Cover your jugulars, it's VP Cheney's favorite night

Supposedly you can deduce quite a bit about a person from his or her eating habits – so what, exactly, does it say about President Bush that, when he has a gourmet chef at his personal disposal, he still favors dishes that read like something off an especially unimaginative children's menu?

However you slice it, it doesn't exactly bode well that the leader of the free world doesn't like "green food" and enjoys savoring the decadent feast for the senses that is the "grilled-cheese sandwich on white bread with Kraft singles." (Gee, is that served with a side of "freshly-simmered Campbell's Tomato Soup garnished with a school of slightly stale Cheddar Goldfish?")

In that spirit, I've taken the liberty of concocting a sampling of festive treats that should be on this year's White House Halloween menu – I guarantee, you'll want to make doubly sure you beat House Speaker Hastert to this buffet table:

• The Seasonally Embellished, Firm Yet Flexible Dessert Pastries Formerly Known As Stay-The-Course Petits Fours

• Osama bin Laden Tootsie-Pop Ghosts! (Oooh, scary – watch out, he's gonna getcha!)

• Fresh-Pulled, Salt-Water-Boarded Taffy

• Remember those gross black and orange wrapped peanut butter things always left at the bottom of your trick-or-treat bag alongside all the other crap that sucked, like Smarties and plastic anti-abortion fetuses? They're now going by "Katherine Harris Delights."

• Tony Snow's Spiderwebs of Subterfuge Cupcakes

• Crispy, Oven-Baked Pumpkin Seeds Lightly Salted And Seasoned With DEMOCRATS WILL RAISE YOUR TAXES AND MAKE YOU MARRY GAYS!!!!!!

• Witches' Brew With Eye of Pelosi and Hair of Hillary

• Kim Jong Il's Popcorn Balls of Concentrated Nuclear Evil... Served With Delicious Candy Corn!

• Hand-Dipped Caramel Apples Served "Au Foley" (laced with GHB and/or razor blades)

• Novelty Headstone Sugar Cookies Iced With The Names of the Incumbent GOP Congressional Delegation


And, just as an extra special treat, check out the new and reigning best campaign ad of the season. Happy Halloween!

Like a dose of L-Dopa to politics as usual

Never mind how even festive holiday gourds are now fleeing from our president when a camera is near – few phenomena can cause an otherwise optimistic citizen to all but abandon faith in this nation's entire democratic experiment quite like repeated and prolonged exposure to campaign ads.

Sure, some argue TV ads are a relic of a bygone media era and command little influence in themselves amid all the on-air clutter (though obviously not everyone), but a case can be made that ads have a singular way of reflecting, condensing and driving the broader discourse; paring it down into its most basic, most evocative terms.

And when that discourse descends, quite literally, into sock puppetry, can we really blame citizens for not wanting to show up at the polls (or, for that matter, other nations for not wanting to import and subject themselves to such a state sponsored freakshow, or the leaders it produces)?

Still, every once in a while, an ad manages to convey a relevant message in a fresh, resonant way that the simple appeals to reason or routine recitations of ideology preceding it have not. Take the ads Michael J. Fox has filmed for pro stem-cell research Democratic Senate candidates Claire McCaskill in Missouri and Ben Cardin in Maryland, and for Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle.

I think the left is finally onto something here – if fear's not your mobilization device of choice, go for the guilt. And what could possibly be more visceral than an ad featuring a young, beloved actor (and what is an actor but a nonrepresentative, less corrupt variation of a politician?) beset by a debilitating, bad-roll-of-the-genetic-dice disease? An ad that only the likes of Rush Limbaugh will criticize publicly, further reinforcing the message? An ad basically saying, "sure, go ahead, vote for Talent/Steele/Green – save a clump of cells and their potential life, but you might as well be MURDERING MICHAEL J. FOX, you heartless ass."

And it's even better when you don't have to engage in petty distortion and outright obfuscation to achieve that effect – and that, if anything, is what's so unnerving and chatter-worthy about these ads: short of trotting out a precious, pigtailed toddler and trying to argue it was saved from the stem-cell scrap heap and given a chance to gestate, how do opponents possibly respond? No matter how shiny, a petri dish simply can't hold a candle to the continued animation of Alex P. Keaten.


And because I just can't hold them back any longer from an audience beyond the select few who already know just how horrible a person I am, here's a sampling of tasteless Michael J. Fox headlines respectable news outlets, to the detriment of us all, almost certainly will not touch:

• Michael J. Fox shakes up the campaign

• Democrats hoping Fox's mobilizing power more reliable than his motor neurons

• Voters hear stem-cell message from, struggle awkwardly not to stare at Michael J. Fox

• Dust off the Steadycam!

• Michael J. Fox turns on the turnout charm -- and with luck, decades of research and your generous support, his dopamine receptors

A foreign policy everyone can get behind

In case you missed our fearless leader's stirring declaration last week, our latest international mission in the "war on terrorism" is securing a "nuc-u-lar weapons-free North Korean penninshula."

Of course, when he isn't going all Congressman Foley on the English language, as of late President Bush has been busy playing Stacey and Clinton on the White House press corps:

"If I might say, that is a beautiful suit. And I can't see anybody else that even comes close," the president told NBC's Kevin Corke, who was wearing pinstripes, in the course of a Rose Garden news conference that focused on North Korea-related diplomacy and the Iraq war. ...

Soon after, the president asserted that CNN's Suzanne Malveaux was the "first best-dressed person here."

By the time Bush called on Jim Axelrod of CBS, the reporter felt compelled to start with a defensive comment: "My best suit's in the cleaners," Axelrod explained to the president.

"That's not even a suit," Bush retorted, eyeing Axelrod's sport coat and slacks.

Elsewhere on the political hierarchy, we've got Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., talking about how his party needs to "redesign the Democratic space," and everyone else ripping on House Speaker Dennis Hastert's decidedly ill-advised choice of press conference backgrounds.

The irony here is that men in politics can talk style and aesthetics all they want and be considered well-rounded sophisticates (well, to a point) or light-hearted, witty and visually aware – they can talk about suit patterns and sweater-vests coming out with the changing seasons and whose hair is most impressively shellacked, and still come off as thoroughly charming and roundly professional.

But when female politicians have the gall to appear in Time magazine or contemplate a presidential run in one of the most stylish nations on earth looking even a hair more appealing than Janet Reno, watch out.

The original Time article on White House homeland security adviser Fran Townsend was interesting but unremarkable – but what I could not believe where the two letters the editors elected to print, both focusing more on the photograph. One male reader said the snapshot "called into question Townsend's common sense. What other woman in any Administration would pose for a photo as she emphasized her competency and conservatism in the White House while looking as though she were dressed for a night of revelry at an expensive watering hole?" A female respondent had this useful tidbit to add to the discourse: "Maybe that glamour shot of Townsend was intended to convey her ability to 'get a leg up' on the enemy. But could she defend our turf from terrorists in those stiletto heels? I don't think so."

Says the presumably frumpy lummox shuffling around in Payless loafers. But who needs stylish footwear when you've got arguments like that.

Indeed, as presidential hopeful Ségolène Royal of France asks, "Why should one have to be sad, ugly and boring to go into politics these days?"

Well, if the one in question happens to be female, this is precisely what you get: men get nervous and defensive and use any display of femininity to denigrate or distract from her other, intimidating, not-so-easily sexualized attributes, while women get catty, jealous and overly critical and do precisely the same. Attractive men are likewise written off as pansies and pretty-boys.

Even sad, ugly and boring is no guarantee -- just look at Katherine Harris, or the Dennis Hastert fat-jokes splattered all over the news last week. Non-threatening mediocrity is often the only safe visual field to inhabit.

Still, Condoleezza Rice constantly has the foreign policy fashion police tagging her around -- and, unlike her boss, she doesn't even make her arguments using rambling stream-of-consciousness anecdotes about fancy odor-absorbing fabrics:

During remarks at the White House to boast about the falling budget deficit, Bush praised "the Under Armour man."

"I don't know if you ever heard of that product," Mr. Bush told the crowd. "I know I'm not supposed to advertise, so I won't. But here's a dreamer. The man had an idea. He didn't like the way the cotton shirts that he wore absorbed his bodily fluids when he exercised, so he came up with a better product. And it worked. And now he's built a huge business. And he's talking about how to continue to expand, and he's worried about our trade policy. Here's a small business guy who came out of a garage, and he's talking to the Secretary of the Treasury and the President of the United States about making sure we have intellectual property rights protection in China."

Seriously, if this is the best the "average" pool can spit up, instead of virtually disqualifying someone from the credible, respected practice of politics – or anything intellectual for that matter – shouldn't a decent appearance be taken as a sign of pride in one's self and one's abilities and how they're presented to others? A sense of esteem and general responsibility that will carry over into one's surroundings and the endeavors bearing one's signature?

Besides, if our world leaders had that much less to overcompensate for, they would almost certainly exercise their power more prudently.

I mean, there must be a reason you just don't see many hot foreign dignitaries causing problems on the global stage. So why, pray tell, aren't more in the spotlight?

The freedom, it burns!

PITTSBURGH (AP) – Gov. Jeb Bush got a rude welcome to the city when he came across several anti-Republican protesters on his way to a fundraising event for U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum.

Authorities said Bush was briefly ushered into a supply closet at a subway station Friday, retreating with a security guard and a female aide to get away from the protesters.

Something about that "briefly ushered into a supply closet" phraseology just kills me. But I suppose, there are only so many ways one can attempt to spin "Jeb Bush hides from protesters in a skanky subway supply closet before appearing with Rick Santorum" into something dignified:

• Before hordes of enthusiastic likely voters, Gov. Jeb Bush paused on the way to a campaign engagement Friday, ducking into a dark, enclosed space so he could symbolically re-emerge into the glorious light of freedom.

• Gov. Jeb Bush joked with a crowd of protesters Friday, feigning a search in a subway station supply closet for stores with which to re-stock his brother's dwindling job approval.

• Gov. Jeb Bush deliberated with top aides in an undisclosed location Friday before headlining a fundraiser for Sen. Rick Santorum.

• Gov. Jeb Bush attempted to restore the GOP's image Friday by ducking into a supply closet not with a teen boy page, but an adult female aide.

• Gov. Jeb Bush made a last-minute wardrobe switch Friday on the way to a fundraiser for Sen. Rick Santorum after aides pointed out his visually interesting tie ran a serious risk of overshadowing the substance of his remarks.

• The family curse struck again as shoddy intelligence on North Korea's nuclear test caused Jeb Bush to experience a momentary loss of resolve before a campaign stop Friday.

• Jeb Bush lived every politically literate American's dream Friday as he retreated into a supply closet and asked aides not to disturb him until 2009.

Pruning the dried-up Foley-age

According to the much anticipated (in certain geekish circles) first post-Foley AP/Ispos poll, Democrats are beating or statistically tied with Republicans on ALL of the who-could-handle-this-issue better questions, including who could best protect the country from terrorism. Interestingly, "political corruption" had the lowest affirmative total out of ten issues – leading one to wonder, were people just waiting for an excuse?

The Foley fallout has also included a spate of delightfully schadenfreude-spawning news stories about how the religious right is losing its political motivation, its footing above moral sea level and its policy clout (I love how they still talk as if they ever actually had any, it's so cute) in the murk of scandal. There was also an interesting piece in Friday's New York Times about how evangelicals are concerned teenagers are fleeing the flock in a veritable exodus, endangering the entire movement's future.

Genuine alarm can be heard from Christian teenagers and youth pastors, who say they cannot compete against a pervasive culture of cynicism about religion, and the casual "hooking up" approach to sex so pervasive on MTV, on Web sites for teenagers and in hip-hop, rap and rock music.

Ah, yes: Sex, rock 'n' roll on the M-T-V and the post-modern pervert's playground that is the Internet – those have to be the culprits. More plausible contributing factors (that are actually age, era and situation-relevant) couldn't possibly be, oh, increased college attendance and prep work, meaning more young people have reason to entertain logical critiques of some of the spiritual dogma they've been fed and reject much of it as nonsensical.

Or the fact that today's teens have grown into political awareness in a climate punctuated, if you will, by religious violence and state responses to it, with such acts comprising their lives' "remember where you where when you heard" moments.

Or that they've witnessed firsthand the sorts of shoddy arguments and intrusive, ignorant and intolerant politics the faithful of their parents' generation have tried to advance in the name of "moral values" and divine direction.

Honestly, people, I was only on my first cup of coffee this morning when I thought up those – all of which would have made for more thought-provoking reading.

Oh, but it's not just the ubiquitous evil media and prurient primal urges contaminating our so-called impressionable youth – we're neglecting the primary corrupter of contemporary, '50s-retro innocence:

Divorced parents and dysfunctional families also lead some teenagers to avoid church entirely or to drift away.

And, you know, some third-graders are driven away when their church's priest delivers a thinly veiled custom sermon soon after their parents' split about how their mother is headed for Hell, seeing as how "divorce is a worse sin than murder because it kills an entire family." Not that I'd know from personal experience or anything.

Seriously, concerned parties, there is no more efficiently engineered on-ramp for the highways to agnosticism and atheism than being raised Catholic. But I digress.

It seems to me this whole "crisis" of teens deserting the chruch is not a crisis of morality or of filling the pews – after all, many of the especially fervent believers come to the fold on their own anyway by being "born again" at some later point – but yet another crisis of insecurity and sagging self-esteem.

Over and over in interviews, evangelical teenagers said they felt like a tiny, beleaguered minority in their schools and neighborhoods. They said they often felt alone in their struggles to live by their "Biblical values" by avoiding casual sex, risqué music and videos, Internet pornography, alcohol and drugs.

I want to know where these people went to high school where they had smut and illicit substances perpetually peddled upon them, because it sounds like I missed out on a fair spot of fun. And really, come on – who beyond bored, midlife-crisis suburbanites who watch too much television (and, you know, Congressmen) honestly wants to have sex with high school boys? Specimens above the age of consent don't tend to get much more mature, granted, but most of us can hold out with little difficulty until they at least start to look better and make some money.

Indeed,

Contradicting the sense of isolation expressed by some evangelical teenagers, Ms. Sandler said, "I met plenty of kids who told me over and over that if you're not Christian in your high school, you're not cool – kids with Mohawks, with indie rock bands who feel peer pressure to be Christian."

That sounds more like it, but it's not that you're afraid of being left out or labeled uncool – it's that you don't want to have to deal with being called out and forced to defend something that everyone around you doesn't have to defend; and be defined by all sorts of insulting assumptions that no one would ever float in polite, supposedly educated company about a different religious faith as opposed to the absence of religious faith.

And because you don't want to be patronized by a public school math teacher who says he feels sorry for you and what your life must be missing because you don't want to say the Pledge of Allegiance and recite the "god" reference. Or by teachers, family members and peers who think you're just going though a rebellious phase and trying to be trendy, when in fact you've probably thought more about your decision to step away from your faith than they ever have about why they hold onto theirs. Or by magpie classmates who brag about their church camp retreats like they were European vacations and seem to honestly believe one needs to be religious to be an ethical, respectable, decent human being.

All this latest crisis of branded faith is about is another manifestation of this culture's obsession with collective validation. So little any more is sound enough, strong enough or justified enough unless it's being done with the backing and direct, real-time accompaniment of as many other passably credible people as possible.

It's as though no matter how nonsensical the state of affairs becomes, it will all mean something if enough people can come together and wave their arms to affirm themselves and some version of agreed-upon truth.

But no matter how much you preach – or, in the best metaphor for the "war on terror" to come out of current events in recent memory, how many times you roll over $20 million in the federal budged earmarked for "commemorations of success" in Iraq and Afghanistan – individual events and individual actors have a way of driving things in entirely different directions.

And if not for those individuals cracking the doors of the echo chamber from time to time, nothing would ever change, much less progress.

From the "couldn't script it better myself" file

CNN is putting a whole new spin on "community journalism" by providing a handy online form into which congressional pages can cut and paste their illicit Internet encounters with Congressman Foley:

If you are a current or former congressional page, did you interact online with former Rep. Mark Foley? Forward e-mail and instant messages that Rep. Foley may have sent you. CNN will only use material that it can verify as authentic and can not guarantee that all submissions will be used.

Ouch – how would you like to get that rejection letter?

"Dear current or former congressional page alleging textual molestation by ex-Rep. Mark Foley:

We thank you for your submission, however we regret to inform you that, upon careful review, we have determined your lecherous legislative communique does not meet our exacting standards for salaciousness at this time. We are keeping your contact information on file should the issue environment shift. We thank you for thinking of CNN, and we hope you return the next time you suspect an elected official of soliciting your unwilling participation in unnatural acts.

Regards,
CNN."

And please join me in welcoming the latest acquisition to the Gallery of Regrettable AP Headlines: "Ethics Committee Ready to Probe Foley Case."

Oh, if only solutions on Iraq or any number of "real issues" flowed as freely as the filthy Foley jokes, we would all be better off.

Still, this is undeniably more entertaining:

Jay Leno: "The good news? Florida Congressman Mark Foley has entered rehab. The bad news? Rehab is a 14-year-old boy from Pakistan."

Conan O'Brien: "CNN is reporting that former Congressman Mark Foley's instant messages were not only sexually inappropriate, but were also full of typos. In his own defense, Foley said, 'It's hard to type with one hand.'"

The high price of free speech

Remember that Kansas religious sect that sparked legislation in several states barring protesters from coming too close to military funerals after it made a habit of showing up to argue, in less than constructive or respectful terms, that the Iraq war and its casualties are the country's divine punishment for "tolerating" homosexuality?

Well, Wednesday they threatened to illegally picket the funerals of the Amish children killed in Monday's schoolhouse shooting in Pennsylvania, which they argue was God's decidedly quirky means of wreaking vengeance upon Gov. Ed Rendell for criticizing them and their tactics. But then some fine patriot with an "overfriendly" interest in free speech agreed to give them an hour on nationally syndicated radio to air their views further afield if they aborted that noble mission, and they accepted.

Rather than negotiating with tactless, vacuous (I hesitate to use the word "intellectual") extremists for free media play to further pollute what's already a veritable wasteland, I say we should be making them do what all other glorified hate groups have to do when they want to spout filth to the masses: form a PAC and start running campaign ads.

But, either way, this is still America – if dead children aren't being used to score ideological points, it's a safe bet that, somewhere, live ones are being used as flak-deflecting props for embattled politicians who want the appearance of endorsement by other human beings, but not all the competence, sentience and that pesky tendency to ask questions that so often accompanies it.

Just ask Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY) – a slightly popular fellow these days, being chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee and all – who rolled out a squirming gaggle of the little cretins for his Tuesday press conference on the Foley page-sex scandal – set, of all places, at a day care center:

Reporter: "Congressman, do you mind asking the children to leave the room so we can have a frank discussion of this, because it's an adult topic. It just doesn't seem appropriate to me."

Reynolds: "I'll take your questions, but I'm not going to ask any of my supporters to leave."

Uh... right... Whatever else you might have to say about the GOP, its PR people are still crack geniuses who know how to work those behavior-molding social sanctions like it's nobody's business. For who's going to ask the tough questions when in order to do so, they'll have to burden their consciences with on-the-record knowledge that they're corrupting young minds?

If anything, it's farcical nonsense like this that creates the ubiquitous "media bias" – not in the form of an ideological or political bias, mind you, but an access bias.

It's really quite simple: Journalists like to talk to people who don't erect walls – of silence, subterfuge or, well, small children – between them and the information they need to do their jobs even passably well.

And, unfortunately for the very concept of deliberative democracy, cream can't rise to the top if it's already sour.

-----

p.s. 200th post! I'm officially pathetic.

And just for the scandalously good fun of it...

Top three late-night monologue Foley jokes:

3. Letterman: "The ex-congressman, if nothing else, is contrite. He says when he gets out of rehab, he wants a fresh start and to turn over a new page."

2. Conan: "Apparently, new evidence that just came out shows that former Congressman Mark Foley once engaged in Internet sex with a former page while a vote was being taken in the House. ... Apparently, instead of voting 'Aye,' Foley voted 'Oh God yes!'"

1. Jimmy Kimmel for the win: "Apparently, he had text message phone sex with a boy during a vote on funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. No one can say he's soft on terror, I'll tell you that much."

No running near the melting pot

Check out this delightfully politically incorrect Gallup Poll, conducted Sept. 21 to 24:

Is the United States ready for a _____ president? (percent yes/no)
Woman: 61 / 38
African-American: 58 / 40
Jewish: 55 / 42
Hispanic: 41 / 58
Asian: 33 / 64
Mormon: 29 / 66
Atheist: 14 / 84
Gay/Lesbian: 7 / 91

While this is seemingly good news for Condoleezza Rice and Jon Stewart, it appears that the rest of our parents were still lying when they said any of us with the drive (/ego), determination (/naivete) and desire (/catastrophic brain injury) could theoretically grow up to be president. (At least Katie Couric knows her proper place.)

Indeed, Caucasian, Christian, straight (or securely closeted) males have served the office and the country so very well, who would ever want to change course?

Certainly not the Washington Post's Richard Cohen, responding to Bob Woodward's "State of Denial:"

... in Woodward's book, as with everything else I've read about the 43rd president, it's apparent that Bush had no reason to run for the office other than to satisfy some psychological compulsion -- and had no accomplishment to his name that did not stem from primogeniture. Especially in foreign policy, he was an ignoramus who smugly thought that his instincts trumped experience and knowledge. What's even more appalling is that over and over in Woodward's book, Bush sticks to his losing hand, refusing to challenge his own assumptions -- or, it seems, his steadfast belief that his is a divine mission. Now that's the stuff of great leadership right there. Way to translate those demographic cues into visionary national stewardship, American electorate.

But, I suppose, perhaps I'm being a bit too harsh, as little ol' heathen me can't help but be a tad peeved that the populace is apparently more wont to trust polygamous fundamentalists to act in their collective interest than someone who happens to have a particular heritage, sexual orientation or, you know, relatively rational, humanistic perspective on the world.

Naturally, an elected official can't be gay and non-religious – what would he possibly use as his magical, irrefutable get-out-of-scandal free card?

Twilight of the idles

Poor, poor Republicans. So hard at work just trying to wrap up this legislative cycle, wall off this great nation, fight terror and germinate some more basic democratic freedom in Iraq – yes, everything's just coming up rose-colored heading into the electoral recess, when what happens?

It gets out that one of their rank and file is an alleged alcoholic pedophile who's been sending "overfriendly" e-mails to little Congressional pageboys several decades his junior, and they've known about it for some time and kept it quiet.

But why would there or should there be outrage? Like White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said Monday morning, "There have been other scandals, as you know, that have been more than simply naughty e-mails."

Yeah, you guys, at least the good, now-ex-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) didn't have a consenting adult under his desk or anything. Quit over-reacting. Those e-mails were just the alcohol talking – for years on end – and he's getting help for that now.

And your leaders have gone and set up a page-abuse hotline to boot, so anyone can report concerns (Or just try to cash out – "Is your child performing poorly in school? Acting out at home? Just not living up to his potential? Are YOU? Your Congressman and his uncontrollable prurient urges may be to blame. If you so much as suspect your elected representative may have been getting a bit too responsive, don't hesitate, call today!").

After all, Republicans are the morality party, remember? The party of Dr. Dobson, and innocent little bug-eyed blastocysts just gunning for a chance at life, and Jesus. Certainly not the party of crude and utterly unimaginative adolescent humor, as Maureen Dowd wrote Saturday:

W. and Karl Rove "shared an array of fart jokes," Mr. [Bob] Woodward writes. A White House aide put a toy that made a flatulence sound under Karl's chair for a morning meeting on July 7, 2005. When officials learned of the terrorist attacks in London that day, the prank was postponed. But several weeks later, "the device was placed under Rove's chair and activated during the senior staff meeting. Everyone laughed."

I can't wait until that one finds its way onto YouTube. Seriously, I don't know why I even bother writing any more about taking religious and kindred forms of moralizing out of the public sphere. I suppose I just keep thinking that, eventually, the people who propagate them are going to take a quasi-rational look at what they're frittering away they're energies on and just give it up already and move on to something productive.

Take the ideological heirs to the Ashcroft crusade down in Texas who are still trying to get exhibitionist statuary to show some modesty and quit scandalizing the children.

Or the true believers who have their tubers in a twist over NBC's chopping up of "Veggie Tales" in hopes of making it palatable to a secular Saturday morning audience.

Or, my personal favorite to emerge from the week's news, the appeasers abroad who cancel contemporary stagings of a Mozart opera for fear of incurring "incalculable risk" by offending the devoutly and apparently utterly single-mindedly religious of one particular faith, never minding that others' are being dramaturgically skewered right alongside theirs:

The disputed scene is not part of Mozart's opera, but was added by the director, Hans Neuenfels. In it, the king of Crete, Idomeneo, carries the heads of Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha and Poseidon on to the stage, placing each on a stool.

"Idomeneo," first performed in 1781, tells a mythical story of Poseidon, or Neptune, the god of the sea, who toys with men's lives and demands spiteful sacrifice.

(Students of the fine art of book larnin' may recognize that last line as irony.)

As Thomas L. Friedman wrote last week, with his recent remarks on Islam that proved so inflammatory they're now apparently spawning pre-emptive artistic censorship, "The pope was actually treating Islam with dignity. He was treating the faith and its community as adults who could be challenged and engaged. That is a sign of respect."

And without that respect, or at least that basic willingness to entertain or even ignore ideas you personally do not espouse, what sort of culture can we as a collective be said to have?

Examples are all around of what happens when people get too comfortably ensconced in self-rectitude – not only do they become reactionary and intolerant, they atrophy their internal capacity for imagination and open-mindedness in relating to the world at large.

For while putting ideologues and fundies in charge of things can look like a good, ethical idea on paper, in practice, we have to pause and ask ourselves – do we really want to live in a world so ordered, dulled and saccharine that even our leaders' sordid sex scandals are about as steamy and stimulating as the average canned stump speech?

Yes, if ever there were an argument more succinct and persuasive for keeping the mindless moralizing out of the discourse, Foley delivered it when he instant-messaged a young page, "I would drive a few miles for a hot stud like you."

And to think, romance was supposed to be dead.