I realize we're in the post-Bush, Yes-We-Can era, but I find that I have not yet exhausted my outrage, courtesy of a recent link supplied by my pal Neal Bailey.

Then-President Bush seriously considered curtailing 1st Amendment rights to fight the War on Terror. How very American. And the utter hypocrisy of these plans being crafted by the same people who wrapped themselves up in the hollow rhetoric of "freedom" and "spreading Democracy" is just beyond the pale.

I'm sorry, but if you're a Republican or supporter of the Bush regime, well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think worrying about homosexual marriage and family values and all the neo-conservative hotbutton issues is appalling in the face of an Executive Branch clearly committed to gutting the Constitution. Doesn't get much more "Big Government" than becoming Big Brother, for chrissakes.

"In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the Justice Department secretly gave the green light for the U.S. military to attack apartment buildings and office complexes inside the United States, deploy high-tech surveillance against U.S. citizens and potentially suspend First Amendment freedom-of-the-press rights in order to combat the terror threat, according to a memo released Monday."

Originally posted on erictrautmann.vox.com

Once-relevant consumer advocate and modern day electoral joke Ralph Nader has, finally, uttered comments that should at last be enough to end his current incarnation as political trickster.

Seriously.

You could save time, Ralph, and just start wearing a tinfoil hat.

[Gakked from Neal and YouTube]

I stepped off the plane and suddenly recognized my country again.

Hell, having only heard snippets of his concession speech, I recognize John McCain again. Obama's fortunate that the McCain who spoke tonight wasn't the same man who campaigned on a platform of reactionary, knee-jerk fear. And good for him, I say. It's genuinely good to know that there's still a decent guy in there.

Vote Shatner/Hasselhoff '08.

Seriously. How much sillier is it to vote for them over, say, the actual candidates?

I've been uncharacteristically political hereabouts lately, which may alienate some/all of you.

That said, and I can't stress this enough, the selection of Palin as a running mate speaks VOLUMES about McCain's judgement; seriously. She's a train wreck of a candidate, and a simple review of actuarial tables indicates that she has a ridiculous statistical likelihood of ending up in the Presidency.

Apparently, there's an PBS poll about her qualifications, and there's been an organized campaign on the right to hit it hard. The link is here.

As it'll likely be one of those polls that one side or the other references for political advantage, I urge you to participate—no matter which side of the fence you're on.

Edit: Linky fized.

(Gakked from bejeezus .)

So good I thought it was a hoax (since confirmed as genuine via the Boston Herald)...

An Alaska woman, who knows Sarah Palin, has become an internet phenom courtesy of a long screed decrying Palin's record.

Some highlights:

"During her mayoral administration most of the actual work of running this small city was turned over to an administrator. She had been pushed to hire this administrator by party power-brokers after she had gotten herself into some trouble over precipitous firings which had given rise to a recall campaign."

"Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a "fiscal conservative". During her 6 years as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33%. During those same 6 years the amount of taxes collected by the City increased by 38%. This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she promoted benefited large corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents."

"While Sarah was Mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire our highly respected City Librarian because the Librarian refused to consider removing from the library some books that Sarah wanted removed. City residents rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter. People who fought her attempt to oust the Librarian are on her enemies list to this day."

"As Mayor, Sarah fired Wasilla's Police Chief because he "intimidated" her, she told the press. As Governor, her recent firing of Alaska's top cop has the ring of familiarity about it. He served at her pleasure and she had every legal right to fire him, but it's pretty clear that an important factor in her decision to fire him was because he wouldn't fire her sister's ex-husband, a State Trooper. Under investigation for abuse of power, she has had to admit that more than 2 dozen contacts were made between her staff and family to the person that she later fired, pressuring him to fire her ex-brother-in-law. She tried to replace the man she fired with a man who she knew had been reprimanded for sexual harassment; when this caused a public furor, she withdrew her support."

Wow. THIS is the person who will be a heartbeat away from the Presidency? And don't even get me started on the statistical likelihood of a 72-year old walking tumor factory surviving an eight year term. (Answer: signs point to "No.")

For a guy who bristles a lot when people question his judgment, the selection of Palin just seems so completely ill-considered as to border on lunacy.

Complete text can be found here.

Verification of authenticity of the e-mail can be found here.

...so, Oliver Stone has a new movie coming out.

Oh, dear.

"The Scooter Libby decision was, I thought, a fair and balanced decision," Bush said..

Careful, man. Fox gets all kinds of tetchy about using their trademarked catchphrase.

...thanks a bunch.

So, let's recap:

Edit for clarity: Ill-conceived entrance and exit strategies for two wars (and falsified justification for at least one) which have resulted in thousands of U.S. service personnel and civilian deaths? Check.
TRILLIONS in debt thanks to fiscal lunacy? Check.
Karl Rove? Check.
NSA wiretapping? Check.
Shattered international reputation? Check.
Edit: Oh, yeah, almost forgot NOLA, and the parade of finger-pointing and incompetence there that ruined countless lives.
And now, the beginning of the death knell for net neutrality.

Nice work, guys. I'm amazed you have the time amidst all that activity to make a Constitutional issueof gay marriage.

And I mean that, in all sincerity. I mean, the woman who decried anyone who actually questions the Bush administration -- thus fulfilling what I deem a REQUIREMENT of good citizenship, incidentally -- as godless traitors had this to say on the subject of women widowed in the 9/11 attack (in an interview with Matt Lauer*):

COULTER: “These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing Bush was part of the closure process.”

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.”

I think it's fair to say that Coulter and her ilk were welcomed by the Bush campaign during their election period -- anyone motivating the Right was considered part of the cause. Of course, this does kinda put to lie the whole "compassionate conservatism" thing, I think.

Jeebus, what a hateful, hateful woman.

* A sentence I never thought I'd type: Poor Matt Lauer. This must've made him miss the comparatively calm, sane interview with Tom Cruise, Scion of Xenu.

---

In "happier" news -- and I realize this probably marks me as "not nice" -- I was heartened today to learn that the Iraq al-Qaeda topkick met his end, courtesy of an F-16 airstrike.

I'm reasonably certain that al-Zarqawi is in many ways largely responsible for the car bomb that killed my brother in law last September -- when an insurgent made a suicide car bomb run on a diplomat Dave was protecting -- so his violent passing causes me some measure of pleasure, I have to confess.

Edit: I have to confess also, further cementing the whole "not nice" thing, that I am absolutely amazed that less than 24 hours after the strike, I can go to cnn.com, click a link, and watch the bombing run.

Wow.

Or style.

So, apparently, a commercially available longarm (one available to law-abiding private citizens for somewhere in the neighborhood of 20+ years) is now deemed BAD by none other than the Governator.

Wuss.

;)

A while back, I mentioned a comic script.

Working title, "Department Zero". A Cold War-era, retro, tongue-in-cheek spy series, featuring a kick-ass female agent, a veteran Cold Warrior. A simple mission to retrieve a double agent turns into a completely gonzo adventure featuring (currently) a group of ninja who turn to stone when killed, aliens bent on stealing our most precious resource (caffeine), big robots, fast cars, things going boom. And a race of superintelligent monkeys, if I can swing it.

The hunt for an artist continues.

-----

In other news, apparently, President Bush is both a "midget" and a "donkey". So, um, I'm to assume that calling someone "Eeyore" is mortal insult? Man, it's like we're doing battle with a Babel Fish translation.

Got it, Saddam. Midget. Donkey. Check.

Here, have another Tomahawk missile.

----

::Cuteness alert::

Gabi packed lunch again. Turkey sandwich.

It was good. My chocolate cake got squished, though. Worse, now Brannon is pestering me to carry a lunch box, that I might one day be AS COOL AS HE IS when he strides into the MS cafeteria, Star Trek lunch box in hand. ;)

A few observations:

1. Bush *still* says "nucular". Idiot.
2. The Iraqis, particularly the Iraqi diplomatic corps, should be commended for having AMAZINGLY big balls. Today, they called on BUSH to step down. Good grief.
3. Welcome to those "interesting times".

Today is somewhat...distressing. Lots of conversation devoted to Dubya's Middle East Adventure.

I hate feeling conflicted.

On the one hand, I find myself hoping against all logic that a miracle will occur and the President will stand before the nation and say, “Well, I believe it is in the best interests of my fellow citizens to end Hussein’s regime, but it is against the interests of my fellow citizens to make them the most hated people in the world. So, it is with regret that I commit to withdraw our forces from the Middle East over the next six to ten weeks."

Fat chance of that, I know. But hope springs eternal. (And I'd dearly love to see Turkey kicked in the nuts. Nice, guys. Real nice. Next time some horrible disaster strikes and you're begging us for financial aid to shore up your decrepit and failing infrastructure, please pardon my hysterical laughter.)

Gabi’s brother is a Spec Ops guy, currently deployed, and will likely face a *dramatically* enhanced state of activity, so a reduction in regional tensions would ease a lot of her family’s tensions as well. I’ve never met him, but he sounds like he’s got the coolest job in the world. Like, make-an-action-figure-of-this-guy cool. But if there’s a way to get all of them out of harm’s way at the cost of a little face, it seems to me a reasonable price to pay.

On the other hand, I’m by no means a dove. I truly believe that Saddam needs to go, that he would gleefully develop horrible weapons -- not necessarily effective weapons, just horrible (and yes, there is a difference), and would dance a happy jig if some extremist lunatic delivered them to maximum effect against my countrymen, within our own borders.

(Did they ever identify where the anthrax letters came from? Didn't Iraq HAVE some that they can't account for?

Jesus. Crayon diagrams available in the lobby for all French, Turkish and German diplomats.)

"Without a smoking gun, we really have no moral imperative to enter this conflict," part of me thinks. "On the other hand, this guy would probably anally rape his own mother with a SCUD missile if it bought him some kind of advantage. Sanity is not his primary attribute." Will the so-called smoking gun that links al-Qaeda and Iraq ... will that end up being uncovered only after Hussein — who is undisputedly one of the craziest bastards on the planet, capable of mass atrocity — does something unspeakably hideous? That's actually our only real shot at maintaining our credibility: we go in, Saddam does something unspeakable, and we point to it and say "SEE? We told you assholes he was nuts!"

Ugh.

It just seems like sitting back and waiting to be victimized is a mistake, and I want to see it over sooner rather than later. I’m a militarist, and it is hard for me to conceive of the US failing to neutralize the Iraqis in short order. That is, unless there’s a tremendous lack of political will to win. On the other hand, our objectives and rationale for going is flawed, it *is* easy to see how it would appear that the US is bent on conquest, adventurism, colonialism, etc.

(Mind...racing...opposing viewpoints...held simultaneously...I'm starting to feel like a supercomputer to which Kirk has cunningly submitted a paradox.)

And then, there's the *protesters*. Saw one on the way to work, waving a "No Blood For Oil" sign at commuters on the I-5 corridor. Hanging out on an overpass, with a big sheet of white posterboard. The word "blood" was drawn in red magic marker, with little cartoon blood trails. The word "oil" was rendered in drippy black ink smears. Ah, the lost art of subtlety, how I lament your passing. "No Blood for Oil," indeed.

Well thanks, my man. My eyes are open now. Perhaps we should share a latte and dialogue about this in an environmentally conscious locale, my brother.

Seriously, how can I sympathize with some 20-year-old college student (who has thus far probably carried such weighty responsibilities as locking up after the closing shift at Blockbuster, or bagging groceries at the local organic food store), waving a crudely lettered placard that screams “No Blood for Oil” or other such grotesque oversimplification. I mean, do you really think that, if I haven’t been swayed by now, I’m suddenly going to be won over by the passionate cause that is embodied by a god-damned SIGN, or candelight vigil, or other such well-meaning, naïve nonsense? Really?

Protester: “No Blood for Oil!”

Me: “Well, there’s much more to it than that, like the security of our nation, the danger of allowing such a violent, genocidal, unpredictable, remorseless madman access to terrible destructive power. I mean, we’ve already got to glad hand the Koreans, so…”

Protester: “But, I drew a peace sign too. And it looks tie-dyed.”

Me: “Ah. Thank you, young crusader! I suddenly see the error of my ways, and will immediately light a candle, the better to speed home our valiant troops from their unjust mission.”

Christ on a stick.

It is much easier for me to sympathize with the men and women who’ve taken an oath to lay down their lives to protect my liberties. You know: so *I DON’T HAVE TO.*

The funny part is, by inclination, I’m pretty liberal. I didn’t vote Republican (nor am I likely to). But compared to many of my friends, I’m practically a right wing nutjob on a par with Rush Limbaugh. Do I think the President is right in his motives, or the price he’s willing to pay in terms of our relationship with the world community? Hell, no. Am I happy about the concept of friends and strangers laying down their lives on far off shores? No. Does Saddam need to go? Hell yes.

Conflicted. Deeply conflicted today.