Wow. Let me just say, I don't think I have ever been so proud to be an American. Last night, the country showed that it could be broader and richer and more beautiful than any of us imagined possible. Everything feels different now, like the promise of America has finally been realized. This is huge.

A few observations:

In my humble opinion, McCain came off as combative and disrespectful, while Obama gave the impression of being informed and presidential. I do wish that Obama had spent more time talking about the economic issues that affect everyday people, instead of all that jazz about earmarks. But whatever. I noticed that McCain repeated that same claim about Obama wanting to raise taxes on people making more than $42,000 a year. Here's a quick rundown of why this is wrong. Oh, and if you turn the sound up during the part where Obama is talking about the prime minister of Spain, McCain can apparently be heard saying the word "horsesh&t" under his breath. That's not something you hear in every debate.

America, this is really important. If you're not already registered to vote, you can do so now by clicking here

or

here

or

here.

Also, you might want to go ahead and mark November 4 on your calendars. (That ninja reunion you've been planning can wait for the 5th.) Because when you vote good people into office, it makes Batman's job much, much easier.

Nick and I went to the Kansas Democratic caucus last night, and it was total craziness. For starters, there was a record turnout. Two thousand two hundred and eighteen people were all crammed into the livestock area of the Douglas County Fairgrounds. (Do I even need to point out the whole people-as-cattle thing going on here?) The event was set to start at 7 p.m., but the caucus organizers let us know pretty early that it would be delayed until 7:30 so that the new/undeclared voters could register as Democrats. There were tons of people voting for the first time, which was really really cool.

Caucus timeline:

6:00 -- Nick and I arrive at the Fairgrounds. We stand in line #1 to get a little red entry ticket.

7:00 -- We arrive at the check-in table for registered Democrats. My name is on the list, but Nick's is not.

7:00-7:15 -- We stand in line #2 so that Nick can register.

7:15 -- Nick and I enter the cattle enclosure!

7:15-8:00 -- The organizers ask us to move to our candidate's section and join a group of 25. We do so. Then we stand around and I play my DS a little. By the way, Liza Minnelli was in our group. We also glimpsed Seth Rogen, Brian Greene, and...um...Dick Cheney.

8:00-8:20 -- Stuff happens. Seriously, at this point things are beginning to blur together. I think, though, that the volunteers were doing some slow-motion math in order to determine how many people were in attendance.

8:20 -- The organizer gives us the totals. About 350 for Clinton, 40ish for Edwards, 50ish for Kucinich, and the remainder for Obama.

8:30 -- A representative from each candidate's group gets up to make a sales pitch.

9:00 -- Realignment happens. Voters whose candidates don't meet the viability minimums gravitate toward other groups.

9:20-9:40 -- A new round of slow-motion math occurs.

9:45 -- The totals are announced: 9 delegates for Obama, and 2 for Clinton.

After that we were free to go. Oh, and by the time we left there was a blizzard going on. A bunch of cars got stuck in the slushy mud. We almost did, too, until a couple of awesome college students gave us a push.

Now for the griping. (You knew it was coming, right?) Despite the fact that Lawrence is a college town and one of the bluest cities in America, the caucus planners were totally unprepared for the number of voters who showed. Seriously. we're Democrats in KANSAS, and this was the first time our vote has ever counted in a primary. Why wouldn't the turnout be huge? My parents attended a caucus in Johnson County, and theirs was so poorly organized that they had to stand outside in the sleety, 20-degree weather for two hours. That's just bad.

Okay, I'm done with the rant. It was a pain, yes, but it was still incredibly exciting to be there and to see how many people were getting involved with the process for the first time. Here are some pictures of the occasion (taken by Nick)!

Here's me with my fancy sticker thingie.

An Obama supporter.

A snapshot of the group early in the evening.

Bill 4 First Lady. Also, that red knit cap in the foreground has Halliburton written on it.

Did I mention we were in a giant cowpen?

Some relevant memorabilia.

Another shot of the crowd.

Come on. Really. Are we seriously talking about this? Are we seriously having a nationwide spasm of moral indignation because a game known for its extreme violence and gritty content has a secret sex scene embedded somewhere within it? (Thanks to the media, millions of American kids now know about this feature, and most of them probably wouldn't have discovered it on their own. Congratulations, Hillary!) Speaking of which, doesn't Hillary Clinton have any real issues to tackle, like, say, poverty or something? I'd call her gesture quixotic, but that implies a certain nobility of purpose, and I'm pretty sure there's no nobility whatsoever driving this pandering effort to garner votes from more conservative types. Has she even stopped to think about what this sort of crusade will mean for the youth vote, which would otherwise be more likely than any other age group to lean her way in a presidential bid? I used to like Hillary Clinton a lot. I used to defend her when people made nasty remarks about her behavior while first lady. But now I'm just disappointed, because her desire to be seen espousing 'family values' has seemingly triumphed over her personal ethics. This moral posturing does not make her worse than other politicians, I know. It just means that she belongs in their ranks more than I ever realized before. Alas and alack.

Okay, enough about Hillary. I'm still baffled by the outrage over Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. This game was already labeled "M," meaning it was only intended for those 17 and older. No one younger than that should have been buying the game. So how did all these young kids end up with it? A whole lot of parents must have been purchasing this for their kids, and it occurs to me that maybe they should have paid better attention to the content labeling system instead of blindly carte blanche-ing whatever their moody teenagers happened to toss in the shopping basket. Another point of interest: in order to view the game's sex scene, you have to download a particular mod. I would imagine any kid who is smart enough to download this mod is also smart enough to know how to find (gasp!) real pornography on "the Internets," and not the silly cartoonish stuff found in GTA. After all, the sex scene in GTA is not hardcore. No genitalia are exposed. I'm guessing it's more of a Shannon-Tweed-on-Skinemax kind of thing.

I haven't played the San Andreas version, but I have played the original GTA. It was fun to drive around and try to get away from the cops, but ultimately it couldn't hold my interest. (You have to do all these missions, and that detracted from the basic Pole Position appeal for me. I have undiagnosed ADHD, you see.) Other than driving, there wasn't much to do but treat your character to a lap dance, so I gave it a try. I have to tell you, it looks pretty ridiculous. The cartoon stripper writhes mechanically around you and sometimes her leg disappears because of a display bug. It's kind of like getting a lap dance from Robocop (or worse, from a hologram of Robocop). At any rate, with this unintentional bit of comedy as my reference point, it's hard for me to imagine that the famous San Andreas sex scene is anything but hilarious. It's probably about as hot as Marty Feldman at the South Pole. But I guess that's beside the point, isn't it? The point is, somehow we've decided as a culture that the violence contained in the rest of the game (e.g., running people over, random shooting sprees) is just dandy, while a low-grade pixellated depiction of sex is the moral equivalent of drowning a kitten. As I see it, this weird, hypocritical denunciation of GTA is just one more symptom of our society's larger problem in dealing with sex issues.

In the interest of resolving some of these issues, I've set up an appointment for America to meet with a therapist. Would Thursday at 3:30 work for everyone?

The notorious bunny show has been canceled! After Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings lambasted an episode of "Postcards from Buster" (a show about an animated bunny) and demanded that PBS refund the money used to make the show, PBS quickly dropped the episode. They dropped it before Spellings had even finished her sentence. A PBS spokesperson, however, claimed that the Education Department's statements had nothing to do with their decision not to air the show. She said that the decision was due to a realization that homosexuality was a sensitive issue that parents should address with their children in their own time.

Wow. The show must have been pretty bad, huh? Is Buster the Bunny perhaps shown flipping through a coffee table book featuring the art of Tom of Finland? Well, here's a summary of the episode in question. Buster takes a trip to Vermont and visits some people who live on farms and make maple sugar. He meets two lesbian couples, who make out right in front of him. Oh, wait, actually they don't. They don't do anything like that. They don't make radical feminist statements. They don't force Buster to wear leather or rainbow beads. They're just there, and their job is to explain to Buster about how maple sugar is made. The fact that they are lesbians is incidental.

I'm pretty disappointed with PBS. They caved to the demands of the White House without so much as a protest. The reason public television for children is cool is that its only agenda is education, not to be a mouthpiece for whatever administration is in power. Otherwise, they might as well put Scott McClellan in the PBS President's office and let him spin around in the big chair as much as he likes. This act of cowardice does not bode well for the future of public television, either. I mean, what's the point of a network that operates without commercial funding if it's going to eventually become Fox News II?

Another thing that struck me about this whole brouhaha is that the bunny show in question is not even about pro-gay values. It's about basic tolerance, and viewing other people as human beings whose sexuality is only a portion of their identity. (And this is only in subtext—it doesn't overtly address any of this.) It's difficult for me to understand how conservatives can get their panties in a wad about this. What is so wrong with making kids understand that everyone is deserving of respect? Even if you disagree with their lifestyle, even if you think those wacky homosexuals need nothing more than to be converted to Christianity, you still have to address their basic humanity. In other words, if what you're so concerned about is their eternal souls, then first you have to acknowledge that they have souls. See my point? So I ask again, even if you are a devout Christian, what could be wrong with teaching kids to have respect for others? That's what Jesus did, right? He didn't convince people to follow him by being all snotty and imperious. (Has the religious right ever really thought about what Jesus would do?)

Clearly, certain people have a problem with Buster the Bunny because they realize that their agenda is best served when Americans with differing views are at odds with one another. And it's much easier to get folks all revved up about your cause if you have dehumanized the enemy.

Anyway, after slamming the amoral Buster the Bunny for his association with those dangerous lesbians, Spellings has surely got her flaming, lidless eye fixed on PBS. With that in mind (and given PBS's recent talent for pandering), I wouldn't be surprised to see some disturbing new episodes of "Postcards from Buster," in which Buster visits the prisons at Guantanamo and learns that sometimes suspending habeas corpus is the American thing to do.

1. The tax code is archaic. It will be replaced with Hammurabi's Code.
2. In the year 2525, if man is still alive, if woman can survive, then the social security system will be totally screwed. We need personal retirement accounts now! Quick, before the aliens come!
3. Marriage is an ancient, sacred institution that should not be harpooned by peg-legged activist judges who go by the name of Ahab. We will create a constitutional amendment to preserve marriage. This will involve surrounding all remaining married couples with Greenpeace boats.
4. In this country, human life will never be bought or sold as a commodity. Except in Vegas.
5. This coming year, Laura Bush will be single-handedly schooling inner city kids. She'll be just like that teacher in Dangerous Minds and will wear a cool leather jacket.
6. Bush mentioned the Ryan White program, but didn't mention HIV once. He referred to it only as "that disease." On second thought, maybe he meant gingivitis.
7. One of the great successes of the past few years has been the creation of a new gestapo...er...branch of government to deal with security issues.
8. We will stay on the offensive until we have won the entire game of RISK.
9. If we allow hateful ideologies to thrive, they will continue to stalk us and give us unwanted phone calls during the night.
10. We must confront regimes that are a threat to our national body, like that awful Atkins diet and the Zone.
Tags: politics

So check it out. Kinky Friedman is running for governor of Texas.

His campaign motto is "why the hell not?" For those who aren't familiar with him, Kinky Friedman is one of the greatest personalities of our time. Rarely seen without a smirk, a fat cigar, and full-on cowboy garb, Kinky is a somewhat paradoxical character. He writes hilarious mystery novels (with titles like Greenwich Killing Time and Kill Two Birds and Get Stoned) and is the frontman for a country group called "The Texas Jewboys." His platform is the "anti-wussification" of Texas (Kinky is of the opinion that the current governor, Rick Perry, is a prime example of how his home state has become wussified). Kinky has spent time in the Peace Corps. He's best friends with Willie Nelson, and likes to hang out with Presidents Bush and Clinton. He's against political correctness. He's the founder and organizer of Utopia Animal Rescue Ranch, a haven for mistreated cats, dogs, and, yes, chickens. He has his own brand of salsa, as well as some serious concerns about the death penalty.

If he were to win, he'd be the first Independent governor of Texas since Sam Houston.

Realistically, his chances may not be great, but he refers to his gubernatorial bid as more of a spiritual run than anything. What he is serious about is pointing out how disappointing the political climate has been year after year, in Texas and elsewhere. He's also annoyed about a political process that alienates voters. If the Kinkster had his way, ordinary people would be running things. He's kind of a populist in that way.

I never thought I'd say this, but I wish I lived in Texas right now so I could vote for him. It's about time someone brought back the stogie. Kinky for Governor!

Farewell, John Ashcroft. You'll be sorely missed
By neocon reformers, bums, and hacks.
While thousands daily make your "terror list,"
The real al Qaeda's slipping through the cracks.

You senatored and led the Show-Me State
Then lost the next election to a stiff.
But ruling things from DC was your fate,
And sanity was chucked right off a cliff.

You covered statues that dared bare their breasts,
Then rammed through Congress measures idiotic
That limit freedom, liberty, and jest,
And called those who dissent, "unpatriotic."

Although I laud the lifting of this curse,
What follows such as you is surely worse.

Man, I'm irritated right now.

You there, in all of those gay-marriage amendment states (those of you who voted "NO" are exempt), you are no longer allowed to watch Will & Grace, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, The L Word, or Queer as Folk, and you are also not allowed to talk about how much fun your gay hairdresser is.

The backlash against gay marriage we witnessed in this last election is profoundly embarrassing for this country, given the strides ahead we have made in the past few years (i.e., removing sodomy laws, allowing gay marriages in San Francisco and Massachusetts). Co-opting gayness has become hip in mainstream America; nearly everyone you ask claims to have a gay friend. But it's clear that the same people who gush over their adorable interior decorator are the ones who decided that he can't get married to his partner of fifteen years. How do they miss the hypocrisy of this? It reminds me of the people (not so long ago) who spoke in sugary, condescending tones about their African-American housekeepers. "She's just a doll, and so smart!" But would they have wanted the housekeeper to attend the same school as their sons, or—gasp—get married to one of them? No, because deep down they were just as bigoted as the folks in white robes and pointy hats.

Did I mention I'm irritated?

This is what's going on with the topic of homosexuality in this country, and I have just now realized it. The veil of perception has fallen from my eyes and I can see Middle America in all her naked provincialism. (Grant me a little latitude for this naivete; I live in a very liberal town.) All this time, I really thought things were improving. But what's happening now is even more insidious than out-and-out Jim Crowism, because now people are not even acknowledging their prejudices—they are merely paying lip service to a fashion trend. Gay culture in the mainstream is the social equivalent of flared jeans, and who knows where those will be next season? I'm telling you, we're due for another civil rights movement, and this one will be a doozy. I think it will come soon, too, because the kids of today are far more tolerant and enlightened about homosexuality than most of their elders. But I hope we can do some soul searching even before then, and do the right thing because we know it's right, and because we've made a conscious decision not to be intolerant idiots anymore. I hope, I hope, I hope.

So in Karen's New World Order, will you be allowed to go to a Broadway show if you voted for the gay-marriage amendment? Nope. Watch The Birdcage or Victor/Victoria? No way. You don't deserve it. Come back when you have something besides hatred to offer the country. You can maybe be the housekeeper.

#10. Convert to Shinto.

#9. Be caught with a little boy.

#8. Publicly acknowledge his blood bargain with Lucifer.

#7. Sell the Statue of Liberty to Colombia for a couple kilos of Bogota's finest.

#6. Host a pharmaceutical company shopping spree at the Federal Reserve building.

#5. Die.

#4. Use the Force to strangle his top admiral on national television.

#3. Accidentally nuke a third-world nation out of existence, then blame the mistake on intelligence failures, then shrug the whole thing off with a good-old Texas guffaw.

#2. Kill the firstborn son of every family in America.

#1. Trick question. Apparently, Bush could do any of these things and be re-elected. Way to go, America. You make me real proud.

My first through fifth favorite people are Nick, my friends Thomas and Erin, and my parents. Below that, things get reshuffled quite a bit. But as of three days ago, number six on the list is Jon Stewart (this is an impressively high ranking for someone I've never met). I'm a big fan of The Daily Show. Always have been—even in the primitive days of Craig Kilborn. But the thing that has propelled the show to unprecedented success in recent years is the dry, self-deprecating wit of Jon Stewart. He has turned the show into a satirical tour-de-force that boldly goes where no fake news organization has gone before.

Stewart has a new book (America: The Book) and seemingly a new fearlessness when it comes to voicing his opinions about what is or is not good for the country. Three days ago, he was a guest on CNN's Crossfire, and he took the opportunity to take the hosts (Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson) to task for shirking their responsibilities to the public. He said that the show was nothing more than theater. He called it partisan hackery, and said that they weren't doing any good for anyone by attacking one another and avoiding any kind of substantive debate:

Stewart: You know, because we need what you do. This is such a great opportunity you have here to actually get politicians off of their marketing and strategy.

Carlson: Is this really Jon Stewart? What is this, anyway?

Stewart: Yes, it's someone who watches your show and cannot take it anymore.

I was delighted. This is something that has always bugged me about Crossfire, but that I was never really able to pinpoint until now. I used to watch it religiously, but I found that all it did was increase my blood pressure without providing me any new insights into anything. The format ensures that no subject is ever covered with anything like the depth it deserves, and the only goal of the hosts (even Carville, whom I fear and respect) seems to be to expectorate as many catty witticisms as possible. It's like two street kids playing dozens. ("You're momma's so fat she's got her own zip code!") So I stopped watching.

Things became more and more heated as the interview went on. The hosts tried to distract Stewart by bringing up his book, but the fake newsman would not be deterred. He pointed out that media of every sort have become more and more divisive in the past few years, because the goal of their corporate sponsors is to make money—NOT to get to the heart of the issues. Paul and Tucker sputtered a bit, trying to respond.

Begala: We're 30 minutes in a 24-hour day where we have each side on, as best we can get them, and have them fight it out.

Stewart: No, no, no, no, that would be great. To do a debate would be great. But that's like saying pro wrestling is a show about athletic competition.

OUCH!

The great thing is how earnest Stewart was about the whole thing. He came across as a guy who just loved his country and didn't want to see it mangled by vicious and counterproductive partisanship.

Carlson tried to turn the argument around by attacking Stewart for kissing up to John Kerry when he was a guest on the show. But Stewart deflected this, too, saying that it was the responsibility of the "real" media to ask hard-hitting questions, and that they were not living up to the bargain. Toward the end, Carlson was just railing against Stewart for daring to give them a lecture on their own show.

Here's the big finale:

Carlson: "I do think you're more fun on your show. Just my opinion."

Stewart: "You know what's interesting, though? You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show."

Yikes. Remind me not to cross Jon Stewart in the future.

Sure, Stewart's tactic may not have been totally fair. It may have been something of an ambush. But would they really have let him talk about media irresponsibility if he had told them his plans in advance? Doubtful. I think what he did was pretty gutsy. It's heartening to find someone who is so concerned about the welfare of the nation that he will take a major risk in order to get his point across. This is why Jon Stewart is my sixth favorite person.

Here's the full transcript. Enjoy.

When I heard the candidates were going to be speaking about domestic issues tonight, I was hoping they would be debating about who had the privilege of doing my dishes and my laundry. Alas, twas not to be. All they did was talk about the economy and taxes and stuff.

Nevertheless, here's the third installment of my in-depth series on Bush and Kerry in Debate Land. (This is sort of like Disneyland, without the ten-dollar sodas.) Once again, this is all my approximation of what the candidates said unless denoted by quotes. And even then, don't hold me to it.

Bush and Kerry emerge from their corners, looking jovial and waving at the crowd in a folksy fashion. Kerry is wearing a yellow bracelet. It looks like one of those things they put on your wrist after you show your license at the bar.

Question #1: (to Kerry) Will our children and grandchildren ever live in a world as safe and secure as the world in which we grew up?

K: Yes, they will. They absolutely must. That's the goal. The question is, how do we agree upon it? This president rushed us into a war, pushed alliances away. We are not as safe as we should be. We can do a better job of homeland security. I can do a better job in the war on terror.

B: Yes, we can be more safe and secure, if we stay on the offensive in the war on terror, and if we spread liberty throughout the world. 3/4 of Al Qaeda leaders have been brought to justice. Afghanistan just had elections!

K: When the president had the chance to capture Osama bin Laden, he changed the focus to Iraq. When asked about bin Laden at a press conference, Bush said he wasn't really that worried about him.

Question #2: (to Bush) We find ourselves with a severe shortage of flu vaccine. How did that happen?

B: Well, we relied on a company in England, and their products turned out to be contaminated. The larger problem is that vaccine manufacturers in America are worried about being sued. This is why I'm a proponent of legal reforms.

K: No, it's a problem with the health care system. It's not working. 82,000 Arizonans lost their health insurance on Bush's watch. This president has turned his back on the wellness of America.

B: I want to remind everyone that a plan is not a litany of complaints. He's got to back it up.

Question #3 (to Kerry): Let's talk about economic security. You promised you would not raise the taxes on those making less than $200,000 a year. How can you keep that promise without exploding the deficit?

K: I'll do it by re-instating pay-as-you-go rules. In the Senate, we used to have to show how we would pay for something before we could get a program approved. Let's restore the fiscal discipline we had in the 1990s. I've laid out a plan showing exactly how I'm going to do it. We'll start by rolling back President Bush's tax cuts on people who make more than $200,000 a year.

B: His rhetoric doesn't match his record. He voted to increase taxes 98 times. He talks about being a fiscal conservative, but he voted to ignore the budget caps. He's a colleague of Ted Kennedy, for God's sake! Let's bring some fiscal sanity back to the halls of congress.

(Sidenote: Whenever Bush says the name "Ted Kennedy," that big vein on his neck starts popping out. You'd think he was talking about Vlad the Impaler.)

Question #4 (to Bush): What do you say to someone in this country who's lost his job because it's gone overseas?

B: I'd say, here's some training and some money for college. What we can do is make sure our education system works. We need to invest in 21st century jobs.

(Sidenote: What are 21st century jobs? Working with sprockets on the Jetsons?

K: The President just switched from the topic of jobs to education. But first, let me say that Bush lecturing me on fiscal responsibility is a lot like Tony Soprano giving me a lecture on law and order in this country. As for jobs, they've cut the training money, the college money, and Pell grants.

Question #5 (to Kerry): Many experts say that a president doesn't have much control over jobs. Is it fair to blame the administration for this loss of jobs?

K: I don't blame him entirely. I blame him for the things he could control. Outsourcing is going to happen. What I can promise you is that I will make the playing field as fair as possible. I want to make sure that you as an American are not subsidizing the loss of your own job. This president didn't stand up for Boeing. He had a chance to take on China for trade manipulation, and he didn't. There have been markets shut to us that we haven't stood up and fought for.

B: Let me start with the Pell grants. We've increased Pell grants by a million students. Let me talk to the workers. You've got more money in your pocket as a result of the tax bill I passed and he opposed. You've got child tax credits. I believe the role of government is to stand side by side with people and help them realize their dreams, not tell them how to live their lives.

(Sidenote: Naturally, this doesn't apply to issues of faith or homosexuality. And speaking of which...)

Question #6: (to Bush) Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?

B: I don't know. We respect everyone's rights and profess tolerance, but we shouldn't have to change our views on marriage. I proposed that amendment because I was worried about the state of marriage. I'm deeply concerned that activist judges are trying to redefine marriage.

K: We're all God's children. (And all God's children got rhythm.) I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, she would tell you that she's just being who she was. She's being who she was born as. It's not a choice. I think we have to respect that. The President and I share the view that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also believe that you can't discriminate, and I'm for partnership rights.

Question #7: (to Kerry) Some Catholic archbiships are telling their parishioners that it would be a sin to vote for you because of your views on abortion and stem-cell research. What do you say to that?

K: Well, I respect their views, but I can't legislate my article of faith. I believe that choice is between a woman, God, and her doctor. (No word yet on whether "her" refers to God or the woman.) I'm not going to allow anyone to come in and change Roe v. Wade. As Kennedy said when he was running for president, "I'm not running as a Catholic president, I'm running as a president who happens to be Catholic."

B: I think it's important to promote a culture of life. I believe the ideal world is one in which every child is welcome. Take partial birth abortion. It's a brutal practice. My opponent voted against that legislation. There are some great alternatives to abortion. Like adoption. And I will continue to fund abstinence programs.

(Sidenote: Many studies are now showing that abstinence-only programs don't work, unless your goal is to create an army of ignorant kids who don't know how to protect themselves from disease. Normal sex-ed programs, on the other hand, have demonstrated efficacy in delaying the onset of sexual activity. Just FYI.)

Question #8: (to Bush) Health care costs are out of control. Who bears responsibility for this?

B: Well, I hope it's not this administration! (laughs) Health care costs are on the rise because the consumers are not involved in the decision-making process. The user of health care is not the purchaser of health care. This is why I'm a strong believer in health savings accounts. I also believe lawsuits are one of the major reasons that health care costs are through the roof.

(Sidenote: Bush adds a peculiar comment here about the horse and buggy days, except that he gets it mixed up and—yes—puts the buggy before the horse.)

K: The reason health care costs are getting higher is that this administration has stood in the way of efforts that would have reduced the costs. The Senate passed a bill that allowed importation of drugs from Canada. Bush blocked it. We wanted Medicare to be able to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. Bush didn't allow it and made it illegal to negotiate. Result? $139 billion windfall for drug companies from your pockets. We also have people who are sicker because they don't have health insurance and have not gotten regular check-ups.

B: He has no Senate record to support this.

K: Yes I do. I helped write the early childhood health care legislation in the 1990s.

Question #9: (to Kerry) You have proposed a massive plan to extend health care coverage to children, and you have said that you can pay for this by rolling back the president's tax cuts from the upper 2%. Several news organizations have run the numbers and say you'll need more than that. Where does the money come from?

K: Bush's characterization of my health care plan is incorrect. My plan is simple. You choose your health plan. You choose your doctor. You don't have to participate in this system at all if you don't want to. We take over Medicaid children from the state so that every child in America is covered. We give you broader competition, which lowers prices. We give small business a 50% tax credit so they get a lower cost for covering employees. When people are covered like this, it saves money later. For example, diagnosing diabetes early can save lots of money down the road.

B: His plan will cost $1.3 trillion dollars. Over 20 million people will be included in government level. This will actually provide an incentive for small businesses NOT to cover their people. Government control over health care results in poor quality. Right now, "our health care system is the envy of the world." We don't want to change that.

(Sidenote: What do you think, guys? My guess is that this statement about our health care system being the envy of the world is wrong. That's my guess because countries with socialized medicine by definition have universal coverage. And while we may have brought you the hamburger (as Morrissey astutely pointed out in his latest CD), we have certainly not got anything like universal health coverage.)

K: I am not proposing a government-run program. I'm giving Americans a choice.

Question #10: (to Bush) We all know that social security is running out of money. You have proposed private savings accounts to fix it. Critics say it will cost a trillion dollars over 10 years before this goes into full effect. What do you say to that?

B: First of all, if you are a Social Security recipient, you'll still get your checks. The system is broken, and we need a new strategy. I believe that younger workers ought to be allowed to take some of their money and put it into savings accounts. This will be a vital issue in my second term. There will be a big cost, but the cost of doing nothing is much more.

K: You just heard the president say that young people can take money out of social security and put it into their own accounts. That's an invitation to disaster. There will be a huge hole in Social Security, and a cut in benefits between 25 and 30 percent. Where does the transitional money come from? The president hasn't told you. He's driving the largest deficits in history. I will not privatize Social Security.

Question #11: (to Kerry) You just said you will not cut Social Security benefits. Alan Greenspan said there's no way to pay benefits as promised unless we recalibrate. If you aren't changing this, is this another problem for our children to solve?

K: No, because we'll find other ways. We'll start by paying down the debt. We'll create jobs in America. We'll do what we did in the 1990s and repair Social Security.

B: I didn't hear any plan. We had a recession. We lost jobs. We passed tax relief.

Question #12: (to Bush) At least 8,000 people cross our borders illegally every day. Do you see this as an economic issue, a terror issue, or a human rights issue?

B: I see it as an economic issue, a terror issue, and a human rights issue. We're using new equipment to detect people crossing the border. Many people come here for jobs. I believe there ought to be a temporary worker card. "As long as there's not an American willing to do their job." I don't believe we ought to have amnesty. We shouldn't reward illegal behavior. If they want to become citizens, they can stand in line just like everybody else.

K: One thing about the previous issue. The middle class family is not making it right now. There's a crapload of economic stratification. (Remember, this is just an approximation, kids.) The president broke his promise on immigration reform. The borders are leaking today more than before 9/11. We need to tighten up borders. We need to have a border workers program, but by itself that's not enough. We need an earned legalization program for people.

B: Borders are safer. He doesn't understand how the borders work.

(Sidenote: This would have been the perfect time for a sarcastic retort from Kerry. Something like, "Well at the border there's a long line of Americans and a long line of Mexicans, and they play Red Rover to see who gets to come in. If a Mexican breaks through the line, he gets to stay." Instead we get:)

K: Lots of people cross the border every day.

Question #13: (to Kerry) The gap between rich and poor is growing wider. Is it time to raise the minimum wage?

K: Yes, it's time. We have fought to try to raise the minimum wage over the past four years, but the Republicans won't even allow a vote on it. In my administration, we will raise it to 7 dollars over several years. We also need to hold onto equal pay. Women work for 76 cents on the dollar compared with men in the same job. That's not right. (You're damn RIGHT it's not!) 15 million workers would be positively affected by raising the minimum wage. This would bring about more consumption to get our economy in gear.

B: Actually, there was a plan that I supported. Let me tell you what's more important. Education. The "No Child Left Behind" act is really a jobs act, if you think about it. (And you will have to think REAL Hard.) We now ask states to measure whether a child can read. A lady once told me, "Reading is the new civil right." She's right. We'll never be able to compete unless we have an education system that doesn't give up on children.

Question #14: (to Bush) You didn't answer this question directly before. Would you like to overturn Roe v. Wade?

B: What he's asking is will there be a litmus test for a judge? There won't.

K: Again, he didn't answer the question. I won't appoint a judge who will undo Roe v. Wade. Clearly, the president wants to leave some ambiguity there.

B: He clearly has a litmus test for his judges, which I disagree with.

Question #15: (to Kerry) Bush said he did not favor a draft, and you agreed. The army is overextended, and many are dealing with back-door drafts, etc. What would you do for relief?

K: I think the fact that these things are happening is a reflection of the president's poor judgment in going to war. I would like to see national guard and reserve be deployed differently, within our own country and for the purpose of homeland security. The most important thing is to work with real alliances, and to share the burdens of the world. I believe that the president broke faith with people when he took this country to war.

B: The best way to provide relief is to succeed in Iraq and train Iraqis to protect their own country. None of the people I've talked to viewed the extended service as a back-door draft. My opponent felt we had to pass a global test to go to war. I won't ever ask for permission to defend my country.

K: I have never suggested a test where we turn over our security to any nation. I will never do that. But I think it makes sense to pass a sort of truth standard, that's how you gain legitimacy in the world.

Question #16: (to Bush) You said if Congress extended the ban on assault weapons then you would sign it. But you did nothing to encourage it, and it was not extended. Why?

B: I believe law-abiding citizens ought to be able to buy a gun. I believe in background checks. Prosecute those who commit crimes with guns.

K: I believe it was a failure of leadership not to reauthorize the assault weapon ban. I am a gun owner, and I respect the second amendment. But I'm also a former law enforcement officer, and most law enforcement people wanted that ban. Criminals and terrorists can buy assault weapons in this country. That's messed up.

(Sidenote: You just know Charlton Heston was watching this at home and screaming at the television, "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers!")

Question #17: (to Kerry) Do you see a need for affirmative action programs, or have we moved beyond that?

K: No, regrettably we've not moved far enough along. This administration has even blocked steps that could have helped move us along. In too many parts of our country, we still have discrimination. Affirmative action does not only apply to issues of color, by the way. It also applies to women. Also, this is the first president never to meet with the NAACP or the black congressional caucus.

B: First, it's not true that I haven't met with the black congressional caucus. Second, I agree that we shouldn't have quotas. We should make sure that education is suitable for low and middle income families. Make sure every child learns, and build on their careers with a college diploma.

Question #18: (to Bush) What part does your faith play in your policy decisions?

B: My faith plays a large part in my life. I pray a lot. I pray for my family. I pray for the troops. I pray for my girls. (I pray for the dog down the street. I pray for the Krispy Kreem guy to come by the White House every morning.) When I make decisions, I consult my faith. And through faith-based organizations we will "unleash the armies of compassion."

(Evangelist Bush pounds the podium for emphasis.)

K: I respect everything the president has said. I share his faith. Freedom is a gift from the almighty. I measure the words of the Bible, but other people measure different things, like the Koran. People all find their own ways to express their connectedness with the greater being. I think we have a lot more loving of our neighbor to do in this country and on this planet.

Question #19: (to Kerry) After 9/11, the country came together like never before. Since then, it's become pretty polarized. What would be your plan for addressing this?

K: In those days after 9/11, I think the president did a terrific job. I was moved and impressed by the speech he gave to Congress. We were all just Americans. I regret to say that the president who said he was a uniter, not a divider, is now presiding over the most divided America in history. I'm committed to changing this. I don't care which side an idea comes from—I'll try to find the common ground.

B: I have a record of bipartisanship in my role as governor of Texas, and I was hoping to do that in the White House. Washington is polarized because so many special interests are entrenched there. I'll continue to try to work to bring sides together. By the way, John McCain likes me better than Kerry.

Question #20: (to both) What is the most important thing you've learned from your strong women?

B: To stand up straight and not scowl. I love the strong women around me. Laura's out campaigning for me right now. She speaks English a lot better than I do. At least people understand what she's saying. I saw her at a party and it was love at first sight.

K: We're all lucky people who married up. Some say me more than some, but I can take it. (This is in reference to his wife's billion-dollar fortune.) My wife is wonderful. My mom told me: "integrity, integrity, integrity." My wife and daughters keep me honest. They don't let me get away with anything. I'm blessed.

For you hardcore politics junkies who didn't happen to catch the second debate tonight, I have prepared a by-the-minute account of the event. I have illuminated the major points and commented when I was puzzled or irritated by what I heard. No edits have been made except for clarification and where I stupidly left words out or something. Comments in quotes are direct quotations. All others are approximations.

They're sitting on stools. Man, that looks weird. These two larger-than-life guys sitting on stools.

Question #1. Senator Kerry, are you wishy-washy?

K: No, I've had a consistent position all along. My opponent has employed weapons of mass deception.

Question #2. Mr. Bush, was war in Iraq justified even with no WMDs?

B: 9/11, 9/11, 9/11

Bush = Jerry Falwell?

Question #3. Senator Kerry, is your plan for dealing with Iraq the same as Bush's?

K: No, there's too much chaos now. I've got a better plan.

Kerry uses Socratic method with himself for awhile, concludes that world leaders must be involved.

B: My opponent's plan for involving world leaders won't work. I know how these people think.

Question #4. Mr. Bush, what is your plan to repair relations with other countries?

At this point Bush invokes Reagan. There are some confused pronunciamentos about the Palestinian conflict, and he mentions that we didn't join the criminal court in Europe, even though that decision was unpopular.

Why won't we participate? Because we shouldn't have to be held to the same standards as the rest of the world. I guess he doesn't want to end up in the Hague on the wrong side of a prosecution. With stuff like Abu Ghraib and Gitmo mucking up his already checkered record (hey that rhymes!), are we surprised?

Kerry reminds us that military is in charge of winning the war, but it's the president's job to win the peace.

Thank you for finally making that distinction.

Question #5. Iran sponsors terrorism, will have nukes in 2-3 years. Senator Kerry, what will you do if sanctions don't work?

K: Join with Europe and crack down on proliferation as a whole. It's hard to be a good example when we are engineering new types of bunker-busting weapons.

B: Axis of evil.

Question #6. Mr. Bush, how can we sustain our presence without a draft?

B: I've heard "on the Internets" that there are rumors of a draft. We have a well-trained army and they can deal with all world threats. "We're not going to have a draft so long as I'm the president."

(Subtext: readers are referred to the paradox of Schrodinger's cat, in which the cat is said to be both inside and outside the box at the same moment in time. Likewise, our soldiers will undergo special training in order to be in Iraq, North Korea, and Afghanistan simultaneously.)

K: (name dropping for 75 seconds) Our military is overextended, what with stop-loss policies, backdoor draft. Building alliances will allow us to do more.

Bush rebuts, sort of. "Servio" Berlusconi is mentioned, and yes, Poland.

Bush bullies the commentator into extra time, including a mini-tantrum that reminds me a little of Napoleon Dynamite.

Question #7. Senator Kerry, why haven't there been more terrorist attacks, and what would you do to preserve our safety?

K: We will be hit again. Intelligence is the most important tool in a fight on terrorism, and this comes from the best cooperation with other nations. Bush's priority is tax cuts for wealthy, rather than homeland security.

B: We have to be right 100% of the time. The terrorists only have to be right once. I'm worried. I'm worried. I know there are people working overtime. We will spread freedom to the world.

Question #8. Mr. Bush, why did you block the importation of drugs from Canada?

B: I wanted to make sure they were safe. Want to make sure drugs cure and don't kill.

Because if the FDA approves it, we know it's safe. No, wait, there's that whole Vioxx thing. Oh, and the hormone therapy thing.

K: He made it illegal for Medicare to bulk-purchase drugs. He put profit in the drug companies' pockets. I want you to get drugs. He can't balance the budget.

Question #9. Senator Kerry, how can you reconcile wanting better health care and having John Edwards, a trial lawyer, as a VP?

K: Lawsuits are only 1% of total cost of health care. I have a plan to improve things. I have infinite faith in Mr. Edwards.

ME: Will somebody please address the misconception at the core of this question? That it's somehow a problem for people to have legal recourse when a doctor screws up and destroys their lives? Please? Anyone? Buehler?

B: Kerry didn't do anything about the health care issues and now wants government to run it. "This is what liberals do." They create government-sponsored health care. It would ruin the quality of health care.

Question #10. Mr. Bush, you've had a Republican majority in House and Senate, and have not vetoed a single spending bill. Why is that, when the deficit is so huge?

B: Deficit caused by reception. We have to spend the money to protect ourselves and our families.

Please substitue "yachts" for "families."

K: $5.6 trillion dollar surplus go down the drain. This is the first president in 72 years to lose jobs. The first time we've ever had a tax cut when we're at war. I'll fight for fiscal responsibility.

I agree about the need to end corporate giveaways, but please stop doing that weird tongue thing, John. You're creeping me out.

Question #11. Senator Kerry, will you solemnly swear into the camera that you will not raise taxes on families making less than $200 grand a year?

K: (looking into camera) Yes. More help for children, colleges, etc. Why hasn't my opponent vetoed any spending bill? (Here he mentions a quote about the budget from John McCain, whose name I sometimes confuse with Steve McQueen. They are both men of honor, and they both starred in The Magnificent Seven)

Bush says Kerry is not fiscal conservative. (Follows up by calling kettle black.)

B: (about the discrepancy in raised taxes for wealthiest Americans) "We've got battling green eye shades."

I don't know what that means, and I can't figure out what else he could have said. This debate has officially gone into the realm of the absurd. Please ignore the fact that everyone in the room has just turned into a rhinoceros.

Question #12. How would you rate yourself as an environmentalist, Mr. Bush?

B: Well, we improved off-road diesel stuff, and cleared the skies. There are sore spots in the urban areas, which we're fixing. We'll increase the wetlands. And the healthy forests. The trees weren't being harvested, they need to be saved, they're like tinder....

I'm pretty sure that if you didn't already fundamentally understand what the Healthy Forest initiative entailed, you sure as hell won't understand it based on what Bush said.

And by the way, he proposed a hydrogen automobile.

K: This is one of the worst administrations in history in terms of environments. The air would be CLEANER if we hadn't passed that law. We're going backwards. He pulled out of the global warming, and didn't accept the science.

B: Well, the Kyoto would have cost us jobs.

K: Kyoto was flawed, but Bush didn't try to fix it. He just gave up on it and declared it dead. That's why other countries are frustrated with us.

Question #13. Senator Kerry, how can the US be competitive in manufacturing given the wage necessary to maintain the standard of living workers expect?

K: I will shut corporate loopholes, and I will give credits for companies that keep American jobs. Health care is the thing that's hitting us hardest in terms of business losses. I want to lower health care costs. We'll free our people from dependence on foreign oil.

B: Medical liability reform. Health savings accounts. The best way to keep American jobs here is to have a good energy plan. Less regulation to keep jobs here.

K: 96% of small businesses will not be affected by my plan.

A little later:

B: "I own a lumber company? That's news to me. Want some wood?"

Question #14. Mr. Bush, with expansions of the Patriot Act, why are my civil rights (specifically 4th amendment) being watered down?

B: They're not being watered down. I hope you don't think they are. "Whoever's president must guard your liberties." Our law enforcement must have every tool to fight terror.

K: A whole lot of folks want to get rid of some parts of the Patriot Act, including a bunch of Republicans. People are being held captive without access to a lawyer. This is America. I agree that parts of the Act are needed. The FBI and CIA must be able to communicate. But we can't let the terrorists change the way we do things, especially our rights.

Question #15. Senator Kerry, wouldn't it be wise to use only second-generation stem-cell research rather than embryonic stem-cell research?

K: (name dropping for 60 seconds) We can do ethically guided stem-cell research. Most of these embryos are either going to be destroyed or left frozen. I understand the concern behind the question, but it's respecting life to look for a cure.

B: I think we should leave them in the fridge.

K: Scientists agree that the lines of stem-cells that exist are not adequate. There aren't enough, or they're contaminated.

B: I'm balancing science and ethics!

Question #16. Mr. Bush, if there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court, who would you choose and why?

B: "I'm not telling. Heh heh heh." I would pick someone who didn't let a personal opinion to interfere with his work. Like someone who says that "under God" can't be on the dollar.

Because apparently religion is not a matter of personal opinion. It's a matter of fact.

K: quotes Bush as saying, "What we need are more conservative justices on the court." I think we need a good judge. The future of things that matter to you is at stake with the court.

Sadly, no one advocates for Judge Judy.

Question #17. Senator Kerry, suppose you were speaking to a voter that believes abortion is murder, what would you say about her concerns that tax money may be used to pay for abortions?

K: I'm a spiritual man, and I have my beliefs on this issue. But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it. I can talk to people about making other choices, and responsibility. You have to afford people their constitutional rights.

B: We won't spend tax payers money on abortion. Every child should be protected by law and welcomed in life. We need a "culture of life."

K: It's not that simple. "It's never quite as simple as the president would have you believe."

B: "You can run, but you can't hide. The reality."

Question #18. Mr. Bush, please give 3 instances in which you felt you'd made a wrong decision and what you did to correct it.

B: There were some appointments that you'd never heard of ...(trailing off). But on the big questions, I stand by the decisions I've made. "I did the right decision."

K: "I believe the president made a huge mistake, a catastrophic mistake ..." by not building a true global coalition and going to war as a last resort. "There's no bigger judgment for the president of the United States than when he goes to war." It's not enough to say that Hussein might have done something.

Kerry's closing statement: Thanks. Thanks some more. We both feel strongly about our beliefs. We differ on what makes America stronger. Our country is strongest when we lead alliances in the world. Let's also work on the environment, the schools, the health care system. We must be fiscally responsible. Stronger at home, respected in the world.

Bush's closing statement: "Who can lead? Who can get things done?" We've been through a lot. Home ownership is on a rise. We need to not increase the scope of the federal government. We need an energy plan that will help us become less dependent on the—9/11!—foreign sources of oil. Tomorrow Afghanistan will be having elections. 9/11! Eventually, this will happen in Iraq.

So did y'all watch the debates last night? What did you think? It seemed to me that one of these men is a good public speaker and one is not. I don't know. Maybe it was just me. Bush said some mighty strange things, and for awhile it seemed his brain was stuck on some kind of loop:

Bush: ... mixed messages ... hard work ... changing positions ... mixed messages ... hard work ... changing positions ...

There were confidence-inspiring comments about the situation in Iraq:

Bush: (twitching) I know about the war. I watch it on TV.

(Kerry starts to giggle and masks it by drinking a glass of water.)

Then there was him getting defensive about the wrong part of the accusation:

Kerry: The real issue is that Saddam Hussein was not the one who attacked us. Osama bin Laden attacked us.

Bush (indignant): Of course I know Osama bin Laden was the one who attacked us! I know that!

But my favorite was the bizarre statement Bush made when he mentioned going to visit the widow of a fallen soldier:

Bush: It was difficult. I loved her as well as I could.

What?! Is that a flask in your suit coat, Mr. President? Anyway, I noticed that Bush seemed annoyed for much of the debate. He sighed and twitched and huffed his rebuttals like a pouty child. I couldn't help but think of that line from the musical "Evita" in which Argentinian leader Juan Peron bemoans the fact that he is forced to participate in elections in order to remain in office:

"The inconvenience—having to get a majority."

More to come...

As I've mentioned before, Nick and I recently went to Colorado. What I didn't mention was that we stayed in a hotel with one of those Nintendo things in the room. We scanned the menu listing the available games, and when we made it through the list, the menu continued into the adult films. For a lark, we checked out the titles and laughed at their ridiculous pictures. But after the catalog of 50 or so films had gone by and we went back to the games, a gnawing realization began to insinuate itself on my brain. Every single one of these films—whether about chesty cheerleaders, naughty nurses, or buxom beekeepers—was targeted toward white heterosexual men. What's up with that? Notice to hotel chains everywhere, not everyone in this country is a white heterosexual man. Perhaps you've never realized this? (I have U.S. Census data to prove it.) Once in a great while someone who is of another gender, race, or orientation may happen to wander into your hotel. They may be feeling lonely and seeking out a few creature comforts. But instead of solace, they will be faced with adult media that in no way represents their culture or interests. It's a travesty, is what it is.

I would love to tell you to call on members of Congress to remedy this appalling inequity. I would love to invite all of you to inform your Senator, Congressman, or Congresswoman that you will no longer tolerate mass disenfranchisement at the hands of greedy hotel corporations. Somehow, though, I don't think the Sam Brownbacks of the country would go for it. So instead, let's launch a massive letter-writing campaign to every hotel we stay in that is guilty of this homogeneity. Tell them we want to see a little diversity in the line-up. Let's bewilder them into seeing our point of view; because this kind of oversight is not acceptable, even if they do leave the light on for you.

Ladies, are you tired of going home night after night to an empty house? Are you tired of family members haranguing you on holidays, asking if you're "seeing anyone special"? Dating is difficult. We've all had those embarrassing conversations at the bar, and experienced the anxiety of memorizing a three-minute speech for speed-dating events. Who needs the headaches? Try my new program, called Find Love at the Voting Booth.

Find Love at the Voting Booth was developed by German researchers who were looking for a better way to meet men. The results were amazing! Rigorous tests and trials have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that civic duty is sexy. This is because a woman exercising her right to vote secretes a type of pheromone that has a magnetizing effect on handsome men!

At one time, women who demonstrated intelligence and opinions were considered to be freaks of nature, and not very feminine to boot. But now those attitudes are more out of fashion than last year's handbags! Times have changed, and men are lining up to take home a smart woman who isn't afraid to cast her ballot for the candidate of her choice. I'm living proof that this system works. I met my husband at the polls,* and we've been happy ever since! Find Love at the Voting Booth can work for you, too.

What would you expect to pay for a program like this? A hundred dollars? Two hundred dollars? If you act now, you can participate in the Find Love at the Voting Booth program absolutely free! But wait, there's more! If you take advantage of my offer now, we'll also throw in a tasteful oval-shaped lapel sticker that announces your participation in the program and prolongs the magnetizing effects of the pheromone for up to seven days afterward! You can't beat that!

Act now, while supplies last! Offer expires November 2nd, 2004.

*We actually met several miles from the nearest polling station.

Within the universe, there are two known singularities that cause time to slow down and come to a grinding halt: black holes, and presidential elections.

I've been thinking a lot about black holes, ever since Stephen Hawking lost his famous bet. You see, Hawking had always claimed that it's not possible to recover information once it's been sucked into a black hole. But in July of this year, he changed his mind. Black holes do release some kinds of information, he said. And because he changed his mind on this, he owes John Preskill from Caltech a big, fat set of encyclopedias.

As I reflected on the nature of black holes, it occurred to me that there are more than passing similarities between these garbage disposals of nature and presidential elections.

First of all, elections, like black holes, can be detected by an absence of something.

According to Cambridge University, a black hole is a "region of spacetime from which nothing can escape, even light." The Hubble telescope has shown us dark regions of space that are haloed with rings of dust. When gravitational measurements are calculated, the areas are found to have gravity that is a million times stronger than that of our sun. That means the objects are almost certainly black holes. Even though we can't see them, the evidence of them is everywhere.

A presidential election also can be detected by the absence of something: namely, intelligent discourse. What you have instead is a whirling eddy of negativity, obliterating the airwaves with darkness and duplicity. You have a swarm of attack ads that only succeed in canceling each other out. A little information may leak out, but not much.

Then there is the issue of time distortion.

Time appears to pass more slowly when the local gravitational field is stronger. So if you were to observe a presidential candidate being sucked into a black hole—and you were at a constant distance from the black hole—the presidential candidate would appear to fall forever, never quite making it to the event horizon. This is what election year is like. Time telescopes, and November is always several months away.

Of course, the third and most obvious similarity between elections and black holes is that when you get close to them, they both really start to suck. I just hope that something good and enlightening will emerge from this current political black hole. Then again, we'll probably have to settle for a nice set of encyclopedias.

1. Bottled water at Lollapalooza
2. Frogs
3. Health care
4. Gravity
5. Siamese fighting fish
6. College
7. College textbooks
8. Hair pieces
9. Slinkys
10. Youth
11. Beauty
12. The Brothers Karamazov
13. String theory
14. String cheese
15. Buns of steel
16. Our sense of dignity
17. Language
18. Profanity
19. Conspiracy theories
20. Jungian archetypes
21. Hot Wheels
22. The iconic cult status of Kerouac
23. Transmogrification
24. Transsubstantiation
25. Tintinnabulation
26. Advice at the Oracle of Delphi
27. Portraits of the Queen
28. Radiohead
29. Igneous rocks
30. Schlemiel, schlimazel, Hassenpfeffer Incorporated
31. Kinetic energy
32. Our souls

Last Friday, at 11:15 in the evening, Nick and I went out to the Amtrak station in town. Kerry and Edwards had just finished a rally at Union Station in Kansas City, and their whistle-stop train was due to come through Lawrence about 11:30. No one was exactly sure what would happen then, but the rumor was that if there was a crowd, the train would stop and the Brothers John would say a few words to the party faithful of Lawrence, Kansas.

There was a crowd, alright. By 11:30, there were about seven or eight hundred people gathered on or near the tiny train platform. Most were Kerry supporters, armed with balloons, signs, etc., but there were a few Bushies and anarchists. A group of tough-looking middle-aged men held signs reading "Laborers for Kerry," and they were standing immediately in front of some College Republicans with Bush/Cheney signs. If there was going to be a riot, I figured, that was where it was going to occur. There, or where the anarchists were perched.

Nick had brought his fancy-schmancy camera, but there was no place to set up the equipment, so he had to hand-hold it. I kept a tight grip on the heavy tripod in case the event turned into Altamont, and I needed to protect myself.

And then we waited. About 11:45, the police began to speak over the megaphones. "The Kerry-Edwards train will be through in about an hour." There was a groan, but no one moved to leave. "There will be a regular Amtrak train coming through before that one, and we're asking everyone to be courteous and step aside so the passengers can get on and off." We all grunted our assent and began to play Bejeweled and Mah Jongg on our cell phones. Those without entertainment kept chattering to one another.

At about 12:25, the passenger train came through and, because the crowd was feeling loopy after standing for so long, we began to cheer and hold up our signs as the train pulled in. A man in front of me held a sign reading, "Thanks for Stopping!" Sleepy passengers looked out their windows in astonishment. Some of them waved and smiled, and in one window all that could be seen was a downward-pointing thumb, which reminded me of the green, disembodied creatures in Dr. Seuss' the Lorax. The passengers who disembarked did so to a presidential fanfare. At last the train was on its way, and we were all in great spirits.

At 12:45, we heard another train whistle and noticed that the crossing lights to the east had turned red. This was our moment. We began to cheer. We heard the screech of brakes and the train started through the station. There was a blur of hands and faces, and the "Kerry-Edwards" logo could be seen on each of the cars. Surely it would slow down, I thought. Was it slowing down? But the cars just kept flashing by, and then all at once the last one had passed and we could see a shadowy figure waving from the back of the train as it disappeared around a corner into the darkness. It was too bizarre to be true.

"That was it?!" someone cried out. And then we all began to laugh and disperse, although secretly our hearts were broken. Just a little.

But that wasn't it. Next day I heard a news report saying that Kerry and Edwards had intended to stop in Lawrence, but that there had been a miscommunication with the driver. To apologize for the screw-up, John Edwards arranged to make a speech on Sunday at Abe & Jake's, an enormous tavern and meeting place by the river.

We arrived about an hour early, and waited in a long, slow line of umbrella-toting locals to get through security. Even given the rain and the short notice, the place was packed. Several thousand people were still outside when the building reached capacity, so the Abe & Jake's people rigged up a mic system so that everyone outside could hear the speech. Those Abe & Jake's people are cool like that.

I was impressed. Edwards spent a good deal of time talking about how there are essentially two Americas—one for the elite, and one for everyone else. We knew this already, of course, but Edwards actually had some concrete suggestions for improvement. It's important to remember that he's the only one of the candidates not born to wealth and privilege, so when he speaks about making two piles of bills (pay now, pay later), you know that he's speaking from experience. He talked about growing up in a small town in the South, where his father worked in a mill, and how people's lives were so dependent on each paycheck that they could be devastated by a single mishap—a layoff, or an illness in the family. He also spoke about seeing separate drinking fountains, and separate sections of the movie theater designated for blacks and whites. This background gives some legitimacy to his crusade for social justice, and his passion for eradicating poverty. The latter, incidentally, is not exactly a "sexy" issue, but Edwards seems determined to focus on it anyway. I remember during one of the early debates, when he used half his time to answer a mediator's question and spent the rest talking about inequities of class and race. He doesn't get nearly enough credit for this.

And he brought his family. His wife, Elizabeth, has become quite a celebrity in her own right; she's been blogging on the official Kerry-Edwards site, and her husband calls her a rock star. Their children were on stage, and their little girl was tugging on John's hand for much of the speech.

Afterward, Edwards even went out and made a second speech for the crowd outside. Again—very impressed. I think he's going to be a real asset for Kerry.

By the way, I'm dying to make a joke about "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," but I think I'm the only one who remembers that from Early American Lit. For the curious, "Sinners" was your classic fire-and-brimstone sermon, written and delivered by a wild-eyed minister by the name of Jonathan Edwards. But no matter. I shall move on, even if the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse bar my way.

One unrelated political addendum. A few months ago, William Jefferson Clinton came to speak at Allen Fieldhouse in Lawrence. This was to commemorate the opening of the Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics, for which Clinton was the first official speaker. Turns out Clinton and Dole are great friends, and their respect for each other was obvious throughout the proceedings. Dole made a gracious speech introducing the former president, and he was full of intelligent, yet self-deprecating jokes. "Lawrence is the place in Kansas where I always get the most compliments . . . and the fewest votes." Then Clinton got up, said he was tired of being Bob Dole's straight man, and the show got rolling.

I brought my digital camera, but the lights were funky so I had a hard time getting any decent shots. Oddly, the ones with the flash looked darker than the ones without, but at least they were clear. The ones taken without the flash looked like experiments in psychedelia: colored lights streaking across the frame; Bob Dole's head merging into Clinton's (what a political coup that would be!). They were a mess. So here's one that looks as if it was taken from inside a mausoleum. The Crypt Keeper is just out of the frame.

First there is an entity, a single cell, which comes into being within an idyllic pool of ground water. There it is, the first living thing on the planet. It is quite solitary, but it decides to make the best of its situation by creating copies of itself. Over millions of years, these copies bind together and eventually diversify, creating primitive plants and sea creatures. Here we have mollusks, echinoderms, coelenterates, and worms, which feed on the water plants and collectively prefigure every form of modern life. Before long, the most precocious of these sea creatures becomes larger and develops a skeleton.

Some of them grow legs. They crawl out of the muck under a blazing yellow sky and promptly mutate into amphibians, birds, insects, and reptiles. The reptiles do better on land because: a) they stop breathing water altogether; and b) they produce eggs with impenetrable, leathery shells that protect the young-uns from harm. Soon there are dinosaurs and a multitude of small, dog-like mammals. The huge, thundering dinosaurs rule like warlords for awhile, but their hubris gets the better of them when they try to stand up to a meteorite. By this time, Pangaea has been fractured for awhile, and the continents are closer to their current position on the globe.

Then there are the apes. There is something special about the apes.

The brains of some of the apes are getting larger all the time, and their physical features begin to undergo radical changes. Ardipithecus ramidus becomes Australopithecus anamensis, and so on. The apes walk increasingly upright. They exhibit a greater degree of control over their environment. Homo habilis is the first to figure out tools, and the earliest first-aid class begins shortly thereafter. (He has a fairly thick skull, after all.) Homo erectus uses fire, and discovers that steak does not always have to be eaten rare. Homo sapiens is smarter, yet. He constructs self-sustaining civilizations and, judging by the cave drawings, the notion of ars gratis ars.

Based on their instinctive need for social hierarchy, the Homo sapiens maintain that some of them should be more important than others, even though this type of structure is no longer necessary to guarantee their survival. They select some from among themselves based on a number of varying criteria—strength, intelligence, agility, and a pleasing configuration of facial and bodily characteristics. Some of these chosen creatures are given positions of authority or—much later—featured in films and magazines. The less-important creatures spend a lot of time talking about them.

Homo sapiens like to build things to show how important they are, things like pyramids and colossal statues. They learn how to work with bronze, iron, and steel. They split the atom and send delegates to the hunk of rock that is closest to their planet.

Apes have always been quarrelsome, but since they got smart they fight even more. Homo sapiens either fight about Stuff (as the apes always have), or they fight about Ideas. The Ideas are usually about how Stuff should be distributed or about what kind of omniscient being lives in the sky. The Homo sapiens in positions of authority figure out that if they can't provide more Stuff to satisfy their constituents, they can satiate them with Ideas. Some of them believe they have the right to kill other Homo sapiens who do not embrace the same Ideas. Others use Ideas as a means to an end. One in particular initiates a war that is supposed to be about Ideas, but is actually about Stuff. Homo sapiens in other parts of the world think the war is a bad Idea, but he ignores them. Even when this war starts to go wrong, he maintains that the Idea is worth the sacrifice of thousands of Homo sapiens and that his particular omniscient being approves of it all.

All of which is pretty uppity for someone whose ancestors ate pond scum.

I've been amazed by so many things as of late. I was amazed when the Supreme Court struck down a Texas anti-sodomy law last year. I was amazed by the recent Massachusetts court decision saying that gay marriage could not be prohibited under the state constitution. And I was amazed when San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom began marrying same-sex couples a few weeks back. Maybe, I thought, this country is not totally, mind-numbingly hopeless after all.

Then Doug Mays, the illustrious speaker of the Kansas House, announced that gays and lesbians in Kansas should not expect their state to follow the example of Massachusetts. Oh, you think? I bet the gays and lesbians of Kansas had NO IDEA that Kansas would fight this enlightened stance kicking and screaming. I bet Doug's little announcement shocked them to the core. I mean, this state is so progressive, who would have thought? Look folks, the presidential candidates never come here because there is no question about which way the state will vote. If a cardboard cutout of Napoleon ran under the Republican ticket, we'd vote for it. I'm grateful to be living in Lawrence, which is a bastion of progressivism, but I know for a fact that gays and lesbians in this city are under no illusion about how the remainder of the state views their lifestyle. Concealment is a way of life here, which is unforgivable and sad. In fact, I think this bull-headed, anti-gay business is on par with when Kansas tried to ban the teaching of evolution in schools. The whole world laughed at us (rightfully so), and most Kansans didn't even blush.

This place makes me crazy sometimes.

In Canada, gay marriage has been legal since last June. But, as usual, America is mired down in all sorts of self-righteous objections to this imminently sensible and humane step. Meanwhile, Europe looks on in amusement as we make a huge production about the exposure of a mammary gland. How is it that the human body, and what is done with it, came to be obscene, when every day our kids are exposed to a "Clockwork Orange" world of violence and murder on prime-time television? Which do you think is more harmful?

Not long ago, Nick and I rented a critically acclaimed French film called Romance, in which sex is depicted matter-of-factly, genitals and all. Because we rented it from Blockbuster, however, all the "graphic" scenes were heavily edited or simply cut out, and what was left didn't make any sense. It certainly didn't convey what was supposed to be conveyed. The meaning was totally lost. We rented it again from a "real" video store, and were amazed at the difference. The sex shown was in no way violent or offensive—just realistic. And it occurred to me that this is why Americans don't generally write books like The Unbearable Lightness of Being, in which sex is used both as a literal device and as a metaphor for spiritual questing. We can't see the truth behind things because we're too busy giggling. Our literary (and cinematic) depictions of sex are always based on what is puerile and titillating, not what is realistic. And in these depictions, those few libertines who dare to trample the social mores of the time may find temporary gratification, but they will always be punished for their choices in the end. This is why Americans, and why women, in particular, grow up thinking there is something wrong with their bodies. This is why authentic emotional intimacy is so difficult for couples in America.

Americans are so weird about sex, especially gay sex. I have never understood how people can say that gay marriage threatens heterosexual marriage. How does it erode away anything except for our collective ignorance? Furthermore, it hasn't escaped my attention that this issue has compelled all sorts of previously secular people to begin using words like "sacred," as if there haven't been plenty of heterosexual people who've made a mockery of marriage. For most people in this country, marriage has long been a secular institution. So why on earth should we forbid two people who love each other from making the formal, symbolic commitment the rest of us take for granted? And if it is about religion, then why not subject heterosexual couples to the same scrutiny, refusing to marry them unless they can demonstrate an unequivocal spirituality? I think the anti-gay marriage stance must be partly derived from the idea of marriage as being an institution designed exclusively for procreation (which means that, as a married person without kids, I'm a degenerate, too). I'm tempted to say it's also an economic issue, because more married people means more benefits businesses will have to shell out for spouses. I don't know.

Why do so many Americans continue to believe that "separate but unequal" is an acceptable response to this issue? It seems we're still living the legacy of "Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education," in which proponents of a different kind of segregation subjected the country to their regressive ideologies.

I hate to sound like the bleeding-heart, hippie idealist I am, but it seems clear to me that people don't get anywhere by emphasizing their differences. The only time we can make progress is when we look at the things that make us the same. So come on, America, let's pull it together before the world leaves us behind, and we become a mirror of the kind of repressive, fundamentalist cultures we love to condemn.

"Without contraries is no progression." —William Blake

Remember in Logan's Run, when the computer tells the 25-year-old Sandman that he has to go undercover to capture the 29-year-old runners (who are fleeing Carousel, the laser-light show that kills), and all of a sudden the red light on his own hand starts blinking and he realizes he's just lost four years? That's kind of what I imagine happening the moment a President steps into the White House. They all go into the presidency as vital, robust young men, and emerge as weird zombie versions of themselves.

Nick says it's something in the White House water, and that if the President would just drink bottled instead, he'd be fine.

Naturally, the common explanation for this accelerated decrepitude is that the President has the metaphorical weight of the world on his shoulders. I don't buy this. My theory is that, on both a physical and metaphysical level, presidents are born and die within their terms. They're like Rutger Hauer replicants, programmed to live a mere 48 months (unless granted the reprieve of an additional term, of course). Their bodies proceed with the aging process as if this is their total expected life span—the first year is all youthful enthusiasm; the second year you're buying Jaguars and scoping out college girls; the third year you're eating Jell-o for every meal; and the fourth year, well, you look like death. It's sort of like the ratio of dog years to people years. Year against year, Nixon aged faster while he was in office than Checkers ever did. But then, Checkers never got to go to China.

At any rate, with the next election looming, I can't help imagining what this current crop of candidates would look like when churned through the White House aging machine. Bush already looks like Tollund Man after a three-day bender. John Edwards, with his boyish good looks, may be transformed overnight into a doddering Charlton Heston (sans gun fetish, I hope). Lieberman may come out looking like Strom Thurmond—after burial. Kerry could probably age with some dignity, sort of a salty Hugh Hefner type, but I imagine Dean as Ben Gunn from Treasure Island, complete with long, tangled white hair, a torn robe, and a crazed expression. As for Kucinich, I picture him huddled over a letter opener in the Oval Office, whispering "my Precious" over and over again.

Scary, scary stuff.

President or not, though, aging is a fate we all must contend with. One day I'll have to go on Carousel, too. (That is, if the Sandman can catch me—I've been running marathons in my spare time.)

Come on, everybody. Ease up on my boy Howard Dean.

I've heard the primal scream. I've even heard it set to music. But I fail to see why the media considers it to be such a monumental screw-up. Sure, it was a little raucous for a concession speech. Okay, more than a little, but did anybody really expect him to lay down and die after the disappointment of Iowa? This is Howard we're talking about. Good old grass-roots Howard. He was trying to re-energize his supporters, and how was he supposed to do that without getting excited himself? Yeah, it was kind of cheesy, but it was genuine. Besides, doesn't anyone remember when Mr. Keating explained about the cathartic value of Walt Whitman's "barbaric yawp"?

Over the past few days, I've heard pundits of every flavor talk about how damaging this single incident will be to Dean's candidacy. Come on, people. All he did was scream—it's not like he smeared himself with war paint and tried to scalp Bill Frist. I know it's unfamiliar, but what you're seeing here is a politician with passion—passion about his campaign, passion about his stance on the war, passion about social justice, etc. Compared with Dean, most of the other candidates just seem like robots (not even the nifty Rock 'em Sock 'em kind), spouting prefabricated sound bytes that are supposed to appeal to the broadest number of people while offending the fewest. For example, we've got Nice Southern Robot, Connecticut Weasel Robot, Vietnam Vet Robot, and Senior Officer Vietnam Vet Robot. (Kucinich and Sharpton are not robots, of course, but neither do they have a reasonable chance to win. Sorry, guys.) Don't get me wrong, I would be perfectly happy with Kerry, Clark, or Edwards as president. They seem truly concerned about the country, and I like what they have to say. But the thing is, these guys never get really animated about stuff the way Dean does. For an even more glaring contrast, think about Dean's enthusiasm during the Iowa speech, and then compare it with our current president, whose voice never rises above a bland, Orwellian drone.

Shudder.

Look, I heard the scream, and I wasn't the slightest bit alarmed by it. In fact, I thought it was great. Dean may not know karate, but he knows ka-razy! And that's a welcome change from the kind of mealy-mouthed, "Cheney-may-I" subservience we've been getting from the Democratic party in recent years. This edginess may be just the infusion of life we need to convince the country we mean business.

My advice to everyone besides Howard: Give the guy a break.

My advice to Howard: Don't let them bully you around. Don't tone down the rhetoric one iota. Some of us love you just the way you are.