Comma chameleon?

You know that story that's been in the news recently about the scientist coming under misguided fire for doing research on gay sheep?

It opens all sorts of fascinating, higher order avenues of inquiry on ethics and the boundaries of science and the perils of the giant game of worldwide telephone that is the news -- but unfortunately, a small, perhaps neurotically trifling bit in the New York Times' coverage of the matter is standing in the way of my venturing down any of them.

You see, ever since I read this...

The controversy spilled into the blog world, with attacks on Dr. Roselli, his university and Oregon State University, which is also involved in the research. PETA began an e-mail campaign that the universities say resulted in 20,000 protests, some with language like "you are a worthless animal killer and you should be shot," "I hope you burn in hell" and "please, die."

... I've been consumed by the question: Was that comma really included in the original "please, die" threat?

Given that the Times has been known to depart from the vernacular to the point of distraction with strictly regimented punctuation and spelling out contractions and whatnot, I actually wrote them an e-mail last week asking, out of professional copy editing curiosity, the origins of that comma. Naturally, I'm still waiting for an answer, and it's still bothering me.

Either way, it's intriguing -- if it's an editing decision, it's arguably changing the tone of the phrase to a point that it alters its meaning; if it's not, imagine the kind of person who decides to sit down and menace a scientist via a PETA e-mail form, yet remains conscientious of such a popularly arcane bit of proper punctuation.

If that comma is authentic, far from neutering the force of the threat, it makes it all the more unnervingly crafty -- if that were directed at me, I would almost have to oblige, seeing as how it was asked so diplomatically.

Le sigh.

English class ruins lives.

One good (OK, serviceable) round deserves another

After attempting to prognosticate the particulars, I sure don't envy the poor speech-writers who've been tasked with drafting Tuesday's State of the Union address -- coming up with material that's neither impertinent nor incendiary in the current climate is about as easy as finding suitable Scooter Libby jurors. This year, the only near-certainty is that it will be a matter of when, not if, you'll find yourself thinking, "They pre-empted 'House' for this?"

Nonetheless, for the sake of tradition, game on, my fellow Americans:

(click to enlarge)

Weapons of mass distraction

By now most everyone's heard about the patently ridiculous argument, attributed to Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., that because Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has no immediate family (not only does she not have children, she's one of those wanton genetic castaways whose parents not only denied her siblings, but then had the gall to go and die on her), she somehow does not understand the sacrifice relatives of U.S. soldiers make to fight the war in Iraq.

While questioning her during a Senate hearing Jan. 11, Boxer said to Rice, "I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, within immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families ..."

Now, everyone can see the point Boxer was making with that comment. But are any of the myriad of incensed commentators using this as an opportunity to talk about the greater moral issues of this war, of the pre-emptive doctrine, of how a few people are being asked to sacrifice everything for its continuance while the rest of us merely shake our heads at the headlines, of what to do next?

No, we're all caught up in the notion of a political cat-fight between a senator who has a family and a "Feminazi" secretary of state who -- gasp -- does not, tossing around the ludicrous premise that having children is a pre-requisite for sound judgment as if it were actually worthy of debate:

At Rice's 1/13 appearance in Jerusalem with Israeli Foreign Min. Tzipi Livni, NBC's Mitchell asked: "As two single women, do you think that being without children in any way hinders your ability to understand the sacrifices of American families losing their children in war?" Rice "paused, heaved a sigh and turned back to the cameras, a pained expression on her face." Rice: "No. And I also think that being a single woman does not in any way make me incapable of understanding not just those sacrifices, but that nothing of value is ever won without sacrifice" (Fang, ChicagoTribune.com, 1/16).

Yes, take notes, budding young reporters, this is what top journalists ask the U.S. secretary of state when she's traveling in the Middle East attempting to salvage the disintegrating war her administration devised and applied.

Though I was thoroughly disgusted by the spate of new-year, new-Congress articles marveling at the fact that, like, OMG, the MOST GURLZ EVER!!!1!! were elected to the new freshman class, I held back. But now that the articles about how Obama isn't being treated like a "black candidate" by voters -- who also don't really seem to care that Hillary Clinton is a woman -- have begun, I just can't help myself.

Not that these articles mark unsavory trends; au contrairie. But a lot of good it does when the generation directing the discourse is still stuck on the fact that it's NEWS -- it's novel, it's shocking, it's something you should pay attention to -- that people don't give a rip about race or gender in selecting their leaders, all the while invoking and reinforcing the very prejudices the authors are trying to argue are disappearing.

One of the striking things I've noticed in this town is the number of ambitious, optimistic younger people working in politics who flat-out say they're basically just waiting for the current generation in power to "die out," so ours can dispense with all this nonsense and move on with matters we consider important.

The chamber nestled deep within my cold and whithered heart that fluttered today when I heard of Obama's '08 exploratory committee announcement (Yes, I'll admit it, for the moment I'm riding the Obama bandwagon, because I'm tired of walking and nothing else has passed by -- but I am a single, childless woman, after all, so don't be alarmed, I'm liable to jump off at any moment. Vilsack's logo is awful pretty.) still wants to think this persistent demographic frame is a generational remnant, that maybe, just maybe, my cohort might be the one to judge female leaders more on the benevolence (or malevolence) of their ideologies and actions than on their habitation arrangements or uterine productivity -- but, as usual, I'm having a real hard time.

Condoleezza Rice is one of the architects of what could very well be the pre-eminent foreign policy train wreck of the era. She's stuck it out with the Bush administration for its entire tenure, as the likes of Ashcroft and Rumsfeld and Rove fell by the wayside, all the while managing to keep her poise and confidence and even a serviceable sense of style. What more do you people want?

What does a woman have to do in this country to be good enough, authentic enough and accomplished enough if she isn't attached and doesn't have kids? For better or worse, no one could argue Rice would have had more influence on contemporary thought and world events if she'd dropped out of politics after a few years to marry someone more powerful and spend her days perfecting her apple pie recipe and ferrying the kids between their Terror Scout meetings and Begin to Obfuscate classes.

Why is this culture so threatened by single, capable women? And why do intelligent, influential people continually insist on marking newsmakers whose gender, race or household is not the all-American norm? Is it to pat themselves on the back for being so conspicuously open-minded and progressive, or is it a convenient way to avoid considering the complicated, nuanced factors that might actually be relevant to electing leaders and evaluating options?

But the vintage elite among us might do well to update their stock (or not -- note the cat picture): Unmarried women are now the majority.

You know, at least until the right men come along to change our immature minds and rescue us from our own misguided autonomy and deluded senses of purpose and fulfillment.

Surge with confidence

If President Bush's aides actually read the news once in a while, they just might find what they're looking for -- no, not new employment, drink specials or even a hot date in the "Masochists With No Standards Seeking Neocon Tools" column, but the holy chalice itself, the key to victory in Iraq:

With a gray sky as a backdrop, Vice President Dick Cheney arrived in Ligonier Township on Monday to spend the day hunting at the Rolling Rock Club.

... Also in the hunting party were former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum; Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association; and Tom Hicks, CEO of Dallas-based Hicks Holdings...

For who needs 20,000 more rank-and-file soldiers when you've got Cheney and Santorum brandishing firearms? Add a few more defeated GOP lawmakers and you'd have yourself a regular combat company, quelling civil unrest like it was meant to be quelled.

And, my, what a strapping band of huntsmen must this lot make. So much dreamy, I wouldn't know what to jump first.

Defending liberty, one freedom-hating credit card offer at a time

Remember when the only mail-borne hazards you had to worry about were anthrax and disgruntled postal workers?

According to (grantedly hyperbolic) reports, you've now got to watch out for the prying eyes of President Bush and his anti-terror posse panning for nefarious communiques.

I suppose if your Highlights hidden picture puzzles have been arriving at your door mysteriously (albeit partially) completed; or your sealed copy of Vogue arrived with Dick Cheney's head on Angelina Jolie's body; or your Christmas cards were delivered bearing Reagan stamps of unexplained origin; or you keep finding stains shaped suspiciously like the bottom of a juice box on your envelopes (oh, I could go on all night), at least now you know who's behind it.

And I commend their restraint in at least not hand-checking all the "hate her" boxes on that Time magazine Hillary Clinton cover a few months back. Or going all "Situation Room" on Obama/Osama every time either's name appears in print.

But what next? If they're reading my e-mail, tapping my phone and now pilfering my post, I think they should just start paying my bills. Or, hell, I'm a reasonable woman -- at least start slipping some nice salon coupons into my Val-Pak or something.

I mean, aren't they worried someone of my fickle feminine persuasion is just one bad hair day away from tossing on a head scarf and blowing up a monument? Jeeze, people, get pro-active.

Really, Charlie, if Jeb Bush could handle it...

Crist Orders Use of Simple Words

TALLAHASSEE - Charlie Crist's first move as governor is tackling bureaucratic language and barriers to public information that he criticized Wednesday as an "arrogance" in state government that intentionally distances itself from citizens.

... While campaigning last year, Crist was sometimes flummoxed by questions that included government acronyms. ...

"Some try to portray themselves as smarter than you by using this sort of terminology in a way that's unkind," Crist said.

Oh, Florida -- you continue to be an argument against democracy promotion instantiated.