October 31, 2004
NORMAL AGAIN
What's unusual about this weekend is how normal it's been. Wives say that sometimes their husbands are jumpier or quieter after they come home; Soldiers have to attend briefings about how hard re-integration will be. However, our re-integration has been shockingly boring. After my husband was home for an hour, it felt like he'd never been gone. The last nine months just disappeared. The only real difference is that we keep losing track of time because we're talking too much. Yesterday we tried to watch a movie, but we kept pausing it to talk, first about a scene in the movie, then about relationships, then about the military, and then about the deployment. Many wives say that their husbands don't like to tell stories about what has happened downrange, but once my husband saw that my reaction to a potentially scary story was cheering and praising him, other stories started to follow. We talked candidly about the good and bad things that have happened to him down in Iraq, and it wasn't weird at all. We also talked about whether he wants to stay in the Army longer than his required four years, a topic I wanted to hit on during R&R but didn't think we'd get to on the first day. We had a good talk about the advantages, ended with a "we'll decide next year", and finally turned the movie back on, two hours later.
Everything takes twice as long when you can't stop talking to each other!
Posted by: Sarah at
08:07 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Sarah - that sounds great. Enjoy every minute. Glad he's back safe and sound.
Posted by: Kathleen A at October 31, 2004 08:14 AM (vnAYT)
2
I keep checking back here torn - hoping your so busy catching up that you don't have time to post, yet hoping you'll throw out little morsels about how wonderful everything is.
The relationship between you and your husband is FANTASTIC. I love to hear about the open communication and Deep Friendship you share. I'm so very happy for both of you getting this time together. Enjoy!!
Posted by: Tammi at October 31, 2004 11:55 AM (UOdfZ)
3
So much good news for you. Just happy for you.
Posted by: Toni at October 31, 2004 01:25 PM (gpNhd)
4
I'm really happy for you, Sarah!
Posted by: David Boxenhorn at October 31, 2004 03:35 PM (+5WuC)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 29, 2004
FAST
He's in the shower now! He's been here 30 minutes and we can't talk fast enough. For some reason, we are trying to say everything right away. We've already raced through conversations about Parker and Stone, the presidential election, the median Iraqi age, our "new" stove (new since June), and how funny his hands look since they are about ten shades darker than his arms. And he's already had one beer...
Posted by: Sarah at
02:56 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Welcome home Russ. You guys both deserve this time together. Get some nookie in and then give me a call :-)
Posted by: Erin at October 29, 2004 03:04 AM (KW53N)
2
Welcome Home! I got goosebumps reading your post, I'm so so happy for the two of you. Enjoy your time together, unfortunately it will go all too quickly so make the most of it.
Posted by: Jamie at October 29, 2004 03:57 AM (+P49y)
3
Hey Russ!! My gift to you is not to call or IM your wife for at least a week. You guys have a great time and hopefully we'll see you next Friday.
Posted by: Oda Mae at October 29, 2004 07:55 AM (FmIVz)
4
YAY! Why aren't you in the shower with him? Enjoy!
P.S. Take some vitamins (i.e., don't wear yourselves out. ;o)
Posted by: MargeinMI at October 29, 2004 08:41 AM (CZKYa)
Posted by: Jim at October 29, 2004 11:37 AM (uqDWl)
Posted by: Jason at October 29, 2004 01:08 PM (0iK+f)
7
Welcome home to Russ!
I'm so happy for you two...I had to go hug Alex again, just remembering what it was like to see him for the first time. Enjoy, enjoy, enjoy!
Posted by: Carla at October 29, 2004 07:39 PM (O7HhJ)
8
I had to laugh when I read Oda Mae's comments. Ditto from your mother-in-law! I'm glad you're home safe and sound. I won't call either, but I might sneak an email in now and then! I'm so happy you're home and you two are together. Love you both.
Mama
Posted by: Nancy at October 29, 2004 09:02 PM (YuW6k)
9
WOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOO!!
Enjoy your time together..
Now get off the computer
Posted by: Tink at October 29, 2004 09:29 PM (S6VXg)
10
Welcome home safe and sound. Thank you for sharing Sarah with us for a little while. I hope she doesn't quit on us - but I definitely understand if she does. THANK YOU FOR PROTECTING MY FAMILY and for helping our friends in Iraq. You are an American hero.
Posted by: Kathleen A at October 29, 2004 11:50 PM (vnAYT)
11
Good for the both of you! Now go enjoy yourselves (I second that suggestion to get right in the shower), and if I see you online again before he goes I might have to grab a plane and come over to Germany specifically to kick you off the computer! :-)
Posted by: Dominic at October 30, 2004 06:10 AM (JOJzq)
12
Happy Day! Cherish this time---and give your husband a crisp salute and a hearty "thank you" from his Air Force brother-in-arms!
Posted by: david at October 30, 2004 12:38 PM (1+76a)
13
Yay!!!
You probably won't notice if I take the server down for a little while then.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at October 30, 2004 10:03 PM (+S1Ft)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
CONNECTIONS
My husband is arriving early now. For some reason, no one could find my phone number to call and let me know, but luckily one of my students was working staff duty. He just called me and said, "Hey Sarah, this is [last name]." I was wondering what in the heck he could want at 0630; I've had students call me with weird questions, but this was wild. The fact is that he was the only person who had my home phone number, so he called to let me know the husband's on the way. What a nice gesture!
Posted by: Sarah at
01:38 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Sarah,
I hope you don't see this anytime soon (if you catch my drift), and I hope you and your husband have a wonderful reunion. Thank him for me, and thanks to you for your sacrifices, as well.
Posted by: Jack Grey at October 29, 2004 02:06 AM (Jq8H8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
BRING THE LOVE!
Couldn't resist quoting
this:
We may see some brief flicker of the insurgent flame yet, some last-ditch effort before Tuesday. If so it would be a good time to remember this: immediately after Al Qaeda castrated Spain with a few well-placed bombs the organization released a tape claiming the victory. That tape included this phrase: "You love life and we love death,." Anyone who ever served in the US Armed Forces knew the instant response to that, heard George C. Scott quote Patton, establishing the obvious common ground between American Forces and Al Qaeda corpses: "Your job is not to die for your country. Your job is to make the other poor bastard die for his country".
"You Love life, we love death"
The Marines will bring the love to Fallujah.
Posted by: Sarah at
01:25 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.
October 28, 2004
GROGGY
I woke up at 0400 and couldn't go back to sleep. I must be excited about something, but I can't figure out what it could be...
P.S. I never thought anything could make me laugh at 0430 like this clip did.
Posted by: Sarah at
11:28 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I'm so excited for you guys!! Enjoy every minute of it and don't even turn on this silly computer while he's home!
Posted by: Beth at October 29, 2004 01:06 AM (o2TyC)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
HALF A DAY AWAY
Right before he left, my husband got his smallpox shot. It was bandaged and still scabby when he deployed. I realized yesterday that he's had a new scar on his shoulder for nine months and I've never even seen it.
Two hundred fifty-eight days ago, I waved goodbye to my husband as his bus passed through the intersection by our house; tomorrow morning I will be waving as his bus pulls into brigade headquarters. I will spend two weeks stuffing him with beer, food, and love. I will sit by his side as we watch Futurama together. I will wait on him hand and foot. And I will kiss the new smallpox scar on his arm.
He'll be home in twelve hours.
Posted by: Sarah at
02:15 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Sarah,
Congratulations! I read your site every day and love the perspective of the military spouse. I spent 10 years in the Army, and spouses definitely do not get the credit they deserve. God bless you, and I assume we won't be hearing from you for a while. Enjoy the reunion!
Chadd
Posted by: Chadd at October 28, 2004 02:28 PM (oJZdw)
2
Don't be too rough with that soldier.
Posted by: Mike at October 28, 2004 04:03 PM (MqNKC)
3
Woo-Hoo!!! We'll let you have him to yourself for a while, but I expect to see you guys next Friday! (Justin will be here, so there will be two guys and they can talk to each other!!)
Posted by: Oda Mae at October 28, 2004 04:10 PM (fcrfj)
4
Yay! I'm so happy for you. Enjoy every minute.
Posted by: Jamie at October 28, 2004 04:38 PM (kIauM)
Posted by: Madfish Willie at October 28, 2004 10:34 PM (Uq/6d)
6
I think this is what they mean by "many happy returns." If its not, it should be,
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at October 28, 2004 10:49 PM (U3CvV)
7
Russ's arrival is so close now that I have goose bumps just thinking about it. I won't expect much blogging for the next two weeks. Enjoy your time together and remind Russ how much we appreciate all he is doing. Love, jane
Posted by: Jane at October 28, 2004 11:54 PM (iIqGD)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
LETTER
Dear President Bush,
I hope you're sleeping better than I have been lately. I bet you're about to OD on Tylenol PM! It doesn't help me much, so I lie in bed trying to think of anything other than 2 Nov, the Cardinals, or my husband. The Cardinals turned out to be a losing battle. I told my friend that it would just figure that the Cards would lose the World Series right when my husband gets home and he'd be in a really foul mood for the whole weekend! Hopefully seeing me after nine months can ease the pain...
I wish I could talk to you. You get such bullcrap thrown your way, and sometimes I worry about you. You won an award for best movie villan, which might be humorous if I weren't so naggingly sure that those people actually believe it. You get drawn as everything from Hitler to a special needs child, and if I feel the sting, I know you must too.
I just wish you could know that some of us out there really do care about you. We want you to win, because we think you've been a great leader in trying times. We want an aggressive leader who does what's right for the US and we've been behind you since 9/11. We're afraid of what happens if you don't win, but we're also slightly afraid of what happens if you do. There are some who have called for riots, lawsuits, and even for your assassination.
If you win, you have four more years of battle with the Islamobarbarians to look forward to. If you lose, you get a good nights sleep and the weight of the world lifted from your shoulders. I wish you could have both, but I'm afraid the former is more important right now. But with you as our president, both of us will sleep peacefully someday.
I wish you luck and tranquility in the coming week.
Get 'er done!!
Sarah
P.S. The Cards may have lost, but Israel may win: is Arafat's death upon us? You know me...I'm baking a cake if it is!
Posted by: Sarah at
01:45 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 358 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Sarah, what a load of crap.
PS Does Bush really know you? Not that I care. But your baking a cake if Arafat dies tells me a lot about you Sarah. I know you are not a good person. Good people don't celebrate when other people die.
Posted by: dc at October 28, 2004 02:04 AM (fLlQ8)
2
Hey, Sarah, thanks for the post. When I worked at the DA's office, the Chief Assistant had a horrible guy on Death Row. He brought in a cake the day of his execution. We were happy to celebrate the grandma killer's demise. Can I come over for the Arafat celebration? Helpful hint: we should NOT invite dc. But as a party game, perhaps we can speculate with colorful language as to what dc stands for and what putting two initials in lower case says about character and self-confidence. Talk to you later! (Oh, and instead of candles, we just flicked the light switch up and down a few times at the magic moment. Hey, that should give the trolls something else to focus on!)
Posted by: Oda Mae at October 28, 2004 02:13 AM (IENgx)
3
This is from Silent Running blog on Arafat.
'This reminds me of the old joke about Hitler. He asked his astrologer when he would die.
"Mein Fuhrer, you will die on a Jewish holiday."
"Which one?"
"Ach, any day you die will be a Jewish Holiday".'
Posted by: Oda Mae at October 28, 2004 02:15 AM (IENgx)
4
Sure, dc, Bush reads my blog. We write emails back and forth all the time. Are you really that dumb? This was supposed to be a
symbolic letter.
And if celebrating the deaths of Uday, Qsay, and Arafat is wrong, then I don't want to be right! Cake for everybody! Except you, dc. You can cry for the old terrorist if you want.
Posted by: Sarah at October 28, 2004 02:43 AM (BfjAH)
5
Sorry dc, but if you look up terrorist in the dictionary, it ought to have Arafat's picture. I'm all for terrorists dying- I don't care if it's caused by the Military, the Courts, or the Grim Reaper- just as long as it happens. Does this make me bad? I can live with that.
Save me some (virtual) cake, Sarah...
Posted by: Jack Grey at October 28, 2004 05:28 AM (Jq8H8)
6
Sarah, let me know when the party is...I'll be right over. And I'll bring the keg.
Posted by: Erin at October 28, 2004 07:22 AM (9P9Bg)
7
Is dc one of those liberals who hopes for the death of any Republican?
Posted by: Mike at October 28, 2004 08:02 AM (MqNKC)
8
And tonite I thought maybe this was a New idea-silly me:
Google for GWbush antichrist and see what YOU get folks!
*****************
Pope fears Bush is antichrist, journalist contends
Brief Article
New Catholic Times,  May 18, 2003 ÂÂ
WASHINGTON DC -- According to freelance journalist Wayne Madsden, "George W Bush's blood lust, his repeated commitment to Christian beliefs and his constant references to 'evil doers,' in the eyes of many devout Catholic leaders, bear all the hallmarks of the one warned about in the Book of Revelations--the anti-Christ."
Madsen, a Washington-based writer and columnist, who often writes for Counterpunch, says that people close to the pope claim that amid these concerns, the pontiff wishes he was younger and in better health to confront the possibility that Bush may represent the person prophesized in Revelations. John Paul II has always believed the world was on the precipice of the final confrontation between Good and Evil as foretold in the New Testament.
Before he became pope, Karol Cardinal Wojtyla said, "We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of the American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel."
The pope worked tirelessly to convince leaders of nations on the UN Security Council to oppose Bush's war resolution on Iraq. Vatican sources claim they had not seen the pope more animated and determined since he fell ill to Parkinson's Disease. In the end, the pope did convince the leaders of Mexico, Chile, Cameroon and Guinea to oppose the U.S. resolution.
Madsen contends that "Bush is a dangerous right-wing ideologue who couples his political fanaticism with a neo-Christian blood cult."
Posted by: jHc at October 28, 2004 08:10 AM (jqodR)
9
Lesson to be learned from the World Series:
If you are highly motivated and optimistic, nothing can stop you from accomplishing your goals, even when you are down 3 games to the Yankees.
Perhaps John Francois Kerry would like to keep that in mind as he continually roots for defeat in Iraq.
PS - Rooting for the death of a degenerate subhuman terrorist who is responsible for the deaths of American citizens is normal. Only the Eurotrash and terrorists want him to pull through! BTW - doesn't he want to collect on his 72 virgins anyway?
Posted by: Tanker Schreiber at October 28, 2004 09:47 AM (CKdOm)
10
Sarah: thank you for the letter. thank you for your husband. thank you for putting up with idiots like dc.
saturday my boys and i are going to build a giant W for the front yard.
Happy Reunion!
Posted by: chris at October 28, 2004 03:23 PM (zH1Gw)
11
While killing in self-defence may be a sad reality of life, I'm truly disgusted by people who lack the emotional depth to approach the situation with humility.
After all, aren't you glad the insurgents didn't "Bring it on!" to your husband as they've done other 800 some-odd troops since your cock-sure swaggering President goaded them to?
Show some respect for life... that's what separates you from those who don't; be it terrorists, Bush, or even Kerry.
Now flame me as I know you will.
Posted by: Anti Hubris at October 29, 2004 02:56 PM (hHdwk)
12
 Using the name of Christ yet being the enemy of Christ, the Antichrist is a threat to every civilization and every person. Could George Bush be the Antichrist?
By Mike Moore
Having been raised as a Christian, I was taught early that the Antichrist was someone who would come in the name of Christ but be the enemy of Christ. Using that definition, let us examine the proposition that George W. Bush could be the Antichrist. If Jesus Christ was in Bush’s place and he was the president of the United States, would he have taken any of the actions that Bush has taken, including the war in Iraq? In other words, is Bush following the teachings of Christ? “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 7:20).
Christ taught us to love one another, especially our enemies (Matthew 5:43-46). Christ said that even the pagans love those who are like themselves, but the true mark of love is to love those that are different from you. Christ taught us to turn the other cheek and to “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Did Bush turn the other cheek when he falsely proclaimed Iraq as a threat? Do you think Bush loves his enemies? Do you think he even loves his friends, since he openly attacks those friends that disagree? Do you think Bush loves Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein? If he is a follower of Christ, then he must love them. Have you ever seen love in Bush’s eyes? Have you ever heard Bush talk about loving one’s neighbor? Does he treat the inmates at Guantanamo or the prisoners of Iraq like he would want to be treated? Do you think Christ would say, “You are either for us or against us?” Have Bush’s actions caused there to be more or less love in the world?
The war on Iraq was apparently undertaken because God whispered in BushÂ’s ear that war was the only way to solve the problem. I hate to tell Bush this, but God doesnÂ’t whisper those kinds of things in peopleÂ’s ears. That is the job of the devil! Jesus would never condone a war, as his whole message was to use love, not violence, to solve our problems. War is always a failure of civilization. Bush has set back the civilization of planet Earth. Anyone who wages war in the name of Christ is committing the ultimate Christian sin.
Bush makes a big show of being against abortion in order to advance his political career. His public claim is that abortion is immoral. Yet his actions have resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, most of whom were innocent of any “crime.” And apparently, Bush himself was once involved in an abortion by a former girlfriend. By his actions, Bush has now caused the release of thousands of tons of depleted uranium in Iraq, which will cause birth defects for generations to come. Isn’t that just as immoral as an abortion? And if we judge by the shear number of atrocities, isn’t Bush the most hypocritical champion of human rights?
The Bible says not to lie, and Christ reinforced that message since lying destroys the very fabric of our civilization. As I see it, Bush has told more lies than anyone in the history of our presidency. How can that be Christian? Bush said that he would unite us, yet the country and the world have never been more divided. Other lies have been told about uranium, weapons of mass destruction, the connection between Iraq and 9/11, the economy, and the environment. Is it possible for one to lie in the name of Christ?
Many questions persist. Would Christ have asked that the votes not be counted in Florida? Would Christ send Powell to lie before the UN? Would Christ make campaign ads that continually distort the position of his opponent, just to win an election? Would Christ curse and use the name of God in vain in the White House? Would Christ alienate the rest of the world by unilateral action and my-stick-is-bigger-than-your-stick international politics? Would Christ try to strip Americans of their basic human rights, such as access to an attorney and the right to be presented with formal charges regarding alleged violations of national or international law? Would Christ tell military veterans that he loves them and then cut their benefits? Would Jesus have done any of these actions? I think not.
In summary, Bush pretends to come in the name of Jesus Christ and misses no opportunity to exploit Christ for his own personal political advantage. But in every case, Bush has done the opposite of what Christ taught us to do. This is how Bush has led America and this is the example he has set for “his” people. The people who support Bush’s war in the name of Christ surely share in his sins, and Bush’s sins are magnified by the number of people he has misled in the name of Christ. In many ways, Bush, with his fundamentalist Christian attitude, is no different than the fundamentalist Muslims. All kill in the name of God, and I suspect that God would like to have His name kept out of it entirely.
Is it possible that Bush is the Antichrist? His Antichrist-like actions make one wonder.
Mike Moore is a Marine and Vietnam veteran and today lives in Los Alamos, New Mexico (or Atomic City, as we like to call it.) You can send your comments to Mike at mmoore505@comcast.net
Posted by: mike moore at October 29, 2004 10:35 PM (5omu2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 27, 2004
VIOLENCE
Terrorists hope to defeat Bush through Iraq violence
BAGHDAD — Leaders and supporters of the anti-U.S. insurgency say their attacks in recent weeks have a clear objective: The greater the violence, the greater the chances that President Bush will be defeated on Tuesday and the Americans will go home.
Great. Thanks for giving them hope, Kerry/Edwards.
Posted by: Sarah at
06:14 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.
1
It is not Kerry/Edwards that started this adventure.
It was Bush/Cheney
9/11 was done by Bin Laden. Who has not been caught.
Converting Iraq into a breeding ground for Terrorists is
based on Rumsfeld failed policies.
Where is Bin Laden ?
This president had 3 years to get him
Posted by: Sam Miller at October 27, 2004 06:46 AM (jN9Nx)
2
I don't think the point was to claim that Kedwards started it(although they both went right along with it in word and deed until after the primaries). The point is that Kedwards has been impeding progress and victory at every turn, simply for political gain. It's almost as if they don't seem to realize that the world is paying attention to this race, even as they use the world's opinion of them to bolster their case. If the left would shut up about how terrible the US is and how badly everything is bungled and get behind the president on the world stage there might be less optimism from the terrorists and their state sponsors...
Just my opinion...
Cheers,
M@
Posted by: M@ at October 27, 2004 07:11 AM (gSJFa)
3
That was the point I was trying to make too. Where do you think the insurgents got the idea that we might leave Iraq soon? Certainly not from the "bring it on" candidate, but from the "wrong war" guy.
Posted by: Sarah at October 27, 2004 09:02 AM (WxvAH)
4
If we didn't have the American media telling the terrorist they have 380 tons of the highest grade, most stable explosives known to mankind, used to make nuclear weapons, but can also be used to destroy buildings, blow up airplanes or make roadside bombs they probably would just go home and let our president bush win this war like he wanted to.
Posted by: dc at October 27, 2004 08:16 PM (fLlQ8)
5
Why do they want to defeat Bush/Cheney? The terrorists (as opposed to the native insurgents) must have some end-goal in mind. What would that be? And why would knocking B/C out of office help them?
Thanks for answering.
Posted by: jpe at October 27, 2004 08:41 PM (2Pm+H)
6
Evidently the thinking among these people is not monolithic. Note this paragraph in the story: The most pro-Bush, he said, are the foreign extremists "They prefer Bush, because he's a provocative figure, and the more they can push people to the extreme, the better for their case" It brings to mind the article on the Madrid bombings that you linked to on August 4, 2004 in which an Al Qaeda operative was quoted "We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections.Bush's idiocy and religious fanaticism are useful, for they stir the Islamic world to action."
Posted by: Dave at October 27, 2004 09:41 PM (ymDfe)
7
Boy, I ran that post all together. Hope it can be sorted out. I'm just trying to point out that there is as much disagreement among them as there is among us, and thank god they can't vote anyway.
Posted by: Dave at October 27, 2004 09:50 PM (ymDfe)
8
Boy, I ran that post all together. Hope it can be sorted out.
No, I think that what you said made eminent sense. To flesh out your post, I'd imagine that there would be quite different preferences between the native Iraqi insurgents and the foreign terrorists. The former may be better off with Bush, since he's arguably more steadfast than Kerry; the latter, whose goal is purportedly a new pan-arab caliphate, and who depend on ideological indoctrination, are arguably assisted in their goal by Bush's explicitly ideological Middle East project.
Posted by: jpe at October 27, 2004 11:29 PM (2Pm+H)
9
A defeat for Bush/Cheney will be seen in the Middle East as a defeat for the policy of "taking the fight to the terrorists" as well as a defeat for the "no difference between terrorists and those that harbor/support terrorists". I'm not saying that's an accurate analysis, but I guarantee you that's how the editorials will read in Al-Hayat and the rest of the ME press.
Kerry and the democrats could have laid out a case that the war was right but could have been handled differently- something a Lieberman would have done- but that's not the path they chose. Instead, I'm afraid, Kerry's tactics often have had the effect of telling the terrorists that "hope is on the way". I don't think that it was intentional, just what you get when you'll say anything to try to win. I couldn't be more disgusted with his campaign, but if he wins (and I pray not) I'll shut-up and soldier, sailor.
And Sam, Bin Laden's Dead. On the remote chance that he's not, I don't see how his ego could keep him from popping up in a video with a current NYT just to say "Hi" before the election... so unless he does, I'd say that settles it. (and no, I can't "prove" it, but we sure haven't seen him much lately...)
Posted by: Jack Grey at October 28, 2004 05:08 AM (Jq8H8)
10
And Sam, Bin Laden's Dead.
Guess you know better than the US government then.
Posted by: Sadly, No! at October 28, 2004 07:56 AM (Q0kxM)
11
possible answers for jpe
I had to double check this to make sure it wasn't a story from The Onion, but it's not. A terrorist group, claiming links with al Qaida, called Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades stated that it supported President Bush in his reelection campaign and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry. They state that it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom." In comments addressed to Bush, the group said: "Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization. Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."
**********************************
Clearly, they want to endorse Bush so that he will win...
Or they want to fool us by pretending to endorse Bush so that Kerry will win!
Or they know that we will assume that they are falsely endorsing Bush so that Kerry will win and thus we will vote for Bush, as they want!
Or they assume that we will come to the above conclusion, thus voting for Kerry, JUST AS THEY WANT!
I say let's boycott the election, conpletely destroying al Qaeda's plans!
Unless they think we will come to that conclusion and they want us to not vote, in which case we should...
**********************
In this sense, some of Bush's rhetoric has been interpreted both by some of Bush's more rabid supporters and islamic extremists as being in favor of destruction of "Islamofascists" and the occupation and westernizing of Muslim civilization. As a consequence, I can see how some Muslim extremist groups might see Bush as an attractive vessel to "bring it on" when it comes to this fantasical apocalyptic clash between Islam and the West.
Posted by: jHc at October 28, 2004 07:52 PM (Cg5fz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
EMPATHY
Slate is overwhelmingly supporting Kerry, but one writer conducted
an experiment in empathy: he donned both Kerry/Edwards and Bush/Cheney gear and headed to where he'd find the most dissent. The result? Gee, what do you think?
Posted by: Sarah at
06:01 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.
1
What happened when abc producers went to the rallies wearing the opposing teams' t-shirts.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2004/story?id=214695&page=1
:p
Posted by: Sen at November 01, 2004 09:47 PM (UGEqL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 26, 2004
WHEW
Dear Blue 6,
You and I can both rest easy now: they finally got your absentee ballot today. Thank goodness I don't have to lie to you, which I was planning on doing if they didn't receive it! It's there and you're taken care of.
See you soon,
Sarah
Posted by: Sarah at
05:07 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.
NERVOUS
I'm a bundle of nerves these days. My husband might be coming home before the week is over. The Cardinals are sucking. And I'm absolutely freaking out over the presidential election. I realized that my stomach has been a jittery mess all day and I have these strange bumps on my arms and neck. What do hives look like?
Posted by: Sarah at
03:03 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Take a deep breath and another one. Now that should help you calm down a bit. Hives look like splotches of red on your skin, they will be slightly raised and itchy. Call the clinic and ask if a benadril will help.
If your husband is coming home put on a big smile, a spritz of his favorite perfume and nothing else and wait for him by the door :-)
If you are a Cardinals fan you have my sympathy (I'm an Alabama fan by birth and a Packers and Brewers fan by marriage so I feel your pain).
As for the election, if you've done all you can do, the only thing left is to wait for the final results and either celebrate or commiserate with the rest of us.
May the Lord grant you peace and comfort in your day even as you read this. Amen.
Posted by: Pamela at October 26, 2004 05:06 PM (AOFgp)
2
Well, they're about the size of a watermelon, have a honeycombed internal structure, and if you watch them long enough you'll see bees fly in and out.
(tee hee)
Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at October 26, 2004 07:42 PM (MzH7h)
3
Sarah - DON'T WATCH THE NEWS UNTIL NEXT WEDNESDAY. Get ready for your husband to come home and treat yourself to a nice relaxing bath with a glass of wine and some candles. The news is too stressful. The cheaters and liars are in full swing. Take care and THANK YOU for writing your blog and THANK YOU for your sacrifice and your husband's service to our country. We appreciate it.
Posted by: Kathleen A at October 26, 2004 09:23 PM (vnAYT)
4
They look like strange bumps on your arms and neck. Say hello to him for me, and tell him thank you.
Posted by: Jim - PRS at October 26, 2004 11:20 PM (BjDAE)
5
I'd bet money on you having anxiety/stress-related hives. I developed them in the same places at the age of 13 during a time of major turmoil in my life. They were accompanied by teeth-grinding in my sleep that literally shredded my tongue. One session of hypnosis, and both hives and grinding disappeared.
I'm not necessarily advising hypnosis (frankly, it freaked me out and I'd never do it again!). Instead, do things to reduce your anxiety and stress. Get daily exercise (even if it's just walking) and consciously treat yourself to activities you enjoy (everything from renting a favorite movie to shopping or some kind of creative hobby--including thinking about some low-key, but special, activities for you and your hubby's prospective time together--besides THAT one!). And the truth is, a small square of dark chocolate once or twice a day can have a wonderful effect on both mind and body!
If you can stand it, turning off the TV is a VERY good idea.
Hang in there.
Posted by: Beth at October 27, 2004 09:36 PM (gHihk)
6
Forgot to add this to above...
As you probably know very well, "Those also serve, who stand and wait." (or something like that!)
Thanks so much for YOUR service.
Posted by: Beth at October 27, 2004 09:50 PM (gHihk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
GIVE WAR A CHANCE
This paragraph was the first thing to catch my eye:
Many writers, to be sure, have offered apologies for war. Under the title "Give war a chance", Edward Luttwak wrote in the Summer 1999 edition of Foreign Affairs, "Since the establishment of the United Nations, great powers have rarely let small wars burn themselves out. Bosnia and Kosovo are the latest examples of this meddling. Conflicts are interrupted by a steady stream of ceasefires and armistices that only postpone war-induced exhaustion and let belligerents rearm and regroup. Even worse are UN refugee-relief operations and NGOs [non-governmental organizations], which keep resentful populations festering in camps and sometimes supply both sides in armed conflicts. This well-intentioned interference only intensifies and prolongs struggles in the long run. The unpleasant truth is that war does have one useful function: it brings peace. Let it."
I won't even pretend to be a good history student -- it's always been my weakest subject -- but the article by Spengler that springboards from this quote is very interesting. (via The Corner)
Posted by: Sarah at
02:54 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.
1
As a former history major, i agree with the premise totally. Total victory is the only thing that leads to lasting peace, which is the lesson of the two world wars.
Posted by: annika at October 26, 2004 07:10 PM (zAOEU)
2
Good point; however how does one wage an all out "war" on a "tactic" that is thousands of years old?? Yes the tactic of terror is thousands of years old, has never truly been defeated, and in all reality can only be "contained" at best.
I remind all of you the the Ceaser's practiced terror, not to mention Ghengis Kahn, Attila, Timor and countless others. So I ask again how does one "defeat" a tactic.??
Posted by: BUbba Bo Bob Brain at October 26, 2004 10:34 PM (n7PkD)
3
So I ask again how does one "defeat" a tactic.??
You go after the countries that support or offer sanctuary to terrorists and make their lives very uncomfortable.
Posted by: Jack at October 29, 2004 03:04 PM (rAR0n)
4
"You go after the countries that support or offer sanctuary to terrorists and make their lives very uncomfortable."
Only problem with that is we do not have the resources to go against every terror sponsoring nation all at once. You try to do it one nation at a time, and as soon as we leave a nation, a new batch of terrorists will arise. As I stated before the best we can hope for is "containment", at least until we are honest enough to address the "draining of the swamp of world poverty and injustice, that breeds the mosquitos that are terrorists"
Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at October 30, 2004 12:42 AM (n7PkD)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
PIPA
I knew there was something rotten in Denmark about that
"separate realities" PIPA poll. I really liked the title, and I certainly agree that hardcore Bush and Kerry supporters live in separate realities. But once I started reading the report, I realized that the different realities broke down into Bush = deluded Kerry = right. Sigh. Whenever the report pointed out how dumb Bush supporters are for believing something, I found myself thinking that, depending on how it was worded, I would've answered the same thing. And that's the crux of the report:
depending on how it's worded. Joe Carter leads a
discussion of adjectives and Xlrq addresses the
misleading questions in the poll. I firmly believe we live in separate realities, but this report did absolutely nothing to illuminate these differences.
Posted by: Sarah at
02:30 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I think i can shed some light on the two realities. There are those of us that "know" our government lies to us, and that it is a matter of time before we catch those lies. Then there are those that want to believe the government, and are hurt and shocked when they find out the government lied to them.
Much of this is predicated on ones age I suppose, if you lived through the "Gulf of Tonkin" and Watergate series of lies you have no faith that anyone in government will tell the truth. If you were born post 1973, you are likely a "believer"
Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at October 26, 2004 10:21 PM (n7PkD)
2
But I know plenty of people my age or younger who are convinced that the government is lying. Is that really an age distinction or just an ideology one?
Posted by: Sarah at October 27, 2004 02:29 AM (grW7N)
3
Well if your under thirty, it is probably ideology. For me it is an accumulation of things I have witnessed, things like the Gulf of Tonkin, Watergate, and the lies the Air Force tell a widow when her husband is killed as a result of a helocopter accident. I might be a cynic, but I am comfortable knowing I am writing in for president: "Mays Gilliam" a fictional character for a ficticious time. I wonder how long you will be able to hold out and not become a cynic.
Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at October 28, 2004 09:03 PM (n7PkD)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 25, 2004
HYPOTHESIS TESTING
You know those moments when you're so sure that you know what the problem is that you spend hours chasing the wrong hypothesis? That's what was going on with my computer. My computer was blocking me out of only certain websites: Amazon, Hotmail, Blogspot, AKO, and Yahoo. My computer-knowing friend and I spent hours searching for viruses and trying to get the computer to recognize the certificate. When we had tested everything we could think of, my friend came up with one last-ditch plan: unhook the router. Bingo. All this time, the problem was the router and not the computer. It was a forehead-slapping moment; we started with a hypothesis that was too narrow. We assumed that it was a certificate problem, but we had assumed wrong. It was shades of
motorcycle maintenance.
It was progress, to figure out that the problem was the router and not the computer, but it was progress that came with the price of nearly five hours of faulty assumptions. But at least now we can start focusing on the right source of the problem. My computer tech knowledge has grown exponentially, which means I'm only half-a-moron now, and I've decided that having a computer is about as much work as having a pet.
But at least now I can check my email and read blogspot blogs again!
Posted by: Sarah at
12:08 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Sometimes thats the best way to learn about computers and routers.
Posted by: Tanker Schreiber at October 25, 2004 06:14 PM (T31qk)
2
That's why I'm always a little annoyed at people who invoke Occam's razor. A lot of times it's wrong. A good friend of mine died because of Occam's razor.
Posted by: David Boxenhorn at October 26, 2004 10:48 AM (+Ix2P)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 23, 2004
MIXING
Apparently there's some talk about whether to permanently assign
support units including women to combat units. I am not a big fan of this idea. It has nothing to do with an aversion to women in combat; since I don't think that a woman's life is any more valuable than a man's life, I have no problem with women dying in war. However, I do have a nagging feeling about the effect that women have had on the military.
After reading The Kinder, Gentler Military: How Political Correctness Affects Our Ability to Win Wars, I gave up any notion that I should be a 19K. (I still would like to, but I don't think I should be allowed to.) I still argue with myself about what I think the role of women in our military should be, and my mind isn't completely made up. But there's a big problem coming out of OIF that doesn't have a solution: lust.
I almost typed love, but that's probably not right. I think what happens downrange is closer to what happens on The Real World or The Bachelor, where two people who are put in close quarters and extraordinary situations become convinced that they're in love. And when men and women are serving together, away from their families, for over a year, they bond in ways that alarm those of us back on the homefront. I have a few friends who work in our legal center, and they deal on a daily basis with divorces that stem from deployment. Sometimes the soldiers meet someone new downrange -- sometimes even getting her pregnant -- and they come back and kick their wives out. Sometimes soldiers get caught having sex when they're supposed to be on guard duty, which is dangerous to everyone they're supposed to be guarding.
There are only two or three females on my husband's entire camp in Iraq, and I prefer it that way. I don't think my husband would be interested in straying -- heck, I had to drag his disgusted-with-girls butt into the relationship in the first place -- but there are many men who might be tempted. And believe me, I'm not blind to the fact that it's a two-way street: the wives who are left behind are surrounded by temptation every day, and many of them ain't that virtuous.
The mixing of the sexes is hard for today's military, especially for hooah males in a PC culture. But sending men and women downrange together for a year has consequences, especially when soldiers only call their families once a month. I personally don't think we need more fuel on that fire.
Posted by: Sarah at
07:05 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 445 words, total size 3 kb.
1
As far as I understand,the Israelies train,or used to train,women in their military but don't post them to positions where they would be in combat.I may be mistaken but the reasons weren't for that people might get up to what Nature equipped them to do ,but for reasons more to do with the fear of women getting hurt and killed in combat.........A problem(just ONE of many) with our Canadian military was the politically correct decision to recruit only to certain profiles. This means,so many percentages of people of colour(p.c. term,not mine) women,Aboriginals,but I'm not sure about gays.Nothing bad about trying to recruit people of different backrounds and sexes,but these were percentages that had to be met.No ifs or buts,these percentages had to be met. They weren't and now the Forces are behind the eight-ball with recruits. Besides the fact that a lot of younger people would rather not join the Forces and this is one of the several reasons that we don't even have our manpower up to the level they are funded for.
Posted by: big al at October 24, 2004 12:45 AM (rOeYn)
2
I believe women should train for combat. What if all the men in battle need us, or they're getting their collective asses kicked, god forbid. I don't want to be weeping and wailing at the mess tent, I want to be getting ready to go into battle.
In WWI the Russians had an all female battalion. They brought their small children with them. I think this is the best way to work it - minus the children, of course! Train females as their own battalion that could replace one of the male ones. I do not think combat battalions should be integrated. First, you have the sex issue, which leads to the love issue, which leads to the men putting themselves at GREATER risk to protect the women among them.
As I've often said, men are a different species. And the ones we're fighting are a particularly nasty, unpleasant strain. I think women would have less trouble killing them than men, due to the way they would treat us and our sisters and daughters if they won. Remember the Amazons!
One more problem with women in combat. Our bodies, unfortunately degrade under field conditions while men grow stronger. We would have to have an unbreakable supply chain as well as showers to keep from developing infections, etc. In that way, biology is against us.
Posted by: Oda Mae at October 24, 2004 04:54 AM (Rm+i2)
3
I am in complete agreement with you. Someone once told me that in a "life and death struggle" the urge to procreate becomes even stronger. If you think your existence might come to an end soon, the desire to leave an offspring behind to carry on the bloodline becomes overwhelming.
At first, I didn't think much of it other than it excuses lust. But I'm convinced that it is true which means the final answer is that there is a lot of lust going on downrange.
I have seen marriages fall apart; relationships back home fail while new relationships here form. Like you, I don't think they have anything binding them other than "the moment" and the vast majority of the time these relationships fail when everyone gets back home.
In my case, I'm too old for this crap and (as my wife reminds me often) can't afford a girlfriend with all my hobbies. :-)
Posted by: R1 at October 24, 2004 06:24 AM (PXESm)
4
Oda Mae,
you need to brush up on your WW2 history before launching into discussions of women in the military. Soviets (not Russians, by the way, in case if you didn't know - there is a difference) had an integrated army where women served in combat with men. Women received the highest military honors too. There were sniper women, there were female machine gunners, etc, etc. Oh, and women were widely represented in the insurgency. Oh, there was no "showers" or anything like that. And that didn't stop women from being able to fight.
Posted by: Sen at October 24, 2004 11:26 PM (7SZHE)
5
Our bodies, unfortunately degrade under field conditions while men grow stronger. We would have to have an unbreakable supply chain as well as showers to keep from developing infections, etc. In that way, biology is against us.
And they say guys are the sexist pigs.
On a serious note, Sarah, I'm interested in your take on the missing explosives from Al Qaqaa. I find it difficult to see how such a widely-known site was unguarded, and how Jerry Bremer kept the knowledge that the weapons were missing from the administration - apparently, it is unclear whether the president was informed. I bring this up because this explosive is likely the source of the IEDs in Iraq, and if so then this screw-up is a direct cause of the casualties we are taking.
Posted by: Coriolanus at October 25, 2004 12:52 PM (5d0TU)
6
Coriolanus, I think Sarah has already answered your question: Clinton took them and gave them to Kerry and his friends. Bush is trying to save her husbands ass from these evildoers. Dead soldiers are the result of people hating freedom. Dead babys are just future terrorists, so they need to die sooner or later anyway. And just because Bush doesn't know something doesn't make him bad. He doesn't know a lot of things and people are still dying. So what's your point?
Posted by: dc at October 25, 2004 03:41 PM (fLlQ8)
7
dc, you were asked once to leave my website. Please don't return.
Posted by: Sarah at October 25, 2004 04:13 PM (2KPfM)
Posted by: Coriolanus at October 25, 2004 07:03 PM (5d0TU)
9
The stuff from Al Qaqa isn't likey being used for IEDs. It's possible but not in great numbers. I think the stuff from Al Qaqa was RMX or HMX-I can't remember which but it's highly explosive real hight tech stuff. Most IEDs are old 155mm artillery rounds or mortar rounds wired up with make shift detonators. I've heard of that real high tech stuff like that being used in Baghdad but in most of Iraq IEDs are a poor man's weapon.
Posted by: Blue 6 at October 26, 2004 01:23 AM (TPtS1)
10
Sen, please note the following:
Russia - During World War I, some Russian women took part in combat even during the Czarist period. These women, motivated by a combination of patriotism and a desire to escape a drab existence, mostly joined up dressed as men. A few, however, served openly as women. “The [Czarist] government had no consistent policy on female combatants.”
http://www.warandgender.com/wgwomwwi.htm
RUSSIAN, not Soviet. WWI, not WWII. I am a WWI buff and pretty up on the history from that era. At the time of the "Battalion of Death" as the females were called, they were RUSSIANS. Perhaps I should have put "the Great War" for people with lower reading levels.
Corialanus - First of all, I would be a sexist sow. If I were sexist, that is. Secondly, as a female serving in the Army between 1992 and 1998, I was often in the field with other soldiers. The females had to be sent in every three days for a shower. This was by regulation. The reason they were sent in every three days was to avoid yeast infections, UTIs and other ob/gyn infections. Just because it's sexist, doesn't mean it isn't true! This might have changed since 1998, but I don't think so.
Does this mean women can't serve in the trenches? No, of course not. But you will have to send a lot of soldiers to the rear for medical treatment at some point if there are not showers, tampons, etc., for hygiene needs. Baby Wipes only go so far!! Could we still do it? Yes. Would women cause more of a drain on manpower and medical needs in that situation than the men? Yes.
As stated, I think women would be fine mentally in combat. But the surrounding issues need to be dealt with first. For instance, should female combat soldiers volunteer for long term birth control in case they're taken prisoner by opposing forces, or just to make sure they can remain pregnancy-free throughout the deployment?
Posted by: Oda Mae at October 26, 2004 08:59 AM (FmIVz)
11
http://www.hood-meddac.army.mil/default.asp?page=chn_fsrg1&vi=n&mnu=0
This is the latest on "Field Considerations for Female Soldiers." As you can see, the female of the species needs to pack a bit more than the male soldier!
Posted by: Oda Mae at October 26, 2004 09:07 AM (FmIVz)
12
Oda Mae, my bad, it _was_ ww1 in your post which I read as ww2.
My original point still stands - women served widely in combat in all positions without showers, tampons, etc.
Posted by: Sen at October 27, 2004 10:27 PM (UGEqL)
13
I'm usually in agreement with you, but this entry is not one of those times.
So, because *some* men (and women) can't keep their pants on, no women should serve on the front lines lol? You have to be kidding me. There are good arguments out there that do support keeping women off the front lines, but this is by far the bottom of the barrel here.
First off, marriages must have trust and respect. War zone or back home, the man or woman who does not put their all into their marriage will stray eventually if he or she chooses to do so. That's an individual's problem, not a military or integration problem.
Secondly, in today's wars, there are no clear "in the rear with the gear" areas as there were in my father's time in Vietnam - and even then at times that line was blurred. Today, women ARE on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan regardless of whether or not America (or insecure Army wives) are ready for it. Every person who enters the Army learns to be a soldier first (you know, fire their weapon, toss a grenade) and do their MOS second.
My husband was a 1SG in Iraq and led both male and female soldiers. Women in his company were on the front lines out in Ramadi - even when they were on their FOB. Their FOB was mortared daily and at least one occasion, killed several people and injured close to twenty. Women also went out on missions right along the sides of their male Marine and Army counterparts. I'd suggest doing a search for 1st Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team's Team Lioness to learn more about the exceptional job these women performed. A job that saved countless lives (possibly my husband's included) by keeping tensions from rising by having female soldiers handle Iraqi women and children instead of male soldiers.
These women did jobs many men wouldn't want to do and did so with dignity, integrity and gallantry. To discredit their service by implying they shouldn't be there because of "lust" - lust of someone else, not even their own, is appalling in the age in which we live.
There are heroes among us and many are women. The insecurities of Army wives who may "worry" if their husbands have to serve with women aside - women are there, they are already on the front lines and they are making America proud.
Posted by: Army wife at October 30, 2004 04:43 PM (/1PdN)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
LIES
Here's another story about my brother. Back in the day, he had a little 8th grade girlfriend who was new to town. She said her father was a doctor and that they were building a new home, and she and my brother would ride their bikes by the construction site. She said she was a catalog model and had made lots of money doing photo shoots. And none of it was true. She lived in a small house with just her mom and had never been a model. My brother was pretty freaked out when the truth came out.
I've never forgotten this girl; I think of her often when I wonder about people who lie. I wonder what made her say these things. We all tell white lies to avoid hurting people's feelings, and we may exaggerate the truth a bit to make a story more fantastic, but repeated fabrication and lies and shifting the blame is cause for concern. Did this little girlfriend get so wrapped up in the fantasy world that she didn't know she was a liar, or was she just trying so hard to get people to like her that she'd say whatever she thought they'd like to hear? Either way is frightening.
John Kerry, as far as anyone can tell, hasn't fired a shotgun at a bird in many years, if ever. While it is possible that he might nevertheless luck out and hit a goose, the odds are heavily against it. Yet there is something about Kerry that requires him to distort reality to fit his own conception of himself: he ran in the Boston marathon; he never falls down while snowboarding unless a Secret Service agent knocks him over; he can't stand to walk across a patch of tarmac without pulling out a football; when he threw out the first pitch at Fenway Park and it landed half-way to home plate, it was the fault of the National Guardsman who was supposed to catch it, because the Guardsman was nervous; he had the biggest buck in the history of Massachusetts in his sights but didn't pull the trigger. And now, he shot a goose. Only, where is it?
This would be an alarming personality trait even if Kerry's fantasies were limited to sporting triumphs. But the Walter Mitty candidate doesn't stop there. When a candidate for President makes up non-existent secret missions to Cambodia, testifies before Congress of "war crimes" of which, it turns out, he has no knowledge, and fantasizes support from foreign powers which will magically change their perceptions of their own self-interest if only John F. Kerry were President, Walter Mitty is no longer funny.
Posted by: Sarah at
04:24 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 448 words, total size 3 kb.
1
I think a psychologist would diagnose those symptoms as indicators of an inferiority complex or insecurity.
Posted by: Mike at October 24, 2004 04:47 PM (ckYKs)
2
I think I'm understanding how it works now.
If Bush says something wild or astonishing, it's safe to assume it's true unless 100% proven otherwise.
But if John Kerry says something even private or trivial that can't be 100% proven, it's presumed a lie.
It's not that you guys make things up; it's that you don't register as 'evidence' anything that you don't agree with.
Say, ban and delete me, wouldja? Thanks.
Posted by: auto_movil at October 25, 2004 06:06 PM (2sTXp)
3
The hunting snafu is bizarre. Powerline claims that they've never known Kerry to hunt? It'd qualify the writers as stalkers if they did. The real battle is over the mythology of hunting geese, and not hunting geese. It's not whether he's a hunter it's whether he's a "man", in the red state sense of the term.
This battle over mythology is, of course, one of the key battles in any given elections, since the citizenry is largely too stupid or too lazy to be bothered with policy, so I suppose I don't begrudge bloggers the mythology in their memes, but still: Kerry is patrician, and patricians hunt. I'd bet dollars to donuts that he's done more than his fair share of hunting. Certainly more than me when I was growing up in rural OH.
Posted by: jpe at October 25, 2004 08:55 PM (w4ohZ)
4
I read the Kerry article in Field and Stream. A 16 point buck got away....
Any real hunter knows that's crap. If you can't hit a buck that has 16 points, you can't hit the broad side of a barn.
It's just another example of how Kerry couldn't tell the truth if his life depended on it. Unfortunately, if he wins, our lives possibly will and THAT is the scary part folks...
Posted by: Army wife at October 30, 2004 04:50 PM (/1PdN)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
FRAUD
A
terrorist is registered to vote. A
terrorist is
registered to
vote!
You know who's not registered to vote? My brother. He registered in his college town back when he was in school, and he procrastinated and didn't leave himself enough time to re-register in his new city. He figured he'd just have to drive back to his college town on 2 Nov, but when he called the board of elections, they told him they'd removed him from the list. Apparently they sent him something in the mail that he didn't reply to, so they crossed him off. So now he can't vote.
Michelle Malkin reports that many states have trouble removing the names of people who have died or moved away, and that that voter list can often dwarf the population count. Illinois was sure quick to remove my brother though.
So a terrorist will be voting, but my brother will not.
Why oh freaking why don't we have to provide identification when we register to vote? At many places you have to show an ID to check into a hotel or rent a movie. (Hell, I have to show ID to Soldiers with M16s when I want to buy groceries; ID is just a way of life for us.) In the US, a driver's license is proof that you're who you say you are, and at least in Illinois, if you don't drive, the DMV will make you a valid ID card instead. No one is disenfranchised. No one is discriminated against if they don't drive. And no freaking illegal alien terrorists will end up on the lists!
Every poll known to man shows Bush ahead right now, but I ain't sleepin' easy when Mary Poppins and Nuradin Abdi are registered to vote.
Posted by: Sarah at
04:13 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I really, really, don't understand why it's such a big deal to make someone show an ID to vote. Okay, you're right that military life sort of makes you used to always having and showing an ID- and it's no big deal for us. (My friends cringe when I tell them I was required to give up a DNA sample, but that's another issue... though no big deal to me)
What gets me is that one of my best friends, a true lifelong democrat, also is in favor of showing ID to vote- And he buys into the whole democratic party line on the 2000 Florida vote.
Seems like a no-brainer to me, but I must be missing something.
Posted by: Jack Grey at October 23, 2004 07:03 AM (3nn57)
2
"Seems like a no-brainer to me, but I must be missing something."
What you're missing is, if an ID is required to vote, Mary Poppins and the Poppin Fresh Doughboy
couldn't cast their vote for the democrate of their choice. It's kinda in the same line as "vote early and vote often".
Posted by: Pamela at October 26, 2004 05:54 PM (AOFgp)
3
I have two problems with the ID-required-to-vote idea, one solveable, one not.
The not-so-solveable problem is this: currently there is no legal requirement that people have identification. Requiring ID to vote would in effect constitute such a requirement; and there's something in me that rebels against the idea that in a free society, we should have to have a card that allegedly proves that we are who we claim to be.
The more-easily solved problem is this: since people have to pay for their ID/DL, requiring people to have one in order to vote is de facto a poll tax, in violation of the 24th amendment. (This can be resolved by providing a free ID that can be used for voting purposes).
Posted by: aphrael at November 01, 2004 07:13 PM (qUuc4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 22, 2004
SCARY
Woah.
Posted by: Sarah at
04:54 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 3 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I love that site. I stumbled on it back in June and feel like these guys are my kids.
I'm so sorry he had to go through that but so grateful he had that training. He did fantastic, but how do you say that? How do you tell him that losing a part of himself is good?
I usually don't struggle with words of encouragement. But this time I'm speechless. If we were sitting in the same place and he told that story I'd give him a hug and buy him a shot. And then feel like I failed him.
What on God's Green Earth do you say to someeone that went through that?
Posted by: Tammi at October 23, 2004 09:50 AM (UOdfZ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
TIP
Dear Bunker,
You should check out
this article that Hud links to. I mean, everyone else should too, but for some reason I kept wondering what Bunker would make of it. Interesting stuff.
Your pal,
Sarah
Posted by: Sarah at
03:55 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I did see that. James is on my daily list. In fact, VDare used to be, but I got too wrapped up in links every time I read one of the articles there!
I remember well the Pilot portion of that test. If you've never flown, it will get you all twisted up. They give you diagrams of attitude indicators in various postions and you must decide what the aircraft's position is. Simple for me because I'd flown. Not so simple for many who hadn't.
I especially like the last conclusion about never being out-dumbed again!
Posted by: Mike at October 22, 2004 04:17 PM (ckYKs)
2
I won't tell you what my IQ is, but I'll tell you I did better on the tests than either of them!
Posted by: Mike at October 22, 2004 04:20 PM (ckYKs)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
130kb generated in CPU 0.0354, elapsed 0.1194 seconds.
66 queries taking 0.0934 seconds, 324 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.