Bark Bark Woof Woof

I'm sure I'm not the first to bring this site to your attention, but go check out Old Fashioned Patriot. It's a terrific site; fresh, smart, and pissed off. I especially love his links for evil sites.

And you'll never guess who found it for me.

Go on, guess.

Oh, okay, you'll never get it. My mom.

It goes without saying that this site goes on the blogroll.

I lost a good friend on Tuesday.

Jo Ann Kirchmaier was the niece of playwright William Inge, but more importantly she was a mom to good friends and a part of my childhood. For over forty years her family and mine shared holidays and family events, and later, after I finished my doctorate in theatre, she encouraged me to attend and participate in the William Inge Theatre Festival. I spent many hours sharing stories, jokes, sorrows, and good times with her, reading bits and pieces of my plays and writings, and just doing things that friends do together. There are a lot of people who were touched by her and who will remember her with a smile.

I'll miss our regular phone calls and her great laugh and grin. But, as we say in theatre, it's not goodbye...it's just intermission.

The SOTU and the Iowa caucuses were big news this week, and so there are a lot of different takes on these stories as well as a lot of other good things:

Corrente should be a daily stop for everyone. Recent posts include an analysis of Bush's approach to workforce development and relays of good posts by fellow TLC'ers Echidne of the Snakes on liberal anger and And Then... reporting from New Hampshire.

NTodd reports that he's almost done with his training and will be back to blogging on a more regular basis soon. Can cat pictures be far behind?

Trish got an article published in American Politics Journal on the Massachusetts gay marriage ruling. Congratualtions, Trish!

Jesse at The Gotham City 13 does a very good job of picking apart the SOTU. Read it all.

Charles2 at The Fulcrum prefers getting his punditry from blogs. And why not? There's some damn good writing in our own group, and it's not monolithic by any means: we have Dean supporters, Kerry people, Clark backers, not to mention the rivalry between cats and dogs.

Alex at SoonerThought looks at seven myths about faith and politics. Excellent!

Rivka at Respectful of Otters PM's Iowa very concisely. And not to make an unintentional pun, read on down to her very thoughtful article on euthanasia.

Kick the Leftist has an Ironic Quote entry that is far too good to pass up.

Keith at The Invisible Library tells us what he's learned from literature.

BlogAmy has a new template...very nice!

Chris has some unique insights about Iowa. Chris's site is always a great read - his humor is gentle and genuine, and his insights are wise beyond his years.

I welcome archy to TLC and present evidence as to why he is a worthy addition to our ranks.

And Wanda also joins us with her Words On A Page. Issues? Who has issues?

And there's a lot more out there, too. Just click on the links on the sidebar to find them and enjoy!

From the Toledo Blade:

Just days before President Bush’s visit today to Owens Community College to tout job training programs at such two-year schools, at least six Owens employees who handle work-force development have been given pink slips, The Blade has learned.

The only jobs program Bush is interested in is the $200 million that is going to keep him in the job he has now.

When I was in grad school at the University of Colorado in Boulder in the 1980's, the College Republicans made a lot of noise about how many of the faculty were registered Democrats and how they were somehow insidiously indoctrinating the soft pliable minds of students with filthy left-wing propaganda. Now they're at it again, this time starting a website to "to document discrimination against conservative students and indoctrination to the liberal viewpoint."

Oy. Aside from the fact that the idea of this sort of thing borders on blacklisting, it's really an insult on the part of the College Republicans to think that their fellow students are too stupid to think for themselves. After all, we're talking about a university here, not Romper Room. Second, it's been my experience in college, both as a student and teacher, that the vast majority of students don't give a flying rat's ass about the political views of their professors, and most, if not all, had the sense to know a "biased" point of view when they hear it and take it for what it's worth. (Trust me, when I was at CU, the only soft pliable minds were as a result of too many shots of tequila at Tulagi's or from the frat parties at Tappa Kegga Bru.) For that matter, what's wrong with a professor having a particular point of view, either liberal or conservative? The classroom is not the place for objectivity - it's a place for discussion and argument. The students who sit there like bumps on a log and believe everything the professor tells them are wasting their time and have no business being in college.

I had a professor at the University of Miami who would deliberately mislead his class in matters of history and theory just so we would go out and find out where he was wrong and prove him wrong in class. To be fair, he would tell us in advance that he would do this, but the challenge was for us to find out just where and how. He was passionate about his points of view, and he loved nothing more than starting an argument with the class about some outrageous view he would expound. Sometimes you were never quite sure whether he was doing it because he actually believed it or whether he was trying to get us stirred up. It was one of the most valuable learning experiences I ever had, and it's a technique that I shamelessly borrowed when I became a teacher myself. (By the way, he's still teaching, and if you ever get a chance to take his class, it's worth it for that experience alone.)

As for the charges of discrimination against conservative students, it sounds like a couple of conservatives lost a few arguments in class and are retaliating in a way only conservatives can: with a huge dose of unintentional irony and hypocrisy. Can't win? Try intimidation through the legal system. Hey, if it's good enough for Dubya and Tom DeLay, why not?

If you'd like to let them know how you feel - one way or the other - about this, drop a note to the CU Republicans. But be nice; they can't handle a real argument.

Aside from ugly license plates (and two of them - one front, one back - to add insult to injury), there's this: Ohio Close To Passing Gay Marriage Ban. Guess I'll have to sic my mom on them.

Jeb emulates Dubya:

Gov. Bush proposes tax cut for wealthy, $1 billion more to schools

TALLAHASSEE -- Gov. Jeb Bush unveiled a $55.4 billion state spending plan on Tuesday that cuts taxes for Florida's wealthiest residents and businesses while hitting students with higher tuition costs and leaving thousands of children and elderly on waiting lists for state services.

[edit]

Bush is asking for a $1.4 billion, or 2.6 percent, increase over current spending -- with most of the new money going into education and social services. He would give nearly $1 billion more to public schools, half of that to go toward a constitutional mandate to reduce class size.

[edit]

Democrats immediately attacked the spending plan for doling out tax breaks while thousands of elders are waiting for state help to keep them out of nursing homes, thousands of developmentally disabled are waiting for services and more than 100,000 children from low- and medium-income households are on waiting lists to get affordable health insurance.

While I'm all in favor of more money for public education - especially class-size reduction - Jeb is taking his cue from the White House and giving tax breaks to the wealthy while saying "tough luck" to those in real need. Yeah, he's ready to run in '08.

Michael Moore, the author of Dude, Where's My Country?, Stupid White Men, and producer of such films as Bowling for Columbine and Roger and Me, is supporting Gen. Clark. But he has some encouraging words for the Dean campaign.

This morning I picked up the newspaper and read this quote from a young woman who had worked as a volunteer for Howard Dean in Iowa:

"All the phone-calling we did, we'd have people who’d say, 'I'm a Dean supporter, I’m a Dean supporter,’" said Kelly Chambers, Dr. Dean's captain in Precinct No. 83. "But when it came to caucus night, we only had 11 people show up for Dean. It just seems like all my hard work's been for nothing."

I was crushed when I read this. Her despair, her sense of "what's the use?" was something I'm sure many Dean supporters are feeling today. I can see, just from surfing the web, the debilitating affect the landslide loss in Iowa had on so many people who had placed so much hope in the man who created a grassroots revolution and was unrelenting in his attacks on Bush and on the war. If having the most volunteers, the most money (all small contributions from average citizens), and the boldest message can't win an election, say Dean's followers, then we might as well just give up.

As one who does not support Dean, I would like to say this to you: DON'T GIVE UP. You have done an incredible thing. You inspired an entire nation to stand up to George W. Bush. Your impact on this election will be felt for years to come. Every bit of energy you put into Dr. Dean's candidacy was -- and is -- worth it. He took on Bush when others wouldn't. He put corporate America on notice that he is coming after them. And he called the Democrats out for what they truly are: a bunch of spineless, wishy-washy appeasers who have sold out the working people of America. Everyone in every campaign owes you and your candidate a huge debt of thanks.

Read the rest of it here. It's nice to hear such unifying support from a backer of another candidate.

As noted, I didn't watch it; the Law & Order rerun on TNT - a variation of the Klaus von Bulow case - was really good. But many of my fellow bloggers took the plunge. Here's a roundup on some of the reactions:

Jeff at Speedkill has a moment by moment commentary.

It's Craptastic looks at the possibility of amending the Constitution to prevent gay marriage. It's something that's bothered me, too.

Steve Gilliard wonders if Bush is crazy: to him the speech was a mixture of odd foreign policy followed by a tangent on steroids and gay marriage.

Charles2 at The Fulcrum makes it short and sweet: "Over promise. Under fund. Appeal to the base(r) desires. Let the shit hit the fan long after he's gone."

All Facts and Opinions says, "The White House squatter talked on and on about protecting families -- steroids are bad! abstinence is the only way! -- yet took the opportunity to slam gay families and to punish those American citizens because they don't live by other people's religious beliefs. He even threatened us with the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment (although since Bushie hasn't the stones to say so directly, he merely alluded to "constitutional process"; he is a wimp just as his dad was reputed to be)."

Steve at The Yellow Doggerel Democrat checks out the Democratic response, such as it was. Myself, I would have probably gotten more out of hearing what New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson had to say - he delivered his response in Spanish.

One of the scarier aspects was that Sen. Trent Lott and Rep. Chris Shays were kept in an "undisclosed location" in the event of a catastrophic attack on the Capitol during the speech - much like the custom of keeping one cabinet member away - so they could "re-start" the government. Holy Ned; if we had to re-start the government with Trent Lott, I'd rather be blown up.

No thanks, I've got other plans. I'm going to give my parakeet a karma transplant. And I don't even have a parakeet any more.

Whoa, how zen.

David Brooks gets all gooey and goopy over the Iowa caucuses - how the Democrats are still idealistic after all the "anger" against Bush has been spewed and how their grand illusion "is out of proportion to the smallish policies on offer." He's saying, Gosh, I could really like these people if they all weren't so wrong about everything. It sounds like he had to strongly resist the temptation to pat everyone on the head. Thank you for your patronizing, David - please call again.

Contrast that with Paul Krugman, who, when he's not being called "shrill" by the Rightocracy, comes off to the casual reader as grumpy and ill-mannered: he uses words like "sinister" and "calculating." Aw, c'mon, Paul, stop being such a grumble-bunny! Don't you know that everything is just hunky-dory?

If anyone's being cynical here, it's Brooks. His sweetness-and-light is just a set-up for the long knives that will come out when the eventual nominee is chosen. We know the drill - how could the Democrats be so blind to the real problems in this country just so they can pick on affable and amiable George W. Bush? He only has the best interest of the nation at heart, you know. It's morning in America! (Cue "Optimistic Voices" from The Wizard of Oz: "You're out of the woods, you're out of the dark, you're into the light...")

It's a seductive call, and much as I'd like to be bundled up in the warm cozy security of smug arrogance and borrowed optimism, I'll take the harsh reality of the tempered cynicism and tested faith of the Democrats any day. We'll all come out stronger and more aware that the real threat to our nation is not just nebulous videos from a cave in Pakistan but the slow erosion of faith in our system of laws and rights - and worse, in our fellow citizens - by the current administration.

Well, well.

For Iowa Democrats, Senator John Kerry showed himself to be what he has argued all along he was: the reassuring establishment candidate with the war hero's record, solid policy positions and broad experience in government to be a strong challenger to President Bush. He shattered conventional Iowa wisdom that organization is all.

But the race for the nomination has just begun. The surprise second-place showing by Senator John Edwards of North Carolina reflected similar judgments about how he would stand against Mr. Bush, and makes him a fresh force to contend with, especially in South Carolina, which votes two weeks from Tuesday. With little organization or name recognition in Iowa, the Edwards campaign caught fire in the last 10 days — a surge the senator attributed to his more optimistic message.

The third-place finish of Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, evaporated the aura of inevitability he once sought here, and his fiery concession contrasted sharply with Mr. Kerry's husky, "Iowa, I love you," and Mr. Edwards's soft, smiling speech.

Yet Dr. Dean still has more money than any rival, a strong operation in New Hampshire, which votes next week, and legions of supporters who are sure to join him in fighting back.

Other than the fact that my mom will be insufferably smug for the next week or so, I am not as disappointed in the results as some of my colleagues. John Kerry is a formidable candidate on paper, and I certainly prefer him to Joe Lieberman or Dick Gephardt (Teddy the Wonder Lizard isn't running, more's the pity).

I watched CNN more out of default than anything else last night (Law & Order on TNT was pre-empted by a basketball game) and if I hit the Mute button Breathless Wolf Blizter was tolerable. What I thought was both amusing and troubling was their constant admonishment that "entry polls" were meaningless but they kept citing them as being the "big indicators" until the results started to come in around 8:30 ET. (In musical theatre it's called "vamping," where the orchestrea plays the same twenty bars of music over and over while the star who missed her entrance is being rushed from her dressing room out onto the stage to sing her big musical number.) I thought Dean's concession sounded a little forced, but he took it well and now he's off to New Hampshire (see this post by Scout at And Then... for an eyewitness report on Dean's early-morning arrival in Portsmouth).

The show's just getting started.

CNN called it for Kerry around 9:15 or so, with Edwards in second and Dean in third. Here's the NY Times take on it.

Bottom line: Good night, Dick.

I got an automated poll call tonight. The computer asked all the usual questions about whether I thought Bush was doing a good job on the economy, domestic issues, and Iraq ("press 4 if you 'strongly disagree' and I did), then it got into who I would vote for. It ran through all the candidates running against Bush. Dean was listed first, and I chose him, but when the computer asked me if I would vote for Lieberman, Edwards, or Kerry against Bush, I punched the "Yes" button. Hell, I would have voted for Teddy the Wonder Lizard if he was running against Bush.

My mom has been elected as a Kerry delegate to the Democratic Convention in Boston this summer.

From the NY Times:

Vatican Raises Doubts About Pope's View of 'Passion' Film

ROME, Jan. 19 — Pope John Paul II's secretary emphatically denied news reports that the pope offered a personal endorsement of a movie by the director Mel Gibson about Christ's life, according to an article distributed today by the Catholic News Service.

Cindy Wooden, a Vatican correspondent for the Catholic News Service, reported that the secretary, Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz, told her in an interview on Sunday that while the pope had seen the movie, "the Holy Father told no one his opinion."

Archbishop Dziwisz's statement contradicts widespread reports over recent weeks that the pope, after watching the movie last month in his private apartment in Vatican City, reacted to its depiction of the last 12 hours in Christ's life by saying, "It is as it was."

Archbishop Dziwisz's statement also represents the latest odd twist in the unusual story of attempts by Mr. Gibson and his associates to rally the support of conservative Christians for the movie, now titled "The Passion of the Christ," which has drawn charges that it may be anti-Semitic.

Whoops.

From the Detroit Free Press via a friend:

From CincyDemo comes a story from the Globe and Mail about President Bush making what could be considered in some circles as a sexual advance on a young man.

I'll give you a moment to get over your involuntary shudder and clean up any liquids you might have spilled on your keyboard.

They say "the truth is often spoken in jest." Please God, not this time. Doesn't the gay community have enough trouble as it is?

James K. Galbraith has a devastating piece in Salon.com on Bush's record on jobs, the economy, and the looming cultural and financial disaster if his recently proposed immigration reform becomes law. Some key points:

There are no new jobs. Total job growth in the Clinton years: 23 million. Total job losses so far in the Bush years: over 2 million. Total gains in the last six months, since the so-called recovery supposedly accelerated in the third quarter? Just 221,000. That's less than a single month's average under Clinton. And last month? One thousand new jobs.
How many jobs should there have been? Crudely, the Clinton pace over three years would have yielded about 8.5 million. Allowing Bush a pass for 2001, matching Clinton in just two years would have meant 5.6 million new jobs, not the loss of another half a million.

[edit]

Bush's minions whitewash these figures by pointing to the household employment survey, which shows more (though not great) job growth. Here's the main difference: The household survey covers 60,000 households. The payroll survey covers 400,000 businesses (and millions of workers). The payroll survey measures real jobs. Most agree that the payroll survey, while not perfect (it misses some new jobs in the upswing), is the better of the two reports.

The household survey does pick up many people who call themselves self-employed, independent contractors and the like. (When academics do this, we call it "consulting.") Some would have you believe that this is the future of the economy, but let's hope not. Most such work is stopgap, a way to scrape by when regular work is hard to find. Most people doing it would abandon it for a real job, if they could, in a minute. Real jobs -- with benefits and a semblance of security -- are better.

[edit]

What does Bush want? He wants a growth rate high enough to get him through the election. That's obvious. After that, he doesn't care. His clientele -- the military contractors, oil companies, pharmaceutical firms and big media that control this government -- make their money on patents, contracts and the exercise of monopoly power. (Case in point: Bush is pressuring impoverished Central Americans, in trade negotiations, to add 10 years to the length of drug patents.) These people have no interest in full employment. They like unemployment, weak labor, low wages and a government that bullies on their behalf. And after the election, if Bush wins, that is what they will get for four more years.

And what about the "bold" new initiative on bringing in "guest workers" and granting amnesty (although he is loath to call it that) to illegals already here?

Bush made clear that this program is not just for workers presently in the country, as the press has mostly been reporting. It is not just for those who may soon arrive. No, it is far broader than that. Here's the president's speech: "If an American employer is offering a job that American citizens are not willing to take, we ought to welcome into our country a person who will fill that job."

This program will permit any employer to admit any worker. From any country. At any time. The only requirement is that it be for a job Americans are not willing to take. But it is easy to create such jobs: Cut wages. Terminate the unions. Lengthen the hours. Speed up the lines. Chicken farmers have known this for years. Bush's plan is a blank check for every bad boss this country has.

[edit]

For millions of citizen workers, what would happen? The answer is clear: Bad bosses drive out the good. Good bosses will turn bad under pressure. The terms of our jobs would get worse and worse. Who would want a citizen worker? A bracero will be so much cheaper, more loyal, and under control. And who among us, in our right mind, would want to look for work? Unless, of course, we needed to eat. Or pay the mortgage. I am not exaggerating: This is a threat to us all.

In other words, pure old-style Republican politics. Keep the workers under control, keep the profit margins high, keep the checks from the corporations coming in to the RNC to keep the status quo. Those are the only jobs George W. Bush cares about.

One way to get the attention of the public is to try to hush something up. And some people take great risks to get the truth out. For example:

An act of secrecy by a Miami judge last year, ''super-sealing'' a lawsuit by a South Florida man detained after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks so that no trace of his case appeared in any public record, has had the opposite of the intended effect.

Mohamed Kamel Bellahouel, a one-time country veterinarian who more recently waited tables in Delray Beach, is fast becoming known in civil libertarian circles. His challenge to government secrecy has reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

Federal agents detained Bellahouel in October 2001 and held him for five months on the theory that he might have served food to hijackers and maybe even went to a movie theater with one.

What began as a petition for his release has evolved into a battle over the public's right to know what its government is doing. Bellahouel, 34, alleges that a series of federal judges sealed the entire case against him without giving any reason, without allowing him or anyone else a chance to challenge the action.

All of which places Bellahouel, an unassuming immigrant living with his wife, stepdaughter and mother-in-law in Deerfield Beach, at the center of a legal storm.

U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and his prosecutors have warned that releasing even the names of post-Sept. 11 detainees could undermine national security. The Supreme Court last week refused to hear an appeal by civil liberties groups, which contend that such basic information should be public.

There's also this case, reported here in a NY Times Op-Ed column by Bob Herbert:

Katharine Gun has a much better grasp of the true spirit of democracy than Tony Blair. So, naturally, it's Katharine Gun who's being punished.

Ms. Gun, 29, was working at Britain's top-secret Government Communications Headquarters last year when she learned of an American plan to spy on at least a half-dozen U.N. delegations as part of the U.S. effort to win Security Council support for an invasion of Iraq.

The plans, which included e-mail surveillance and taps on home and office telephones, was outlined in a highly classified National Security Agency memo. The agency, which was seeking British assistance in the project, was interested in "the whole gamut of information that could give U.S. policymakers an edge in obtaining results favorable to U.S. goals."

Countries specifically targeted were Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria, Guinea and Pakistan. The primary goal was a Security Council resolution that would give the U.S. and Britain the go-ahead for the war.

Ms. Gun felt passionately that an invasion of Iraq was wrong — morally wrong and illegal. In a move that deeply embarrassed the American and British governments, the memo was leaked to The London Observer.

Which landed Ms. Gun in huge trouble. She has not denied that she was involved in the leak.

There is no equivalent in Britain to America's First Amendment protections. Individuals like Ms. Gun are at the mercy of the Official Secrets Act, which can result in severe — in some cases, draconian — penalties for the unauthorized disclosure of information by intelligence or security agency employees.

Ms. Gun was fired from her job as a translator and arrested for violating the act. If convicted, she will face up to two years in prison.

There's a long tradition in both American and British history of speaking out against injustice regardless of the consequences. Remember Daniel Ellsberg?

One of the little luxuries I allow myself is a subscription to the Sunday New York Times, something I picked up from my parents. (Sorry, Miami Herald - you have too many ads and the crossword puzzle is the same as the Times except a week later.) I read most of it, usually skipping the Travel section (can't afford to go to Greece right now), and make an effort to look at the Money section (speaking of Greek...), but of course I read the Arts & Leisure and Week In Review before getting to the real reason I pay $25 a month: the crossword puzzle tucked in the back of the Magazine. I have a special pen (yes, I do it in ink) and hardcover coffee table book that is just the right size to provide solid support while I slouch on the couch or out on the patio and fill in the little boxes carefully. I usually finish it by the end of the day - stopping for meals or a nap or blogging - and if I get stuck, I will leave it on the coffee table and come back to it later.

But sometimes the Times offers other puzzles. For example, how could a man barely able to carry out the duties of his office due to illness and frailty sit through a movie and offer a review? Frank Rich has a great column on Pope John Paul II's "review" of Mel Gibson's upcoming film The Passion of The Christ and the rising tide of spiritual McCarthyism.

Pope John Paul II, frail with Parkinson's at age 83, is rarely able to celebrate mass. In recent weeks, such annual holiday ceremonies as the ordination of bishops and the baptism of children in the Sistine Chapel were dropped from his schedule. But why should his suffering deter a Hollywood producer from roping him into a publicity campaign to sell a movie? In what is surely the most bizarre commercial endorsement since Eleanor Roosevelt did an ad for Good Luck Margarine in 1959, the ailing pontiff has been recruited, however unwittingly, to help hawk "The Passion of the Christ," as Mel Gibson's film about Jesus's final 12 hours is now titled. While Eleanor Roosevelt endorsed a margarine for charity, John Paul's free plug is being exploited by the Gibson camp to aid the movie star's effort to recoup the $25 million he personally sank into a biblical drama filmed in those crowd-pleasing tongues of Latin and Aramaic.

[edit]

This game of hard-knuckle religious politics is all too recognizable in our new millennium, when there are products to be sold and votes to be won by pandering to church-going Americans. At its most noxious, this was the game played by Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson on Sept. 13, 2001, when they went on TV to pin the terrorist attacks of two days earlier on God's wrath, which Mr. Falwell took it upon himself to say was aimed at all of those "who have tried to secularize America" by "throwing God out of the public square." The two men later apologized, but this didn't stop Mr. Robertson from declaring this month that he was hearing "from the Lord" that President Bush is going to win this year's election in a blowout. "It doesn't make any difference what he does, good or bad," Mr. Robertson said. "God picks him up because he's a man of prayer and God's blessing him."

[edit]

...[Y]ou've got to give Mel Gibson's minions credit for getting the pope, or at least the aide who these days most frequently speaks in his name, to endorse their film in the weeks before it opens in 2,000-plus theaters. In keeping with every other p.r. strategy for "The Passion" — Mr. Gibson has said he felt that the Holy Ghost was the movie's actual director — Mr. Michelini says that the successful campaign for the Vatican thumbs up is an example of divine providence. Jews in show business might have another word for it — chutzpah.

And there's this article from The Public Editor by Daniel Okrent - the Times's version of ombudsman - and his defensive mea culpa for articles on Howard Dean.

The paper has made mistakes. [Reporter Jodi] Wilgoren's description of Dean listening to Al Gore announce his endorsement (Dec. 10) was inappropriate in a news article: ''Dr. Dean smirked his trademark smirk"; that's columnist language. The visual used to illustrate an article on Dean's temper (Jan. 3) was more problematic; it was the cover of a recent issue of National Review, with the face of an inflamed Dean above the headline, ''Please Nominate This Man." The caption noted that National Review is a ''conservative journal," but there's no escaping the fact that this wasn't an example of Dean's temper, but of what an avowedly partisan publication thinks of Dean's temper.

[edit]

I have a suggestion for angry Deaniacs (including those who objected to reporter Todd Purdum's use of the term "Deaniacs" on Jan. 11, even though many of Dean's own supporters use the term themselves - see www.deaniacs.org). Think of a politician you dislike - maybe one of the Democrats Dean is battling - and substitute his name for Dean's in any piece about your man. If it still sounds unfair, there's the possibility it is. But without passing such a test, you're left not with ''an insult to our democracy," as one of my correspondents calls the paper's campaign coverage, but with journalism.

So there. Nyah. I suppose Okrent needs to get back a little of his dignity, and granted, there is a slightly fanatical edge to some of Dean's backers (something you don't often see in a Democratic mainstream candidate), but I daresay there would a hell of a lot more backlash if the Times gave President Bush the same treatment - after all, if the reporters can mock Dr. Dean's smirk, it should be open season on smirking by every candidte. ("Smirking?" Okay, that's a gerund I hope escapes popular appeal).

I'm sure there are plenty of other puzzles in the paper today. And if you get stumped, leave them on the coffee table...maybe they'll make sense after a while.

Wanda of Words On a Page is now a member of The Liberal Coalition. She has been a faithful reader and commenter here, and I'm glad to see her officially in the club.