Home

ash invented this term as the previous new year approached. She sees no reason not to continue using it, as the following elucidates.

---

Tick, tick. “Le plus change le plus la meme.” (“The more change the more the same.”) Or should it be “le plus la meme le plus la meme”? (“The more the same the more the same.”)

Those are literal translations from the original French, not grammatical ones. Tick, tick. By the time you read this, we’ll be far enough into the new year that few will be dwelling on its implications. Sort of like December 26, when Christmas abruptly shifts to the next holiday.
Tick, tick. Speaking of Christmas, here’s a safe prediction: as Halloween approaches, another FOX anchor will write a book warning fellow religious types to guard against Godless liberal attempts to quash the holiday in the furtherance of nefarious causes such as gay marriage, a nationwide moratorium on the death penalty, and the dreaded Communism. Since John Gibson’s 2005 extravaganza failed to break into the top ten of any bookseller’s list I’m aware of, the hoopla surrounding Sean Hannity’s 2006 contribution to the cause will be exponentially greater. Local devout Christians will write letters to the State Journal-Register admonishing detractors to actually read the nonsense before daring to dismiss it as shameless opportunism.

Tick, tick. Speaking of religion, Creationism will continue to insist upon being relabelled Intelligent Design, and pay no attention to the fact that Pat Robertson gave away the store when he commented on the school district that “voted God” out of office. Everything from minutiae to grand, sweeping generalizations will be trotted out – again – to substantiate the “truth” of the competing “realities” while those who frankly are more concerned with the state of the planet in the here and now than in its origins will shake their heads and focus elsewhere.

Tick, tick. Speaking of religion again, a handful of Illinois pharmacists will continue to force their definition of human life upon women who obviously don’t agree with them, or why would they be presenting prescriptions for drugs to avoid pregnancy?  Passionate debates pitting “my body” and “my private domain” against “aren’t you forgetting someone?” and “how many babies have been killed in the last 33 years?” will sprout anew, as if they hadn’t been argued ad infinitum in the previous year, and the one before it, and the one before it…

Tick, tick. Local issues will continue unabated. New, not always facetious suggestions for what to do with stubborn smokers will become more creative. The location of the Salvation Army may or may not be determined. Assuming it is, fresh charges of unfairness and lack of judgment will be leveled, as the editorial page editor braces himself for another wave of feedback. 

Tick, tick. Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, and the magnificently greedy Randy “Duke” Cunningham will still be in trouble with the law. Some will support them – minus Cunningham, that is, whose tearful confession preempted not only “where’s the crime” but his own self-portrayal as a tough guy – by pointing out that since Democrats can’t beat them at the ballot box or in fundraising, they resort to undermining their legitimacy. Believe these defenses at your own risk.

Tick, tick. Speaking of legitimacy, Ann Coulter and her breed of imitators will continue to define the other side, even more maliciously than dishonestly, only to be rewarded not with the refusal to engage them as they richly deserve, but by publishing them in this newspaper and featuring them in mainstream media forums as thoughtful, insightful commentators and pundits. As readers of these pages become even more numb and resigned than they already are, the letters objecting to paying the syndication fees of Coulter and Michelle Malkin will continue to grow fewer and less outraged.

Tick, tick. 11:59:59 pm, Saturday, December 31, 2005. One second later it’s 12:00:00 am, Sunday, January 1, 2006.  If you happen to be celebrating at a bar playing music, the announcement may be delayed until the end of the song. Which only makes my point: do you feel different? It’s an arbitrary designation of time. Remember, if you’re old enough, “the 60s” and now recall that “the 60s” as an era isn’t accurate. Actually, the mid 60s to the mid 70s describes the time period in which radical activism emerged and sustained itself in a very big way. As it was with 1969 becoming 1970, so it is with 2005 becoming 2006, when nothing really changes, just pay attention as you write that first check.

As for the war, a whole other column, it drags on. This concludes my latest liberal rant. Conservatives and moderates, feel free to join in.