I can’t even play fight with my lovely wife without our Danes getting between us and making it very clear that I had better quit. Now. Of course, she could beat me about the head with a frying pan and the dogs wouldn’t even get off the couch, but if I even flinch in her direction, I get snarled at.

I should state right here that when I first started off on my Grand Hollywood Adventure, I was a socially left leaning, moderate fiscal conservative, proudly independent, ignoring party affiliations and casting my ballot for whoever I thought was best for–or, in any case, would do the least damage to–my beloved country.

Had I been born a generation earlier, I would have described myself as a Kennedy Democrat. As it was, I suppose the Libertarian tag might fit, but I’ve always borne a healthy suspicion of anything that smacks of an “ideology.”

All that said, I was pretty much apolitical. The closest I came to studying issues was to pick up one of P.J. O’Rourke’s books for a giggle or two. But then, I also got a kick out of Michael Moore’s first film, Roger and Me. Politically, I was the proverbial wise-ass kid with a permanent seat in the rear of the classroom where I could safely heckle the nuns without collecting too many stripes across the back of my knuckles.

Then, on September 11th, 2001, everything changed.

I remember watching the collapse of the first tower and feeling–literally feeling the breath just leave my lungs, my chest filling with a terrible, ghastly void; a sense of distant screams in a windswept wasteland and loss loss loss oh my God all those people all those people they murdered all those thousands of people…

Though it was but seconds, it seemed minutes, many long minutes before I could draw a breath. I quietly excused myself and hurried to the bedroom to spare my young children the memory of seeing Daddy collapse helplessly into a series of horrified, aching, gut-wrenching sobs.

As soon as I’d composed myself, I rejoined my family. I really have no memory of the ensuing hours, only that my wife and I decided I should go to work, that we’d try to keep the kids calm by maintaining our normal schedules. Only God knew what the future held…

I was working my first network series gig as a staff writer on a show called Wolf Lake while Carnivale was in development at HBO.

I was greeted by coworkers in various states of shock, portable TVs turned to the news in all the offices. Like every American, I was approached by a number of colleagues who wished to vent and commiserate.

But unlike every American, my coworkers expressed little or no anger toward the terrorists who had committed this atrocity. Rather, they directed their vitriol towards American Imperialism, American foreign policy, American arrogance, American warmongering, American racism and, most of all, our American President, the evil, unfathomably stupid, idiot Christian, bumbling Texan oaf, George W. Bush.

And what did I say?

Nothing.

Not a damn thing.

I was just shocked silent. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. Were these people crazy?

As it is the 29th of February, let me perform an uncustomary retraction. Looking back over the history of the last 10 years, through which I have been writing these columns, I’m now persuaded of a major misjudgment. While I supported the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq — still do, and “would do it again” without qualms — I see ever more clearly that the “Bush doctrine” of exporting “democracy” was an unnecessary mistake.

Our interests in these countries were military; we had dangerous enemies to destroy. That was achieved with dispatch by U.S. and allied forces: with remarkably few casualties all round. We had a continued interest in preventing the return of the Taliban to power in Afghanistan, and in the destruction of Islamist cells in Iraq. All fine and good: these were necessary adventures, for the defence of legitimate western interests.

I was never comfortable with the grand bureaucratic project of “nation building” that followed. But while I hinted at my objections, I nevertheless conferred the benefit of the doubt on an American-led project, predicated on post-War successes in Germany and Japan.

In retrospect, the circumstances were so utterly different, and the times so utterly changed, that the mission was unachievable, and could only come to grief.

Santorum’s votes for expanding the role and size of government in the Bush years mostly show his lack of respect for local control and a federal government limited to the powers defined in the Constitution, but that unfortunately made him a typical Republican of the time. His support for Medicare Part D shows that there is no blunder so big that some Republicans won’t make it so long as they can claim it is a “market-based solution.” Santorum dislikes political diversity and wants to impose uniformity when he can, which is why he regards the Tenth Amendment as more of an obstacle than as part of the Bill of Rights. Santorum is certainly hostile to libertarianism when it comes to matters of moral behavior and social policy, but most of the bad votes he cast in the last decade were the product of his contempt for limited and constitutional government.

“These changes mean that we will be able to do more to help women and advance the fight against breast cancer,” Brinker said. “We are working to eliminate duplicative grants, freeing up more dollars for higher impact programs, and wherever possible we want to grant to the provider that is actually providing the lifesaving mammogram.

“We have the highest responsibility to ensure that these donor dollars make the biggest impact possible,” Brinker said. “Regrettably, this strategic shift will affect any number of long-standing partners, but we have always done what is right for our organization, for our donors and volunteers.”

Brinker also insisted that the decision won’t affect any current grants — only future ones.

“We will never bow down to political pressure,” Brinker said. “The scurrilous accusations being hurled at this organization are profoundly hurtful to so many of us who put our heart, soul and lives into this organization.

But more importantly, they are a dangerous distraction from the work that still remains to be done in ridding the world of breast cancer.”