Wally

In today's Dilbert, Wally says the following: "My alleged loyalty to this company is second to none." My hero!

Given all the layoffs and general suckiness around work these days, I'm extraordinarily tempted to add that to all my work emails.

Way to go, Al!

People with the first name of "Al" seem to be among my favorites of late. Al Franken is newest on my list. In case you've been hiding under a box for the past couple years (and really, who would blame you?), you're probably aware that he's campaigning to be the next US Senator from Minnesota.

His opponent, the not-so-honorable Senator Norm Coleman, recently went on the offensive, if you can call it that, by taking out an advertisement in the New York Times (hey Norm, just so you know, you represent the people of Minnesota; we have our own newspapers, thank you very much). Well, I'll just let Al explain (courtesy the Minnesota Star-Tribune):

I'm a satirist by trade. And as a satirist, my job was to point out the absurd, the hypocritical, the ridiculous in life.

It's been a banner week for ridiculous.

Case in point: On Tuesday, Sen. Norm Coleman took out an ad in this paper criticizing me for criticizing a Senate resolution that criticized MoveOn.org for taking out an ad in the New York Times criticizing Gen. David Petraeus.

It is, of course, ridiculous that the United States Senate spent a day debating and voting on a resolution condemning an advertisement while our troops remained in Iraq, fighting a war with no end. And it's doubly ridiculous that Coleman, of all people, is still playing politics with this issue.

After all, he voted last week against a resolution that condemned personal attacks on anyone who had served our nation honorably. That would include Democrats like Max Cleland, John Kerry and John Murtha -- proud American veterans who were the targets of political attacks not just on their character, but on their patriotism. In 2004, when Murtha (a Silver Star winner) called for better armor for our troops, Coleman himself accused him of "emboldening the enemy" and "undermining the morale of our troops."

And as his reelection campaign gets underway, it's worth noting that Coleman has hired the same media consultant who ran ads in Georgia that juxtaposed pictures of Cleland, who lost two legs and an arm in Vietnam, with Osama bin Laden.

I guess now it's my turn to be attacked. I've been to Iraq four times to visit our troops; I know the incredible sacrifice our men and women in uniform make every day in service to our nation. But Norm Coleman is who he is -- so he's accusing me of "undermining our troops."

Frankly, I'm used to this kind of smear -- it's what happens when you speak truth to power in George W. Bush's America. But I think Minnesotans have had enough of this kind of political gamesmanship. As I go around the state, I don't hear a whole lot about ads in the New York Times. What I do hear is that Minnesotans want this war to end, and that if this president won't end it, they want the Senate to force him to end it.

There are more than 160,000 troops currently serving in Iraq. We should honor their service by providing them with the best possible medical care when they return. We should honor their sacrifice by refusing to allow this president to keep them there in the middle of a civil war. And we should honor them by taking seriously the difficult debate about the best way, or at least the least bad way, to end our engagement in Iraq.

Bush and his allies in Washington have blocked increases to veterans' benefits, refused to be held accountable for the mistakes that ruined our military's efforts in Iraq, and dodged every effort to bring our troops home. Instead of solutions, Norm Coleman offers political games and pointless attacks.

As a satirist, I find the whole thing ridiculous. But as a Minnesotan who wants to bring the troops home, I also find it sad.

Gosh, that was intelligent. Hmmmmm, intelligence in an elected official... not sure about that. However will Americans relate to him?

Oh my god, TV's not gay enough

This is just a theory of mine, but is it possible that part of the reason the gay community and its issues aren't taken seriously could be that organizations like GLAAD spend their time and resources on irrelevant studies such as this one? They looked at nearly 100 television programs and counted the number of regular gay characters appearing in them. We've gone from 9 (last year) to 7 (this year).

"While we acknowledge there have been improvements made in how we are seen on the broadcast networks, most notably on ABC, our declining representation clearly indicates a failure to inclusively reflect the audience watching television," GLAAD President Neil G. Giuliano said in a statement.

Obviously we have a crisis on our hands. I mean, how is the gay community going to survive without Will & Grace and its two (and a half) completely realistic gay characters to accurately reflect what it means to be gay?

Next week, GLAAD will be revealing the results of its study on whether there is enough lesbian sex being portrayed on latenight Cinemax programming.

Politics on the brain

I must admit, I'm confused and baffled by Senate Republicans. They got bitch-slapped, hard, by voters last year because of the Iraq War. So, with another election coming next year, you'd think they'd have learned their lesson and would want to do whatever they can to sever the link between the war disaster and "Republican."

Yet, they still voted down the Webb amendment this week. And what did that amendment try to do? Well, I know this is really controversial, and its such a FUCKING LIBERAL idea, but it would have required that troops have as much time at home as they spent on their previous tour of duty. (I know, its a pretty unpatriotic idea. Leave it to the Democrats to come up with such nonsense.)

Of course, Democrats should be out there accusing Republicans of not supporting our troops -- because they're NOT. But no, all Majority Leader Reid had to say this week was, "We still have hope that we can come up with something that will get us a majority of the votes." Way to lead, sir.

I Can Get Behind That

My whole life I've kept a running tally in my head of the companies I hate the most. Because, you know, it feels good to rank my hate. Since I was about 14, Northwest Airlines has been at the top of that list. There's just nothing at all complementary that I can say about NWA. Yet, I've been forced to fly with them my whole life because I've always lived in cities with NWA hubs (Detroit and Minneapolis) or in small towns that were only serviced by Northwest regional jets.

This year, however, I discovered a new choice: Midwest Airlines. Yes, to get home it requires a layover in Milwaukee, but that's about the only disadvantage I can think of. The legroom is sufficient (though not luxurious); the seats are wider so you don't feel like a human sandwich with your neighbor(s); the staff is friendly and attentive, as opposed to cranky, overworked, and underappreciated by their company; the prices are way cheaper than Northwest; they fly into and out of smaller airports, which saves a bunch of time; and, they provide complimentary (that means "free," for all you Northwest passengers out there) freshly baked chocolate chip cookies on their flights.

The Best Care In The Air: I can get behind that!