I've kinda gotten away from the blogosphere. I didn't read any blogs while we were moving, and it's been hard to get back in the habit, to be honest. When you're gone for a while, I think you forget what you're missing, that is until I read The Bleat today. I missed Lileks. I had forgotten how...comforting it is to read his bleat. Sometimes I wonder what Gnat will think in fifteen years, how she'll feel about growing up in front of everyone's eyes. It's like being a child celebrity in a small circle. The Bleat is the most intimate blog out there; it's easy for us to rant about politics, but Lileks bares his soul. And gets hate mail, go figure.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:19 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Then you have missed the saga of teh Water Feature. Too funny. Lileks is great.

Posted by: Pamela at June 30, 2006 11:01 AM (afS5+)

2 Mine has been politics/news burnout. Been lovin' my XBox 360 though. Kalroy

Posted by: Kalroy at June 30, 2006 08:40 PM (9RG5y)

3 I jump there from here every day! )

Posted by: MargeinMI at July 01, 2006 01:25 AM (3AAMe)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Christopher Hitchens: Four Projects for Righteous Anti-War Types

Posted by: Sarah at 12:26 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

Last night I started working on my first double knitting project. That's where you knit a double-sided piece, working the front and back at the same time so it's reversible. It's a bit of a challenge to get started, but it's a whole lot of fun once you get going. I just grabbed two shades of green to make a scarf for the practice, so here's the front and back; you can see how the colors are reversed but there's no right/wrong side. Cool, huh?

If you're interested in watching this process, a video is available at the awesome site KnittingHelp.com!

Posted by: Sarah at 05:06 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 103 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I can't WAIT to try this

Posted by: The Girl at June 28, 2006 07:16 PM (PIzUp)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Rob of Gut Rumbles passed away yesterday. That man had a scathing personality and I sure wouldn't want to get on his bad side, but his blog always had something original to say. He often made me laugh, usually at something that no one else would ever say. His voice will be missed.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

Al Gore was just on Keith Olbermann a few minutes ago; they compared global warming skeptics to flat earthers and people who thought the moon landing was faked. That's a bit of a stretch, people. Then Olbermann said that people who don't believe in global warming are usually people who only think the earth is a couple thousand years old, and Gore starts quoting scripture on why people should pay attention to climate change. What? There are scientists who disagree with the hockey stick and data on carbon dioxide levels, but Gore just dismissed them all as "outliers" and shills. I'm amazed that Gore feels comfortable dismissing a paleoclimatologist as wrong and uninformed: what exactly is Gore's science background? He didn't even bother to memorize some data to refute Patterson; he just waved his hand and declared global warming to be a fact. How convincing...

Posted by: Sarah at 02:57 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

I've heard some people are dismissing the "WMDs" that were found in Iraq because they're old. Actually, when I did some googling, I found that Fox and CNN interpreted an AP article quite differently.

Fox:

A defense official told FOX News that the weapons probably can't be used in their current form because of their age, but the report notes that they are still hazardous and possibly lethal to coalition forces.

CNN:

A defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the weapons were not considered likely to be dangerous because of their age.

Those convey considerably different meaning, huh?

Anyway, Kalroy reminded me of an email he sent me two years ago. An old WWII round was found off the coast of Delaware in 2004. When EOD came in to detonate the 11-inch round, the mustard agent was released. And this is what happened to the EOD person who came in contact with the round...

(Be forewarned that this photo is disturbing.)

I don't mean to gross anyone out; I know I haven't been able to get this image out of my mind for the past two years. But this round was obviously not too old to be dangerous. I don't know any specifics on the rounds that have been found in Iraq, but if an 11-inch round that's 60 years old can do this to someone who was opening it in a controlled situation, maybe we shouldn't be so quick to say that these rounds in Iraq are too old to be used as weapons. I know I wouldn't want to take my chances.

(Thanks to Kal for reminding me of this and providing the information. I'm also glad you're not working in this field anymore!)

Posted by: Sarah at 11:02 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 293 words, total size 2 kb.

I happened to be flipping channels this morning and saw Santorum talking about the sarin shells that have been found in Iraq. It's not exactly a fat man and little boy pointed straight at NYC, but it's something at least worth talking about. The Fox and Friends people asked Santorum why Bush isn't shouting this from the rooftops, and he said that the White House is no longer interested in debating the reason we went to war in the first place. And the Fox people simply reamed the president. They said that he has a duty to discuss this because most of the country is still discussing it, and that since we as a country are paying for this war, we deserve to still talk about the reason it happened. They went off, and I think they have a point.

I personally believe that history will be on President Bush's side. No one liked Lincoln at the time, but now he's the only president many people can name, and I have a feeling that history could treat Bush similarly. But sometimes I get annoyed that he seems to be sitting back and letting history take her sweet time. 500 sarin shells isn't all we expected Iraq to have, but I think the American public needs to know it was found. Santorum shouldn't have to go on a crusade to present information that most Americans would be interested in hearing. I don't think it should be a "ha, we told you so" revelation, but the info should be put out there. I think those Fox people were right: much of the country is still quite wrapped up in the WMD debate, and they need all the facts in order to hold informed opinions. And this fact somewhat justifies the president; I have no idea why he wouldn't want to put it out there.

But what I don't understand could fill a warehouse.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:13 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.

Many people who work for the Army in certain aspects -- finance, housing, health clinic come to mind -- hate their jobs because if someone's in their office, he's probably mad. My husband realized this when he started working in Finance: it used to frustrate him that people always came in guns blazing, so he and I have always tried to be extra understanding and extra benefit-of-the-doubt-giving in these offices. But we're slowly learning the lesson of the squeaky wheel.

The first thing my husband did when we got our cell phones was to go in to Inbound Transportation and give them our phone number. They assured us that they would call us when our household goods arrived. It's been two and a half weeks since then, and we've started getting antsy. Eleven days on an air mattress can do that do you. So my husband went by their office today to see what was going on. Our stuff has been here since 6 June, but "they didn't have our phone number." My husband watched someone write it down on a paper in our file on 2 June, but apparently that paper is lost and no one in Transportation seemed to care that much. And it gets worse: they are so busy that they can't deliver our stuff until 5 July. So we'll live in this city for six months, and our stuff will languish in storage for a month of it because they lost our phone number.

And I knew I had a bad feeling about it. Some of our friends got their stuff two weeks ago, and I knew that our stuff couldn't be this far behind. But I didn't want to be the guns-blazing type who goes into Transportation every day and demands her stuff. I figured that I would give them their space since they assured us they'd call. Silly me.

Two years ago my friend's husband didn't get his reenlistment bonus. He politely pointed this out to Finance three times, each time to no avail, and his bonus came a full year late. My husband joked that he hates when soldiers go straight to IG with asinine complaints, but my friend's husband sure would've gotten service faster if he'd headed straight to the top instead of putting faith in the system. If he'd come in guns blazing, someone would've helped him. The squeaky wheel tactic works.

I want to be an understanding and cooperative family, especially if we're staying in this system for another 16 years. But I am already tired of getting screwed over. There are medical appointments if you bark loud enough. Reenlistment bonuses come when you shout. And your household goods get delivered a month earlier if you pester Transportation.

From now on, I guess I'm squeaky.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:19 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 467 words, total size 3 kb.

A refreshing and rejuvenating blog post: How far is far enough?

Posted by: Sarah at 10:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

This article is a bit old, but I couldn't believe it when I read it via Powerline. Just wow. An older married couple gets all hot and heavy and "forgets" to use birth control. The lady can't get the morning after pill in her area, so she gets pregnant and has an abortion. And she blames Bush for her abortion. Wow. How 'bout blaming your freaking self for not being smart enough to calm down for two seconds and use some danged birth control? Do people ever take personal responsibility for anything these days?

Posted by: Sarah at 05:19 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.

My friend Vonn alerted me to a knitting show many months ago, so when I got to the US, I looked it up. I've been happily watching Knitty Gritty since, and even though a lot of the shows are pretty basic for me, I find I've learned a lot. In fact, yesterday I learned that I yarn over incorrectly, and today I learned a much better way to pick up stitches from the heel gusset of a sock. The show is great because I can actually see someone knitting, a bonus for me since I learned to knit via the telephone! I only ever had two knitting lessons with my teacher, so everything else I've learned from a book or made up as I went along. I think Knitty Gritty is a great tool for beginner knitters...too bad that all my students are still stuck in Germany!

I also think it's hilarious that my mother-in-law watches the show. We found it last month at her house and she watched all the episodes with me, but she keeps watching it! And she doesn't knit! If she keeps watching the show, she's gonna learn how to knit whether she likes it or not.

By the way, my mom wanted to see my latest scarf:

The details don't show up very well online, but it's dainty and pretty.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:14 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 1 kb.

The NY Post reports that Jerome Armstrong went on stock trading chat sites and hyped up stocks without mentioning that he was paid by the company. That's so dishonest I can't even believe it. I found the link via LGF and then followed it to Daily Kos to see what they had to say about the article. Several people seemed troubled by Armstrong's past, but many commenters flat out said that they were skeptical of the information because it came from the NY Post.

Frankly, I'm tired of that crap. Fox News is usually on the receiving end of that kind of nonsense: how many times have I heard someone sneeringly say something like, "Where'd you hear that, Fox News?" Fox may come off as pro-American, but people like to act like Fox is making up news stories. That's complete crap.

Armstrong was charged by the SEC in 2003; there's a civil suit on record. The NY Post didn't just make that up out of thin air. It disgusts me that people find it so easy to dismiss news just because they don't like where they heard it.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:26 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 1 kb.

1 "Fox News is usually on the receiving end of that kind of nonsense." All media are on the receiving end these days. Yes, Leftists dismiss news from FOX, but Rightists dismiss news from the "MSM" (apart from FOX in most cases, I assume), and some people dismiss news from blogs because they think traditional media are more trustworthy. Why do people dismiss the news? Not all sources are reliable. Who *wouldn't* dismiss news from the Weekly World News? Sources other than one's favorites are regarded as "biased" because they don't tell people exactly what they want to hear - which is their usual gauge of "reliability" and "objectivity."

Posted by: Amritas at June 19, 2006 07:48 AM (+nV09)

2 Amritas makes exactly the right point about conservatives dissing well-respected news sources. I just want to quibble with the claim that Fox comes off as "pro-American." This was a tendentious way to put your point---as if everyone who disagrees with Fox's take on events is ANTI-American. How about saying that Fox comes off as pro-Republican or pro-conservative? Not to beat a dead horse, but you can disagree with a conservative vision for America and still love the country.

Posted by: Pericles at June 19, 2006 10:32 AM (eKf5G)

3 Damn. I just spent 15 min replying and I lost the comment when I tried to post it. God I don't feel like saying all that again. OK. I wasn't trying to hem and haw by using "pro-American", and I didn't mean it as the opposite of anti-American. I am not a Fox News Person. I hate their anchors and coverage just as much as I hate everyone else's. 24-hr news is all annoying filler. You will disagree with me, but I honestly don't think Fox is such a big cheerleader for the Right. Granted, they have more conservative voices on their talk shows, but it's not their fault that other networks don't hire conservatives. Pericles, stop accusing me of saying things I don't say or mean! As for what Amritas said, I disagree that the situation is equal. In my experience, right bloggers think the MSM only presents one side of the story or goes over the top trying to be PC or trying to be too harsh against the President, but I cannot recall a single time they've accused the MSM of lying or making something up (except for Rathergate and the peeing on the Koran stuff, which of course was justified). But I hear the Fox Lies crap all the time. A few months ago we were watching TV and saw there was an explosion in downtown St Louis. The person we were watching with honestly said, "Well, it is Fox News, so who knows what really happened." Are you kidding me? NO ONE in the right blogosphere thinks that regular anchors at CNN are making up stories, but people say crap like that about Fox. Pericles, you used the word "diss", which people on the right certainly do for the MSM, but I have never heard them say that we shouldn't believe something because CNN/MSNBC/etc put it out. Correct me if you can find an example... (That didn't come out the same as it did the first time, but I'm irritated that I had to do it all over again.)

Posted by: Sarah at June 19, 2006 01:02 PM (YL5y0)

4 Sarah, I can look around for some instances of people on the right accusing the mainstream media of outright lying. The problem is that this is the sort of thing that you'll only see a lot of on blogs where some whackos hang out, and I don't spend much time on those whether they are "right wing" or "left wing." You probably spend more time on Kos than I do. There is another forum where I post where I think that I might be able to find such things... but I'm not anonymous there, so I won't be posting any links to it. I do notice that an outfit called "allrightgear" sells a variety of "CNN LIES!" t-shirts through Cafepress. If you don't think that Fox is pro-right wing, by the way, then you just haven't been watching enough. It isn't that Fox has more conservative commentators; it is that besides Alan Colmes, who may be a smart guuy but who just doesn't have the personality to stand up to Sean Hannity, they don't have any liberal ones. CNN has Jack Caferty in their morning show, who is the only omember of the show who I've ever seen make political comments, and Lou Dobbs has a show of his own. Fox's morning show has three lightweight conservative anchors, and no way does a liberal get a show a show of his or her own there, at least not one that includes political commentary. Think about all of the conservatives who had spots on CNN's Crossfire. As far as putting words in your mouth goes... I'm sorry if I did. In the few months that I've been hanging around this place, though, I bet that I've seen you complain about people doing that to you four or five times. If you get misunderstood enough, maybe you've got to start thinking that there is a lack of clarity on your part. I'm not saying that this is a big shortcoming; it is very hard to be clear in this medium. But when someone gets your point wrong, or sees an implication in your words that you didn't intend, then maybe you should give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they were really doing their level best to understand you, rather than acting like they were twisting your words on purpose.

Posted by: Pericles at June 20, 2006 02:50 AM (eKf5G)

5 Pericles, I don't think a lack of clarity on Sarah's part is to blame for your lack of understanding in this post (or any other). You may notice that the people that generally disagree with Sarah on politics are the ones who "misunderstand" her. It has nothing to do with how well she writes or how she puts her posts together. However, people that generally agree with her on politics don't seem to misunderstand her. It's funny, because I read Sarah's description of Fox News as "pro-American," I knew someone on the left was going to have a tantrum - but I also understood that she wasn't necessarily being tendentious - maybe that's because I share a lot of the same views as she. The thing is Pericles - debates are one thing, but constant condescension is another. You seriously need to chill out, dude.

Posted by: Erin at June 20, 2006 10:50 PM (Liogi)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I wish our household goods were here so I could post my favorite photo of my dad. But it will have to wait until the end of the month for his birthday (our stuff better be here by then!) He said if the weather was nice he'd go fishing but if it rained he'd go to the office. Hope he went fishing...

Posted by: Sarah at 01:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.

Ann Althouse posts about a high school with 41 valedictorians. Apparently that school rewards everyone with a GPA over 4.0, regardless of rank. That sucks. I thought my school's system was fair: 4.0 was the highest GPA you could get, but there was an entirely different ranking system for weighted courses. Thus someone who took all "basic" classes and got straight A's would receive a 4.0 but would not be anywhere near the top of the class; someone who took all "advanced" classes and got one B would be salutatorian, and those who took all advanced classes with all A's would be valedictorian. We had 8 valedictorians and 2 salutatorians. (Or was it 7 and 3? See how important it turned out to be?) Among the top 8, we all knew who really deserved honors. I went to high school with people who did relativistic physics for fun and calculus in their sleep. There were also valedictorians who simply knew How School Worked and did what it took to get the necessary A's. It's a shame there was no way to really distinguish between the geniuses and the rest of us folks, but I suppose what they've done after high school is the real proof of their smarts.

Incidentally, several of us got together once when we were graduating from college and compared when we had finally broken our 4.0s. One friend was bummed that he was the first to lose it, but we had to remind him that getting one B at Princeton was nothing to be bummed about!

Posted by: Sarah at 01:09 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.

My husband and I were talking about global warming the other day. We both think it's sad that many people don't even allow room for talk on the subject. I'm no scientist, and I've done zero research on climate. However, I am interested in any research on the topic and am not 100% convinced that there's anything like consensus or that we'll find definitive answers any time soon. I do think it's a shame that global warming has already become a "fact"; several scientists apparently don't consider it a fact at all. But I guess that I shouldn't be surprised that people would rather argue than talk.

Posted by: Sarah at 11:21 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

1 If global warming is causing all the oceans to rise, why hasn't anyone closed down the base on Diego Garcia, or for that matter, any other atoll with a significant defense installation worth money?

Posted by: Jason at June 16, 2006 11:52 AM (/5dHh)

2 Sarah, "Global Warming" ia about two entirely different things which the Left tries vigorously to lump together. 1) Is the weayher getting warmer? 2) Evil mankind is CAUSING this. Well, there has NEVER been a time when the climate was neither getting warmer, nor getting cooler. Change is NORMAL. As for #2, was it emissions from Fred Flintstone's car that caused the last Ice Age to melt? NO? But, melt it did without any help from mankind. So, when offered "proof" that global warming is happening, you are also supposed to take this as "proof" that mankind is CAUSING it. Don't fall for it. Oh. And why does the Left insist on calling the Earth "the planet?" It's because "planets" are small and fragile. I mean look! They all fit on one 3' x 5' poster on a classroom wall! And, those 3D models of the Solar System are even smaller. Small, and fragile. Don't fall for it.

Posted by: Bill at June 17, 2006 05:47 AM (dpo5g)

3 It has become virtually impossible to have a meaningful public debate on any question with any complexity to it, because too many individuals jump to arguing without bothering to pass through the stages of learning and understanding. Lots of people are expression fervent opinions on "net neutrality" who don't know what a peering agreement is, and have no interest in finding out. Lots of people argue pro or con on ethanol without bothering the understand the energy balance question, or the problems that exist in transporting this substance.

Posted by: david foster at June 17, 2006 12:48 PM (/Z304)

4 Of course, there are people who call themselves scientists who don't believe in evolution, too. And I always thought that "the left" called called the Earth "the planet" because it was an oblate spheroid orbiting (what we radicals call) "the Sun." What do people on the Right call the Earth? "God's Domain?"

Posted by: Pericles at June 17, 2006 01:06 PM (eKf5G)

5 Take another look at the meaning of the word consesus in your dictionary.There is a consensus in the scientific community, verging on unaninimity. But expertise is just another word for "predjudism" as the president says. People git infermation in their head that keep's em from bein good deciders. That's why we need to get our scientific information from preachers and novelist,you know, the knda folks that'll tell us the kinda things we want to hear.

Posted by: herb at June 17, 2006 01:53 PM (/r0Hi)

6 The guy who wrote that article, Tom Harris, has degrees in Mechanical Engineering and works for High Park Group...and what is High Park Group? It's hard to tell from their own website, but this one has a little more information: http://www.stikeman.com/newslett/EnNov04.htm "Mr. Egan is president of the High Park Group, a public policy consulting firm that focuses largely on energy issues out of its offices in Toronto and Ottawa. He is retained by the Canadian Electricity Association on a range of issues, including U.S. advocacy (monitoring the U.S. Congress and Administration on issues of interest to the Canadian electricity industry)." Kind of sounds like an industry shill to me, but who knows... Regarding consensus, of course there will never be 100% consensus on an issue as complex as global warming, but this is what Science (one of the most respected scientific journals in the world) has to say on it: "Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case." http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Posted by: Polar at June 17, 2006 02:15 PM (59MED)

7 I have been married to a marine biologist for 48 years. I think I can speak for him on this, if the globe is warming it has to do with natural cycles. Man is not talented enough to change those cycles. Nor have we been around long enough to learn all that is going on. Putting all that data into a computer is impossible, since we cannot know what all the data is. All the models are skewed to the modelers belief system. And it is a belief system they are tied to just as much as any Christian or Muslim. (sorry that last charge is from my belief system but he thinks it, too!) My belief is that "Peer reviewed" in the current science community means a certain in-group allows only their beliefs in the major journals. And the basis of their belief to get the grant money. I can say this now that he is no longer in that system and has been retired for quite a few years. Everytime I see a headline or news story on a theory or breakthrough, I think "hmmm...grant money". Publicity buys it. Do I sound cynical?, yes. I am.

Posted by: Ruth H at June 17, 2006 02:20 PM (5p1l0)

8 The globe is ok dude, the globe is awight. The globe'll be here when we'er long gone. Don't worry about the globe!!

Posted by: herb at June 17, 2006 07:33 PM (Loext)

9 really, i think the most important thing to remember on this issue is the following: if you come across anyone who doubts that global warming is real and that we are causing it, THAT PERSON MUST BE SHOUTED DOWN! thank you.

Posted by: annika at June 17, 2006 09:24 PM (fxTDF)

10 You certainly can't infer, simply from the fact that the Earth is getting warmer, that our CO2 emissions are responsible. Establishing causality in science is difficult, especuially where you can't run controlled experiments. At the same time, we know that CO2 IS a greenhouse gas, and we know that humans are putting an awful lot of it into the atmosphere. So prima facie there is nothing stupid or absurd about the idea that we might be making a contribution to the phenomenon. What is interesting to me about the debate is that environmentalists are the bete noire of today's conservatives, but environmentalists are the ones with the more conservative attitude. Not just because they are conservationists, but because they worry about unintended consequences. It used to be conservatives who had the attitude that we aren't as smart as we think we are, so we should always be very careful, and not tamper with things too much. Now, though, people on the right seem to have the attitude that we can let companies do whatever it is profitable for them to do, and we're so smart that nothing could possibly go wrong. Then again, why should we be surprised? The party that used to think that the law of unintended consequences would defeat attempts social engineering in THIS country now seems to think that we are able to completely remake a foreign culture where hardly any of us even speak the language.

Posted by: Pericles at June 18, 2006 02:52 AM (eKf5G)

11 First of all, if you actually look at the Vostok ice core data that shows CO2 levels and temperatures over the last 400,000 years, you can clearly see that temperature changes precede CO2 level changes. How come the global warming alarmists keep missing that? For another, those who keep screaming about human-caused CO2 levels and global warming are completely ignoring the effects of sulfur dioxide, aerosols, water vapor, methane, land usage, albedo and, of course, solar output. It's all about pushing their anti-capitalist, anti-Western agenda.

Posted by: CavalierX at June 20, 2006 05:18 AM (72ufR)

12 I'm curious. A previous poster commented that humans simply don't have the capacity to affect such large scale changes in earth's atmosphere. Yet 15 years ago there was much concern about the ozone hole over the southern pole that was as large as Antartica. Reduced emissions of ozone-depleting chemicals was insituted and today the ozone hole problem has all but disappeared. Now I'm scratching my head wondering how that could be possible? After all, we can't make that kind of impact because we aren't 'talented enough'. Right?

Posted by: Allen at July 04, 2006 02:55 PM (FfZGl)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

A long article on the threat that is political correctness. The crowning example:

Political Correctness can reach absurd levels. Early in June 2006, Canadian police arrested a group of men suspected of planning terror attacks. The group was alleged to have been “well-advanced on its plan” to attack a number of Canadian institutions, among them the Parliament of Canada, including a possible beheading of the Prime Minister, and Toronto’s subway. However, the lead paragraph of newspaper Toronto Star’s story on the arrests was: “In investigators’ offices, an intricate graph plotting the links between the 17 men and teens charged with being members of a homegrown terrorist cell covers at least one wall. And still, says a source, it is difficult to find a common denominator.” Royal Canadian Mounted Police Assistant Commissioner Mike McDonell said that the suspects were all Canadian residents and the majority were citizens. “They represent the broad strata of our community. Some are students, some are employed, some are unemployed,” he said. However, there was one common denominator for the suspects that wasn’t mentioned: They were all Muslims. The front page article in the New York Times (June 4), too, was a study in how to avoid using the dreaded “M” word. The terrorist suspects were referred to as “Ontario residents,” “Canadian residents,” “the group,” “mainly of South Asian descent” or “good people.” Everything conceivable, just not as “Muslims.”

Posted by: Sarah at 10:54 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.

When we got married, we had extra space in the back of our wedding album, so we decided to take an anniversary photo every year to keep the album going throughout our marriage. Our four years include moving into our new house in Germany, being apart during Iraq, getting a new puppy, and sitting in an empty apartment waiting for our household goods. Have we aged at all? I don't think so, but I can't wait to look back on these four photos in about 20 years!

Posted by: Sarah at 03:28 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.

The best decision I ever made was to tell that boy across the hall from me that I had a crush on him. If I hadn't, I probably wouldn't have been standing across from him four years ago today. And then we wouldn't have added that silly puppy to our family one year ago!

We're celebrating our anniversary by going to the port and picking up our car, which has made its way across the Atlantic. And hopefully we can stop at The Bell along the way.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:25 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Congratulations and happy anniversary! Welcome back to the States.

Posted by: piercello at June 15, 2006 02:42 AM (6HxBf)

2 HAPPY ANNIVERSARY!!!!! Congrats! Have fun getting your car and enjoying a chalupa! My advice, get your car aligned the minute it gets off the boat!

Posted by: Farrah at June 15, 2006 05:22 AM (cCnDt)

3 Happy Anniversary... I'll never forget what The Husband said when you guys were defining your relationship early on: "Well, it's not like I'm going to marry you or anything." Heh. I couldn't imagine either of you with anyone else. You suit each other perfectly. And eat lots of fatty-nastiness at The Bell. It sounds super.

Posted by: Erin at June 15, 2006 09:20 AM (2IOh+)

4 HAPPY ANNIVERSARY to you both. I hope your car travels half as well as your marriage has.

Posted by: Jim - PRS at June 15, 2006 05:12 PM (VPbK+)

5 Happy Anniversary! You DO make the perfect couple and the longer Russ is in our family the more I realize you are perfect for each other. It was fun seeing your wedding picture. I still have people tell me that it was the best wedding they've ever attended--guys in khakis and polo shirts and girls in sundresses and sandals, beautiful weather, delicious food (thank goodness it was catered!), a one-of-a-kind ceremony that made me cry and all of your friends and family there to celebrate! What more could one ask for!?! I love you both. Mama

Posted by: Nancy at June 15, 2006 07:28 PM (Dbnx3)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I'm thrilled to be back to watching South Park on TV. It's been three years, so we're behind on new episodes. We happened to catch the Paris Hilton episode the other night, and I loved the moral of the story: "Being spoiled and stupid and whorish is supposed to be a bad thing, remember? Parents, if you don't teach your children that people like Paris Hilton are supposed to be despised, where are they gonna learn it?" I couldn't help but think about this when I was flipping channels today and happened across The View. Apparently Paris Hilton is going to guest on the show tomorrow, and the women were all excited and defending her when some audience members tsk-tsked. Now, maybe they don't get any say in who is a guest, so maybe they have to pretend to be excited even if they hate Paris Hilton, but since when should someone like Barbara Walters ever say that Paris Hilton is a "cute and sweet girl"? What has the world come to when a 77-yr-old woman is defending the honor of a girl who answers her cell phone during sex on a porn video? I don't understand why she's even on The View, or why anyone even cares about her at all, but I guess that's the whole point of the opening scene in this South Park episode...

Bebe: Come on, Wendy, we're gonna miss it.
Wendy: We're gonna miss what?
Bebe: Paris Hilton is making an appearance at the mall.
Wendy: Who's Paris Hilton?
Red: "Who's Paris Hilton?"
Annie: You don't know?
Announcer: [someone takes a picture as he approaches the mic.] Hello, everyone! [drumroll] The Guess Clothing Company is pleased to have as its new spokesperson model, a woman all you young ones can look up to, Ms. Paris Hilton. [she appears and flashbulbs go off amid squeals from females in the crowd. She then lifts her bra and shows off her breasts]
Bebe: Wow, that's really her! Paris! Over here!
Wendy: I don't get it. What does she do?
Annie: She's super-rich!
Wendy: ...but what does she do?
Red: She's totally spoiled and savvy.
Wendy: [annoyed] What does she do?!
Man: [walks by and overhears] She's a whore. [takes his camera and snaps a few pictures]

Posted by: Sarah at 06:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 335 words, total size 2 kb.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:24 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2 words, total size 1 kb.