A Moose By Any Other Name

Apparently, Team Obama is still a little bitter about the fact that America's favorite dog blog devoted to politics, pop culture, and basketball never got around to endorsing the former junior senator from Illinois during his run for the White House. How else to explain this fit of pique from First Lady Michelle Obama over possible names for the dog the family is planning to adopt this spring? People magazine reports today the Obamas have finally settled on a Portuguese Water Dog, the breed favored by Senator Ted Kennedy (because, you know, the whole Camelot Once More meme just hasn't been driven into the dirt yet). Fine, we say, don't get a terrier. We've got more important things to do than be props in your slick political spectacle. We realize the whole group probably needs to be re-branded after poor Barney's association with the Shrub years. But, really, Michelle, did you have to take a swipe at my typist? What's up with that?

Here is the People report on what the First Lady of the United States had to say on the now all-important question of what the Obamas will name their dog:

"Oh, the names are really bad. I don't even want to mention it, because there are names floating around and they're bad," Mrs. Obama says with a laugh. "You listen and you go – like, I think, Frank was one of them. Frank! Moose was another one of them. Moose. I said, well, what if the dog isn't a moose? Moose. I'm like, no, come on, let's work with the names a little bit."

Reached in her office late this afternoon for comment on this obvious attack on her virtual identity, Moose was diplomatic.

"Look, Rox," she said, "everything is just so political for them. Imagine the kerfuffle that would arise among all the A-list blogger boyz who chugged so much Kool-Aid for the Precious if the Obamas were to name their pet after the typist for a dog blog that resolutely refused to endorse the guy! Besides, there is also the highly problematic issue of the origin of my nickname."

"You mean because of the whole Mussolini thing?" I replied.

"Yeah, Rox. I know that you and Goose think it's hilarious, because you have this crazy idea that I'm something of a control freak and that in this limited regard I supposedly bear a faint resemblance to an Italian dictator known for his fondness for order, but I can't see the Obamas standing up and explaining the joke to the American people. Really, I'm not sure even Sasha could pull that one off."

"You're probably right, but I still think it was mean of her to mock the name. I think Moose is a great name, for a person or a dog, despite its association with a dubious historical figure. I should think Barack Hussein Obama would be sympathetic to that problem."

"Indeed, but you know what? Let's show the Obamas that we are ready to rise above our former differences. Let's turn the other cheek on Moose-gate and try to help them solve their problem. Let's enlist your legions of loyal fans in the effort to name the Obamas' dog! I ran across a great suggestion today over on HillBuzz -- that the Obamas should get two dogs and name them Hope and Change."

"Ha! That's really funny, and it's also a wonderful idea."

So, that's it, legions. You are all tagged, every single one of you, to come up with the perfect name for the new First Dog. It has to be clean, it has to be clever, and it must be devoid of even a whiff of political incorrectness. We'd prefer that it steer clear of Kennedy allusions, too, and we'd kinda like to avoid the more obvious heroes of African-American history, but we don't want to set too many limits on your creativity. Submit your suggestions in comments and we'll forward the best ones to the White House. Oh, and the judges for this contest? Moose, of course, and maybe our good friend Frank from Norway, who is not named after any dictator that we know of and will likely never recover from the shock of seeing his perfectly fine name mocked by the First Lady of the United States. We think it's only fair that Moose and Frank should get to make this vital call.

What's in a name, kids? Put on your thinking caps and let Roxie's World know. Peace out.

(With thanks to qta and Kate for pointing us toward the People story.)

Cover Stories

It's Friday evening, and my typist is hoping to get in a long overdue workout before settling in for drinks before a roaring fire at Ishmael's, the seedy yet cozy bar around the corner from the global headquarters of RW Enterprises, LLC, but we couldn't resist throwing up some provocative eye candy to get your weekend off to a pleasant start. As America's favorite dog blog devoted to politics, pop culture, and basketball, it is of course our solemn obligation to showcase the New Yorker cover that shows President-Elect Obama vetting candidates for the all-important position of First Dog. And, yes, this cover was done by the same artist, Barry Blitt, who did the infamous terrorist fist-bumping cover last summer.

You will no doubt have noticed that Roxie's World has kept silent on the sad news that the Obama administration clearly plans to continue the abominable War on Terriers. We are still trying to come to grips with the president-elect's unprovoked attack on Barbara Walters' cute little Havanese terrier, Cha Cha, whom Obama contemptuously dismissed as a "girly dog" when Walters proposed the hypoallergenic breed as a good candidate for the Obama family dog. We suspect the incoming president may harbor some kind of grudge against the terrier group because he is still bitter about not having earned the coveted endorsement of America's favorite dog blog devoted to politics, pop culture, and basketball, but we are sorry indeed that he feels a need to lash out in such a vindictive fashion. We plan to let the new secretary of state know that we hope she can prevail upon Obama to let bygones be bygones and, for dog's sake, end the War on Terriers!

Next up on the pile of magazines is this cover of the December 16 issue of The Advocate. We haven't gotten around to reading the story yet, but Melissa McEwan of Shakesville has, and she criticizes the framing of the piece (in a magazine catering to a disproportionately white audience) for seeming to appropriate the black civil rights movement while too breezily implying that the struggle for racial equality is finished. We think Liss is probably right, and we have noted before the problems of positing analogies between the struggles of different oppressed groups and of relying on a "march of progress" narrative to frame a history of civil rights. We want y'all to go read The Advocate story, though, as well as Liss's critique, and then come back here to talk about it. Does being careful about analogies mean we have to abandon them altogether? To avoid offending some African Americans, should queers (of every color, shape, and creed) never dare to invoke the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. -- even when his widow embraced the struggle for LGBT equality as a civil rights issue comparable to those for which her husband gave his life? These are complicated issues, we realize, and we have been relentless in our criticisms of LGBT advocacy groups for their failures to organize in communities of color and address the concerns of racial minorities, but we still feel the analogies can be strategically valuable and are not always unwarranted. What do you think?

Finally, because we think in threes, we offer up the cover of last week's New York Times Magazine. Again, we haven't read the article, because my typist has been trapped in the seasonal hell of post-Thanksgiving / pre-end of semester "good lord, what 17 things do I have to try to finish in the next 15 minutes?" Fortunately, Historiann read the story and blogged it with her usual mix of smarts and snark. Go read both of them, and come back here. The seminar on feminism, surrogacy, and the conundrums of privilege will convene as soon as the colloquium on history and the perils of analogy has concluded.

Drinks for everybody at Ishmael's as soon as the work -- and the workout -- are finished. Oh, who am I kidding? It's after 7 -- Belly up to the bar, kids. It's Friday night and high time we tied one on. Pour me a tall one, Peter Coffin, and bring a couple of orders of your delicious fried mozzarella sticks. My typist promises she'll go to the gym tomorrow, which is, as you well know, another day. Peace out.

Transitional Moves

How's America handling the dawning of the Age of Obama? Well, as with all epic transformations in the zeitgeist, there have been a few glitches, a couple of hiccups, a few signs that not everyone has read the unity memos. Cases in point:

1. Barney Bites Reporter

In a move clearly orchestrated by Dick Cheney to let evildoers know that the White House is still under the control of a bunch of bitter old meanies, First Dog Barney was dispatched yesterday to bite a reporter. Roxie's World officially protests this cruel and cynical exploitation of a sweet little terrier who clearly just wanted to be left alone to tinkle. Watch the vid and judge for yourself:



2. McCain Aides Bite Sarah Palin

And CNN's Alma Dale Brown righteously rips them for it. You go, girl -- And you'll have to go over to CNN to watch the vid, because for some reason we can't get it to embed. Sorry. We'll update later if we can find it out on the YouTubes, but click on over. It's a fine piece of high dudgeon in which the Steel Magnolia of American journalism reminds the dagger-wielding McCainiacs that the woman they are now calling the Wasilla Hillbilly was put on the ticket to throw a little populist red meat to the Republican base. Point taken, Alma Dale!

3. Awkward Encounters Across the Color Line in Post-Racial US of A:

Goose was dozing on a Metro train last night, coming home late from a dinner downtown. As the train pulled out of Union Station, she was jolted awake by a heated conversation two black guys were having about the president-elect. She and the other (mostly white) passengers had no choice but to listen in on the discussion, which went something like this:

Black Guy #1: That man has never been an N-word -- not one day in his life!

Black Guy #2: How can you say that? He certainly has been an N-word!

Black Guy #1: No, not ever! You've been an N-word, bro, I've been an N-word, but he has never been an N-word, and he ain't gonna do nothin' for us! He is whitey's choice for this country, not mine!

(Goose shifts in her seat, accidentally makes eye contact with a white guy seated across the train from her. His glance says, "Goodness, this is awkward, isn't it?")

Black Guy #2: You crazy. Surely you voted for him!

Black Guy #1: Did not, bro. I live in the District of Columbia. Don't make no difference who I vote for.

(The guys argued all the way to Ft. Totten and then got off the train together, taking their argument with them into the muggy November night. Goose closed her eyes and reflected on how much the new America looked and sounded like the old one. Plus ça change, she would have thought, if she were inclined to think in French, which, hélas, she is not.)

4. Judith Butler Kills Your Buzz

Or at least we think it's Judith Butler. We picked this up off Angry White Kid, by way of a Facebook pal. Its provenance isn't entirely clear, but even if it isn't Judith Butler, we think it's so damn smart about "the heightened modes of identification" and the dangers of appeals to unity that have fueled Obamania that we think it's worth passing along. We'll continue to try to confirm the source, but in the meantime here's a big cut-and-paste job for you to contemplate over your Wheaties on this first Friday after the election that redeemed our nation from its sordid racial history -- even as it decided that, on second thought, queers really should be relegated to the status of second-class citizens. If we were a philosopher rather than a humble dog, we would have come up with the term "uncritical exuberance" months ago, but we're glad Butler came up with it for us. Take it away, Judy. (The piece is dated Wednesday, Nov. 5, by the way. Damn, she's not just smarter than we are -- She's faster than we are!)

Uncritical Exuberance?
Judith Butler

Very few of us are immune to the exhilaration of this time. My friends on the left write to me that they feel something akin to "redemption" or that "the country has been returned to us" or that "we finally have one of us in the White House." Of course, like them, I discover myself feeling overwhelmed with disbelief and excitement throughout the day, since the thought of having the regime of George W. Bush over and gone is an enormous relief. And the thought of Obama, a thoughtful and progressive black candidate, shifts the historical ground, and we feel that cataclysm as it produces a new terrain. But let us try to think carefully about the shifted terrain, although we cannot fully know its contours at this time. The election of Barack Obama is historically significant in ways that are yet to be gauged, but it is not, and cannot be, a redemption, and if we subscribe to the heightened modes of identification that he proposes ("we are all united") or that we propose ("he is one of us"), we risk believing that this political moment can overcome the antagonisms that are constitutive of political life, especially political life in these times. There have always been good reasons not to embrace "national unity" as an ideal, and to nurse suspicions toward absolute and seamless identification with any political leader. After all, fascism relied in part on that seamless identification with the leader, and Republicans engage this same effort to organize political affect when, for instance, Elizabeth Dole looks out on her audience and says, "I love each and every one of you."

It becomes all the more important to think about the politics of exuberant identification with the election of Obama when we consider that support for Obama has coincided with support for conservative causes. In a way, this accounts for his "cross-over" success. In California, he won by 60% of the vote, and yet some significant portion of those who voted for him also voted against the legalization of gay marriage (52%). How do we understand this apparent disjunction? First, let us remember that Obama has not explicitly supported gay marriage rights. Further, as Wendy Brown has argued, the Republicans have found that the electorate is not as galvanized by "moral" issues as they were in recent elections; the reasons given for why people voted for Obama seem to be predominantly economic, and their reasoning seems more fully structured by neo-liberal rationality than by religious concerns. This is clearly one reason why Palin's assigned public function to galvanize the majority of the electorate on moral issues finally failed. But if "moral" issues such as gun control, abortion rights and gay rights were not as determinative as they once were, perhaps that is because they are thriving in a separate compartment of the political mind. In other words, we are faced with new configurations of political belief that make it possible to hold apparently discrepant views at the same time: someone can, for instance, disagree with Obama on certain issues, but still have voted for him. This became most salient in the emergence of the counter Bradley-effect, when voters could and did explicitly own up to their own racism, but said they would vote for Obama anyway. Anecdotes from the field include claims like the following: "I know that Obama is a Muslim and a Terrorist, but I will vote for him anyway; he is probably better for the economy." Such voters got to keep their racism and vote for Obama, sheltering their split beliefs without having to resolve them.

Along with strong economic motivations, less empirically discernible factors have come into play in these election results. We cannot underestimate the force of dis-identification in this election, a sense of revulsion that George W. has "represented" the United States to the rest of the world, a sense of shame about our practices of torture and illegal detention, a sense of disgust that we have waged war on false grounds and propagated racist views of Islam, a sense of alarm and horror that the extremes of economic deregulation have led to a global economic crisis. Is it despite his race, or because of his race, that Obama finally emerged as a preferred representative of the nation? Fulfilling that representative-function, he is at once black and not-black (some say "not black enough" and others say "too black"), and, as a result, he can appeal to voters who not only have no way of resolving their ambivalence on this issue, but do not want one. The public figure who allows the populace to sustain and mask its ambivalence nevertheless appears as a figure of "unity": this is surely an ideological function. Such moments are intensely imaginary, but not for that reason without their political force.

As the election approached, there has been an increased focus on the person of Obama: his gravity, his deliberateness, his ability not to lose his temper, his way of modeling a certain evenness in the face of hurtful attacks and vile political rhetoric, his promise to reinstate a version of the nation that will overcome its current shame. Of course, the promise is alluring, but what if the embrace of Obama leads to the belief that we might overcome all dissonance, that unity is actually possible? What is the chance that we may end up suffering a certain inevitable disappointment when this charismatic leader displays his fallibility, his willingness to compromise, even to sell out minorities? He has, in fact, already done this in certain ways, but many of us "set aside" our concerns in order to enjoy the extreme un-ambivalence of this moment, risking an uncritical exuberance even when we know better. Obama is, after all, hardly a leftist, regardless of the attributions of "socialism" proffered by his conservative opponents. In what ways will his actions be constrained by party politics, economic interests, and state power; in what ways have they been compromised already? If we seek through this presidency to overcome a sense of dissonance, then we will have jettisoned critical politics in favor of an exuberance whose phantasmatic dimensions will prove consequential. Maybe we cannot avoid this phantasmatic moment, but let us be mindful about how temporary it is. If there are avowed racists who have said, "I know that he is a Muslim and a terrorist, but I will vote for him anyway," there are surely also people on the left who say, "I know that he has sold out gay rights and Palestine, but he is still our redemption." I know very well, but still: this is the classic formulation of disavowal. Through what means do we sustain and mask conflicting beliefs of this sort? And at what political cost?

There is no doubt that Obama's success will have significant effects on the economic course of the nation, and it seems reasonable to assume that we will see a new rationale for economic regulation and for an approach to economics that resembles social democratic forms in Europe; in foreign affairs, we will doubtless see a renewal of multi-lateral relations, the reversal of a fatal trend of destroying multilateral accords that the Bush administration has undertaken. And there will doubtless also be a more generally liberal trend on social issues, though it is important to remember that Obama has not supported universal health care, and has failed to explicitly support gay marriage rights. And there is not yet much reason to hope that he will formulate a just policy for the United States in the Middle East, even though it is a relief, to be sure, that he knows Rashid Khalidi.

The indisputable significance of his election has everything to do with overcoming the limits implicitly imposed on African-American achievement; it has and will inspire and overwhelm young African-Americans; it will, at the same time, precipitate a change in the self-definition of the United States. If the election of Obama signals a willingness on the part of the majority of voters to be "represented" by this man, then it follows that who "we" are is constituted anew: we are a nation of many races, of mixed races; and he offers us the occasion to recognize who we have become and what we have yet to be, and in this way a certain split between the representative function of the presidency and the populace represented appears to be overcome. That is an exhilarating moment, to be sure. But can it last, and should it?

To what consequences will this nearly messianic expectation invested in this man lead? In order for this presidency to be successful, it will have to lead to some disappointment, and to survive disappointment: the man will become human, will prove less powerful than we might wish, and politics will cease to be a celebration without ambivalence and caution; indeed, politics will prove to be less of a messianic experience than a venue for robust debate, public criticism, and necessary antagonism. The election of Obama means that the terrain for debate and struggle has shifted, and it is a better terrain, to be sure. But it is not the end of struggle, and we would be very unwise to regard it that way, even provisionally. We will doubtless agree and disagree with various actions he takes and fails to take. But if the initial expectation is that he is and will be "redemption" itself, then we will punish him mercilessly when he fails us (or we will find ways to deny or suppress that disappointment in order to keep alive the experience of unity and unambivalent love).

If a consequential and dramatic disappointment is to be averted, he will have to act quickly and well. Perhaps the only way to avert a "crash" – a disappointment of serious proportions that would turn political will against him – will be to take decisive actions within the first two months of his presidency. The first would be to close Guantanamo and find ways to transfer the cases of detainees to legitimate courts; the second would be to forge a plan for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and to begin to implement that plan. The third would be to retract his bellicose remarks about escalating war in Afghanistan and pursue diplomatic, multilateral solutions in that arena. If he fails to take these steps, his support on the left will clearly deteriorate, and we will see the reconfiguration of the split between liberal hawks and the anti-war left. If he appoints the likes of Lawrence Summers to key cabinet positions, or continues the failed economic polices of Clinton and Bush, then at some point the messiah will be scorned as a false prophet. In the place of an impossible promise, we need a series of concrete actions that can begin to reverse the terrible abrogation of justice committed by the Bush regime; anything less will lead to a dramatic and consequential disillusionment. The question is what measure of dis-illusion is necessary in order to retrieve a critical politics, and what more dramatic form of dis-illusionment will return us to the intense political cynicism of the last years. Some relief from illusion is necessary, so that we might remember that politics is less about the person and the impossible and beautiful promise he represents than it is about the concrete changes in policy that might begin, over time, and with difficulty, bring about conditions of greater justice.

Saturday Funnies

My typist has a cold, and a deep laziness has settled over Roxie's World here in the middle weekend of February. We haven't yet come up with the magic formula that is going to save Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and rid the world of sexism and dangerously vapid media coverage. We are so astonished by Tweety's confession this week that hearing a speech by Barack Obama sends "this thrill going up my leg" and by MoDo's assertion, with no apparent trace of irony or self-consciousness, that "attacks against powerful women can be harsh and personal and unfair, enough to make anyone cry" that we are tempted to cover our head with our paws and declare Roxie's World a media-free zone. But we couldn't do that to you, our legions of loyal fans, who are out there, patiently waiting for a weekend treat from your favorite dog blogger. Here are a few morsels from the goody bag, mostly things passed along by devoted members of the pack.

Did Roxie's World neglect to wish you a happy Valentine's Day? By dog, I think we did! Here's a little Valentine greeting passed along by the moms' high-powered enviro-politico pal (who was last seen in Roxie's World wielding an ax for Hillary Clinton):

And here's something Moose stumbled on halfway through her first cup of coffee this morning:

And here's a cartoon that was much funnier when it was published in early January, before we started worrying that John McCain might actually be electable (with thanks to an exceptionally devoted reader who doesn't yet have a blog-name, though we are considering several that involve witty allusions to cats, England, New Jersey, and the racial politics of the Victorian period):

Speaking of cats, if two Maureen Dowd columns a week is not enough to line the floor of your litter box, check out the amazing Dowd-O-Tron from 23/6. You can make your own MoDo column any day of the week with just a few clicks of the button! (Caution: Studies show that spending too much time in the mind of MoDo may be hazardous to one's health, causing toxic levels of thoughtless causticity and uncontrollable bouts of pointless antiphonal word-play.) (With thanks to deputy internets troller Dudley the Beagle, who sniffed this out before his nose got so high in the air from Uno's win at Westminster that he stopped returning our calls.)

Eager for the absolute latest on the Obama Messiah Watch? You'll find it here at Is Barack Obama the Messiah? It's supposed to be a parody, but we're wondering if it might not have the opposite effect. Still, we'd be happy if one of our devoted fans were to call our snarky references to Jesus Christ Superstar in Wednesday's post to their attention. We wouldn't mind ending up in the list of "Heretics and Unbelievers" in their sidebar.

Finally, June Star phoned in from the Garden State Parkway the other day with word that Jon Stewart made a reference to the War on Terriers in a piece he did on the triumph of Uno the beagle at Westminster. It's short, funny, and related to the long-awaited end of the writer's strike in Hollywood. Follow the link; the video wasn't loading completely when we had it embedded here, so we took it down.

That's it, kids. We promise more original material when Moose and her head are on speaking terms again. Love you. Mean it.

The Dog Wags

I love this Mike Luckovich cartoon. I love the suggestion that even the family pets are abandoning Bush and his maniacal commitment to failed policies. I'm especially pleased, as I'm sure all fans of Roxie's World are, that the cartoon shows a brave little terrier out in the yard by himself carefully crafting the message his stubborn master refuses to see or hear. I like to think that Barney would be my ally in the War on Terriers. He and I have a lot in common, after all. We're both highly photogenic political animals, and we both have a tendency to make some of our letters backwards, no matter how carefully we write. (That's why blogging is such a good medium for me. When Moose types for me, the letters usually come out in the right order and direction. Usually.)

Anyway, I just wanted to share a funny image with my legions of loyal fans. I know a lot of you are worried about the upcoming mid-term elections. You are Democrats, and so you are accustomed to watching your party steal defeat from the jaws of victory. Nonetheless, friends, I think there is cause for optimism, if not for irrational exuberance. Polls are trending our way all over the country, and the Republicans are falling all over themselves in an orgy of ex-Foley-ation that shows no signs of abating any time soon. My moms and I think it's hilarious that the party that has sought to enshrine homophobia into the Constitution of the United States is now trying to claim that sensitivity to gay feelings hindered their efforts to control the behavior of a congressman who couldn't keep his hands off his "send" button. We think Congressman Foley should have heeded the advice of Harry Truman: "If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog."

For those in need of an encouraging political word, here's a piece by pollster James Zogby on the October surprises that are, so far at least, spelling good news for Dems. Plus, here's a spot-on commentary on ex-Foley-ation by feminist genius Katha Pollitt. We heart Katha big-time in our household.

Keep the faith, my friends, and if you're worried about how the election is going, then get up off your chair and go do something. Democracy is not a spectator sport.

Political Puppet?

You decide, Friends of Roxie's World. Here's Michael Steele's second puppy ad. And here's a story that helpfully points out that Steele neglects to mention in these ads both that he is a Republican and that he currently serves as lieutenant governor of Maryland. (Wouldn't want to confuse the voters, after all, by disclosing the fact that, puppy lover or not, the dude is a [right-wing] political animal.)

My moms and I think it's a DUMB ad that doesn't very effectively address the valid questions about substance and the issues that Democrats sensibly raised in response to the first super-slick puppy ad that got everybody talking about Steele's brilliant marketing strategy. My very observant brother Geoffrey, though, proposes that the ad is duplicitous as well as dumb. He thinks the puppy in this ad is a puppet. (See his comment on my previous post.) That, my loyal fans, would take the War on Terriers to a new low, in my humble opinion. I mean, really, you're gonna hide behind a poor, innocent dog, and you don't even have the guts to use a real dog as your cynical prop? This old dog's head positively spins at the idea. My moms the English profs call that the vertigo of the signifier torn loose from the signified, but I just think it's creepy. (My moms are so weird.)

Anyway, the good news is that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is on the air in Maryland with a fairly clever response to Steele's faux-paw campaign. We haven't been able to find it yet out on the internets, but when we do we'll let you know. Meantime, kids, please weigh in on the great Puppy or Puppet question.

Oh, and Friday is the birthday of progressive talk goddess Stephanie Miller. Momma, your Official Dog Blogger sends you another full-body lick and the hope that you might have all the boxed wine you want on this your "thirty-fifth" birthday. :-)

Save This Puppy!

Uh-oh, Friends of Roxie's World. It appears that a new front has opened up in the War on Terriers. Look at how this adorable Boston Terrier is being exploited in a new campaign ad by Maryland's stealth Republican senate candidate, Michael Steele. Steele's ads are clever--light as air, but effective at marketing him as charming and cool, aimed at inoculating him against negative attacks by positioning him as friendly and above the fray.

Fine, Mr. Steele, go ahead and offer yourself up as a pretty piece of non-partisan eye-candy (while relying on big-name Republicans [Bush, Cheney, and Rove] to raise money for you). But if you drag a TERRIER into your slippery business, you risk raising the ire of my legions of fans, who know cruelty to animals and other living things when they see it. Mr. Steele, terriers have no interest in being props in your vapid, slick campaign. Rather than being held in your lap, we'd rather be nipping at your heels or madly barking out the truth about you:

• your lack of real experience in government (being lieutenant governor of Maryland barely counts as a job, much less as experience in government);
• your far-right positions on reproductive freedom and stem-cell research;
• your cynical attempts to conceal your party affiliation in a proud blue state where Democrats outnumber Republicans two to one.

Be a man, Mr. Steele. Let this puppy go, and have the guts to stand on your own--as what you really are.

Enough About YOU

My meteoric rise to fame continues, and my hard work as Official Dog Blogger to The Stephanie Miller Show has just begun. Below is the full text of an e-mail I wrote to Steph late last week. It was the very first item featured on Friday's show! The subject line was, "Roxie to Steph: I am NOT a Rat Terrier." She read most of the message, though for some strange reason she left out the fart joke about Karl Rove and Karen Hughes, which Moose and I thought was the funniest line in the whole message. It also would have been an excellent opportunity to use the heavy footsteps sound clip that producer Chris Lavoie uses whenever husky-gal Karen Hughes is mentioned. Well, fans, time is precious in radio. We'll have to get used to being edited to accommodate all those cheesy commercials they run on AM radio, but here in Roxie's World, you get to see me uncut!

Here is my e-mail:

Dear Ms. Miller,

First of all, let me express my gratitude to you for publicly naming my blog "Roxie's World" the "Official Dog Blog of The Stephanie Miller Show." Words cannot express how humbled and thrilled I am by the honor of having an official relationship with a nationally syndicated radio program dedicated to saving the world through fart jokes. If I were a California dog, I would come right to your studio to express my gratitude with a full-body terrier lick--from the bottoms of your big feet to the top of your uni-brow. I look forward to assuming my duties alongside the other "official" persons connected to your show: Faye, the official radical militant librarian from Tulsa; Susan, your new official Jew; the long line of your future husbands; and, of course, John Conyers and Barbara Boxer, the patron and matron saints of The Stephanie Miller Show.

Speaking of farts: Like many dogs, I am an accomplished farter. In fact, as I've gotten older, my moms say my farts are as stinky as Karl Rove and Karen Hughes battling to push their way to the front of the buffet line, but I digress.

My first task as official dog blogger to The Stephanie Miller Show will have to be an educational one. Stephanie, when you read from my message the other day, you referred to me several times as a "rat terrier." I know this is hard for you big-dog people to understand, because a Saint Bernard is a Saint Bernard. Terriers, on the other hand, are a large and varied group of dogs. We come in more than two dozen breeds, and each breed has unique qualities and characteristics. I am a wire-haired fox terrier, a breed that has won Best in Show at the famous Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show thirteen times--more than any other breed! The poor "rat terrier," by contrast, has just recently been recognized by the AKC as a registered breed. To class me with them is to misread me as badly as George Bush misreads his speeches or as George Tenent misread the pre-war intelligence on Iraq. Please, Stephie, I am only now recovering from the wounds of your unkind description of terriers as "small" and "high-strung." You and I have come so far in our efforts to end the War on Terriers. We have followed the road map to peace and found that freedom is on the march. Please don't halt our march mid-lockstep. If we are to be partners in peace, you must look in my big brown canine eyes and call me what I am: a wire-haired fox terrier with way too much time on my hands.

Yours in gastro-intestinal distress,
Roxie

Fame

NEWS FLASH: Roxie's World Named "Official Dog Blog of The Stephanie Miller Show." Stephie said so Herself at the top of the third hour of this morning's show!

Moose and I were spending a morning at home together and so heard it live. We danced around the great room as Steph read at length from an e-mail I had sent her officially accepting her surrender in the War on Terriers. She turned to me and said, "So, Rox, how does it feel to be famous?" I could barely conceal my contempt. "Mom," I replied, "I have always been famous. It's just that now everybody knows it." "Okie-dokie," she countered, "but I'm still the one who can trick you into taking your heart meds by wrapping them in liverwurst." She had me there. I am inordinately fond of liverwurst.

More soon, loyal fans. I just wanted to get the good news out. I have a lot of work to do as I take on the responsibilities of a public role in connection with a nationally syndicated radio program dedicated to saving the world through fart jokes. I'll have to start by giving Ms. Stephanie Miller a thorough education in the varieties of terriers. Today she referred to me as a "rat terrier." I know. I was shocked, too. I, Roxie Smith-Lindemann, AKC registered wire-haired fox, publicly introduced as a "rat terrier." The ink isn't even dry on the papers making them an AKC breed! Boy, do I have my work cut out for me.

Winning the War on Terriers

First, I have to apologize to my legions of loyal fans. Roxie's World has been quiet in the last couple of weeks because Moose has been too busy to type for me. She periodically stumbles in the front door to rant and rave about the start of a new semester, but Goose and I haven't seen much of her lately. She seems pretty stressed. Meantime, I am violating Rule #1 of the Blogosphere: Publish regular updates so that your fans won't drift away. I'm here! Don't leave me! It's Moose's fault!

On the other hand, obsessive listeners of The Stephanie Miller Show know that I haven't just been napping or rolling in scat lately. Far from it! I've been getting FAMOUS, and I've won an important victory in the War on Terriers. Fans will recall that in my post of August 31 I chastised progressive talk goddess and dog lover Stephanie Miller for insulting remarks she made about terriers during one of her shows. I won't go over it again because it's too painful, though I will note that it involved the words "small" and "high-strung."

Anyway, my aunt Faye, official radical militant librarian to The Stephanie Miller Show, forwarded the post to Steph and let her know that I and terriers everywhere were not amused by her vicious trafficking in stereotypes and misinformation. On our behalf, Faye demanded an apology. She cleverly suggested that we might forgive Steph if she agreed to mention Roxie's World on the air. Well, folks, I am pleased to report that this past Tuesday (September 12), at the start of the show's third hour, Ms. Stephanie Miller did publicly and sincerely apologize to me and all my terrier friends. She waved a big white flag in the War on Terriers. Plus, she not only mentioned my blog address on the air, she read extensively from the War on Terriers post, totally cracking up executive producer Chris Lavoie with the line about terriers not being high-strung but "just busier than other creatures."

Goose heard it live while she was out doing errands and nearly ran the car off the road when she heard Stephanie mention Roxie's World. Moose missed it. She was snarfing down a bagel in the middle of a busy morning in College Park. Poor, frantic humans.

I would upload an MP3 file of the whole exchange, but that is both illegal and, as far as Moose and I are concerned, impossible to do on Blogger, given our limited technical skills. We suggest that you all subscribe to the podcast of The Stephanie Miller Show, and then you can access it through the archives. Now that Stephanie has surrendered in the War on Terriers, we are proud to re-assume our role as shameless pluggers of her fabulous show. She plugged us. We plug her. That, my humble friends, is how the cycle of fame works.

Terriers, of course, are accustomed to fame, so you needn't worry that this brush with celebrity will go to my head. Naturally, my favorite famous terrier is Asta, the wire-haired fox from The Thin Man movies, but Toto from The Wizard of Oz was a Cairn terrier and Eddie on the TV show Frasier was a Jack Russell. Then there's FDR's famous Scottie, Fala. George Bush has a Scottie, too, but that's just part of his pathetic attempt to imitate strong presidents so it doesn't count. Here's an (incomplete) list of famous terriers for those of you who might wish to enhance your canine cultural literacy (and if you're reading this, surely you must want to do that). We're hoping Ms. Stephanie Miller will take a look at this impressive list the next time she's tempted to disrespect our noble group of breeds.

The War on Terriers

[Cartoon by Jeffrey Decoster, New York Times, 8.31.06]

I didn't know the "Dog Whisperer" was mean to dogs.

I didn't know that progressive talk goddess Stephanie Miller hated terriers.

I could never have imagined that the United States of America would become the big dumb bully of the universe, roaming the world in search of fights to pick, wars to start, stacks of dry wood to set on fire.

What's a dog to do?

We've never actually watched The Dog Whisperer in our house. We've never missed an episode of Showtime's Weeds, which Goose hails as Marijuana's Finest Half Hour (and which Moose likes because it features the adorable Mary Louise Parker as the perky, dope-selling widow), but The Dog Whisperer has never made it onto the family radar screen. Still, I was sad to read in The New York Times today that the National Geographic show features a big old meanie who gets dogs to obey through tactics of punishment and intimidation that can put them into a state of panic.

Readers of Roxie's World know that it doesn't work that way in our house. Moose and I have tussled from time to time over who is truly the alpha-dog, but she has usually won by being firm without being mean, and she would never try to scare me. (No snarky comments, please, from friends who know I have never been trained to not jump up and bark hysterically when visitors come to the door.) My Moose is tough love with a human face, and I honor her as my alpha-dog. Goose, of course, is another, sometimes funner story, and I lick her all-too human face in recognition of her role as zeta-dog. Every pack needs a zeta-dog ;)

But Stephie, Stephie, Stephie, why do you hate terriers? We heard it the other day when a caller called in with advice for you on your ongoing rat problem. She offered to let you borrow her dog. "What kind of dog is it?" you asked. "A terrier mix," the helpful caller replied. "Well, there you go," you said, "you fix your rat problem and then you've got a terrier," or words to that effect. We were so devastated we couldn't focus on the details, though you did go on to talk about your preference for big dogs and to make some snide remark about terriers being "high strung."

Sigh.

We are sad to see a dog person and an all-round fabulous grrrl such as yourself trashing a breed through stereotype and misinformation. We are disappointed to realize that you are a size queen with a bias toward large, mentally challenged breeds such as Saint Bernards. (We always knew you loved Saint Bernards. We just didn't know your love was based on some kind of knee-jerk, anti-smart dog bigotry. What is it, Steph--Some kind of No Dog Left Behind thing?) Terriers aren't high strung; we're just busier than most creatures are. And most of us aren't "small" either. I weigh in at a sturdy 25 pounds, and my cousins the Irish Terrier are even bigger. Check out this description of the Irish Terrier's temperament from the American Kennel Club's website:

Tender and forebearing with those he loves, this rugged, stout-hearted terrier will guard his master, his mistress and children with utter contempt for danger or hurt. His life is one continuous and eager offering of loyal and faithful companionship and devotion. He is ever on guard, and stands between his home and all that threatens.

What's not to love, Steph? What's not to love? Everybody needs a terrier in the age of "terror."