They say it's darkest just before dawn. Here's one tiny glimmer of hope in the insanity that has befallen our nation. Will Pitt's departure at the 11th hour (scripted, of course) mean that others might fall? Paul O'Neil, anyone? Tommy Thompson? We can only wait and hope...hope that something, anything, can reverse the course our country has charted.

Nothing's worse than being sick, except to be sick and watch the Republicans take control of the government. Now America will be sick, for at least two years. Read this article in the washington post and try to suppress the gag reflex.

Suddenly, items that had been bottled up in the Democratic Senate have new life. President Bush has new hopes for action on his conservative slate of judges, his energy plan calling for drilling in Alaska's wildlife refuge, and the policies he favors on topics such as homeland security, terrorism insurance and prescription drug coverage. With Democrats losing their ability to set the Senate schedule and launch probes of the administration, chances improve for Bush's hopes to extend last year's tax cuts, curtail jury awards, cut business regulations and overhaul Medicare.

At the same time, White House officials said last night that most of their early effort in the new Congress will revolve around stimulating economic growth. Wary of the struggling economy as a vulnerability for Bush heading into his reelection race, administration officials said Bush was likely to introduce a new economic-stimulus package early next year. Among the plans being drawn up are new tax cuts for businesses and investors.

It's almost worst case scenario. Conservative judges, permanent tax cuts going to the wealthy, less regulation and all the rest. God help us. God help us all.

in addition to the election madness and the peyser.com redesign, i feel like i've been squeezed like a sponge, with every bit of healthy liquid inside me removed, leaving only a dirty exoskeleton, sponge style. perhaps i'm getting sick. perhaps i ate something bad last night. perhaps there's no explanation. i just want to get through this day, watch 24 and the election returns, and have some dinner. of course, i have to make it through work first...

vote early.

vote often.

vote democrats.

Dear Dredwerkz,

I'm having a bit of an issue with this weekend's plans. My boyfriend is introducing me to his parents this weekend and I need some ideas about what to bring and what to wear.

The whole gift idea is a sensitive subject since I would like to make a good impression but not look like a suck up. Neither of them drink so I can't bring them a bottle of wine, which is often the standard. So I was thinking just flowers, but come on! Do people still do that? Help!

The other matter...the proper attire: I'm a bit of a tomboy so dressing up is a pain in my backside. But I feel like I should at least try and put my comfort aside and go the appropriate feminine route just to let my boyfriends parents know that--provided we end up together--I won't go running off with the next hot chick I see. Or, does it even matter. Should I just be happy that he likes me enough to introduce me to his parents? I guess the point of this question is: How important is it to impress the parents of your significant other?

Thanks for your help,
Pondering in Puzzlement

Helena replies:

I recently have gone through this, so I'll pass on some of my gained wisdom.

I think it is important to make a good impression, but as yourself. The most important thing is manners, not to impress them, but because you respect that they produced a guy you think is great and you weren't raised by wolves (we'll assume). You should treat his parents with respect and that means leaving the ratty-tatty jeans at home. It also means respecting that they are rational, non-judgmental people. They apparently raised a great son, so give them a little credit and assume going in that they could be cool people. That means that you don't have to conform to some image of the perfect girlfriend (i.e. leave the flouncy-wouncy dress at home also.) Be natural -- they'll pick up on the non-wardrobe things like how you interact with their son. If the meeting is happening at their home, and mom or dad is in the kitchen, offer to chip in -- it'll break the ice, ease your jitters, and it's just good manners.

So, for the concrete advice. Attire: Depending on the location, I think you would be safe in non-jeans pants and a nice sweater. Again, I think it's a mistake to assume that the parents will be critiquing your every move, but you want to come across as respectful. It's also safe to dress at roughly the same level as your boy. Gift: the bottle of wine is the easy standby, but I wouldn't do a sparkling cider or anything like that as a replacement -- it draws too much attention to their decision not to drink and makes it into a thing. Flowers are fine, if a little showy. I would choose a small bouquet of tea roses or something similar, but stay away from large, cellophane-wrapped assortments that feel like Valentine's Day or a first date. In general, I am a fan of edible gifts, because they don't hang around like a tacky potholder for years to come, and because everyone likes food. This works best if you are from a different area than they are and can bring a special regional treat. If nothing comes to mind on that front, it also works to bring coffee from your local coffeehouse (your favorite blend), cookies from a local bakery, etc. It takes away the kiss-up factor if you can say, "I had these the other day at a friend's and just loved them," or something like that. Makes it seem that rather than going and looking for a gift, a gift found you and you thought you'd share it. Most importantly, don't wrap the gift.

Finally, have fun while you're there and don't forget to send a thank-you note.

Edward's thoughts:

Well, PiP, I probably would say that Helena's comments are good, although I'd differ from them with a few key points. One, although it's important to "be yourself" when it comes to your boyfriend, there's really no reason not to try to impress his parents, even if it means acting a little less like yourself and a little more like Ms. Perfect. First impressions are important, and it's much better for them to come away with the "my god she's incredible" impression than the "she's kind of nice" opinion. So, yeah, go feminine, but classy. As far as gifts go, I agree that food is a good option, although I wouldn't make it myself (mainly because I'd mess it up) because if you purchase something it can end up tasting bad without reflecting upon your culinary abilities. Flowers are probably easier, and if you choose your favorite, then it's an easy way for them to associate you with something, e.g. "Pip? Oh yes, she's the daisy girl..." If the group is planning to go somewhere nice to dinner, be sure to bring an appropriate outfit, which may mean bringing one regardless if his parents are the spontaneous type who tend to make reservations without informing their son.

Also, with respect to the suck-up point: I can't imagine my parents, or anyone's parents, for that matter, thinking that a gift attempt was being a suck-up. Maybe it's that I can't imagine anyone purchasing a gift so lavish that it would make someone feel guilty. It's not as if you're purchasing jewelry, right? So don't sweat this part. Concentrate on being cheerful at his parent's house, and not demanding to spend every waking second with him alone. Helping with dinner, chopping wood, killing chickens, etc. can often ease the tension. Most important, no matter how much his parents cajole you, don't give into the temptation to talk about your significant other's flaws. Even if his mother starts to grouse about how lazy he is, and you know of several examples to support her thesis, either keep mum or mumble a vague platitude. Or two or three. Vagueness is your friend until you know them better.

Brad's opinion:

meeting the parents is similar to golf...a real waste of friggin' time. and if you are like me, and have done it several times, the nervousness and apprehension are pretty much gone. unless you get the house tour involving the gun closet (i have!) so your question is more a matter of tactics than strategy...you already have decided whether this guy is sticking around for a while or not, and so his concerns are bracketed.

so you can trash helena's suggestions and add them to the festering heap of refuse that passes for edward's comments. toss an oily rag on 'dat mess and step away. we're going into battle, not asking out our middle-school crush. parents know this too - they're sizing you up, and you better be ready to play.

first do a little scouting. mom's probably your biggest opponent, so find out as much info as you can about her beforehand. your outfit should be one that makes her proud, but not threatened. she's going to pick it apart for flaws regardless, thus try and find a happy medium between stunning and your actual wardrobe, so that she can neither assail you for trying too hard or for slobbing along.

at the event, steer conversation to topics that are close to ones you know are in the 'rents interest. especially if asked a tough question or a flaw is noticed. for instance, if they ask you about your future job plans, you could mention that you were doing A but considering B...if B is something that one of the parents used to love to do long ago! other tricks include flipping questions back "so what were you doing at his age?" or mentioning humorous, harmless stories about your sig. o "has bobby always made faces in photos?' parents love this banal crap. above all, don't compliment them, compliment the son.

and finally, like the marines. get in, blow things up, and get out. be sure to make the date a neutral location with a fixed, unmovable endpoint (meeting friends later, doctor appointment, or getting up early for work the next day) that way nobody gets hurt and you can leave 'em wanting more...just watch the hands, daddy-o! throw on those strappy sandals and kick some tail, pippy...

My redesign of the peyser associates website is in full swing, so my free time is dropping accordingly. We're on a very aggressive production schedule, so I may have to pull some long shifts to get everything finished in time. this doesn't mean that we're not still getting advice requests, which should be posted daily before COB. I'm still trying to handle the latest couple of requests. Until then though, it's back to the grind.

from an anonymous reader (remember, folks, don't submit with your real name...make something up that explains your question!) comes this fact-based question:

Dear Dredwerkz,

Got a question for you.....

Why is it that "beer before liquor" makes you sicker than "liquor before beer"?

Edward responds:

Well, the adage you refer to is an unproven myth that may or may not be correct. Some limited scientific evidence (remember, the alcohol manufacturers aren't really concerned with the effects of their products, just like the tobacco producers) has led some people to conclude that carbonated beverages ease the absorbtion of alcohol into the bloodstream. Check out factoid #119 at this site which offers a limited explanation. If carbonation helps mainline the alcohol present in the beer in your stomach, the theory goes, it stays to help increase the speed that the liquor is then absorbed. In reverse, the liquor has no such absorbtion altering powers. This is, of course, almost pure hearsay: a sort of pseudo-science caused by lack of real data. Decreasing the amount of time one's body can absorb alcohol also will increase the odds of alcohol poisoning.

Helena's thoughts:

Brad's opinion:

use a little common sense Anon, and think about every drunk person you have ever known. those that were sick the next day either deliberately ignored their limits, or simply lost track during the night. let's ignore the sadists, and concentrate on the problem of losing track. no matter what you start with, by the time you switch, you will already be drunk. so your ability to know your limit is heavily impaired. in this state, one type of beverage will take longer to consume, require increased trips to the bathroom, and generally fill you up so that drinking more is difficult. that liquid is beer. so those that go from liquor to beer will take longer to drink and generally consume less alcohol than the other way around. that's what it comes down to in the end - simply the amount rather than the type of alcohol. now you are in the clear...so stay sick!

Another day, another revelation of wrongdoing from the most egregious of Bush II's cabinet members: Harvey Pitt. In the latest episode, detailed in this post piece, Pitt concealed information from the commissioners of the SEC itself. Now, his own organization is investigating him. But the article reveals more than Harvey's own wrong doing, as it skewers his nominee for the oversight board, William Webster.

The concerns of some consumer groups and lawmakers go beyond Pitt's handling of the appointment, to Webster's handling of key responsibilities as head of U.S. Technologies' audit committee.

By its own account, in papers filed with the SEC, U.S. Technologies was repeatedly unable to file quarterly and annual reports on time. Its former auditor, BDO Seidman LLP, has alleged to the SEC that it told the company's audit committee about serious weaknesses in internal controls involving, among other things, accounting and the timely recording of transactions.

"The shocking revelation that Mr. Webster headed the audit committee of a public company . . . with accounting problems that he failed to fully investigate means that he must resign immediately," said Nancy M. Smith, former director of the SEC's Office of Investor Education and Assistance and director of RestoreTheTrust.com, an investor advocacy group.

Webster, who says he did nothing wrong, became involved with U.S. Technologies through a friendship with Gregory Earls, the company's chief executive and chairman.

That involvement included becoming a director of the company in 2000 and chairing its audit committee, which supervises outside auditors and reviews the company's financial reporting.

Webster said he left the board in July because Earls had let the officers' and directors' liability insurance lapse. "I'm not apologetic," he said. "We acted honorably. As far as I know, the records of the company were correct and there was no fraud."

Although U.S. Technologies originally made money by contracting prison inmates to work in the electronics and manufacturing industries, it refashioned itself during the technology boom into a holding company or "incubator" for dozens of technology firms. It was delisted from the OTC Bulletin Board in September of this year and is now insolvent.

Webster was granted stock options in the company but did not receive fees. He also invested in the company, though he would not say how much.

"My friends thought it was a great opportunity," Webster said, explaining why he joined the company.

Okay, let me get this straight: this is a company that made money by forcing prisoners to build computers. And they may have made poor ethical judgements. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to think that, perhaps, the other nominee favored by everyone outside of the accounting industry, a certain Mr. Biggs. Clearly, Bush needs to do as the Capitals have done and trade Chris Simon, er...Harvey Pitt to some other team. In other news, we're getting more advice questions but I haven't had time to throw them up on the site yet. They should be there before COB today.

Before I'm gone for the day, a quick note wishing everyone a Happy Halloween. That's right, it's time for candy, trick-or-treaters and my personal favorite, scary christian cartoons which warn against the evil day of the devil. Yeah, that must be why those crazy catholics invented the holiday in the first place. Some people see evil in everything around them. Others, like me, merely see evil in getting a big handful of mary-jane's instead of sour skittles. Or people who leave the lights on, but go to a movie on Halloween. That's evil. Almost as evil as the character I'm trying to dress up as to go to a party. We'll see if I acquire the necessary accessories. Until then...

These cursed gray skies are killing me. Luckily, I've managed to fend off the stupid vitamin-d dispair with a dose of fun last night. Unluckily, said fun included getting my overcoat super-smokey. For the record, though, it was well worth it. If i had to get my overcoat smoke-filled every night in exchange for more of last evening, I'd probably do it. Luckily, this morning revelations surfaced about Pitt's idiotic choice to head the accounting oversight board. Unluckily, I forgot my phone this morning. (But I remembered to bring the stupid holder! Bad Edward. Bad Edward.) We'll see if this afternoon can keep up. Maybe, it might even snow! (A little too much to hope for, I guess.)

Okay, I've learned that titles with the first letter capitalized are idiotic. We're talking newspaper headlines, so it has to be in small-caps. Like the end-result? I certainly do. In other news, i'd like to offer an interventionist's opinion of this critique that tom tomorrow offers. from the modern world piece:

And then there's North Korea, a brutal dictatorship with weapons of mass destruction. Not to mention our close friend and ally Egypt, where 63 year old Saad Ibrahim has just been sentenced to seven years hard labor, for the crime of promoting democracy by teaching Egyptians how to vote and monitor elections. And Pakistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia--the list goes on and on. Don't you interventionists care about the suffering and oppressed peoples of those countries? Shouldn't we send in the troops, as soon as possible?

...

So why are we so focused on Iraq, when there are abuses and outrages and oppression all over the world? What sets Iraq apart, and necessitates a commitment of billions of dollars and untold lives?

Well, gosh, this isn't rocket science, is it?

Iraq has the world's second largest oil reserves, and U.S. oil companies are already salivating at the prospect of divvying them up.

I'm a hawkish democrat interventionist, and yes, damn it, we do need to promote democracy in places that don't contain the world's second largest oil reserves. Egpyt and Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Russia. Afghanistan. North Korea. The list is not infinite. There are a limited number of countries that need to change. Whatever doctrine that needs to be created can be created to deal with this. What's better, is that if we had a history of bosnia behind us, or if we had successfully intervened in rwanda, perhaps things might seem more justified now in Iraq. Presidents typically fight the battles they feel they can win. Before September 11th, the taliban was allowed to subjugate women, destroy religious idols and do as they pleased in the name of "stability". Post September 11th, Laura Bush started talking about the plight of afghan women. Come on. The danger in tom's statements is that it leads to a sort of moral isolation, an uber-relativism where everything outside our borders is too risky to take action on. This, in turn, means that only "strategic interests" occupy the mind of the president at national security briefings. Guess where this leads? That's right, to only invading countries with rich oil reserves. Instead, if we pushed the bushies to take on every evil-doer, we might run them into a wall.

It's the sort of place where Ralph Reed and the Hause of Saud get together and fight. Christian conservatives form a large part of Bush's base, and Karl Rove would have a fit if everyday people woke up, smelled the oil and decided that their president had put money ahead of morality. No one sees complicated issues in black and white better than Republicans. What better foil than to point out their own hypocrisy?