Patience and the Reign of Witches

Broads say the darndest things

2007-04-10T12:43:00.001-06:00

What's the best way to get back on the horse after missing some time from my regular blogging? Why, a study of recent Broadsheet headlines of course!

As always, I vow that the headlines themselves are far funnier than the actual articles…which I could not be bothered to read…so I made up my own descriptions.

Is Britney Spears bad for Hillary Clinton's campaign? – who cares as long as she's good for Bill's masturbatory fantasies?

Anxious about your areolas? Who isn't? Frankly, I'm a bit anxious about your areolas too…can I have another look?

Do big boobs boost self-esteem? Is that self-esteem in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

More orgasms for single women – contact patrow.blog@gmail.com

Life-changing Maxi-pads? Their super-duper absorbency protects Indonesian village from latest tsunami

Let's see what the folks over at 'Broadsheet' have to say about this one

2007-04-06T15:43:00.000-06:00

I've been (unsuccessfully) battling the flu all week and don't yet have the energy to post in full. Luckily, it was for such occasions that God invented YouTube. Have a nice weekend.

How do you define ‘supporting the troops?’

2007-04-03T09:15:00.001-06:00

While conservative politicians, pundits and bloggers argue that Congress' timeline on withdrawing from Iraq shows lack of support for our troops, a study of the not-so-distant past illustrates the true hypocrisy of such a concept.

Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold writes about the predictable Republican resistance, drawing parallels to the biggest pre-Iraq US military failure in my lifetime.

…in [October] 1993, senators overwhelmingly supported successful efforts to cut off funding for a flawed military mission. …76 senators voted for an amendment, offered by Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, to end funding for the military mission in Somalia effective March 31, 1994, with limited exceptions.

None of those 76 senators, who include the current Republican leader and whip, acted to jeopardize the safety and security of U.S. troops in Somalia. All of them recognized that Congress had the power and the responsibility to bring our military operations in Somalia to a close, by establishing a date after which funds would be terminated.

The same day that the Senate voted on the Byrd amendment, 38 senators -- myself included -- supported an even stronger effort to end funding for Somalia operations. The amendment offered by Sen. John McCain on Oct. 15, 1993, would have eliminated funding for operations in Somalia immediately, except for funds for withdrawing troops or for continuing operations if any American POWs/MIAs were not accounted for. The mostly Republican senators who supported the McCain amendment were not disregarding the safety of our troops, or being indifferent to their need for guns, ammunition, food and clothing. They were supporting an appropriate, safe, responsible proposal to use Congress' power of the purse to bring an ill-conceived military mission to a close without in any way harming our troops.

Then as now, by setting a date after which funding for a military mission will be terminated, Congress can safely bring our troops out of harm's way. As Sen. Orrin Hatch said at the time, "The McCain amendment provides the president with the flexibility needed to bring our forces home with honor and without endangering the safety of American troops."

Wow – Republicans voted overwhelmingly to "surrender" and yet, they were supporting the troops? How is that possible? Oh yeah…when you put soldiers' well being ahead of your own political welfare, so-called surrender starts to look like an awfully noble option.

Feingold recognizes the "big differences between the military missions in Somalia and Iraq," but, he says, "Congress' constitutional power to end a military mission hasn't changed, and neither has the fact that this power can be used without jeopardizing the safety of U.S. troops." And that's the key, isn't it?

Iraq has been a nasty place for a long time, and it will remain a nasty place. I don't buy the "we're fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here" argument, as intelligence and military experts agree, we are in truth fighting them in Iraq so we can fight better trained terrorists at home and abroad in the near future.

Too many unfortunate people have and will continue to live and die in Iraq; can't we all agree that it is time to stop adding American soldiers' names to that regrettable list?

Exposing Myself to the World (wait...that doesn't sound right)

2007-03-30T06:51:00.001-06:00

As promised on Wednesday, PatRoW Week concludes today with a letter written by yours truly to a certain group that has gotten on my nerves (no, not Republicans…but good guess).

If you haven't visited "To Whom it May Concern" yet, well, you're probably the only one. Run by a fellow Staten Island-native and Chicago resident, the site was a world-wide finalist for "Best Kept Secret" in the 2007 Bloggie Awards and was recently featured as a Yahoo! "Pick of the Day". Likely, my participation as the first of TWiMC's guest writers will provide a significant boost to its daily traffic; that is, if you think three hits will be noticed in a sea of a thousand.

So if you get a chance, please check out Dear Emo Kids.

thoughts from an airport

2007-03-29T18:32:00.001-06:00

I am enduring a delay at O’Hare, drinking at Chilis and thumbing through this week's Newsweek (blogging from my Treo). I am sick. I am dumbfounded. I am weeping. Openly.

Contrast that with a blog I read today that attributed America's success in Iraq to George Bush, but its failure to our troops. Has there ever been a more reprehensible opinion?

Right now I am reading soldiers' own words, in their own handwriting, on their own stationery, and I know they have a courage I'll never know.

And yet, somehow these letters from the front lines have posthumously reached this privileged (and half drunk) liberal, and I know that I need to do more to ensure that no one has to read more letters like this in the future.

I say that supporting our troops does not mean supporting their mission, but ending it. I say that opposing our president does not embolden the enemy, but weaken their cause.

I say that my tears over an Awesome Blossom pale in comparison to the tears shed over thousands of caskets...and that every additional tear is one too many.

Sorry Loyal Fans, You’re Going to Have to Learn to Share

2007-03-28T06:49:00.001-06:00

Today kicks off a week in which no fewer than four pieces of my writing will appear in online locations other than PatRoW. I know – you thought we were exclusive. Sorry, baby; a swinging man like me can't be tied down to one blog.

The first three of my pieces appear in today's edition of The "Y" – the online newsletter by and for the Young Professionals of Chicago. Tying in with the start of the 2007 Major League Baseball season, all three are centered on our National Pastime. You can see my " Top 5 Baseball Movies of All Time", an editorial about the Chicago Cubs' off-season spending splurge, and – my favorite – my interview with World Series winning manager, Bob Brenly.

(Thanks to everyone who suggested questions for my Brenly interview. The "Y" was edited for space, so I will publish the full interview transcript if/when I can figure out how to post the corresponding audio as a podcast. Which is to say, I may never publish the full interview).

My fourth, and final, non-PatRoW article will appear on Friday as part of a "guest writer" program at one of the more popular (at least compared to this one) blogs around. Stay tuned…

Get well soon – the ‘equal time’ version

2007-03-27T10:35:00.001-06:00

White House press secretary Tony Snow, who had his colon removed in 2005, underwent exploratory abdominal surgery yesterday. Unfortunately, doctors determined that that Snow's cancer had returned and metastasized into his liver.

PatRoW wishes Snow a full recovery and hopes he will live a long, healthy, guilt-ridden and embarrassment-plagued life.

‘Live today the best way we know how’

2007-03-27T10:05:00.001-06:00

I promise I'll contribute more non-John Edwards political commentary in the near future, but the last week of his campaign has been too interesting to let pass by without additional comment.

Last Sunday, Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, appeared on "60 Minutes" to discuss his continued presidential candidacy in the face of her dire cancer diagnosis. I have not endorsed Edwards or any other candidate, but I have stated my reasons for bestowing upon him as much legitimacy as the media given to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Here's the thing: I don't know if I agree with Edwards' decision to stay in the race, but I certainly know I don't possess that kind of courage. I'd want to spend every minute with my wife and give my young children as many happy memories as possible of their complete family.

But just because I couldn't or wouldn't do the same thing, I cannot hold it against John Edwards for staying in the race.

It was ironic that the Edwards' interviewer, Katie Couric, seemed incredulous about their decision, despite the fact that when her husband died from colon cancer she kept appearing on the "Today" show until the last week of his life. Also, "60 Minutes" icon Ed Bradley contributed to the show until the very end of his battle with leukemia.

The capper on the interview belonged to Elizabeth, who acknowledged that she, like everyone else in the world, was staring at possible death. " You really have two choices here," she said. "I mean, either you push forward with the things that you were doing yesterday or you start dying."

If your principles are so strong that you can ignore the dark shadow of your own mortality, clearly yours is a voice that deserves to be heard. Here's hoping she has the time to say everything she wants to say.

Quick Hits: Because I wasted all my verbiage about the US Attorney scandal by posting on someone else’s blog

2007-03-27T07:44:00.001-06:00

Lying Ex Scammed Me for Sperm – a New York man is suing his ex for leaving him under less-than-flattering circumstances. " He found out their love was a lie after the pregnant [ex] came back from a 10-day bicycle trip in Arizona and told him 'she had met someone else that could make her cervix orgasmic just by thinking and that [he] was sexually inadequate.'"

I have to say, if this "Guy Compton" really exists, he must be quite the cocksman. New PatRoW rule: anytime a newspaper prints the words " psychically sexually satisfying cycle stud", I will run that story. Even if said newspaper is the NY Post.

Britney Spears' dentist emergency – I like how Britney was whining about how "unfair" life was that she chipped a tooth and wasn't allowed to take painkillers. Boo hoo – I'm a 25-year-old over the hill addict. Feel sorry for me. Pay attention to me. Close your eyes and try to remember what I looked like when I was 17.

Jacko to Erect 50ft Robot Replica of Himself – do you think Michael Jackson is sitting over in Dubai, fondling some young orphans and distraught over the Britneys and Anna Nicoles of the world who are making people forget how bizarre he is? And do you think he says, "Hey – what can I do to remind people that I'm the weirdest guy in the world?"

"Hazaa! I'll erect a 50-foot tall robot replica of myself in the Las Vegas desert! And it will shoot out lasers! And it will help me bang more 12-year-old boys!"

Why PatRoW doesn’t do ‘Breaking News’

2007-03-22T12:35:00.001-06:00

So John Edwards had his press conference and declared that he is not, contrary to published reports, suspending his presidential campaign.

Well I feel like an idiot.

I still wish Elizabeth Edwards a full and speedy recovery, although word is that she has incurable stage 4 metastatic cancer. I can't fault the decision because she seems to be the one pushing her husband to stay in the race. And still…

The conspiracy theorist in me was thinking that Edwards would be able to use his wife's illness to his political advantage. He could "drop out" of the race – a race in which he wasn't given nearly enough attention anyway. Playing the role of "devoted husband" would only cast a better light on him, especially as Hillary and Obama continue to allow underlings to disparage one another.

Next year, after his wife had returned to full health, Edwards could sweep in on a messy primary season and win his party's nomination with a few late wins and a unifying speech at its convention. Sounds like a storybook ending, right?

Of course, Elizabeth's cancer won't allow her to ever be "fully" healthy…and John is still "in it to win it". My well wishes are still extended to the Edwards family, as are my apologies for jumping to make an ill-informed assumption.

Get well soon, Elizabeth

2007-03-22T10:24:00.001-06:00

John Edwards' press conference has yet to start, but the news is what we feared yesterday when told the candidate had cancelled some appearances and would talk to the media with his wife: Elizabeth Edwards has suffered a reoccurrence of her cancer that first struck the day after the 2004 presidential election.

Sources say that Edwards is " suspending his campaign for the presidency, and may drop out completely" and really, who can blame him? I'd lament the loss of Edwards from the Hillary-Obama primary slugfest, but clearly his priorities are in order.

PatRoW wishes Elizabeth Edwards a speedy and healthy recovery. Her husband's absence from the election will be a loss for America, but he belongs at her side. Get well soon, Elizabeth. We are all thinking about you.

Smack Down

2007-03-20T13:51:00.001-06:00

A few months ago I told you about my then-favorite online shopping site, woot.com . That's not to say I don't still have a fondness for Woot – hell, they gave me a sweetheart deal on a new computer a few weeks back – but a new destination has jumped into first place in my heart.

Jellyfish has a unique business model that makes it an extremely attractive place to shop. Basically, you use their search engine to shop at one of hundreds of online retailers. Depending upon the deal, Jellyfish then gives you cash back on your purchase – sometimes 2%, sometimes 10% and usually somewhere in between.

While everyone loves cash, the best part about Jellyfish is its "Smack of the Day" (a smack is a group of jellyfish, like a pride of lions or flock of seagulls…get it?) – each day, three, four or five items go up for sale on reverse auction. Every second the amount of cash back savings is increased for the auction winner until the product quantity is sold out (usually there are only a couple of items on each auction). That's right, the deal gets better every second you wait, but as the site itself warns, "Don't wait too long buddy. Because once it's gone, it's gone."

The SOTD is a fun experience even if you don't have money to spend, as Jellyfish allows its users to guess what price each auction item will sell for. If yours guess is closest to the actual sale price, you get to spin an online prize wheel. That's right – YOU WIN A PRIZE WITHOUT SPENDING A DIME.

Recent prizes awarded on the wheel include stellar treasures like an xBox 360, Nintendo Wii and $1,000 cash. Less cool prizes have included a slinky and rubber chicken (still, a free rubber chicken is better than no rubber chicken at all). Obviously, odds of winning the smaller prizes are greater than winning the big ones, but still…free is free.

Anyway, I realize I took the long way around in making this personal recommendation. I encourage all of you to visit the Smack of the Day each weekday at noon Central Time (see link on the right column of this page). And yes, I would still feel this strongly about Jellyfish if I didn't get to spin the wheel today and win $50…but that didn't hurt.

Three’s Company

2007-03-15T12:39:00.001-06:00

Hillary Clinton is widely knocked for carefully considering every position and pandering any response to curb favor with her immediate audience. In contrast, Barack Obama is widely lauded for his eloquence and charisma from the stump. And yet neither Democratic frontrunner took advantage when given the opportunity to condemn the ignorant social stance of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Peter Pace.

Why is a politician playing it safe newsworthy? Because one of their rivals actually said something, something right, something that makes sense. That politician's name is John Edwards.

When asked the simple question, "Is homosexuality immoral?" in reference to General Pace's comment, Edwards did not try to massage any nuance into his response. "I don't share that view," he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "And I would go further than that ... I think the 'don't ask, don't tell' [policy] is not working. And as president of the United States I would change that policy."

Was that so hard? Why couldn't Obama and Clinton have been as clear in rebuking the general?

I like nearly everything I hear and see out of John Edwards, yet he has been largely relegated to "third wheel" status by the left- and right-wing media. Why are we not giving this guy more of a chance? I'm not saying he is my choice – in fact, PatRoW is not nearly ready to endorse any of the Democratic candidates – but clearly Edwards is a viable candidate. Don't believe me? Check out some of Edwards' qualities compared with other people in the presidential discussion:

· He has a tangible platform and can speak passionately about an issue to which the entire middle- and lower-class can relate.

· He is young, charismatic and engaging.

· He is a strong family man.

· He can admit a mistake and ask for forgiveness without sounding like a wimp, coward or insincere jackass.

· He is whip smart.

I think it's silly that Edwards trails Hillary and Obama by such large margins and am fully confident that, barring any extraordinary circumstance, he will close out 2007 within striking distance of his rivals. However, we shouldn't wait that long to give Edwards his due as a realistic contender. And, I'm as guilty of this as anyone, we shouldn't only talk about him when someone brings up homosexuality.

Brick-a-Bracket

2007-03-15T07:48:00.001-06:00

Some organization called the National Collegiate Athletic Association begins its annual basketball tournament today, and as I always strive to be ahead of the trends, I thought I'd take a crack at predicting the winners of all 63 games. I know this may seem like an odd concept, but trust me, give this thing a few years and EVERYONE will be doing it.

To make things fun, I have added some thoughts about a few of the schools/teams. And to be clear – I have watched not a second of college basketball since last year's tournament.

Midwest Rounds 1-2: Florida over Purdue; Maryland over Old Dominion; Oregon over Notre Dame; Wisconsin over UNLV.

I came dangerously close to predicting a Notre Dame-UNLV (6 versus 7) matchup in the Sweet Sixteen, but pussied out. See what I did there? I effectively hedged my bets. Nice.

West Rounds 1-2: Kansas over Villanova; Illinois over Southern Illinois; Pitt over VCU; UCLA over Gonzaga.

In my wagering bracket, I picked against both Illinois and Southern just to spite my friends. But in truth, I think both squads will advance (hedging again? Notice a theme here?). And yes, I picked Duke to lose. That's not so much of an indictment against a school that supports alleged rapists as it is an indictment against a school that promotes lacrosse.

East Rounds 1-2: North Carolina over Michigan State; Texas over Arkansas; George Washington over Washington State; Georgetown over Texas Tech.

Realistically I know that GW has no chance of defeating Washington State, and yet I have a sinking suspicion that Cinderella could be wearing a buff and blue dress this year. Good luck finding matching shoes.

South Rounds 1-2: Ohio State over Xavier; Virginia over Long Beach State; Texas A&M over Louisville; Nevada over Memphis.

Memphis won just shy of 83 games this year, but they're coached by John Calipari. He's the poor man's Rick Pitino, whose team also plays in this bracket and has proved to be somewhat less of the coaching genius that we thought he was 20 years ago. Of course, that's like saying that Britney Spears is somewhat less sexy today than she was in 1999.

Sweet Sixteen: Florida over Maryland; Oregon over Wisconsin; Kansas over Illinois; UCLA over Pitt; Texas over UNC; Georgetown over GW; Ohio St over Virginia; Texas A&M over Nevada.

I like Maryland – always have. It's too bad they don't have the talent, depth or coaching to keep up with Florida. Plus, Georgetown-GW sounds like it has great regional implications, but no one in the DC Metro area will even notice. Finally, Kansas could deliver the first every 100-point margin of victory in a Sweet Sixteen.

Elite Eight: Florida over Oregon; Kansas over UCLA; Georgetown over Texas; Texas A&M over OSU.

Anyone who uses emphasis to say THE Ohio State University should be shot dead. I could not feel more strongly about this.

Final Four: Kansas over Florida; Georgetown over A&M.

That's right. I've joined the masses predicting a Kansas-Florida de facto national championship game. It's like they say: "Millions of Americans can't be wrong…except in a presidential election."

Championship: Kansas over Georgetown.

There are few college programs I detest more than Kansas and Georgetown. Don't ask me why – I'm fickle. Anyway, Kansas will win in a championship game that no non-gambler/non-alumni will watch. The rest of America will set their TiVos to record "One Shining Moment".

There you have it. Now leave me alone.

Go Gee Dubs!

Hell hath no fury like a Marine’s porn

2007-03-12T17:41:00.001-06:00

File this one in the "Who'd have thunk it?" department: a history in gay porn can diminish your chances of being taken seriously as an intellectual and hurt your conservative politics street cred.

Shocking – I know.

Such lessons can be learned from the cautionary tale of Matt Sanchez, a Columbia University student and Marine Corps reservist who recently spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference. While at CPAC he posed for a picture with Ann Coulter – a picture that was put under scrutiny after her infamous speech at the same event. The liberal blogosphere delighted in the revelation that Sanchez had acted in gay porn, a work history seemingly in conflict with his conservative views and Coulter's hateful words.

Sanchez clearly doesn't relish his memories of life in porn, but he is unapologetic about his choices. He also criticizes the industry as being the impetus that drove him towards his current conservative stance:

Porn reduces the mind and flattens the soul. I don't like it. That's not hypocrisy talking; that's just experience. I sometimes think of myself, ironically, as a progressive: I started off as a liberal but I progressed to conservatism. Part of that transformation is due to my time in the industry. How does a conservative trace his roots to such distasteful beginnings? I didn't like porn's liberalism. In porn, everything taboo is trivialized and everything trivial is magnified.

While Sanchez's story is interesting and he makes a valid point about "those who complain about wire-tapping reserve the right to pry into my private life and my past for political brownie points", I am most concerned about his accusation about what porn does to its participants.

Folks – I have long been a proponent of sending our nation's best and hottest young women into Porno University, but not if the entire industry is really just a front for the Young Republicans. Who could have foreseen that the conservatives would attack one of the left's seemingly most secure flanks? And does this mean that we need to be on alert for a recruitment campaign at DNC headquarters?

I mean, they already snagged one of our senators…

Back to Basics

2007-03-12T17:40:00.001-06:00

I was on mini-holiday last week and I apologize to those who have had to go without your semi-regular PatRoW fix. To fill the void, I am returning today to an old standard: listing some of the best headlines from the last month of Salon's Broadsheet. As always, I vow that I have not read any of the articles; who needs to be informed when the jokes write themselves?

If breasts could talk - …they'd say, "Put me in your mouth." Those breasts…perverts, the whole lot of them.

Elective C-sections: Convenient or chancy? – what, are those the only two choices? Are we discriminating against "mouth-watering" simply because it doesn't begin with the letter "c"?

"Rape Only Hurts If You Fight It" – right, and it's not gay if you don't push back.

Good cop vs. slutty stripper – It's the Godzilla vs. Mothra (or Gilligan's Island versus the Harlem Globetrotters) of the 21^st Century!

My vagina's school district – Do you think they make bumper stickers that say "My vagina is an honor student at Abraham Lincoln Junior High"? Because I know people in the printing business that can run with a good idea…

Ann Coulter: The board game – wow…what would you possibly call an Ann Coulter board game? Cunts and ladders? How about Douchey Douchey Douchebags? Send your idea for an Ann Coulter board game in a blog comment or via e-mail to patrow.blog@gmail.com. A special PatRoW prize will be awarded for the best entry.

Hating the Haters

2007-03-05T09:27:00.001-06:00

I don't like Ann Coulter. Stop the presses.

By now everyone has heard about the end of Coulter's speech on Friday at the Conservative Union Political Action Conference. Still, for context, her words are worth repeating: " I was going to have some comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you say the word faggot -- so I am kind of at an impasse."

Predictably, sane folks on both sides of the aisle raced to denounce the lunatic. Edwards, too, scored points with rational members of both parties with this measured response:

Edwards said Coulter's comment was "hateful, selfish, childish behavior."

"What I've learned is that if you don't have the courage to speak out against it -- no matter who says it, and no matter who it's leveled at -- then it becomes tolerable," he added. "And it's not tolerable, any more than the language I heard leveled at African Americans when I was young."

OK, Senator. I suppose that was fair. And I understand not wishing to engage Coulter in an ongoing debate – giving her any more time only plays to her maniacal need for attention. And yet, Edwards missed out on a chance to truly put the conservative blowhard in her place and say something that is long overdue in America.

With that in mind, I'm dusting off my DeLorean, firing up the flux capacitor, getting that baby up to 88 mph and turning the dial back 48 hours. Senator Edwards – I've written your response:

Friends,

As much as I'd like to ignore her, Ann Coulter said something that I need to address. Once. Really – I will have nothing more to say to her or about her after this.

On Friday, Ms. Coulter referred to me as a "faggot". Friends of mine were outraged. Gay rights activists were offended. Even a majority of Republicans distanced themselves from Ms. Coulter's choice of vocabulary.

And yet, I say this: so what?

So what that Ann Coulter chose to be deliberately offensive? One of the greatest things about America is that all of us, even the most hateful of us, have the freedom to say disgusting thoughts that come to mind. One of the greatest things about America is that we can criticize the actions, intelligence or even sexual preference of a president (or presidential candidate) without fear of repercussions.

I've taught my children a lesson that I learned at young age, a lesson that I'm sure most of you learned and have passed on as well. I've taught them that "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me". For all her hateful, ignorant and loathsome opinions, Ms. Coulter's words were just that – words. And words, while they have the power to influence, can never cause us harm unless we allow ourselves to be hurt.

Ann Coulter does not owe me an apology because I think being called "insincere", "dispassionate" or "un-American" are a lot worse than being called a "faggot". If gay Americans choose to be offended about her use of label, that is entirely within their right and I support their beliefs. But don't be offended for me – be offended that an attitude still persists that homosexuality is something deviant, something about which we should be embarrassed.

My fellow Americans: I don't care what labels you use to define me. My campaign is, as I've said all along, about building an America that lives up to its promise. And America's promise will always be about ideals, not the favorable or slanderous words we use to define one another.

I don't think that Ann Coulter represents a majority of Americans, but clearly her polarizing voice carries weight in some circles. And for that truth, I have a label for her, a label I use as my final word about her and this entire non-issue.

Ms. Coulter, and those for whom you speak – you are a disappointment.

What? You thought I was going to end with the c-word, didn't you? Well…I *was* thinking it, but I don't think that word would have made it onto the Senator's teleprompter.

Baseball as the Big Question

2007-03-02T18:04:00.001-06:00

Those who know me well know I am a HUGE baseball fan. I absorb everything that is our National Pastime (still Major League Baseball, by the way, despite the NFL's vastly superior ratings). And to be honest, I was as surprised as anyone that baseball's ongoing steroid controversy never really registered in my baseball consciousness.

As much as a like to rant and take credit for things completely out of my control, I was not one of the loudmouths clamoring for drug testing a few years ago, nor was I one of the self-righteous douchebags who patted myself on the back for "forcing" the players' union to capitulate to popular demand.

In the wake of baseball's latest, big drug bust (Gary Matthews Jr may have used performance enhancers last season? Boy, I sure hope no one gives him a $50 million contract. Uh oh…too late) MLB has decided that all of its employees – not just the on-field talent – will be subject to random drug testing.

I don't like the notion of random drug testing, although I haven't exactly voiced my opposition at any of my last three workplaces where the policy was on the books (for the record, I have not yet been called to pee in a cup, although I keep up with my 10 am daily routine "just in case"). MLB seems to have adopted this stance for purely defensive purposes – who can accuse them of turning a blind eye to drug abuse when they're collecting urine from the office steno pool?

Salon's King Kaufman objects to baseball's new policy on purely idealistic grounds, saying, " Forcing workers, even very rich, very privileged workers, to surrender their rights just for the chance to make a buck is not what the America I grew up learning about is supposed to be."

And maybe that's the lesson here – and the parallel we can draw between Major League Baseball's drug problems and America as a whole. It seems that idealism today is too often countered by oppression. Our country was founded on noble principles, yet every day we sacrifice our core beliefs for the so-called greater personal good, the greater corporate good and the greater national good.

I'm not suggesting that an American patriot should take a stand against any one thing, any one politician or any one policy; rather, I'm saying that a true patriot should end a lot more of his sentences with question marks than exclamation points. Before we accept, we must always question…know what I mean?

'If a teenage girl feels a little prick, she's gonna want to feel a whole lot more’

2007-03-02T09:08:00.001-06:00

I'm becoming a Bill Maher fan in spite of myself.

Never too enamored with his stand-up comedy, and merely ambivalent to his various talk shows, I have again and again found myself drawn to the man's writing.

Maher's latest essay is about the controversy attached to the HPV vaccination. You know, the vaccine that's so effective it could completely eliminate this frequent gateway to cervical cancer.

What's the problem? HPV is a sexually transmitted disease, and some prudes seem to think that vaccinating young women against a STD is tantamount to giving them permission to whore it up (like that's a bad thing).

Anyway, Maher makes a number salient points, but his one-liners have rarely been so sharp. I submit:

· If you don't think your daughter getting cancer is worse than your daughter having sex, then you're doing it wrong.

· HPV shots don't cause promiscuity. Tequila shots do.

· If you could use stem cells to prove that life begins at foreplay, the pope would turn the Vatican into a lab.

And about the idea that the vaccine is bad, because the girls "may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex"?

[That] is really a stretch. People don't get the vaccine for typhoid and say, "Great, now I can drink the sewer water in Bombay." It's like saying if you give a kid a tetanus shot she'll want to jab rusty nails in her feet. It's like being against a cure for blindness because it'll encourage masturbation. It's like being for salmonella poisoning in peanut butter because it'll discourage weirdos from spreading it on their ass and calling the dog.

Wait a sec…that makes me a weirdo?

Joe Dirtbag

2007-02-28T17:42:00.000-06:00

The always prolific Glen Greenwald has narrowed his sights on one of PatRoW’s favorite targets – “Independent Democrat” Joe Lieberman. At the center of Greenwald’s fury is a Lieberman Op-Ed that appeared in Monday’s Wall Street Journal, and how the senator’s new stance seems to stand in direct conflict with the one he espoused in the Journal fifteen months ago.

…whereas Lieberman is claiming now that everything is different today because we had no real strategy before for ensuring security, it was Lieberman himself who promised Americans in 2005 that we did have exactly such a strategy and that it was working so well that "we can have a much smaller American military presence there by the end of 2006 or in 2007."

…On what conceivable basis is Joe Lieberman accorded even the most minimal respect or credibility? He is obviously a person who will say anything at any time in order to defend this war, and, now that everything he said in the past is revealed to be completely false, he does not have even an iota of integrity or honesty to admit any of that. Instead, he stands up and pretends that he never said any of those things -- he actually pretends that he knew all along that our military strategy was wrong -- and simply makes the same promises and commitments as he has been making all along with a sense of entitlement that he has credibility on these matters and should be listened to.
Now you may be asking – what good does it serve to continually point out Lieberman’s hypocrisy and dishonesty? And if you are asking that question…you don’t know me very well.

Joe Lieberman continues to spew lies and convenient mistruths, and continues to caucus with congressional Democrats while he sabotages the Party’s platform in the media and Senate floor. Every time he talks about the war, the man insults the intelligence of the American public (hey – that’s my job!) and betrays our troops in Iraq. But for the capper, Greenwald says it best:

Worse still, people like Joe Lieberman attempted -- and are still attempting -- to bully and stigmatize those who were trying to alert Americans of the reality of what was going on in Iraq by depicting anyone who challenges the rosy-eyed deceit of the President and Lieberman as the ones who actually bear responsibility for the failures in Iraq, even as subversive and traitorous.
Calling Lieberman a douchebag no longer seems strong enough, and “Interloper Enabler” has potential, but is a bit of a mouthful. Maybe there’s a simpler word: responsible. Surely he shares blame with a stable full of culpable fucks (conveniently, most of them work together at the White House), but Joe Lieberman is responsible for our Iraq clusterfuck quagmire, he is responsible for America’s rapidly vanishing esteem in the global community and he is responsible every time another American soldier comes home in a box.

Black Enough for the Blogosphere?

2007-02-28T08:51:00.000-06:00

A compilation of my recent Obama posts (see here, here and here) has been posted on The "Y" – the online magazine written for and by the Young Professionals of Chicago. While loyal PatRoW readers have already read and digested my rants weeks ago, I encourage everyone to check out The "Y" and leave a comment on my – or any other – story.

Without further adieu, I give you Black Enough for the Blogosphere?

Dear Self-Appointed Arbiters of Highway Safety:

2007-02-26T17:39:00.000-06:00

(note – today I’m borrowing a template from one of my favorite, newly discovered blogs. After all, plagiarism is what I do best)

Let me get this off my chest right away: I hate you self-righteous fucks. Just because you don’t know how to drive in the snow (here’s a hint – gas is on the right, brake is on the left; hands at 10-and-2; you know, kind of like how you drive on a sunny day) doesn’t mean you have to pretend like your wheels are hanging perilously on the edges of a tightrope.

In Chicagoland, we got a dose of snow/sleet/rain on Saturday night. I was stuck in the suburbs, where apparently they rely on one plow and two salt trucks to cover 447 square miles. So yes, the roads were slick…but you fools were ridiculous.

Fifteen minutes after the precipitation began the roads had a glossy sheen to them. But you dickheads decided to parallel caravan three-abreast at 10 mph on the type of road under which normal circumstances folks would drive 65.

As I seethed behind you on one-lane roads, you slowed to a crawl at GREEN lights and STOPPED at intersections where only the crossing traffic had to yield. And maybe I shouldn’t have gotten up on your back bumper and flashed my high beams (or my impressive vocabulary of swear words), but really, I needed to teach you a lesson for trying to impose your weak wills on the rest of driverkind.

A few hours later and finally making my way back to the city, I entered a major interstate highway to find that you douchebags were intent on impeding my path home. At this point, about an inch of slush had accumulated on the ground, but to see you drive, I’d have thought there was a foot.

In the one lane IDOT had so graciously plowed, you drove coasted as if you were balancing a Faberge Egg on the tip of a sewing needle. I’m not saying you should have been doing the speed limit, but sweetheart, you have to go faster than 5 miles an hour in your four-wheel drive SUV! Isn’t that the point of buying that gas-guzzling monstrosity? And when I passed you (in my front-wheel drive, 4-cylander sedan) in the unplowed lane at 12 mph, your disapproving looks were about as appropriate as my next Andrea Yates joke.

Hey assholes, I’ll consent that the snow is a good reason to drive with caution…but “caution” can’t come at the expense of “drive”. I think I saw a dude pushing his stalled car on the shoulder faster than you!

You must always remember that I’m an important man with people to see and places to be. If you douchebags can’t get out of my way, next time I’m sending you careening off the road in the hopes that I have spared the world of future generations of vehicular pansies.

Farewell to the Chief

2007-02-22T11:24:00.000-06:00

Last night, Chief Illiniwek danced his last dance in Champaign.

Wait – you're not from Illinois and have no idea why that's important…or what it even means? I'm sorry – let me start from the beginning.

Chief Illiniwek was the grossly stereotypical Indian caricature/mascot for the University of Illinois – the school at which a disproportionate amount of my Chicagoland friends attended. And get this: some people are offended that a white kid in face paint, feathered headdress and moccasins would prance around and make a mockery of Native American culture. Fucking prudes.

Though the Chief has been alienating Native and non-native Americans alike for decades, the school finally retired its mascot because of financial pressure from the NCAA (the school would not be able to host postseason athletic events if they chose to keep the Chief). Despite the sound fiscal reasoning, Illini alumni are pissed that the school would capitulate to the PC-police.

Normally, I'm the least politically correct liberal in town…but have you ever seen Chief Illiniwek? The Chief's supporters liked to claim that the mascot actually honored Native American culture, but in reality, the dude was a 21st century version of vaudevillian blackface. Maybe there aren't many Illini Tribe members left in central Illinois, but who wouldn't be offended by this guy's shenanigans?

The pro-Chief argument always seems to center around tradition – hey, we've been insulting an entire people since my grandpa's day, no way we're changing now! You know what was another popular American tradition? Slavery. I hear that depriving women of voting rights was a fun trend too – should we end universal suffrage?

The Chief represented a hateful mockery of an entire race. Maybe the student who portrayed him was a fair-minded fellow, and maybe the past and present students shared not a racist thought amongst them, but Chief Illiniwek was a walking, talking and dancing Confederate Flag. No matter what the intent, displaying a symbol of hate is always hateful. And (except for educational purposes) always wrong.

Adios, you disgusting racist symbol. I'm sure George Allen will welcome you into retirement.

How much do you love me?

2007-02-19T17:11:00.000-06:00

So you think you're the world's biggest PatRoW fan? Prove it by signing up for an e-mail subscription to this blog! Simply type in your e-mail address in the handy-dandy space to the right (below my Blogger profile; above my favorite blog links). You will be directed to verify you are not a spammer, then - presto! You've solidified yourself as a true fan and won't be removed from my will (or brandished a douchebag in this very space).

C'mon...all the cool kids are doing it.

'The infallible pope can say he's sorry, but this recovering alcoholic can't even say he's wrong'

2007-02-16T18:05:00.000-06:00

Comedian/talk show host Bill Maher is promoting the upcoming season of his HBO show, and as usual, had some interesting things to say about a few topical issues. Read a full interview here , but if you're short on time, check this out:

On a certain surge:
The people in Iraq don't want this. The people in America don't want this. The Iraq Study Group doesn't recommend it. The Democrats are against it. Most [Republicans] are against it, even though many of them wouldn't say so out loud. But George Bush, he knows better. That is a kind of arrogance that is very hard to swallow at this point, especially when it's costing this many lives. Even the pope -- remember he said something bad about the Muslims a few months ago? The infallible pope came out and said, "Geez, my bad. That came out wrong. I didn't mean that." Yeah, the pope can say he's sorry, but this recovering alcoholic from Midland, Texas, he can't even say he's wrong.

Why are we in Iraq, anyway?
It's so over. The country is ethnically cleansing itself. It's already a partitioned country. What are we fighting for over there? Why are we fighting to keep Iraq together? Iraq has only been a country since what, 1932? That's seven years younger than Paul Newman. Why are these drawn-on-a-map borders worth one more American life? I have no clue. And I don't think [Bush] does, either.

On Hillary, Bill and effective government
The Clintons have a reputation for a number of things that baffles me. Yes, he's got a wandering eye, and yes, he's oversexed or whatever. But really, Bill Clinton is a policy wonk. He's the kind of guy who gets into the details of it, and so is she.

Government -- they used to teach it in college. It's actually something you should study and learn and know how to do. The Republicans always run on the idea that government isn't very effective. Well, not the way you do it. But it can be effective.

Does anyone doubt that if Bill Clinton was president during the Katrina storm that he would have been on top of that? He would have been all over that situation! He would have had the right people. He would not have slept for a week. That's the kind of guy he was.

I'm not saying there wouldn't have been problems -- it was a storm -- but as well as it could have been handled, he'd handle it. These people know how to do government; that is their passion. And it is something that can actually be done effectively.

What we're seeing with the Bush administration is that when you outsource government jobs to private contractors, both here and in Iraq, that's where the trouble is -- those are the people who are greedy and unchecked and corrupt and inefficient.

Black enough for you?

2007-02-16T06:34:00.000-06:00

Barack Obama's race continues to be an issue for some people…and that's a shame. He's black, not black, not black enough, African-American, half-black, mixed race and/or "other" – depending who you ask. Do any of those labels make a difference when considering our next president?

Following a few links, I stumbled across a blog post that communicates the only solid truth in this race-driven non-issue:

There's no such thing as a "post-racial" candidate when you look black . In this country, Obama can still be followed in a store suspected of being a shoplifter, be passed by a cab driver afraid to pick him up, or stopped by a police officer for "driving while black." In none of these cases would it matter if Barack Obama pulled out a family picture to show he's half white.

Isn't that the point here? Whether or not you believe Obama's genetic profile is representative of a specific community does not matter; what does matter is that, taken on appearance – not substance – alone, he is a black man.

Let's debate whether Obama's politics are reflective of the black community, the Democratic community and the greater American community. But let's also put to rest how those relevant discussions are affected by the amount of melanin in the man's skin.

Why are greeting cards so…blech?

2007-02-14T08:14:00.001-06:00

This Valentine's Day I am taking a stand. I'm taking a stand against conformity, a stand against expectations, a stand for my masculinity. This Valentine's Day I am taking a stand against the gratuitously effeminate greeting card industry.

Guys – who's with me?

How can any man feel good about himself when buying a greeting card? I realize that cards should appeal to the givee, but shouldn't they also serve as expressions of the men who buy and give them? I don't know too many guys who need to express their love – and I'm talking about genuine love here – with a six by nine card printed on pink paper, with a pink bow, lavender scent and an 18-line sonnet. Am I wrong, or is that a bit much?

I'm sure there is a market for the overly flamboyant card because there must be some women who appreciate (expect?) such a ridiculous gesture. But I know I'm not the only man sick of the choices (or lack thereof) that are out there.

And while the issue is most distressingly prevalent this time of year, it is not a phenomenon unique to February 14th. A few months ago I tried to buy a birthday card for my mom. Now I know that my mom *expects* a card from me – no gift, just a card. Simple, right? But here's the thing: my mom doesn't want or care about what poem Hallmark has written inside – she won't read the print or acknowledge the embellishments. The card is important to my mom because of what I write and what that means to her.

So what were my choices? The only cards in the "Birthday, Mother" section under $4.99 were a six-fold monstrosity with a pop-up lace heart or another containing a 250-word essay on the importance of mothers. If I wanted to step up to the $7.99 plateau, I could have purchased an oversized card with rhinestones…and who doesn't love rhinestones? They're the international pseudo-stone of well-wishing. Am I the only one who thinks $7.99 is a bit excessive for a birthday card? Apparently I must be; the store sold more cards priced over six dollars than under three.

I soon found the only other "Happy Birthday Mom" cards in the so-called Humor section – "so-called" because all of the "jokes" were spin offs of the old you're-so-old-we-have-to-use-a-fire-extinguisher-to-blow-out-all-the-candles-on-your-cake gag. Yeesh. Obviously, these cards weren't right for me, nor were they right for my mom.

As bad as that was, my 2007 Valentine's Day selection was even worse. Can't there be a happy medium? Why must every card be so disgustingly over the top or atrociously unfunny that I want to puke in my own mouth? Is it too much to ask for some industrious card company executive to design something that doesn't require me to check my masculinity at the door? Here's an idea (Hallmark, feel free to steal this one – I promise I won't sue):

Plain white stock, four by six inches. Front of the card has a simple flower – let's go with a rose because, for some reason, that's what you expect - with the words "Happy Valentine's Day" or "To my Valentine" printed in an attractive font on the bottom. The inside left of the card is blank while the inside right says "A special day; a special woman".

There, that's fairly simple, right? Now, sell that card for $1.99 and I guarantee you won't be able to keep enough on the shelves. Men of this millennium know that we're expected to personalize cards to the women in our lives and actually want to write our own messages; you can trust us to adequately adapt this card for our wives, moms, sisters, etc.

It shouldn't be this difficult, yet it is. Someone has to speak up before another man is forced to castrate himself in order to purchase a simple greeting card, and that someone needs to speak up soon – I've grown quite attached to my testicles and would hate to part company when we have so much left to do together.

And you thought I wasn't a romantic.

46 Heads in the Sand

2007-02-07T08:20:00.001-06:00

A wise man once called the US Senate "the place where charisma and charm go to die". Sounds good…but what about integrity?

On Monday, the Senate voted to discontinue debate on the three proposed non-binding resolutions opposing the war in Iraq. Let me say that again: they voted to NOT DEBATE any of three prospective resolutions that would express disapproval yet carry no legislative clout. They voted to avoid conversation; they voted to stick their collective heads in the sand and pretend that the conversations happening in homes, schools and workplaces across America isn't happening.

Blaming the entire Senate is not exactly fair, but I refuse to pin the fault exclusively on Republicans…even though 45 of the 49 GOP Senators voted against continued debate (bravo to Minnesota's Norm Coleman and Maine's Susan Collins for adhering to the will of the people despite pressure from party bosses; Florida's Mel Martinez and presidential hopeful John McCain were strategic no-shows). In contrast 47 of the 49 Democrat Senators voted to move forward with debate ( South Dakota's Tim Johnson remains in a hospital after his brain hemorrhage and Louisiana's Mary Landrieu honored a previous commitment in her state after it was clear her vote would not make a difference in the final tally). Vermont's Independent Bernie Sanders voted with the Democrats and – shock of shocks – Connecticut "Independent Democrat" Joe Lieberman voted with the Republicans.

Republicans (and Jo-mos) are to blame for their hypocritical votes, but my problem is the resolutions themselves. None of the three proposals had any legal teeth, and none were hard enough on Dubya's Folly. And here's the thing – Democrats seemed to be OK with that. Their harshest suggested "disapproval" of the Interloper's surge. One plan suggested benchmarks for the Iraqi government (even though that resolution's author, the absent McCain, admitted that there were no real consequences to not meeting those benchmarks). All agreed that the government would not cut off funding for troops already deployed, even if it withheld funds for a surge.

George W. Bush dug us a hole that we can't easily crawl out of, especially not with a measly non-binding Senate resolution. But that would still be a start. Don't we owe it to the 3,000+ American soldiers who have lost their lives in this unnecessary conflict? What about the hundreds of thousand of non-insurgent Iraqis who have been injured/displaced/killed due to our instigating this war?

Can't we all agree that what's happened should not have? How can we sit back and let the Interloper to compound his many mistakes by adding fuel ( i.e. American lives) to the fire? And where, Senate douchebags, do you get off voting to stop the debate?

Bear Down, Chicago Bears

2007-02-05T10:10:00.001-06:00

Apparently the NFL staged a game yesterday to give folks watching at home a break between contestants in the Super Bowl of Advertising. Here in Chicago, that left ample time for "Go to hell, Rex!" and "Fuck you, Peyton!" chants. Damn, these people are angry…what happened to Midwestern charm?

I will say this – for all of the much-publicized Black History Month campaigns, the night's best racism conversation was inspired by Bud Light's gorilla commercial and someone making a Joe Biden joke. And yes, that "someone" was me.

According to USA Today , Budweiser's stray dog ad was viewers' #2 favorite (trailing only those cuddly, false-idol worshiping crabs). I love pathetic looking mutts as much as the next guy, but why is no one expressing outrage at Anheuser-Busch's blatant rip-off of a classic Pepé Le Pew bit? I suppose more people would have caught on if the faux-dalmation were to date rape the beauty queen, just like Warner Brothers' skunk would have.

Finally, I had a good laugh listening to Colts owner Jim Irsay accept the Vince Lombardi Trophy for his team's victory. Perhaps overwhelmed by emotion, Irsay displayed a penchant for inventive vocabulary and douche chill-inducing segues (at press time, I have been unable to find an official transcript…but here is my best "I promise this is no exaggeration" recollection):

Our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Central Florida. We don't want to forget that. And the Indianapolis Colts will work in partnershiping with the…groups…to help with tornado recovery…And the Colts are WORLD CHAMPIONS!

Uh…Jim? That was a bit awkward. Then again, the COLTS ARE WORLD CHAMPIONS! I'm sure your "partnershiping" will go a lot smoother now that you guys have Super Bowl rings.

Happy Birthday to Me

2007-02-02T15:54:00.001-06:00

In honor of PatRoW's first birthday, I am giving a present to you – one of an all-too-select few loyal readers. Today, PatRoW 2.0 launches with exciting, yet less-than-innovative new features. It's not like you come here for glitz…

Anyway, with inspiration from an old friend, I finally decided to use some of the tools at my disposal to make this site a bit more user-friendly. You will notice each post now has an associated topic (or two or three…), which will make it that much easier for you to say "shit – you wrote about douchebags 41 times already? Learn a new word already, dumbass".

Other new features added entirely for the surfing pleasure of you, my fair PatRoWista, include links to my favorite non-me blogs, as well as my frequently-surfed websites. Because, you know, I'm sure you're dying to get inside my head and figure out the origins of my genius.

In other words, fun for the whole family.

Anyway, after receiving such a fantastic surprise gift, I'm sure you're asking yourself, "Self, what can I get PatRoW for its first birthday?" Well I'm glad you asked.

I want a comment. Send me a birthday wish today. Write a comment about any of the nearly 200 entries I've posted over the past year. I've made it easy for you – there's a little button to click at the bottom of every post…now use it!

Undoubtedly, PatRoW has meant a lot to you in its brief year of existence. Today, and everyday in the future, I empower you to tell me the world about it. A wise man once said that with great power comes great responsibility. Well, with the great power you gain by reading this blog, you carry a great responsibility to tell me how awesome I am.

Please, don't let yourself down.

Aftermath

2007-01-31T13:42:00.001-06:00

Last weekend, I met up with some old friends in New Orleans. Our "mancation" in the French Quarter was filled with the level of debauchery we expected of ourselves, and yet, I can't say that I left town with completely positive feelings.

Our New Orleans friends had asked about taking us on a "Katrina tour". I was reluctant, remembering all those asshole disaster tourists who flocked to the World Trade Center site after 9/11 to snap photos and pose in front of the epicenter of the worst event of my lifetime. But it was important to my local friends, so off we went.

First off, let me say that I had been through the Lower 9 ^th Ward before Katrina, and was never impressed with its aesthetic. To say that it looks worse now is a horrendous understatement. It used to look like a poor neighborhood and had sections that were stereotypically "ghetto". Today that would be a vast improvement.

As bad as the Lower 9^th was and is, at least the media has done an adequate job of reporting on the area. What I had not heard anything about was an area in which several of my friends lived – just east of the 9 ^th in St. Bernard Parish.

My friends lived in a town called Chalmette, only 8 miles or so from downtown New Orleans. It was a middle- to upper-middle class neighborhood. Homes sold for $175 - $400,000, which in that part of the country, equates to a lot more than it does within 10 miles of most major American cities.

Today, the neighborhood looks worse than any place I've seen in my limited travels through the Third World. Most homes are empty, many are gutted, nearly all are for sale (asking price $30-$45,000). Contractors are charging 10 times their pre-Katrina rates, and the few people who are trying to rebuild on their own live in FEMA trailers parked on the front lawn. About 1 in 20 houses have been rebuilt, and it is incredibly disarming to see a beautiful home and landscaped yard surrounded by run down messes, weeds and the absence of life or activity.

I saw a home in which the garage had collapsed on itself, with the family car still inside. A year and a half after the storm, and this station wagon hasn't been touched – except by whomever shattered the back window to grab whatever could be found inside.

We drove past a beautiful long wall with antique features and wrought iron fencing that was to serve as the border for a new gated community. Only the model had been built and it was gorgeous – large but modest, extravagant but tasteful – with the entire property bordering one of the levees. Needless to say, no construction has taken place since the storm. The fence and model still stand strong, mocking the desolation of the hundreds of bare acres that surround them.

As bad as it was, things have gotten better recently. My friend told me that large piles on debris (two stories high and spread out over a plot or two of land) had been removed just this month, finally helping some of the stench to clear. Most of the worst and most physically dangerous properties had finally been demolished. And yet, most folks haven't gotten more than $4,500 (from the government or insurance companies) to rebuild their lives.

After the storm, my friends let me know that they were all OK and I was never truly concerned about them again. Not only did they fail to tell me about their house being destroyed, but they also didn't tell me about the aftermath. Last weekend, they told me (and showed photos) about their "commandeering" of a boat and riding it up and down the streets ferrying people to shelters and supplies back into town. They told me about the guns pointed at their heads, and the guns they had to point at other people. They told me about the woman with MS who could not be moved, so they flew emergency flags that were ignored by dozens of passing helicopters. They told me about the guy who trudged around in a chef's coat for three days because he had no other clothes. They told me about siphoning gasoline from any source to help keep their boat powered as long as possible.

Needless to say, I was floored.

I hadn't been able to talk, write or really think about everything I saw until this minute – five days after my "tour". It is bad down there – still…and I don't know how anyone could hold onto any optimism. But somehow they do. I asked my friend's dad what one thing people need – not a billion dollars, but something tangible – and he said "nails". Their community is gone, and he wants nails?!? Can you imagine?

You have to drive down the street in this "good neighborhood" with your doors locked AND gun chambered in your lap. There were FOUR policemen working last Thursday in one of the towns. The streets are riddled with potholes – and those are the good blocks.

I don't know who is doing anything, and I don't know what I expect this rant to do. I simply needed to write down what I saw and remind people that we all share a responsibility to care. I've never seen anything worse (I still refuse to visit Ground Zero) and would selfishly hope I never have to again…except such sights are a fact of life for people I care about.

Something has to be done. Any ideas?

Maybe, just maybe…

2007-01-29T14:07:00.001-06:00

Despite the fact that PatRoW legions failed to nominate me for Best New Weblog of 2006, my public service continues. And today I revisit an old, yet oddly forgotten theme – the bastardization of the word "liberal" by right-wing pundits.

A few months ago, I compared Republican tactics to some dialogue from one of my favorite movies: " There's a line in 'The Usual Suspects' in which Kevin Spacey's character opined that 'the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist'. Well, the greatest trick the Republicans ever pulled was convincing the country that 'liberal' is a 4-letter word." Today I've read something that expands upon my point as it explains the genesis and historical connotations of "The L Word".

I've always been in the JFK school of thought about the word "liberal", even as I never actually realized we occupied the same intellectual space. And yes, I realize that statement can be taken as both incredibly egotistical (I'm as smart as a former president!) and incredibly self-deprecating (I'm as smart as a dead guy!):

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label 'liberal'? If by a 'liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people--their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties--someone who believes that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'liberal,' then I'm proud to say that I'm a 'liberal.'

FDR, the godfather of the notion of Democrats as "the bearer of liberalism and of progress", went even further in his definition of the term. He recognized "a deeper need--the need to find through government the instrument of our united purpose to solve for the individual the ever-rising problems of a complex civilization."

That need – the need for a government that serves its citizens is at the root of liberalism and seems difficult (for me at least) to argue against. And yet, it meets with outrage and contempt from not only Republican political opponents, but from the very middle- and lower-class Americans who would seem to benefit most from this highest of liberalism's high ideals.

The smear campaign began (in earnest) with Ronald Reagan, who "openly attacked both liberals and liberalism--painting them as soft on crime, foreign policy, and the work ethic--and won two presidential elections in the process". Liberals began to run away from the tag that had political benefited and accurately defined them after those slurs, yet it was still prevalent enough to be used as the focal point for Newt Gingrich's ire in 1994 – a race that drove the left from Congressional majorities for the first time in decades.

After reassuming control of the House and Senate a few months ago, one would assume there would be a race to embrace the symbolism of true liberalism, but alas, that has not proven to be the case. After decades of lies, damn lies and Rovian lies against our beloved ideals, liberals are still thought of as pansies and our proud label dismissed as irrelevant by some INSIDE OUR OWN PARTY who want Democrats to back away from a fight about semantics.

But here's the thing: I want to fight about semantics. I want to embrace the label that most accurately defines my ideals. I want to reclaim the word "liberal" from the black hole of political exile and restore it to its rightful place at the forefront of national debate.

Do we need a national re-branding campaign? Or maybe, just maybe, liberals around the country need to own up to what and who they are. Maybe, just maybe, there is one politician brave enough to stand in front of his constituency and declare, "My name is (insert imaginary representative here) and I am a liberal".

Maybe, just maybe, that's possible. Then again, maybe being an idealist serves no practical purpose, maybe I'm a condescending asshole who can't or won't relate to mainstream America, and maybe, just maybe, conservatives are right in saying liberals like me are pussies.

Nah…that can’t be right. Except the condescending asshole part – that’s probably a valid observation.

‘The last man to die for a mistake’

2007-01-25T07:38:00.000-06:00

We all know I think John Kerry got a raw deal in 2004 and again with "Botched Joke-Gate" last November, and – rambling Senate floor speeches not withstanding – I think he is a fine and responsible politician.

One thing John Kerry is not, however, is the next President of the United States. Yesterday he announced that he will not enter the wide-open fray in a statement that showcased the sometimes overly-eloquent senator at his plain-spoken best:

His voice cracking with emotion, Kerry said that what the Senate does now may determine the future of Iraq, the Middle East and the United States. Kerry recalled the question he asked after returning from Vietnam -- "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" -- and said he "never thought" he'd be "reliving the need to ask that question again."

"We are there," he said. Kerry acknowledged that one of the reasons we're there is that he and other senators voted to authorize George W. Bush to use force in Iraq. Because of that vote, he said, members of the Senate now have a "moral obligation" to bring the war to a close.

Wow. John Kerry is making sense both as a politician and a human being. Jim Webb – supposedly a man lacking basic communication skills – is channeling his inner Obama. Barack and Hillary are early front runners in the Democratic presidential primaries. Are all Senate Dems such strong, influential leaders capable of leading a national debate and serving as the conscious of the people? Have they collectively and suddenly become the voice of reason and rational thought?

Oh wait, there's still Joe Lieberman. It's good to know some things never change.

This one is for the ladies

2007-01-24T10:35:00.001-06:00

I have developed quite an affinity for the headlines, if not content, at Salon's Broadsheet. Actually, that's not fair; I've never read any of the articles. How could I? They couldn't help but be a disappointment after the bar was set so high by some anonymous headline writer.

Anyway, as part of a new feature on PatRoW, I bring you the Best of Broadsheet (fourth week of January, 2007 edition). As always, my comments are on the headlines only, not the story itself…which I don't care enough to read:

Prostitution or a "humanitarian" solution? – I don't know…are the two mutually exclusive?

A tutorial in selling sex – finally, someone is willing to teach young ladies about the do's and don'ts of hooking!

Do kids make you fat? – no, and neither do those pants…it's your ass that makes you look fat!

Child rape in the movies – outside of Sundance, is this such a pervasive theme in cinema, or just a pedophile's fantasy?

Skinny girls to blame for train delays – and fat girls to blame for potholes, global warming and killing Jesus.

When are girls too young to go wild? – seven? Eight? Any younger and that's just sick, mister.

Rhetorical subtleties even I can’t stomach

2007-01-23T11:01:00.001-06:00

Apparently, I wasn't the only one taken aback by yesterday's Salon piece about Barack Obama not being black. Today, another of the online magazine's writers weighs in and quite strongly states his premise that Obama is, in fact, black -- he just isn't "black."

Did you get that? How about this:

People whose race or ethnicity defines their identity, or at least makes up a major part of it, are what I think of as quotation-mark people. They are not only mixed-race, they are "mixed-race." Those whose race or ethnicity has little or nothing to do with their identity, with their sense of themselves, are non-quotation-mark people. They may recognize themselves as black or Latino or Asian, be whatever race or ethnicity they are to the core, and proudly affirm they are such, but they aren't "black" or "Latino" or "Asian."

What the fuck is going on here people? Obama is African-American (he is quite literally the son of an African and an American), but despite the OBVIOUS AND (hopefully) IRRELEVENT color of his skin, he's not black and/or "black" enough for some folks?

The Iowa Caucuses are one year away, and we've allowed barely a week to pass between the official announcement of Obama's candidacy to slip into ridiculous rhetoric about race. Let's talk about America's silent racism and sexism – an important issue on which all primary voters need to seriously soul search. However, debating this kind of race label is as silly as talking about augmentations vs. escalations.

‘Homie has some rings to kiss and a kente-cloth pocket square to buy’

2007-01-22T09:24:00.000-06:00

As I've documented in the past, nobody loves hyperbole more than me. That's why I couldn't pass up reading an editorial that claimed as its main argument that Barack Obama is not black.

Read that line again. I'll wait.

Salon's Debra J. Dickerson holds off on harsh criticisms of the senator's platform, but she does go after the one fact that everyone seems to agree on

"Black," in our political and social reality, means those descended from West African slaves. Voluntary immigrants of African descent (even those descended from West Indian slaves) are just that, voluntary immigrants of African descent with markedly different outlooks on the role of race in their lives and in politics. At a minimum, it can't be assumed that a Nigerian cabdriver and a third-generation Harlemite have more in common than the fact a cop won't bother to make the distinction. They're both "black" as a matter of skin color and DNA, but only the Harlemite, for better or worse, is politically and culturally black, as we use the term.

Wow. And you thought Scott McClellan was the king of spin (truth be told, he was *so* 2006).

Though I am wholly unqualified to debate the attribution of "blackness" in 21^st Century America, I can't get behind the argument…even as I find it intoxicatingly original.

Barack Obama is not black? What's next – Hillary Clinton is not a woman (I knew her hands were too big! Someone check under the skirt).

Maybe John McCain isn't really a war hero (in reality, he spent four years at Cambodia's Club Med).

Perhaps George W. Bush isn't really a douchebag (uh…well…uh…no, I can't come up with a plausible defense. He really is a douche).

George Bush makes sense about Iraq! Uh, not that George Bush

2007-01-19T09:02:00.000-06:00

One of the great things about the internet is that nothing ever goes away – and yes, I realize that will come back to haunt me when testifying in front of Congress (or trying to persuade the parole board) 30 years from now.

Anyway, an essay co-written by George H. W. Bush in the March 2, 1998 issue of Time Magazine has resurfaced, despite an apparent conspiracy to cover it up. In it, the former president gives some fairly solid reasons why he did not, despite significant pressure, force Saddam Hussein's ouster in the first Gulf War. And guess what? The rationale seems applicable today as well:

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have… incurred incalculable human and political costs. ...The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. …Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

The Interloper's desire to distance himself from daddy has been long documented and he has infamously not turned to his father for counsel, despite the former president's considerable depth of international experience and familiarity with diplomatic nuance. No one will remember HW as an especially good president ("Read my lips: no new taxes" and puking on the Japanese guy – that's his legacy), but clearly he had a sense of the delicate political climate in the Middle East and an appreciation for the cost of American lives it would have taken to enact regime change. Is that too much to ask from our president?

And did I just pine for the wisdom of George H. W. Bush?

Independent Democrat or Insincere Douchebag?

2007-01-17T11:57:00.001-06:00

Uh oh – we're picking up Joe-mentum again.

Joe Lieberman, the selfish, grandstanding, traitorous senator from Connecticut, has taken a perilous stance defending the Interloper's Iraq surge plan – a plan that isn't being so vociferously defended in the president's own party.

One has to wonder if the White House is blackmailing him with photos that would make Mark Foley blush, because Lieberman' support of the troop surge counters both the insight of our most experienced military professionals and the will of the American people. And he's so smug about it to boot!

Lieberman appears desperate to shed his former blue ties. A profile in Salon today reveals that:

After the election, Lieberman advertised himself as the least reliable member of the Democratic caucus by insisting that he be listed by the secretary of the Senate as an "Independent Democrat." Last week, in a development noted by few, Lieberman's office admitted to Congressional Quarterly that the whole I.D. thing seemed not to be catching on, and that, if Lieberman had to choose one or the other, he'd rather be known as an Independent than as a Democrat.

C.Q., at least, reported that it is going to consider Lieberman an Independent from now on: "With Lieberman's latest shift, the Senate now has 49 Republicans and 49 Democrats…"

Gee, Lieberman is showing less than enthusiastic allegiance for the Democratic Party. Who would have guessed it? Oh yeah – me!

He doesn't want us, and we only tolerate him to keep up the appearance of a Senate majority. While the dysfunctional relationship between Lieberman and his supposed party can continue, shouldn't we all be asking "why" in our loudest, outside voices? Mr. Senator – why did you run for reelection on a platform that stated "troop reduction" as an immediate goal, yet turn around at betray that sentiment less than two months later? Why did you claim outrage at the administration's handling of post-Katrina affairs, only to slink away from the issue once you retained your seat?

And why, Joe, why should we label you with anything other than the tag that most loudly speaks every time you open your mouth? For those of you still trying to do the math, it rhymes with "ducking fooshbag".

Un-fucking-believable

2007-01-12T10:18:00.000-06:00

For the most part, I have avoided posting about the Iraq War, as no-win situations offer little ground for know-it-alls like me to sound smart and offer a reality check. Iraq is a depressing situation with no real solution that will continue to worsen. How/when/why will our troops get out? How can I get passionate about an answer when there are only questions?

On Wednesday, the Interloper interrupted my primetime TV viewing schedule to announce he was augmenting (apparently, in an image is everything administration, this is different than an "escalation") troop levels by 21,000. In their testimonies in front of both House and Senate committees Thursday, Secretary of State Condi Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates were greeted by bipartisan opposition to the president's plan. That's right – questions about strategy and sincerity were voiced from both sides of the aisle, as some of the administration's most loyal congressional lackeys have begun to eat crow and distance themselves from Dubya's Folly.

Happily, however, for the Wonderful Wizard of the White House, one man had the courage to applaud the president's plan: you guessed it – Democratic (ahem) Senator Joe Lieberman!

In a statement released by his office, Joe Lieberman wraps his arms around the president's "correct and courageous" new strategy. "I applaud the president for rejecting the fatalism of failure and pursuing a new course to achieve success in Iraq," Lieberman says. He says that Bush has offered up "a comprehensive program to chart a new course in both winning the military struggle to establish order and in achieving the political and economic objectives to build a more promising future for Iraqis."

I had a few words about Lieberman this fall after he lost Connecticut's Democratic primary, then selfishly ran and won as an independent. I will admit I was wrong about one thing – he has chosen to caucus with the Democrats and seems willing to support the Party's main objectives. Small miracles, right?

But the fucking balls on this prick! How can any Democrat, any elected official, any sane person, still have such enthusiastic support for Dubya's dumbass plan? More than just an embarrassment to his party, Lieberman is in embarrassment to the human race; running onto a sinking ship while even the dirtiest rats escape is not as heroic as Joe would have us believe – it's a disgusting betrayal of his constituency and a treasonous insult to his office, party and nation.

Electability and Hypocrites – the peanut butter and jelly of 21st century American politics

2007-01-03T12:20:00.000-06:00

I know what you're thinking. "Two posts in one day? Dude, pace yourself." And yet, perhaps this is the pace that should be expected of me, especially when there is so much to say. Furthermore, don't call me "dude"; I think I've earned the respect to be called "sir".

Anyway, I read a few pieces that I just couldn't sit on. One, written by Jonathan Cohn focuses on Democrats' obsession with the notion of electability and how it affected the party's last two wide-open primaries. He remembers how the desire to nominate someone – anyone, really – who could conceivably defeat the Interloper in 2004 drove the rise of John Kerry and initiated reasons to reject all his competitors: Wesley Clark was a novice, Howard Dean was a lefty extremist, John Edwards was too inexperienced, Dick Gephardt was too closely tied to the old, wasteful Democratic Party. And yet, " the calculation of voters was curiously one-sided--measuring candidates almost exclusively in terms of their flaws, rather than taking stock of their attributes, as well". One could argue that Kerry's loss was inevitable:

If Kerry lacked the vulnerabilities of some of his rivals, he also lacked their skills. He couldn't win people over with charm or inspiration. And, while he had a bevy of nifty policy proposals, he had no grandiose, overarching message with which to sell them. So when the general campaign got tough, Kerry had no reservoir of public enthusiasm or support on which to draw. And, when the Republicans attacked what was supposedly his best asset--his record of heroism in Vietnam--Kerry didn't have the tools to fight back successfully.

As a useful counter, Cohn reflects on Bill Clinton's early campaign – a candidacy that would likely have sputtered at its onset if held to 2004's standards. After all, Clinton was the governor of an illiteracy-heavy state, had little international experience and was a documented womanizer. And yet:

… when the time came for Democrats to cast their ballots, they embraced Clinton anyway--for the very simple reason that he reached them in a way other candidates didn't. For some, it was his sheer charisma. For others, it was his ability to identify with the anxiety they were feeling. And for more, it was his serious discussion of ideas that held real promise for improving their lives.

On one hand, Cohn seems to caution against discounting Hillary Clinton's chances simply because we fear her ability to carry a general election. On the other, he clearly believes that the Democrats' best chance is to nominate a candidate who is charismatic and fosters idealism and faith (you know, the antithesis of Hillary). I suppose I will follow Cohn's logic on both ends; maybe I can no longer dismiss Hillary simply because of her low Q rating, just as I will be that much more fervent in my support for Obama, Edwards or any other candidate who seems to possess the ability to make me *want* to believe.

I realize I've approached the perilous 500-word barrier, but I would be remiss if I didn't also comment on the Democrats' plans for making the most of their new congressional majorities. The Washington Post reports that:

House Democrats intend to pass a raft of popular measures as part of their well-publicized plan for the first 100 hours. They include tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans.

But instead of allowing Republicans to fully participate in deliberations, as promised after the Democratic victory in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, Democrats now say they will use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures, assuring speedy passage of the bills and allowing their party to trumpet early victories.

Uh…Nancy? I love the big ideas, but what use is our idealism if we can't be held to our word? I don't want those Republican douchebags clogging up the wheels of change any more than you do, but we're the party that *doesn't* believe that the ends justify the means.

And how about this? Then Speaker Dennis Hastert wouldn't acknowledge Pelosi's 2004 proposed "bill of rights" for members of Congress in the minority party. Now, Republicans are proposing – wait for it – a "bill of rights" for members of Congress in the minority party. Who saw that coming?

Three years ago, Pelosi said, " the people's business would be well served" if Congress followed the principles behind her "bill of rights", "no matter which party is in control of the House." Now she will be put to the test; as much as I believe in her platform, I hope she also realizes this: hypocrites can maintain power in the short-term, but can easily lose the support of even the most historic national consensus with a brash disregard for integrity.

Off and Running

2007-01-03T09:55:00.000-06:00

It has been a slow two months in PatRoWland, and I'm sure you are as sick as I am of YouTube videos and flash animations. So as we stand on the precipice of a new Democratic majority in Congress (and hope, with baited breath, that they can last a few weeks before their first major fuck up), the time has come to address THE issue of the day in progressive politics:

The Race to Not Do Something Stupid and Nominate an Intelligent and Competent Woman for a Job for which She is Entirely Qualified Yet Stands No Chance of Winning an Electoral or Popular Majority (or, as you call it, the 2008 Democratic presidential primary. Tomato, toe-mah-toe).

As I stated back in November, I still believe that Hillary's presidential campaign will serve as a smoke screen used to attract the Right's attacks and allow our REAL nominee to rise to the party's forefront virtually unscathed from widespread criticism. Oh sure, there will be hotly contested primaries, but state-wide Democratic races will help us all figure out who is the best-suited to lead the presidential charge in 2008. Not a coronation or manifest destiny as some pro-Hillary folks would have us believe, the best Democrat will emerge from a large field of prospects ranging from likely (Obama, Edwards) to possible (Vilsack, Kerry) to laughable (Kucinich, Sharpton).

The first big name candidate to declare, John Edwards has a real platform, exudes charm and possesses ability to live in and understand the "two Americas" – something vital to relate to the masses and attract funding from the elite. His absence from elected office since his ill-fated 2004 run with John Kerry may prove to be more of a blessing than a hindrance; Edwards has spent the last 2+ years cultivating his resume on matters of international politics, while his lack of a constituency has allowed him to be the only major American political figure talking about poverty and offering a realistic plan for universal health coverage. Plus, relative lack of practical experience shouldn't be held against him, as Edwards himself points out:

"Look at Rumsfeld and Cheney. Both of them had extraordinary experience -- but we've seen that experience does not equal good judgment, and experience is not the same as having a vision, and experience does not guarantee adaptability. We've seen absolutely no capacity to adjust, to move with the world's changes."

The other big names likely to be on the 2008 campaign trail are still clinging to the ridiculous notions that they have yet to decide about their presidential ambitions. An old friend of ours measures up three juggernauts on his Obameter, and finds that the junior senator from Illinois may have an edge over his more experienced chamber-mates (I know I just spoiled his conclusion, but please read the article anyway. You won't regret it…plus YPC needs all the hits it can get).

I suppose it may still be a bit premature to start measuring horses in a race they haven't officially entered, but that's what modern politics has become. Besides, with less than absolute confidence in the ability of Team Pelosi to govern efficiently and effectively, the 2008 presidential campaign may be our only hope to ensure our country doesn't regress back into Republican control of all three branches of government.

And although such a scenario would be conducive for blog content, it's one I'm hoping doesn't come to fruition.

Word to my mother

2006-12-21T17:31:00.000-06:00

As a tribute to my mom and the leftward-leaning ladies in her office, I'm posting this fun animation here...you know, just in case any of you lose your BackwardsBush keychains, or BackwardsBush calendars or BackwardsBush ringtones.

Enjoy!

I almost wish I were a Yankees fan...almost

2006-12-20T18:19:00.000-06:00

I don’t know if I should thank or curse my buddy JDL for forwarding this video, which he discovered on Deadspin. To begin listing its horrors would take too long, but let’s just say that the Mets’ 1987 anthem was no “Bless You Boys”.

Finally, a Mets song that makes fans pine for “Our team, our time”.

U-G-G-L-Y…you ain’t got no alibi

2006-12-19T15:33:00.000-06:00

Boy, I tell you – whoever is writing editorials over at YPC, that guy is good! Remember his whole charity vs. philanthropy thing? Well, now he's back with another, slightly less serious (and, dare I say, more PatRoW-ish?) rant. Some folks might take offense, but I think that's what he had in mind. Enjoy.

(text since copied to PatRoW directly)

Women of Chicago: I write this to you because I care. I love your fashion-forward attitudes mixed with Midwestern common sense. I love your glam, and I love your ball caps. I love that you can pull off ‘cosmopolitan’ without a ridiculous attempt to copy Paris or New York; I love that you can do ‘comfortable’ without ditching your femininity.

Women of Chicago have a style that is both beautiful and unique…and that’s why this intervention is so important.

Ladies, on behalf of men everywhere I tell you this: the whole “UGGs” thing has got to stop.

Now.

UGGs, for the lucky few who haven’t noticed these atrocities on the feet of otherwise sane women around town, are the sheepskin boots in which women often tuck their pants or jeans. I love a good 80’s fad as much as the next guy, but people stopped wearing moon boots around the same time they remembered they had perfectly good full-length mirrors hanging in their homes. Can you see where I’m going with this?

No one is suggesting you wear stiletto heals to trudge through winter’s snow, ice, and slush (although we wouldn’t complain if you made that sacrifice), but please, you look ridiculous. The worst Australian exports since the “Crocodile Dundee” franchise, UGGs need to disappear into the same historical black hole that swallowed Paul Hogan. And yes, we’d rather you wore his leather vest and Outback hat than another pair of down under monstrosities.

Today, not all UGGs are even UGGs (this ghastly crazy is so popular that “UGGs” has become the generic term for multiple manufacturers’ footwear freak shows), but no matter the brand, they all have one thing in common – they make you look stupid.

I hate to be so crass, but ladies, it is entirely out of character for you to perpetuate such an unflattering look. You have so much going for you, but your UGGs tell the world “Why should I care about looking intelligent or attractive? My toes are warm.”

I’m sure most of you will brush off my warnings because – if TV interventions have taught me anything – you can’t change for someone else; you have to want to change dangerously addictive behaviors for yourself. When the weather warms up, you will delicately stow away your UGGs and replace them in daily rotation with those cute Crocs you found on sale last August.

And when you put those rubbery, Swiss cheese looking monsters on your feet, you’ll be hearing from me again.

Quote of the Year

2006-12-18T11:16:00.000-06:00

I know that we still have two more weeks to go before the end of 2006, but I don't think I'm out of line by officially awarding PatRoW's prestigious "Quote of the Year" award to a certain attempted murdering vice president.

At Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon going-away party , Vice President Dick Cheney, who began his career as an intern for Rummy in 1969, said "I've never worked harder for a boss and I've never learned more from one, either."

Senior Administration sources reveal that President Bush was not offended by Cheney's snub because he a) has never tried to teach his VP anything; and b) never realized he was actually Cheney's boss.

Fun with conspiracy theories

2006-12-15T11:04:00.000-06:00

When South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson suffered what was first reported as a stroke this week, the news sent ripples of fear down the spines of Democrats everywhere…and not just because they liked Johnson and were worried about his health. You see, if a Senator dies in office, a replacement may be named by his state's governor. The governor could choose the candidate of his preference, regardless of political party.

Tim Johnson is a Democrat and South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds is a Republican. You see why there was cause for alarm; assuming Rounds would appoint a Republican senator, the Democrats' 51-49 Senate advantage would become a 50-50 split, with Vice President Dick Cheney providing the tie-breaker for the GOP.

And yet, Johnson's "intracerebral bleed caused by a congenital arteriovenous malformation" doesn't appear to be life threatening, and after successful brain surgery, he is said to be "appropriately responsive to both voice and touch". So why are Dems still sweating their slim majority? Old fears about the treasonous intentions of one of their own…

That's right, folks – it's time for another Joe Lieberman conspiracy theory!

Perhaps more realistic than the talk about Hillary's nefarious scheming in Iowa, there are new grumblings that the Connecticut senator would consider leaving Congress if offered the job of US Ambassador to the United Nations. The reasons to take the position (perks like "a big apartment in the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, a chance to live in Manhattan rather than Washington and a turn on the world stage in the tradition of the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan") hardly match reasons for declining (the Senate is somewhat prestigious as well), and yet, who can claim to understand a man who claims he has "Joe-mentum" at the end of a losing campaign?

Of course, if Lieberman were to leave office, the South Dakota scenario would come back into play. Connecticut's Republican governor, Jodi Rell, would be allowed to name a replacement. Does anybody else smell a 50-50 split?

And while the post itself would be a draw (last December, it was reported that Bush had offered the job to Lieberman, who thought about it for a week before saying no), the less obvious reasons may make the job so tempting. Perhaps some GOP duplicity (who saw that coming?) could wrest away Democratic majority by playing to Lieberman's ego:

…if the Republicans really want to steal the Senate back before the Democrats take over, they can certainly whisper tempting blandishments into [Lieberman's] ear. How about a nice, million-dollar job with, for instance, the Carlyle Group?

Or maybe even the ego-boosting prospect of another vice-presidential nomination in 2008 -- this time on a "bipartisan" ticket with friend and fellow hawk John McCain?

And for an egotistic, self-serving, ass-kissing, aisle-crossing douchebag like Joe Lieberman, a few delicate strokes (to his ego – get your head out of the gutter) may be all it takes to sell out the Democratic Party one last time.

The Small Penis Doctrine

2006-12-14T15:10:00.000-06:00

One of the worst things about being a "grown up" (the fact that I'm married, own a house, two cars and a 401k makes this a sad reality) is having to be reasonable, bite our tongues and save most of our vicious name-calling for bits of road rage-induced fury or our self-important blogs. Even politicians, often devoid of both principles and common sense, know that they can't make personal attacks without definitive proof, and some have suffered from being too closely linked with groups that employ "swift boat" warfare against their enemies. And yet, who knew that a mainstream medium not only accepted, but encouraged this kind of maliciousness, and who knew the doctrine by which this is allowed would have such a catchy name?

It all started in March, when TNR's Michael Crowley wrote an article about popular novelist Michael Crichton and examined his 2004 best-seller, State of Fear:

The thriller presented global warming theory as the work of a fiendish cabal of liberal environmentalists, celebrities, journalists, academics, and politicians. Crichton's populist disdain for these "experts" dovetailed neatly, I argued, with the Bush administration's anti-intellectual streak…

OK, not even Dick Cheney wants to be associated with the Interloper these days, so it's no surprise that Crichton would be upset with this characterization. That a popular writer would lake a pot shot at a critic in his art is also perfectly reasonable; but just HOW Crichton struck back was a lesson in juvenile maliciousness that could teach the girls in my high school a lesson. Take this passage from Crichton's 2006 book, Next:

Alex Burnet was in the middle of the most difficult trial of her career, a rape case involving the sexual assault of a two-year-old boy in Malibu. The defendant, thirty-year-old Mick Crowley, was a Washington-based political columnist who was visiting his sister-in-law when he experienced an overwhelming urge to have anal sex with her young son, still in diapers. Crowley was a wealthy, spoiled Yale graduate and heir to a pharmaceutical fortune. ...

…[Crowley's lawyer] tried the case vigorously in the press months before the trial, repeatedly characterizing Alex and the child's mother as "fantasizing feminist fundamentalists" who had made up the whole thing from "their sick, twisted imaginations." This, despite a well-documented hospital examination of the child. (Crowley's penis was small, but he had still caused significant tears to the toddler's rectum.)

Oh, snap! Did you get all that? The fictitious *Mick* Crowley was a Washington political journalist who attended Yale. Real-life Michael Crowley is a Washington political journalist who attended Yale. As the real Crowley recognized, "in lieu of a letter to the editor, Crichton had fictionalized me as a child rapist."

Nice. Stay classy, Michael Crichton.

Oh, there's a bit about the "small penis doctrine", an apparently well known publishing industry trick employed by enthusiastic defamers to discourage their targets from filing lawsuits. Basically, no man will ever step forward to complain "that character with the small penis – that's me!"

You have to admit, the logic is brilliant. And in an unrelated matter, I'm proud to unveil today a few of the major players in my debut novel, Patience and the Reign of Witches, set to be published in mid-2007:

· Cal Rove – pudgy presidential advisor by day, kiddy porn aficionado by night. And he's got a small penis.

· Will O'Reilly – obnoxious media pundit who spews hatred and lies because of self-loathing due to his small penis.

· Dick Charmy – what's the opposite of onomatopoeia? This politician-turned-business man-turned politician is a smarmy asshole hung like a young boy's pinky finger (spoiler alert! That metaphor may be tested in Chapter 6).

· Matthew S. Myth – our hero, this truth-seeking crusader must topple a corrupt government using only his rapier wit and ridiculously giant cock.

I'll stop there, because I really do want to keep some of the surprises for the book. Let's just say that a certain President John W. Bish will cause some kind of global crisis through his gross mismanagement of resources, third-grade reading level and overwhelming shame about his poorly-endowed member.

Damn, being a writer is fun. Bring on the Pulitzer!

Next up – the White House hosts a conference on international diplomacy

2006-12-11T11:34:00.000-06:00

In a story destined to elicit spit-takes from casual readers around the world, Iran – that last bastion of enlightened intellectuals – will host a conference on the Holocaust.

Yes, that Iran – the one whose president infamously declared the Holocaust "a myth". The same Iran that refuses to acknowledge Israel and makes killing Jews a higher national priority than, oh I don't know, literacy.

So what gives, anyway?

Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said in a welcome address that the conference's goal was to "create an opportunity for thinkers who cannot express their views freely in Europe about the Holocaust."

Ah, now this is making more sense. What kind of Holocaust views can't be expressed freely in Europe? The denials, of course!

And from the too-easy-to-predict file, it seems that former KKK Imperial Wizard and Louisiana gubernatorial candidate, David Duke will be there as well. What? George Allen couldn't make it?

Remember when folks other than Kramer were getting in trouble for using the “N-word”?

2006-12-08T11:05:00.000-06:00

Virginia's George Felix Allen, outgoing US Senator and all-around douchebag (what – you forgot? I did a whole series on this loser) has given his first formal interview since losing to Democrat Jim Webb. What did "Macaca Goldstein" reveal? Well, for one thing, he likes using ridiculous football analogies. For another, he's an idiot.

"When you lose a game by one point, you can go through every play in the game and say, 'If we didn't jump offside, if the referee makes that call, if we caught that pass, if we didn't fumble, we could have made a difference," he said.

There is no word on whether anyone on Allen's staff explained to the senator that giddily throwing racial epithets isn't the same as "jumping offside", or that sticking a deer head in someone's mailbox is slightly different than dropping a pass, or that posing for pictures with the Confederate flag is a bit removed from a referee making a bad call, or, that adamantly denying, then begrudgingly accepting one's Jewish heritage is a bit more than a fumble, or, well, you get the picture.

But the mock redneck wasn't done making an ass of himself.

"Everyone, including myself, could have done a better job. I have high standards and high expectations for myself. I could have done better."

How? Allen wouldn't say.

"I'm not good at psychoanalysis," he said.

No, he sure isn't. Nor is he good at tolerance, or being humble, or recognizing the importance of education. But the next time you need to burn a cross, best keep George Allen on speed dial.

Quick Hits - Week(s) in Review

2006-12-06T12:23:00.000-06:00

What happens when Republicans falter, Democrats don’t screw up and my political blood pressure cools from a boil to a mere simmer? PatRoW readers get the shaft with (at best) infrequent postings or (at worst) mediocre baseball analysis. But don’t fret, friends – Quick Hits has returned to pick up the many pieces that are worth a word or two, if not a full-fledged rant.

There is a gay agenda -- winning elections – I don’t believe it. Barney Frank, you sly dog you!

K-K-Kramer – anyone else still have Michael Richards’ catchy apology rap stuck in his head? Um…me neither.

Likability poll bad news for Kerry – perhaps the most understated headline of the year. It seems that the Massachusetts Senator, flubbed joke making, once-and-future Democratic presidential candidate finished dead last in a nation-wide likability poll of 20 top American political figures. Saying that this is “bad news” for Kerry is akin to saying that the passing of a kidney stone will lead to “some discomfort” or that the war in Iraq has been “notably different” results than what administration officials had hoped for. Way to go out on a limb, Reuters.

How is Kate Winslet like a car? – from those zany folks at Broadsheet, comes the latest in a series of wacky headlines. So how is Kate Winslet like a car, you ask? Hell, I can play this game without reading the article!

· She has “Oldsmobile” tattooed on her bumper

· Heh, heh. Hummer. Heh, heh.

· She has dumps like a truck, truck, truck

· “At 17 I went to prison for murder. By 19, I was penniless and heartbroken. I almost drowned at 20. My mind started to go at 24. Then I had my memory erased at 28. And by 29, I was in Neverland.” OK – so that really has nothing to do with how she’s like a car, but every time I see that stupid American Express commercial I want to run Kate over with my Honda Accord

Feel free to add your own idea for “how Kate Winslet is like a car” by posting a comment below. Trust me, it’s a blast!

Peace out, my Wigga – amazingly, this is not another Michael Richards joke. Rather, it’s an amusing tongue-in-cheek “entertainment” piece written by Salon’s sports writer, King Kaufman. Not so amusing is the fact that this seems to be a real story, not a spoof.

Sex and the single septuagenarian – and you laughed when I joked about this back in March. You know, there really is nothing sexier than the thought of busting a nut and breaking a hip at the same time.

‘Not charity, but a chance’

2006-12-05T10:42:00.000-06:00

I read a brilliant editorial today that makes the important distinction between charity and philanthropy. It's a solid read for all of us, and God knows, the author's talent seems to ooze out of every line of his glorious prose. Enjoy.

The words charity and philanthropy have similar meanings and are often used interchangeably; however, it is the difference between the two that can have the biggest impact on someone’s life.

Charity is ingrained in our cultural fabric – we give to charity because we feel a moral or religious calling to do so. Charity is how we show our caring for people displaced by natural disaster, or our support for victims of crime or violence. Charity is the change we leave behind in the jar to help find homes for abandoned animals, or the extra dollar we contribute to help fight poverty in Africa.

Each not-for-profit company faces the challenge of distinguishing charity and philanthropy for its staff and supporters. And this challenge is not new; in 1902, the Reverend Edgar James Helms (the founder of Goodwill Industries), wrote that his organization should serve as “not charity, but a chance” for people in need.

How did Helms, and how do others provide that chance? The answer is philanthropy.Steve Gunderson, president and CEO of the Council on Foundations helped distinguish the two ideals:

"Charity seeks to provide immediate rescue and relief – it is the emotional response of our donations given to immediately respond to a disaster. Philanthropy is more focused on the long-term rebuilding, the problem-solving aspect of our society. In an educational perspective, this difference can be described in that age-old axiom of ‘I gave a person a fish and they ate for a day; I taught them how to fish, and they ate for a lifetime.’ The initial outpouring is charity; the longer-term education is philanthropy."

Whereas charity is essential to address immediate needs, philanthropy is the means by which organizations and individuals can support a long-term objective and create a legacy of change.

At YPC, philanthropy is our belief in education as life’s great equalizer. We strive to enhance university opportunities (both scholastically and financially) for Chicago high school students through our College Bound program. We support special individuals for whom access to education is the only chance to lead the type of life many of us take for granted. And we strive to provide our members with professional development opportunities to ensure that they don’t stop learning just because they may have completed a degree (or two, or three).

As young professionals, few of us can make the kind of gift that adds a wing onto a hospital or builds a new laboratory at our alma mater, but all of us can – with a little planning – utilize philanthropy to address the issues that matter to us most. The key is realizing that our philanthropic potential is not necessarily tied to our budgetary (or time) limitations.

Our philanthropy begins by opening our hearts and minds to the issues that matter most to us. Our philanthropy begins by taking action – any action – toward change. Our philanthropy begins when we realize that charity is a great beginning, but not the end of getting involved in something important.

There is a difference between charity and philanthropy – a difference that all of us can help define.

To make a charitable contribution this holiday season, YPC suggests consulting Charity Navigator to see their rankings of the most effective and efficient nonprofit organizations. Some of our favorite local charities are Chicago Cares (organizes volunteer opportunities for community groups) and Goodwill Industries of Metropolitan Chicago (provides work opportunities for people with barriers to employment).

Chalk one up for Panicky Pete

2006-12-04T10:08:00.000-06:00

Remember when I was all fired up about the prospect of the Democrats losing the mid-term election because of electronic voting machine fraud? Well, all's well that ends well, right?

Uh…not so much.

The Washington Post reports on National Institute of Standards and Technology findings that confirm my conspiratorial fears. In short, "paperless electronic voting machines… cannot be made secure". Here's a bit more:

NIST says in its report that the lack of a paper trail for each vote "is one of the main reasons behind continued questions about voting system security and diminished public confidence in elections." The report repeats the contention of the computer security community that "a single programmer could 'rig' a major election."

In related news, Karl Rove has begun taking computer programming classes. And yes, even my blind coworker saw that one coming.

A prediction that really blows (no, not Karl Rove’s midterm election forecast)

2006-11-27T09:05:00.000-06:00

So the 2006 hurricane season ends this week, and boy was it a doozy. I mean dud.

Seriously, remember those boobs who preyed on our memories of 2005 (the worst year on record, by the way) to offer grim predictions of another destructive storm season? How did that turn out, Roker?

I hate to say I told you so, but – wait a second. That's a lie. No one loves "I told you so" more than me. Sorry for the fib. Anyway, I did my best Nostradamus back in May when I mocked this tidbit of forecasting tom foolery: " There will be up to 16 named storms, the center predicted, which would be significantly less than last year's record 28…Last year, officials predicted 12 to 15 tropical storms."

So what was the *real* final tally for 2006? I'm glad you asked.

The 2006 Atlantic Basin Tropical Season has been a far cry from the record setting season of 2005…There have been 9 named storms which 5 have become hurricanes and only 2 major hurricanes. None of the 2006 hurricanes made landfall in the United States…

So after one of the mildest hurricane seasons on record, where does that leave meteorologists? Maybe they will have learned their lessons and won't fly off the handle with doomsday blizzard forecasts every time a snowflake passes by the Weather Center 3000 this winter.

Maybe…but maybe they'll just hope we won't remember their ineptitude next year – when the National Hurricane Center predicts another apocalypse of biblical proportions. Way to go, douchebags.

Dirty Deeds, Done at the Cost of Hundreds of Millions of Dollars (and one or two elections)

2006-11-21T15:36:00.000-06:00

God knows I need something to rant about, and what's better to rant about than douchebag Republicans…especially when it's presented in handy Top 10 format? That is, unless you want more mediocre baseball analysis.

Anyway, just so we get our talking points straight for the 2008 election, here are the Top 10 2006 mid-term election shady tactics:

In Maryland, Republicans turn Democrat – being a Republican had such negative connotations this year that three Maryland candidates lied about who endorsed them, handed out "Democratic sample ballots" that listed their names, and hired homeless men to distribute their materials. What, no "I heart abortions" bumper stickers?

In Virginia, voter intimidation – some folks were apparently left messages saying that they would be charged criminally if they tried to vote in Virginia. Let's see what the FBI says about this one.

The Social Security Administration gets into the act – some Illinois voters received mail from the Social Security Administration that detailed Democrat candidate (and close race loser) Tammy Duckworth's "dangerous" plan to extend benefits to illegal immigrants. There's just one problem: the mailer wasn't from the SSA, it was from the Republican National Committee. Did somebody sail mail fraud?

"Not like in Mexico, here there is no benefit to voting." – nearly 14,000 Californians received a letter stating (in grammatically incorrect Spanish) that if they attempted to vote on Nov. 7, they could face jail time or deportation. Every single one of the recipients was a registered Democrat and had a Latino last name. In a shocking development, it was "discovered that campaign officials working for Republican congressional candidate (and staunch supporter of anti-immigration legislation) Tan Nguyen were responsible for composing the letter and compiling names for the mailing list".

Blood runs thicker than party affiliation – not exactly GOP dirt here, but it seems that Harold Ford's little brother attempted to pull a Lieberman; that is, if Joe let his daddy distribute fake ballots that misstated his party affiliation.

The robot that called. And called. And called – boy I sure did enjoy those auto-dialed election calls (or didn't Bill Clinton leave a personal message on your answering machine? That one's going in my audio scrapbook). Yet it seems I got off easy; voters in some of the most hotly contested House districts received robo-calls " about the local Democrat. But if you hung up, the robot would call back. Hang up again and, like some character out of a Stephen King novel, the robot would call again. And again. And again, sometimes as many as seven times before it gave up. So the voters who had the temerity to want to enjoy their dinner unmolested were left with the impression of a Democratic candidate who simply would not leave them alone; those who stayed on the line were instead treated to a string of disinformation about the Democrat." Thanks, NRCC!

Push polls – remember the Michael J. Fox/Rush Limbaugh controversy that erupted over stem cell research as a wedge issue in Missouri? Well, one ostensibly impartial pollster group called Show Me Staters and asked if they supported " medical experiments on babies still in the womb -- and were then told that Democrat Claire McCaskill did". Stay classy, St. Louis.

The progressive group that wasn't – Pennsylvania Senator-elect Bob Casey may be a Democrat in name only, but voters were apparently satisfied that he was, at least, not Rick Santorum. No liberal heartthrob, Casey was challenged by outspoken progressives. One catch: the "progressives" lose a lot of clout when they're run by one of the Interloper's cronies. Boy, who would have thought something like this could happen in Pennsylvania?

Case of the vanished polling place – voters in at least three states were called with erroneous information that their polling places had been changed and were given directions to new locations that didn't exist. In New Mexico, such a call was traced back to the local Republican Party HQ.

And last, but not least -- vigilantes – three Arizona activists waved a gun around as they promoted their anti-immigration agenda outside polling stations. No, I don't feel intimidated. Fuck them wet backs. Can you stop pointing the gun at me now?

Waveland Avenue Politics

2006-11-20T21:28:00.000-06:00

Let's face it: I write when I'm mad, and I write what I'm mad about. The midterm elections and the subsequent Bush administration fallout have been great for our country, but devastating for PatRoW's loyal readers.

Therefore I'm forced to turn outside the political spectrum to address an issue that seems to be on everybody's mind today in Chicago – the Cubs' signing of Alfonso Soriano and how the team has become an instant playoff contender.

Sorry to editorialize, but that's a load of hooey. Also, it stinks like yesterday's shit.

Soriano signed with the Cubs for 8 years and $136 million. At an average of $17 million per year, the deal was obviously mirrored after one signed by Carlos Beltran of the New York Mets prior to the 2005 season. The biggest difference? Beltran was actually worth that money (insofar as any one person playing baseball can be worth $17 million a year), while Soriano is not. Let me break it down for you, Bill James style:

* In Soriano's six full MLB seasons, he has hit .281 with 205 homeruns, 556 RBI, 619 runs scored and stolen 208 bases.
* Over his first six full seasons, Beltran hit .284 with 146 homeruns, 562 RBI, 604 runs scored and 189 stolen bases.

Both players have fairly solid post-season stats under their belts (game-ending bases loaded strikeouts not-withstanding) and both play above average outfield defense. Soriano was thought to be something of a malcontent and Beltran something of a recluse, but both have effectively shed the stigmas.

Well, hell, if their resumes are fairly equivalent, so that means their contracts should be, right? Not so fast Jim Hendry. When looking at numbers, you can't forget age – and that's where Soriano should earn serious demerits.

* On his first day in a Cubs uniform, Soriano will be 31 years old. When his contract expires, he will be 38 (and that's if you believe his Dominican Republic birth certificate).
* On his first day in a Mets uniform, Beltran was 27 years old. When his contract expires, he will be 34.

James (and others) has used Sabermetrics to prove that the average baseball player has his best seasons between the ages of 27 and 29. He experiences a slight drop-off from 30-33, and a more sizeable drop-off from 34-36. Too few play past the age of 37 to make a statistically significant observation, but one can safely assume that few players get better (without the Bondsian assistance of performance enhancers).

Their numbers might be fairly equal, but the circumstances were not. Soriano was 25 in his first full season, two years away from a typical player's prime. Beltran was 21 at the start of his first season and still growing as both a player and a man.

Soriano's contract essentially rewards him for the exceptional prime of his career and will pay him handsomely as his abilities slowly deteriorate. In all likelihood, it is the last contract he will ever sign.

Beltran's contract rewarded him for the exceptional build-up to his career and his projected prime. In all likelihood, he will be able to sign another multi-year, multi-million dollar deal when this one expires.

I'm sure that brighter baseball minds than mine can debate Soriano's real value in the open market, but I have yet to hear anyone raise the point that Soriano is coming off a career year (when millions of dollars were at stake…what are the odds?) and is now locked up for big bucks long past when he can be reasonably expected to earn his salary.

I agree that the Cubs are significantly better today than they were on Friday; I just think they're a lot worse off for the rest of the decade.

New York’s super-cool lesbian sister

2006-11-16T12:45:00.000-06:00

While I could be content to let my blog lie dormant and bask in the warmth of last week’s election, I know that PatRoW’s ones and ones of readers deserve more. They demand more. And thus, I give you more.

Enjoy this clip that I found online – it features a good friend of mine paying homage to SNL’s Hans and Franz, and Sacha Baron Cohen’s Bruno. I’d say he was ripping them off, but “homage” is much nicer.

If you like what you see, visit his MySpace. Or don’t. I really don’t care.

Quick Hits: Rebel without a Cause

2006-11-15T09:47:00.000-06:00

Has it really been a week since the election? Did the Democrats really win both bodies of Congress (I guess I'm the only one who doesn't count 49-49-2 as a win)? Shit…what am I going to get all hot and bothered about now? How about this crap:

Have you heard my rape joke? Maybe it's written for women, and maybe I'll never read one of the articles, but Salon's "Broadsheet" employs the world's best bad headline writer. Remember this one?

Fed up – there's schadenfreude and then there's ironic schadenfreude. Click here to read what might be the last interview Kevin Federline gave as a married man. Also, you can finally learn why the single "Papozao" didn't make it on K-Fed's new album (I'm sure the question has been keeping you awake at night).

Missing in Action – OK, so I can't speak – or write – French. Get over yourself, Kerry.

O.J. Simpson to discuss killings – You gotta hand it to OJ; the guy sure has balls. Not content with literally getting away with murder, the Juice has written a book entitled "If I Did It" in which he discusses how he would have killed Nicole and Ron…but he didn't kill them…this isn't an admission of guilt…but even if it is, fuck you, double jeopardy and all that shit. And which revolting TV network is airing a two-part interview with OJ? Actually, I suppose that's not much of a challenge; I mean, what other network would I call "revolting" and what other network would glorify and glamorize a killer who thumbs his nose at our legal system?

And I'm still talking about OJ…not Rumsfeld.

Does Hillary have a Friend in Iowa? – damn, I love a good conspiracy theory. Especially, one in which a vast liberal network conspires to diminish the value of state primaries and set their party's presidential ticket 23 ½ months before the election. Here's the thing, and I have repeated it too often – Hillary can't win a general election, and she's smart enough to know it. My guess/hope is that Hillary is stepping up as the front-runner now and will absorb the right's attacks until summer 2008 (she's been taking their best shots for almost 15 straight years…she can handle it). Then, seemingly "beaten", Hillary will step aside and a phoenix-like Democratic candidate will rise from her ashes to carry the left and pose an attractive alternative to millions of independents who would never have voted for New York's junior senator.

Missing in Action

2006-11-09T18:23:00.000-06:00

I know, I know…the Democrats’ best day in, well, who can remember when, and your buddy PatRoW has nothing to say about it?

Au contraire, mon fraire.

In celebration of Tuesday’s glorious events, I flew to Washington, DC early Wednesday morning and have been celebrating with the movers and shakers of the liberal elite. I’d share some of the stories, but, you know…

Also, I have a conference in suburban Maryland and the internet connectivity at the Rockville Woodfin Suites is spotty, at best. Sorry, true believers.

More on Monday.

Who saw this coming? Tales of electoral deception from the front lines

2006-11-07T17:14:00.000-06:00

Despite some positive über-early returns, cautious optimism rules PatRoW land this afternoon. And yet, there is way too much uncertainty for my tastes; while the Interloper is fond of reporting on the alleged success of Iraq’s elections, this year’s American version has been, well, not so hot.

That is, unless you aren’t troubled by broken voting machines leaving Ohioans out in the rain, havoc in Indiana, elected officials in Missouri, South Carolina, Ohio and Ohio (two different politicians) being turned away from the polls (do you think many 9-5ers will come back a second time?), minority voters shut out in Pennsylvania, vandalism in New Jersey and Colorado, and – who’d have thunk it –mistakes made by election officials in Florida.

And of course, there’s the fact that “…the expectations for Democrats are so high now that it will be easy enough for the White House…to spin anything less than control of both houses as a loss.” What can we do? Wake up Wednesday morning and refuse to let GOP arachnids spin their web of deceit, challenge the notion that the Democrats’ win was really a loss, and remind anyone who disputes the truth “that Ken Mehlman, Karl Rove, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have all predicted unequivocally that Republicans will hold on to both houses of Congress”.

Even if we win, we lose? Somewhere, Al Gore just had a really, really bad flashback.

Where are the hanging chads when you need them?

2006-11-07T10:22:00.000-06:00

I was the first to show up this morning at 6:00 when Chicago's polls opened, and was a bit distraught to learn that the 2006 election is apparently doubling as a Windy City arts & crafts project. Yeah…this won't cause any problems.

The local Board of Elections sent me two postcards hyping their new electronic voting machines, but since I knew better, I was prepared to use the standard paper ballot. But this was no standard paper ballot; instead, one had to draw a one centimeter thick line next to a candidate's name, to complete a broken arrow. Confused? I was…and I'm a fucking genius.

Did I mention that it took me 10 minutes to fill out this ballot? Or that there were no available alternatives for the elderly or disabled (besides a wheelchair-friendly voting vestibule)? Oh, the dubious electronic voting machines? They weren't there either.

This is going to be a clusterfuck.

The PatRoW Manifesto

2006-11-06T17:42:00.000-06:00

I was in New York this weekend, and spent some time discussing politics with one of PatRoW's most loyal readers – a conversation that helped me crystallize a few important ideas before tomorrow's election:

Talking points – though the self-inflicted damage has been reasonably limited this year, Democrats have still been guilty of confusing rubes the electorate with criticisms of one another and alternate (sometimes conflicting) messages. Republicans, on the other hand, do nothing better than presenting a unified front delivered in simple, and endlessly repetitive talking points.

Think back to the 2004 election and how many times were we bombarded with the notion that John Kerry was a flip-flopper. Sure, he gaffed with his "I voted for the war before I voted against it" line, but here's the thing – he was justified! If not for the Dems' politically cannibalistic natures, our response would have been that Kerry cast aside partisan politics and doubt to support the President of the United States when he made his case before Congress. When proof was discovered of Bush's deception and betrayal, Kerry led the charge against the president's illegal war. Of course, Democrats hemmed and hawed and idiots today still think Kerry is an elitist flip-flopper.

A solution, as Bill Maher suggests, is to come up with some talking points of our own. But I'm afraid this won't work either, and it's because of fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives. Republicans are "ends justify the means" people; they don't mind recycling someone else's verbiage in the effort to win. Democrats tend to be idealistic and care about the process as much as – or more than – the end result. We seem to prefer losing elections over giving up an ounce of our individually reached opinions.

And lose we do…too often…in homes and elections across America.

Two black sheep – speaking about John Kerry, he has officially disappeared from the campaign trail. Of course, I maintain he did nothing wrong, and even – for once – rebutted his critics properly. Yet conservatives continue to harp on Kerry's flubbed joke and may be able to use it to stem the tide of lost congressional seats.

Let me make this clear to the kind of people who probably aren't reading this – John Kerry should be an election non-sequitur. And let me make this clear to the kind of people who are (or should be) reading – so should Ted Haggard.

Haggard is a hypocrite, clearly, and most likely a liar as well. He's admitted to some of the allegations against him and denied others. We will probably never know the full truth, but we do know this – his transgressions hurt this country's "moral majority" movement, but we hurt liberal causes by politicizing the scandal for our own benefit. I don't believe that the Ted Haggards of the world are good people because of what they preach, but I similarly don't believe they are bad people because of what they (allegedly) practice.

Of course, basking in the schadenfreude is perfectly OK.

Illegal immigration – Some news show held an election focus group in a Columbus, Ohio diner. One key topic came up there that has come up across the country – illegal immigration.

There's a line in "The Usual Suspects" in which Kevin Spacey's character opined that "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist". Well, the greatest trick the Republicans ever pulled was convincing the country that "liberal" is a 4-letter word. Their second-greatest trick? Convincing Middle America that illegal immigration is a problem affecting their lives.

People of Ohio – listen closely because I'm only going to say this once. You didn't lose your assembly line and/or manufacturing jobs to "border-jumping wetbacks"; you lost them because our economy has become increasingly global and technology-based. The noble blue collar, dirty fingernails jobs that supported your family for generations have a limited role in 21 st Century America. This is unfortunate for you, of course, but illegal immigration is not the problem. What's the solution? Encourage your kids to learn Mandarin, Arabic and how to program your computer (setting the VCR clock just doesn't cut it anymore). At least they'll get to live the American dream you were unfortunate enough to miss out on.

Scandals, Lies and Doing Something about It – do you know anybody who is still undecided about the election? Well, the first step is to find out if your town allows the comatose to vote. The second step is to show them this – a "hit list" of atrocities perpetuated by the Interloper's administration in the last two years alone…clearly reason enough to persuade any independent with a brain that our country needs a change. Or, enough to shut up any conservative who likes to lie about how the world is a safer and better today than it was a few short years ago.

Check him out now

2006-11-06T08:20:00.000-06:00

Few, if any, Republican congressional challengers will unseat Democratic incumbents tomorrow, but that hasn't slowed down Wisconsin's Paul R. Nelson and one of the most hilariously nasty campaigns in recent memory. You remember him, right?

Nelson's new ad can be summed up by two words: Bruce and Bubba. I didn't realize that the Badger State was facing a full frontal assault on marriage by partridges in pear trees. No really.

Say what you want about this douche – and I have – but he does have one redeeming quality. And I swear to you, you will have this song stuck in your head all day.

If you use an electronic voting machine, the terrorists win

2006-11-03T10:21:00.000-06:00

Or at least, the Republicans. But if the last six years have taught us anything, it's that if the Republicans win, the terrorists win. And big business. And incompetent cronies – incompetent cronies win a lot too.

You see, I read a pretty shocking story about the ease with which mischief-minded hackers or douchebag election-fixing officials (I'm looking at you, Ohio) have altering results tabulated by electronic voting machines. And to think – I even bought a brand new 2006 Mid-Term Election Commemorative Electronic Voting Booth Touch Screen Stylus and everything! I don't think germophobetechnophile.com offers a refund…

Loyal PatRoWians, I call on you to watch the HBO documentary and cast your ballot on Tuesday the old fashioned way. I know it's a sacrifice; believe me, I'm not looking forward to the human interaction or – perish the thought – eye contact any more than you are.

Where was this guy two years ago?

2006-11-01T10:50:00.000-06:00

Remember when John Kerry was "Swift Boated" into passivity during the 2004 election? Well, apparently he has learned how to fight GOP smear campaign tactics 101…and only two years too late.

I'm sure you've heard by now about the flack Kerry received over a "botched joke" he made Monday while campaigning with California gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides. Kerry said, "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." After some early questions about and criticisms of this quote, Kerry clarified that he was referring to President Bush as the one who didn't do his homework and is now stuck in Iraq.

Of course, the Interloper happily seized on the opportunity to go on the offensive (apparently, some folks have been tough on him recently), dispensing Tony Snow to spew some badly-drawn conclusions:

Senator Kerry not only owes an apology to those who are serving, but also to the families of those who have given their lives in this. This is an absolute insult, and I'm a little astonished that he didn't figure it out already… Meanwhile, it's probably reasonable to ask some of the Democrats -- ask Jim Webb or Tammy Duckworth, both of whom are citing their military record, "Okay. What do you think about? What do you think about this quote? Do you agree with him? He was your presidential nominee."

How's that again, douchebag? No matter the ridiculous notions that GOP vultures attempted to seize upon, Kerry himself has stepped up to quash such talk and launch a counter-attack. He released a statement yesterday that addressed the debate, calling it "the classic GOP playbook" from "a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece", "doughy rush Limbaugh" and "Republican hacks who have never worn the uniform of our country [that] lie and distort so blatantly about those who have".

Wow, pretty tough words from a man who "looks French". And you know what else? Kerry was just getting warmed up. At a press conference, the Senator hit back even harder:

This president and his administration didn't do their homework. They didn't study what would happen in Iraq. They didn't study and listen to the people who were the experts and would have told them. And they know that's what I was talking about yesterday.

I think Americans are sick and tired of this game. These Republicans are afraid to stand up and debate a real veteran on this topic. And…they want to debate strawmen because they're afraid to debate real men. Well, we're going to have a real debate in this country about this policy. The bottom line is: These Republicans want to distort this policy. And, this time, it won't work because we are going to stay in their face with the truth. No Democrat is going to be bullied by these people, by these kinds of attacks that have no place in American politics. It's time to set our policy correct. They have a stand-still-and-lose policy in Iraq, and they have a cut-and-run policy in Afghanistan. And the fact is, our troops, who have served heroically, who deserve better, deserve leadership that is up to their sacrifice -- period.

Can you imagine where we would be today if Kerry has used this tactic – standing up to, not cowering before, deliberately misleading GOP smear campaigns? Oh, I'm sure we'd still be in Iraq. We will be there during the 2008 election, and likely for some years after that as well – no matter which party controls Congress or the White House.

No, if Kerry – and other Democrats – had stood up for the truth, rather than issue quick apologies so as not to offend any possible vote, perhaps he would not be president today, but surely he'd have made it a tighter race. And if Kerry and the Dems employ this strategy from now on, well, maybe this is the first cause for real optimism that a tougher Democratic Party can draw support from the middle of the country without sacrificing their ideals or placating every dissenting voice.

Then again, Democratic candidates around the country are taking Kerry appearances off their campaign schedules, and some are even joining the White House in calling for his apology. Oh well. That was a nice few minutes of solidarity and basking in warmth of the moral high ground.

At least his voice is less dweebish than Paul R. Nelson’s

2006-10-31T10:25:00.000-06:00

Buried in a nice piece about presidential wannabe Evan Bayh and what he's doing in Indiana, was a note about a nasty campaign ad being run in the Hoosier State's 8^th District.

A [incumbent Republican John] Hostettler radio spot that warns that, if elected, [Brad] Ellsworth will vote for "San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi ... who will then put in motion her radical plan to advance the homosexual agenda led by Barney Frank, reprimanded by the House after paying for sex with a man who ran a gay brothel out of Congressman Frank's home."

How did I miss this one? It has all the trademarks of great/awful marketing to which I gravitate. Who can't get behind homophobic, dyslexic and geographically confused logic like that…especially when it's being read in the worst Clint Eastwood impersonation I've ever heard? But hey, Hoss, thanks for letting me hear the ad for myself.

Happy Halloween

2006-10-31T09:55:00.000-06:00

C'mon, I can't be the only one who showed up to work this morning in a navy blue suit with a copy of Tiger Beat in one hand, 8 ounces of Jergens in the other, and a name tag that says ~~Congressman Mark Foley~~ maf54…can I? And why the weird looks that I brought my nephew to the office today?

Seven Heaven?

2006-10-31T09:40:00.000-06:00

We are one week away. Things are looking good. The Interloper continues to make an ass of himself. Why can't I be optimistic?

Perhaps it's alarmingly naïve logic like this:

If the election were held today, and if the latest polls turned out to be accurate predictors of the outcome -- and let's be clear here, it's too early to start assuming either of those things -- Democrats would hold on to seats in Maryland and New Jersey and pick up seats in Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Montana, Ohio and Virginia. If Democrats pick up either Missouri or Tennessee, they take the Senate. If they don't, Dick Cheney spends the next two years breaking 50-50 ties in favor of the GOP.

But here's the thing – that's not exactly true. Cheney's vote means that 50/50 split is still a Republican majority, at least until after the 2008 elections (and likely after those elections as well). And what about Joe Lieberman – why are we counting the Independent candidate in the "Democrat" column? Oh sure, he'll be receptive to some core liberal ideals, but don't you think he'll be the least bit bitter that he lost the financial support of the party that nominated him as its #2 guy six years ago?

If Democrats pick up either Missouri or Tennessee, they will indeed have taken the Senate 50-49-1 (Lieberman's independent vote would be as meaningless as Cheney's tie-breaker). And aren't we putting the cart before the horse a bit in Virginia? Let's not overreact to one poll, which may or may not have been unfairly skewed by the days of the week in which information was collected (although I'd love to ask national GOP consultant Christopher J. LaCivita, how or why "everybody knows surveys conducted Fridays and Saturdays…are skewed toward Democrats.").

The House still looks like a safer bet, although some of the left's most respected voices still have their doubts about that as well.

The Interloper does The Google

2006-10-30T13:03:00.000-06:00

Did you hear about what our Commander in Chief does when he's on "the internets"?

"One of the things I've used on the Google is to pull up maps. It's very interesting to see that. I forgot the name of the program, but you get the satellite and you can -- like, I kind of like to look at the ranch on Google, reminds me of where I want to be sometimes. Yeah, I do it some."

Too bad he didn't use the Google to look for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I wonder if he'll explore the Google and discover that nobody likes him.

Should the American President really be as technologically retarded as my late grandmother, who often asked if I used a computer to talk to friends "on the intercom"?

Just thought I'd be the 438^th to poke fun.

What Dreams May Come

2006-10-27T10:15:00.000-06:00

Despite the [Ro]villains equation of a vote for Democrats to a vote for al Qaeda, it seems there is a very real possibility that Republicans may lose their majority in the House and perhaps even the Senate. But what would the Dems do with such power?

I read two interesting pieces this week that explore that very question. Both Newsweek and TNR agree that despite "the party's frothing liberal base", Democrats would not use majority power and committee chairmanship to "turn the Capitol into a courthouse" with Republicans standing trial. Why not, you ask? Two words: Newt Gingrich.

In 1994, after capturing a congressional majority for the first time in decades, Speaker Gingrich embarked on a comprehensive agenda that would prove to be a constant thorn in Democrats' (and specifically, President Clinton's) side. How did that turn out again?

Republicans throughout Congress pushed anti-Clinton charges flimsy enough to embarrass a Soviet-bloc secret police agent. In the Senate, Al D'Amato conducted dozens of Whitewater hearings that flopped badly and contributed to his 1998 defeat by Chuck Schumer.

Most memorable, however, was the famously unhinged chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, Indiana Republican Dan Burton. During his tenure, Burton issued more than 1,000 subpoenas to 141 different Clintonites. His inquiries included ten days of hearings on whether the White House used its Christmas card list for political purposes. In one case, Burton's investigators managed to subpoena the wrong man. His low point came in 1998, when Burton released misleadingly edited transcripts of secretly recorded phone conversations conducted in prison by former Clinton associate Webb Hubbell. Burton apologized, and his notorious lead investigator, David Bossie, resigned; but, by then, fellow Republicans were furious over the damage Burton had done to his own party. "There were a lot of self-inflicted wounds," one Republican fumed to The Washington Post .

OK, so Newt and friends wrote the "what not to do" playbook, but without the numbers to override executive veto power, what else could a Democratic majority do?

The Dems' likely choice as Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, "is concerned that too many flying subpoenas would make her party appear petty and revenge-hungry, obsessed with blaming Bush". Would-be House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman, 26-term Michigander John Dingell, seems to be on board – promoting an agenda that "targets policies, not people". And the discipline preached by these two senior leaders seems to be sinking in across the caucus.

Several months ago, Michigan Democrat John Conyers, who is set to take over the House Judiciary Committee, was publicly musing about the possibility of Bush's impeachment. But Nancy Pelosi clamped down on such talk, and, for the most part, Conyers seems to have abandoned any such ambitions.

Alright, you're saying. You've hit me over the head with what Democrats won't do. I get it – they learned from Republican mistakes. But enough already...what WILL they do?

Fair enough. How about this:

Pelosi's true focus for the next two years will be to position the Democrats for the 2008 presidential race.

The idea is to bring popular bills that the GOP has opposed to the floor of the House—a minimum-wage hike, prescription-drug reform—and dare Republicans to vote against them. It's part of a larger package the Dems are billing as Six for '06, their version of the "Contract with America," which the GOP used to win in '94. Democrats plan to enact the 9/11 Commission recommendations and screen all containers at U.S. ports, put more money into counter-terror operations and increase benefits for veterans. At home, they say they'll vote for tax deductions for college tuition and cut student-loan rates while raising taxes on big oil companies and corporations that move overseas. They say they'll also put a popular stem-cell-research bill up for a vote.

Now then, that all seems reasonable and (dare I go there?) fair and balanced. And yet The Interloper insists that a "wild Democratic majority" would be a "ghastly thing" for the country.

But that's the answer right there, isn't it? The truth is that wild Republican legislative and executive control have produced countless "ghastly things" already – "ghastly things" that will (pretty, pretty please) force the long overdue end of the 1994's conservative revolution. If Dubya's interpretation of "ghastly" means common sense solutions to domestic issues and original thought put to resolving international clusterfucks, sign me up…and keep your fingers crossed.

Nasty campaign ads that don’t involve the study of bisexual, transgendered and two-spirited Aleutian Eskimos

2006-10-26T10:30:00.000-06:00

It's amazing how the threat of losing power brings out the worst in someone; in the case of the Republican Congressional majority, that's really saying something. As a favor for those who love nasty politics or simply like to laugh, TNR has compiled the seven most egregious immigration ads from around the county (Paul R. Nelson missed the cut). My favorite included this line:

"Well the next thing you know [North Carolina Democrat] Brad [Miller]'s a congressman with all the sneaky aliens eating from his hand. Sugar Daddy Miller's what they call him in DC, giving them the taxes he stole from you and me."

Brilliant. It seems that illegal immigration is the one core issue on which the GOP still thinks it can push the Dems, and don't be confused – "illegal immigration" means "dirty wetbacks stealing our jobs" to the Republican Party. But anti-Latino sentiment wasn't always standard practice, that is, if we choose to recall the halcyon days of the 2000 presidential primary:

When he ran for president in 2000, George W. Bush implicitly promised that the era of Republican race-baiting was over. If compassionate conservatism meant anything, it was intended to exchange carefully calibrated attacks on welfare queens for a new Republican willingness to talk about the urban poor. But the true hallmark of the Bush ethos of tolerance was its political embrace of Latinos. Remember when el presidente blurted out Spanish phrases in nearly every stump appearance?

OK, so it's no news that Republicans are hypocrites. But when conservative candidates stoop to using lines like "These illegal aliens pay no taxes but take our jobs and our government handouts, then spit in our face and burn our flags", why can't more people see through the transparency? Why won't any Democrat ever accuse his race-baiting opponent from "cut-and-running" from his compassionate conservative agenda in a last gasp attempt to shore up rapidly diminishing power? And why do so many Americans – themselves the sons and daughters of immigrants – accept the premise?

I’m a whiney douchebag and I approved this message

2006-10-26T07:54:00.000-06:00

Doing follow-up work I should have done before yesterday's post, I had the pleasure to spend some time on Wisconsin Republican candidate Paul R. Nelson's website. And boy is it a hoot.

Nelson's website is considerate enough to post the sex study ad I wrote about yesterday ("Ron Kind pays for sex, not for soldiers"), as well as two others that are almost as full of vile half-truths. But the "Marine vet and hockey dad" (???) saves his best material for the radio.

Do yourself a favor and listen to these ads yourself – one is about partial-birth abortion and the other is focused on the defense of marriage. They were so much fun to listen to that I've copied both ads below, but trust me, the transcripts do *not* do them justice:

Little Girl: My name is Rebecca and I'm 7. I'm learning a lot in school but there is still a lot I don't know. One day, grandma said I was going to have a little sister. I couldn't wait to have someone to play with. Mommy's stomach started to get bigger and I got really excited. Today, Mommy came home from the doctor and I don't have a sister anymore.

Older Woman: Rebecca's mother has a partial-birth abortion. Ron Kind actually supports this heinous procedure.

PRN: As the father of four children and expecting our fifth, I understand how beautiful a life is. I'm Paul R. Nelson and I approve of this message. Elect me to Congress and I will work to end the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion.

Older Man: Paid for by Marine Corps veteran and hockey dad, Paul R. Nelson.

~~~

(Organ music playing "Bridal Chorus")

Man: This wedding paid for by Marine Corps veteran and hockey dad, Paul R. Nelson for Congress.

Mom: Look how beautiful she is.

Little Girl: Mommy, her dress is so pretty.

Priest: If anyone objects to defending marriage, may you speak now or forever hold your peace.

Excited Guy: I OBJECT!

(oohs and ahhs and gasps and a few hisses)

Little Girl: Is Ron Kind against marriage?

Man V/O: Ron Kind actually voted twice for the destruction of marriage.

PRN: My name is Paul R. Nelson and I approve of this message because the foundation of a family is a mom and a dad.

Priest: I now pronounce you husband and wife.

Little Girl: Mommy – can we trust anyone to defend marriage?

Mom: Don't worry, honey. Daddy and I are voting for Paul R. Nelson for Congress.

I shit you not, I changed nary a word. Paul R. Nelson – I dare say you're a ninny.

T-Minus Thirteen

2006-10-25T09:41:00.000-06:00

We are less than two weeks away from Election Day, and Americans will likely welcome the post November 7 reprieve from Macaca, maf54 and, most of all, ~~negative~~ attacking campaign advertisements. Not me, however; I love this shit.

Here in the Windy City, freshman Democratic Representative Melissa Bean looks to be secure in retaining her seat, but that hasn't stopped her opponent David McSweeney from going negative. Of course, his only tangible point seems to be that folks shouldn't re-elect Bean because Nancy Pelosi is ugly. Really. McSweeney doesn't say anything too bad about either Bean or Pelosi, he simply uses unflattering pictures of the House Minority Leader to make (or more accurately, not make) his point. A non-sequitur? Sure…but this is Chicago politics.

Just north in cheese-head land, Republican Paul R. Nelson is challenging incumbent Ron Kind and using recycled GOP verbiage to do so. Try guessing which "offense" Kind is not accused of supporting:

Studying bisexual, transgendered and two-spirited Aleutian Eskimos
Studying the sex lives of Vietnamese prostitutes
Studying the masturbation habits of old men
Paying teenage girls to watch pornographic movies with probes connected to their genitalia
Studying the affects of sleep deprivation on the sexual appetites of pre- and post-pubescent boys

(Calm down, Mr. Foley. I made up the last one)

Rush Limbaugh, apparently offended that his name has recently slipped to #2 or #3 on the national Republican windbag wacko list, is attacking Michael J. Fox for his support of several national Democratic candidates who support stem cell research. Limbaugh's beef? That Fox is "exaggerating" his Parkinson's to make for more compelling TV. Really, Rush? If Fox cared enough about compelling TV that he was willing to exploit his own disease, wouldn't he have taken steps to ensure that Spin City didn't suck so badly?

In Tennessee, rising star Dem Harold Ford is in a surprisingly tight race for the Senate seat held by Bob Corker (not too many liberals with family baggage make it in the South…and his black skin doesn't help matters either). And yet, Ford has become so much of a threat that Corker's campaign has resorted to using thinly-veiled racial attacks to support his more obvious political ones:

Corker depicts himself as "more senatorial" than Ford but is running an almost entirely negative campaign at this point. He depicts Ford as a smooth-talking city slicker… [but] the hardest blows have come from the national GOP. The National Republican Senatorial Committee ridicules Ford's expensive tastes on a "Fancy Ford" website, and the Republican National Committee is airing a controversial new ad that features a scantily clad blonde who says she met Ford at a Playboy party. "Harold, call me!" the woman chirps.

Democrats, meanwhile, seem content to simply allow voters to draw their own lines between GOP candidates and a certain historically unpopular president. I mean, who knew that simply shaking hands with the Interloper could be enough to decide an otherwise tight election? Of course, Dennis Hastert has decided to do his GOP cronies one better, inviting to his home and posing with the self-described "spiritual advisor to the scum of the Earth". I wonder if K.A. Paul has ever been to Crawford, TX?

Blast from the Past

2006-10-24T10:29:00.000-06:00

Every once in a while, a great voice will silence itself rather than yield to sheer popular momentum. In the case of PatRoW, I've had a busy two weeks. And the Mets crushed my hopes and dreams…or at least my plans for a weekend in Detroit.

So what did I miss?

Hey – there's an election thing going on and (fingers crossed) the Democrats haven't totally fucked things up…yet. With seemingly infinite proof that Iraq was a mistake and leadership has no plan, even military veterans and their families are on the cusp on deserting the GOP. Well at least Republicans still have the fierce loyalty of their bestest buddies, the Christian Right, right? Uh… not so much. The loss of those two groups will probably hurt more than the loss of support from high school bullies, who no doubt will be turned off by Rick Santorum coming out of the closet as a ~~Star Trek~~ Lord of the Rings geek.

It's not all good for the Dems. Likely presidential candidate (and perhaps only "I'm not Hillary" candidate with a chance) Mark Warner dropped out of the race to "spend more time with family". Like you, I assumed that meant an impending sex scandal…but it seems as if the former Virginia governor may simply enjoy hanging out with his wife and kids. Some wonder if Warner's exit will open the door for a figurative and literal dark horse. And a popular pollster compares a possible Democratic election victory to the life of Forrest Gump (mama always said electoral politics was like a box of chocolates).

How about the issues? Well, ladies – you better get your abortions now…that is, if you live in South Dakota. The environment is proving to be a convenient wedge issue in gubernatorial races from New York and Florida to Oregon and California. The GOP keeps trucking out its tired "stay the course v. duck and run" routine, but hey, at least Rummy's mission was clearly outlined by God. Did I just call it stay the course? Republicans never, ever said "stay the course"… except when they did.

There was an article entitled " Bill O'Reilly: not a good obstetric-health authority ", which is funny on so many levels that I couldn't even bring myself to read past the headline. But it does illustrate one more way Bill O'Reilly and I are exact opposites.

I'm back, baby! People of Norway – your hero has come home.

A lying douchebag on Fox News? Call Mr. Ripley, because I don't believe it...

2006-10-11T10:54:00.000-06:00

Much like Bill O'Reilly running an erroneous "D-FL"under Mark Foley's name to confuse the ~~rubes~~ GOP faithful, Fox News is again complicit in deceit and horrendous journalism.

Appearing on the October 8 edition of "FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace", the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins offered up his theory on the real culprits behind Foleygate:

… I mean, CBS reported this week that there's a network of gay staffers that covered for Foley. Was that part of what led up to this? Was it a disservice to the Republican leadership by staffers?

That's right, douchebag, blame the fags. But hey, if CBS reported it, it must be true, right?

Uh…not so much.

Perkins was referring to a CBS News segment in which a pundit guessed that a network of gay staffers had, in fact, covered up for Mark Foley. That's pundit's name? Tony Perkins.

So if you're scoring at home – Perkins went on CBS to make a baseless and offensive allegation. CBS aired his quote as one man's opinion. Then, Perkins went on another network to claim that CBS was "reporting" the filth he made up.

Nice guy, that Tony Perkins. Unfortunately, confidential top-level informants that live in my head report that he likes to sodomize goats.

28 Days Before

2006-10-11T08:46:00.000-06:00

We're closing in on the home stretch of the 2006 campaign season and – dare I jinx it? – things are looking worse and worse for the Evil Empire and its Wonderful Wizard. Here's a brief sample:

Only 46 percent of Americans approve of the way Bush is handling terrorism now, an eight-point drop in two weeks. Only 40 percent think the United States did the right thing in invading Iraq. Worse still for the GOP: It's hard to see how Bush can turn those numbers around. According to the CBS/New York Times poll, 83 percent of Americans believe the president is either "hiding something" or "mostly lying" when he talks about Iraq. Bush's approval rating has dropped to 34 percent in the CBS/New York Times poll; it's at 37 percent in the USA Today/Gallup poll and at 39 percent in the two other polls.

Shit, whatever will the GOP do? I know – fall back on old scare tactics about terrorism and "staying the course". Except, that's not such a good story either…

Five years after 9/11, Osama bin Laden is still on the loose. Four years after George W. Bush vowed to keep Iran and North Korea from threatening us with weapons of mass destruction, both seem to be on the road to doing just that. And three and a half years into the president's Iraq adventure, the U.S. death rate is spiking even as hopes of a happy ending are tanking.

(I know, I know…"happy ending". Good one, Beavis)

A lot can happen in four weeks, and God knows Democrats are prone to passivity and reaction when they should continue to proactively pressure the GOP on all fronts. Foleygate will hurt a lot of Republican congressmen, but it is a story more National Enquirer than New York Times. Iraq is a clusterfuck, South Korea has nukes, Iran is almost there, Afghanistan is becoming increasingly re-Talibanized, the president is an incompetent buffoon, the Secretary of Defense is a cranky and indecisive, and – oh yeah – a certain lanky Saudi with bad kidneys is still broadcasting messages of hate on sleeper cell leaders' video iPods around the world. "Staying the course"? What more proof is needed to convince Americans that we are in dire need of a new direction?

Sunshine State Voter Fraud ’06

2006-10-05T15:07:00.000-06:00

From the state that brought you the hanging chad, now a new ~~Republican crony~~ Secretary of State is sweeping into action to block the Democratic process.

You see, Florida *law* says that because Mark Foley won his party's primary, his name must remain on the ballot despite his resignation; votes cast for Foley will be deemed votes for Joe Negron, the man chosen by Republicans to replace the disgraced ~~pederast~~ politician.

Yuk. Who would cast his vote for Foley, even if he knew it would be counted for someone who presumably didn't initiate cybersex with 16-year-old boys? That's exactly the conundrum faced by Florida Secretary of State Sue Cobb, a "major Republican contributor named to her post by Florida Gov. Jeb Bush".

How to get around such a sticky situation? Cobb's office is allowing county officials to post signs at the polls explaining that a vote for Foley is really a vote for a non-kid toucher. You know, in the interest of an educated electorate and all. Of course, there is the pesky matter of the existing law that says signs cannot be hung within 100 feet of a voting booth…

Salon, in its infinite wisdom, offers a compromise:

…we're sure that Negron won't mind if the Secretary of State's Office adds a few more things to its sign -- like, say, the fact that House Republicans knew about Foley's problems but didn't do much to stop him, that the Republican Congress has joined George W. Bush in turning a budget surplus into a massive federal deficit, that Saddam Hussein didn't really have any WMD and that Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11. As state GOP spokesman Jeff Sadosky says, "A more educated voter is a better voter."

Now who could argue with that? Except, of course, anyone who needs to hide the truth.

What’s in a name? (A pedophile by any other word would smell as revolting…)

2006-10-04T10:41:00.000-06:00

TNR contributor Kevin Arnovitz asks "Mark Foley: bad for the gays?" I'll skip his reasoned arguments (that's just my style) to answer a resounding NO; what's bad for homosexuals is douchebags like you calling them "the gays" like they are objects, not people.

Anytime someone refers to a minority group with the article "the" attached as a prefix, it really sticks in my craw (sorry to use such harsh language). "The Jews" run show business? "The Mexicans" are destroying our country with a rash of illegal immigration? "The Muslims" are savage, bloodthirsty terrorists?

Let's not pigeonhole diverse groups of people into a convenient – and inaccurate – mold. Mark Foley is a pedophile and a homosexual, but his kid-touching ways are in no way reflective of the greater population of gay people…just like his man-loving ways are in no way reflective of the greater population of NAMBLA members. I mean, no one is asking "Mark Foley: bad for the pedophiles?" are they?

Things maf54 didn’t have time to IM about

2006-10-04T07:51:00.000-06:00

Despite the fact that Mark Foley has been active chatting as recently as Tuesday morning, there are other stories in the news. Salon does a nice job of putting together the pieces on the following subjects:

Bill Frist Hearts Taliban – during a stop in Afghanistan Monday, Frist said that there are now so many Taliban in Afghanistan that "you need to bring them into a more transparent type of government. And if that's accomplished, we'll be successful." Nice. I love changing the definition of success to meet the limited progress we've made. It really sets a nice example for an entire generation of underachieving American schoolchildren.

George Allen has lost touch with reality – in a new commercial, the senator blames himself for some recent problems, but complains that "negative personal attacks and baseless allegations have also pulled us away from what you expect and deserve." Right – baseless allegations like the ones confirmed by dozens of independent and unaffiliated sources. Damn, I hate those well-researched and substantiated "baseless allegations".

Rummy keeps Dubya from looking like a fool…well, *more* of a fool – the Interloper has taken a lot of heat for having a certain banner appear behind him while speaking on a Navy aircraft carrier and wearing a flight suit. But things could have been worse:

Bob Woodward told Larry King Monday that the words "mission accomplished" were actually going to be included in Bush's speech on that day in May 2003 -- at least until Donald Rumsfeld intervened and got them out. "Rumsfeld was in Baghdad, and they sent him an advanced copy of the speech," Woodward said. "And he said, 'I almost died because "mission accomplished" was in the speech.' And he said, 'I got it out of the speech but I didn't get the sign down.'"

Gee, if Rummy knew that the mission wasn't exactly accomplished, why would el presidente even go through with the speech? My guess – that flight suit was too tempting not to wear; luckily, Rummy hid Dubya's NASA uniform to keep him from invading Mars.

Bill O'Reilly is still a douchebag – " During Bill O'Reilly's show Tuesday night, Fox News repeatedly ran video clips of Mark Foley over a caption identifying him as a Democrat". I guess when policy fails and politicians can't be trusted, the GOP has fallen back on Plan C – rewriting history.

The best YouTube since Drunken Aschlochs

2006-10-04T07:10:00.000-06:00

Today I owe a debt of gratitude to the gang over at DoG for doing me a solid, Casey Kasem style. I never get sick of hearing a confirmed hypocrite/pedophile say "If I were, uh, one of these sickos, I'd be, uh, nervous with America's Most Wanted on my trail."

Damn, if irony isn't a bitch. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a busy day ahead of me IM'ing with maf54.

Macaca who?

2006-10-02T11:38:00.000-06:00

I'm sure there's some real news going on today, some of which might even hold dire political ramifications for Republicans…but who's watching? Not me.

If you have only seen or heard tidbit, take five minutes to read the full chat transcript between Representative Mark Foley and an underage male page. The boy called it "sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick"…and he may have been understating things.