I've only donated blood once. I was in college and it was quite an ordeal. First, they said I was borderline anemic, so they had to run some tests to see if they even wanted my blood. Turns out it was OK, so they hooked me up to the bag and started draining my arm. I guess they need the bag and also three little vials of blood; on the third vial, somehow the needle popped out of my arm and blood squirted everywhere. After that unique experience, I was leery about giving blood, and then I started hopping back and forth to Europe every year or so, so it was never an issue. So I don't really donate blood.

But I can donate hair.

When I had been dating my husband for a week, I cut my hair short. Like short short. After the look on his face, I didn't cut my hair again for five years. At first it became a Lord of the Rings joke: I was going to look like an elf. After Return of the King was over, I turned to him and said, "Now what?" I guess I had grown so attached to the hair that it scared me to cut it.

I had always intended to donate my hair, but then it became a quest to donate as much as I could. It grew and grew, and the more it grew, the more annoyed my husband and I grew towards it. It was always in our mouths, getting pulled, clogging the drains and the vacuum, and driving us nuts. In May I decided I was ready for a cut, but I told myself to wait a month and see if I was still ready. A month passed and I got cold feet, so I let another month go by. And I knew I was ready.

We chopped 18 inches off, and bagged it to send to Locks of Love. I hope some little girl gets a beautiful wig from it.

Everyone keeps asking me if I'm going to start all over again. I don't know; I'm really enjoying the short hair:

1. no more marathon blowdrying
2. no more sitting on the hair
3. no more rolling over in bed and suffocating
4. Charlie was biting and tugging on it when it was long
5. less money spent on Draino

But since my hair grows so fast, maybe I'll get to another wig. We'll see. The husband likes it short, so for now I'm happy.

And now that I've kept you in suspense for long enough...here's the new and improved Sarah. And the getting-too-big-to-cuddle Charlie.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:28 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 444 words, total size 3 kb.

Smink has a post on his views on women in the military (He's fer it). No one in the comments section brought up the touchy and delicate issue I would like to address. Any candid discussion of women in the military must focus on some key problems.

What about the barracks rooms designated for anonymous sex where females can try to get knocked up so they don't have to deploy? What about the females in Iraq who are running prostitution rings, charging money for sex with the male soldiers? What about the females who are making pornography and posting it on the internet? What about the females who have boasted that their goal is to sleep with every officer on the FOB? What about the females who lure married men to their beds and then threaten to expose their adultery? What about the frightening power a junior enlisted soldier has when she's sleeping with the first sergeant?

All of these scenarios I describe have happened in our brigade. I know of families that have been destroyed because of both real and imagined infidelities during a deployment. I've heard stories about ruthless female soldiers that make me ashamed of my gender. If we are going to discuss the effects of women in combat, we do need to discuss all that Smink brought up: performance, sexual harrassment, etc. But we also need to address the nasty effects of taking thousands of males away from their families and bunking them with a handful of women for a year. Yeah, I bet a lot of times it's the males' fault, but I've heard enough stories to make me wonder if the females haven't brought some of it on themselves.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:31 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.

The husband and I watched Vice Chief of Staff Cody's briefing on the Pentagon channel two days ago, and I looked for an article on it yesterday to no avail. But it's out today: Army identifies locations for units in new, brigade-centric force structure. If anyone's interested in base realignment, this graphic is informative. The presence in Germany will be significantly reduced. What an exciting time for the military!

Posted by: Sarah at 07:47 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

I sat down to write about how North American Muslims are issuing a fatwa against terrorism. It's about time, I say. The article states

Imam Yahya Hendi, the Muslim chaplain at Georgetown University in Washington and a member of the Fiqh council, said: "We hear from our fellow Americans very often that Muslims have not spoken aggressively about terrorism, that Muslims have not made their voices very clear. I disagree. Muslims have made their voices very clear from day one. So maybe we needed to do more. The more you do, the more you realize you need to do."

Anyone who's ever read LGF knows that these Muslim voices have never been clear. Hmm, what does LGF have to say about this anyway? Oh: The American Islamic Leaders' "Fatwa" is Bogus. Great.

In fact, the fatwa is bogus. Nowhere does it condemn the Islamic extremism ideology that has spawned Islamic terrorism. It does not renounce nor even acknowledge the existence of an Islamic jihadist culture that has permeated mosques and young Muslims around the world. It does not renounce Jihad let alone admit that it has been used to justify Islamic terrorist acts. It does not condemn by name any Islamic group or leader. In short, it is a fake fatwa designed merely to deceive the American public into believing that these groups are moderate. In fact, officials of both organizations have been directly linked to and associated with Islamic terrorist groups and Islamic extremist organizations. One of them is an unindicted co-conspirator in a current terrorist case; another previous member was a financier to Al-Qaeda.

Where are the moderate Muslim groups? I keep hearing how Muslims are afraid of being branded as extremists, how not all Muslims are terrorists, how Muslims fear for their lives because of the actions of a few...but where are the moderate Muslim voices to stand up and say enough is enough? Kalroy found some of these voices, but like him I too am waiting for the Million Muslim March. We need more of this and we need it to be more publicized. I'm waiting for someone to stand up and say that we won't tolerate this:

That's an x-ray of one of the bombs from London. Whoever devised this bomb -- loaded with nails to inflict maximum damage on innocent Londoners -- is a monster. Remember the other day when I talked about umbrellas? Moderate Muslims are under an ugly umbrella with terrorists, and I for one would like to see them issue a real fatwa against these atrocities.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:06 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 427 words, total size 3 kb.

We know we're getting old when the only thing we want for our birthday is not to be reminded of it.

Happy Birthday, Amritas...

Posted by: Sarah at 11:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

Gnat got fish. When I was her age, I had two fish named Bert and Ernie, and I helped out by feeding them one day. Unfortunately, I fed them an entire can of fishfood on the day my father had just cleaned the aquarium. Whoops.

I've always been interested in pet fish; the husband and I registered for an aquarium when we got married and bought three fish (well, five if you count Milhouse I and Milhouse II, may they rest in peace). Then we bought a plecostomus to help keep things clean, and we noticed that when the shopkeeper scooped him up, we ended up with a snail too. Into the tank he went. A few days later, I did a doubletake when I realized there were two snails. Upon closer inspection, I found we had been visited by the snail stork thirteen times. Note to self: snails reproduce asexually.

The fish are still living with my mom, and we may inherit them back if they live another year. I'm anxious to move back to the US so we can get our aquarium back out of the box and get some more fish. The pet department is where I really find myself homesick lately. Here we have but one shelf in the PX for pet supplies; I'd give anything to go to PetSmart these days.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:26 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 1 kb.

Look what I did today...

Posted by: Sarah at 03:00 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 7 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I hope it was on purpose and not the result of some tragic elevator door accident. Let's see the final product.

Posted by: Tony B at July 27, 2005 03:20 PM (QBrm4)

2 Did you go and turn invisible again?

Posted by: marc at July 27, 2005 03:44 PM (boChC)

3 Woah! Big change!! So when are we going to see pics of the new you??

Posted by: Barb at July 27, 2005 04:14 PM (u8Zgq)

4 I'd like to see the new pics too. How is the husband handling it?

Posted by: NYgirl at July 27, 2005 05:43 PM (JEAUq)

5 I remember when I did that, many long years ago. I don't have it but we still have our younger son's braid he cut when he was 25 and it was so pretty my husband couldn't let me get rid of it. I'm glad he didn't. Younger son is now 43! Also, where is the "after" photo?

Posted by: Ruth H at July 27, 2005 07:01 PM (iKlAZ)

6 Short hair is sexy

Posted by: Bryan Strawser at July 27, 2005 09:47 PM (GMpvi)

7 She cut her hair and donated it to "Locks of Love" which is an organization that makes wigs for cancer patients. She cut it shorter than she would have liked but knew that someone else could use her hair. Pretty proud of her!!

Posted by: ME at July 27, 2005 10:24 PM (PCnCC)

8 You got in a fight with a maniac armed with a hedge trimmer and barely escaped with your life? ;-)

Posted by: Patrick Chester at July 28, 2005 12:40 AM (74cXW)

9 You are beautiful inside and out, long hair or short. You are going to make some little girl feel beautiful. I'm proud of you! Was the finished product seventeen inches long? Love, Mama

Posted by: Nancy at July 28, 2005 04:06 AM (DljPa)

10 Oh.My.Gawd! You have to post a pic of the new YOU!! Get going missy.

Posted by: toni at July 28, 2005 09:27 AM (SHqVu)

11 I thought I remember someone making some comment about there being little kids in China who could donate hair for wigs...;-)...Can't wait to see what you look like!

Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at July 28, 2005 04:24 PM (zTqcv)

12 Sarah joins such illustrious family members as Alexis Jonak, daughter of my sister Anne, in donating hair to Locks of Love. Alexis was 6 1/2 when she had hers cut off. I was so proud of her and I told her that now she had the hair I have always wanted to have! I'm sure you look great, Sarah. I can't wait to tell Alexis what you did. Love, Kate

Posted by: Kate Ross at July 28, 2005 04:41 PM (W/4Ld)

13 Sarah - the donation of your hair to such a worthy cause is totally sweet, and incredibly generous!

Posted by: Barb at July 29, 2005 12:29 PM (g9qHI)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Mark Steyn: Mugged by reality? (via RWN)
This Will Make You Proud (via my dad)

Posted by: Sarah at 03:33 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

I agree with Lileks that this is just absurd. The flip-flops were too informal, but John Roberts' family was too formal? What on earth does that mean? Their children looked nice, for pete's sake. My brothers and I used to wear stuff like that regularly when occasion called for it, like church or family photos. I darn sure think my mom would've made us dress up when we went to be on TV at the White House! And the caption under the photo is just plain snarky: "Even the clothes are conservative". What could the children have worn to make them look less right-wing, tie-dye and peace signs? Give me, and the Roberts family, a freaking break.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:29 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

1 It is a stupid column, unworthy of a great paper like the WaPo. At the same time, though, I have to admit that I raised an eyebrow at their clothes too, especially the way they dressed their son. Formal versus informal isn't the issue; of course this occasion calls for "conservative" formal dress. The issue is what decade the clothes come from. These folks look like they stepped out of the Eisenhower era. When was the last time you saw a seersucker suit with short pants? At least it isn't a sailor suit, but still...

Posted by: Pericles at July 25, 2005 05:38 PM (hHudX)

2 I saw the photos too, and my thoughts were: "Gee didn't Jackie Kennedy and the kids wear stuff like that back in the day?"

Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at July 25, 2005 11:13 PM (aHbua)

3 How silly. The children and his wife look classy and very nice. Since when has being well turned out become a crime? I think the reporters need a course in Etiquette! Geesh.

Posted by: Holly at July 26, 2005 12:48 AM (geFXN)

4 You know what I thought when I saw the picture? Looks like a French family. I swear, that is how loads of French people dress their kids...totally cute, totally 50s. The last time I saw pants like that was on my French friend's nephews at her wedding 3 months ago. That is not a flashback to the 50s, it's an ode to France. Seriously...I bet you that those clothes came from France, or some French childrens' clothes boutique in D.C. Anyways, funny how they are just grabbing at straws here.

Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at July 26, 2005 01:46 AM (zTqcv)

5 I think the reporter, Robin Givhan, needs to get a life! If he/she can't find something of substance to write about other than what the Roberts children were wearing and how outdated they were (which obviously he/she doesn't have young children, and if he/she does, obviously they're not being invited to the White House), I think he/she might consider finding a new profession. I see children dressed like that in church every Sunday; but then, church may be a little too conservative for Robin. Good grief! Nancy

Posted by: Nancy Dunn at July 26, 2005 03:03 AM (DljPa)

6 Not to be catty... Hell, let's be catty! Robin Givhan doesn't need to get a life, she needs to get some fashion sense.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at July 26, 2005 04:56 AM (RbYVY)

7 In fairness, she is the fashion editor. It isn't like one of the political writers penned the column; talking about how people are dressed is her job. Whether a paper needs someone to do that job is another question.

Posted by: Pericles at July 26, 2005 07:35 AM (hHudX)

8 Sometimes you just have to get out the old horsewhip and go visit the editor. Didn't Robin used to be married to Mike Tyson?

Posted by: Walter E. Wallis at July 27, 2005 03:50 PM (xX0fS)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

You know what really bugs me? The media bends over backwards to recognize knighthood, but they constantly belittle our president. They make sure to always say Sir Paul McCartney, but I can't even count the times I've heard the media refer to our president as "Bush". His name is President Bush, you clods.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:40 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

I turned to Annika for commentary, for she's the one with the shoe fetish, but no word from her yet on...um...flipflopgate? Apparently some girls wore flip-flops to the White House and it's caused a ruckus for, well, people who are older than the flip flop craze of late. To be honest, until the news pointed it out, I didn't even notice their footwear. Flip-flops have come a long way from being "shower shoes", so I don't think they were that inappropriate. But the ones I saw were classier than the two dollar Walmart bin shoes, so I don't know. I own some cheapo flip-flops myself, which I would never wear with a nice outfit, but I also own some classier flip-flop-like sandals that I would probably not consider disrespectful towards the White House. Your thoughts, Annika?

Posted by: Sarah at 05:35 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Now you know full well that you would be singing a different tune if you knew for a fact that those women were Democrats. Then it would be all about their lack of respect for "Sir President Bush." Good thing that Harvard doesn't have a killer lacrosse team!

Posted by: Pericles at July 21, 2005 06:55 PM (hHudX)

2 We had a fairly conventional wedding last summer. My wife wore a very stylish pair of flip flops, cute pink with daisies on them. I see no problem with them.

Posted by: Paulie at The Commons at July 21, 2005 08:50 PM (4KwiQ)

3 i bought these just recently. i don't know if i'd wear them to the white house, but i do think they're way cute.

Posted by: annika at July 21, 2005 10:21 PM (SLBbG)

4 I was actually gonna post something similar to this. Today I had a meeting with a vedor. Here I go, slacks, button down shirt, jacket and very nice flip flops. No issue. In fact - I can count on one hand the number of times I've worn "real shoes" to work this summer. I'm in an office - in sales. No Big Deal!!

Posted by: Tammi at July 22, 2005 09:02 PM (Z7Q0/)

5 A few days back I had to differ. Still do. http://urbanelephants.com/nyc/node/87

Posted by: Sean at July 23, 2005 01:20 AM (Evr8K)

6 I'd have to agree with Sean, at least in the USA. Flip-flops are a bit too casual for a formal setting, and meeting the President, however one feels about him, is one of those times. It is, to me, a matter of respect. It is also not that newsworthy really. So while the girls should have put on shoes, the newspapers didn't have to care so much about it.

Posted by: Rachel Ann at August 02, 2005 01:38 PM (2ZRmz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

It seems Prager's article on the Left's support for the troops caused quite a stir. I thought more about the outrage that article spawned after I read this line from David Horowitz's book, Radical Son:

Hands Off Cuba! and Bring the Troops Home! were slogans designed to consolidate majorities, but also to achieve agendas that would never have been defended by most of the people who eventually supported them.

Horowitz was talking about the Vietnam era, but I was struck by the parallel to today's cries. And it made me start thinking about all of the people who are offended by the suggestion that they don't support the troops.

My father has had little contact with the military. He didn't go to Vietnam, but he had friends who went and didn't return. He recently surprised my mother with a diatribe about how we should bring our boys home. My father votes Republican, so it's not a matter of politics; I assume he simply can't stand the idea of any Americans fighting and dying, especially when his only daughter's husband is involved. I don't think that makes my dad anti-war...and I would hope that he would be horrified to hear of the birds who have flocked together. That's what struck me about Horowitz's statement.

Who can honestly say that they don't want our soldiers and marines to come home? "Bring the Troops Home!" is a huge umbrella statement that covers many points of view, indeed "designed to consolidate majorities". The scary part is when people who fall under that umbrella don't know about the company they're keeping. ANSWER wants us to bring the troops home too, but they're an offshoot of the Marxist-Leninist Workers World Party, organizing anti-war protests that I'm sure many unsuspecting, good-intentioned people attended. (Hey, if my father went to a protest, maybe some activist could hand him a "Bring Home the Troops" sign, you know, since he's got his hands full with his "Death to Jews" sign anyway.)

Several people emailed or commented to say that they had done X,Y, or Z for friends and family who were deployed. Fabulous. But by being on the Left, you need to be aware of the company you're keeping. Do you know about the reporters such as the one Toby Harnden met?:

Not only had [a well-known journalist] ‘known’ the Iraq war would fail but she considered it essential that it did so because this would ensure that the ‘evil’ George W. Bush would no longer be running her country. Her editors back on the East Coast were giggling, she said, over what a disaster Iraq had turned out to be. ‘Lots of us talk about how awful it would be if this worked out.’

Many mainstream writers and people on the Left are actively hoping for failure in Iraq. So are Daily Kos' readers, and that left-wing blog gets more traffic than any other blog out there. Disgusting characters like Ted Rall and Michael Moore want to bring the troops home, and I wouldn't be caught under any umbrella with them.

Most Americans want the servicemembers to come home safe and sound, but if you google "bring troops home", you get a list of anti-war sites and writings. If you want to bring them home, then admittedly you don't want them to all die (which is more than we can say for some), but it's not the same thing as supporting the troops. Support has to be more than sending a box of deoderant and candy and hoping they don't all die. As Prager said, you have to support their fight too. That's where we argue semantics, and I think it's an important distinction. I wrote about this before, and I stand by my original assertion:

LT Smash points out that we have an all-volunteer military and that "the troops are committed to winning the war. If you donÂ’t share that goal, then you are not, by definition, supporting them." People in his comments section disagree, but Smash points out two different definitions of supporting the troops: "Your definition would appear to be 'wish them good health and hope they come home safe.' My definition of 'support' is a bit more robust than that. In my world, 'supporting the troops' also means letting them know that you appreciate the sacrifices they are making, and believe in the cause they're fighting for."

I tend to think that the first definition should be an understood, that no human would wish that soldiers should be injured or die (though some of the posts on Democratic Underground might suggest otherwise). Therefore, it's not worth broadcasting, just as "I support cancer patients" or "I support the disabled" seem inane.

Not everyone agreed with Smash, as the volume of comments shows, but I do agree with him, as I do with Prager. You don't have to agree with me on the definition of "support" if you don't want to, but just be careful of which umbrellas you're under.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:14 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 832 words, total size 5 kb.

An interesting side note that no one mentions when they talk about military recruiting these days, via this Stars and Stripes article:

Posted by: Sarah at 04:51 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

Raise your hand if you knew that Pat Sajak is a right-wing nutjob. I sure didn't, but I've had a fun time reading some of his archived articles.

But what's the deal with the new Wheel of Fortune? It was so much simpler when I used to watch it with my grandma; now I can't figure out what's going on a lot of the time. Since when did they get rid of bidding on dog statues and stuff?

Posted by: Sarah at 03:31 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.

Aid to Africa
The Left doesn't support the troops and should admit it

Posted by: Sarah at 05:13 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Typical right-wing thinking, Prager is an utter pin-head, you think the mission is FUBAR, but you can't support the troops? Praytell me then what was the "care package" I sent to the Army about?? I think the troops should not be in Iraq, but if the miserable pile of excrement that is our government insists on placing them in harms way I can send some stuff to them to make their time a little easier, doesn't mean I approve of the mission foisted upon them though. What a schmuck.

Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at July 14, 2005 08:04 PM (aHbua)

2 Oh yeah Sarah, Go ask some of the "chickenhawks" how much they have sent to Iraq to "support the troops". I bet you'll be surprised at the answers you get.

Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at July 14, 2005 08:08 PM (aHbua)

3 There is one clear sense in which I think all Americans support the troops, which is that we wish for their well-being. I support the troops in another sense, too; I fervently hope that their efforts to patch Iraq together into some kind of functioning society succeed. But I do think it was foolish to launch the war when and as we did, and I continue to say so. Does this mean that I don't support the troops in the sense that you care about? It isn't hard to find quotes on the net where conservatives (including people in the Administration now, like Cheney) criticized the decision to deploy forces in the Balkans. This even while fighting was taking place. Does this mean that THEY failed to support the troops?

Posted by: Pericles at July 14, 2005 10:13 PM (hHudX)

4 Conservative voices from 1999 on the war in the Balkans. http://slate.msn.com/default.aspx?id=27730

Posted by: Pericles at July 14, 2005 11:46 PM (hHudX)

5 Gee, Bubba: I thought the point of supporting the troops was... supporting the troops, and not bragging about how great you were for doing it.

Posted by: Patrick Chester at July 14, 2005 11:56 PM (74cXW)

6 There are plenty of people on the Left who do not wish for our servicemembers' well-being: Democratic Underground is full of them. A perfect example was the thread I hope the bloodshed continues: The only way to get rid of this slime bag WASP-Mafia, oil barron ridden cartel of a government, this assault on Americans and anything one could laughingly call "a democracy", relies heavily on what a shit hole Iraq turns into. They need to die so that we can be free. Soldiers usually did that directly--i.e., fight those invading and harming a country. This time they need to die in defense of a lie from a lying adminstration to show these ignorant, dumb Americans that Bush is incompetent. They need to die so that Americans get rid of this deadly scum. It is obscene, Barbie Bush, how other sons (of much nobler blood) have to die to save us from your Rosemary's Baby spawn and his ungodly cohorts.

Posted by: Sarah at July 15, 2005 01:18 AM (ujwCC)

7 You can't pull some random quote from a place like Democatic Underground and take that to be representative of how "the Left" thinks. Or even significant portions of people on the Left. That is no more fair than my going to Free Republic or Little Green Footballs (?) and choosing the nuttiest thing someone posted there and saying "This is how conservatives think." From a site like that, you can't even be sure that the craziest quotes don't come people who are actually on the opposite side of the spectrum, trying to discredit their opponents by making them look like whackos. That post you quoted might have come from Karl Rove. In criticizing a view held at most by some weird fringe element, you are arguing with a strawman. There are plenty of serious-minded critics of the war; it would be a better use of time to engage their arguments. When people you love are risking their lives in a war, I can understand how it must be frustrating to hear people say things like "This was the wrong war." or "Even if it was the right war, it was the wrong plan." But don't shoot the messenger. And don't think that it means that the people saying these things have less respect for people in uniform.

Posted by: Pericles at July 15, 2005 08:06 AM (hHudX)

8 So here's how you support your view of the LEFT: You link to Vodka Pundit who links to Sullivan who links to a message board (Democratic Underground) on which anyone can post anything. That explains everything. You need to get out more.

Posted by: Dave at July 17, 2005 12:36 PM (19PZO)

9 Hey Chesty, I didn't mention it to brag, but rather to point out how specious the argument raised by Prager is. As usual the right manages to mis-interperate the most simple of sentence constructions.

Posted by: Aging Veteran at July 17, 2005 09:33 PM (aHbua)

10 Stupid comments wouldn't give me my usual nick-name, and e-mail.

Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at July 17, 2005 09:35 PM (aHbua)

11 Sarah, Nobody expects you to standup to the flak you're getting here. But I hope you at least think about it.

Posted by: Dave at July 18, 2005 12:36 AM (h40yz)

12 Bubba wrote: "Hey Chesty, I didn't mention it to brag, but rather to point out how specious the argument raised by Prager is." Uh huh... and your saying "I have put off paying bills to send supplies to the troops" combined with attacking all the icky people who disagree with you as not sending much isn't bragging? Pull the other one, it's got bells on it. Hm. I wonder where I said I was on the right or the left? Oh wait, I didn't. Are you claiming to be on the left? If so, I will address you as such. Otherwise, I don't need to know your political leanings to know you're just another loudmouthed little braggart.

Posted by: Patrick Chester at July 18, 2005 01:36 AM (MKaa5)

13 Chesty I dare your ass to come to Clementon NJ and say that to my face. First, after I disply my DD214 to you I'll proceed to feed it to you ok?? You will discover that I do not brag when I say: "I take shit from no man, woman, child, small mammal, or vending machine".

Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at July 18, 2005 07:59 PM (aHbua)

14 Main Entry: brag·gart Pronunciation: 'bra-g&rt Function: noun : a loud arrogant boaster Odd, how I never said anything about whether or not you'd been in the military and discharged yet here you are using it in a threat against my well-being. Oh well.

Posted by: Patrick Chester at July 18, 2005 11:10 PM (MKaa5)

15 Typical mouthy blog coward eh Chesty? Only further illustrates the "Chickenhawk" meme.

Posted by: B at July 19, 2005 12:03 AM (aHbua)

16 Odd. You emailed me and offered to take this to email. How unsurprising that you did it after making your last post. Ah well. Make one last post, I guess. I am through with you on this topic.

Posted by: Patrick Chester at July 19, 2005 01:10 AM (MKaa5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Last night my husband and I had a meeting with a financial advisor, and the longer I sat through the meeting, the madder I got. You have a ROTH IRA, you get taxed in the end. You have a regular IRA, you get taxed now. You die with money and you have all these death taxes to pay.

Why, oh why, are people punished for saving their money wisely?

Forget "what would Jesus do"; I find myself often wondering What Would Our Founding Fathers Think? How would they react to knowing that, because my husband and I saved all his deployment money instead of spending it on big screen TVs and cars, we now have to fork over taxes to the government if we want to invest it?

It's our money, dang it.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:51 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.

Charles Johnson posted a link on LGF, with no fanfare or explanation. I almost didn't click on it, but I was intrigued by the poetic name. And as I read But None Ever Cried for Me, I was filled with a sense of horror and shame.

In the words spoken by these politicians I hear affirmation that my child's blood, a Jewish child's blood, is of a different color. I shivered as I heard London's mayor, Livingstone, lamented that this was "mass murder... by terrorists bent on indiscriminate... slaughter... aimed at ordinary working-class Londoners...." and an ugly thought entered my mind.

What of the slaughter of my children, 'ordinary, working-class' brothers and sisters in Haifa and Jerusalem, Ashdod and Ashkelon? What about my working-class Jewish fellow citizens whose simple wants and needs are the same as those in London? Where is the determination to eradicate the vermin who have turned Israeli streets into infernos as they blow up buses, restaurants and malls?

Do those murdering and maiming my children deserve a state of their own from which they can peacefully continue to bathe my country in blood? Why are the snakes in London to be pursued and eradicated, while those who have killed young Jewish mothers, Jewish infants and the unborn are to be rewarded and feted as heroes in every corner of every continent in the universe?

We've let those Islamobarbarians kill in Israel for far longer than we've noticed. In our eyes, the Islamofascist fight started in 2001, but it's been going on for far longer than that. We pretend somehow that they're not the same people killing in Iraq and New York. But they are. They're the same sombitches, and they need to be stopped too.

Israel, I cry for you. I really do.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:14 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 305 words, total size 2 kb.

Today I was trying to remember when I first read Bunker Mulligan. I was happy, and tearful, to find that I had documented the occasion:

The sphere grows every day. You write a post. Maybe someone notices it. Oh, look, a comment. And they've left a link to their own blog. And then you go there and realize that you now have yet another blog you'd like to read every day and you're running out of time in the day.

Shoot. That just happened to me.

Mike left a comment, so I went to his blog and found an amazing post on intelligence. There's so much there, but one tidbit is

To truly be "smart," you must have knowledge and experience. And those must both be broad and eclectic. Knowledge can come from books, but experience only comes from doing something other than reading and writing. Unfortunately, many people feel they can get by with one or the other. I've known some very intelligent people with loads of knowledge who cannot judge distance, hammer a nail, or relate an allegory to anything in their lives. I've known people with years of experience doing things who cannot understand theoretical concepts well enough to capitalize on that experience. The "intellectual elite" fall into the former category.

I started reading his site again from the beginning, and I found one bit that made me smile:

Like Twain, I shy away from organized churches. I've found a better relationship with God on my own. My cathedral has 18 holes, bunkers, tee boxes, water hazards, and greens. I'm closer to God on the golf course than I am sitting in a pew surrounded by people who believe almost the way I do.

If there's a heaven, Bunker's playing golf there every day.

Posted by: Sarah at 11:56 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 299 words, total size 2 kb.

Charlie celebrated his three month birthday yesterday...

Posted by: Sarah at 04:35 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 9 words, total size 1 kb.

Dear Tour de France,

Riders in the Tour should not be allowed to wear yellow. Sponsors with yellow jerseys make it extremely difficult to find the Maillot Jaune. Because other teams wear yellow, some people drive four and a half hours to see the peloton and can't even find Lance when it comes whizzing by. And that makes some people really irritated and sad.

Sincerely,
Sarah

We drove to Mulhouse yesterday for the finish line, and I was quite disappointed with my Tour experience. We waited for two hours at our spot at about 750 meters from the finish line, and then when Rasmussen finally arrived, this is the photo I got, thanks to the jackass standing next to me.

That's the winner of the stage, right behind the stupid balloon some guy waved in my face. I managed to get a good photo of Voigt and Moreau as they took second and third, but then the peloton came screaming by and I couldn't even find Lance, but I got to listen to my husband rave about how cool it was to see him. And then it was all over; only the people in the VIP section could see the end ceremonies, so we walked back to the car and that was that.

We discussed how the Americans would run a Tour de France: lots of big screens and food vendors and selling souvenirs and crap; a big stadium area for the end ceremony so everyone could enjoy it. As it was, we felt like no one really cared if spectators came or not. It was kinda weird, and rather disappointing.

I'm glad we went because it was something neat to say we've done, but I'm not sure it was worth nine hours in the car yesterday. I'd rather watch it on OLN.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:46 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.