tryingtogrok.new.mu.nu

January 15, 2006

LONG TIME NO BLOG

I haven't written because my mother arrived here in Germany on Wednesday. We've already had many adventures -- from having to unexpectedly buy new tires to trying to get a train schedule in Poland -- and I'm sure there's more to come.

In the meantime, two things have happened. For one, I got to participate in solving The Mystery of the Christmas Box. And secondly, I learned a valuable lesson:

If someone contacts you via your blog and says she's moving to your town, be nice to her. She might eventually become the employment coordinator for your post, and then one day she'll find out she can hire a secretary and she'll give you a job. That's how I just got a new job working for The Girl.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:15 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 136 words, total size 1 kb.

January 09, 2006

EMPATHY

LGF points to two views about the recent study showing many deaths in Iraq could've been prevented with more body armor: on the one hand, writers at the left-wing site Daily Kos are wringing their hands and blaming bureaucracy, and on the other hand soldiers are saying that the armor they already wear is sufficiently clunky and cumbersome and that more armor would make them less effective. R1 voiced the soldier side:

The armor I wore was a big improvement over any other armor I've seen before. But it was still hot, heavy, and contributed to heat and fatigue casualties. So what's better? Losing one man to a gun shot wound or losing five to heat stroke?

The other night my husband and I caught an episode of that show Over There. The plot in a nutshell was that the Americans had captured an insurgent who knew information about where stolen missles were. At the end of the episode, the insurgent agrees to tell the Special Forces officer where the missles are (on a farm) as long as the Americans promise not to kill the farmer and his family. Long dramatic pause as the officer promises...cut to the next scene of the farmer feeding his goats and his farm getting blown to bits from an air strike.

Naturally, I got wrapped up in the moral dilemma of the issue. Why would the director of this show have the officer promise and then just blow up the farm? What was the underlying agenda behind this move? I turned to my husband and asked him, "Would that really happen?", meaning would someone be able to so easily renege on a promise like that and just blow up a family of civilians. The answer I got was not what I expected...

My husband said the scene was complete horse manure because you don't just call in air strikes on some random farm where you think there might be missles just because some prisoner told you so. He said Iraqis were notorious for lying about weapons caches: they'd have a beef with a neighbor and then run to the Americans claiming the neighbor was a terrorist just to get him in trouble. Husband said what would really happen would be that they'd raid the farm looking for the missles. If you just aerial bomb the farm, you have no idea what you just blew up. Maybe the missles were there, maybe they weren't, so you're no closer to knowing you're safe.

I fell for it. I fell for the tug-at-your-heartstrings nonsense that the director of Over There wanted me to. Hook, line, and sinker. But that's because I'm a dumb civilian, just like the majority of people watching this television program. The writers sent me right down the garden path towards Moral Dilemma, so I completely missed the tactical errors. I don't have the military training to notice the things my husband noticed about this show.

I can't help but think that the people at Daily Kos have gone down the same garden path. They've never worn any body armor, but if someone says it saves lives, well then coat the soldiers from top to bottom in it. Make their bodies bulletproof and none of them will die. The only problem is that soldiers don't just stand out in the street trying not to die. They need to move around, run, jump in and out of HMMWVs and Blackhawks, and react to whatever comes their way. They can't be standing there like the un-oiled Tin Man because they're weighted down in body armor.

I used to joke with my husband online in Iraq that he needed to sleep in his body armor. I told him I was going to make him kevlar pajamas to keep him safe. Then he got home from Iraq and put his body armor on me, vest and helmet. I had it on for maybe two minutes and I felt like I was being crushed. He wore it every day for 13 months.

Sometimes we civilians think we can see things as clearly as our soldiers do. We think we know what's best for them, or we think we can see the Moral Dilemmas just as well as they can. I'm just not sure we have the knowledge and experience to make that call. Our hearts can be in the right place -- as I'd like to believe this Kos writer's is -- but sometimes all the empathy in the world doesn't match up to experience.

Usch, I can't believe I walked right into that stupid tv plot.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:17 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 770 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Heh. The crap they made us wear was even heavier. We would have killed for the niftier armor they make nowadays, but it was no big deal, my particular hatred was for those damned MOPP suits and gas masks. Armor plates are just heavy and bulky, MOPP gear is positively stifling, but we needed to wear it and drink lots of water to replace what we'd lost, because the risk of dehydration is worth it, considering what VX or sarin could do to you. Anyway, the sequence you describe in "Over There" is entirely contrived. I see it as a failure of imagination, a lack of familiarity with what really goes on in combat or military in general. It's self fulfilling as well, the idea that we'd just blow up a house on someone's say so is "credible and gripping" because, well, that's how it is always portrayed in the popular media. Isn't that what we always see in the news, where we blast some house to smithereens on a tip? So it gets portrayed as such, over and over, till the popular perception is that it is standard procedure. And so it repeats, and it doesn't occur to the folks writing the story that we maybe just do things differently. Not in the approved paradigm. Fortunately for us, the war is being conducted by folks who understand warfare, like Red6 and your husband, rather than some technoweenie in Hollywood who thinks 40mm grenades explode like so many pounds of dynamite and gasoline. Now, don't get all bent out of shape because you didn't consider possible alternatives to blowing up the house in the stupid TV show. No alternatives were presented to you, suspension of disbelief was enough to carry you through the show, but at least you maintained sufficient incredulousnes to ask the question afterwards. But think of it like this, if the show was "Hyperknitting", and the rest of us were watching (who don't know squat about knitting) were led to believe that some overhand/underhand manuever (or whatever, I don't know squat about knitting) was the proper way to make a sock, and you know darned (heh) well that there are a lot more ways to make a sock...how would you feel about it? I dunno if that last part made enough sense.

Posted by: Jason at January 09, 2006 11:36 AM (565iX)

2 That's probably the most frustrating thing about getting to be "in the know" about how the military works...I am by no means fully educated but it's getting increasingly more frustrating to deal with my ignorant civilian counterparts!...which makes me realize how little I knew for so long

Posted by: Nicole at January 09, 2006 03:58 PM (KJBDI)

3 Don't feel too bad. Having served in the (peace-time) Army, I can catch more stupid portrayals of the military than the average civilian, but even I get snagged. For the generations who grew up on TV, movies and mainstream media, it's tough to get away from a lifetime of indoctrination.

Posted by: Eric at January 09, 2006 11:23 PM (qaR9z)

4 that'll teach you to stop reading daily kos. ; ) anyways, there is historical precedent for what happens when you try to armor a soldier from head to toe. it's called the middle ages. Something will happen to make ceramic body armor obsolete, and then we'll stop using it altogether.

Posted by: annika at January 10, 2006 12:12 PM (Yotfs)

5 Great post. Just goes to show you should never form an opinion until you have seen at least more than one side of the situation. I don't think the kids at KOS will ever figure that out.

Posted by: Titan Mk 6B at January 10, 2006 01:48 PM (8HxzN)

6 I have to send my MIL to blogs like this so she can educate herself. She thinks most of the military are blooming idiots and WHY did I ever chose to serve. THANK YOU for keeping us informed.

Posted by: Sgt Lori at January 13, 2006 02:21 PM (DmF+F)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 08, 2006

VINDICATED?

A few years ago, my brother started a firestorm in our basement when he said that his high school basketball team could beat any WNBA team. There was much shouting, but my brother held his ground. One of my friends remembered this fight when he saw that a high school hockey team beat the women's Olympic team. Maybe we should organize that basketball game and see what happens...

Posted by: Sarah at 05:53 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.

January 06, 2006

AS MANY YEARS AS HE WANTS

Let's hear it for CaliValleyGirl, who lays out the perfect rant answer to the dreaded question from non-military folks: Â“So how many more years does he have in?Â”

You know what? I have no idea how many more years my husband has in. Officers don't have ETS dates really, they stay until they renounce their commission. I know if my husband goes to the career course, he tacks on more time, and since he started taking tuition assistance to get his MBA, he tacked on more time for that as well. But I really have no idea when he could get out of the Army if he wanted it. Some days he fantasizes about getting out and working in the civilian world...other days he fantasizes about retiring as a lieutenant colonel. He's staying in until he doesn't want to do this job anymore.

And I too have heard the "brainwashing" thing, most notably from my German co-worker back when our friend got his torso ripped out in Mosul. Here's what I wrote back in 2004:

I printed out this article at work and mentioned to my co-workers how amazing I thought it was that LT A intends to stay in the Army despite his injuries. They retorted that he must be really brainwashed, that he wasn't "fighting for his country" but for lies, and that someday I would see just how brainwashed people like my husband really are. I had to leave the office, I was so disgusted. I can't believe someone would say that to my face, completely unprovoked. I'm proud of our friend for standing up for what he believes in; if they disagree, they can politely nod and keep their opinions to themselves, like I do all the freaking time here at work. What is wrong with these people?

My husband and I aren't looking any gift horses in the mouth: we know we've got a good thing going here. He makes great money for a 25 year old, plus we pay no rent, no utilities, and have free health care. If he can do better in the future, we'll consider it, but for now we think ourselves pretty darn lucky to have the resources we have.

Brainwashed, indeed.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:07 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Sarah, I saw Calivalleygirl's post and was hoping you would post something similar. She totally hit the nail on the head! Since we've been back in the states and have gone home to see old friends and family, we've heard that a zillion times..."how much longer do you have"...wink, wink. Most of my family still cannot understand the difference between officer and enlisted rank so they think he'll be going to the Army office at the mall to "sign-up" again soon. AHH!! It's so frustrating! When I try to explain the situation, they only hear "how much longer now?" The Army is a CAREER...like a doctor, lawyer, CPA, nurse...why can't they understand??? Thanks for your post.

Posted by: Nicole at January 06, 2006 01:55 PM (KJBDI)

2 Sarah... Your rent, utilities, and health care are anything but FREE...you're earning them as benefits to your husband's service. I find your characterization of them quite refreshing...as I quite often find dependents bashing that they don't get enough. I challenge ANYONE to show me another company in the private sector that pays as much attention to the benefits of their members and those of their families any more than the Department of Defense. (Unfortunately, they tend to focus on the uniformed members, but that's okay. They're the ones that are risking life and limb). You and your hubby think along the same lines I did while I was in uniform...and probably still do to some extent now that I'm out of it. I'm making a good salary, I've got decent benefits, and I'm doing something that counts! Thank you for your service in supporting your husband and his dedication to duty! See you both on the high ground! MajorDad1984

Posted by: MajorDad1984 at January 07, 2006 10:05 AM (tdEnf)

3 This is an apology for the bad manners shown by idiots who would probably ask rude and stupid questions no matter what the topic. I'm a leftist, and oppose the Iraq invasion, but I have three extended family members in the service, two of them lifers in the Navy and AF, and one a baby Marine on his third tour of combat duty in Iraq. And another drinking buddy is an retired SeaI. I understand and honor the need for military service (Heinlein's books shaped my thinking there). My family and friends tend to agree about the current situation, because our argument is with the politicians who misuse troops, and an uneducated public that supports bad command decisions. If it helps any, there are just as many obnoxious comments made on the other side. I wish I had a dime for every unfeeling comment that starts with "everyone who disagrees hates America, isn't a patriot, supports the terrorists," etc. Funny thing is, those insults usually come from someone who has never put themselves or their family members between the enemy and our beloved home. I've never had my patriotism insulted by a current or former service member. Best to you and yours.

Posted by: Michael Fountain at January 07, 2006 11:33 AM (OQP8X)

4 You go girl!!! I am PROUD to serve. Geez doesn't anyone get this is a VOLUNTEER Army???

Posted by: Sgt Lori at January 13, 2006 02:19 PM (DmF+F)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

ALWAYS GREENER

The other day, a few friends told me that the grass is always greener. After having lived in France, Sweden, and now Germany, I've grown into a person who thinks the grass is always greener in the United States. I don't see myself coming back to Europe ever again, unless someday we have a child stationed here (God forbid we're still in Europe that far into the future.)

That said, I know there will be some things that I will miss from time to time. I'll miss spatzle from Herman's, garlic soup, and all the other uniform German menu items that drive me nuts now but will sound so yummy when I haven't had them in a while. I'll miss calling my mom for two cents a minute. I'll miss going into a public restroom and knowing that the stall door locks will never be broken. I'll miss magpies. And I'll miss eating my weight in warm sugary almonds every Christmas.

Most of all, I'll miss the military community we live in. There's something about plopping a few thousand Americans into Nowhere Germany that brings people together. We might never live on another post again, and I'll miss knowing that all my neighbors are going through the exact same experience as we are. It might be a long time before I can show up at another neighbor's house with knitting and Bud Light and stay until midnight. I'll miss bumping into friends at the commissary (except I can't wait to stop bumping into some of those jerk high schoolers!) I also love how there's only about two degrees of separation between people here, so you're always finding out that the Jennifer your friend works with is actually the Jennifer who's your neighbor, or the wonderful experience of teaching an adult at the university and then finding out you're teaching her son in seventh grade.

There will be things I'll miss: I can't even let myself think about leaving Erin and Kelly. But three years here is plenty, and I'm proud to admit I'm homelandsick.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:39 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 348 words, total size 2 kb.

SECRETS

I've been reading the thrilling book In Cold Blood, and apparently it's really gotten into my head: last night I dreamt a man with a shotgun tied up my brothers and me. I think it's superbly written, and I can't put it down.

In the chapters I read last night, a detective read through the daughter's diary, hoping to find clues as to who had murdered the family. I started thinking about people going through stuff that I own. If something happened to the husband and me, there are a few things that would embarrass me, even after I'm dead. For example, I've kept a journal for years. I haven't written in it as often since I've started blogging, but I used to write in it every day, and I still have journals from years before I met my husband. Would I want my mom reading that stuff? How about the 215 letters I sent to my husband while he was in Iraq? I want to keep those things, but I'm not sure I want anyone else reading some of the more intimate ones! Would I want my mom going through my underpants drawer? Aggh! I suppose all of it is moot if I'm dead, but still. Everyone has secret aspects of his personality, and I'm not sure I want anyone knowing about mine.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:53 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 1 kb.

LINK

Beth sent me a link to 2005: The Year In Military Heroism, which includes our good buddy Red6. Incidentally, Red6 returns to Iraq next week, this time deployed with his wife. I look forward to hearing new tales of armor geddon.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:34 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

January 04, 2006

READY

Well, we finally crossed over the '05-'06 barrier, and now we're less than five months from moving back to the US. Longtime readers will know how we've longed to see this day on the horizon. You know what I'm ready for?

I'm ready to have one vet, one doctor, one optometrist, and one car mechanic, all of whom speak English. Monday I had to go to a German clinic and buy new glasses, all in German. I speak terrible German, but the glasses guy said I speak it better than anyone else he's worked with. That's pathetic. I'm tired of feeling anxious about not knowing words like timing belt and prolonged diarrhea (which the dog had, not me). I'm sick of the sinking feeling in my stomach when I realize I have to go Out Into Germany to take care of business. And I'd really rather get itemized receipts, instead of having the vet hem and haw after he's done with Charlie and go, "Mmm...41 Euro?"

I'm ready to buy a variety of groceries and beauty products. Gruyere cheese? Can't get it at the commissary. Nor can we get tamari, ground poultry, or chipotle chilis. My neighbor, who happens to be the best dentist in the world, suggested I use ACT mouthwash. I bought one bottle and then waited three months for the PX to restock. Finally I gave up and bought it online. Do you know how hard my mom laughed when she heard I had bought seven bottles of mouthwash online? But we can't get it here. They've also been out of Woolite carpet spray for pet stains since July. Sigh.

I'm ready to go to a freaking Taco Bell.

I'm just ready for peace of mind. I'm ready to know that I can buy or do anything I need to. Or I can at least call and ask for information. (Ahh, to make a local call for free -- what a treat.) I'll be able to take care of myself, instead of begging German acquaintences to help me read my mail and call the phone company for me (on the English Hotline, where no one speaks English.)

I'm ready to go home.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:05 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 367 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Amen, sister! I remember a few weeks ago during our knitting club, I called Mark to ask if he wanted to go anywhere when I got home. He started asking me about something totally unrelated, and I said, "Babe, I gotta go...This is Sarah's nickel." How lame! It's sad when you have to pay to talk to someone within walking (well, kind-of) distance! I'm ready to go home too.

Posted by: Erin at January 04, 2006 06:23 AM (pPQK6)

2 5 months? I'm going to miss you SO much!!!

Posted by: The Girl at January 04, 2006 07:00 AM (boUZW)

3 Sarah, I agree with everything you said. It seems that as the days get nearer, I get more and more anxious to go "home". I can't wait to be within a 3 hour flight for emergencies instead of thinking that if something happened, it would be a whole day to get the states. We have no idea what Jason is going to do as far as DEA or School but I don't even care. I told him that the first morning we are back, I want to go out for BREAKFAST! I want a waffle, bacon, and cheap, gross coffee!

Posted by: Stephanie at January 04, 2006 07:45 AM (MOoZ+)

4 Remember the grass is always greener on the other side . . . I know how much you love these type of sayings! I know you are more than ready to be back in the US of A . . . people always laughed at me for ordering just about anything from the internet . . . I still find myself doing it even though I live in the US! I think I might go eat Taco Bell for lunch in your honor!

Posted by: Heidi at January 04, 2006 11:45 AM (E0L31)

5 I can't wait for you to get back either. I do miss Germany but love being able to ask for help in English. Heck, even the sales-people will ask you if you need any help instead of just staring at you until you leave the store! Oh and don't forget, if you pass your exit on the highway....you can actually turn around before you get to France....HAHAHA! Any idea where the Army will tak you next?

Posted by: Angie at January 04, 2006 12:46 PM (SA3c9)

6 Yes...I remember! I'm with Heidi though...the grass really is greener, although I totally sympathize with your "american" desires

I remember feeling the same way. I'm happy to have the material world at my fingertips now, but I do miss the close-knit community I knew in Germany. Of course, it's always about the people, right? Hey...what ever happened to that Taco Bell in graf??

Posted by: Nicole at January 04, 2006 01:20 PM (KJBDI)

7 I couldn't wait to leave Germany either, but no that I am gone there are things I miss. Cozy, cold Christkindl markets, Gluhwein, bratwurst, walking downtown (any city) and window shopping or sipping capuccino.....and the best thing....Driving through the countryside in spring and enjoying the colors and flowers. (Minus getting stuck behind the poo truck). Let us know where you end up.

Posted by: Vonn at January 04, 2006 03:29 PM (dEgRi)

8 My son says Germany is a nice place to visit, but he's tired of living there (yeah even after nearly a year in the Stan, he's not looking forward to returning to Germany). Since he's told me about 3 or 4 different things he's "going to do" when he gets done with his deployment - I've decided to wait until he gets to a final destination and says - "this is where I'll be for the next ___ amount of time". *grin* I hope you end up somewhere excellent in the States and that you can find the great people you're looking for. In some cases it may take some searching... for instance doctors who speak English (this can be problematical). Good Luck!

Posted by: Teresa at January 04, 2006 04:12 PM (FZwDL)

9 I think it would be really neat if you got stationed at Fort Huachuca in Sierra Vista,Arizona. I'm about 30 miles from there in little Bisbee, which has no stores(except art galleries and gift shops for the tourists) and I'm over in Sierra Vista all the time. On Sundays you see all the kids, male and female, from basic, walking all over town with their knapsacks and cell phones. They fill up the food court at the Mall, which is a good 7 or 8 miles from the post. They're not allowed to ride in private vehicles, sometimes you see a shuttle van unloading a bunch of them at Walmart. There's a Starbucks in the Safeway and if I have enough money on me, I'll pay for their coffees. They all giggle when I thank them for their service. I look at those baby faces and I think some of them will be in Iraq soon, and they're all in my prayers. I think you and your husband are terrific, Sarah.

Posted by: Maggie45 at January 05, 2006 01:44 AM (YYsdS)

10 Sarah - I've never been out of New Jersey (outside America actually) but I almost moved to Kansas once. The two things that stopped me were tornadoes and lack of anything being open after 9pm. When you get HOME to America...come up towards NYC and I'll buy you any fast food or take you to any all-night diner you wish. Get home safe!

Posted by: Kathleen A at January 05, 2006 07:26 AM (7qm8p)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 02, 2006

READ OF THE DAY

Mark Steyn: ItÂ’s the demography, stupid

Can a society become increasingly Islamic in its demographic character without becoming increasingly Islamic in its political character?
This ought to be the leftÂ’s issue. IÂ’m a conservativeÂ—IÂ’m not entirely on board with the Islamist program when it comes to beheading sodomites and so on, but I agree Britney Spears dresses like a slut: IÂ’m with Mullah Omar on that one. Why then, if your big thing is feminism or abortion or gay marriage, are you so certain that the cult of tolerance will prevail once the biggest demographic in your society is cheerfully intolerant?

Posted by: Sarah at 04:46 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

December 31, 2005

2005

2005 brought my husband home from Iraq. If he has any say in it, this won't be the end of our family's involvement in the miraculous changes taking place in the Middle East. I'm glad to have him with me whenever I can, but I'm proud of him no matter where he is in the world.

2005 also brought Charlie into our life. We have good days and bad, but every day he gets a little better, and there's nothing like realizing the dog just stole an Italian sausage link out of the fridge to make you laugh.

2005 brought the hope that I might be published. I'm not holding my breath just yet, but it's exciting just to be asked to join in Blackfive's Milblogs book.

But 2005 also took something from me, something I miss every day. It's been six months since Bunker's passing, and I still think about him all the time. His absence is a big void in my blogosphere.

2006 will bring two PCS moves and a return to the US for our family. I'm anxious to get the adventures of this coming year started.

So long, 2005...

Posted by: Sarah at 03:24 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.

My glasses broke a few weeks ago, so yesterday the husband and I went to the shop to try to pick out a new pair. There's little I hate as much as trying to find glasses that don't make me look like a complete idiot. I put on one pair and turned to my husband, who immediately said, "Nah, they make you look like Glenn Reynolds." I didn't think it was possible to laugh so hard and so quietly in a tiny glasses shop. God, I love jokes that only bloggers will get.

(We were reminded of this comment when we pulled up the Instapundit today.)

Posted by: Sarah at 06:23 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

THE HUSBAND KNIT THREE ROWS

It's been a while since I put up knitting content, mostly because I've been 1) making stuff that I can't talk about until it's given as gifts and 2) knitting an all black reverse-stockinette cardigan that makes me want to fall asleep or scratch out my eyeballs every time I pick it up, it's that boring. So I don't have anything good of my own to share, but I do have a photo that makes me feel giddy:

My husband has always been curious about how knitting works, but he's never had any interest in learning. But once I read At Knit's End and laughed that her husband had been knitting the same sock for years, I wanted my husband to try his hand at my favorite hobby.

Since he has no interest in making knitting his own hobby, I cast on for him and showed him a row of garter. He knit three rows on his own and then handed me the needles and said, "Yep, that's enough."

He was a really good knitter, one of my best students so far. He chugged along at a good pace, despite his surprising innate desire to purl (I've never seen anyone's hands instinctually prefer purl over knit). And I'm sure he'll never pick up another ball of yarn, but I appreciated his effort to learn my hobby.

And doesn't he look cute the way he's concentrating so hard?

Posted by: Sarah at 06:13 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 247 words, total size 2 kb.

ALREADY POLICY

Victor Davis Hanson's newest gem is called Democratic Implosion. The part that resonated with me:

Despite the stentorian intonation, KerryÂ’s new suggestions for what to do in Iraq simply outlined what the United States is in fact already doing: training Iraqis, providing protection for the ongoing constitutional process, talking to regional neighbors, trying to get the Europeans involved in the Middle East, and hunting down terrorists on the Afghan borders.

My husband always blows up at the TV when some naysayer pundit says that what we really need to be doing in Iraq is training Iraqis to take over the job themselves so we can go home. My husband arrived in Iraq in March 2004, and this policy was already in effect. Iraqi solders went everywhere with American soldiers, and after the Transfer of Authority that summer, the official policy was to let Iraqi soldiers do as much of the work as possible. My husband says that American soldiers often grumbled that taking the Iraqis along was too much work, that it was easier for them to just go on a raid alone than to drag the Iraqis with and help them learn how to do it. But the constant refrain in my husband's battalion was "Unless you want to come back for OIF 10, you'd better teach these Iraqis how to do your job."

The policy since Day 1 was to train Iraqis to protect their own country. My husband was already doing it nearly two years ago; why do all these pundits think they're offering a solution the military has never thought of?

(Also read VDH's The Plague of Success: "It is chic now to deprecate the Iraqi security forces, but they are doing a lot more to kill jihadists than the French or Germans who often either wire terrorists money, sell them weapons, or let them go." Heh.)

Posted by: Sarah at 05:30 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 315 words, total size 2 kb.

December 29, 2005

READ IT

The Chicago Tribune put out the results of a study called Judging the case for war:

On Nov. 20, the Tribune began an inquest: We set out to assess the Bush administration's arguments for war in Iraq. We have weighed each of those nine arguments against the findings of subsequent official investigations by the 9/11 Commission, the Senate Intelligence Committee and others. We predicted that this exercise would distress the smug and self-assured--those who have unquestioningly supported, or opposed, this war.
The matrix below summarizes findings from the resulting nine editorials. We have tried to bring order to a national debate that has flared for almost three years. Our intent was to help Tribune readers judge the case for war--based not on who shouts loudest, but on what actually was said and what happened.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:20 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

1 About time!! Thank goodness.

Posted by: Maggie45 at December 29, 2005 09:44 PM (yre9V)

2 Btw, Sarah, have you heard anything about the new book by a female soldier "I love my rife more than I love you: young and female in the US Army"? I was in Costco a couple of weeks ago and was reading a little of it while there. I didn't get very far into it before I realized that I didn't want to waste my money. I was thinking "this woman is totally full of herself" And I can see on Amazon that some of the reviewers think the same thing, one of them being a fellow female soldier. I was remembering also the post that you did on female soldiers and sex. If you want to take a look here's the link. http://tinyurl.com/8ud6a

Posted by: Maggie45 at December 29, 2005 10:12 PM (yre9V)

3 Sarah... Great pickup! I think that's a pretty good rundown of how we got to where we are...and supports the arguments that we should be there. The one item that somewhat bothers me is the fact that the press continues to get it wrong about "proving we were wrong" about the WMDs. Try as some might a negative CANNOT be proven! Until we search EVERY SQUARE CENTIMETER of the globe for Iraqi WMDs, we cannot conclusively say that Saddam never had them. What we can say is that IF they ever existed, is that Saddam was good at hiding them (and he can help me hide MajorBaby's presents next year). See you on the high ground and hope you're gearing up for a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year! MajorDad1984

Posted by: MajorDad1984 at December 30, 2005 09:44 AM (tdEnf)

4 The leftist obsession with toppling George Bush at any cost, including championing the "rights" of the enemies of civilization, defending the "sovereignty" of torturing dictatorships, and protecting the sanctity of brutal theocracies, is simply foolish. This is not going to win them any elections. It's only funny that they haven't learned from past losses. They have yet to learn that the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. The problem is that a small part of the anti-Bush movement was coming to the table from the other direction. They're anti-Bush because they were already anti-American. There are a surprising number of islamofascists, communists, anarchists and just plain kooks out there. And unfortunately for the Democratic party, the party leaders saw this as a great voting block. Never mind that the "antiwar" nutcases don't care if Democrats are running the country either. They just don't like this country. Period. And thus we have a disintegrating party, which sucks, because a democracy really does need a loyal opposition. It used to be that we had two parties that both wanted this country to succeed and its enemies to fail. And no, by the way, all you Dems out there, I am not questioning your patriotism. It's not a question. It's a fact: you don't have any.

Posted by: Korla Pundit at December 30, 2005 12:10 PM (FHlAi)

5 Koria, I am glad I am not a Dem. since then I would not be a patriot. I have to wonder though. I believe (along with most Liberals) that the most important aspect of our county to protect, its constitution and laws. It appears that you do not agree, since you want to trash the constitution. By selectively granting rights that are guaranteed to all in the Constitution (including 'enemies of civilization', whatever that means), and ignoring our laws (we are a party to international law that defines soverign nations and forbids invading them). Since it is clear that the principles our country were founded on do not matter to you, what does? If we 'save' our country from whatever perils you imagine we face at the cost of gutting all our principles, what do we have that you would still want? Is patriotism an ethnic thing for you?

Posted by: Mr. Silly at January 01, 2006 03:41 PM (kWQWR)

6 What international law is that, Mr. Stupid? There is no such thing, unless you are referring to the League of Nations making war illegal. We all know how effective that was. The invasion of Iraq, on the other hand, was simply enforcement of the ceasefire agreement that ended the Gulf War, which Saddam signed to save his skin and then broke for 12 years, along with a bunch of toothless UN resolutions. It was his actions that were clearly "illegal," and it was time to finally end it. As for defending the Constitution, part of that is to defend the country itself, and to defeat our enemies. Those who wish to extend our freedoms and protections to foreign terrorists are not patriots. They are traitors. You are disingenuous at best. So you don't categorize people who cut off heads of kidnapped civilians for propaganda, massacre a school full of children, fill mass graves, and send airplanes into office buildings as "enemies of civilization"? Then I have to assume you agree with their methods, as well as their ends, and as such you are NOT a patriot. So why even protest that people "question" your patriotism? You should proudly shun the notion of patriotism if you aren't a hypocrit... oh, that's right; I forgot. America's freedoms were exploited on Sept. 11, and that is why these freedoms are endangered. Not because the President is doing his job and going after these evil bastards. For lefties like the NY Times (and you) to seek to sabotage the war on terrorists for cheap political goals is the height of scummery. And it won't work either.

Posted by: Korla Pundit at January 03, 2006 02:09 PM (FHlAi)

7 It really is troubling to see a citizen of the U.S., so completely unfamiliar with it's laws. I think this is a good argument for significantly increasing funding to public schools. The notion of national sovereignty is enshrined in the charter of the UN to which we subscribe, and to whose laws we are bound as a nation by our constitution (I'd encourage you to read it, I think you would find it quite surprising). You advocate defending the constitution by violating its letter and spirit. I can almost hear you saying, "We had to destroy the constitution to save it." Unlike you, I advocate following our constitution, which admits a single rule of law for all citizens, whether they be considered 'enemies of civilization' or not. I think that if you hadn't pulled out 9/11 I would have felt disappointed. Thanks for showing that you actually think in cliches. America's freedoms were not exploited on 9/11, they were tested. If we throw away our freedoms out of fear then we have failed the test. Give me liberty or give me death. If you want to cower in fear and let Osama get his way that's your choice, but we patriots will be there to point out that the bed-wetting cowards who go running to the government to protect them rarely find much comfort or security there in the end, and you are the ones caving to the terrorists wishes.

Posted by: Mr. Silly at January 04, 2006 01:08 AM (kWQWR)

8 >The notion of national sovereignty is enshrined in the charter of the UN to which we subscribe, and to whose laws we are bound as a nation by our constitution (I'd encourage you to read it, I think you would find it quite surprising). I guess you would have extended this "notion" to Germany and Japan as well. And you would have tried to prevent FDR from intercepting messages to and from spies on American soil as well. Because you certainly had counterparts during every war we've ever fought. So instead of having you hide behind your own version of what is and isn't Constitutional, let's put this in practical terms: We capture Bin Laden's number three guy. He has a cell phone. The phone rings. Should the agents on the scene: a. Pick it up and trace the call? b. File papers for a warrant? You vote for b, because that call might be coming in from the United States. In your world, that call is ignored, and a cell goes undiscovered, and they get tipped off to the capture. And even if we know the call is from the U.S., you think it's necessary that we extend the same protections of privacy to some person calling the Al Qaeda leadership on the phone as any other American. And that's just stupid.

Posted by: Korla Pundit at January 04, 2006 01:37 PM (FHlAi)

9 > If we throw away our freedoms out of fear then we have failed the test. No, if we fail to close the loopholes, fail to enforce immigration laws, fail to allow the FBI to talk to the CIA, fail to capture and kill these bastards, and fail to ignore people like you, then we die. The test is whether or not we run away, because that's what they expected thanks to past experiences. Your appeasement and surrender friends would fulfill Bin Laden's expectations dramatically.

Posted by: Korla Pundit at January 04, 2006 01:42 PM (FHlAi)

10 You are mixing up questions of national soverignty with questions of warrants. WRT you uninformed question: a. Pick it up and trace the call? It depends. If the call is not from the US nor to the US, we can do what we want with surveillance according to FISA. If the call has a US endpoint, then we trace the call. Then we apply for a warrant within 72 hours of the trace so that we comply with FISA. Since those warrants are virtually never denied, we get the intel., and are on the correct side of the law. Bush has chosen to violate the law, and should be treated appropriately for a president that commits a felony in office. >Your appeasement and surrender friends would fulfill Bin Laden's expectations dramatically. Your imagine people who want to appease and surrender, but in reality nobody holds that position. The leftist I have read in general holds a more nuanced and realistic picture of how to fight terror, but appeasement and surrender are not part of it. FWIW, considering that the madrasa that taught Mullah Omar is still running in Pakistan, I'd say Bush is the appeaser here.

Posted by: Mr. Silly at January 04, 2006 02:42 PM (kWQWR)

11 > If the call is not from the US nor to the US, we can do what we want with surveillance according to FISA So just in case it's from a terrorist on US soil, you just let the phone ring. And as such, we should miss the very time-sensitve information that could prevent another subway bombing or another hijacking. Because the right to live is outweighed by the right to call a foreign terrorist unmolested. > Since those warrants are virtually never denied, we get the intel... Well, this is just misinformation. In case you haven't read it yet, since Bush came into office, suddenly those warrants are a lot harder to get, because Judge James Robertson, a Clintonista, was using his position to stymie the President's efforts against terrorists. Just another lefty like you who finds nothing wrong with endangering American lives (and others) to settle purely political grudges. As long as this man was on the secret court, the President had no choice but to circumvent him in time-urgent cases, because otherwise people would die, and more landmarks would now be holes in the ground. > Your imagine people who want to appease and surrender, but in reality nobody holds that position Bullshit. You all do: Get out of Iraq. No blood for oil. Why do they hate us? Let the inspections work! The UN is in charge of the world and the war is illegal! Bush lied! Saddam led a sovereign nation, and we had no right to invade! Make me a human shield! Halliburton! US out of Afghanistan! US out of New Orleans! Funny thing is you all haven't changed a bit since the Reagan years, with the same claims, the same tired slogans, the same "X = Hitler" posters, the same flag-burning. You were wrong then, and you're wrong now.

Posted by: Korla Pundit at January 04, 2006 04:37 PM (FHlAi)

12 Korla, Of those warrants less than 5% were ever denied. If there is some new difficulty with getting them (of which I have seen no evidence, please do cite. otherwise I'll assume you are making it up, or repeating what some wingnut has made up), then the Bush admin should work with congress to alleviate the issue, not break the law. The funny thing about making blanket statements is that they can be turned around on you. I have seen some conservatives who are racists, relativists, anti-rational zealots, blood lusting creeps who revel in seeing people die, and cowards who are willing to give up liberties for a feeling of safety. Therefore you are a racist, a relativist, an anti-rational zealot, and a saber rattling jingoist who revels in death, and a coward. Hopefully that is an adequate illustration of the fallacy in your post. If not, I can explain it more clearly.

Posted by: Mr. Silly at January 05, 2006 04:27 PM (0MHXm)

13 No, a coward is somebody who would much rather have the Brooklyn Bridge collapse into the East River than to have his deadly dull phone conversations about Chomsky to his fellow moveon.org deadbeats intercepted by "Big Brother." Even though the program under discussion was exclusively to trace the calls to and from known terrorists in foreign countries. A coward is somebody who organizes parties to celebrate the 2000th death of an American serviceman in Iraq, because they perceive it as some kind of magic number that will unseat Bush who is "the worst terrorist of all." A coward is somebody who anonymously leaks classified information about top secret operations to new organizations because they value their own petty political views and hatred of Bush over the lives of Americans and other targets of terrorists. A coward is anybody who tries to throw any obstacle they can think of in front of the war effort, and replies to any criticism at all with a cry of "How dare you question my patriotism!" A coward is somebody who refuses to call a terrorist a terrorist. Somone who panders to the other side in the vain hope that they will spare them for being more "understanding" of their "reasons" for trying to kill us.

Posted by: Korla Pundit at January 06, 2006 03:33 PM (FHlAi)

14 Koria, You seem to have a lot of difficulty following up with a point, you keep going on tangents. Please try to focus. What I said was that you were committing a fallacy by creating a blanket statement based on the acts of a few members of a group. With respect to your oddball definitions of coward: 1) The issue that people are concerned about is not tapping lines, the government is allowed to do this with a warrant, and the warrants are easy to get. The problem is illegal spying. When the administration decides it is above the law, that checks and balances from other branches of the government do not apply, and so the administration does not follow the law that is a serious problem, it is an attack on the very core of out nation, and is as serious as a terrorist attack on our soil. 2) Nobody had a party to 'celebrate' the 2000th death. While right wing blogs pointed to one event, it was a candle light vigil, not a party. I did not see anyone celebrating. The mood on the left was in general disgust that so many had died for no reason, a sentiment I agree with. 3) Leaking news that the government is breaking the law is not a cowardly act, it actually requires some serious cojones. Whistleblower laws are in place to protect such individuals, since they can be put in serious jeapordy by telling the truth. Note that it is not partisan to tell the truth. The face that you think that telling the truth is partisan illustrates how out of touch you are. 4) I am unaware of people throwing any actual obstacles in front of the war effort. Criticism is not throwing an obstacle and is patriotic. Maybe you should read some of the writings of out founding fathers and their views on the immportance of being able to criticize any act of the government. 5) It is not cowardly to use words in the correct way. Calling the insurgents in Iraq terrorists is not always correct. Some use terrorist tactics, some do not. Also the only way to defeat an enemy is to understand their motivations. Pretending your opponent is an imaginary irrational monster who only wants to do bad things for the sake of doing bad things is ignornat. Ignorance of one's enemy during wartime leads to poor tactics.

Posted by: Mr. Silly at January 06, 2006 04:17 PM (0MHXm)

15 > Calling the insurgents in Iraq terrorists is not always correct. People who intentionally target civilians are terrorists. Period. If you disagree, then you prove my point about the left wing's relativism and their lack of morals. > Leaking news that the government is breaking the law is not a cowardly act Anonymously, it is. And to the press instead of the GAO, it is. Have that person stand up and say it openly to the proper channels, and I will give him credit for courage. But to reveal it to the world as an unnamed source is treason. > When the administration decides it is above the law... Says you. This is a war, regardless of those who think it's a law-enforcement issue, and that gives the Commander in Chief the right to do what he did. For you to judge his actions as illegal is based on a lack of knowledge of the facts of the case. > Criticism is not throwing an obstacle and is patriotic. Going overseas to personally try to persuade our allies not to cooperate with us is an obstacle and is very unpatriotic. Giving the enemy free propaganda by blathering on and on about Abu Graib as if that personified the entire war was an attempt to defeat the war effort. Making statements that the war is illegal and the President is a liar, demanding withdrawal of troops, etc., is a constant with the leftists in Congress. This isn't some nobody at DemUnderground. This was the Democratic leadership, Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, Reid, Carter, the whole lot of them. They haven't done a damned thing to help, only to hinder. This isn't criticism. It's a pack of crap. > The mood on the left was in general disgust that so many had died for no reason, a sentiment I agree with. Then why is Cindy Sheehan a hero to the left, somebody who is constantly whooping it up with every radical she can find, somebody who makes excuses for the actual terrorists who personally murdered her son, while demanding that we not only abandon the Iraqis to Al Qaeda, but that we stop supporting Israel, and that we even pull our troops out of New Orleans? She is the perfect symbol for the glib extremism that now defines the Democratic party. But how dare we question their patriotism! Or their sanity.

Posted by: Korla Pundit at January 06, 2006 04:37 PM (FHlAi)

16 1) "People who intentionally target civilians are terrorists." Sure, but not all insurgents in Iraq target civilians, which is why the distinction is made. 2) No, it is not illegal to be a whistleblower. It certainly is not treason either, it is the mark of someone who cares about our country's principles to reveal when the government is secretly breaking laws. 3) "This is a war, regardless of those who think it's a law-enforcement issue, and that gives the Commander in Chief the right to do what he did. For you to judge his actions as illegal is based on a lack of knowledge of the facts of the case." Spying on american citizens in the borders of our country without a warrant is illegal (a felony), war or no war. You claim I am ignorant, but it is you who don't even have even a basic grasp of FISA. BTW, here is the NSA saying spying without a warrant is illegal: http://www.nsa.gov/coremsgs/corem00003.cfm 4) Bullshit. WRT visint other countries, i am not sure what you are talking about, but criticizing our leaders for their failures is patriotism, even when there is a perpetual war going on. The founding fathers were very clear that about this. Read some of Jefferson and Franklin's letters. They are interesting in themselves, and will help you to get out of your incredibly petty partisan views of things. 5) Who cares about Sheehan? She has a right to say whatever she wants. If you disagree, you have that right. She has never demanded that we abandon Iraq to Al Quaida, not is that a realistic possibility. Al Qaida is a Sunni organization, and Iraq is predominantly Shiite. As for the Democratic party, they are hardly extremist. They are generally cowards afraid of their own shadow, who can barely take a stand on black and white issues let alone those that are nuanced. But I still don't think it is reasonable to question their patriotism. Everyone I see accusing others of lacking patriotism, seems to always break it out when they don't have a real argument. And it is generally used as an ad hominem.

Posted by: Mr. Silly at January 06, 2006 05:34 PM (PbrmL)

17 >1) "People who intentionally target civilians are terrorists." And most of the bombings in Iraq target civilians. A lot more innocent bystanders die now than American GIs. >2) No, it is not illegal to be a whistleblower. Yes it is if you reveal classified information and don't go through proper channels. Very illegal. it's called treason. >3) Spying on american citizens in the borders of our country without a warrant is illegal There is legal precedent to prove you wrong. >4) criticizing our leaders for their failures is patriotism Criticism in and of itself is not "patriotic." Criticism is not "unpatriotic." But when it is a pack of lies, and when the lies come with such fervent glee about how evil this country is, and when every piece of propaganda from the enemy is touted as fact on the Senate floor, then these people are in fact unpatriotic. But why should that label bother them? They seem proud of their stand against defending the country. 5) Al Qaida is a Sunni organization, and Iraq is predominantly Shiite. Now you're just stuck on stupid. The terrorists are Sunni, led by Zarqawi who is affiliated directly with the Al Qaeda leadership. Read Al Qaeda's own missives on Iraq. They consider Iraq the front in the war against us, and they admit losing in Iraq would be a major setback for them. And they know that they are not welcome there by the majority, so violence is their only hope of intimidating Iraqis into allowing anarchy, ie a safe haven for terrorists. The fact that you have sympathy for those savages shows your true colors. And why should we take national security and Constitutional advice from somebody who champions the rights of suicide bombers to kill Americans and Iraqi civilians? This is obviously not a debate. I don't expect you to agree with any of this, because you and your DU ilk have been set on bashing everything this President has done to protect the country and foster democracy in the middle east at every opportunity. I personally think the left wing in this country is beneath contempt, but more because of their disingenuousness than for their opposition to the defense of the nation.

Posted by: Korla Pundit at January 06, 2006 06:23 PM (FHlAi)

18 >And most of the bombings in Iraq target civilians. Many do, but not all. There are many targeted attacks on GIs, oil lines, police, and other non-civilian targets. Various imams have come out and said that attacking US soldiers is acceptable, but civilian targets are not. Conflating things just confuses them. You are clearly confused. >Yes it is if you reveal classified information and don't go through proper channels. Very illegal. it's called treason. Your ignorance is showing. Please look up anonymous whnistleblower laws, you will feel better when you are informed, and won't be so inclined to repeat misinformation. >There is legal precedent to prove you wrong. No there isn't. Nixon did it, there was murkiness in the laws, FISA came and filled most of the gaps. Clinton used a loophole, that loophole was filled. Please give me the specifics of the legal precedent. If you cannot cite the case law I will just dismiss you as making crap up yet again. >But when it is a pack of lies, and when the lies come with such fervent glee about how evil this country is... Umm, first off most of the criticisms given against the administration by educated have been both well thought out and well cited. Whenever you hear something you don't like you call it partisan, and a pack of lies, and whatever other handy little weasel words you want to keep yourself from having to think. I am very sorry to say it, but until someone can actually address the substance of a criticism with a thoughtful response that does not include a load of fallacies, they are a nitwit. You are a nitwit. >I personally think the left wing in this country is beneath contempt, but more because of their disingenuousness than for their opposition to the defense of the nation. The left is not any more disengenuous than the right. They both puff up full of themselves and are thoroughly full of crap. But the left does tend to have some erudite members who can think, and do present much more well thought out and cited reports on issues. Sadly the right wing intellectuals tend more towards emotional appeals and fallacies. Making crap up about how the left want to destroy America, hate the U.S., are all atheists, or what have you is a classic example of a conservative who can't actually articulate anything that is actually wrong with their opponenent, so they dish out a vitriolic strem of straw men, ad hominems, and emotional appeals and hope it will be glossed over. My suggestion for you is to do a few things. First off, take a critical reasoning course at the local junior college (assuming one is nearby, otherwise get a book). Then get a copy of the constitution, the federalist papers, and the papers/letters of Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin. Read them. Then wake the hell up. I used to be a Republican until I read these things. Now I don't have a party. At that point hopefully you will grasp that both the Republican and Democratic parties do not represent the principles that this nation is supposed to embody, (both have made encroachments into the bill of rights), you will hopefully understand why the bill of rights is far more important than any other aspect of our way of life, and you will be able to be offended when any politician attack your rights, irrespective of party. Here's the final insight ytou might get if you are attentive enough. No political party give a rat's ass about you. They are not your 'team.' You should not root for them no matter what they do. You should not listen to their propaganda uncritically. Wouldn't that all be great? Here's hoping you learn to think one day. Until then, I am talking to someone who is either incapable of recognizing a fallacy, or is willing to use them when arguing. In either case it is reprehensible, so my part in this thread is over. Have fun humiliating yourself intellectually when you post your last word. I'll just be pitying you.

Posted by: Mr. Silly at January 06, 2006 10:35 PM (kWQWR)

19 >so my part in this thread is over Oh, woe is me.

Posted by: Korla Pundit at January 09, 2006 03:38 PM (FHlAi)

20 While you're away, here's a dose of sanity: >In the 1980 Truong case, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the warrantless surveillance of a foreign power, its agent or collaborators (including U.S. citizens) when the "primary purpose" of the intercepts was for "foreign intelligence" rather than law enforcement purposes. Every court of appeals that has considered the issue has upheld an inherent presidential power to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence searches; and in 2002 the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, created by the FISA statute, accepted that "the president does have that authority" and noted "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power." http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007734 But don't worry. I'm sure your calls to those porno chat lines are safe from scrutiny.

Posted by: Korla Pundit at January 09, 2006 03:56 PM (FHlAi)

21 Here's another gooey tidbit to chew on, just to highlight the pitfalls of trying to second-guess the President. Let's just say, theoretically, that somebody tipped off an agent that Judge James Robertson, just for example, was leaking classified info about who was under surveillance. Not too unrealistic, considering that somebody on the inside was in fact leaking all over the place. What could you do under such a scenario? None of us will know for fifty years why the judges had to be bypassed for certain surveillance operations. But it is the President's call, and he is charged with protecting us from a dangerous enemy with operational cells still in this country, communicating with their bosses overseas. This current NY Times leak itself proves the President had every reason to fear the chain was compromised. And now we've lost a vital avenue of intelligence gathering thanks to their politically motivated treason. Treason, by the way, is not covered by whistleblower protection laws.

Posted by: Korla Pundit at January 09, 2006 04:15 PM (FHlAi)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 28, 2005

WOW

Via Powerline, I just learned the true and horrifying story of Kwanzaa.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:25 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

1 After 30+ years on this earth, I have yet to meet someone (anyone) who celebrates Kwanzaa. It's sad that it receives so much attention and publicity. http://www.textbookleague.org/114kwanz.htm

Posted by: Vonn at December 28, 2005 11:04 AM (dEgRi)

2 I wonder if you believe in the possibility of redemption? It's clear that Maulana Ron Karenga's history with the Black Panthers and his abuse of those women was not admirable was not admirable, but he went to prison, claims to have repented for his prior wrongs. He served his time. While there is no doubt that his past will enevitably color his later actions, how much should we hold someone for past crimes they have served sentences for? For instance our current president in his 30s took his brother out drinking, drove home drunk, smashed through the neighbor's trashcans, careened across their lawn, and come to a stop on his Father's lawn. When his father came out to confront him, GWB attemted to get in a fist fight with him. Our president had a long history of drug abuse and heavy drinking, during which he said that he did many things he is not proud of. He has been arrested (at least) three times, first for stealing from a Hotel, second for brawling at a Yale game, third for a DWI (which he later lied about in an attempt to cover it up). Even after he cleaned up his life he has done things like making millions in insider trading deals at Arbusto while his company collapsed, coooked the books for Harken in ways which are now illegal, mocked a woman who he denied clemency to (a woman who had started the most successful prison ministry in history, and who the Pope, Jerry Fallwell, and Pat Robertson all wanted Bush to grant clemency to). Given that in the past you have said that GWB is a good and honest man (though claiming he is honest is willfull ignorance), I am assuming that you thing that he has been redeemed for his past wrongs. Why is it that the white guy can find redemption, but black guys like Tookie and Karenga can't?

Posted by: Mr. Silly at December 28, 2005 01:34 PM (f7siV)

3 Murder-Death-Torture DOES NOT EQUAL Theft-Drunken stupidty-Youth

Posted by: Vonn at December 28, 2005 02:23 PM (dEgRi)

4 True that 'college pranks' are not the same. But theft, physically threatening one's father, DWIs, and executive fraud are not 'college pranks.' FWIW, Bush defenders seems to have a handy way of creating a euphemism for every wrong Bush commits. Even torture has ben morphed into a 'fraternity prank.' Orwell would be very proud. But on the topic of torture and murder, since Bush has been responsible for the bombing of untold numbers of innocents in Iraq (and elsewhere), and has also been a legal advocate of torture (despite using rhetorical doublespeak that is the opposite of his administrations legal defense of torture). The 'Bad Apple' excuse is BS. As Commander In Chief, and the author of the scheme to invade a nation that posed no threat to us, he is personally responsible for the torture in Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan, Gitmo, and via CIA's 'rendition' torture of innocent civilians in various other countries,

Posted by: Mr. Silly at December 28, 2005 08:16 PM (f7siV)

5 And I'll bet that Mr. Silly would say that "Clinton lied, but nobody died." The point you make is well taken...HOWEVER I'd be willing to guess that if Bush cured cancer, found a cure for the common cold, and designed a better helmet giving the average NHL player a higher standard of cranial protection you'd still find something wrong, evil and sinister about him. He's damned if he does...damned if he doesn't. I'm glad that a majority still counts in this country. Better get your kook base motivated for 2006 and 2008, but I doubt much is going to change on the surface of American politics. See you on the high ground... MajorDad1984

Posted by: MajorDad1984 at December 29, 2005 01:34 AM (tdEnf)

6 MajorDad, I think you are mistaking me for a partisan. I am not a partisan. There is nobody in Washington who comes close to representing my views, so I do not have the luxury of treating politics like it is a battle between sports teams where I always want my favorite to win. I am critical of all politicians for their failures, not for their political parties, which is something that many members of mainstream political parties find confusing. Currently partisans on the Right control all three branches of the government, so there isn't a lot to say about the Dems, other than that they are pathetically incapable of fighting for anything, and they have a strong trend towards moving to the right and abandoning their principles at the drop of a hat. When it was relevant I was quite harsh on Clinton when he was in office. I was bothered, but not really so horrified by his adultery and pathetic coverup, but I certainly was critical of his expansion of executive power, NAFTA, his administration's handling of Ruby Ridge/Waco, and other things. I do not think that he was nearly as bad as Bush, since Clinton at times did try to implement policies submitted by policy experts over politics, even when it alienated the base. Bush has yet to ever have shown that courage. Were Bush to cure cancer, or do some other positive thing I would certainly give him his props. It should be noted that Bush has done no such thing, and in his (highly political and unprincipled) opposition to stem cell research, he has actually put research into possible significant medical treatments on the back burner. Honestly, nothing is black and white, but it is surprisingly it is difficult for me to find an example of Bush acting in an admirable and selfless way, though if a legitimate example came up, I'd acknowledge it.

Posted by: Mr. Silly at December 29, 2005 07:17 PM (f7siV)

7 Silly, try reading the articles. Not only are the roots of Kwanzaa wrong (it was designed solely to be a black holiday and futher divide whites and blacks in the racially charged 60s), but Karenga was arrested years AFTER inventing this holiday. He did not "see the light" after getting arrested and try to do the right thing and invent a holiday. The invention of Kwanzaa was part of his downward spiral into racist evil.

Posted by: Sean at December 30, 2005 03:41 PM (29u+V)

8 When you look at the way that the import of Xmas has changed historically---starting with a Christian meaning being grafted onto pagan traditions---you can hardly jusge Kwanzaa based just on its origins. If it is turning into something positive then good for it.

Posted by: Pericles at January 02, 2006 11:29 PM (eKf5G)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

WHA?

Hud found a list of ridiculous media quotes. I'm still reading them all, but my favorite so far is this one from MSNBC's Keith Olberman after Hurricane Katrina:

For many of this countryÂ’s citizens, the mantra has been, as we were taught in social studies it should always be, whether or not I voted for this President, he is still my President. I suspect anybody who had to give him that benefit of the doubt stopped doing so last week. I suspect, also, a lot of his supporters, looking ahead to Â‘08, are wondering how they can distance themselves from the two words which will define his government, our government: New Orleans. For him, it is a shame, in all senses of the word. A few changes of pronouns in there and he might not have looked so much like a 21st century Marie Antoinette.

Bwahahahahaha.

Posted by: Sarah at 07:35 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.

WHAT A DIFFERENCE A DAY MAKES

The problem with reading a science book written in 1979 is that you want to know what has happened since. Sagan kept bringing up wonderfully exciting things that made me wonder what we've learned in the past 25 years. Some things I knew had not come to pass -- such as the bittersweet missed opportunity of a rendezvous mission with Halley's comet -- but other things I have been trying to research to see what we've learned since.

This is how it came to be that I felt a great excitement and inner peace for 24 hours. I learned of the oscillating universe theory.

I've never been a person who thinks much about the meaning of life or why we're here. I've always found more solace in thinking that I'm a small being in an ever-changing cosmos, that there's nothing more special about me than some long-extinct triceratops. I find peace and comfort knowing that the universe is far more complex and wondrous than I could ever comprehend, and that my life is inconsequential in the big scheme of billions of years. This thought that my life is but a blink in time helps me cope with seemingly monumental stressors in my life: high schoolers, deployments, the fact that the coat I wanted from Land's End is discontinued. All of this pales when I think about what has come before and will come after me.

In 1979, Carl Sagan said there was not enough evidence to rule out an oscillating universe. This would mean that the universe could continue a series of collapses and big bangs, in a neverending accordion squeeze on the cosmos. And I liked that idea. As I lay in bed, I imagined another go-round for the universe, with planets at different distances from their stars, possibly fostering new and different life forms. Or not. I imagined the cosmos as a big game of Yahtzee, then laughed that maybe God really does play dice with the universe. I felt excited and at peace, and I wanted to learn more.

So does learning that there's probably not enough matter in the universe to cause a Big Crunch make me disappointed? A little, but I'd rather know the truth. I suppose it doesn't even really bother me that the universe appears to be speeding up and eventally all stars will flicker out and cease to be. If that's what really will happen, then I can accept that.

But boy, did my mind do cartwheels at the thought of an oscillating universe. That was a great feeling, even if it was short lived.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:24 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 445 words, total size 3 kb.

GOOD READ

Varifrank has a post of denbestian length, appropriately titled Where is this all going?

Posted by: Sarah at 05:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

December 27, 2005

LAZY?

Pericles thinks I'm being unfair in lumping together regular anti-OIF Democrats with the likes of Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan. I guess he might have more of a point if Michael Moore hadn't sat in the VIP box with Jimmy Carter at the Democratic National Convention. Michael Moore is embraced by Democrat leaders, as Judicious Asininity points out:

DNC Chairman Terry McCauliffe praised Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, as this article by NRO's Byron York makes clear. And McCauliffe wasn't the only ranking Democrat to praise the movie:

In addition to McAuliffe, other Democrats at the Washington screening included Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, Montana Sen. Max Baucus, South Carolina Sen. Ernest Hollings, Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, New York Rep. Charles Rangel, Washington Rep. Jim McDermott, and others. Harkin told the Associated Press that all Americans should see the film. "It's important for the American people to understand what has gone on before, what led us to this point, and to see it sort of in this unvarnished presentation by Michael Moore."

Michael Moore isn't nearly as fringe as Pericles apparently would like him to be. Pericles is right that Cindy Sheehan hasn't won the hearts and minds of big-name Democrats, but small-fry Democrats love her and say things like:

Fortunately, the grassroots of the Democratic Party do not agree with Kerry and Clinton. They want the troops out of Iraq. Many claim that this rift between the party grassroots and the D.C. Democrats is a fundamental identity crisis. They see the party as having no legitimate direction. No heart. No soul. They are right.
If Democratic politicians had a soul, they'd be standing shoulder to shoulder with Sheehan's supporters at candlelight vigils across the country. But that won't be happening anytime soon. The Democrats in D.C. aren't even sure Sheehan's actions are justified. They aren't even sure that her son died for an unjust cause.
The futility of the Democrats in Washington grows graver by the day.

They want an overthrow of their party and a major shift to the left. And I don't think it's "intellectually lazy", Pericles, for me to notice this. When John Kerry links to Daily Kos, it indicates acceptance of the "loony left".

Pericles says that "it makes it much easier for you to defend the war if you can depict everyone who opposed it as coming from the looney left", but I know that's not true. Many of my relatives (both my side and my husband's) don't support OIF. Many military wives I know don't support it either. Those people don't have a political reason for their feelings; they simply don't want people they love to have to die for someone else's country. I can get my mind around that feeling, even if I don't share it. They're a similar type of anti-war to Cindy Sheehan, to be honest, though I've never heard any of my relatives blame President Bush. They simply don't want there to be a war.

But people like Murtha and Pelosi are not in this category. They oppose this war on political grounds, and They. Blame. Bush. Just like Cindy Sheehan does. Just like Michael Moore does. Just like Pericles does, I think. Bush hatred has drawn all these people together, and they're all under the Democrats' tent, like it or not.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:25 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 562 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Michael Moore blew the lid off of the Cheney-Bush Oil Junta in the documentary Fahrenheit 911. The real question is not why Democrats would allow themselves to be lumped together with such a radical truth-teller, but why so many people would be lumped together with the rich exploiters, racists, and religious fundamentalists that is the GOPOC: The Grand Old Party of Criminals.

Posted by: IS LED BY NONE at December 27, 2005 11:03 AM (zXPOg)

2 Good question. I guess for me it is the betrayel of the working class values espoused by the Democrats while I was growing up in favor of more socialist values. They became less representative of what I and other blue-collared workers believed in and more about what the enemies I enlisted to fight believe in. Considering how appreciative the party has become of radical anti-American leftists and how unsupportive they have been of working class people, it's no wonder so many of us are defecting to the Republican party. I mean unemployed, but secure in the knowledge that I had strong union protection when the company stayed afloat, compared to no union protection and more jobs is a question with an obvious answer. Another question, one that neither parties addresses adequately but the Democrat party is against, is how to adress rampant illegal immigration that deflates blue-collar wages and takes jobs away from blue-collar workers. Certainly picking cabbage is not among them, but dry-walling, roofing, welding, carpentry, and construction labor are. I myself have personally seen illegal immigrants at work at welding positions that I would have done. I know carpenters and other construction workers that have been forced to move because of the glut in housing construction illegal hiring practices. Let's see Michael Moore address that with the same zeal as Roger & Me, and TV Nation (back when I was a fan). Another good question, though one the Democrats have always failed to pose, is why do so many (an overwhelming majority) of those who choose to give up so much of their life (including that life itself) and choose to give up some freedoms that most take for granted choose to be Republican rather than Democrat. Beyond ad hominen attacks about their intellectual capacity and morality, it is a question the Democrat party has failed to ask themselves and appears to have no interest in. Rambling and talking bubbles now, turns out that I also am now boiling mad. Kalroy

Posted by: Kalroy at December 27, 2005 07:40 PM (AwOS7)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

REVELATION

I found an old entry by Vodkapundit that warmed my heart. He found an embed from Alaska who was struck by the magnitude of her job:

Think about everything youÂ’ve heard about the conditions in Iraq, the role of U.S. forces, the multi-layered complexities of the war.
Then think again.
IÂ’m a journalist. I read the news everyday, from several sources. I have the luxury of reading stuff newspapers donÂ’t always have room to print. I read every tidbit I could on Iraq and the war before coming.
Everything I thought I knew was wrong.
Maybe not wrong, but certainly different than the picture in my head.
I liken it to this; It was real struggle for me to choose to see the Harry Potter movies. I had read the books and loved the pictures I had in my mind of the details I read. I didnÂ’t need to see a movie; I had a movie playing in my head of exactly how I perceived the stories.
I had similar notions about Iraq, Mosul, the war and what exactly soldiers do. And it was handily shattered like glass today by a group of soldiers, half of them younger than myself.

She goes on to end with one of the most insightful things I've ever heard a reporter say:

IÂ’ve listened to the soldiers and Parrish about the missing pieces of the puzzles that donÂ’t reach home. My selfish, journalistic drive immediately thinks Â“Perfect. A story that hasnÂ’t been told. Let me at it.Â”
But I have a slight hesitation; I need to keep balanced. I canÂ’t be a cheerleader, even if I have a soft spot for the hometown troops, especially after the welcome theyÂ’ve shown me. I still need to be truthful and walk the centerline and report the good or bad.
But then I realize itÂ’s not a conflict of interest. If I am truly unbiased, then I need to get used to this one simple fact; that the untold story, might in fact, be a positive one. It takes a minute to wrap my mind around it, as a news junkie that became a news writer. The great, career-making, breaking news stories usually donÂ’t have happy endings; they usually revolve around disturbing news, deceit and downfall. Nasty political doings. Gruesome crimes and murders. Revealing secrets.
But IÂ’ve come upon something that is none of those. Not this aspect of it. There are politics to this war and controversies and investigations. But there is another side.

There are heartwarming and heroic stories coming out of Iraq, and journalists are not "selling out" if they report this good stuff. It was a huge step for this embed to realize that maybe the stories that need to be told are the ones with happy endings.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 467 words, total size 3 kb.

155kb generated in CPU 0.0513, elapsed 0.1751 seconds.
65 queries taking 0.138 seconds, 306 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: 178742
Files: 8205
Bytes: 3.0G
CPU Time: 209:57
Queries: 6938553

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

January 15, 2006

January 09, 2006

January 08, 2006

January 06, 2006

January 04, 2006

January 02, 2006

December 31, 2005

December 29, 2005

December 28, 2005

December 27, 2005

Search Thingy

My Imaginary Friends

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives