I read a comment from someone over at RWN that frustrated me. The commenter was very civil and tried to be constructive, but what he/she said just doesn't hold water.

In my humble opinion, it hurts our country when we group ourselves and others into groups of "conservatives" and "liberals." In my experience I have met a lot of liberals, and a lot of conservatives, and I seem to get along fine with all of them. So, instead of listening to some "study" that suggests liberals are Satan's army of darkness, why don't you just try to remember that they are people LIKE YOU who only believe what they believe because they think it is what is best for their country. Instead of attacking their character, attack their ideas, debate with them on why they believe war is bad, or why we should spend tax dollars on certain things. Attack their ideas of big government, but make sure you don't advocate a different form of big government (sorry, if you don't want to spend money on health care, education, and welfare, then you can't want to spend a lot of money on war, it's called hypocrisy, besides, anyone who wants to spend lots of money and have a big government is a lefty, not a righty, so you may be at the wrong page.)

He/she lost me right there at the end.

The Constitution of the United States of America "provides for the common defense" of the American people. And (if my understanding is correct) Article I Section 8 allows the federal government to raise money for a standing Army and Navy.

Again, if my understanding is correct, there is nowhere in the Constitution that allows the federal government to raise money for health care, education, and welfare. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

So this is where that commenter lost me. Those two things are not equal. Liberals wanting federal health care, education, and welfare is absolutely not the same thing as conservatives wanting military defense.

One is specifically laid out in the Constitution and even mentioned in the preamble. The other is not. There is no hypocrisy here.

It seems like a quibble with this comment, but I think it's actually a huge deal. This commenter thinks that this is comparing apples to apples, which I think shows a gross misunderstanding of the original intent of the federal government and our Constitution. It's disingenuous to say we want health care, you want missles; see, we all want to spend money.

And this, I think, is what causes a huge disconnect between the right and left. Those of us who try hard to conduct ourselves as Constitutionalists have a big problem with things that go beyond the scope of the original document. People like this commenter don't even seem to have any historical grounding in what the federal government can or should do. So anything goes, and funding war is the trade off for not funding education. (Which doesn't even hold water either, because, for example, the US spends more on education than defense.)

National defense is not even on the same plane as all these other extras that people think the government should fund. To paraphrase Jules, it ain't the same ballpark; it ain't even the same sport. It's a shame the commenter has no grasp of that.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:43 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 568 words, total size 3 kb.

I haven't been blogging because I've been so busy. My mother and I have been gardening like crazy. Or, I should say she has, because I am not allowed to lift anything heavier than 20 lbs. She is a stickler about this. So my poor 61-year-old mama has been dragging around bags of mulch and soil all week.

But I did carry something today that was a little heavier than 20 lbs. Charlie Pup had to go to the doggy emergency room. We think he got bit by a spider or bee or something, because his paw was all swollen and he was limping all day. They knocked him out and gave him meds and an IV. The vet was awesome, but our poor pup is still woozy and melancholy. Luckily he just got shaved down the other day, so checking his paws was a little easier.

I had a doctor visit this morning, and I told my husband about it in an email. Then I emailed about the dog. He immediately called home and wanted to know all about the pup's health. You see where the priorities lie, right? Heh.

Husband, the pup is doing fine. Watching a dog wake up from anesthesia is hilarious too.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:57 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Awww... poor Charlie! Ike sends his get well wishes!

Posted by: airforcewife at June 04, 2008 03:03 PM (mIbWn)

2 I remember after my kitten came home after being fixed during the first year. She stumbled out of the carrier, dragged herself over to the glass window door and leaned the top of her head against it for 20 minutes. Looked like me with a really bad hangover! Too cute.

Posted by: Oda Mae at June 04, 2008 09:11 PM (xze1f)

3 But, did he ask to speak to Charlie? Poor little guy, first he gets played with like a baby doll and then this!

Posted by: Ruth H at June 05, 2008 04:39 AM (w9ltj)

4 Poor little guy! And you? The doctor's visit was uneventful, I guess? I'm glad you have mom around to help you. Aren't moms the best?!

Posted by: T at June 05, 2008 08:16 AM (KV0YP)

5 Awww. Poor Charlie pup! I wouldn't want to watch my dog wake up from anesthesia! I've seen it plenty of other times with other dogs, but never mine. It seems so sad! What is he laying on, btw? Is that a trash bag?

Posted by: Erin at June 05, 2008 01:30 PM (y67l2)

6 Heh, it is a trash bag. We put his doggy bed in a lawn bag because earlier he had a peeing accident. Oh how he peed. They gave him a ton of fluid via IV, and it all came out at once, on my shirt, on the floor, and on two towels. We didn't want a pee-soaked doggy bed.

Posted by: Sarah at June 05, 2008 01:45 PM (TWet1)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Dear Bunker,

I can't believe it's been three years. I still miss your voice and wisdom, miss seeing you as my first comment of the day.

I was going to come see you for a round of golf. You let me off the hook golf-wise, but I am still coming. I plan to visit you this fall when SpouseBUZZ Live comes to San Antonio. I will be there to finally meet you for the first time.

I think you'd get a big kick out of my being pregnant. I know you'd be my biggest fan.

I miss you. None of us have forgotten you.

Love,
Sarah

Posted by: Sarah at 03:42 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.

John Hawkins found a study about honesty among liberals and conservatives. Excerpt:

When the World Values Survey asked a similar question, the results were largely the same: Those who were very liberal were much more likely to say it was all right to get welfare benefits you didn't deserve.

The World Values Survey found that those on the left were also much more likely to say it is OK to buy goods that you know are stolen. Studies have also found that those on the left were more likely to say it was OK to drink a can of soda in a store without paying for it and to avoid the truth while negotiating the price of a car.

This reminded me of someone from my past. My husband and I were friends with a guy in college who is a staunch Democrat. He got a job at Walmart while we were in school, and he routinely stole from the store while working there. He said it was OK to steal from corporations but not from mom-and-pop stores. He took all kinds of things while working there, from a winter hat to a beautiful pipe. It was pretty appalling.

The fact that he made a distinction -- that stealing from Walmart specifically was OK -- makes me think that his stealing was related to his worldview and political affiliation. I found the whole thing shocking and toyed with the idea of calling his boss and reporting him. Luckily, he quit the job before I had to make that hard decision.

UPDATE:

CaliValleyGirl writes about her opposite experience.

For the record, I agree with John Hawkins that it's a slippery slope to saying that all liberals are less honest. But in this one situation with the person I knew, he really thought it was OK to steal from Walmart because they were a big corporation. That's a messed up relativistic attitude: the act of "stealing" doesn't change depending on who you're stealing from.

Posted by: Sarah at 10:30 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 334 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Good grief. I mean, I'm not saying everyone has to be like me--the crazy girl who drives back to the bank to return a pen if I walk off with it--but for cripe's sake, stealing is stealing no matter WHAT or from WHOM you're stealing. Kind of like, "well, you have a right to an opinion" (um, thanks)..."unless you disagree with me & then you're just stoooopid." Socrates and Aristotle would be so proud of the reasoning.

Posted by: Guard Wife at June 02, 2008 10:36 AM (BslEQ)

2 My mother was a jury foreperson on a civil case - a lady slipped on a step and sued the grocery store. The step was painted bright yellow and there were warning signs everywhere. The other jury members wanted to award her money, even though the store wasn't at fault, because 'the store had enough money to give some away.' Puke.

Posted by: Oda Mae at June 02, 2008 10:37 AM (tBGZb)

3 As a "staunch Democrat" I have to say this is a bunch of twaddle. And an insult. LAW

Posted by: liberal army wife at June 02, 2008 10:44 AM (tqDBA)

4 oda mae...I was on a jury for a case that was somewhat similar, except some facts were in dispute. Two things were kind of depressing: 1)The people wearing suits all seemed to want to find in favor of the store, those not wearing suits, in favor of the plaintiff. 2)Every time we started to get into a good discussion, the idiot forewoman said something like "Now, now, everyone's entitled to their opinion." She didn't seem to grasp that the whole point of the process was to arrive at a common understanding.

Posted by: david foster at June 02, 2008 10:45 AM (ke+yX)

5 That's the funny thing about juries, isn't it, David? Everyone IS entitled to an opinion, but just not in the jury room. As you said, it was to reach some common understanding of the facts so that the law the judge instructed youto apply could be so applied & a decision could be made accordingly.

Posted by: Guard Wife at June 02, 2008 12:56 PM (BslEQ)

6 I think any one who steals will use anything from politics to religion (and lets not forget "it's my parent's fault) to justify it. I mean... how else are they going to go to sleep at night? I don't think it's a reflection on "liberals" as much as it is a reflection on thieves. That's what thieves do- lie and excuse their behavior to cover up their deeds. Good grief.

Posted by: Crys at June 02, 2008 01:19 PM (dqGUK)

7 Somewhat different note - My brother went through an anti-establishment phase. He was talking about big corporations and how they make the world awful. My husband pointed out that a big corporation made the walkman he enjoyed.

Posted by: Amy at June 02, 2008 04:29 PM (QRbmz)

8 A thief is a thief, a liar is a liar. and some of the biggest liars I have ever met are staunch Republican, Born Again Christians. There - another sweeping statement. To maintain that because one is a certain colour, certain political affiliation, or a certain sex, then one will be a thief, a liar or less than honest, is foolishness. LAW

Posted by: liberal army wife at June 03, 2008 02:04 AM (A7iUf)

9 I'm not making any sweeping generalizations. I told a story about one person I know who hated evil Walmart so much that he stole from them. And I quoted an article about studies in which liberals themselves said that they steal and cheat and lie. I didn't make this up or make a blanket statement based on the one guy I knew in college that all liberals steal from Walmart.

Posted by: Sarah at June 03, 2008 02:57 AM (TWet1)

10 I'm a Democrat and i find this offensive. I find it even more ridiculous that the article makes it sound like such giant statistics when they only interviewed 156 people. 156 people of both political points. thats not even 1 percent of Americans. I also doubt that the conservatives were completely honest in answering these questions, bc they do have "higher morals" to go by. And maybe they had to keep that facade going with less than true answers. Not to say that all liberals or conservatives are liars. It goes by the person, not their politcal affiliation.

Posted by: Kati at June 05, 2008 01:45 AM (mrnzz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Now this, this I will buy if I have a girl.

Also, I don't like those scrunchie things either, but I thought that was the socially acceptable thing to do. I'm glad you guys all say otherwise.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:39 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

Dear Husband,

As you know, Charlie and I spent Memorial weekend with my father's family. In attendance were ten children under the age of ten. They were all dog owners, so they know how to behave around dogs, but they all own big dogs. So Charlie was a novelty to them; here was a dog they could pick up and carry everywhere. They dragged him all over the place, pulling him into the recliner with them and carrying him around the yard. And he took it, with no fussing whatsoever.

Not even when the girls dressed him up.

Yes, that's right: little girls put humiliating clothes and hats on your dog. And treated him like a baby doll.

This picture just screams "You gotta be kidding me."

But he took it like a man all weekend. I was so proud of him. A few times he tried to hide from the kids under the end table, but they grabbed him and dragged him back out.

And my one cousin brought her new 6-week-old baby to the house. She set his seat up in a room off the living room. Whenever the new baby would fuss, Charlie would get up and go over to him to make sure everything was OK. He'd come back to the middle of the living room like Lassie, as if to tell us, "Didn't you hear that baby? He needs help!"

I think he's going to do just fine with a new baby in our house.

Love,
Sarah

Posted by: Sarah at 05:06 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.