George Allen should concede immediately.

I gave him a full day before writing this, and now his time is up. With all the stink the Republicans made about Al Gore's challenge to the results of the 2000 presidential election, the possibility that Allen will let a similar situation to occur is hypocrisy of the highest order. (And typical of desperate politicians, of course -- especially those of his ilk.)

The fact is, a man so blatanty racist should have ended his campaign in the days after his infamous "macaca" statement. But maybe I'm too much an idealist. After all, since when does considering some human life to be worth less than that of a white conservative male's make you unfit to run as a Republican? I mean, that's what the whole Iraq War seems to be built on these days. (By some estimates, we've killed 100,000 Iraqi CIVILIANS in this misguided effort. That's 33-fold more people than were murdered on Sept. 11, 2001 -- and IRAQ DIDN'T EVEN DO THAT TO US. Yes, 33 times as many -- which is as ridiculous as it sounds. But, never mind, they're brown people who don't worship Jesus, so they're worth less than we are, right?)

Back to the point: Jim Webb is no saint. In fact, he was a pretty terrible candidate, in my estimation.

But he won.

Concede now, Mr. Allen, or become even more worthy of the scorn that will be heaped upon you.

Ann Coulter doesn't want you to vote. Unless, of course, you're a wealthy white male conservative.

Think that's an exaggeration? If it is, consider that it's driven by Ann's recent re-assertion that we should institute a poll tax and a literacy test to qualify people to cast ballots. Combine that with her statements about women and their alleged inability to understand money -- which, naturally, means they shouldn't have a say in who runs the country -- and it's pretty clear that she thinks a reversion to the days when white male landowners made up the entire electorate would be the best thing that could happen to us as a society.

I mean, never mind that this is a DEMOCRACY. You know, the political structure we claim to be spreading around the world?

Never mind the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Never mind that if George W. Bush had suggested that we make the Iraqi people PAY to vote he would have been reviled throughout the world as a fascist. (Oh, right -- that already happens.)

Should we all be informed before we vote?

Yes, in an ideal world, that is EXACTLY how it would work. But we don't live in an ideal world. Thankfully, we live in a messy, hard-to-navigate, interesting one -- in which none of us is ever as up-to-speed as we need to be. That doesn't mean we shouldn't get our say.

And if you think there's no racism or economic elitism in Ann's statements, you're ... well, let's be nice and say you're simply naive. Ann Coulter knows full well that the rate of illiteracy among minorities and the poor (often the same group) is far higher than it is among those of us who are white and have some disposable income. And that's not to the shame of the poor. It's to the shame of the rest of us.

It's bad enough our society is so oppressive to the disenfranchised that a climb out of poverty is a longshot. Now we shouldn't let poor people vote?

That's not merely contemptible. It's disgusting. And if Ann Coulter thinks it's just funny to say such thing, if she simply dismisses it as a joke, then she'd better read up a bit on what constitutes humor.

I've been doing quite a bit of radio to support the book this past week or so, and among the common questions I'm asked is: Do (I) agree with ANYTHING Ann Coulter says. My probably-less-than-witty response is that, given enough time, Ann will directly contradict nearly everything she says, so by that measure I guess I agree with about half.

It's a wise-guy retort, sure. But there's some truth in it. The fact is, Ann Coulter will say just about anything -- contradictory, hypocritical, completely fabricated -- to maintain her grip on whatever spotlight happens to be around.

And it's not so that she can disseminate any worthwhile information. Trust me on that one.

Ann Coulter's constant "Look at Me!" attitude is nothing more than narcissism mixed with a desire to sell books (and rake in millions of dollars doing so).

Now, hey -- I'm not averse to selling a book or two myself. I'm the first to admit it. And I'd be more than happy to grab a little sliver of the spotlight myself to make that happen. The difference is, I won't cry poverty or bemoan some imagined conspiracy to keep me off the air.

Ann has, and does.

And it rings about as true as her efforts to link Iraq with Sept. 11 or her assertion that Joe McCarthy was just a modest, avuncular fellow and not the victimizer protrayed in textbooks. In short, it's absurd. And I just felt the urge to call her out on it.

The Mark Foley scandal is undeniably sleazy. On this, surely, we all agree. What the former Republican congressman from Florida admits to having done is contemptible, corrosive and, likely, criminal.

And so now the debate turns to what House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) knew and when he knew it -- and how that will and should affect his political future.

I'll leave that to others.

Instead, I remain focused on Fox News's "accidental" identification of Foley as a Democrat and the headline on Ann Coulter's Oct. 4 column (as seen on her Web site): "Who Knew Congressman Foley Was a Closeted Democrat?"

I know, I know -- mistakes happen, and maybe Fox didn't intentionally tag Foley as a Democrat (though an immediate and sincere on-air acknowledgement of the error might have helped everyone believe that). But here's one guarantee: Ann's headline is nothing but an intentional effort to drag the left into what even Pat Buchanan -- PAT BUCHANAN, PEOPLE! -- has said is a purely Republican scandal.

In typically Coulterian fashion, her argument bascially consists of an inflammatory headline and the dredging up of a decades-old "Democratic" scandal -- in this case, 1983 and Massachusetts Democratic Congressman Gerry Studds.

No, that's not a typo -- the 1983 above is accurate. And the need for quotation marks around "Democratic" will soon be apparent.

How the admittedly lowdown, dirty, rotten Studds affair is relevant to the fix Foley finds himself in is a mystery to me. But I understand the diversionary tactic.

Still, what really gets me is the absence of any mention of the involvement in the same scandal of Daniel Bever Crane, then the Republican representative from Cook County, Illinois. In short, it's pretty clear that keeping Crane's name out of it is yet another in the litany of lies of omission that Ann and her ilk spew.

The fact is, both Studds and Crane were censured by Congress after admitting to affairs with 17-year-old pages. The difference, of course, is that in Studds's case, the page was male, while Crane had sex with a girl.

Now, sex with a minor is sex with a minor. Unless, of course, you're a bigot -- in which case it's OK to "bugger" (Ann's word -- and one that she clearly uses to slyly display her unspoken homophobia) a child of the opposite gender, but a crime against man and nature to do so to someone with the same chromosomal pairs.

In any case, throwing Studds at us (so to speak) is a move designed to pull us away from Foley's stink. Don't let it.

I'm really looking forward to reading Bob Woodward's new book, State of Denial. Agree with him or not, the guy can write -- and this one promises to be an eye-opener.

But what has intrigued me most about the whole thing is the way in which copies of the book found their way to the media before its official release. And we're not talking advance copies here -- those sent out to create buzz ahead of time. We're talking about final-print copies being leaked to the media.

It seems that excerpts from the book were going to be published in the Washington Post -- Woodward's employer, of course -- and that the book would be on store shelves after that. In the meantime, though, the New York Times procured a copy of State of Denial and, on Friday, Sept. 29, gave a detailed account of what is to be expected from it. The Times said the book had been "bought by a reporter ... at retail price in advance of its official release." What that means is about as clear as mud.

I may be new to this whole book publishing thing (Brainless is my first), but if I was confused before, now I'm baffled. How did the Times find a copy, and does paying "retail price in advance of its official release" lend a legitimacy to the endeavour that wouldn't exist if the Times had been simply handed a free copy? A question for the ages, undoubtedly.

In any case, now that publication of Woodward's tome has been moved up, I'll just take a walk down to my local bookshop.

I had the priviledge of reading an advance copy of Brainless -- The Lies and Lunacy of Ann Coulter. Prior to doing so I felt it would only be fair to read at least one Ann Coulter book to have a frame of reference.

Now, I am ashamed to admit that I actually purchased Godless so that I could read it. I am a voracious reader, but this book was an extremely difficult read for me. I was unable to get through an entire chapter -- much less a few pages -- in one sitting, which made the whole process even more painful. I found that Godless has no narrative structure and read like a subway station lunatic ranting about completely random topics.

I believe that we are all entitled to our own opinions and to be treated fairly. Along with that right comes the rule I thought we all learned in kindergarten: "If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all." I believe that there are more appropriate ways to share opinions without hurting the feelings of others, as in the case of the Jersey Girls. I also believe that if you are going to be bold enough to assert an opinion, it should hold up -- and that if you don’t like something, rather than rant like a lunatic, you should try and rectify the problem rather than just contribute to it.

Even though this is the author’s debut book, it reads with experience, wit and confidence. He tactfully examines and undermines Ann’s opinions, delivering to the reader a more accurate understanding of just how insane she really is -- and that rather than taking steps to improve problems, she is just contributing to them.

Joe did a brilliant job seeking truth where little can be found.

I made the mistake of reading Ann's latest column on her Web site. It's about -- and is -- torture.

In a nutshell, she's arguing against Article Three of the Geneva Conventions, the one affording certain rights to prisoners of war. And, like most people who don't understand the issue, Ann thinks it's OK that we torture prisoners -- in clear violation of international code. And again, as usual, her argument in favor of doing so isn't so much a set of reasons resulting in a conclusion, but rather another in a long line of red herrings, accusations and reminders that Ronald Reagan "vanquished the Soviet Union."

Seriously.

Anyway, Ann asks (in fact, it's the column's headline): Are videotaped beheadings covered by Geneva?

Isn't that always the way? I mean, let's put aside the fact that torture doesn't work (and it doesn't -- go on, check it out), why do people like Ann always trot out the beheadings? Or even better, they go for some ridiculous hypothetical situation in which we have captured the only man in the world who knows where the weapon of mass destruction is, and it's in one of our cities. Do we torture him to save the lives of thousands of Americans?

Firts of all, the situation is ridiculous. And basing our decision about torture on it is about as relevant as asking whether you would support the death penalty "if it was your mother who got killed." Simply put, we shouldn't decide public policy for 300 million Americans on a single, ridiculous hypotehtical example. And if you do, you should be voted out of office.

Either way, here's a typical discussion I have with my conservative friends:

Me: We shouldn't torture people.

Friend: Why not?

Me: It doesn't work and it's immoral.

Friend: Oh, but it's OK for them to cut the heads off people.

Me: You're an idiot.

I realize my ultimate response is condescending and mean. But I can't help myself. Who in their right mind thinks it's OK for al-Qaeda, the Nazis or any other terrorist/military organization to behead people? I certainly don't. In fact, those of us who argue AGAINST torture are saying just the opposite. It seems to me, it would be far more valid to assume that someone like Ann Coulter thinks beheadings are OK. It just boggles the mind.