.

Congress, even with a veto-proof Democratic majority, can't make Bush change his foreign policy. In fact, contrary little squid that he is, he'd be more likely to brush off any Democratic suggestion and take the diametrically opposite tack just to remind them that he's still in charge. In that respect, the important thing to remember is that Bush would rather save face than save lives. If Dems could negotiate a settlement and, swallowing their pride, convince Bush that he'll come out the flight-suited hero once again, he may just give in. It's a pathetic way to do business, but you do what you have to when lives are on the line.

It won't happen right away. It might not happen by 2008, but even then, signs of progress should be apparent; the point of having a strategic plan with explicit benchmarks is that you're able to clearly chart progress. But it'll be a slow progress, because there's a lot to address, and it absolutely has to be done right. As unfair as it is, a Democratic Congress would have the reponsibility of fixing every damn thing that the Republicans have so royally screwed up for the past six years, and that'll take time. A whole lot of precious time. It's gonna take patience and time. To do it right.

On last-minute advice

Okay, so vote, y'all. Tomorrow. Vote. And vote smart, because God knows that wasn't a priority in 2004. But for God's sake, vote.

On a cookbook that Betty Crocker wouldn't touch

Or, The W Stands For "Whoopsy!"

Okay, so say your country is at war. There isn't so much a cohesive enemy as a whole bunch of groups that would love to see you dead, dead, dead. Some of them are pissed off that you're in their country, some of them are pissed off that you're on the planet, and some of them are pissed off at other people and you just happen to be in the way. A lot of them would like to get their hands on the kind of weapon that would not blow people up so much as vaporize them and cause their neighborhood to fluoresce under a black light.

Say that you've got a whole lot - like, a whole whole lot - of information from these guys. You've got documents and notes and diagrams out the wazoo. Unfortunately, they're all in Arabic, and since you keep firing your Arabic linguists for taking it up the wazoo, you're kind of short on translating power at the moment. Whatever will you do?

Suddenly, salvation comes in the form of a few brave, patriotic bloggers. "Put them on teh Internets," they said. "With the entire world having untrammeled access to sensitive intelligence, those documents'll get translated in a jiffy! It's an Army of Davids!"

"Brilliant!" Pete Hoekstra cries. "We'll do it right away!"

And John Negroponte is all, "Guys, I don't know."

And George W. Bush is all, "Do it!"

And thus documents, in Arabic, providing specific and explicit instructions on making atomic bombs and processing chemical and biological weapons, become available to any Tom, Dick, or Mahmoud with a Compaq and a cable modem.

These are the people who promised to protect us. "My job is to protect you," Bush says. Don't you just feel protected? Don't you just?

Wasn't that a great idea?

(Hat tip to Hullabaloo and Sadly, No!)

On blogpimping

Okay, so if "blogwhoring" is gratuitously linking to your own blog, then I need to charge Doug 60 percent of the night's take, plus expenses, for what I'm doing now - and I will cut a bitch if he tries to short me.

As a single gal living alone, I generally make some effort to keep my picture off teh Internets, but let's face it: There was no Knocked-Up Britney Spears in all of Southside cuter than me. And Doug made a pretty good Magnum, P.I. (even growing a mustache purely for that purpose; now that's devotion). So shoot on over to Hey Jenny Slater and check out the pictures from our Halloween Trick-or-Drink outing. And before you even ask, yes, Kela has a boyfriend.

On Donald Rumsfeld: This Is Your Soundtrack

Okay, so here's to job security. As a government employee, I really like the idea that you can screw things up to the point where people are actually, physically dead and still have your job guaranteed for the next two years at least. That's why this Friday Not-Even-Random Ten goes out to Donald Rumsfeld, who could eat a Jewish baby on live, national television while backing over a kitten in his SUV and wash it down with French wine, and George W. Bush would give him a big, manly, back-slapping hug for striking fear into the hearts of the terr'ists.

The Ten:

1. Shakira, "The One"
2. Sting, "Big Lie, Small World"
3. Kim Ferron, "Nothing But You"
4. Shania Twain, "You're Still the One"
5. Aimee Mann, "You Could Make a Killing"
6. Dirty Vegas, "Days Go By"
7. Jet, "Look What You've Done"
8. Queen, "Don't Stop Me Now"
9. Lenny Kravitz, "God Save Us All"
10. The Smiths, "That Joke Isn't Funny Anymore"

Your Ten go below.

On - well, not on staying the course, obviously, but on, y'know, not doing anything differently, because, I mean, why do that?

Okay, so President Constantly-Adjusting-to-Tactics has announced that no matter what, Donald Rumsfeld has a guaranteed job as Secretary of Defense as long as Bush is in office. Bush is, after all, the decider, and we get to live with it. So no matter what he does, no matter what lousy calls he makes, no matter who he listens to or chooses not to listen to, no matter the results of his actions, Rummy is in. Not enough troops to get the job done? Rummy's in. Conflict moving in the direction of chaos? He's in. America actually less, not more, safe from terrorism? In! Pull out of Sadr City with a kidnapped soldier still in the hands of the enemy? In, I said in, son!

I mean, after all, the generals on the ground are in charge.

Rumsfeld is a dick
Won't flow the forces we need
We will be too light.
--Col. Steve Rotkoff

Largely unrelated sidenote: President Bush told Sean Hannity that the worst thing about being President is that the "tone" in Washington "has gotten ugly." He went on to add, "I really don’t think it’s fitting for the president to drag the presidency into that kind of a mudslinging."

Classy. Classy, classy guy.

On poking and owning

Okay, so all my readers in Maryland and Maryland-adjacent areas, take heed: If you let him fuck you, you're fucked.

A Maryland appellate court has ruled that a woman can't withdraw her consent after the start of sex, throwing the entire "no means no" concept out on its ear. Per a 1980 rape ruling, once it's in, it's in, and if a woman consents and then changes her mind mid-coitus, she can just lie there until he's done. That ruling was based on common law definitions of rape, wherein:

But, to be sure, it was the act of penetration that was the essence of the crime of rape; after this initial infringement upon the responsible male's interest in a woman's sexual and reproductive functions, any further injury was considered to be less consequential. The damage was done. It was this view that the moment of penetration was the point in time, after which a woman could never be "re-flowered," that gave rise to the principle that, if a woman consents prior to penetration and withdraws consent following penetration, there is no rape.

Basically, once you've gone and sullied her precious flower, she's pretty much rurnt, so anything that happens thereafter is incidental. (See The Happy Feminist for more history on the law and elucidation as to how the real crime is that the rapist is defiling your father's property.)

Mind you this isn't an issue of retroactive consent. This isn't an issue of a woman sleeping with a regrettable man and suffering from boinker's remorse afterward. This is about a woman's right to say, "Ouch, you're hurting me." Or, "Stop, I told you I didn't want to do that." Or even, "I'm sorry, this just doesn't feel right." This is about a woman's right to have a penis in her body and then, should she not want it there anymore, have it removed.

Consent can be a tricky issue. Different states have different laws, and situations where alcohol and/or drugs are involved blur it even more. What if I'm drunk? What if we're both drunk? What if I'm asleep, but I don't mind? What if I don't wake up until the middle of it, but then I do mind? But one blindingly clarifying question has always been asked in rape cases: Did she say no?

There is no clearer sign of nonconsent than a woman saying, "No, stop having sex with me." But this ruling turns it on its head. This ruling makes an acceptable response out of "I'll stop when I'm good and done." Because once he pokes her, she's his until he's done with her.

(Hat tip, Feministing)

On people who really shouldn't try to talk

Okay, so we had the privilege, in the 2004 presidential election, of voting on two men who really should try to aviod public speaking at all costs. The winner was a man incapable of assembling a cohesive sentence without a kit from Ikea and parental supervision. His opponent was a man whose lengthy, lofty, narcolepsy-inducing prose made for marginally effective speeches and should never have been translated into comedy.

But never one to say "never," Kerry gave it a try, resulting in this colossal stinker:

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

Headdesk.

Yeah, it sounds a whole lot like he's saying that our troops are idiots who are only where they are because they didn't study hard enough to get real jobs.

Although the media don't report it that way, there is actually context to be had. What isn't shown in the video making its way through TV reports and the Internet is the runup to that comment, which was a string of one-liners aimed at Bush. As he explained long after the damage had been done, the joke was meant to play off of Bush's own failure to study and do his homework on the Middle East, the direct result of which is US troops being stuck in Iraq. The omitted punchline was to have been "Just ask President Bush."

Does that excuse what he said? No. Why not? Because it was stupid. Because he should have known better. Because he's not an Everyman, a Just-Us-Folks, and every time he tries to turn into one he steps in it. He meant to say something funny, and instead, it came out really, really, really insulting. And then, when people started saying, "Hey, that was really, really, really insulting," his response was, "Screw y'all, you know what I meant."

Here's something I learned from my parents: When you hurt someone, you apologize. Even if you didn't mean to hurt them, you apologize. Because "I didn't mean to hurt you" doesn't make the hurt any less. "I misspoke" doesn't make the words that you did speak any less insulting. And so, when you mean to say something and you say something else instead and someone is rightfully offended by what you said, you don't tell them that they shouldn't be offended. You acknowledge that what you said was insulting, assure them that it's not what you intended to say, and sincerely apologize.

I think Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog put it best:

It doesn't matter what he meant. It doesn't matter how a Republican would have been treated if he or she had said the same thing. It doesn't matter, in other words, whether this is fair. All that matters is what's actually happening. Kerry has to grit his teeth and accept it, then deal with it, for the good of the party. And if you can name a hundred more outrageous -- and deliberately outrageous -- things Republicans have said that passed without incident, well, reversing that imbalance is a long-term project. For now, Kerry has to show some contrition, in a conspicuous way that will put an end to this.

Kerry went on Imus this morning and did a reasonably good job of apologizing. He said that it was a botched joke, which is true, and that the Bush administration needs to apologize for getting our troops stuck in Iraq, which is also true. He also said,

Look, this is a great volunteer army. And the word "volunteer" army means you have to be smart to get in it. They know that. Everybody knows. You can’t get in the military today if you're not capable and not smart.

This comment couldn’t have been directed at them, because you can't get into the military by doing badly in school. This was directed at the people who didn't do their homework, didn't listen to history, didn't listen to their own advice, and they owe the American people an apology....

Which is a good start. But I think that in cases like these, a sincere and direct apology is always in order, and I'd like to see a press release or even press conference to this effect:

"I screwed up. I tried to tell a joke, and I screwed it up. I really shouldn't try to tell jokes, because I'm no good at them, and I know that I really, really insulted people. I didn't mean to. I wasn't trying to say that our troops are stupid; I was trying to say that Bush didn't do his homework, and like I said, I screwed it up. I have nothing but respect for our men and women in uniform, and it really bothers me that I've offended them so badly. I completely understand why they would take offense at what I said. I humbly apologize for it. I hope that our troops will accept my apology and that we can get back to the all-important job of resolving the conflict in Iraq and bringing them home. Furthermore, in the interest of avoiding such problems in the future, I solemnly vow never to try and tell a joke ever, ever, ever again.

Again, my deepest and sincerest apologies. Thank you."

Incidentally, that's a pretty good template for any sincere apology. Admit that you've screwed up, admit that the other party has a right to be hurt/offended, give any explanation (but not excuses) applicable, swallow your pride, and apologize. And promise not to do it again. And then actually try not to do it again.

Only then can you get down to the job of taking the Bush administration to task for their multitudinous screwups, because there's a man who needs to do some apologizing.

On Halloween

Okay, so my original plan for my big Halloween post was to make fun of a Jack Chick tract. More than 100 illustrated ChickTracts in (he claims) more than 100 languages warn good Christian boys and girls against the dangers of drugs, adultery, abortion, suicide, homosexuality, witchcraft, Islam, Catholicism, Mormonism, evolution, secularism, and calling Jesus a sissy. The best, though, have to be the Halloween tracts, which warn us that Halloween is not fun, but is, in fact, the day that witches and Satanists in black, hooded robes put drugs and razor blades in candy to win innocent little child-souls for the Dark Prince. The challenge of snarking a ChickTract, obviously, is that it does a pretty good job of that by itself.

Instead, I decided to put a slightly more timely spin on the traditional tract, juicing it up with current events that concern us all. No truly scary Halloween would be complete without those most evil and threatening of Halloween goblins, courtesy of our uniter-not-a-divider President himself: Democrats.



Feel free to print it out, fold it up, and hand it out to trick-or-treaters who come in search of candy; they're guaranteed to return later tonight to thank you with several dozen eggs and a bunch of toilet paper. Happy Satan's Birthday to all.