Well, another year is ending, which means it's time for those of us in the branch of the entertainment industry known as "political journalism" to recycle the news into one of those year-end hodgepodge columns I've been reading in newspapers since I was eight.

It was, above all else, a year of supreme irony, in that the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war, and also the power to authorize federal expenditures, and the Democrats, bless them, swept to victory and took control of both houses of Congress on the promise to end the war in Iraq.

But in a remarkable surprise twist--in a supreme and confounding irony--that did not happen.

What happened instead was that every few months the Democrats announced that they had no choice but to write Bush a blank war check.

This was because the president had previously said he would veto any spending bill that didn't fully fund the war.

And at this news, Harry Reid would shrug his shoulders, and announce in that manner of his--he always sounds like he is your father telling you that your dog just died, and the way he says it makes you think that, really, if they had tried, there was probably some way to save the dog--Reid would announce, his voice heavy with whispered regret, that the Democrats had no choice but to continue funding the war. With no strings attached, no conditions, nothing.

Here's what I don't get: There was nothing the Democrats could do about this? Really?

Bush said if Congress didn't cave, he would veto any spending bill, thereby cutting off all funding for the troops.

Bush, in other words, acted like a bully. And we all know the proper way to deal with a bully. That's right: You give him exactly what he demands and hope he won't bully you again.

Even if Bush did veto a bill to bring the troops home, leaving the Pentagon without an appropriation, wouldn't the Pentagon find a way to keep money flowing to the troops? I think they would. These are some of the same people who arranged funding for the Contras after Congress passed a law against that very thing. I think they could figure something out.

And, finally, the question no one dares to ask: Even if Bush vetoed the bill, and the Pentagon was left with no money, and the troops were being bombed in Baghdad, and this news was beamed back to America, to its shock, horror, and dismay, wouldn't this be President Bush's fault? Wouldn't that be his responsibility?

I think that scenario would be so horrible, it would never happen. I mean, if Bush would put our troops in that situation, he is a monster. And as little regard as I have for him, I honestly don't think he's a monster. So I think the Democrats should do more to call his bluff.

Force the President to veto a Pentagon spending bill. Make the Republicans in the Senate conduct a real, live filibuster. Make them stay up all night reading phone books to avoid bringing the troops home.

What I'm saying: I don't have the exact right answer, but we can't give Bush the last word on this. Because if we do, Congress doesn't really have the power the Constitution says.

So my new year's message to the Democrats: figure something out! You can only be told so many times by your apologetic father that your dog couldn't be saved before the message goes from heartbreaking to aggravating.

There were other stories, too, that made your correspondent slightly less angry and frustrated. President Bush admitted the existence of carbon dioxide. One small step for mankind. Britney couldn't stay sober for a custody hearing. That Sheriff just let Paris Hilton out of jail. Just let her walk! Oh, and Giancarlo Giammetti came clean to Cathy Horyn. That was huge. I don't understand the fashion world, but I sometimes think it would be nice to have a career in it.

As for me, I became a national columnist for 23/6, and in my introductory column begged Arianna Huffington to make me her cabana boy and invited Maureen Dowd to dinner at Nora. Neither Huffington nor Dowd replied, and then I noticed that my actual girlfriend had stopped returning my calls.

A few days later, 23/6 launched a feature that prominently displayed a silhouette of an anatomically correct phallus draped over a jigsaw-puzzle globe.

My conclusions: 1) This national columnist game is trickier than I thought 2) Maureen Dowd has better things to do than cold call her admirers and 3) Perhaps one should not beg for love in his internet column on a political comedy site.

To Maureen Dowd: I had nothing to do with "Dickipedia." You have to believe me.

To Melissa: Did the weeping clown deliver the flowers? Did he sing the song?

To my future children: Your Google search has found this page by accident. The person writing this is not your actual father.

Here's to 2008! I hope things get better. I really do.