(Reuters)

it’s December 6th. let’s recap.

The election is over (unless you’re looking to 2008 like I am); The Screwdriver Mugger is still at large; Papers, papers, papers, papers, papers.

So that would pretty much leave one thing to fixate on until we pack it up and blow Penn a kiss for three weeks:

Lindsay Lohan, obviously.

Little Miss Lohan has begun attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, as her publicist seems eager to tell any winsome shlub with a computer and tabloid byline (especially the British). Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the “anonymous” in AA usually imply that you don’t publicize your attendance? Clearly celebridom is a galaxy far beyond my intellectual grip.

Smarminess aside, I wonder: how severe is Lohan’s “alcoholism” at the age of 20? Her publicist said she was attending AA meetings, but didn’t say she was actually an alcoholic. It’s a semantic distinction, but still. Moreover, how much worse can her drinking be than other 20-year-olds around the country?

So Lohan goes out five or six or seven nights a week, drinks too much, shows up late for work, wears oversized sunglasses to mask her “exhaustion” and hits the repeat button at 10 pm. In the eyes of some people, that seems like partying too hard. For the rest of us, that sounds like college.

I’m not a doctor, but I’m going to say for the record right here: Lindsay Lohan does not have a drinking problem–any more than the rest of us. She goes out every night because she doesn’t know what else to do with her money. There are plenty of folks like that here. Zetes, anyone?

To the average adult, she’s being irresponsible. To peers, she’s living her formidable years in much the same way the rest of us are. The differences are that she’s famous and we’re not. We have to go to class the next day and she doesn’t.

Maybe what’s necessary is an over-arching definition of alcoholism, so that we can all self-diagnose how perilous our drinking habits are. Till then we tip our cups and salute you, Lindsay.

After segregated Survivor, Maury Povich and the National Enquirer, I was fairly confident that we had reached the nadir of human depravity.

Naturally, I was wrong.

The impending release of OJ Simpson’s book If I Did It begs to be new definition of low. In it, Simpson explores how he would have gone about murdering his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her boyfriend Ron Goldman. You know, if he had done it.

Simpson was reportedly paid $3.5 million from Regan Books for the deal. I pretty much blew a gasket upon learning that little nugget.

Judith Regan, the President of Regan Books (and a former National Enquirer reporter), has told reporters that she takes Simpson’s chillingly-real, theoretical depictions of the murders as his confession to the crime. So’she, like the rest of the country, thinks he’s guilty. Then why pay him $3.5 million to put it into a book? Clearly I’m missing something important here.

I’ve always been an ardent defender of American pop culture when it comes under criticism from the class of high-nosed snobs. But I’ve finally encountered something completely baseless. As the self-proclaimed hardest person to offend, I champion political incorrectness and humiliating behavior if people are really that desperate to appear on television. (Nobody is forced to make out with Flavor Flav.) But this, I’m almost surprised to find myself saying, goes beyond the pale.

Regan claims that her deal with Simpson is arranged such that profts will not go to him but a “third party” and his children. But Geraldo Rivera has speculated that he’s already spent much of the money on real estate.

Simpson’s friend said the book project was less about money as it was giving a final “f— you” to the world that already thinks he did it. For the love of God, let’s finally give that to him and not buy this book.

Carl Levin (CNN)

Throughout the course of this semester, I’ve tried to avoid weighing in on such cosmic issues like world peace, a nuclear Iran, reconstituting Pluto’s status as a planet
and the like.

For purely journalistic reasons, I’ve tried to dodge giving my opinions on Iraq, as I am not there to see the situation myself. As New York Times columnist David Brooks told some aspiring journalists last spring, he avoids writing about the subject because he won’t go over there to scout out the sights in person.

But with the election good and over, there are many changes in store for the direction of our government and the war. And with new white-haired men in suits assuming leadership posts, there comes a fresh batch of combovers.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) is poised to chair the elite Armed Services Committee, which will have a major say in new policy for executing our efforts in Iraq. I’m not trying to question his effectiveness as a leader or anything, but I do tend to wonder what else he’s hiding if he feels the need to keep a combover to maintain his pride.

Sen. Levin is calling for a new direction in Iraq. But perhaps he needs more urgently a new direction in his hair. Maybe a “cut and run” session with his stylist, or a “partition” around the bald spot. Either way, consider this a call for immediate action.

On Sunday, the New York Times reported that Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) is one House Republican likely to lose his shirt in tomorrow’s election. And if you’ve been watching any television recently, any politician running this term is clearly just as concerned.

You don’t have to be terribly civically engaged to realize there’s an election going on outside your door. In fact, the saturation of approving this or that message (or if you’re former Admiral Joe Sestak, You’d “authorize” a message) on network airwaves has left people exhausted. This weekend, some three-and-a-half minute commercial breaks have been entirely comprised of political ads.

It is easy to see how some would start to care less about the outcome of these races as long as They’re not bludgeoned with 30-second packages on Weldon’s ethics charges, Lois Murphy’s liberalism, Bob Casey’s lacking attendance record as state treasurer and how Ed Rendell is raising your property taxes. In just a few hours, we can return to commercials for Swiffer and beer again. Ah, the simple life.

When you see so many of these things, you start to analyze, extrapolate and compare for sheer cinematic achievement. In some sense, disregarding the democratic system almost preserves or restores our faith in it. When we look at how dirty politics has become, or has been, we tend to lose faith that we can have a civil dialogue.

Alas, amid the ocean of negative ads, I leave you with one last ad, as if to serve as a lingering reminder of who we voted for and who we didn’t. I choose it not for the candidate or the ideas he espouses, but the sheer hilarity of it. May you remember Election 2006 by Rick Santorum wrestling the bad guys:

As we tiptoe perilously close to Election Day, us political animals hungrily anticipate the dirty plots strategically hatched to swerve campaigns into the ditch a mere days before we vote. Alas, it is the October Surprise, and no election comes without it.

In 2000, the Gore campaign’s exposure of George W. Bush’s DUI arrest in 1976 the weekend before the election drew the polls well inside the statistical margin of error. The revelation also could account for Bush’s losing the popular vote, though there is no evidence to support that.

In a season so hostile with so many vulnerable races, this country is wont to see a platitude of conniving, deceitful and undeniably entertaining surprises in this final week. Sen. George Allen, (R-Va.), led the parade when he leaked to Drudge and Fox News hypersexual passages from novels written by his challenger, Jim Webb (D-Va.).

There is this passage included in an Allen press release, from the book Lost Soldiers:

“…shirtless man walked toward them along a mud pathway. His muscles were young and hard, but his face was devastated with wrinkles. His eyes were so red that they appeared to be burned by fire. A naked boy ran happily toward him from a little plot of dirt. The man grabbed his young son in his arms, turned him upside down, and put the boy’s penis in his mouth.”

What?

Some Democratic critics say this bomb is sure to backfire, but I think it will work in Allen’s favor. The nature of the charge is salacious enough to keep the fury alive just long enough to allow Allen to run away with the lead.

There has long been speculation that the October Surprise at some point in Bush’s presidency would be the capture of Osama bin Laden, but that looks highly unlikely right now. These calls are more like Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories than the product of any real evidence. But that leaves every other possibility open. With eight days left now, we can expect high-scale derailment with great anticipation.

Over in Maryland, lieutenant governor and U.S. Senate candidate Michael Steele is turning out to be the mack daddy of endorsements in this election season.

Steele, a Republican, trails his opponent Rep. Ben Cardin in the polls. Still, he has enlisted some interesting - if unlikely - support this fall. His most recent fan to hit the campaign trail is none other than Mike Tyson, the outlawed boxer famous for a stunningly painful face tattoo and chomping off a piece of Evander Holyfield’s ear.

Michael Steele (Sacramento Bee)

Tyson’s support comes after music mogul Russell Simmons campaigned for Steele last month and on the heels of boxing promoter Don King’s stumping for Steele in Maryland the other day. Tyson reportedly wore a Steele campaign shirt while promoting his “Mike Tyson’s World Tour” in Ohio.

This may sound like a cheap ploy to lure black voters away from the Democrats. It turns out, however, that Tyson is Steele’s former brother-in-law. Tyson was married to Steele’s sister Monica Turner for five years before they divorced in 2003.

Steele’s people insist Tyson isn’t involved in the campaign. But Steele told the New York Times Magazine earlier this year that he would welcome Tyson’s help “in a heartbeat.”

Steele is widely recognized as an attractive candidate. But his “Scarlet R” in a blue state makes winning the open Senate seat an uphill battle. If he loses, maybe next time he can solicit T.O. on the stump?

David Zucker, the man who made classics like “Airplane” and “Naked Gun” has directed a Republican television advertisement. The ad features Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright sucking up to Kim Jong Il and Osama bin Laden. The minute-and-a-half commercial was apparently so inflammatory that a GOP strategist said “jaws dropped” at the viewing.

“It’s way too over the top,” the strategist had said, and will go into the annals of campaign history without reaching national airwaves.

But YouTube, or Gootube, or whatever, has the vid, of course. Enjoy:

Literature teaches us that the tragic hero is brought down by his tragic flaw. Baseball teaches us that the tragic hero is brought down by a herniated disk and a lineup seemingly comprised of little leaguers. This point was illustrated rather acutely this weekend in the American League Dvisional Series between the New York Yankees and the Detroit Tigers.

(Page 2 @ ESPN.com)

“I am deeply disappointed at our being eliminated so early in the playoffs,” Yankees owner George Steinbrenner said a statement this weekend after the monumental collapse. “This result is absolutely not acceptable to me nor to our great and loyal Yankee fans. I want to congratulate the Detroit Tigers organization and wish them well. Rest assured, we will go back to work immediately and try to right this sad failure and provide a championship for the Yankees, as is our goal every year.”

As I watched–with incredible heartache–my beloved Yankees squander their best chance for a World Series ring since 2001 and the rumors over Joe Torre’s fate
as Yankee manager, my shock was rinsed away by a revelation: Steinbrenner, while deserving of every evil moniker strewn at him, is a modern-day sports manifestation of King Lear. Or Tony Soprano. But mainly King Lear.

Steinbrenner, like Lear, enjoys unmitigated power and is smitten by manipulating the league with his player acquisitions. He is greedy (A-Rod), hot-tempered, impetuous (Kevin Brown?) and generally impossible to work for. Yet those who do must publicly sing his praises. A lost game is pinned to one pinstriped person who is designated the goat.

Alas, like many Shakespearean heroes, Steinbrenner is continually brought down by his ambition. His bottom line is the same as any other Major League owner’s, to win. He and fans might have differing opinions on how to achieve that bottom line, but his demand for excellence makes him almost noble.

Ultimately, his drive to return the World Series trophy to City Hall in Manhattan is what keeps fans loyal. It keeps us filling the Stadium amid higher prices due to astronomical player salaries. It keeps us watching the games on summer nights knowing the team will be an October contender. And for New Yorkers, all That’s pretty heroic.

Santorum actually speaks about issues (CNN.com)

So I’ve been watching this whole Pennsylvania senate race business, and I don’t quite know what to make of it anymore. I’ve been thinking. And I think I’ve lost my faith in the democratic system.

I wrote about this in yesterday’s Daily Pennsylvanian, but I don’t think I went far enough. If the election were held today, Pennsylvania voters would elect State Treasurer Bob Casey by a landslide-like margin. Why? I don’t really know. They don’t seem to know, either. Rick Santorum just gets no respect.

From my own observations, Bob Casey appears to have very little name recognition among people on campus. That said, many are keenly aware of Sen. Rick Santorum, seeing him as a “homophobe,” “warmonger” or, more commonly, “asshole.”

But at the same time, they don’t know who Bob Casey is, either. It seems fairly safe to conclude that many voters don’t know or care who Santorum is running against, but they figure they’ll vote for whoever it is. Bob Casey? Sure. He can’t be worse, right?

Yesterday I attended a fundraiser for Santorum (as press, not a participant) and I was reminded of my frustrations with this race. Santorum speaks his views in plain English, but Casey is too cautious or too shifty to offer up his. He doesn’t feel he has to, because he’ll win anyway. Would he be better on Iraq? Who knows? But I think we have a right to know, and we’re not doing our part if we’re not demanding to know it.

Bill Clinton put finger-wagging back in style during the 1998 impeachment hearings, when he emphatically insisted, voice and finger in tandem, that he “did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.”

Clinton had put his right index finger away when he left office to become a placid private citizen. But the euphoria of a power suit and a “Mr. President” salutation on a Sunday morning talk show got the best of Clinton, as that famous digit reared at Chris Wallace on yesterday’s Fox News Sunday.

Clinton, virtually always composed, maintains his posture as one of America’s most astute politicians by talking a good talk, smiling as if on cue and being generally polite to his opponents, even amid prime opportunities to point out their weaknesses. (Remember making friends with George H.W. Bush after Katrina?)

But recently he’s been markedly less doting. Clinton sprung on the offensive upon learning the content of ABC’s Path to 9/11 miniseries and was tenacious as ever in his showdown with Wallace this weekend.

The question that sparked Clinton’s fury asked the former President if he felt he did enough to “connect the dots and really go after al Qaeda.” Clinton pounced on Wallace before he could even finish delivering the question, launching into a ten minute diatribe about how the “right wingers” love to attack him, and “at least I tried,” while the Republicans “had eight months to try, they did not try.” Clinton, beyond pink in the face, called the interview a “conservative hit job.” Wallace later said he felt as though “a mountain was coming down in front of me.” The finger was back in action, and Mr. President made it abundantly clear that he would answer in full.

Make no mistake: this is not the Clinton most prominently on display through the last fourteen years. This is the post-1998 Clinton, who is concerned–paranoid–about his legacy. Whether Sandy Berger knew bin Laden’s precise whereabouts in the lead-up to September 11 may never be truthfully known. But one can note with certainty that Bill Clinton will not have you believe he was outdone by this President, and he sure as hell will not be humiliated by Fox News.

It will be interesting to see how the media will interpret, even dissect the interview bit by bit and to see how it will reverberate in the coming week for him. Not to mention the next six weeks for his party and the coming year for his wife.