It would gladden my heart tremendously if I heard and read the word criminal used in reference to "Republicans" more often. They have been the criminal party for a long, long time, but more intensely so since the stolen election of 2000.

The first advantage in referring to the "Republicans" as criminals is that it would be a great way to begin calling things what they really are. We would become a more truthful society if we did so.

The second advantage is that by calling the "Republicans" criminals we would increase our chances of actually bringing them to justice.

The third advantage is that we would be more likely to prevent them from committing further crimes. Being criminals, they have no sense of enough. As long as "Republicans" are free to roam, they will be cooking up schemes to rob, invade, plunder, and lay waste. They are completely worthless human beings, and should be treated as such.

A final advantage in referring to "Republicans" as criminals is that it shames them. As long as they are treated with honor, they are reinforced in their criminality.

I doubt that I will read the book, but the point is well made. And worthy of further examination. One problem with this approach is its inexactitude and reliance on the vernacular: the term "sissy." It's close to the truth, but such a loaded, pejorative word that it conjures up barriers, reaction, and resentment.

In many cases, the word is 100% accurate. John Kerry is probably the Tony Bennett of sissies (Get it? Tony Bennett, the singer's singer?). A genuine war hero, he gets accused of faking his heroism, and he says nothing. He gets the election stolen from him, and he gives up immediately.

Of course, Al Gore got the previous election stolen from him, and he ends up calling the criminal Bush "My commander in chief."

Which brings up another sissy issue. I have been referring to Bush and his cronies as criminals for the past seven years, to virtually no response. We cannot call things what they are. People will qualify the word with the pre-modifier "war," as if this makes it more meaningful, but it actually sanitizes it. It contextualizes the discussion in political terms, rendering the conversation an ideological struggle, which is the intention.

Where I live, Madison, Wisconsin, it is not possible to engage in a meaningful, open conversation, because you quickly run into the agenda, the something else going on that lurks in the dark recesses of the ego. This is where the question of sissitude should proceed: the lack of genuineness and ulterior motivation that underlies our social interactions. The lower needs gratification behind our everyday encounters with our fellow beings. This book is a good start.

This is some really earth-shattering news! The honorable George H.W. Bush, son of the honorable Prescott, is set to endorse John McCain! Obama may as well throw in the towel! The election is over!

With the high-powered endorsements rolling in, could Bob Dole be next? Maybe Dan Qauyle will get on board. How about Jack Kemp?

I have an even better scoop: The sun will rise tomorrow morning, and it will be from the east. This is actually more important news, because if the sun doesn't rise, the election will be cancelled. Trust me. My sources are impeccable.

I wonder if anyone else finds it curious that in a city of 8,214,426 people, an assembly voting district could have a vote total in the neighborhood of 240. If everyone voted, that would require 34,226 assembly voting districts for New York City alone. Assuming half the population is younger than voting age, the number of voting districts would be 17,113. Discounting further for voter turnout, there would still need to be at least 5,000 voting districts to make sense of the low vote totals for this one district.

More people by far vote at my polling place, and it is in one of the smaller districts in the city where I live, Madison, Wisconsin.

Vote fraud is as "American" as apple pie. It doesn't take a lot of skill to count votes properly, so a pattern of zero votes for a candidate can safely be seen as fraudulent. The mere fact that someone would unquestioningly turn in such totals is ample proof.

But the greater question for me is what the total number of voters was in the primary, with "districts" of 240 voters in the largest city in "America."