Oh, and Tim Poke-in-the-Eyeman is always good for a little outrage. He wants Washington state voters to get to vote to deny homosexual people equal rights. I don't know why Eyman, whose anti-tax initiatives always seem to come from a sort of quasi-libertarian mentality, is suddenly a champion of "traditional family values" except that I think, underneath it all, he is merely a cynical, nihilistic opportunist, and right now the Ministers of Hate (that is, the "Religious" right) are really feeling their oats, and, also, spending their money.

Also, what is up with these anti-gay religious types and their paranoia about the "homosexual lifestyle"? Gary Randall, president of the Faith and Freedom Network (one of the groups supporting the initiative), claims "This bill was written to advance the gay agenda by not just normalizing homosexuality, but under the guise of non-discrimination, force our children through public-sponsored sex-education that homosexuality is a 'normal' lifestyle and should be explored as a possible lifestyle."

Note the phrase, "should be explored" -- once again, a homophobe reveals that he seems to think indoctrination is the only thing standing between our precious youth and homosexuality. And, once again, I can't help but think that the only reason somebody would think that way is if he, himself, has homosexual urges that he keeps in check only through rigorous self-control. And, rather than accept the fact that he, like all homophobes, is gay, he has tried to convince himself that everyone has secret homosexual urges.

Attention Gary Randall! Most people live a "heterosexual lifestyle" because they happen to be, in fact, heterosexual. Get it? They don't date members of their own sex because they don't want to!

Just in case you haven't yet realized that the whole "anti-terrorism" thing is a boondoggle, the Homeland Security Department has determined that New York City has no national monuments or icons and cut its anti-terrorism funding by FORTY PERCENT. That's right.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!! The city that ACTUALLY got hit by terrorists in 2001 is HAVING ITS FUNDING CUT !!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So where is the money going instead? Well, of course, there's that whole Iraq war thing, and all those tax cuts for Paris Hilton and her buddies. But, since anti-terrorism funding to such, uh, prime targets as Jacksonville, Louisville and Omaha is actually being increased, I think we can see where the money is going.

To people who voted for Bush in the last election.

And this is pretty outrageous: A couple of students who got in trouble for rude things they posted online about fellow students. The ridiculous part is that they seem to have gotten in trouble mostly because these rude things happened to make it onto campus, in the hands of other students. I disagree strongly with this conclusion:

Douglas Copeland, a lawyer who represents local school districts, including Webster Groves and Valley Park, said the specifics in each case affect whether schools can punish students for what they do off school time. Students who post something online, for example, could reasonably expect that it would make its way into the school, while students who made the same comments at a party might not have the same expectation, he said.
"It's not a bright line," Copeland said. "It's a gray line. And people do their best to try to discern where the appropriate line is."

But the line seems very clear to me. The students who erred were the ones who printed out the insulting material and brought it to school. They're punishing the ones who wrote it because those are the ones they can catch.

I get annoyed over things that seem trivial. I read this article in the PI, Baby Boomers push RV ownership to record, expecting it to be about the leading edge of retiring boomers -- you know, people in their sixties -- buying RVs.

Instead, it's about people in their forties. Their early forties. In other words, people who are not !@#%*Ҩ BABY BOOMERS.

There is some disagreement on who, exactly is a boomer. The latest year given is 1964 (people turning 42 this year), however, people born in the sixties generally have more in common with "Generation X" and others end the "boom" in 1960 or 61. So, the PI article is about a couple of 43 year olds, and a 41/32 year old couple. So the first couple, maybe, barely qualifies (and forgive me for thinking that if you're going to talk about something as if it's a generational trend, that using an example who barely qualifies for the generation is somewhat ill-considered). The second couple doesn't qualify at all.

Kurt Cobain was born in 1967. He would be 39 this year.

Not a Baby Boomer. Thank you.

One final annoyance: I started reading this editorial because I thought the headline, "U.S. suffers Dixie Chicks phenomenon," meant something different -- I thought it was going to make some ironic comparison between our generally low worldwide approval ratings, and getting "Dixie Chicked" by the U.S. media -- sort of a, what we do to them, the rest of the world does to us. Or something like that. But then I got to the second paragraph.

"Lots of people want to lash out at President Bush. The war in Iraq is as messy and divisive as the Vietnam War. The general rage is so great that even critics who don't talk substance get attention."

Um, maybe, but fatuous Bush team cheerleaders get even more attention -- in fact, they have an entire news network all to themselves -- so what's your point?

Thus Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks felt free to assault the president without explaining why: "I apologized for disrespecting the office of the president. But I don't feel that way anymore. I don't feel he is owed any respect whatsoever." This circular bluster helped earn the country music star the cover of a recent Time magazine.

"Felt free"? Of course she felt free, you dipwad, she's an American! And one of the things about being an American is that you feel free to do stuff. And, especially, free to say stuff. God bless America! And all that.

"Assault the president"? Did she punch him out or something? That would be awesome! Except that she'd probably get killed by Secret Service goons, so, maybe, not so awesome.

"Without explaining why"? Hmm. I realize that the selected quote is a statement of how she feels, not an explanation of why she feels that way, but I'm reasonably certain that if you asked her why, she would tell you. And it seems at best disingenuous to pretend, after introducing your article by talking about rage at Bush over the Iraq war, that you simply don't have any idea why somebody would criticize the president.

"Circular bluster"? As in "Loud, arrogant speech employing circular logic (cf. Limbaugh, Rush)"? I realize you may not agree with Maines, but "circular bluster" is simply not an accurate description of the quote. You can't make it be circular bluster just by calling it that, and the attempt makes you seem either dumb (as in, you don't know what "circular bluster" means) or willfully inattentive. Or maybe just like a bully.

As far as the cover of Time goes, she's on the cover because she's already a famous music star. I "assault" Bush all the time and nobody puts me on the cover of anything.

Yes, sometimes it's frustrating that when people become famous for something like music, or acting, suddenly their opinions about politics are given as much weight as their opinions about hair care products. But, that's the way pop culture works. Once you are a celebrity, your quotes -- whatever they are -- get press.

But, just being a celebrity doesn't mean that your quotes aren't worth reading, either. And anytime somebody gets on their high horse about how celebrities should just shut up about politics, I ask them how they feel about Ronald Reagan. You know. An actor.

Anyway, this is the point in reading where I realized that I disagreed with the author (Amity Shlaes) on such a fundamental level that I thought I needed to do a complete point-by-point dissection of the editorial. But, it turns out that the Chicks are a non-sequitor, a pop-culture "hook" to drag us into a rather boring editorial which is actually concerned with defending the innate worthiness of Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense from 2001 until last September, who recently took a position teaching diplomacy (heh) at Georgetown University, which has been controversial, or something.

And I really have no opinion about that. Except that I'm pretty sure I disagree with everything Shlaes has to say, so, while I had no opinion previously, I now think Feith is probably a buffoon.