tryingtogrok.new.mu.nu

February 14, 2006

GETTING CLOSE

CaliValleyGirl is closing in on a week until her soldier returns from Afghanistan. His unit was featured in the Stars and Stripes this weekend. I can't wait to read about their homecoming on her blog.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:14 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.

HOORAY

My favorite Valentine's moment:

As the candy hearts poured into the fiery quasar, a wonderous thing happened, why not? They vaporized into a mystical love radiation that spread across the universe, destroying many, many planets - including two gangster planets and a cowboy world. But one planet was exactly the right distance to see the romantic rays, but not be destroyed by them - Earth. So all over the world, couples stood together in joy. And me, Zoidberg! And no one could've been happier, unless it would've also been Valentine's Day. What? It was? Hooray!

Posted by: Sarah at 02:58 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 97 words, total size 1 kb.

February 10, 2006

CELEBS

My husband summarized an article about George Clooney for me, which was enough to make me not want to read the article. However, I did seek it out just to check one quote:

Clooney is as vain and materialistic as the next guy in Hollywood - "[F] it, I love my house in Italy. It's big and audacious and ridiculous, and nicer than any human being has the right to have" - but he is also one of the few really grown-up movie stars. "I have Irish Catholic guilt," he says, smiling, "and want to make up for [my successes]."
The way Clooney atones is by making, alongside the romantic comedies and heist numbers, a range of films that bring him a different kind of attention altogether.

My husband was absolutely mortified by the phrase "nicer than any human being has the right to have," as if some Equality Police could come and knock down half of your house because you're not allowed to live extravagantly. For him, the fact that George Clooney thinks that people shouldn't have the right to a big house is just beyond words. I, however, find something differently but equally reprehensible in this paragraph. Clooney's attitude reminds me of something I heard Ben Affleck say on TV right before the last presidential election. He was upset that he had gotten a tax cut because he said he didn't need the money and he would've rather the government kept it.

Do these celebrities want us to think that they don't have any will of their own? You know, the world is just the way it is and I wish it weren't but that's life so I gotta stay ridiculous rich. That's what we're supposed to believe?

Ben Affleck, if you want to take your $1.5 million tax cut and donate it to charity, guess what, you can! Hell, you can even opt to pay more taxes in Massachusetts, as O'Reilly trapped Affleck into admitting he didn't even know. Here he is, complaining that he couldn't give more in taxes, and all he had to do was, you know, give more. You could donate it to cancer research or stem cells or veterans benefits or all the other stuff you say you care about. You don't have to wait for the government to do it for you. Your hands aren't tied because they gave you your $1.5 million back; it means you have MORE OPTIONS.

Same for you, Clooney. No one is forcing you to live in a big house. If your wealth makes you feel guilty, then buy some land, build a modest-sized house on it, and start donating some of your money. But don't you dare say that the way you compensate for your Catholic guilt is that you make more movies. Even if it is Syriana and you think you're doing some good by educating people to the Ways Of The World, you're still raking in the dough doing it. That's supposed to make us feel better about you? Poor Clooney, he's so big and famous, he can't help but be a bazillionaire, but at least he makes Films That Matter. Are you serious?

Last night we got the Grammys here. I swear I nearly spat on the TV when Alicia Keys said "this is the most important night in the world." Get over yourselves, people. You know, I can accept it if you're filthy rich and lovin' it. I read once that Christopher Walkin will do any movie that's put before him because it's a job and he's in it to make money. I can respect that; my husband and I are out to make as much money as we can too. But to hear celebs ask for millions of dollars for each movie they do and then complain about being rich, that's too much for me to accept.

No one put a gun to Clooney's head and made him buy that stupid house. Get over it.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:51 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 665 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Do these celebrities want us to think that they don't have any will of their own? No. They're mere automatons whose main purpose in life is to make people respond to their imageby opening their wallets. Their freedom to choose was limited to and terminated by their decision to choose acting over say rational thought.

Posted by: John at February 10, 2006 09:33 AM (enIP4)

2 I don't get it. Clooney isn't asking for yourpity, and he doesn't say that he was forced to do anything. He seems to be admitting that he has a choice about whether to be rich or not. That is when we feel guilty: when we could have done something other than what we did.

Posted by: Pericles at February 10, 2006 12:39 PM (ra2qX)

3 Let us help poor dear Mr Affleck out: Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the United States Government may send contributions to a specific account called "Gifts to the United States." This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the Federal Government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the Government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to: Gifts to the United States U.S. Department of the Treasury Credit Accounting Branch 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6D37 Hyattsville, MD 20782 We have also received numerous inquiries from individuals who wish to donate their tax relief checks back to the Government. In those cases, individuals should endorse the check and write "Pay to the Order of the United States Treasury" on the back of the check, and then mail it to the address shown above.

Posted by: MaryIndiana at February 10, 2006 02:33 PM (YwdKL)

4 He seems to be admitting that he has a choice about whether to be rich or not. That is when we feel guilty: when we could have done something other than what we did. No. You don't feel guilty when you save a drowning person just because there was an option of not having to save the drowning person. Or you don't feel guilty for having saved money when you know you could have spent it on dumb things. Gult is dependent on one's idea of rightness and/or wrongness, not possibilities. I think the point trying to be made is: what makes these people think that being rich is morally lesser than being poor? You could only be gulty if your wealth is from crime, or if you have this romanticized view of the virginal poor who can never be morally reprehensible or made responsible of their poverty, which is a very condescending notion of poverty.

Posted by: John at February 10, 2006 02:51 PM (enIP4)

5 John: You are being unfair. Of course I wasn't saying that we feel guilty whenever we do one thing and realize that we could have done something else instead. I don't feel guilty because I chose the shirt that I'm wearing today instead of a different one. I was giving a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. My point was that we do, or we should, let ourselves off of the hook for doing something that would normally be wrong if you really couldn't help it. Clooney wouldn't feel guilty if he didn't think that he had a choice about being rich.

Posted by: Pericles at February 10, 2006 06:37 PM (eKf5G)

6 Being comfortably self-sufficient isn't anything to feel guilty about, but being overly rich is, I think, a worthy thing to feel guilt over. Without those kind of feelings, the human race would be nothing but Enron CEOs, and look what happened there. Avarice is a sin, and sometimes you just have to admit that you don't need all that money. It's not about a poor person being morally better. It's that a rich person has the option of making the world a better place, so its incumbent upon him or her to be the most moral person out there.

Posted by: Will Somerset at February 10, 2006 09:08 PM (eIQfa)

7 Will -- but Clooney appeases his guilt by making Syriana? I suppose that's one option, but I think if he really felt guilty about having so much money, then *giving the money to a good cause* would be a better option. But I guess I can't tell someone what would make them feel less guilty...that's his issue.

Posted by: Sarah at February 11, 2006 04:30 AM (40u7M)

8 Surely everyone passionate about a set of ideas believes that difussing those ideas is a good cause.

Posted by: Pericles at February 11, 2006 02:18 PM (eKf5G)

9 Sarah, Not to detract from the celeb talk, but I agree with you about the Pampered Chef cookbooks--question: do you have the spiral bound PC book with the healthier recipes...I wasn't sure if that's what you were referring to as "Cooking light?" The one I have is called "It's Good For You" and I also have "All The Best." I may have to consult you for some additional light recipes. What is your "light" book called?? By the way...I do know your friend Kelly. I have been trying to place her for a long time, esp after I saw the pic on your site. I remember her from when I worked at the bank. Funny. Thanks!

Posted by: Nicole at February 12, 2006 11:56 AM (KJBDI)

10 I guess you've forgotten George bought that house from John Kerry, just before Kerry announced he would run for President....'cause candidates for President can't own foreign property. After Kerry lost, I figured the house would be bought back. Maybe George thought he would feel real guilty making a profit off such a loser that he chose to keep it. Oh the sacrifices the Liberal rich make for each other...sigh

Posted by: Chevy Rose at February 14, 2006 12:28 AM (BJxCR)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

KUDOS

When I attended the University of Illinois, I used to get so mad reading The Daily Illini newspaper. I would seethe for days over some of their editorials, and I'm sure I could maintain this website by just blogging about some of the stuff they print (I don't visit their website anymore out of respect for my blood pressure). However, I was proud today to hear that they printed the "offensive" Mohammed cartoons. Good for them for actually reporting the news instead of censoring it to make sure no one's feelings get hurt...or embassies get burned down, as the case may be.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:14 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

1 If anything, journalists all over this country should be letting the public decide for themselves what to think of these cartoons. It's kind of understandable for mainstream media to not publish the cartoons, especially when "decide for themselves" could take the form of a nuke' in Manhattan. Free speech is good and all, but the responsibility for the death of a number of people due to a few social retards responding the only way they can is a very hard thing to force upon anyone, even "the brave media". In this case, mainstream media is actually displaying a very clear-sighted recognition of the strings attached to the right to speech, mainly the responsibility that comes with owning up to the things that result from what you say. Yes, they did choose to not say anything at all instead of actually owning up to anything, but that's better than someone claiming freedom so they can dodge accusations of the very fact that what they did was just stupid and offensive. Yes freedom is good, but it makes the world a lot harder to live in if even the callous and the stupid are allowed unbridled speech, and we are all forced to listen to them. (My empathy may be partly as a result of the fact that I'm an avid reader of The New York Press, one of the "bad" publications who chose not to run the cartoons, and my indifference to the editors who resigned because they were bad editors anyway.)

Posted by: John at February 10, 2006 10:11 AM (enIP4)

2 To John, I am curious about this line: "Yes freedom is good, but it makes the world a lot harder to live in if even the callous and the stupid are allowed unbridled speech, and we are all forced to listen to them." So, are you suggesting that we not have freedom of speech? If that is the case, how do we decide collectively who is not allowed unbridled free speech?

Posted by: Eric Cole at February 10, 2006 07:27 PM (ORKPm)

3 Hmmm ... I think this is another example of: "I believe of freedom of speech, but it should be regulated."

Posted by: Acton at February 11, 2006 01:07 AM (TGk0l)

4 Apparently the decision to publish the cartoons was made by 2 members of the editorial staff, and the rest of the staff is very angry with them. http://tinyurl.com/7fqng

Posted by: Maggie45 at February 14, 2006 11:30 PM (Uq8Np)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

TWO YEARS INDEED

I wrote yesterday about how I couldn't believe my husband left for Iraq two years ago. Gunnar Becker's mom can't believe it's been that long either: she sent me an article about her son I hadn't seen yet. No one in the battalion has forgotten Gunnar.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

OVERNIGHT

Well, we got dumped on this morning. We seem to have gotten about seven inches of snow overnight, so the most logical thing to do was to send Charlie out in it.

He had a blast, but then when we came in we noticed that he wasn't obeying his sit command. Maybe it had something to do with this...

Poor puppy. But after a quick rinse in the tub, he was good as new.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:32 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.

February 09, 2006

DOUBT

For the past few years, I've been a steadfast warmonger. I have believed that all people on this planet, given the chance, would choose freedom over chains. I have believed that everyone is worthy of democracy, that my country was doing something Good by opening up Iraq to democracy. I have continued to believe in the fundamental value of democracy, even as my husband began to scratch his head. I've been an idealist, but he's actually been to Iraq. The seven signs of non-competitive states have troubled his mind and made him wonder if Iraq really will be able to pull itself out of the Dark Ages. I have insisted that it must be so, that all people must want to be free. But my heart sank when I saw this today:

This photo from Pakistan feels like a punch in the gut. It makes me want to cry, just as the al-Sadr photo did two years ago. Why doesn't my ideal chair ever match up to the real chair?

I don't want my husband to be right.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:49 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

1 It's by no means a foregone conclusion that democratization and modernization will work..but we have to do our best, because all the alternatives are pretty hideous.

Posted by: David Foster at February 09, 2006 12:14 PM (/Z304)

2 1. Is there widespread popular demand there for Western-style democracy? 2. Do they still have the WMDs they used to have? 3. Are we sending enough ground troops to keep order and seal the borders? 4. Will their oil revenues realy be large enough to cover the price of the operation? Someone write this stuff down, so that next time we'll remember to ask these questions BEFORE we invade.

Posted by: Pericles at February 09, 2006 03:17 PM (eKf5G)

3 Well I broke my promise and I'll post again. Reading your last post and this one you may begin to understand why I have real serious doubts about freedom and democracy for people in that region of the world. I would like to thank your husband for his brave service and you for supporting other military families because while I strongly disagree with many of your viewpoints you are a classly individual. Later Tommy Mullin BT3 USN (1990-1993)

Posted by: tommy in nyc at February 09, 2006 04:58 PM (NMK3S)

4 Nothing important is ever easy. Remember, many aspects of "freedom and democracy" that we now take for granted in the U.S. (and elsewhere in the world) were very difficult to achieve. Who, in 1830, would have ever expected an African-American female to be Secretary of State? What odds would anyone have put on even the continued *existence* of the U.S. in 1862? Who, in 1943, would have projected functioning democracies in Germany and Japan, where the popular demand appeared to be for Fuehrer and God-Emperor?

Posted by: David Foster at February 09, 2006 06:11 PM (/Z304)

5 I think it's disingenuous (or maybe just misguided) to link the "war for democracy" in Iraq to Muslim outrage at the recent blasphemy against their religion. But on to the picture itself: I don't think "our religion does not allow unconditional freedom of speech" means the exact same thing to us as it does to them. For us, freedom of speech superceeds what we would call 'hurting other people's feelings.' We have hate speech laws, but those are only for very particular cases. For Muslims, however, speech is not something that's seperate from their relgion. I don't think that the banner is supposed to mean that their religion is "banning" free speech. What it means is that their speech and their religion are one entity. Their identity is not divided in the same way that Western identity can be segmented - where we have a "personal" life and a "work" life and a "religious" life and a "bowling night" life, etc. etc. etc. I can only guess that they're using the term "freedom of speech" in that banner with the same kind of ironic tone that one might use to make fun of an "unconditional freedom of being stupid" or an "unconditional freedom of going to Hell." Remember, "freedom of speech" is a loaded term for Americans - the words are a cultural icon because they're part of the birth of America and part of its origins and myths. But the phrase doesn't mean that much outside of the country. Abstract "S.A.T." thought moment: Attacking the term "freedom of speech" is to an American what attacking Mohammed is to a Muslim. Basically, the world just full of different cultures with different values, and until some people accept this simple fact, wars will continue. I'd also like to add that if some Kansas newspaper ran a cartoon where God was portrayed as a big, drunk guy who was date-raping a virginal Mary one night, people would be less inclined to equate blasphemy with "freedom."

Posted by: Will Somerset at February 09, 2006 07:26 PM (eIQfa)

6 I can't add much to what is above except to say don't worry. He's a husband. I know from experience that husbands are NEVER RIGHT!!!

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at February 09, 2006 08:06 PM (DdRjH)

7 Your post got to me, enough so I went and read the link to Peters' 7 Sign of a Non-competetive State. While what Peters says is true, all he has really done is state the problem. He doesn't in that article, like most opponents to the war, state what he would do about the problem of evil states + terrorists + WMD * (sanctions eroding / everything else) = trouble. Also, part of the plan was to go over to the Arab world and personally slap them upside the head -- with fists and rifles, not bombs from 50,000 feet. We had to, after all our retreats from Lebanon to Somalia, show those SOB's we were willing to fight. Otherwise, they would just keep on coming with more 9-11's and more Coles until things got really bad. So, there we are. Maybe Peters is right and it will be 7 times harder to fix Iraq that it was to fix Germany 60 years ago. So what? Does that mean the job doesn't need to be done? No, it only means it will be damn hard, damn expensive, and take a long damn time. Kinda like renovating my home, come to think of it... Thank your husband from us for his service and you for your sacrifice.

Posted by: pedro at February 18, 2006 08:37 AM (cf25u)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

TWO YEARS

My husband and I had the following conversation last night:

Me: On Tuesday it will be a full year since you left for Iraq.
Him: Two years.
Me: Huh?
Him: Two years.
Me: Oh, right. Dang. (Pause) Daaaang.

I can't believe how time has flown. He's right: he left on Valentine's Day two years ago, and it'll be a full year in March since he's been home. My Swedish friend and I were talking over the weekend about how easy it is to lose track of time when you no longer measure your life in school grades. Once you get out of school, time is a big blur. Even something as monumental as a year of deployment got all mixed up in my head.

I can't believe he left two years ago. I remember it so vividly...

Posted by: Sarah at 04:26 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 141 words, total size 1 kb.

February 08, 2006

FUNERAL OR RALLY?

My husband and I watched part of the Coretta Scott King funeral last night and were completely shocked at what a political rally it became. We missed what President Bush had said because we tuned in right as Pres. Carter started speaking. We were both disgusted at his references to wiretapping and Hurricane Katrina. And the icing on the cake was when he snubbed President Bush and wouldn't even shake his hand. He came off as a real asshole, pardon my language. Pres. Bush 41 was witty and uplifting. Pres. Clinton naturally was a compelling speaker, but we were both a bit surprised at how overtly religious his speech was. I always have the feeling that Pres. Bush is the same man in public as behind closed doors, but Pres. Clinton seems to be whoever is needed at the moment. I guess that's a normal quality for a politician to have, but I don't necessarily think it's an endearing quality. And then Hillary Clinton spoke: did anyone else think it was a bit creepy that she focused so much on Coretta standing by her man? Somehow I think it's weird to see the Clintons at a podium talking about strength in marriage. Maybe it's just me.

Overall the whole thing was weird and completely un-funeral-like. I did like what Pres. Clinton had to say, reminding us all that Coretta Scott King was a woman and not just a symbol. I thought the whole thing was a bit smarmy, using this poor woman's death as a chance to reach out to the black community, as if every politician there were saying "see, look at me, I care about black people."

And once again, President Bush has to sit there and smile while everyone blames him for war, racism, and poverty. The man is a saint to take so much abuse with such grace. I'd've punched Carter in the flippin' mouth.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:04 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 325 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Dang...I'm glad I didn't watch it...

Posted by: Erin at February 08, 2006 05:23 AM (pZh/t)

2 I didn't see it, and can't comment much. Let's face it, though; the whole thing was a political event through and through from the very beginning. W didn't have any relationship with Mrs. King, as far as I'm aware. He was there because of politics. As far as W. being the same person in public and private, have you read/heard about the story that Tucker Carlson wrote about being alone with Bush in a limo during the 2000 campaign, when Bush was still Governor of Texas? They were getting ready to execute Karla Faye Tucker. If you recall, she had asked for clemency on the grounds of having become a Christian and changed her life. W. mocked her, saying something like "Boo Hoo Hoo, please don't kill me." I don't think that even he would do that in public. Since Carlson is a conservative, he apparently thought that he could get away with it. They say he takes after his mother, after all, and she is notoriously different in private from her grandmotherly public image. I found what Carlson wrote. This is in Talk magazine, Sept. 1999: Bush's brand of forthright tough-guy populism can be appealing, and it has played well in Texas. Yet occasionally there are flashes of meanness visible beneath it. While driving back from the speech later that day, Bush mentions Karla Faye Tucker, a double murderer who was executed in Texas last year. In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, Bianca Jagger and a number of other protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Tucker. 'Did you meet with any of them?' I ask. Bush whips around and stares at me. 'No, I didn't meet with any of them,' he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. 'I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with [Tucker], though. He asked her real difficult questions, like 'What would you say to Governor Bush?' 'What was her answer?' I wonder. 'Please,' Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, 'don't kill me.' I must look shocked -- ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel, even for someone as militantly anticrime as Bush -- because he immediately stops smirking.

Posted by: Pericles at February 08, 2006 08:08 AM (eKf5G)

3 Hmm. No, I've never heard that story before, and simply based on what you've written here (I have to leave in ten minutes and don't have time to read more), I don't think it's that weird of a story. I don't know the details of this double murder, but why should Bush feel sorry for Tucker? Heck, I bet I probably made the same annoyed joke about Tookie Williams. Conversion to Christianity is not at all a reason for clemency, at least not for me. So the story doesn't seem that odd to me. Pericles, do you think the Clintons are really as religious as they profess in public? They were both spouting Bible verses at the funeral like they were in a contest to see who could say the most. Do you think that's real or faked up just to appear pious? I didn't mean that Bush would never say something in private that he'd regret in public -- heck, NONE of us would want everything we say to be public. But I meant that people see him as a religious man, and from my understanding he really does pray before meals and meetings and in times of struggle. My husband and I just were wondering if Clinton is as religious at home as he appears to be the minute he walks before a black congregation...

Posted by: Sarah at February 08, 2006 09:07 AM (qzdMp)

4 I agree with you! I only saw the clips on the news but one was a guy talking about WMD not being found and that they only found weapons of misdirection . . . how is that remotely related to this woman and is that something to talk about at a funeral? I too thought it was funny that Hillary talked about "Standing By Her Man" . . . didn't she make reference to that song when she was defending her husband for his White House scandal and draw fire? This may be a little out there and draw some negative reaction but I never thought of Mrs. King as the "Mother of Civil Rights" as so many have called her . . . she carried on her husband's goal but was what she did more significant than Rosa Parks? Now, Mrs. Parks was the Mother of Civil Rights to me . . . she had some courage to do what she did! I like that double contraction . . . I'd've!

Posted by: Heidi at February 08, 2006 10:41 AM (E0L31)

5 Heidi -- I too thought the same thing last night. My first thought was, "Um, what has Coretta done lately?" Her husband and she worked honorably for civil rights, which I can completely respect, but I was surprised that her funeral was such a big to-do...

Posted by: Sarah at February 08, 2006 11:45 AM (qzdMp)

6 Carter is the best thing that can happen to Republicans. He continues to remind voters why he was the worst President in history!

Posted by: Tanker at February 08, 2006 11:56 AM (btzDE)

7 On C-Span they showed the whole 5 hour long funeral, and I like a dummy, watched the whole thing. It was funny at times and very moving, but also very political. Everyone except Bill and Hillary Clinton and former President Bush, took a shot at President Bush.Most of the funeral was boring. The very best part was the singing and the little bit of preaching that was done...What got me was it was 5 hours long....

Posted by: Mrs.Oz at February 08, 2006 12:59 PM (hQUsz)

8 Well we can all see how much her legacy meant to those who used her funeral as an opportunity to spew out more useless rhetoric...I'm sorry but no matter what President Carter says, no one will forget the late 1970s, especially not the Economics textbooks (how I learned about his wonderful legacy...). How easy it is for past Presidents to criticize the current when they're not in the same situation.

Posted by: Nicole at February 08, 2006 02:20 PM (KJBDI)

9 I don't have any particular insight into the Clintons' religosity. My gut instinct is that it is more real for him than for her. I think that he is a complex guy. You kind of imply that he is a hypocrite, and given some of the stuff he's done I can kind of understand that, but I almost think it is something else with him. I think of a hypocrite as someone who says things that he knows he doesn't really believe. I think that Clinton is absolutely convinced of what he says when he says it, even if at other times he says something else that contradicts it. He believes that, too, 100%. I'm almost attributing a multiple personality or a failure to grasp basic logic to him, and maybe that is worse. He's a deeply flawwed guy, and yet in many rspects was an excellent President, IMHO. I'll pull the lever for HRC if she gets he nomination, but of the Dems who have expressed an interest, I'm most enthused about former Virginia Governor Mark Warner.

Posted by: Pericles at February 08, 2006 02:48 PM (ra2qX)

10 For the record: If SOMEONE should be referred to as the Â“Mother of Civil RightsÂ” look towards actions that made a difference, such as; Jane Addams , Linda Brown of Brown v. The Board of Education, and Mamie Till. 1909: Co-Founder of the NAACP 1954: Overturned Â“Separate but EqualÂ” 1955: August 28, murder of Emmett Till All came before Rosa Parks and the King family. Mrs. Rosa Parks accomplishments: In the early 1950s, Parks became active in the American Civil Rights Movement and worked as a secretary for the Montgomery, Alabama branch of the NAACP. Just six months before her arrest, she had attended the Highlander Folk School, an education center for workers' rights and racial equality. On December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Parks, while sitting in the black section of the bus, refused to obey a public bus driver's orders to give up her seat to a white man and move to the back of the bus to make extra seats for whites. Rosa was tired of being treated as a second-class citizen and stood firmly. She was arrested, tried, and convicted for disorderly conduct and for violating a local ordinance. http://www.montgomeryboycott.com/bio_rparks.htm Mrs. Coretta Scott KingÂ’s other accomplishments: Ã¢Â€Â¢ spoke/preached at St. Paul's Cathedral in England Ã¢Â€Â¢ created, planned, and sought funding for the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change in Atlanta Ã¢Â€Â¢ established in 1969 the annual Coretta Scott King Award to honor African American authors of outstanding educational writings Ã¢Â€Â¢ established in 1979 an additional Award to honor African American illustrators Ã¢Â€Â¢ assured recognition for the civil rights movement by seeing her late husbandÂ’s birthday become a national holiday Ã¢Â€Â¢ co-chaired the Full Employment Action Council, instituted the Black Leadership Forum, the National Black Coalition for Voter Participation and the Black Leadership Roundtable Ã¢Â€Â¢ sought to bring out the truth of her husbandÂ’s assassination by establishing that Ray did not act alone in the commission of the murder, but was instead part of a larger conspiracy; because of the materials she had gathered over the years, a 1999 Tennessee jury found that the assassination was the result of a conspiracy, not of the action of a lone killer Most recently, Mrs. King was heard speaking out against capital punishment and the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. She further supports lesbian/gay rights causes and is an ardent supporter of AIDS/HIV education and prevention. http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art30373.asp

Posted by: Vonn at February 08, 2006 06:03 PM (dEgRi)

11 And add to the Kings' history, it was Robert "Bobby" Kennedy (Ted's older brother) who wiretapped MLK's phones, and knew of his calls with a commie sympathizer and of course of his "affairs". Mr. Jimmy Carter failed to mention that fact when he made his comment about wiretaps. He chose to imply President Bush was at fault. Misinformation abounds when Liberals get access to a mike and TV camera. To heck with the facts. I'm hoping Condi Rice will run for President, but if she doesn't, then John McCain is my choice. I do believe in the death sentence and believe when automatic death sentence for convicted pedophiles is passed, our children will be a whole lot safer. All IMHO, naturally. Good post and discussion.

Posted by: Chevy Rose at February 08, 2006 07:34 PM (Of5G0)

12 I just have to ask... why isn't life in prison without parole good enough for pedophiles? Our children wandering in our prisons? Is the fear that the legal system will screw up and release them anyway? Well, if have to be that worried about the legal system screwing up, then hw do we trust it to make sure that only the right people are executed?

Posted by: Pericles at February 08, 2006 08:09 PM (ra2qX)

13 I watched some parts of the funeral while flipping around the dial when it was rerun on Cspan last night. I saw eugolies by one of Muhammed X's daughters and by Maya Angelou which were very sincere and eloquent. The daughter said that Mrs.King had always been like a second mother to the six children of her mother, always sent birthday cards and gifts and even as late as last November had reached out to her. It was very much like many funerals I have seen. It is such a shame that some politicos took all the limelight and you had to watch Cspan to get the true spirit of a memorial. I thought the President's words were very good and in keeping with the spirit of a memorial.

Posted by: Ruth H at February 08, 2006 08:39 PM (jDZSA)

14 darn! should have run that post past spellchecker! EULOGIES, EULOGIES, EULOGIES... do I have to type it ten times, teach?

Posted by: Ruth H at February 08, 2006 08:41 PM (jDZSA)

15 We always leave it up to the close friends and families of the deceased to use their best judgment as to how that person would want his or her life to be commemorated. The organizers of funerals for those involved in politics usually do mention the political causes they've spent their life fighting for, and so should it be. That is appropriately honoring them. King was a political person who fought for political causes. Not just for "black people should be allowed to vote," but for issues that are still controversial today. The Bush administration has in many ways fought against her work. When Bush overruled the opinion of professional lawyers that the Texas re-redistricting plan violated the Voting Rights Act, they were fighting against King. When they filed a brief encouraging the Supreme Court to restrict affirmative action in college admissions, they were fighting against King. She committed her efforts to support gay rights and oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment, which the Bush administration pushed. Are those who make eulogies supposed to pretend all those conflicts never happened to avoid offending the easily offended sensibilities of Republican politicians who by and large do not support King's work? Should we not have anyone at the funeral of a soldier who died in Iraq say that they died fighting for a noble cause, since saying such can be viewed as a political statement?

Posted by: Mr. Silly at February 08, 2006 11:54 PM (Q+kim)

16 (cont'd) I thought the general Republican/Conservative media reaction to Wellstone's funeral was really just spin, and I see the same here. I am honestly more far offended by those who would criticize the funeral of a fighter for civil rights to try to gain a partisan edge through spin, a spin from partisans who ultimately promote an agenda working to undo what King and others have fought for. Far better that Kings or Wellstone's friends say what they King or Wellstone themselves would have said, and better that they sharing the passion and inspiration that the deceased inspired, than blather out empty platitudes for fear of offending the hyper-sensitive. I notice that nobody complained about McCain politicizing at Goldwater's funeral. Are there double-standards at work here? http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Newscenter.ViewPressRelease&Content_id=992

Posted by: Mr. Silly at February 08, 2006 11:55 PM (Q+kim)

17 Mr. Silly...and I'm not arguing that you're not...I think you're giving Mr. Bush far more power than the Constitution when you want to raise the issue of Texas redistricting and affirmative action decisions regarding college admissions. Texas redistricting (and I'm sure in other locales based on the 2000 census) was indeed upheld by the courts. Sorry, but those were in place before Mr. Bush took office...so go cry on their black robes. Regarding affirmative action policies at public institutions, don't you think we're getting a little bit past the point where they were actually necessary? I think Dr. King would be appalled that "we" were still willing to treat people of any color differently from one another. We're coming up on being 150 years beyond the Emancipation Proclamation and 50 years from meaningful Civil Rights reform in this country. Just how long will policies that discriminate against European Americans based on the color of their skin be necessary? I would like to think that Dr. King would be more aligned with the thinking of Bill Cosby than that of Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton these days. See you on the high ground! MajorDad1984

Posted by: MajorDad1984 at February 09, 2006 08:19 AM (j7S/Q)

18 MajorDad, I am afraid I was not especially clear as I was typing quickly. The Bush admin. did not push through but did explicitly support the redistricting, and allowed DHS resources to be used by DeLay to hunt down the missing Dems. Since you seem unfamiliar with the issue, I might remind you that the redistricting case is still in the courts - its legality has not been decided. Note also that it was only one example of a list (which I could have easily expanded), and arguing about it is just a rat hole, as it individually has no bearing on the greater point. "Regarding affirmative action policies at public institutions, don't you think we're getting a little bit past the point where they were actually necessary? I think Dr. King would be appalled that "we" were still willing to treat people of any color differently from one another." If I were to pretend to channel the spirit of MLK, I think that the spirit I spoke with would speak quite differently than what you imagined, but we are necessarily in a realm of speculation. With the degree to which racism still has been shown by recent studies to both be surprisingly common in the U.S., and that it still affects things such as hiring practices, makes me doubt that were he to take the position that ending affirmative action altogether would neither benefit the black community or America as a whole. He may indeed have held that the black community has to do a lot of work to do on themselves, as with Cosby, but this is not a contradiction of the earlier view - note that Cosby himself has not criticized affirmative action. I wonder if you intentionally chose to switch the subject to MLK as a distractor, given that the speech was at Coretta Scott King's funeral. She has made her views quite clear through her life that she still supported affirmative action. "Just how long will policies that discriminate against European Americans based on the color of their skin be necessary?" It's hard to say, perhaps when it has been clearly demonstrated in a way that all can agree to that it is not a benefit to either the black community nor to the country as a whole. Affirmative action has been softened, dropped in many areas, and decreased in others as you can see in this timeline: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmativetimeline1.html While institutional racism is gone, its remnants are still fading. Affirmative action was a countermeasure to help resolve those issues, and the data shows that the degree to which the institutionalization of the countermeasures have begun to fade. Hopefully there will be a day when both will be gone. Since the remnants of the former are not gone today, it makes sense that the countermeasures still persists.

Posted by: Mr Silly at February 09, 2006 11:22 PM (KaSTy)

19 Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan on the funeral: "There was nothing prissy, nothing sissy about it. A former president, a softly gray-haired and chronically dyspeptic gentleman who seems to have judged the world to be just barely deserving of his presence, pointedly insulted a sitting president who was, in fact, sitting right behind him. The Clintons unveiled their 2008 campaign. A rhyming preacher, one of the old lions, a man of warmth and stature, freely used the occasion to verbally bop the sitting president on the head. So what? This was the authentic sound of a vibrant democracy doing its thing. It was the exact opposite of the frightened and prissy attitude that if you draw a picture I don't like, I'll have to kill you. It was: We do free speech here. That funeral honored us, and the world could learn a lot from watching it. The U.S. government should send all six hours of it throughout the World Wide Web and to every country on earth, because it said more about who we are than any number of decorous U.N. speeches and formal diplomatic declarations. A moment for a distinction that must be made. Some have compared Mrs. King's funeral to the Paul Wellstone memorial. It was not like the Wellstone memorial, and you'd have to be as dim and false as Al Franken to say it was. The Wellstone memorial was marked not by joy but anger. It was at moments sour, even dark. There was famous booing. The King funeral was nothing like this. It was gracious, full of applause and cheers and amens. It was loving even when it was political. It had spirit, not rage. That's part of why it was beautiful."

Posted by: Pericles at February 13, 2006 08:58 AM (eKf5G)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

February 07, 2006

A TRUE FRIEND

On Thanksgiving I wrote about how happy I am that I've found my two best friends because part of the reason I started this blog was because none of my old friends agreed with me politically. It wasn't until we got into the Army that I started to make friends who valued the same things I do. In the comments section, Pericles said, "So we can safely assume that you've never distanced yourself from friends because of THEIR politics?" He says he was joking, and I don't think he meant to be rude, but I have thought about that comment for a long time.

It's true that once I started to meet people who agreed with me, it was easier to prefer their company to the company of others. I'd much rather nod in agreement than argue! But before that, back in college, more often than not I'd find myself talking down a road less traveled and then backing off when I realized the other person wasn't following me. I usually changed the subject or tried to find ways to agree. I began to feel more isolated, especially after my Dinesh D'Souza experience. But the war really tipped the scales; I have very little contact with anyone I was friends with before OIF. Heck, my maid of honor hasn't spoken to me in about two years. I have no problem with people growing apart, but it's sad to me that we could be friends when I knew others' political views but not when they knew mine.

However, there's one friend who has shown me that two people can be respectful of each other and put aside their differences. I met my friend from Sweden back in 1998, and we're still as close today as we were then. She's a Swede through and through; I don't think we agree on a single thing politically! However, we always manage to talk civilly and explain our positions in peace. Maybe it's easier because we come from two different worlds: we can easily shrug and say, "What else would she think, she's Swedish/American?" But we manage to make the friendship work even when we have fundamental differences in thinking: she about had a heart attack when I whooped after Timothy McVeigh was executed, and I nearly keeled over when she told me that Swedish parents receive School Supply Money from the government! She's been nothing but supportive about my husband's deployment, even though I know she's not such a fan of the military in general.

She visited over the weekend, and we had a wonderful time. She was interested in my husband's photos from Iraq and learning about the new functional area he's applying for. She even met my two best friends here; I wonder what it's like for her to listen to my right wing friends' conversations about re-enlistment and school bullies! Erin even thought later she should apologize for sounding so American, but I think it's good for my Swedish friend to hear us as we really are. She's tolerant enough to hear the truth!

So in response to Pericles' joke, I have indeed distanced myself from many people in my life who have expressed hostility towards my husband's career or towards my views. But it doesn't have to be that way. I am completely capable of accepting my Swedish friend just the way she is because she's willing to do the same. We have a wonderful friendship, despite the fact that we're ridiculously different. She's a true friend.

Plus she uses me for my commissary privileges to stay stocked in Starbursts. I can live with that...

Posted by: Sarah at 02:36 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 611 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Sarah, I have friends and children who do not share my political views, but we agree to disagree on those. We do have discussions, but nothing is taken personally and politics is just a part of life, there is much more to be friends about than there are differences. I hope you will find yourself with some of your old friends again when you get a chance. Maybe a little maturity in them will help. In your case I know maturity was escalated with the time you have spent with your husband and his service overseas and in Iraq. As for me, I've had 69 years to mature and if I haven't by now........

Posted by: Ruth H at February 07, 2006 03:24 PM (MDRy9)

2 Hey, look at me starting trouble. Not like I'm entitled to any answers about your personal life, Sarah, but I'm curious about whether you'd consider a person with my views to be beyond the pale as a potential friend. I don't think I'm hostile to the military; far from it. Heck, I had a very pleasant dinner the other night where I was sitting next to a retired Army general. On the other side of him was a former Sec. Def. I agreed with nearly everything they said. On the other hand, I think that the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea in the abstract that became a disaster due to bad planning. The military itself seems to have done as good of a job of executing this lousy plan as anyone could hope, but with some notable exceptions, e.g., Abu Ghraib. I'm curious whether those negative points make me hostile to the military in your book, if not mine.

Posted by: Pericles at February 07, 2006 06:48 PM (eKf5G)

3 I recall the Gipper once said that he didn't leave the Democratic Party; the Party left him. Perhaps that may be a more accurate assessment of your relationship to, for example, your maid of honor? But what is a true friend, but one who stands beside you in times of trouble?

Posted by: Jim Shawley at February 08, 2006 10:43 PM (dk0bl)

4 You use your taxpayer-supported commissary privileges to buy goods for a nonmilitary foreign national?

Posted by: Question at February 20, 2006 01:30 PM (n17hK)

5 (sigh) you're wrong. The quote that angers you refers to the tireless efforts of countless Islamic groups that are mainstream and moderate and try to tell the world this, over and over. But that doesn't make the news, and suckers just take the most extreme behaviour that is on the news and spoonfed to them daily and say "that represents all of Islam". The suckers say "spoonfeed me more!" and they are not disappointed. Try to grok all the Islamic organizations decry terrorism every chance they get.

Posted by: question at February 23, 2006 12:52 PM (n17hK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

February 06, 2006

EXHAUSTED

The Superbowl didn't start here until after midnight, but my husband and Charlie stayed up for the whole thing. And now Charlie has been a complete wreck: he hasn't eaten a single thing all day and he didn't even pee until 1900! His system is a mess. Apparently our pup needs a strict bedtime...

(Our exhausted pup, snuggling with his stuffed moose)

Posted by: Sarah at 03:33 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.

February 05, 2006

HEH

Heh. Apparently concentrating on knitting can be deadly...

Posted by: Sarah at 04:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

DREAMS

Since September 11, I've had a handful of war dreams. Sometimes I'm a soldier, sometimes I'm a civilian, and last night I was a frightened wife being escorted through a battle by her husband's soldiers. Whenever I have one of these dreams, I jolt awake in a panic. It always takes me a while to calm down enough to go back to sleep. I can't help but wonder how real soldiers are affected by these dreams: I dream of a war I've never been in; they dream of real situations they've faced. I hope their dreams don't haunt them like mine do...but I think that's too much to hope for.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:21 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.

February 03, 2006

NOT TAGGED

Nobody tagged me, but I'm gonna do this one anyway...

4 Jobs You Have Had in Your Life
1. paperboy
2. jewelry salesperson
3. English teacher
4. The Girl's secretary

4 Movies You Would Watch Over and Over
1. The Royal Tenenbaums
2. South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut
3. True Romance
4. Raising Arizona

4 Places You Have Lived
1. Germany
2. France
3. Sweden
4. Texas

4 TV Shows You Love to Watch
1. Smallville
2. Alias
3. Futurama
4. Numbers

4 Places You Have Been on Vacation
1. Wyatt Earp's house
2. The Alamo
3. Bolzano, Italy to visit the Iceman
4. Cuba, NY

4 Web- sites You Visit Daily
1. LGF
2. After that I bounce around a lot
3.
4.

4 Favorite Foods
1. steak
2. peas
3. turkey cutlets with rosemary-tomato sauce
4. broccoli-rice-cheese casserole

4 Places You Would Rather Be Right Now
1. Las Vegas
2. In my husband's office
3. Talking with Bunker
4. Anywhere in the USA

Posted by: Sarah at 02:54 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.

February 01, 2006

LIP GLOSS

Reader Glen pointed out a blog post that really made me smile. It's a wonderful story of a husband's love for his wife, a love that keeps them strong deployment after deployment.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:12 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

January 30, 2006

BLOWN AWAY

Gone are the days when I spent three hours each morning reading blogs. Some reasons my lifestyle has changed are obvious -- I used to read blogs at work, Charlie chewing on cords is a big distraction -- but I've also just experienced a general leveling-off of my fervor. I hope to spike again one day, but for now, I've just got other things on my mind, I guess.

Thus it took a Cold Fury post to point out a Bleat to me. Reading Lileks used to be like brushing my teeth, but now it's sadly more like brushing the dog: I don't do it nearly as often as I should.

Lileks found an article that he says "should be taught in J-schools. This is Pulitizerian. Stick with it, and youÂ’ll see what I mean." I read The Peekaboo Paradox and was blown away. This article is masterful. If you want to see true journalism -- not the crap that gets cranked out at Reuters -- read Weingarten's piece.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:22 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 173 words, total size 1 kb.

January 27, 2006

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

I had read that Google was going to be censored in China, but it didn't really sink in until I saw this post at LGF:

tiananmen - Google Image Search.
tiananmen - Google Image Search in China.

Make sure you click them both to see the power of censorship.

Over the weekend my mother, husband, and I traveled to France to visit our relatives. Somehow at one point someone brought up Scientology, which apparently is illegal in France. You can't be a Scientologist in France. For the French relatives, this seemed totally natural: Scientology is weird and cultish, and so it should be outlawed. But later I pointed out to my husband that this conversation typified a fundamental difference between Americans and the French (or insert a variety of other nationalities). I too think Scientology is a bit out there -- what else can you say about a religion that was started on a dare -- but I think people should be allowed to be Scientologists if that's what they want. I really had a gut reaction to hearing that ideas could be illegal.

When I was teaching ESL in grad school, I opened up our argumentative unit with a brief discussion of hate speech. I played devil's advocate, arguing both sides of the issue in front of the class so they could get an idea of how to write an argumentative paper. So on one hand, I argued that although many of us are repulsed by the KKK and Matt Hale, they should be allowed to have the same freedom of speech rights that anyone else does. And a Korean student promptly filed a complaint against me with the department, saying I was intolerant and bigoted.

I'm proud that in my country you're supposed to be able to say anything you want. The free exchange of ideas helps people understand the world; censoring things that make us cringe makes the world a smaller place. I'd rather refute Matt Hale than exile him.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:21 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Hey, for once we completely agree. Although I think that this is because you found an issue on which your position is relatively liberal. This is superficial, but in a nutshell I think that the First Amendment is regarded with some ambivalence by both the more extreme conservatives in the U.S. and by those who are to the left of liberalism. In practice, other countries may be as much if not more tolerant of free speech than the U.S. As far as I know, though, only we have something like the First Amendment. But this very fact gets at one reason that I think you were wrong to say that people to the left of you would probably be just as happy in some other country, or at least they would feel equally at home somewhere else as far as politics are concerned.

Posted by: Pericles at January 27, 2006 07:16 AM (eKf5G)

2 Her position isn't liberal...not wanting the government to control and manipulate your daily life is a conservative belief, actually.

Posted by: Nicole at January 27, 2006 10:54 AM (KJBDI)

3 Perhaps the concept of freedom of speech does not solely belong to either the conservative or liberal ideologies, but is instead a part of our common and shared heritage as Americans? I also find it interesting that you were labeled a bigot for providing multiple viewpoints. How did that get rationalized by the student?

Posted by: Jason at January 27, 2006 12:52 PM (1eylU)

4 I notice that Sarah isn't advocating that Matt Hale use his option to leave the country. In fact, she'd rather not exile him... hmmm... Anyway, I agree with the previous posters who already pointed that free speech is a bi-partisan ideal. Defining hate speech, on the other hand, can become a heated topic, even for people without a language or culture barrier, and I'm sure it must have been very tricky to deal with in an ESL environment.

Posted by: Will Somerset at January 27, 2006 04:16 PM (eIQfa)

5 Nicole- Was it conservatives or liberals who favored anti-sodomy laws that made homosexual acts between consenting adults illegal? Is it conservatives or liberals who are most concerned to establish and enforce laws against drugs like marijuana or against activities like prostitution between consenting adults? Tell the members of a committed gay couple who just want to enjoy the same legal rights that a hetrosexual coupole can enjoy by getting married that conservatives don't want to manage the details of their personal lives. Face it... in many respects, the Democrats are the party of limited government today, the ones who want to get government off of your back. My real point, though, was that if you take the long view, the idea of nearly absolute individual freedoms like the freedom of speech is a liberal view. Historically, it is an idea that comes from thinkers like the liberal John Stuart Mill, not the conservative Edmund Burke. The political ideas that are most widely shared in our society toay are, historically, more closely associated with the liberal tradition.

Posted by: Pericles at January 27, 2006 09:32 PM (eKf5G)

6 Pericles, If you want to talk history, why don't you take a guess as to which party is "historically" racist? (I'll give you a hint: it starts with a D)

Posted by: Erin at January 28, 2006 09:19 AM (4121c)

7 Will -- Maybe you need to go check last week's post again and try to not read so much of your own bias into it. I never said we should exile anyone, neither Matt Hale nor Michael Moore. If Hale chooses to leave, good on him. And good riddance. These two posts are not related at all, but it appears you just had to be snarky and twist my words around.

Posted by: Sarah at January 28, 2006 10:46 AM (X47y5)

8 Pericles -- I was wondering if you'd be interested in reading the book The Right Nation. It seems like you might be the type person who could be interested in checking it out. I think it defines well the two sometimes-concentric groups in the Republican party: the anti-government types (libertarians, if you will) and the social conservatives. I think social conservatives accept more government involvement in individual lives. I consider myself more squarely in the anti-government circle, though I pattern in small ways with the social conservatives. And I think the word "liberal" has changed dramatically in meaning over the years. I don't think "liberal" and "conservative" are accurate defining terms for either party these days, but those seem to be the labels we're stuck with.

Posted by: Sarah at January 28, 2006 10:52 AM (X47y5)

9 I agree with Sarah on more than a few points and I think the links definitely support what's wrong with the idea of Google assisting the Chinese government in censorship. I also agree on the concept of the use of "exile." I'm pretty opinionated...and definitely love the ability to voice my opinions in this free and open society. I tend to believe my beliefs further the greatness of this country, rather than attack it. It's not a mystery that I believe that the left in this country and other American hating groups tend to see a weaker America as the solution to world ills. Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe Ronald Reagan's words that spoke of America being "a shining city on a hill." For America and everything she stands for to disappear would indeed be the beginning of the end for man. While I may rail against some of the lunacy and intellectually dishonest arguments I read throughout the blogosphere, I see on television, or hear standing in line at the local Walmart I have and would continue to the death to defend the speakers' rights to say it. However, there comes the point where I also expect people to act with a certain amount of civility and decorum. Bad taste exists and I reserve the right to point it out whenever I see it. I'll be civil, I'll be polite...but I also might be offensive. Hey, it's my right...right? MajorDad1984

Posted by: MajorDad1984 at January 28, 2006 01:27 PM (j7S/Q)

10 I agree with Sarah that the labels "liberal" and "conservative" have become too broad and over-reaching. However, when I made my comment I was thinking of certain issues...who is the party who opposed President Bush's intitative to allow parents to use school vouchers to send their children to private schools? Freedom of choice or having the government tell you where your child will be educated? Who is the party who consistently favors raising taxes?...the government telling citizens how their hard-earned dollars will be spent...And who is the party who favors government sponsored health care? Hmm...I agree with Sarah on the dangers of generalizing but saying that the traditionally liberal party is one of less government intrusion in our lives is absolutely laughable.

Posted by: nicole at January 28, 2006 02:22 PM (KJBDI)

11 For clarification, I do not necessarily think that all "liberal" values are bad...and I also realize that the term is very broad and ill-defined. I was just trying to explain how I realistically see things...and not trying to advocate one position or another.

Posted by: nicole at January 28, 2006 02:28 PM (KJBDI)

12 Nicole... I'll agree with you there too! Not all liberal values are bad. What makes the hair on the back of my neck go up though is that liberals tend to want to make power grabs for programs that have traditionally been the work done through charities and churches. Have places like Boys Town done such a bad job over the years that we have to "federalize" such things? Add to your list of "things" that have had their definitions bastardized...you probably need to include the two words "necessities" and "luxuries." Necessities include basic housing, clothing, medical and food. No, there's no room in there for cigarettes, lottery tickets, big screen TVs, XBox 360s, the latest cell phone, the latest Escalade, Expedition, Suburban out of Detroit (or wherever they make 'em). Those are LUXURIES. See y'all on the high ground! MajorDad1984

Posted by: MajorDad1984 at January 28, 2006 08:24 PM (j7S/Q)

13 Just time for a couple of quick thoughts-- Erin: Historically, both parties are thoroughly racist. It is just a sad fact about our country that racism was once that pervasive. Even Abe Lincoln made some patently racist statements.

Posted by: Pericles at January 28, 2006 08:46 PM (eKf5G)

14 Erin, FYI, the Democrats were historically the party that dominated the South, and there was a lot of tension in the party between the Northern Dems, and the 'Dixiecrats.' When LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, that was the end of the (generally) racist Dixiecrats, who began to slide to the Republicans which fundamentally altered the whole poitical map of our country. While before the '60s you would rarely, if ever, have seen a Southern state voting for a Republican for any office (they were, after all, Party of Lincoln), now they vote almost entirely for them. So while it is true that the Democrats had a history of racism, the racists have left the party for its stand on civil liberties, and have been accepted comfortably into the Republican party.

Posted by: Mr. Silly at January 30, 2006 06:03 PM (Q+kim)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 26, 2006

MORE LINKS

Well, it's already time to take mom back to the airport. I can't believe how little it feels like you can do in 15 days!

Lileks is right to be upset that newspapers change certain quotes to avoid "giving offense to readers". What kind of garbage is that? If someone said "Chocolate City", then by golly you print it so everyone can decide for themselves. You don't edit it out so people can't be offended. What is wrong with these people?

I read Joel Stein's op-ed on why he doesn't support the troops. A lot of people on the Right apparently are bashing this guy, but I give him two thumbs up. Say what you really think. If you're against the war and against the military, then I'm pleased you don't put a yellow ribbon on your car. Good for Joel for speaking the truth even when it sounds crass; more people should adopt this behavior.

And lastly, a funny quote from John Hawkins:

After all, why would a normal man want to go see this film? Men don't even want to go see relationship movies that feature men and women, so why would they want to see a movie about two gay cowboys hopping in the saddle together?
Maybe if the gay cowboys were secretly ninjas sworn to avenge their masters or kill crazy ex-seals out to stop a team of Al-Qaeda terrorists from blowing up school buses full of kids, it might be a movie that could appeal to most guys -- assuming they didn't get all touchy-feely and start grabbing each other like the Hobbits did at the end of "Return of the King."

Posted by: Sarah at 03:01 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.

January 24, 2006

LINKS

I'm still busy running around with my mama...and battling our radiators: we've had DPW (maintenance) to our house twice already this week and scheduled for today and tomorrow too. For some reason, the house just doesn't want to warm above 60 degrees.

But here are some links:

Want To Cut Down On Abortions? Make Them Illegal (via RWN)
Why Hollywood Loves Johnny CashÂ—and not Merle Haggard (via Cold Fury)

Posted by: Sarah at 04:13 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

January 16, 2006

THE LAST HOPE

Cold Fury articulates something I've been thinking for a long time:

If the libs want government health care, gun control, and cradle-to-grave nanny-statism, there are plenty of places they can go to get it Â— and planes, trains, buses, and ships leaving every day. But this country is the only hope for those of us for whom liberty and respect for individual freedom and responsibility is paramount. ItÂ’s time we reminded them of that. We might not be quite on the right track just yet, but weÂ’re definitely at the station and heading for the ticket window.

There's nowhere else in the world as far to the right as the United States. If you want to live in a world that's further to the left, move to Europe. But we Americans who want a world that's further to the right have nowhere else we could go. We just have to hope our country doesn't drift left.

MORE TO GROK:

I read the first few comments and realized that it just wasn't worth my time to clarify. This morning there are double the comments, and it seems some people out there did understand what I meant.

If I were somehow the exact same person that I am right now, but I got dropped off from a spaceship and was told to choose where I want to live, I could only choose the United States. It's the only country that comes close to representing my value system. (My husband smirked and said, "Well, there's Hong Kong and Singapore, but then again we might get put in jail for dropping a gum wrapper.") However, for people who are strongly in the left camp, if they got dropped off from the same spaceship, there are perhaps several countries they could choose to fit their values: Canada? Sweden?

I never said "love it or leave it". However, I certainly respect people who do this. My good friend from college sold every belonging she and her family had and moved to France. They knew certain aspects of getting settled might be rough, but they wanted to be in France. And I respect and admire their determination. I applaud them for having the gumption to pack up and move to somewhere that better fits their way of life. It wasn't easy for them to disrupt their life so, but they did it out of conviction. Sadly, the experiment didn't work: a year later neither of them had found a job and they moved back to the US. Interesting that her French-citizen husband got a job much more easily in the US.

I admire this couple for giving it a shot. They're like the reverse of immigrants who came to the US a century ago looking for a better life. If I thought that there were anywhere on earth that would suit my values better than the US, I would do everything I could to move there. Show me Galt's Gulch, and I'm there. But the US is the closest we've got. That's why we on the right really worry about it shifting closer and closer to countries that already exist. We've got nowhere else to go...

I never said lefties have to leave. But they've got the option to if they want.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:43 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 551 words, total size 3 kb.

1 This really to the point, please read: http://www.anncoulter.org/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

Posted by: Seaspook at January 16, 2006 05:44 PM (adsOv)

2 Hi there, I wish you nothing but the best and hope all of our friends and family come home safe soon. I thought you might be interested to know about Operation Love Our Troops, an initiative launched by SoldiersÂ’ Angels. TheyÂ’re sending the worldÂ’s largest valentine to the troops overseas and you can leave a personal written or voice message for your loved ones, for free, on the site and theyÂ’ll get it delivered on February 14. Visit www.operationloveourtroops.org and send wishes of love and support. Please share with your family and friends, too. Good wishes, Ashley ashley@bohle.com

Posted by: Ashley at January 16, 2006 07:19 PM (rzjfo)

3 America, love my vision of it or leave it, eh? Sorry, that isn't how democracy works...

Posted by: Pericles at January 16, 2006 10:13 PM (eKf5G)

4 There was a discussion in the comments section of Ace of Spades a few weeks back, and folks both on the left and right were sort of in agreement that with the two sides of the debate getting further and further apart, and neither side wanting to leave, "secession" or "dissolution of the Union" is becoming more and more of an attractive option. Sadly, I think it's true.

Posted by: Sean at January 17, 2006 01:13 AM (29u+V)

5 I do not think you are trying to grok, you are being very knee-jerky here. Being pro-healthcare and for some forms of gun control are not marginal views of a few crazy leftist extremists. According to every poll I have seen on the question, the majority of Americans (me along with them) want some form of national healthcare. Why do we put that burden on our corporations, and cut into their profits? Why do we empower unions by keeping this on the table? Gun control is not one thing, but a question on policies about a lot of things (criminal background checks before sales/Brady Bill, handgun ownership, automatic weapon ownership, assault rifle ownership, etc). Polls in general show Americans favor some forms of gun control and not others. I assume you have a more nuanced view than that there should be no controls whatsoever on owning any form of gum. If not, then you are in a stark minority. What makes you so special that you as a minority in at least one of those views (healthcare), and maybe both (depending on where your views on gun control really are) can go telling the majority to leave their own country? Pretending people really followed your advice, when your country has been depopulated by greater than 50%, do you really think you would be better off? When that depopulations is primarily of college educated professionals, do you really really think you would be better off? Do you think the country could survive the migration of the wealth and knowledge those people would take with them? Even if you don't like the views of most Americans, even if they were a minority, maybe you should learn to be a little more tolerant of them. Healthcare and gun control are both really fairly complex problems, the are not simple questions with simple answers. Maybe you should try to have some more respect for those who have thought things out and came to a different answer.

Posted by: Mr. Silly at January 17, 2006 01:34 AM (kWQWR)

6 Mr. Silly...you'll attack me for this, but you lobbed the softball, I didn't. You're very aptly named. Healthcare and gun control seem to be your hot button issues...neither of which have anything to do with federal legislation. Yes, health care is expensive...but why do you think that might be the case? Is it possible that we're trying to subsidize the health care of just too many Americans and non-citizens at the same time? If all I have to do is make it across the Rio Grande, sail my seaworthy raft to any American shore, or snow shoe across the Canadian border...I've made it to "Easy Street" if I catch a cold. Don't believe me? Put on a green windbreaker that has "INS" in big yellow letters on the back and walk into an emergency room any night of the week. The other factor that increases the cost of healthcare is that we've got far too many lawyers in this country that expect our doctors to practice zero defect medicine. Just because you made it to the doctor before expiring, doesn't mean that he'll be able to save you. Lawyers just help survivors cash in by punishing doctors just trying to do their best. As far as gun control is concerned, I agree. Criminals shouldn't have guns...but you know what? They're always going to have them...BECAUSE THEY'RE CRIMINALS AND DON'T OBEY LAWS!!! I watch a lot of CourtTV...and have seen some very interesting uses of claw hammers, baseball bats, and the like, but I don't see anyone running background checks at Home Depot or Academy Sporting Goods. Let's call a spade a spade here, we've got bad, evil people out there that use these items AS WELL AS GUNS to perpetuate crime. Let's lock them up! I don't see "Escape from New York" and "Escape from L.A." as action thrillers, but more like "how to" documentaries. Sarah can state any opinion here that she likes...for one thing, this is her corner of the Internet. If you don't care for her ideas and politics, there are plenty of other places where you might be able to find more like-minded people like yourself. Try the Huffington Post, I think you'd lap that stuff up without the spoon. Wow...sorry Sarah, but I had to. I just had to rant a bit! See you on the high ground! MajorDad1984

Posted by: MajorDad1984 at January 17, 2006 06:31 PM (j7S/Q)

7 How about just closing the comments down, or restricting them in some way to insure that they meet certain standards of true and correct discourse? What a messy place the internet is. We really must clean it up.

Posted by: Marli at January 17, 2006 07:17 PM (5sump)

8 Major, I don't get the impression that you read anything I wrote. Sarah's opinion included saying that people who disagree should leave the country. There is ample reason to criticize this immature view. As for guns, I stated no position. Personally I am against most forms of gun control, including the assault gun ban and the Brady bill, if you care, but I acknowledge that I am in the minority, and I do not think that those who disagree should leave my country. WRT to healthcare, the issue is complex, but your examples do not shed much light. For instance, to get health care in Canada you need an insurance card - I have experienced this firsthand. There is a reason why uninsured Americans do not just pop across the border to get free healthcare when they need it. To get an insurance card you either need to purchase health insurance (which is not cheap), or show proof that you have been a resident for a year. It is actually a lot easier to get free healthcare here than in Canada. I agree that healthcare costs are too high here due to abuses. But the costs from illegals taking advantage of the system (which is something that should be corrected) are largely taken up by the state, and those that are not are not a drop in the bucket compared to the abuse that is done by the highly collusional insurance companies who have record profits while their net expenses and payouts have decreased by raising malpractise and other rates over and over. In Texas rates kept rising after tort reform measures came in, so (contrary to your talking point) it is not frivolous suits driving the costs. At this point the system is so broken on so many fronts that I am for starting over from scratch and building a sane system with a new insurance system that locks out the old corrupt companies.

Posted by: Mr. Silly at January 17, 2006 08:20 PM (0MHXm)

9 "America, love my vision of it or leave it, eh? Sorry, that isn't how democracy works..." Pericles, one other way in which democracy isn't supposed to work is when a minority forces their "vision" of America on the majority through nebulous legal concepts such as The Constitution being a "living" document whose meaning changes based not on those who wrote it but on what those charged to interpret it wish it to mean. The truth is that there are countries that closer match your idea of a better country but none match the idea of a better country held by the majority here (especially conservatives, military and veterans) the way the US does. Certainly at some point when leftists are able to convice the majority of the population that their views are the right ones you'll get an America made the way you want it, but it will no longer be America. It'll be a country named America, but one that no longer resembles the dream of The Founding Fathers, and which no longer espouses the ideals and values that constitute what America is. Sillyman, you're argument is based on the false notion that being pro-healthcare is the same as being pro-universal socialized healthcare. You're argument on gun control is equally false in that some gun control is not the same as banning firearms. The aim of the left is not common sense control and education of firearms, but rather to remove firearms from the hands of the common man. Frankly I'm with Sarah on this. If your values diverge so far from the values that this country represent, then why bother to stay here? Are leftists such sadist that they wish everyone who believes in freedom and liberty the pain of living in yet another failed socialist utopia? Are they simply religious extremist evangelists bent on forcing everyone to worship at the shrine of Marx? We know it's not because they prefer to live in a country that espouses their values since those countries already exist and would embrace them and their inherent anti-Americanism. Oh, and let's nip this one before someone poser tries to make an issue of it. If you espouse ideas and values that are contrary to those that define America, then you are anti-American despite your heated denials. Being against something makes you "anti" that thing. Such as me being anti-communist or anti-Jihadist. Incidentally, despite the knee-jerk reaction of the leftists, nowhere does Sarah say "America, love it or leave it," though the opinion of that old bumper sticker is just as valid an opinion as the anti-Military "bakesale for bombers" one I've seen. Well, actually it's more valid since it has a logical basis whereas the bakesale bumper sticker is based on idiotic aunt-Nellism that is self-destructive and delusional. Kalroy

Posted by: Kalroy at January 17, 2006 11:39 PM (9RG5y)

10 Silly, "Sarah's opinion included saying that people who disagree should leave the country. There is ample reason to criticize this immature view." No she didn't. She pointed out that countries that fit the vision of liberals and the far left already exist, but countries that fit the vision of the center and center-right exist singularly as the United States of America. No country, least of all America, fit the vision of the far right. "Pretending people really followed your advice, when your country has been depopulated by greater than 50%, do you really think you would be better off?" I doubt it would be greater than 50%. The left does not make up a majority of the country. Center and right make up a greater portion of the country than the left, and the center is more rightwing than it is usually portrayed. Even a large number of ardent Democrats are too far right to be left. From Union supporters who use can't stand the left, to Black Baptists who are ardently anti-Abortion, pro-traditional family, and pro-Christian. Both groups tend to be ardent Democrats, but their support is based on very narrow goals of the Democrat party, and they support more of the Republican platform. However, in the words of my ardent Democrat in-laws, "I'll be damned before I vote Republican." Of course they are also disgusted by homosexuality, abortion, socialized anything, mixed race marriages, gay marriage, illegal immigration, and a host of other pets of the Democrats. Theirs is a strange point of view held by quite a number of people I've met in my blue-collared life. Kalroy

Posted by: Kalroy at January 17, 2006 11:55 PM (9RG5y)

11 orrr, everyone could just, like,shut up and move to Russia or something.

Posted by: Marli at January 18, 2006 12:57 AM (O5TXh)

12 Kalroy, You are a bit off base. In general polls show that the American public supports some form of universal healthcare. The details depend on the poll, but most people recognize that what we have now is broken and getting worse, and want it fixed, with universal healthcare being an obvious solution. In general polls show that the American public support some forms of gun control - not all, but some. I am not advocating any gun control. I own a shotgun (for home defense), a few hunting rifles, and a handgun (a Luger which was a gift from my deceased uncle). I have kids so I secure them properly and treat them with due respect. I think that any citizen who does not have a history of violent crime who wants to be armed should have that right, and that any laws resticting that right should be state or local laws, not federal. My views are not in the majority, and I can accept that. I believe I misunderstood Sarah's initial post, so I take back my remarks about leaving the country. I still would say that if most people in the country want to see it go a certain direction, better that we act like a democracy and do what they think would improve their country than leave because some minority opposes the changes, even if I am among that minority. FWIW, emigration is a lot easier said than done. Picking up, leaving friends and family, and going off to a new country is both expensive, and emotionally difficult, so even if there were some imaginary country that had laws and a culture that I thought were sane, I would still stay here.

Posted by: Mr. Silly at January 18, 2006 03:10 PM (K4xEt)

13 Off base? Heck, I can't even play ball, my indian name is "Throws Like a Girl" so.... But I get your point and you're right. I was off base in my statement. The Polls depend on the wording and worded as "Universal Healthcare" and some "Gun Control." When "universal healthcare" is termed "socialized healthcare" support drops off. Both terms are loaded. After all, in this country no one is legally prohibited from obtaining healthcare, but they're responsible for it themselves (with, of course certain exceptions such as Health Families or Medi-Cal). With the term "socialized healthcare" it becomes obvious that I'm expected to pay for the healthcare of a welfare queen or a hippy dropout (and of course for the kid with a bright future struck by a car). I myself like the idea of a safety net, but hate how badly it would be abused (considering how badly it's abused right now), and frankly agree with most of my union brothers and blue-collar construction buddies (most ardent democrats) detest the idea of paying the way for welfare queens (I'm using the term in general), even though I know several and have seen how they game the system without ever breaking the law. As to gun-control, I'm with you on this, I think everyone should excercise good control over their gun. It's already illegal for the bad guys to have guns, and law-abiding citizens should not have their own rights abridged simply because the state can not seem to enforce the laws already on the books. "I still would say that if most people in the country want to see it go a certain direction, better that we act like a democracy and do what they think would improve their country than leave because some minority opposes the changes, even if I am among that minority." I agree with that. But that's not what the left wants because they're not in the majority. As to your point on immigration, well, yeah. It's almost impossible to pick up and move out of state, or even out of town where a person can find employment or better employment. So I see your point on that. I know it's possible, however, since I spent all last year and half of this year (ummmmmm, 2004, 2005 I meant) working out of state because California is short on worthwhile jobs for a blue-collar worker, before that a stint overseas. However, I still maintain that the leftist minority that wants to remake the country in the image of France and Cuba should really just move their and let the majority have some peace and let the majority have their democratic way. I don't expect it, but I'd love it if they did. Though, they may all decided to move back. Perhaps the problem is that they don't want to go to those countries because America still has far greater opportunity than France and Cuba. It's just that leftists fail to realize the reason for this is because it is not like Cuba. Okay, gotta go eat now. Kalroy

Posted by: Kalroy at January 18, 2006 09:51 PM (9RG5y)

14 The thing I don't get is why people on the right who insist on parroting the party line on every issue can get so worried about socialized medicine. The White House, both houses of Congress, and the SCOTUS are all controlled by Republicans. The legislature has been thoroughly bribed/campaign donated by the Insurance companies, the AMA, and big Pharma. Even the Dems in the Senate are well bribed by the same. If there is some leftist minority that wants to turn us into Cuba, why even care? They are powerless. Besides some blogs, a few op-eds in the papers and their last bastion in universities, they have nothing. Even on gun control they only make minor gains like Brady/Assault ban, and the Assault ban is dead now thanks to the fact that Republicans control the federal gov't, so why get all worked up?

Posted by: Mr. Silly at January 19, 2006 01:09 AM (K4xEt)

15 Kalroy- Actually, the Founding Fathers had a lot of disagreements about what the country should look like, as we do today. Consider, for example, the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debate about the role of the central government. So when you speak about "their vision," the truth is that as a group they had no such vision about what the country should look like or what the Constitution allowed. In any case, I agree with you that the idea of a "Living Constitution" is morally bankrupt. On the other hand, though, so is "strict constructionism." Constitutional interpretation has to be driven by what the words meant when they were written. However, the Constitution contains a lot of value-laden language, and we have to interpret that language based on what our best understanding today of what it means, even if that is not what the Framers thought. Just to choose one example, think about the prohibition on cruel punishment. Cruelty is an abstract value-laden concept, which means something like inflicting more suffering than is justified by any good that results. That meaning hasn't changed since the 18th century. The strict constructionist mistake is to say not only that we have to be guided by the original meaning of that term, but in addition that we have to take the Founding Fathers' word for what punishments are cruel. Maybe they got that wrong, though, and if they did, being true to the meaning of what they wrote means rejecting their judgments about what specific punishments are and aren't okay. That isn't a "Living Constitution" approach; it is the truest form of "original meaning" jurisprudence. And the same reasoning can be applied to other abstract terms in the Constitution, such as the establishment of religion or the equal protection of the law.

Posted by: Pericles at January 21, 2006 12:05 PM (eKf5G)

16 OK so Sarah didn't say love it or leave it. That means I can. Love it or leave it idiots. You suppose you are in the majority? Where's the evidence. I see no links to actual polls. I know of NO (nada, nyet, nunca, none) majority support for universal government sponsored health care. So quit dirtying up the comments with supposition and provide some facts for review, girls. Subsunk

Posted by: Subsunk at January 22, 2006 10:40 PM (6RsXX)

17 The overall misconception in this entire argument is that the founding fathers were Republican and that if alive today, they would vote for Bush. Sounds likes a right-wing fantasy to me. Sure, the fathers were about personal freedom, low taxes (which is more about small government), and the right to self-defense, but if you think that that's what the Republican party of today stands for and not what the Democratic party of today stands for then you are sorely deluded. The evidence shows that Bush is about big government spending (the highway bill), favors to the energy and defense industries (the energy bill and the Iraq war) and government sponsored invasion of personal freedoms (the patriot act and the wiretapping.) The founding fathers were radicals when it came to rights of the individual. That's why the Democratic party policies on same-sex marriage, abortion and the seperation of church and state are, in my opinion, far more in line with what America is supposed to be. So when you try to say that America is one thing, and that the rest of us (which is a lot, considering Bush's popularity numbers) should "move to Europe", I think you are very mistaken about the fundamental concepts of what this country is all about. Basically, you want a Republican totalitarian state. This country is about opposing views, non-violent debate, and accountability of our leaders. The Democrats and their allies keep this country in check, day after day, when the rest of you would be willing to hand over the keys to the kingdom at the first sign of fear-mongering. You pick a few issues like medicare, public education and welfare and try to label us freedom-hating, government loving socialists who love Marx and want to set up communist system in this country. What a huge, bogus lie. Just because there are humanitarians in the Democratic party who empathize with their fellow citizens and want to give their less fortunate neighbours a chance to pursue happiness DOES NOT mean that they want goverment to take over our lives. We want the government out. You guys with your anti-ACLU stance and your unflinching love and acceptance for the president are coming dangerously close losing all of our freedoms. But that's okay, we'll just stay here in America and work to make things better, and you can all thank us later.

Posted by: Will Somerset at January 25, 2006 07:48 PM (eIQfa)

18 The overall misconception in this entire argument is that the founding fathers were Republican and that if alive today, they would vote for Bush. Sounds likes a right-wing fantasy to me. Sounds more like your fantasy of what you think your opponents believe.

Posted by: Patrick Chester at January 26, 2006 11:19 PM (74cXW)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

169kb generated in CPU 0.0618, elapsed 0.1875 seconds.
65 queries taking 0.1524 seconds, 341 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

There is neither happiness nor misery in the world; there is only the comparison of one state with another, nothing more. He who has felt the deepest grief is best able to experience supreme happiness. We must have felt what it is to die, Morrel, that we may appreciate the enjoyments of living.
--The Count of Monte Cristo--

While our troops go out to defend our country, it is incumbent upon us to make the country worth defending.
--Deskmerc--

ABOUT SARAH

In a Nutshell
100 Things
Sarah's knittery
knitting pics on Flickr
What the heck is Grok?
I also contribute at SpouseBUZZ
tryingtogrok -at- hotmail

READING

The Spy's Wife

My Imaginary Friends

USS Clueless
Instapundit
Amaravati Abode of Amritas
The Bleat
The Corner

Deskmerc
Eject! Eject! Eject!
Ambient Irony
Parkway Rest Stop
Cavalier's Guardian WatchBlog
Bunker Mulligan
Right Wing News
Conservative Grapevine
Joanne Jacobs

Hud's Blog-O-Rama
Power Line
Beth's Contradictory Brain
Varifrank
Cold Fury
Bear Creek Ledger
Photon Courier
Anwyn's Notes in the Margin
Fiberlicious
Wis Faest Wordum
The Cobwebs Of My Mind
Rachel Lucas
Dear Darla
Learning To Live
Unliberaled Woman
Daily Koan
Kannie's Cogitations
Rockport Conservatives

Blackfive
Mudville Gazette
Shield of Achilles
Chuck Z
Senseless Drive By Thoughts
ArmyWifeToddlerMom
Most Certainly Not
A Work In Progress
Sis B
CaliValleyGirl

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 178438
Files: 8201
Bytes: 3.0G
CPU Time: 209:38
Queries: 6927466

Content

Posts: 3662
Comments: 14415

Feeds

QUOTES

Contrary to what you've just seen, war is neither glamorous nor fun. There are no winners, only losers. There are no good wars, with the following exceptions: The American Revolution, WWII, and the Star Wars Trilogy.
--Bart Simpson--

If you want to be a peacemaker, you've gotta learn to kick ass.
--Sheriff of East Houston, Superman II--

Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. You just leave a lot of useless noisy baggage behind.
--Jed Babbin--

Dante once said that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality.
--President John F. Kennedy--

War is a bloody, killing business. You've got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours.
--General Patton--

We've gotta keep our heads until this peace craze blows over.
--Full Metal Jacket--

Those who threaten us and kill innocents around the world do not need to be treated more sensitively. They need to be destroyed.
--Dick Cheney--

The Flag has to come first if freedom is to survive.
--Col Steven Arrington--

The purpose of diplomacy isn't to make us feel good about Eurocentric diplomatic skills, and having countries from the axis of chocolate tie our shoelaces together does nothing to advance our infantry.
--Sir George--

I just don't care about the criticism I receive every day, because I know the cause I defend is right.
--Oriol--

It's days like this when we're reminded that freedom isn't free.
--Chaplain Jacob--

Bumper stickers aren't going to accomplish some of the missions this country is going to face.
--David Smith--

The success of multilateralism is measured not merely by following a process, but by achieving results.
--President Bush--

Live and act within the limit of your knowledge and keep expanding it to the limit of your life.
--John Galt--

First, go buy a six pack and swig it all down. Then, watch Ace Ventura. And after that, buy a Hard Rock Cafe shirt and come talk to me. You really need to lighten up, man.
--Sminklemeyer--

You've got to kill people, and when you've killed enough they stop fighting
--General Curtis Lemay--

If we wish to be free, if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending, if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained -- we must fight!
--Patrick Henry--

America has never been united by blood or birth or soil. We are bound by ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds, lift us above our interests and teach us what it means to be citizens. Every child must be taught these principles. Every citizen must uphold them. And every immigrant, by embracing these ideals, makes our country more, not less, American.
--President George W. Bush--

are usually just cheerleading sessions, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing but a soothing reduction in blood pressure brought about by the narcotic high of being agreed with.
--Bill Whittle

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
--John Stuart Mill--

We are determined that before the sun sets on this terrible struggle, our flag will be recognized throughout the world as a symbol of freedom on the one hand and of overwhelming force on the other.
--General George Marshall--

We can continue to try and clean up the gutters all over the world and spend all of our resources looking at just the dirty spots and trying to make them clean. Or we can lift our eyes up and look into the skies and move forward in an evolutionary way.
--Buzz Aldrin--

America is the greatest, freest and most decent society in existence. It is an oasis of goodness in a desert of cynicism and barbarism. This country, once an experiment unique in the world, is now the last best hope for the world.
--Dinesh D'Souza--

Recent anti-Israel protests remind us again of our era's peculiar alliance: the most violent, intolerant, militantly religious movement in modern times has the peace movement on its side.
--James Lileks--

As a wise man once said: we will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. Unless the price is too high, the burden too great, the hardship too hard, the friend acts disproportionately, and the foe fights back. In which case, we need a timetable.
--James Lileks--

I am not willing to kill a man so that he will agree with my faith, but I am prepared to kill a man so that he cannot force my compatriots to submit to his.
--Froggy--

You can say what you want about President Bush; but the truth is that he can take a punch. The man has taken a swift kick in the crotch for breakfast every day for 6 years and he keeps getting up with a smile in his heart and a sense of swift determination to see the job through to the best of his abilties.
--Varifrank--

In a perfect world, We'd live in peace and love and harmony with each oither and the world, but then, in a perfect world, Yoko would have taken the bullet.
--SarahBellum--

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
--Ronald Reagan--

America is rather like life. You can usually find in it what you look for. It will probably be interesting, and it is sure to be large.
--E.M. Forster--

Do not fear the enemy, for your enemy can only take your life. It is far better that you fear the media, for they will steal your HONOR. That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoemaking and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poorhouse.
--Mark Twain--

The Enlightenment was followed by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars, which touched every European state, sparked vicious guerrilla conflicts across the Continent and killed millions. Then, things really turned ugly after the invention of soccer.
--Iowahawk--

Every time I meet an Iraqi Army Soldier or Policeman that I haven't met before, I shake his hand and thank him for his service. Many times I am thanked for being here and helping his country. I always tell them that free people help each other and that those that truly value freedom help those seeking it no matter the cost.
--Jack Army--

Right, left - the terms are useless nowadays anyway. There are statists, and there are individualists. There are pessimists, and optimists. There are people who look backwards and trust in the West, and those who look forward and trust in The World. Those are the continuums that seem to matter the most right now.
--Lileks--

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
--Winston Churchill--

A man or a nation is not placed upon this earth to do merely what is pleasant and what is profitable. It is often called upon to carry out what is both unpleasant and unprofitable, but if it is obviously right it is mere shirking not to undertake it.
--Arthur Conan Doyle--

A man who has nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the existing of better men than himself.
--John Stuart Mill--

After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference."
--Dave Grossman--

At heart Iâ€™m a cowboy; my attitude is if theyâ€™re not going to stand up and fight for what they believe in then they can go pound sand.
--Bill Whittle--

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
--Alexander Tyler--

By that time a village half-wit could see what generations of professors had pretended not to notice.
--Atlas Shrugged--

I kept asking Clarence why our world seemed to be collapsing and everything seemed so shitty. And he'd say, "That's the way it goes, but don't forget, it goes the other way too."
--Alabama Worley--

So Bush is history, and we have a new president who promises to heal the planet, and yet the jihadists donâ€™t seem to have got the Obama message that there are no enemies, just friends we havenâ€™t yet held talks without preconditions with.
--Mark Steyn--

"I had started alone in this journey called life, people started gathering up on the way, and the caravan got bigger everyday."
--Urdu couplet

The book and the sword are the two things that control the world. We either gonna control them through knowledge and influence their minds, or we gonna bring the sword and take their heads off.
--RZA--

It's a daily game of public Frogger, hopping frantically to avoid being crushed under the weight of your own narcissism, banality, and plain old stupidity.
--Mary Katharine Ham--

There are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
--James Madison--

It is in the heat of emotion that good people must remember to stand on principle.
--Larry Elder--

Please show this to the president and ask him to remember the wishes of the forgotten man, that is, the one who dared to vote against him. We expect to be tramped on but we do wish the stepping would be a little less hard.
--from a letter to Eleanor Roosevelt--

The world economy depends every day on some engineer, farmer, architect, radiator shop owner, truck driver or plumber getting up at 5AM, going to work, toiling hard, and producing real wealth so that an array of bureaucrats, regulators, and redistributors can manage the proper allotment of much of the natural largess produced.
--VDH--

Parents are often so busy with the physical rearing of children that they miss the glory of parenthood, just as the grandeur of the trees is lost when raking leaves.
--Marcelene Cox--

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds

February 14, 2006

February 10, 2006

February 09, 2006

February 08, 2006

February 07, 2006

February 06, 2006

February 05, 2006

February 03, 2006

February 01, 2006

January 30, 2006

January 27, 2006

January 26, 2006

January 24, 2006

January 16, 2006

Search Thingy

My Imaginary Friends

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives