Force of Nature

Animal Therapy: Best Friends

Jon's post--and specifically the picture of his (male) dog humping another (male) dog--reminded me of last night's Desperate Housewives and some questions it raised. Andrew, Bree's son, finally returns after being sent back to camp near the start of the season. And with blame for his mother for his father's death in his arsenal, he has no trouble deciding that he's above Bree's authority--so much so that he has Justin, his sometime paramour from last season, come over to spend the night.

Here's where the questions come in. Andrew explains his hatred toward his mother by saying that when his mom told him he would go to hell if he didn't change after he told her he " liked guys," he realized she would one day stop loving him and he decided to stop loving her first. This is an interesting mental process, certainly, but I doubt it's one with which many gay men relate. And yet it's happening on a show created and controlled by Marc Cherry, who has made no secret of his homosexuality or his strong relationship with his mother, who he credits with giving him the idea for the show.

This revelation is preceded by Andrew's attempt to kiss Justin, which Justin rebuffs for fear that Bree will walk in. He promises to make waiting until Bree is asleep worth Andrew's while--and then this concept is dropped. I know this is a very prurient question, but what happens between these two?

The question is important not only because I wanted to see two men making out on network TV, but because of the way Andrew constructs his talk about his sexuality. He doesn't say he told his mom he's gay--he says he told her he "likes guys." This is not the same thing. I've said before that I think bisexuality is often just a stop on the train to gay, but in this case it's important to know whether Cherry is espousing the same view. Andrew told the priest last year that he's not gay--he's just not going to stop fooling around with guys when the mood strikes him. But Justin appears to have real feelings, and not just carnal desires, for Andrew--feelings he expressed to Gabrielle last season. Is Andrew manipulating Justin? Will he go so far as to seek Justin's help as he tries to send his mother for a fall?

This, finally, is important because while there has been a flowering of gay characters on television in the last decade, the bloom is currently very much off the rose. A show with 27 million weekly viewers that features a gay or sort-of-gay character is one of TV's few windows onto gayness for most of America (by which I em>mean the "most of America" that doesn't subscribe to HBO or Showtime, didn't watch or Queer as Folk, and probably won't buy a ticket to see Brokeback Mountain, either). And so it matters quite a bit how that show's "gay character" is portrayed. Right now, the only main character who dabbles in the love that dare not speak its name is also up to some rather unspeakable deeds, including attempting to destroy his own mother and quite possibly manipulating an innocent person into having sex that is based not on love (as the innocent seems to believe) but on simple, base desire. Lest we forget, Andrew also hit Mrs. Solis while driving home last season, and showed no remorse afterward.

I'm concerned, then, that Cherry is taking his grand opportunity to offer some sort of positive portrayal of homosexuality and not merely squandering it but turning it on its head to show same-sex attraction as part of a pathological personality. I realize that Cherry's mission is to make good TV, not to subtly change the hearts and minds of viewers. I realize that DH probably isn't on the must-DVR list of many folks who harbor great hostility against gays, as their churches have already warned them of its sinful nature. And I realize that the show has featured a great many screwed-up characters, only one of whom has shown interest in making it with a member of the same gender. But there's a difference between portraying Andrew as a gay guy who lies about his sexuality sometimes, hates his mom, and feels no remorse about killing an old woman with his car, and portraying him as a sorta-bi guy who pretends to be gay to get a little no-strings attached action from a guy who clearly wants more while engaging in the aforementioned other negative behavior. For the sake of tried-and-true gays everywhere, I hope Andrew is bi and playing on Justin's hopes. Making that cruelty another aspect of his pathology, rather than simply making him both the bad guy and the gay guy on the show, would enhance both the show's portrayal of gays (by playing up Justin's innocence at the hands of a lying manipulator) and the show's storyline. That's a win-win Cherry should grab with both hands.

If he does it after a scene where Andrew and Justin make out on camera, well, so much the better!

Bought and Paid For

Corrupt Intentions - What Cunningham's misdeeds illustrate about conservative Washington. By Michael Kinsley

You've got to love Michael Kinsley. He takes a depressing subject (Congressional corruption) and makes it funny without losing the point.

Kinsley notes what I've often thought when I hear about the paltry amounts for which our representatives seem willing to sell out their principles:

Members of Congress are among the world's greatest bargains: What are a couple of commodes compared with $163 million of Pentagon contracts?

What indeed? Why do people making the maximum contribution of $2,000 to a campaign buy influence worth so many times that amount? Why will members of Congress sell out their nation so cheaply?

I think it's a cultural phenomenon. Members of Congress are people, too. They circulate in crowds with money, often more money than they themselves possess. As wealthier folks leave the private sector loaded with cash to "represent" their fellow citizens (often by reducing the taxes of their corporate pals), those in Congress who don't come from such backgrounds are forced to scramble to keep up or look like paupers on the House and Senate floor. "Why should I have so little while they have so much?" these members of Congress must wonder. They calculate all the long hours spent traveling, reading arane language, being pilloried by the opposition, and wonder why their salaries aren't higher.

And then they realize it--they have access to the biggest pool of money in the country, the federal budget! Who could resist? It's so big no one can read it all, so loaded with additions from colleagues that no one will notice one more. And it's the one thing they can sell without giving up their gig in Congress and the feeling of "giving back" that comes with it. (The only faster way to make a buck is to get a book deal, but unless you've got name recognition like Obama or Clinton, that's hardly a viable route, plus you face all manner of pesky questions of influence--just ask Newt Gingrich.)

I'm not pardoning what Duke Cunningham and others--on both sides of the aisle--have done. (I leave that to President Bush, whose last weeks in office will no doubt be very busy ones.) I'm just asking, should we really be surprised?

5 Weird Habits

Animal Therapy: 5 Weird Habits

Jon has forced me to discuss five of my strange habits. Don't be surprised if you see some relationship between mine and his.

1) I hate to go into any restaurant on my lunch hour to pick up food that I'm not going to eat at that restaurant. I will eat food I'm not really excited about rather than get out of my car, especially in the winter. Corner Bakery, Chipotle, Subway, Quizno's, Jimmy John's, and Panera would get a LOT more of my business if they had a drive-thru window. Indeed, I might never go to a McDonald's or Wendy's again.

2) Related to item 1, I will do anything to complete as many possible errands while getting out of the car as few times as possible. This could mean walking across a very long parking lot to get from one store to another if they're located somewhat close to one another. It could mean altering where I buy certain items. But I hate to drive around aimlessly, or feel like I've spent 30 minutes in the car to accomplish only one thing. This is why my plans for a shopping trip often sound as if I'm headed off to war. In both this and in item 1, you see my desire to start my car as few times as possible; I think someone told me when I was learning to drive that starting a car wastes more gas than letting it run for a little while, and that stuck with me in some deep part of my brain.

2.5) While driving I also seek to avoid left turns, particularly unprotected ones but also ones that involve a restrictive turn arrow, at all costs. I hate trying to figure out if I have enough space before the next oncoming car to turn left AND trying to figure out if there's room for me on the other side of the road at the same time. And I hate knowing that there's enough room for me to turn and being forced to listen to an arbitrary red arrow rather than my own eyes.

3) In direct contrast to Jon, I am e-mail obsessive. If you write to me, chances are you will get a reply, often so fast you'll wonder if I was just sitting and waiting for your e-mail, possibly with a reply half-written. I wasn't, but I have my e-mail set up to tell me when I receive a new one, and when I do I will drop whatever I am doing to read it. Then I'll realize what I want to say in reply, so I'll just write back immediately. If I don't, though, you will never get a reply. I will put a star next to your message, or flag it for reply, but though I will see it ten more times I will never answer. So if you've been waiting more than two days for a reply, you should probably send your message again.

4) I panic when I am without water, even when I'm not thirsty. There must be water at my desk (at work and at home), water on the coffee table, and water in my car at all times. The only exception is when I eat breakfast; after orange juice and tea, a glass of water might seem a bit obsessive and also rather redundant.

5) I eat dessert for breakfast. A lot. If I make a pie or cake or cookies for a special occasion and there are leftovers, I will eat the leftovers every day for breakfast until they're gone. Many a post-birthday week has seen me eating chocolate cake, complete with vanilla ice cream, day after day at 6:30 in the morning. What's worse--I feel no remorse while doing this and often question why others don't do the same.

I'm not going to "tag" anyone else to do this, but feel free to list your own weird habits in the comments below--or comment on mine.

Abandon All Hope

Fox guestimates

My notion that Fox's standing pat with Idol on Tuesday and Wednesday could somehow save Reunion is now defunct, based on this new information: That '70s Show and Stacked will air in the post-O.C. timeslot on Thursday nights. Which makes sense until you remember that '70s stopped being good a long time ago and Stacked has no appeal to the audience of The O.C. (or anyone with half a brain). Couldn't Fox have made a deal with the producers: We'll keep your show on the air all season if you share the DVD profits with us? Looks like it's too late now.

Shameful

South Africa's high court approves gay marriage

There's no shame in being behind Canada, Belgium, and the Netherlands on the social curve; they're enlightened countries and one expects them to lead the way in social progress. But South Africa? This is a country that had apartheid what, 11 years ago?

Spain has gay marriage. Some form of recognition of same sex unions exists throughout Scandanavia, and much of Europe, including Britain, France, and Germany. And yet here in the United States, a piddling four states offer anything with any teeth in it (marriage [without the federal benefits] in Massachusetts, civil union or domestic partnership in Vermont, Connecticut, and California). This is a shameful state of affairs. Perhaps seeing people they've actually heard of (Elton John, George Michael) getting hitched in Britain will make a difference in America? I'm not getting my hopes up.

Standing Pat

Fox Keeping 'Idol' on Tues., Wed. Nights

This is all fine and dandy--but if Fox isn't moving Idol to Thursday nights, why would it cancel Reunion? Nothing else will bring better numbers in the 9/10 PM time slot on Thursdays.

I will grasp at this straw and hope someone at Fox is reconsidering...

R-r-r-repeat

White Sox, Konerko agree on 5-year deal

Hmm. A lineup with Konerko and Thome in the middle, Jermaine Dye and A.J. Pierzynski straddling the twin sluggers, and Scott Podsednik leading off? Plus four starting pitchers who threw complete games during the ALCS and a fifth (Brandon McCarthy) who showed tremendous promise as a starter? The only sad thing about this news is that it leaves Frank Thomas with nowhere to go. The rest of the White Sox, however, should start pondering another World Series...

Help Me Out

Keep Reunion On Air Petition

Do me a favor and sign the online petition above. I can't live if I don't find out who killed Samantha! (And how Craig ended up in a wheelchair, and how Will went from being a jailbird to a soldier to a priest, and...)

Thanks for your help!

Bending Over Backwards

Panda Cub Makes His Debut at National Zoo



Even in dark times, there is something about this panda cub that can make me smile. I highly recommend that you watch the video to see Tai Shan (or Butterstick, as Wonkette would prefer we call him) play for the cameras.

Increasingly Worrying

Homosexuality destabilizes society: Vatican paper

Anyone who wondered why I didn't take communion during my grandmother's funeral this weekend, look no further:

The Vatican newspaper said on Tuesday that homosexuality risked "destabilizing people and society," had no social or moral value and could never match the importance of the relationship between a man and a woman.

That's right: my relationship of six years, and all of the efforts both of us have put into it, have no social or moral value. Years spent caring for one another and sharing life with one another in the context of a loving partnership have no social or moral value, and in fact risk destablizing society.

I salute you with two middle fingers, Mr. Ratzinger. You chose a name of peace for your papacy, but in publishing this new document on homosexuality, you have declared war. You will not win it.

Almost

Highway 290 Revisited: George Gets It

OK, so Bree didn't quite kill George--more like allowed him to kill himself by only pretending to intercede--but she did find out about his role in Rex's death and that was her motivation for allowing him to die. I think this qualifies as an accurate prediction, don't you?

I was also wrong about Desperate Housewives going on a post-sweeps break, but I'm more than happy to be wrong about that!

Symbolism

Part of Supreme Court facade collapses

Which part? The one where we pretend Alito won't vote to overturn Roe v. Wade or the part where we pretend it's improper to ask him about it?

Taking a Break

I had planned to continue posting through the holiday weekend. However, my father's mother died early this morning after a long eight-year struggle with Alzheimer's. I'm going to take a break from work, from school, and from this and be with my family. I'll be back next week.

George Gets It

Bart Dispenses Creepiness on 'Housewives'

I have no spoiler info on this, but the sudden appearance of articles profiling Roger Bart, who plays creepy pharmacist George on Desperate Housewives, has got me believing we're about to see his departure from the show. Bree isn't stupid--she knows he's crazy, and now she's seen him flip out and steal and burn the car of a man with whom she merely danced at dinner. I predict that next week she figures out George's role in the disappearance of Dr. Goldfine, realizes that he killed Rex as well, and finishes George off in the final minutes before the show takes a post-sweeps break.

None of the Above

Too Many Choices - Why seniors won't sign up for the Medicare prescription drug plans. By Barry Schwartz

For the two years that I've been writing about the new Medicare drug plan for work, I've thought that someone could write a great article about how this is a Paradox of Choice situation, where too many choices will cause seniors to ignore the program altogether. Now the author of Paradox has done just that. And he makes a great comparison between the drug plans and the myriad investment options many employees must choose among in their employer-sponsored retirement plans. In both of these cases, and in many others, having too many choices leads people not to make a choice at all--which is, in effect, the worst choice they can make.

If only I could convince all of America to read the book...

Oh, MSM

Fuzzy, cute and a sellout in two hours
Tickets to see National Zoo's panda cub now being hawked on eBay

The mainstream media are so casual in their ignorance of the real story sometimes. Take this breathless paragraph:

By early evening, a dozen tickets were being hawked on eBay. One seller was asking $500 for six tickets, promising 10 percent would go to the ASPCA. Another wanted $199 for two tickets, with a percentage going to Greenpeace.

Wow! Someone is asking $100 a ticket to see the cutest baby panda alive!

What's more astonishing is what some people are offering for a ticket:

I just love pandas! I really, really, really want to see Tai Shan.

If you can get me a ticket to see Tai Shan between now and December 30, I will (I can't believe I am saying this) give you a handjob, with my hands. Maybe, if you are cute, a BJ. I am serious about this. I really want to see this panda.

Are you telling me that the fact people are offering sex for panda tickets isn't more interesting than people offering to donate the proceeds of their ticket sales to charity? Or the fact that someone else has offered up two tickets for exactly the service this desperate panda lover is offering in exchange?

The subhead to the AP story above shouldn't be about eBay--it should be about Craigslist. That's where the real panda ticket action is.

And who can blame the Craigslisters for wanting to see this guy?

All Brand New

A new era dawns. Caesar is dead. The Harry Potter movie series is more than halfway completed. I have written my 1,000th post, and today I will greet my 25,000th visitor.

So I have made a few changes to the blog today. I've moved the books I've read recently closer to the top of the page, and sorted them so when I finish one, it moves to the top of the list rather than the bottom. The next big change should come next month, when I post a top ten albums list for the year and relegate the rest of my 2005 purchases (currently listed in the order in which they were made on the sidebar) to the dustbin of history.

Hope you enjoy the changes.

Beyond Mediocrity

America's Least Wanted - Another Bush earns his place on a Rushmore for the rejected. By Bruce Reed

The Has-Been puts the Bush family achievements in perspective:

It's an awesome achievement for one family to produce two of the four most unpopular presidents in modern times. If there were a Mount Rushmore for rejection, the Bushes would have half the place to themselves.

Only two presidents in modern times have had disapproval ratings higher than the Bushes, who are tied at 60 percent: Richard Nixon at 66 percent and Harry Truman at 67 percent.

There's an important difference, though: When each of the other three hit his personal low point, his term was about to end, one way or another. Truman's worst approval ratings came just before Eisenhower replaced him in 1953. Nixon's darkest hour was just before it dawned on him to resign in 1974. And Bush I was at his worst in 1992, just before Bill Clinton sent him back to Kennebunkport for a long vacation.

But this Bush threatens to stay in the White House for another three years, barring an impeachment or resignation. I realize that, after deducting his vacation time, this only means he'll be spending another six weeks in D.C., but still: That's a long time for things to get worse. Two months ago, Reed notes, Bush's disapproval number was 56; now it's 60. Will it be 64 in two more months? 68 in four? With 36 months until the election of his successor, Bush has time to flirt with a disapproval rating above 100, if only such a thing were possible. He can certainly give Truman and Nixon a run for their money.

No Kidding

Harry Potter Poised for Box Office Victory

I can verify this headline--as if anyone would have trouble believing it. We were planning to see the movie Saturday afternoon in an IMAX theatre; it was supposed to be a birthday treat. Guess what? Sold out. But not just on Saturday afternoon: Every single bloody IMAX showing for the entire weekend. Including the ones that start at 9:30 AM.

Has anyone seen the movie yet? What did you think?

Wee Wee-Wee

Mini-Porn Could Be Mega-Business

This alleged new trend I simply cannot understand. Under what circumstances, exactly, would one want to use a cell phone or an iPod as a porn-viewing machine? Despite the arguments made for this trend's success in the article above, I'm dubious for a pair of reasons. First, I don't know how a screen that's two inches by two inches will offer viewers anything they actually want to see. Second, I don't see how making porn more portable will appeal to most people. Does one really get a hankering for some good S&M while riding the train home from work? And if one did, where would one watch it? Certainly not in the middle of the train, where the passenger in the next seat over could watch. No, one would be in the bathroom, holding the tiny screen close to one's face with one hand while using the other for...

Ahem. I think you can see my point: Even if there is a demand for portable porn, it's hardly a demand that, once met, will lead to anything good. I have no problem with people watching porn in the privacy of their own homes--and doing what they will while watching it. But we hardly need to encourage people to take this private activity into commuter train bathrooms and workplace bathrooms and, my goodness, the possibilities are endless. If you're so aroused that you need to relieve the tension in one of these locales, you don't need porn to help you.

Flailing Away

Another Set of Scare Tactics

E.J. Dionne has the president's number--57 percent of the American people think he misled us into a war in Iraq. And he brings up a point that has been absent from the debate as Bush calls those who question the war unpatriotic:

There is a great missing element in the argument over whether the administration manipulated the facts. Neither side wants to talk about the context in which Bush won a blank check from Congress to invade Iraq. He doesn't want us to remember that he injected the war debate into the 2002 midterm election campaign for partisan purposes, and he doesn't want to acknowledge that he used the post-Sept. 11 mood to do all he could to intimidate Democrats from raising questions more of them should have raised.

Dionne notes that few Democrats had the courage to stand up to Bush (Paul Wellstone did, but his plane crashed). And while Democrats should be chastised for that failure of courage, it's also fair to remind people that when he forced a vote on the war in Iraq weeks before the 2002 election, Bush had an astronomical approval rating, and the nation was still in a post-9/11 mood for blood that is only now beginning to retreat in favor of reasoned debate.

But Bush is in a different position now, and his ranging attacks on anyone who dares to criticize the way the war began just won't play with the public. The folks who said, last year, that Bush deserved to be re-elected so he could be called to account for his first-term actions may have had a point. It's not worth letting the Supreme Court turn into Vatican West, but there is a certain consolation in getting to watch this terrible president, and his terrible crew of cronies, forced to deal with the mess they've made.

Violent Night

HBO: Rome - Episode 11: 'The Spoils'

We were down to two shows rather than three last night, as The West Wing is gone for the rest of November. But two was definitely enough.

On Desperate Housewives, creator Marc Cherry returned as a writer and director, and the results were both exquisite and surprisingly violent. I saw it coming, but it was still shocking to see George hit Dr. Goldfine over the head, smash his skull into a stone railing, and throw him into a river. Will Bree catch on to this pattern of everyone who stands in George's way ending up dead?

Worse than that was the spectre of Eva Longoria falling down the stairs as she tried to escape an ice-cream starved Caleb, possibly losing her (suddenly desired) baby in the process. The last fifteen minutes of the show gave her character a new depth, one I hope she retains. Of course, losing the baby could provoke bigger changes--how will Carlos react? I can imagine the fight now.

No amount of DH violence could have prepared me for the bloodbath that was Rome. The show began with a killing in broad daylight and proceeded to an ending that foretold blood in next week's finale, as Brutus agreed to hold the knife that will end Caesar's dictatorship. In between, the attempted execution of Titus Pullo turned into the bloodiest scene I've ever seen on television, with arms, legs, and heads cut off by Pullo as he defended himself (and the honor of the 13th legion) and a final bloody stake driven through the torso of an executioner by Vorenus when he finally decides to come to the aid of his onetime partner in soldiering.

These two episodes set up a night of reckoning six days from now. Bree will surely notice the disappearance of her trusted adviser, Dr. Goldfine, and Gaby's pregnancy status will also surely be resolved. And in the finale of Rome, we all know that Caesar will meet the blade of Brutus, but what role will Vorenus, whose participation in Pullo's escape was specifically forbidden by Caesar, play? How will Octavian respond? And how will the show set up its second season? As Rome has gone on, it has improved by leaps and bounds, finding a stride so quick and well-measured that I'm tempted to call it the best show of the year. Here's hoping the first season finale will live up to the high standard the series has set.

Already?

Amazon.com Music: Best of 2005

Amazon has already released its list of the best CDs of 2005. I'm happy to report that I own six of their top ten, and that three of them will make my own top ten next month. (And yet I only own 17 of the top 100...)

Enjoy the first of many lists to come!

Utter Disaster

FOX Poll: President Bush's Ratings Continue to Suffer

Last week CBS had Bush's approval rating at 35; this week Fox has him at 36. Either way, that's bad, and approaching my bet that Bush's approval rating would drop to 33 percent in a major poll.

Internally, it's more bad news: Bush has the approval of only one in ten Democrats, one in four independents, and only 72 percent of Republicans. 84 percent of Democrats say they disapprove of the job Bush is doing. That's practically off the charts.

And look! The Republican agenda is falling apart. The House had to delay a budget vote. Alaska drilling is suddenly off the table again, though we're not in the clear on that yet. Social Security "reform" was deemed dead until 2009 by the Republican chair of the Senate Finance Committee, Iowa's Chuck Grassley.

And it's not getting better for Bush. Having Scooter Libby on trial gives Democrats a constant excuse to remind the public of the lies that led us into war, and that war continues to grow more unpopular as it drags on. High energy prices this winter will leave the public in a grumpy mood; instead of the political arguments at holiday dinners that were all the rage a year ago, many families will be united by their anger at the current state of affairs and the president who brought us here.

Oh, yes, 33 percent may not be the floor for this president. He needs some good news, and quick, or we may be talking twenties.

Anticipation Builds

Potter franchise heats up with 'Fire'

This review promises that Goblet of Fire will be a feast for Harry Potter fans. Only a week to go!

One line worries me, however. I know a certain John Williams partisan who will not be pleased to read this:

Patrick Doyle contributes the best musical score of the series, one richly symphonic yet with a pop overlay that reminds us we are in a world of fantasy.

Oh well. We finally get to see Voldemort! What's a new composer compared to that?

WMD at NYT No More

Times and Reporter Reach Agreement on Her Departure

Judith Miller is done at the NYT.

First Democrats win all over the map, then the woman who helped push bad (and by bad I mean not faulty but flagrantly untrue) intel into circulation through the nation's best newspaper packs her bags. Is this a great day or what?

Voters to Bush: Go to Hell

St. Paul: Coleman sweeps Kelly out of office
DFLers punish Mayor Randy Kelly for standing with President Bush, and usher in Chris Coleman in a 69 to 31 percent landslide.

The results of yesterday's elections shouldn't be all that surprising, but Democrats have grown so used to election night bloodbaths that it's difficult to resist the impulse to rejoice at the nearly clean sweep we witnessed yesterday. Yes, quasi-Republican Michael Bloomberg retained the mayor's office in New York City, and Texans added a ban on gay marriage to their constitution. But in Virginia a gubernatorial candidate who got help from Bush on Monday went down in flames on Tuesday, and in New Jersey Democrats consolidated their hold on the state a year after McGreevey's indiscretions made that hold a bit tenuous.

The best news, to me, is the news I've linked above: In St. Paul, the "Democratic" mayor, who endorsed Bush in last year's election, was ousted in a 69-31 landslide by another Democrat. Denizens of the quieter of the Twin Cities got quite loud in their anger at Randy Kelly's betrayal of his party and the sentiments of his citizenry (St. Paul went for Kerry by a margin of 3-1). Here's hoping other politicians get the message and continue the process of distancing themselves from Bush even as he and Cheney come out swinging against those who accuse them of condoning torture and intelligence manipulation. These guys deserve to be left twisting in the wind for the next three years.

Stop the Madness

Why Am I Still Getting E-mails from John Kerry?

Emily Messner is keyed in on an issue that seems earth-shattering every time I open another long-winded, donation-link-laden e-mail from John Kerry, an experience that I've had about once a week for the past year. (I delete the messages from my work account as soon as they come and yet I still have 12 hiding in my inbox.)

I would have been thrilled to see you win, John; just last night I saw a snippet of Fahrenheit 9/11, where Bush dresses up like a fighter pilot and declares victory in Iraq, and wondered how stupid the rest of the world must think we are for re-electing the doofus. But that doesn't mean I want to keep being reminded of it by you. Go about your business in the Senate. Come up with some great legislation and get yourself some actual cosponsors rather than pretending that the people on your e-mail list can cosponsor a bill with you. If the pain of losing our attention is too great, you can always buy yourself some happiness with Teresa's money.

But please: stop sending me e-mails. You had your chance in 2004 because we couldn't find anyone better. In a mission that should have been simple--dump the doofus--you failed. It's someone else's turn now.

Crazy Canadians

North of border, gay marriage spurs social revolution

Katherine Kersten is the Star Tribune's answer to accusations that it's a liberal rag. In this case, however, the cure is far worse than the disease. Every few days, a new example of Kersten's line-toeing mendacity appears on the paper's Web site, screeding against this or that bit of the "liberal agenda" or "setting the story straight" regarding the war in Iraq or the benefits of going to church or having 11 children.

Today she's claiming that gay marriage in Canada is destroying the very fabric of our enlightened northern neighbor's society. She draws this conclusion from one conversation with a like-minded zealot so she can close her piece with this bit of nonsense:

If someone tells you same-sex marriage won't affect your marriage, tell them to look north. The evidence is building.

No matter what Kersten and other scaremongers like her tell you, the only marriages same-sex marriage will impact are mine and others like mine. The reasons for this were neatly (and extensively) outlined by Dale Carpenter last week in an excellent series of posts at The Volokh Conspiracy. They're quite long, but well worth reading, especially if you plan to spend the holidays with more "traditional" members of your families and would like to discuss this topic without resorting to shouting. Carpenter lays out an excellent path for same-sex marriage advocates to follow in convincing the hesitant but fair-minded among us that this change, while it may appear radical and scary, can be viewed as both logical and as part of an effort to rejuvenate the idea that marriage is the ideal status for adults. If that's not an idea that can appeal to the most tradition-focused among us, what is?

Numbers Game

CBS News | Poll: More Bad News For Bush

A few other items of note from the CBS poll that put Bush's approval rating at 35 percent. The poll has Bush's favorable rating at 33 percent, with Cheney's falling all the way to 19 percent. That's right--only one in five Americans view Dick Cheney favorably. Cheney's unfavorable rating is 44 percent, while Bush's is 51 percent. More than half the country not only disapproves of the job he's doing, but actually views Bush unfavorably!

Of course, the links at the bottom of this poll have headlines including "Majority believe in ghosts" and "Majority reject evolution," so it bears remembering that a lot of the people being polled are, well, morons. Nevertheless, it is gratifying to see that even the morons are coming around...

An Amendment I Can Support

The Right to Privacy—Stick It In!

Dan Savage makes a suggestion that is so splendid someone should have thought of it sooner: If we're going to spend so much time arguing about whether the Constitution includes a "right to privacy," why not simply amend the Constitution and explicitly add one?

As Savage rightly notes, such a right would be quite popular, and it would be fun to watch Republicans try to explain their non-support. Yet by supporting it, they would alienate their base of social conservatives, who believe that none of us have an inalienable right to have sex in the privacy of our homes, or watch porn in the privacy of our homes, or use birth control. Finally--a wedge issue that works for Democrats! Between this and stem cells, we could once again be the majority party!

This may be the best strategy I've yet heard for reversing our nation's present political woes and expanding liberty at the same time.

I Love the Nightlife

CNN Ousts Evening Anchor and Embraces Rising Star

Goodbye, Aaron Brown. Just looking at you made me think of stale, old-man coffee breath.

Hello, Anderson Cooper, you silver-haired devil, you. Two hours every night? Maybe this will give you more time to tell Jerry Falwell about the fact that we pay taxes, too...

You'll certainly give me a reason to consider watching CNN from 9 to 11 at night. Because who wouldn't like to drift to sleep looking at a face like this?

Getting Close

CBS News | Bush's Job Approval Hits New Low

Remember when I bet that Bush's approval rating in a major poll would slide all the way down to 33 percent? You should all be glad you didn't take me up on it.

Tonight's CBS poll shows Bush at 35 percent. It's only a matter of time now...

Reason to Believe

HRC | Alito’s 1971 Gay Support Raises Hope

Well, this is a shocker. A paper written by a committee chaired by Alito during his senior year at Princeton included the following statement (the emphasis is mine): "The Conference voted to recommend that the current sodomy laws be changed. The Conference believes that no private sexual act between consenting adults should be forbidden. Of course, acts of a coercive nature, acts involving minors, and acts which offend public decency should still be banned. Discrimination against homosexuals in hiring should be forbidden."

If Alito continues to agree with his statement in 1971--and I find it hard to believe that someone who was for gay rights in 1971, when it was barely being discussed, is against them now--this would be very good news. Elsewhere in the paper appear the words "privacy is a value of fundamental importance" and a long statement about how privacy, while little-discussed before 1971, is a value that has much to do with liberty and toleration, and also sometimes comes into conflict with the value of community. Thus, the paper states, "we regard it as one important value among many."

How Alito construes privacy in his jurisprudence will be among the most important decisions he makes. Does he continue to believe in privacy as not only a value, but a right? Does it still extend to homosexuals? Would he have voted with the majority in Lawrence v. Texas? These are important questions that I hope he will answer before he becomes a justice. Because while we may not be able to stop him from significantly restricting Roe v. Wade, it matters a great deal what logic Alito and his conservative colleagues use to do so. To put it vividly, the Right seems to regard the right to privacy as bathwater in which babies have been drowned, as the holding in Roe was based in large part on that right. If Alito can find a way to save the baby without draining the bathwater, though, it may not be ideal to pro-choicers, who will have to fight state-by-state to protect a woman's right to control her own body, but it will be a lot cleaner for us than a world without the tub of privacy in which so many other important cases--Lawrence and Griswold v. Connecticut among them--currently soak. An Alito who respects the right to privacy as fundamental and emanating directly from the text of the Constitution is a justice far less frightening to me than he otherwise would be.

Heady Times

Lick for the Stick? - Wonkette

I thought I'd seen it all when Octavian slept with his sister on Rome this weekend. But this tops it: A Craigslist poster is offering his two hard-to-get tickets to see the National Zoo's new baby panda in exchange for "a discrete blow job from a cute young lady." And he, um, boasts: "It'll only take 5 minutes or so of your time."

Hmm. Five minutes to see this cute face up close:


Of course, "Butterstick" (his real name is Tai Shan) would probably let out a roar if he knew about this. (Be sure to check out the photo gallery WaPo has kindly assembled--he's really growing up!)

Crony to the End

Pardon My Perjury - The secret of Scooter's confidence? By Mickey Kaus

Mickey makes a great point about the elaborate nature of Libby's lying. He made up an incredible story, in every sense of the word, because he knew there would be no consequences if he was caught in his lie:

Who would take such an idiotic risk before a much-feared special prosecutor? One answer: Someone who knows he'll be protected in the end. Someone who knows, for example, that he'll be pardoned.

Kaus points out that Libby defended Marc Rich, who was eventually pardoned by Bill Clinton as he left office. Does anyone really believe that Bush won't offer a similar pardon to Libby as he departs office, and to anyone else who may be swept up in the Fitzgerald net? Second-term presidents on their way out of office are accountable to no one but themselves...especially after the November election is over. If Libby isn't acquitted, look for multiple appeals to keep him out of prison, followed by a December 2008 pardon. You heard it here first!

White Men

Another Lost Opportunity

The New York Times writes about Sam Alito this morning in less than glowing terms, but it saves the real wrath for the man who nominated him:

...this nomination is yet another occasion to bemoan lost opportunities. Mr. Bush could have signaled that he was prepared to move on to a more expansive presidency by nominating a qualified moderate who could have garnered a nearly unanimous Senate vote rather than another party-line standoff. He could have sent a signal about his commitment to inclusiveness by demonstrating that he understood his error with Harriet Miers had been in picking the wrong woman, and that the answer did not have to be the seventh white man on the court. But he didn't, any more than he saw Sept. 11 as an opportunity to build a new, inclusive world order of civilized nations aligned against terrorism.

Anyone who imagines that the indictment of Lewis Libby and the legal troubles of Karl Rove will be a cue to bring fresh ideas to the White House should read the signs. With more than three years to go in this term, the bottom line is becoming inescapable. Mr. Bush does not want to change, and perhaps is not capable of changing. The final word on the Supreme Court is yet to come, but the message about the presidency could not be more disheartening.

Hard to imagine another three years of this, isn't it? Hard not to think about becoming an expatriate for a few years, even...

Scary

Bush picks conservative for Supreme Court - The Changing Court

No time to comment--Halloween is a serious time at work--but I agree with Pat Leahy. This pick is "needlessly provocative"--which, after the bruising he took from his base for picking Harriet Miers, is probably exactly why Bush made it. Samuel Alito may be more congenial than Scalia, but congenial doesn't change the vote count. I smell a filibuster...

Top Notch

US Department of Justice, Office of Special Counsel

My respect for Patrick Fitzgerald is at an all-time high today. I watched his press conference over lunch, and as he explained Libby's actions, and how he allegedly lied about them, Fitz laid out his case in a manner that was understandable. He made clear what a serious set of crimes (obstruction, false statement, and perjury) the indictments represent. And he threw cold water on the talking point that any indictments that did not include breaking the 1982 law that protects covert agents would be a technicality, using the words, "That talking point won't fly" and explaining the importance of truth to our justice system. He was serious, humble, judicious, and fair. I hope they pick up big clips of his statement on the network news tonight and over the weekend. It will help persuade the American people of the importance of this investigation and the seriousness of the misdeeds committed by Libby--and by other players to be named later...

Stolen Thunder

'Star Trek' Actor George Takei Comes Out

Here I thought the most exciting news of the day would be the frog-march of Scooter Libby. But Sulu being gay? That's blockbuster-level stuff!

It is a bit insulting, though, that AP chose this photo as the one to run with the coming out story:


The rose-colored glasses, the fey expression--it's all just a bit too "gay" for a man coming out at age 68. Sort of says, "Duh--why didn't people figure this out on their own?"

[UPDATE: Here's a link to the full interview in which George Takei comes out and discusses his childhood, his partner, and his family. It's a good read.]

Sing a New Song

Leak probe details to be released at noon ET

I think Patrick Fitzgerald has let having a holiday named after him get to his head. Rumor has it he's going to indict Scooter Libby today and continue investigating Karl Rove. This is, of course, a wonderful development, if true: Bad news for Bush today with the promise of more bad news in the future. But it begs the question: Is today really Fitzmas?

I hereby propose that today be declared the "First Day of Fitzmas." As in, "On the first day of Fitzmas, my lawyer gave to me, a Scooter and further scrutiny." We can only hope there will be eleven more days of torture for a White House so willing to inflict it on others.

This sing-song approach to the whole thing also raises a new question: What if Fitzgerald's goal in going bird by bird rather than indicting the whole flock at once is to get one of the birds to sing? Would Libby squawk on Cheney, Rove, and others to save his own feathers?

Hilarious

Flak Magazine: Harriet Miers's Original Intent, 10.27.05

The link above leads to the alleged first draft of the letter Harriet Miers gave to President Bush today. It's quite probably the funniest thing you'll read all day!

Another Possibility

Answered Prayers - How Bush lost the Miers fight. By John Dickerson

John Dickerson offers a good analysis of how the Miers nomination went down in flames, but what's most interesting is something that makes me reconsider my earlier prediction:

Is there any good news in this for the White House? Inside the West Wing, the fever might break: Aides have suffered day after day as Miers' chances diminished; now they can fight for a new, presumably more defensible, pick. Also, a replacement nomination—which officials say may be announced as soon as tomorrow—gives Bush an opportunity to change the story line of conflict inside the GOP. A new choice the right applauds may bring the fractured party back into line. "If he chooses a solid conservative, this is the opportunity he needs to shore up the base on the one issue that unites all," says a senior Republican strategist. "It wont just shore them up—they will be excited because they will think, rightly, they got it done."

Announcing a nominee on the same day his staff is eviscerated by indictments? Sounds like typical Bush to me. In that case, though, it can't be Mahoney...unless he's met with her in secret and determined that he knows her heart and her character. Clement? Jones? Heaven forbid, Brown? We might find out tomorrow...

Reluctant Prediction

Miers withdraws Supreme Court nomination - The Changing Court

I predicted this wouldn't happen until next Wednesday, but here we are. So I'm reluctantly predicting that Wednesday will still be a big day--the day Bush appoints Maureen Mahoney to the Supreme Court. Read her brief bio and you'll see that she's basically John Roberts without the penis--appointed by Bush I to a circuit court, but never given a vote; an impressive record of litigating before the Supreme Court; law clerk to Rehnquist. No one would argue that she's unqualified. Her name has been bandied about on both sides, winning mentions on the mostly left-leaning Slate and the obviously right-wing RedState.org as a strong contender with a good background.

Please note, I'm not saying I would support Mahoney, but she'd be a pick Bush could trot out and compare with Roberts without being laughed out of the room. She'd be confirmed, probably without too much trouble after Miers softened the ground for her.

Justice Served?

Well, it looks like the indictments may wait until tomorrow, meaning this won't be Fitzmas. But we can spend the day celebrating anyhow. Not only are the White Sox champions, but every news agency is reporting that Harriet Miers has withdrawn her name from nomination to the Supreme Court...

Day of Deliverance?

The next 24 hours are shaping up to be great ones for the city of Chicago. Tonight, our White Sox are set to deliver the city from an 88-year curse by winning the World Series--in a sweep, no less. And tomorrow, if some of the rumors flying around are correct, Chicagoan Patrick Fitzgerald is set to deliver the nation from evil, indicting Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. If these two events come to pass, these will be two days long remembered in the city's, and the nation's, history.

Merry Fitzmas Eve!

Paying Attention

Consumer Confidence Unexpectedly Falls

I don't understand how this news is unexpected; even the article refutes its own headline:

"The unexpected decline means optimism is under more pressure than we thought," said Patrick Fearon, senior economist at A.G. Edwards & Sons Inc. Fearon believes all the political uncertainty is also weighing on consumers' confidence.

"There is certainly more going on than just hurricanes and a resulting spike in gasoline prices," said Fearon. He noted President Bush's drop in approval ratings, political unrest in the Middle East and concerns about the Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers "could weigh on people's attitudes."

Three major hurricanes have reminded us we're at the mercy of nature just as home heating prices have risen. Gas prices have dropped, but they're still very high by recent standards. Oh, and people are starting to realize, with Bush's nomination of a crony to the highest court in the land and the rumblings of criminal activity within his White House, that the country, already dangerously off course, is being steered by a bozo. Yeah, that might take a toll on consumer confidence, mightn't it?

I'm Not the Only One

- First Read - MSNBC.com

I'm not the only one who sees the impasse over documents as the Krauthammer strategy at work:

With Bush making it clear on Monday that he won't turn over documents about the decision-making process, Strickland says, some Capitol Hill insiders are privately questioning whether the White House and the Senate are playing out a strategy suggested in a Washington Post column to withdraw Miers' nomination in a manner designed to let all involved save face. Last Friday, conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, who called Miers' nomination a mistake, laid out the exit strategy that centered on "irreconcilable differences over documents." He wrote of her "honorable" withdrawal, "The Senate cannot confirm her unless is has this information. And the White House cannot allow release of this information lest it jeopardize executive privilege."

Any predictions regarding what day this will all come to an end? I'm hesitant to pick a date, as Patrick Fitzgerald can blow any and all Washington plans to hell on a day of his choosing this week, but I think next Wednesday or so is seeming reasonable. Bush can hardly afford to let the nation see Miers at her Senate hearings if she's performed as badly as reported in her private meetings. Better to lose on "principle" than to lose because your nominee is flat-out unqualified.

Scuttled?

Document dispute snags Miers nomination - The Changing Court

Last week I wrote about the Charles Krauthammer strategy for bringing the Miers debacle to an end. And guess what? It looks like I wasn't the only one to notice.

Yesterday on the Sunday talkers Senators from both parties called for documents from Harriet's time as White House counsel, a request that they just know the Bushies will deny. Besides making hypocrites of the Republicans who wouldn't release memos from the Reagan years but now have no problem requesting documents that could reveal the inner workings of the current administration, this request puts the nomination in an interesting position, as Tom Curry notes:

Bush's statement [refusing to release the requested documents] sets up a standoff that could sink the Miers nomination — because senators won't be able to determine on what issues Miers worked and thus won't be able to figure out on what future cases Miers would need to disqualify herself, if she wins confirmation to the high court.

How far will Bush let this go? And who will he nominate next if he and Harriet finally have the quiet conversation they should have had weeks ago? Senator George Allen mentioned yesterday that he'd have preferred Janice Rogers Brown, Harvie Wilkinson, Michael Luttig, or Karen Williams--and his fellow Republicans likely have plenty more suggestions. Will Bush feel compelled to find another woman, or will he give his base the finger for hurting the feelings of his work wife and nominate Gonzales? We could find out sooner rather than later; Miers looks about as doomed as Scooter Libby right now...[update: Mickey Kaus points out that the rationale being used to scuttle the Miers nomination, executive privilege, will extend to Gonzales as well, meaning he won't be her replacement. Meanwhile, Slate's newly-inaugurated Miers-o-Meter gives her nomination a 75% chance of success. I beg to differ...]

A Wink and a Nod

‘Housewives’: Is prisoner a murderer? - Desperate Housewives

Did anyone else notice that Felicity Huffman danced on top of a bar last night to the same song she once danced to on Sports Night? My boogie shoes, indeed.

Even in Kansas

Kan. Court Nixes Illegal Gay Sex Ruling

No wonder social conservatives hate judges. Even in Kansas--where social issues are a surefire electoral winner--judges refuse to cave in to those who would let the law treat homosexual behavior differently than heterosexual.

While not the ideal case for proclaiming equality, this case, which involved sex between two developmentally-challenged boys, ages 14 and 18, did showcase how far the other side is willing to go. Punishing the 18-year-old with a 17-year sentence rather than a 15-month one because the "victim" of his crime was of the same sex cannot possibly be constitutional. It may be wrong to have sex with anyone that young, but it doesn't suddenly become 13 times more wrong when the two parties have the same genitalia.

Fortunately, the Kansas Supreme Court agreed unanimously, saying, "Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate state interest." Can we just accept that those words are an appropriate interpretation of every constitution, state or federal, in the nation? It would save us a lot of time.

Mercy

Miers: The Only Exit Strategy

I'm not a fan of Charles Krauthammer, but he has a good idea today for bringing an end to the farce that has been the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Basically, he suggests that because she has no paper trail, the documents she produced during her time at the White House are the only way for Senators to fairly judge her qualifications. Yet letting the Senate see these documents would violate executive privilege and chill the ability of future staffers to offer candid advice to the president. Thus, we're in a separation-of-powers dilemma: Which branch's needs supersede? Saith Charles:

Hence the perfectly honorable way to solve the conundrum: Miers withdraws out of respect for both the Senate and the executive's prerogatives, the Senate expresses appreciation for this gracious acknowledgment of its needs and responsibilities, and the White House accepts her decision with the deepest regret and with gratitude for Miers's putting preservation of executive prerogative above personal ambition.

Faces saved. And we start again.

Sounds like a plan to me.

Total Control

Russell Shaw: Law Profs. Debate: What Would Happen if O'Connor Takes Back her Resignation? | The Huffington Post

The post above reflects a question I've been asking myself lately: Couldn't Sandra Day O'Connor just stop this whole Miers charade by taking back her resignation?

Leaving aside the fact that O'Connor wants to retire and has valid (family) reasons for doing so, this raises a constitutional question, and in these contentious times, we're going to need an answer eventually: Is it possible for a justice to make his or her retirement conditional not just on the selection of a successor, but an appropriate successor?

Think of it: Poor John Stevens, rather than trying to hold out for a possible Democrat in 2009, could rest his 85-year-old bones AND effectively decide who would replace him. If Bush nominated Michael Luttig, Stevens could withdraw his resignation. Hell, he could send the President a letter that reads, "I hereby submit my resignation, effective upon the confirmation of [insert name of liberal judge or lawyer here] as my successor." Why not? Who can stop him--the Supreme Court? He's on it!

You can see why this could be problematic. Yet most of the experts Russell Shaw polled seem to think O'Connor could pull back her resignation, and that if Bush tried to nominate someone new anyhow, his approval rating would take a dive. Now, I know I wouldn't approve of most of Bush's potential nominees--especially those chosen out of anger that his best gal pal was rejected by the Senate--but still, I can't follow down the dangerous road that allowing a justice to rescind a retirement would represent. Because let's face it, there are worse things than letting Bush pick O'Connor's replacement. Like letting Scalia and Thomas choose theirs.

No Roll

Miers Says She'll Give Senators More Info

I've got to hand it to Arlen Specter and Pat Leahy--they're refusing to roll over for Harriet Miers, and that's a good thing. In essentially handing a student back a paper and telling her to do it over, they've also told her that her answers to many questions are simply unacceptable. Her B.S. response to the question of how she'd deal with cases involving the Bush Administration--considering her current position as its lawyer--was met with a bipartisan "Hell No!" and a demand for more clarity about when she would recuse herself from cases. Asking how someone would rule may be off limits, but asking her when she would acknowledge herself to have a conflict of interest is a good way to ensure that, even when it's up to her to decide whether to recuse herself, she's made public statements to which she'd be wise to adhere. Considering that she's proven wily enough that Specter says he's looking forward to the hearings, where a stenographer will write down Miers' responses so she can't deny them later, we'll need this kind of clarity if we're to shame her into recusing herself from the inevitable Bush-related cases that will come before her as a justice.

That, of course, assumes that Miers doesn't suddenly realize that she not only forgot to pay her bar dues, she hasn't quite paid her dues to get a seat on the Supreme Court. Considering that she thought Bush was the best governor EVER, though, I have a feeling she'll be raising her right hand and promising to tell the truth soon enough.

New Digital Divide

Subsidize analog TV conversion: senator
Blu-Ray winner in DVD war: industry group

We're moving toward a new digital divide in this country, between people who care about the developments chronicled in the two articles above--and can afford to buy fancy new TVs to take advantage of them--and people who view TV as a mere link to the outside world, essential to have but not worth spending extra for quality.

While I'm on the former side of this divide, I do have sympathy for the latter: The government is planning to make it impossible for you and your old TVs to receive a signal without buying an adapter. If you cared enough about TV to get yourself a digital adapter, and could afford one, you'd just get a new TV!

Of course, government could have solved this problem. It could have told TV makers that they could not sell analog-only TVs after a certain date--a date that should have been set a few years ago. It could have made it clearer to consumers that the cheap analog TVs they were buying in the last few years would become useless without an adapter soon. In exchange for deregulation, it could have required cable companies to offer a low-cost basic package that would ensure that even those on fixed incomes could receive what's currently available over the air, or mandated a special rate for people on Social Security who purchase the lowest tier cable package. (Clearly, if you can afford HBO, you can afford to pay what the cable companies are charging.)

But government, knowing full well that this deadline was looming, did nothing. And a lot of people bought a lot of TVs that will require adapters as a result. Which, apparently, the government will provide. Even I don't like this kind of big government.

At least it looks like the DVD format war will be won by the better competitor. Apparently--much as it pains me to admit this--there are some situations where market forces can work without getting government involved.

Bringing the Funny

The Many Faces of Harriet - Miers supports, opposes, and is neutral on Roe, all within 24 hours! By Dahlia Lithwick

It's been fun--well, not fun, more like amusing in a sad way--to watch the White House and Ms. Miers dance around the matter of her views on abortion, which have been the subject of so many winks and nods these last days and weeks that several eyes and heads in Washington (and in Colorado, and in Texas) are in need of medical care. But at this point, it looks increasingly as if there is no one in any of those three places who has the "political capital" to shepherd this nominee to the Senate floor and get her confirmed. And so, Dahlia calls out the big guns:

So I am begging now. This is embarrassing. End it. Karl Rove: Either plant the 500 pounds of cocaine you keep for such occasions in Miers' car, or trot out some actress to play her bitter, gay ex-lover. You have the power to end this. So do whatever it is you do. But end the unnecessary pain and suffering now, before someone really gets hurt.

I'm for the second option (bitter, gay ex-lover), as it would throw the gay movement, the anti-gay groups, and all of Washington into a simultaneous tizzy. But either way, Lithwick appears to be correct: Even if Miers, cipher though she may be, is the best we can hope for from Bush, her elevation to the Supreme Court is simply inexcuseable, no matter what the rationale. She's not qualified for the job. It doesn't matter if she supports Roe or opposes it or even if she performs back-alley abortions in her spare time. There are plenty of people, and plenty of women, with the legal chops to do the job. Bush should find one and ask his pal to kindly step aside for the good of the country.

Book 'Em, Danno

DeLay Offered Deal Before Indictment

This whole affair is tawdry and pathetic, but it does have its rewards:

DeLay will likely be booked in a Texas county jail this week despite attempts by his attorneys to bypass the fingerprinting and mug shot process.

There's a picture I can't wait to see. It won't quite match the Nick Nolte mug shot, but a picture of Tom DeLay with numbers under his chin will certainly drive home the point that he's a crook, won't it?

Odd Request

Contadina Product Nutrition - Contadina Recipe Ready Diced Tomatoes with Roasted Red Peppers

This is probably the most off-topic post of my blogging career. (Is there a topic, really? How can one be off it?)

I'm looking for stores that carry the product linked above. It's a can of diced tomatoes with roasted red peppers mixed in. I used to be able to buy it at Jewel, but a few months ago it was on clearance. I bought a bunch, but now it's off the store shelves and I'm down to my last can.

This is my secret soup ingredient. It brings out the flavor of the broth and adds a sweet hint to offset both the spiciness of the potatoes and carrots (which I saute with chili and cumin) and the acidity of the other tomatoes I add. And now I'm about to run out!

If you see this at your local supermarket, dollar store, or even (gasp!) Wal-Mart, please let me know--or buy it and let me reimburse you. Winter just won't be the same without it.

Meandering

Last night's new installment of The West Wing featured self-parody, which is a good thing. C.J. started addressing Toby at a breakneck pace, and Toby's response, "You're talking VERY fast," was a nice wink to the old days, when rapid-fire dialogue was both a hallmark of the show AND worth parsing out for meaning. Not so much anymore...

It was nice to see Santos find a sensible position on intelligent design that will wrong-foot Vinick, whose candidacy is looking more and more doomed as his lack of religion (and lack of tact, lately) hurt him among the Republican base.

But this "ripped from the headlines" style that seems to be penetrating the show--reporters in jail, leaks in the White House, Israeli-Palestinian troubles--is getting old. And the anticipation of Toby's perp walk is not what it could have been, as it's been obvious for weeks what was coming.

Indeed, the only blindsiding moment on the show last night was also the most cringe-inducing: Leo and Annabeth discussing the "tension" between them. Until then, I thought it was kind of cute that steady Leo would hold Annabeth's hand during the flight to help her overcome her flight anxiety. But sexual tension? I'm all for people finding love wherever they can, but this smacks of turning the characters into interchangeable parts and having them fall in love with whomever they happen to share scenes with for a few weeks. If you want a romantic subplot, you have one, Mr. Wells! It's called Josh and Donna? You've been planting seeds for seven years? Perhaps it's finally time to reap what you've sown?

One more thing: The four-minute commercial break between the final scene and the preview for next week is out of hand. NBC: nothing you do will make me stick around for Law and Order: Criminal Intent; I'm zipping to Desperate Housewives at 8. Have the grace to finish your previews before DH starts, would you?

Cooped Up

The agony of adult nail biters



Apparently Anderson Cooper needs more outlets for his creativity than CNN alone can provide, as this column from the November 2003 issue of Details (posted today on CNN.com for some reason) demonstrates. And evidently he needs more outlets for his nervous energy, too:

Doctors will tell you that nibbling nails is a sign of anxiety and insecurity, a nasty habit that can lead to infection.

I'm sure they're right. There are certainly plenty of less painful ways to deal with stress, but really, how many times a day can you masturbate?

Now, I'm all for public discussion of masturbation, and the idea of the silver-haired-yet-super-sexy Mr. Cooper engaging in same is not one to which I'm averse. But is this really how CNN wants its "is he or isn't he gay?" anchor-of-the-future talking? He's already taken to crying on camera in response to the strain of reporting on Hurricane Katrina. Is this the next step?

I smell a ploy...imagine the gay audience ratings-challenged CNN would attract if rumors of this sort got started? (Now that's a suggestion for improving CNN that would never occur to Mickey Kaus!)

Trifecta

Canada's Nickelback 'Right' on top of U.S. charts

No, I didn't buy the new Nickelback album. But I did buy three new albums last week that found their way into the top 15 on the charts. Melissa Etheridge's Greatest Hits album, a very listenable retrospective that gives me a new respect for her early career, debuted at number 14. The second album from Franz Ferdinand, which features hook after hook after irresistable hook, started off at number 8. And the third album from Fiona Apple, the much-delayed Extraordinary Machine, debuted at number 7, her highest chart position ever.

Allow me to say this about Fiona: Her last album was my favorite in a year, 1999, that saw the release of many albums I hold dear and consider the pinnacle of work for the artists who released them. This new album, I think, may endear itself even more to my ear and my heart. There are a few albums on the sidebar for this year that I'd advise almost anyone with an interest in hearing new music to buy--the new Sufjan Stevens, Antony and the Johnsons, Martha Wainwright's debut, the aforementioned Etheridge compilation--but so far, Fiona is my can't miss pick. When the 2005 top ten list comes out a few months from now and she's on top, don't say I didn't warn you.

Let the Mocking Continue

Wonkette: "I'm Sorry.... You Can't Get an Abortion"

Poor Harriet Miers: Now her greeting cards are being examined for signs of a judicial philosophy. Wonkette imagines a few verses she might use in drafting future opinions:

Hallmark will need to start a whole new line for her Supreme Court decisions: "Penumbra be damned / It just goes to show / You can't be a Christian / And not overturn Roe." Or maybe, "I think gays / Should have the same rights / But sodomy's not one of them / Let them sleep alone nights."

With stuff like that, Miers could give the acerbic Scalia a run for his money as the most colorful of the Supreme Court's scribes!

School Shooting

Kid Power - Let's use it to fight the flu. By David Dobbs

Today I'm advocating school shootings. No, not that kind! The kind where they shoot a nasal spray into children that vaccinates them against flu. Studies have shown that such a program would reduce the rate of flu infection each winter by a very substantial amount, as children are the perfect conduit for flu. (My personal experience confirms this; every case of flu I've gotten has resulted from either personal contact with an infected child or with that child's flu-infested parents.)

It makes great sense, really. Flu vaccine is a lot cheaper tham all the missed work that results from each year's flu breakout, not to mention the human cost of illness and the tens of thousands of flu deaths each year among the elderly. And besides being the main flu conduit, kids are uniquely situated for state-sponsored vaccination. What other age group spends five of seven days in a government institution?

David Dobbs lays out plenty of other compelling reasons why this is an idea whose time has come. The article is well worth reading.

Burning Up

Banville's 'The Sea' Wins Booker Prize

It really burns me when they do this. I've read six of the last eight Booker winners, and at least two (Life of Pi and Disgrace) I'd call life-changing books. I was rooting for Kazuo Ishiguro to win again for Never Let Me Go, which I highly recommend. But now, I have to wait until this year's winner, The Sea, is released in the United States--and that's currently not scheduled to happen until March!

I'm betting this page on Amazon shows a new release date soon, though...

Flaming Tongues

Miers and Brimstone - Let's stop pretending there's no religious test for nominees. By Christopher Hitchens

Love him or hate him--or, if you're a normal person who doesn't have an opinion of every writer for Slate, simply read him--it's hard to deny that Christopher Hitchens knows how to make a point. And he makes a doozy of a point here regarding Harriet Miers:

Either Miers takes her faith seriously, in which case it must be her life's mission to redeem those who have not accepted Jesus as their savior, or she does not, in which case she is a vapid and posturing hypocrite. And either she is nominated in order to gratify a political constituency, whose leaders such as James Dobson of Focus on the Family seem to have had advance notice, or she is not, in which case the president could see no further than his own kitchen Cabinet in searching for merit. So, the whole exercise is a disgusting insult.

If you have HBO and Comcast, it would be worth watching the episode of Real Time with Bill Maher from two weeks ago, when Hitchens was on the panel, with OnDemand just so you can read this article and hear his snarky British accent in your head.

Speaking of Comcast, did anyone else's HD reception go bonkers this weekend? We had to watch Desperate Housewives in pillar box format, which did not make us happy (though Lynette's trick with the coffee cup was pretty funny despite the poor resolution and missing pieces of the picture). A co-worker tells me Comcast is blaming the problem on solar flares. We'll see what the cable guy who's coming to the house tomorrow has to say...

Buried Lead

Poll: Groups Unhappy With Bush Performance

(Yes, I refuse to spell it "lede." It's a bit pretentious, don't you think?)

The lead of this article on the new AP-Ipsos poll is all about the internal numbers, which show the Bush base finally starting to depart him. And yes, it's interesting that he's shedding supporters on the right without gaining any on the left. But isn't it more interesting than any of that to know that his approval rating now stands at 39%?

That's right. If you got ten people in a room, six of them would tell you they don't approve of Bush's performance in office. Oh, and seven would say they think the country is headed in the wrong direction--only 28% said they think we're on the right course.

These are devastating numbers. And the brou-ha-ha over Harriet Miers being an unqualified Supreme Court candidate can't help Bush--it makes even people who pay little attention sit up and ask, "Why would he appoint his own lawyer, a non-judge, to the Supreme Court?" By setting a precedent of competence with Roberts, Bush appears to have shot himself in the foot.

All this and gas is still under $3.00 and the first home heating bills haven't arrived yet. Can you imagine what these numbers could look like by December? I'm betting Bush goes as low as 33% before rebounding when partisans start to flock back to their standard-bearer in advance of the 2006 election. Any takers?

Signs

Sex Toys Target New Market -- Target Shoppers

You know, some days I actually agree with the Christian Right that we're nearing the apocalypse. Sex toys at Target? Why?

Then again, it will save a trip, and in these days of high gas prices, that's got to count for something. So...why not?

Grinch

Holiday Shopping Season Outlook Gets Murky

Does this news resonate with you? I know it does with me. We've already cancelled sibling gift-giving in my family this year, partly because it's simply time to do so, but partly because this winter is beginning to look like the economic end-time, with energy prices going through the roof. It's getting expensive to drive anywhere, and it looks like it will be even more expensive to stay home in anything resembling warmth. Bloc Party's "Like Eating Glass" threatens to become the national anthem. (Sample lyric, repeated dozens of times: "It's so cold in this house!")

And I doubt energy prices will be the only ones to rise. Daniel Gross laid out a fairly compelling argument yesterday that inflation, that old bugaboo, will be back in the economic picture, meaning that we'll see prices rise everywhere: at the mall, at grocery stores, and at every other retail outlet. Indeed, Gross notes that the Consumer Price Index rose 3.6 percent over the last 12 months; unless prices start to drop between now and December, that figure will either hold up or rise when the year-over-year number is calculated, making 2005 the worst year for inflation since, ahem, the second year of the first President Bush's term, 1990. (Inflation that year was 6.1 percent following three years of 4 percent-plus inflation, a great recipe for a recession.) Unless companies respond to this inflation by offering employees raises bigger than the average 3.5% of last year, purchasing power will decline. And as the housing boom starts to wane, people will likely grow shy about tapping their equity for cash, realizing housing prices won't keep growing exponentially forever.

No doubt some Americans will still do their patriotic duty and plunge themselves into debt this winter to fulfill their holiday dreams and keep the economy strong. Count me out. Our house will be chilly this winter, and there won't be many gifts under the tree. Am I the only grinch?

Harsh Words

Lott: 'Not comfortable' with Miers' nomination

Trent Lott states the obvious this morning: "There are a lot more people - men, women and minorities - that are more qualified in my opinion by their experience than she is," he said, according to MSNBC. He even suggested that Bush has made many good nominations but can also make mistakes, raising the specter that he considers this nomination one of them.

Poor Harriet. She was such a loyal hack for Dubya, and it was serving her well. But this latest promotion he's offered her is starting to look more and more like a train wreck.

Part of the reason, apparently, is that she was a "moderate" on gay rights while answering a 1989 questionnaire in Dallas. "Moderate" means she said gays should have the same civil rights as straights, but didn't believe that a law making gay sex illegal should be repealed. (The Supreme Court finally struck the law down in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas, to the great dismay of Bush's base.) This "moderation"--you can be gay, but you can't act on it--is enough to freak out those on the Right whose deepest fear, for reasons no rational person can explain, is that same-sex marriage will become legal in this country, and their God will become so angry with them for failing to stop it that He'll send them all to Hell.

It's worth noting that in 1989 support for repealing the law was nothing like it is now. Hardly anyone was talking about gay marriage. For a woman in Dallas in 1989, Miers may very well have been a "moderate." The question I'd like answered is whether her version of moderate views has grown and changed along with the rest of the world...

Pushback

Can This Nomination Be Justified?

George Will, who one expects to defend Republican presidents, lashes out today at Bush's choice of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, suggesting that members of the Senate should start from the assumption that she is not qualified to be confirmed and force her to prove them wrong. And he unloads this humdinger:

He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution. Few presidents acquire such abilities in the course of their pre-presidential careers, and this president particularly is not disposed to such reflections.

Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers's nomination resulted from the president's careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers's name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.

Got that? She's not in the top 100 most-qualified people for the position, and there isn't anyone who knows anything who would suggest that she is.

Bush is known for his loyalty to his closest confidants. Didn't anyone around him sense that putting Miers up for this job was the equivalent of hanging her out to dry?

Elision

Gay Community Still Divided Over 'Outing'

This article is fascinating in its own right, in that it almost directly answers a critique I wrote for a journalism class last term of the fact that the media ignores the topic of outing. But it's also interesting to see an article talk about David Dreier for three paragraphs without ever saying his name:

Not all outing campaigns gain traction. A cadre of activist bloggers and alternative-media journalists have been contending for more than a year that another Republican congressman is gay and yet has often voted against gay-rights legislation. Thus far, the mainstream media — both national outlets and those in the congressman's home region — have declined to report on the campaign, although the effort is common knowledge among political reporters and on Capitol Hill.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who in 1987 became the first member of Congress to voluntarily make his homosexuality public, said he does not know if the targeted congressman is gay or not. However, Frank contended that the perception that the congressman might be gay had damaged his standing with some fellow Republicans in the House — and Frank said this issue of bias should be aired publicly.

"I think he's wrong to be silent about this," Frank said of the congressman. "You should not cover up this act of prejudice."

I'll say it damaged his standing! He went from interim majority leader to also-ran in the length of time it takes James Dobson to dial Dennis Hastert.

Starting to Learn

Bush Preparing for Greenspan Successor

It appears journalists have learned something from the nomination of Harriet Miers that they hadn't quite mastered before: When Bush is called on to fill an important position, the most important qualification for the job is a personal one. Hence this list of top contenders to fill Alan Greenspan's post:

Drawing frequent mentions for Greenspan's job are:

-Ben Bernanke: A former Fed board member, he recently became Bush's top economist.

-Martin Feldstein. An economics professor at Harvard University and president of the National Bureau of Economic Research, he advised Bush when the Texas governor ran for president in 2000.

-R. Glenn Hubbard. Dean of Columbia University's graduate school of business and an economics professor, he was Bush's chief economic adviser from 2001 to 2003.

See how a connection to Bush is part of each person's one-sentence description? Looks like the press smells a trend...and realizes that picking Roberts, in that he was chosen for his qualifications first and Bush's warm feelings toward him second, was an aberration.

Snap!

The New Kid - John Roberts' first day at school. By Dahlia Lithwick

Interesting take on the first day for the new Chief, but the best part is the final paragraph, in which Lithwick unloads more poetically than anyone else today:

....The fact that Roberts' umbilical cord was being cut when most of his colleagues were already practicing law is irrelevant. He is absolutely ready to lead them.

To his left sits Sandra Day O'Connor, who may vote and count, vote and not count, or not vote and not count in this case—depending on when Miers is confirmed. How she feels, knowing that her own résumé was more impressive 24 years ago than Miers' is today, is not evident from her questions. She must be wondering, as are the rest of us, whether young Jack Roberts might not have been a better pick to replace her.

Ouch.

Cutbacks

A+E Interactive: TV Notes: "The West Wing,'' "Sex, Love and Secrets,'' Red Sox-Yankees and Martha Stewart

Apparently I'm one of the few still watching The West Wing, to judge by the miserable ratings, but even former fans will find this interesting:

Did you happen to notice who wasn't in the opening credits of Sunday's The West Wing? Dule Hill (Charlie Young), Joshua Malina (Will Bailey) and, most interestingly, Janel Moloney (Donna Moss) were all missing, suggesting that they've been downgrading to recurring status. (Stockard Channing never appears in the credits unless she's in the episode as the First Lady.) And if Richard Schiff (Toby Ziegler) was right when he said he expects to be in only three episodes this season, next week could be his exit. The old Bartlet gang is definitely breaking up, even if folks like Bradley Whitford as Josh Lyman are still around.

It does appear that a lot of old characters will be making only cursory appearances this season, if the first two episodes are anything to go on. Leo wasn't in this week's episode--and he's running for VP! Jed wasn't in it. Donna, Charlie, Will? No, no, no. In a few weeks, watching WW if you've taken a few years off will be like watching E.R.--you won't know who anyone is. You'll be asking yourself, "How did the guy from M.A.S.H. and the girl from Home Improvement and the guy from NYPD Blue take over this show? What happened to Rizzo and the guy from Apocalypse Now?"

If the ratings continue to tank--the show finished fourth this Sunday night, behind Cold Case, Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, and even the Fox tandem of cartoons--I predict your time to see even these new characters will be limited. Instead of the dignified run-up to a series finale that this old warhorse deserves, NBC may burn off the remaining episodes as quickly as possible and free the timeslot for something else. Sad to watch something so fine fall so far, so fast.

CW Developing...

SCOTUSblog: The burden of proof may be heavy

Six hours in, there appears to be a conventional wisdom developing that the Miers nomination is (A) A poor choice, (B) A political mistake on all sides, and (C) Likely to meet with Democratic dissent because it looks so much like another act of Bush cronyism when we just saw, with Mike Brown's performance during Katrina, how disastrous that cronyism has already proved to be.

For me, the test is this: Would anyone else in Bush's position have chosen Miers? With Roberts, the answer was clear: like him or not, his qualifications and reputation were almost unassailable. Miers, on the other hand, is up for a seat at the big table because she helped Bush get his two jobs, governor and president. She may have a distinguished background, but she's no Roberts. She's not even an O'Connor, and O'Connor could easily have fallen back on the excuse that she was distracted by familial obligations during her early career, an excuse Ms. Miers can't make as a lifelong bacherlorette. (Speaking of which, mustn't it bother the Bush base that Miers never married, never had children? Aren't these the foundations of a properly-lived life according to their value system?)

Speaking of miscalculations, why did Bush make the announcement early this morning, before many in the country were even out of bed--but too late for it to make the morning papers? An odd choice, methinks, and starkly in contrast to his prime-time unveiling of Roberts. Speaking of Roberts, SCOTUSblog notes a bit of impoliteness on Bush's part:

Another unresolved question as of Monday morning is why President Bush felt a need to upstage the ceremony in which Chief Justice Roberts formally joined the Court. There was no apparent need for urgency, and the effect was to overwhelm Roberts' investiture by the news of Miers' nomination. It was not an exhibition of refined manners. And perhaps it served mainly to draw an even more vivid comparison between the two of them, to her disadvantage.

Roberts should ask Katherine Harris about how Bush treats the help once they've done their part for him.

My-My-Miers

Achenblog: Bush Nominates Totally Random Person for Court

"Mr. President, I've looked everywhere, and I think you should pick me." That must have been the conversation over the weekend between Harriet Miers and George W. Bush.

No one knows anything about her--or at least nothing interesting that has made it to the mainstream media. And conservatives aren't terribly pleased; which can only be good news.

I really thought, after thinking on it over the weekend, that Bush would come out swinging; a vitriol-spewing cultural conservative would get his base riled up again in time for the 2006 elections, even if (especially if?) he or she failed to win confirmation. Instead, he's shown himself to be either afraid of a fight, aware of a conservative streak in Miers that hasn't been publicly acknowledged, or not as committed to the repugnant "values" of his base as his campaigns would lead us to believe. If it's the first, that's great--he's been weakened and he knows it. If it's the second, at least she's 60--she can't last forever. And if it's the third, well, thank goodness.

One more thing: what is it about Bush that attracts successful, older, single women? Condoleeza Rice seems to worship him, and the never-married Miers seems just as loyal. Should Laura be concerned?