I have been thinking for a while about John McCain.

My blog is about five and a half years old at this point. That's how long he was a prisoner in Hoa Lo.

Every thought I've had since I started blogging, every friend I've made, every article I've read, every lesson I've grokked...

I have been free. I have had the freedom to do all those things.

From Professor Cockroach to Charlie's birthday...

3571 blog posts.

I have lived for five and a half years.

Lived and learned and grokked and loved.

I was not beaten, not locked away, not tortured, not forced to listen to propaganda. The worst I've had to deal with is some name-calling and sleepless nights.

I have never had my spirit broken.

Five and a half years.

Imagine if every blog post were wiped away and replaced by a day in captivity. Everything I have read and learned in this half decade gone, replaced by solitude and madness.

My husband came home from SERE with a newfound respect for John McCain and the men like him. My blog has taught me respect too, respect for the freedom I have had to live and share my life with you for so long.

I cannot imagine not having been here...

Posted by: Sarah at 09:54 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 1 kb.

Today our Charles Pup turns four.

He's being spoiled rotten today, with walks and wet dog food, and he'll even get a birthday cake.

It's hard to believe the little sweet potato we picked out...

is now our favorite creature in the whole wide world...

Happy Birthday, Charlie!

Posted by: Sarah at 10:19 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Oh My Gosh. I might have to take that back about this year's picture being the cutest one yet. I hadn't seen the pup one. There is no way he was eight or twelve weeks there was he?! So cute!

Posted by: wifeunit at April 18, 2009 11:43 AM (t5K2U)

2 WU -- That's Charlie at 12 days old We got first look at the litter and then chose ol' Charles.

Posted by: Sarah at April 18, 2009 03:37 PM (TWet1)

3 I think that is so cute that you guys went and chose him, and then would go visit him on the weekends until he was old enough to take home, I believe that the first day we met in person you had gone to visit him earlier that day (June)...happy birthday Charlie!

Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at April 18, 2009 04:12 PM (irIko)

4 Ah! Happy Birthday Charlie!

Posted by: Darla at April 19, 2009 07:58 AM (LP4DK)

5 We did that with Annie (visiting the litter after deciding) although we did not have the pick of the litter as Hubs took some convincing that we needed a puppy in the first place. I can't believe how tiny he was (and so unfuzzy!) and how he is kind of reddish. Soooo cute! Happy Birthday, Birthday Boy!!

Posted by: Guard Wife at April 19, 2009 08:46 AM (Bfea2)

6 Please give Charlie a chin scratch and a tummy rub from me! Those pics are adorable! Happy Birthday Charlie!

Posted by: Mary at April 19, 2009 06:55 PM (/hR4y)

7 Incredible site!

Posted by: tramadol showed online at July 23, 2009 07:27 PM (1m6Sn)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Yummy new Krauthammer: "Obama has the magic to make words mean almost anything. Numbers are more resistant to his charms."

Posted by: Sarah at 02:02 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

A cool quote via an article by Instapundit:

When Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele asked to speak at the Chicago tea party, his request was politely refused by the organizers: "With regards to stage time, we respectfully must inform Chairman Steele that RNC officials are welcome to participate in the rally itself, but we prefer to limit stage time to those who are not elected officials, both in Government as well as political parties. This is an opportunity for Americans to speak, and elected officials to listen, not the other way around."

Posted by: Sarah at 01:45 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.

[UPDATE: I tried to find a spectrum that I was looking for, but all I could find were circles and 3D representations. And so I settled for a graphic I wasn't entirely happy with because I was too wrapped up in what I was writing to stop and make one myself. So I changed the graphic. The original graphic to which Amritas' comment refers can be found here.]

Wife Unit writes about the role of government too: And My Answer.

I sent the following message to Mare via email the other day:

I also think that there are many issues where things are not black and white for me. I flop back and forth on abortion, for example. I am always willing to have a good debate with people who believe forcefully one way or the other because I am really still not sure what I think. I try to remember WWLD, what would libertarians do? So I unsettledly accept that the government oughtn't tell us what to do with our bodies. And for me, that extends to prostitution and drugs as well. But then, on the flip side, I think people should be able to smoke in public and also eat trans-fats

So yeah, I can debate. But on certain issues -- gun rights and taxes come readily to mind -- I feel pretty strongly about my opinions. But in other realms, I am up for discussion. Like education...I can find common ground with you and CaliValleyGirl, and we could debate the nuts and bolts.

Like Wife Unit, I have views that align me with donkeys and elephants. But that's because I don't define my views on the social scale; I define them on the responsibility scale. Social issues shake out far differently when you judge them based on personal responsibility (vs what is or isn't in the Bible, or what is or isn't traditional).

Part of the answer to Sis B's original question as to why there's a chasm between what her conservative friends believe and the government we've had is because I think the whole system is creeping leftward. However, that doesn't mean what it sounds like: I don't think the complete picture has Republicans and Democrats as the poles, where you have to fall as one or the other, or somewhere in between. Instead, the system is more like this:

And the system keeps incrementally shifting leftward while we sit fixed and wonder how in the hell we've gotten to the point where we are budgeting $3.2 billion towards "New Orleans storm protection" and $15 billion for Pell grants.

What I think it really boils down to is Whittle's Theory of Political Reduction:

I contend that there is a single litmus that does indeed separate the nation and the world into two opposing camps, and that when you examine where people will fall on the countless issues that affect our society, this alone is the indicator that will tell you how they will respond.

The indicator is Responsibility.

To the right of the spectrum is less government involvement / more individual responsibility; to the left is more government involvement / more shared responsibility. That's the It Takes a Village mentality. That's Obama's "be your brother's keeper" idea. That's the side of the spectrum I want to stop creeping towards.

To come full circle, I completely respect people who are pro-life because they believe the baby is already a human being endowed with the inalienable right to life. I also completely respect people who believe that the government has no business telling people what they should do medically or with their own bodies (a point I can also understand when debating euthanasia). I have a hard time figuring out which right I find more valid, to be honest. I struggle to not be a hypocrite and to be consistent in my viewpoints. So what I cannot stand are, say, Democrats who think the government has no right to tell them they can't have an abortion with their own body, but every right to stop other people from smoking because the second-hand smoke might hurt their bodies. I find that remarkably inconsistent and frustrating. I also, personally, find it inconsistent to say that government should decree that only men and women should marry, but that government should butt out of everything else. And I really don't understand when some Democrats claim that they want less government meddling than I do, or that they are in fact the party of "government butting out."

But we are all inconsistent beings. I try very hard to be mindful of when my opinions are conflicting and be honest about the fact that I am still working things out. Trying to grok, if you will. And I self-pigeonhole as a Republican because, as I said before, I am trying to "take the word back." Plus, it's how I vote, because, while they are far from perfect, I believe they are closer to me on the responsibility / government meddling scale than Democrats are.

But like Wife Unit, I don't caricature easily, I don't think.

Posted by: Sarah at 11:19 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 798 words, total size 6 kb.

1 I am puzzled by the graphic. It seems to indicate that anarchism is the bridge between socialism and Communism on the one hand and libertarianism and fascism (which is paired with ... monarchy!?) on the other. Perhaps fascism and monarchy are paired because they appeal to tradition unlike Communist revolutionaries, but that doesn't explain why libertarianism is on the same side as them. Does a super-libertarian become an anarchist before becoming ... a Nazi or a royalist? Does a super-socialist become an anarchist before becoming a Communist? I see political positions in terms of a circle with anarchism joining both ends. Super-libertarians reject government and become anarchists. In an anarchic society, the vacuum of power is quickly filled by thugs ... not unlike Communists and fascists who are variants on a totalitarian theme. More here: Can’t you see past the guff and recognize the essence? One country is dedicated to the proposition that man has no rights, that the collective is all. The individual held as evil, the mass—as God. No motive and no virtue permitted—except that of service to the proletariat. That’s one version [communism]. Here’s another. A country dedicated to the proposition that man has no rights, that the State is all. The individual held as evil, the race—as God. No motive and no virtue permitted—except that of service to the race [fascism]. Am I raving or is this the cold reality of two continents already? Watch the pincer movement. If you’re sick of one version, we push you into the other. We get you coming and going. We’ve closed the doors. We’ve fixed the coin. Heads—collectivism, and tails—collectivism. Fight the doctrine which slaughters the individual with a doctrine which slaughters the individual. Give up your soul to a council—or give it up to a leader. But give it up, give it up, give it up. My technique . . . . Offer poison as food and poison as antidote.

Posted by: Amritas at April 17, 2009 12:46 PM (+nV09)

2 second attempt, darn comments! I think, rather than a scale that goes from left to right (and presumably circles around), the scale more resembles a grid with four quadrants. The truth is that in practice, fascism isn't very different from socialism/communism (I have to pair them, because there's never been true communism, just very strict socialism). The difference lies only in the ideologies that lead there. The Nazis had death camps, work camps, and penalized people who did not follow their ideal. They also had a large amount of social programs and government intrusion into life. And then we have the USSR, with its gulags and government ordered famines - its social programs (that didn't work) and so on. Where's the difference in practice? There really isn't much of one. I'm with you Sarah - I don't understand it when people try to pigeonhole me into something I'm not. I don't even self-identify Republican. I'm ready for DADT to be dropped responsibly. I am very pro-life because I see a baby as a person from the moment it is conceived, but I also think that someone's rights to harm themselves stop when they affect my body - thus my anti-cigarette in enclosed public spaces stance and my legalize some drugs stance. I also, as a practicing Catholic, don't think the government should be dictating the facts of marriage to anyone. I don't think the government's role should go beyond giving a civil union a tax break. If I want to be married, I'll go to church and get married. But that's an entirely separate issue than the government dictating marriage. I think responsibility is the best way to put it. I try not to be a hypocrite, I really do. But I expect the same of others. I actually do think that it takes a village - as much as some people might stone me for that. But the village it takes is a WILLING one, not one that is forced into something by government decree. AFG and I give a larger percentage of our income every year to charity than the Obamas do (although granted it works out to be much less in dollar amounts, still it also makes a bigger dent in our standard of living) because when I see someone that truly needs help I want to help them. That's the thing, though. It needs to be MY CHOICE. There are people I don't want to help, and I resent being forced to. Ditto with my children - I'm all for community responsibility. In fact, one of the notes I most treasure is one from you, Sarah, about how you appreciated that we "co-parent" when we're together. And I was reminded of it two weekends ago when we had the hotel trouble and wifeunit stepped up to help with one of my kids. I love my village. I need my village. But they are my village BY CHOICE. And it is that choice that I think we need to guard so much.

Posted by: airforcewife at April 17, 2009 03:22 PM (Fb2PC)

3 AFW -- I agree with you and I didn't mean to sound like I don't want a WILLING village. I surely do. That's the gulch idea for me. Imagine if we all lived in a neighborhood together and we CHOOSE to entrust each other with our kids and lives. I think that'd be great. What I object to is feeling like I am constantly being told that I have to do things For The Greater Good: I have to pay taxes to make sure that no child is left behind and everyone has health care and "a living wage." I want to use my money to help people I think are worthy of it, who deserve a small leg up when life gets rough...instead of being forced to send money to Washington to get distributed to any old person. But it's a well-established fact that I'm a big meanie

Posted by: Sarah at April 17, 2009 03:52 PM (TWet1)

4 Great work, webmaster, nice design!

Posted by: adipex generic drug at August 01, 2009 08:45 AM (Pq2OR)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

For the readers who went to my high school: How many Deadheads did we have at our school? I swear, most days it looked like students were cutting class to follow Phish. I can think of at least three cars that had Grateful Dead-themed license plates, and many more that had dancing bears on them.

And when I wrote my graduation speech and made the joke about Deadheads, our principal read it and said, "Whaaat? The Grateful Dead is popular?" I remember immediately thinking that she was far too out of touch to be a good principal. One walk through our hallways or parking lot would've knocked her over with tie-dye and patchouli, but she was oblivious to a huge trend among her students.

I was reminded of this today when I heard ABC's statement that "The White House says the president is unaware of the tea parties and will hold his own event today."

Wow, seriously? He didn't even know that thousands of citizens were protesting yesterday? Not he didn't care or he didn't think it was significant (guh, neither OK in my book), but he didn't know?

Out of touch, dude. Out of touch.

Posted by: Sarah at 01:13 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 208 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Oh I'm sure he knows all about it. Just the same spin as when they tried to convnce us that Bush wasn't concerned about his approval rating. To be fair, the Bush administration didn't seem to care too much about statements of dissent. Granted, I thought Obama was going to be the type of guy to address this type of thing head-on. So that's pretty dissappointing. And for the record, I do remember the dead being way popular in our school. Granted, that's also when pot-smoking got way popular too...if only I could draw a connection between the 2...

Posted by: Sarah's Pinko Commie Friend at April 16, 2009 01:59 PM (aKpbG)

2 I'm still marveling at how a handful (or even one or two) pink-shirted screamers garnered a spot on every evening news program on regular and cable TV--and these people were taken seriously & treated with deference, but thousands of people turning out in droves, peaceably assembling for a specific purpose were 1) not covered or, if they were, 2) they were treated with disdain and oral sex references. Bravo to those who, had I not been paying better attention, would have had me doing a song and dance for my 10-year-old rather than explaining to her what teabagging is. SUPER thoughtful and mature.

Posted by: Guard Wife at April 16, 2009 02:05 PM (Bfea2)

3 Excerpted from Alinsky's rules for radicals. Sound familiar? RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.) RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid "un-fun" activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.) RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.) But no, the 4th estate/5th column isn't biased. What we should do as a movement is close ranks. No media interviews, no punditry, no debates. Make grassroots just that, and go old-school. Door to door, word of mouth, etc. As you DH will attest, the movement has to control the message, and therefore the media. Then, we protest the media in ways that will force them to respond (like swarming their offices and shutting them down) and still control the message, ensuring all protesters refuse comment, deferring only to the pointed spokespersons, who must be out most well educated, normal-looking, no-skeletons-in-the-closet, and charismatic people. (I nominate you, Sarah.) Even more fun, go after the advertisers. Protest their support of an elitist, biased media that invents news and produces piss-yellow journalism. Force them to pull ads from news programs, news papers, and even the news networks. How about an Oprah's book club burning? That'd make the news right? Yes, but in a very bad way. Any journalist who uses "teabaggers" is immediately banned from interviews. Even if that interview has NOTHING to do with the tea party movement. They should receive a standardized answer that you refuse to speak with them, personally, because of their bias on other issues. Cite examples, if you like, but don't enter into discussions with them about it. And to make it even more intriguing, use tactics practiced by the Falun Gong. Those people scare the crap out of the Chinese gummint. Most important, we have to figure out how to identify and discourage the crazies. --Chuck

Posted by: Chuck at April 17, 2009 04:34 AM (bQVIy)

4 Hah! Dead Heads at RHS. Uh, what a great story and accurate recap. Yeah, I remember the stink eye I would give all the dead heads. And then I end up marrying one! Isn't that freakin' karma. This summer - 1 Dead concert and 1 Phish concerts. I think God is LHFAO at my expense. But at least I'm a good sport about it.

Posted by: BigD78 at April 20, 2009 05:15 PM (g3z97)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

CaliValleyGirl also wrote a post about taxes, which is well worth reading.

Posted by: Sarah at 07:20 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

Found at Villainous Company...heh. BigD's gonna love this.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:00 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

I've said before that Carl Sagan's Cosmic Timeline has always helped me find perspective and peace. I am but a blip in time and my problems are too. Yesterday, Amritas sent me a Hudnall link on the same lines: You're Less Than a Speck.

I find such comfort in my cosmic insignificance.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:27 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

Army: UR doin it wrong

(My compliments to Chuck; I totally stole his joke.)

Posted by: Sarah at 12:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

Read Grim's Blackfive post on The Caste of Killers, and make sure to click through to Shannon Love's Don't Be Preedy.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:30 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

Surviving in a post-American world

ObamaÂ’s Potemkin Military Reception=No Scandal; Troops Plan Who Will Take What Questions From Bush=Huge Scandal

(via Boxenhorn and Amritas, respectively)

My husband left this morning for a week of training (marksmanship camp...no fair!) and my mother leaves Wednesday. I will be back online like my normal self after that.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:11 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.

So many people did such a good job of answering Sis B's question. I concur with the fundamentals of what they said (and I would settle for a school voucher system any day as opposed to the soup sandwich we currently have.)

Any discussion of what I think the role of government is would have to include talk of rights. I believe we have inalienable rights to life, liberty, freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, etc. Those are rights to be left alone. To not be meddled with. To live and let live. We need a system of government when our community gets too big to handle as an individual, but the role of government ought ideally to be to protect our right not to be meddled with.

My husband and I love watching the series Deadwood. You can see on this show the evolution of government: Jack McCall kills Wild Bill, and then, aw crap, now we have to have a trial instead of just stringing him up. And then maybe it would be a good idea to have a sheriff and so on. You see these people who moved West to be left alone now being forced to create a government of sorts as the community gets bigger. And they downright resent it. Seth and Saul wanted to move West to open a hardware store, so they bought land, erected a building, and started selling boots and pans. They didn't need a permit, they didn't need a building inspection, they didn't have to belong to a guild or pay union dues; they just set to work filling a need in the camp: hardware. Can you imagine what they'd think if they saw what has to be done to start a business today?

I'm not saying life was better in every way back then, but Deadwood illustrates the gradual relinquishing of complete individuality and the loaning, if you will, of some of your rights to an authority. People entrusted the sheriff with their right to life and their right to justice. In return, the sheriff mediated their disputes (most notably between Hostetler and Steve the Drunk. Which was enough to make you wish you didn't live under the rule of law, so you could choke that hooplehead Steve out and be done with it.)

I liked CaliValleyGirl's analogy of government as a home owner's association. We in the United States have entrusted our government with some of our rights. We are too big to defend ourselves individually, so we entrust them with our national defense. We needed a system of interstate roads, so we entrust our motorways to them. But I personally think that what we now entrust our government to do goes way beyond promoting the general welfare.

Broadly speaking, I think the difference between the left and right is that the left wants to entrust more things to the government. I think they see our country as one big family. In my family, I have a crappy little job where I make about $75 per week. My husband makes more than that in a day. But all our money goes into the same bank account, and I am allowed to spend whatever I think is prudent on clothes or yarn or books. My husband does not restrict my spending to only what I make, because we are a family and we love each other. And sometimes I think that the left sees our country as an extension of a family, where the person who makes $75 per week is entitled to the same equality of result as the person who makes $7500. I think that's illustrated by Lileks' Parable of the Stairs story about his tax refund:

“I think the money should have gone straight to those people instead of trickling down.” Those last two words were said with an edge.

“But then I wouldn’t have hired them,” I said. “I wouldn’t have new steps. And they wouldn’t have done anything to get the money.”

“Well, what did you do?” she snapped.

“What do you mean?”

“Why should the government have given you the money in the first place?”

“They didn’t give it to me. They just took less of my money.”

That was the last straw. Now she was angry. And the truth came out:

“Well, why is it your money? I think it should be their money.”

What I see is that James Lileks made that money and he should be able to use it to build stairs to improve his home. But this Democrat canvasser thought it should've all gone into the collective national bank account and then been doled out based on who needed it.

On the same note, after she wrote this post, CaliValleyGirl elaborated on the theme in an email. She wrote:

I mean, imagine you are walking down the street with my dad and you meet someone who asks you for money. And you say sure, and slip your hand into my fatherÂ’s pocket, take his wallet, take out a $20, give it to the guy, and now you feel good, because you helped that person. But really, YOU didnÂ’t help that person.

This, to echo back to Sis B, is the left-wing mindset that I will never understand. Why should the stair money belong to all of us? Why should anyone be entitled to the fruits of Lileks' labor? And how do people justify taking money out of CaliValleyDad's pocket and giving it away to people who didn't earn it? (A question which, sadly, CaliValleyGirl never seemed to get an answer on.) The United States is not one big collective family with a shared bank account. It was never meant to be that. I don't know why we've drifted towards that; I find it maddening. I don't need to be Deadwood, but I don't want to be what we are right now.

I have heard Sean Hannity do man-on-the-street interviews with young people, asking them what people have the right to. Most of them quite readily agree that people have the right to shelter, food, education, transportation, and health care. I firmly believe that the government should grant none of those things as a right. In order for a penniless person to have any of those things, the government has to take Lileks' stair money and give it away. The role of government should be limited to enforcing the laws that protect our inalienable rights: the laws that prevent someone from coming into Lileks' house to steal his stair money, the laws that ensure that the contractor who builds the stairs will face justice if he doesn't fulfill his contract, and the laws that protect Lileks' right to defend his family should anyone step foot onto that staircase to do them harm. The government's role, in my opinion, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Lileks should get to have the stairs in the first place. If he earned the money for them, he gets them; he shouldn't have to relinquish his stair money so that other families can feed their kids or have a house.

Leonard Peikoff says it well in a speech I read back in 2000, a speech that resonated with me instantly and which obviously became a part of my knowing. I didn't realize how closely I'd echoed it nine years later in the beginning of this post until I googled it to quote here:

The term "rights," note, is a moral (not just a political) term; it tells us that a certain course of behavior is right, sanctioned, proper, a prerogative to be respected by others, not interfered with -- and that anyone who violates a man's rights is: wrong, morally wrong, unsanctioned, evil.

Now our only rights, the American viewpoint continues, are the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That's all. According to the Founding Fathers, we are not born with a right to a trip to Disneyland, or a meal at Mcdonald's, or a kidney dialysis (nor with the 18th-century equivalent of these things). We have certain specific rights -- and only these.

Why only these? Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want -- not to be given it without effort by somebody else.

When I talk about Our Gulch, when I reference Fight or Flee, I am talking about my people. My tribe, as Whittle would say. And the people I want in my Gulch, they all have this same definition of rights. Most people I am friends with have this definition; most of the bloggers I read share it too. It seems to me that we are numerous. So to me, the interesting part of Sis B's question is this:

I think that part of what mystifies me about it is the vast chasm between what I hear regular conservatives saying they believe and the type of government that has been established under the guise of conservativism the past 8 years.

I am equally mystified by this. If everyone I know feels like I do about rights and the role of government, why don't we ever have a government that suits us?

I think the answer lies in compromise. My tribe was mad that Pres Bush was soft on immigration and that he signed the prescription drug plan. Many in my tribe were mad about the marriage amendment as well. I also remember vividly in 2004 when Bush won and said he was going to privatize Social Security. I couldn't believe my ears and was thrilled beyond belief. But it didn't pan out. The federal government is one whopping compromise where no one ends up happy with the result.

And it's not just Republicans who embody this chasm. Remember how Pres Clinton fficial&client=firefox-a">was "the best Republican president we've had in a while"? I am sure Obama supporters are mad that he hasn't completely pulled out of Iraq and that closing Gitmo is "complicated." It's the nature of politics that all presidents are going to govern from the center and end up ticking off their constituents.

Which is why I agree with Mrs du Toit and CaliValleyGirl that politics should be local, and that we ought to live in gulches. Another fundamental belief I have about the workings of government is that it should vary by locality. There should be very few federal laws; most things should be left up to the states, and then you could live in the state that you feel best represents your worldview. It would be far easier to get one of 50 states to suit you than it is to get the entire country to. People pay far too much attention to federal elections and lawmaking.

Towards the end, Sis B adds:

But when this election was done and the Republican party had its collective ass handed to it, my first thought was, "I hope that this allows the party to get back to the fundamentals of its beliefs and that they re-emerge in four or eight years with a strong, coherent platform." Seriously. I want the conservatives to get back to their roots and come back strong.

I don't see that happening.

I think I disagree with her. I think four years of President Obama will be plenty to make people in the center lurch rightward. And I hope we see a resurgence of conservative/libertarian principles on the national stage. I want Republicans to stop their pandering and quit trying to be Democrat Lite. I want to be the party of tough love. I want to be the party of individual responsibility. I want to vote for someone who denies the Democrats their premises. But, you'll remember, I was not a McCain supporter from the beginning. I supported Fred Thompson, who was far closer to my ideal politician than what I ended up having to vote for. Not perfect, but as close as it probably gets. (I don't imagine we could ever get away with President Z.)

So, at the risk of sounding like Forrest Gump, I guess that's all I have to say about that. Sis B has now asked her Democrat readers to explain their side. If you are interested in this exchange of ideas, keep your eyes on this post and the comments.

For additional reading about the role of government from people whose brains work far better than mine, check out Mrs du Toit's The Day Liberty Died (via Amritas) and den Beste's Citizen Soldier.

Posted by: Sarah at 11:32 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 2152 words, total size 13 kb.

1 Funny, I would label myself a "liberal" - note the lack of capital letter. This is the best definition I could find as to why that word fits: favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible So I don't feel that Sarah's view of government is all that different from mine. Let folks do what they want to do - don't impose your religion, don't tell me what marriage means, don't go crying to Washington over what happens in your backyard, take care of your own business, etc. Seems to make sense to me. I find it curious that most people who deride liberals seem to believe that all of them want the government to do everything for them - some certainly do, but not all of them. Many people label themselves "liberal" because they want to be left the hell alone by other people. Frankly, I don't see the Dems or the Republicans supporting this ideal at all. Both are pretty far from it. Granted, maybe that's our fault. We make hunger, education, finance and all types of other social/personal issues a political issue and what can a politician do about them short of legislating and making it a Washington problem? Great post - thanks

Posted by: Sarah's Pinko Commie Friend at April 12, 2009 02:55 PM (4bitt)

2 Pinko -- I have seen many bloggers that I consider on "my" side use the small-l liberal designation. Like in a "taking it back" way.

Posted by: Sarah at April 12, 2009 03:10 PM (TWet1)

3 As in, "its cool, I'm taking it back!" ? Nice

Posted by: Sarah's Pinko Commie Friend at April 12, 2009 04:23 PM (4bitt)

4 Pinko -- I just knew you would get my Randal reference... Incidentally, I should've commented about your last paragraph. Excellent point. Why do we focus so much on social issues during the campaign: I don't want the government hand on any of those things. So what I want to know is this: Do you think Obama's "leaving people the hell alone"? I know you favored him over McCain; are you happy about his policies so far? Because to me, taking the reins of the banks and car companies is pretty freaking far from leaving us alone. I think it's a major entwining of government and business. What do you think?

Posted by: Sarah at April 13, 2009 02:44 AM (TWet1)

5 Excellent post Sarah. It's hard to explain each of our individual belief systems but I think you and CVG did an excellent job of it. People seem to forget about states rights and how they were the foundation of everything. If you want to live in state that honors gay marriage then you can move to one that does. However people don't want to be uprooted from their own community, so they just attempt to change their communities collective mind. If the community doesn't like that idea then the person might say well let's make it a national law, so then I don't have to be inconvenienced by moving. I consider myself conservative but have some very socially liberal ideas. I believe in a woman's right to choice to control her own body. I believe that all children in our country have a right (yes, strong word I know) to a decent education and free health care. I don't mind my taxes going to pay for education and health care because in the end it makes our country stronger and more competitive in a global market. Some conservatives don't agree with me and that's ok. I respect their opinions because they are educated on the issues or have strong moral beliefs. Which brings me to a point. One of the reason's I dislike Liberal ideology even though I am slightly liberal myself, is that most of the people I speak with don't seem entirely clear on what they believe. It's just seems to be this blanket idea of everyone should be taken care of. Everyone has a right to everything to make them comfortable in life. This ideology is something that seems to be fostered in the PUBLIC school system. Which is why so many people these days choose to home school. If the liberal side doesn't want prayer in schools because of the 'separation of church and state' (NOT a RIGHT granted in the constitution by the way, but read as an INTENTION by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote) then quit stuffing another ideology down the kids throats. It's an idea of entitlement that bothers me. No one ever said life was going to be fair. The other thing I take issue with is the vitriol that is spewed by both the liberal and conservative sides. Name calling won't help. The original post asked for no name calling, however there was still a jab at the other side when she said that 'But when this election was done and the Republican party had its collective ass handed to it,' I call bullshit on that. Obama received 52.9% and McCain received 45.7% Hardly a landslide sweetheart. I don't think Obama is going to have 8 years of governing. He has shown so far that he does not in fact have the experience needed for the job. He election galvanized many conservative-lite people into becoming more involved in their local governments and say, no more, lets change this.

Posted by: Mare at April 13, 2009 03:55 AM (TWet1)

6 Tomorrow I will be sending out my first quarterly estimated tax payment for this year. I am self-employed, so I self-deduct my taxes, and actually notice how much of my money is being siphoned away. And what struck me was that my federal tax payment was nearly 10x that of my state tax payment. And I thought how wrong that isÂ…it should be the other way around. Why are we sending so much money to Washington, when supposedly WashingtonÂ’s job is to send it back to us? Why donÂ’t we keep it in our states, and send a minimal amount to the federal government? I just donÂ’t get it. Mare, I agree with you on the public education thing, but I would argue that it's not a right. I would say, like you did, it's just a smart thing to do as a nation and makes us stronger. A good education takes care of a lot of problems...problems we still have in this country, so I feel we are failing ourselves in that way, because we aren't giving public school children that good education.

Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at April 13, 2009 05:20 AM (irIko)

7 I know 'right' is a strong word in this case. But my thought process is that the system already exists. We are already paying for it. Ultimately if we want people to take personal responsibility for their own lives and not need the help of the federal gov't then we must give them the tools to succeed. Education is the key to that. And I used the word 'decent' very specifically. It does not have to be perfect. It has to get the job done to prepare kids for either college, the military or a trade. What they do after that is up to them. Then again, education is not a something guarnteed in the Bill of Rights. Just my 2 cents, your mileage may vary

Posted by: Mare at April 13, 2009 06:53 AM (y9A8i)

8 I know 'right' is a strong word in this case. But my thought process is that the system already exists. We are already paying for it. Ultimately if we want people to take personal responsibility for their own lives and not need the help of the federal gov't then we must give them the tools to succeed. Education is the key to that. And I used the word 'decent' very specifically. It does not have to be perfect. It has to get the job done to prepare kids for either college, the military or a trade. What they do after that is up to them. Then again, a right to an education is not something guaranteed in the Bill of Rights nor do I think we need an Amendment to make it so. Just my 2 cents, your mileage may vary

Posted by: Mare at April 13, 2009 06:54 AM (y9A8i)

9 "So what I want to know is this: Do you think Obama's "leaving people the hell alone"? I know you favored him over McCain; are you happy about his policies so far? Because to me, taking the reins of the banks and car companies is pretty freaking far from leaving us alone. I think it's a major entwining of government and business. What do you think?" Well, I don't really know what to think about government intervention in business/economy. As a business owner, I believe pretty strongly that perception is reality in the market. So I sometimes feel (perhaps selfishly) that whatever it takes to turn people's attitudes around makes me happy. Granted, the idea of giving money to failed businesses bugs me a ton. I'm not sure how I feel about him so far. Know this, I don't consider this guy the second coming. I think that most people can agree that he is an "interesting" fellow. I like him (hey, I like McCain too) and I'm interested to see what he does. I like the fact that he hasn't rushed the pull out in Iraq, because I'm not in favor of leaving till the job is done. Granted, I'm not sure that anyone agrees on what "the job" is anymore. But I think he'll temper some of the issues that liberals are wrong about. But I also think he believes he or policy can "fix" everything. I don't believe for a second that the government (or either party) is responsible for the housing industry debacle - I blame the banking industry pure and simple. Now, they didn't cause it, but can they fix it? And if they can, what precedent does that set going forward? I think that most of us want the American Economy to be strong, and I don't have enough economic education to believe that the free market will automagically right itself for the best without interference. So to answer your question, I don't really know. If it works then I'm happy as a business owner. As a felow armchair quarterbacking the oval office I feel more inclined to complain about the intentions but admit that I don't have the expertise to provide a better answer. I still like Obama, I think its interesting to see how he'll deal with his early-term issue. I thought Bush did a great job with 911, even if I thought he botched some other stuff. But 911 was something that could be handled "right" and he was in a position to do something. I'm not sure that the president should be doing something at all, or whether or not the president has a "right" thing in his arsenal at all. I would have been interested to see what McCain would have done with regards to the economy. I'm not regretting my choice of vote yet (with regards to the economy anyway). does that backpedal make any sense?

Posted by: Sarah's Pinko Commie Friend at April 13, 2009 01:28 PM (4bitt)

10 Oh, to actually have a party of tough love and individual responsibility. If we are ever able to make that the entire platform of the republican party, I will be thrilled.

Posted by: Leofwende at April 13, 2009 07:49 PM (28CBm)

11 For examples of just how intrusive government threatens to become in day-to-day life, see my regulating absolutely everything thread...also this. Not to mention the whole CPSIA debacle.

Posted by: david foster at April 14, 2009 03:04 AM (ke+yX)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I had to work this afternoon demonstrating another science kit. This one was aimed for four year olds, so it was pretty basic. But the kids seemed to have fun.

I thought of this recent Joanne Jacobs' post (via Amritas) while I was there. I was looking over the other science kits on display, and the one for the kids aged 8+ had a warning label: "This set contains chemicals that may be harmful if misused." On the back of the box was the list of contents: gelatin, sugar, baking yeast, and food coloring.

Now I freely admit that chemistry was my weakest subject in school, but I'm having a hard time figuring out a combination of those contents that could be harmful. Am I missing something? Or is this an example of warning labels gone wild?

It's a far cry from the 1950's kit with uranium and a geiger counter!

Posted by: Sarah at 12:04 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

Chuck Z cracks me up...

As we all know, when a veteran runs into a problem, we just pull out the gun we've hidden in our bible and start shooting.

I am still working on my answer to Sis B. I wrote for over an hour this morning, but I need to sit on it a little longer. I am not good at blog assignments: the longer it takes me, the less I like the result. But we'll see what I manage to come up with.

For what it's worth, I'd love to have Sis B write on the same topic: what the role of government is, what powers it should have, etc. Because I don't understand her side any better than she understands mine.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:50 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

In addition to SpouseBUZZ Live and my husband having to work over the weekend, we were also mentally dealing with this: A Lot Can Change In 36 Hours.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:31 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Hear Hear! I totally feel you

Posted by: Darla at April 11, 2009 10:14 AM (LP4DK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

UPDATE: Everyone is giving really good answers. Make sure you still go over and read Sis B's comments section. And if Chuck Z can craft an answer without using the word "commie," then you can too! If you answer on your own blog, leave a trackback either at Sis B's or here, so we can read them all. I know Sis B said not to just quote people, but I keep going "Yeah, what she said, and what he said!" However, I did give this lots of thought last night before I read anything here and plan to try to answer on my own...as soon as I get home from making more foam houses at work.

Also, I would like to say that I lurve my imaginary friends. I know that many of you disagree with me on several issues -- AirForceWife, Andi, CaliValleyGirl, Mare, etc have all let me know when they do -- but when we boil it down to the essentials, just the basic framework we work under, we are all so similar. And that's why we read each other: we know we have common ground, and the rest is just details. It's also why we seriously need a gulch.

*****

Anyone want to try to answer Sis B's question?

I know I have a bunch of Republican readers and close friends, but for the life of me I cannot figure out what any of you think about actual issues. It's all hidden behind snark and namecalling and eye rolling and back patting and I seriously, honestly, to my core, want to know what you believe and why. I want to know what you think about how the government is supposed to work. What does a functioning government look like to you? Please, if you care to answer this question, do so without saying words like "libs" or "dems" or hippies, commies, fags, or any derivative thereof. I want to know what, if any, moral authority government should have. What is the government's purpose in relation to the economy? What powers should the government be allowed to have and what should be limited? What is your view of the constitution? What are your beliefs about ALL the amendments within the Bill of Rights, not just the second?

I think that part of what mystifies me about it is the vast chasm between what I hear regular conservatives saying they believe and the type of government that has been established under the guise of conservativism the past 8 years.

I am gonna take a stab at it when I get back home. It seems like a hard task to me, because I will not be able to grant any common ground. To answer this, I will have to start from the beginning and delineate all my premises. Because what's obvious to me is not obvious to a Democrat. Obviously.

On the other hand, it's easy. The government has the authority to do what the Constitution says and nothing more. End of story. (P.S. I completely freaked out a centrist Republican friend here in town in a discussion of education funding by saying that I don't even think there should be a Department of Education. If it's not in the Constitution, I don't want government doing it. That's why Republicans like me have been horrified by many of our own politicians. We see them as Democrat Lite instead of a true alternative.)

I will try to formulate my thoughts on the drive home. Husband, you start thinking too, because this will have to be a collaborative effort in order for it to be done right.

(And, keep in mind that my comments section is plain awful, so if you start a long comment here, for your sanity, please copy to the clipboard before you post it. Because nine times out of ten, it will disappear. I know this. I am working on moving and was going to do it right about the time I went crazy. I will get to it soon, I promise.)

Posted by: Sarah at 05:01 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 689 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Thank you and I look forward to the discussion! Normally I would be looking for a debate, but I'm too tired for that these days. I really just want to know what you think. Travel safely!

Posted by: Sis B at April 05, 2009 09:22 AM (GFl+S)

2 I am not a Republican because so many Republicans are, as you put it, "Democrat Lite". Your premise is that the Constitution sets the limits of government. A question for you and those on your side: Does it still make sense to adhere to an 18th century document plus amendments in the 21st century? Can't blind traditionalism be dangerous? (I have my own answers, but I'd like to hear what others have to say.) A question for your opponents: Is the Constitution too constricting? What extra powers does the government need, and why? Or is the Constitution already sufficient? Is the Right misinterpreting it, and if so, how? I've noticed that people on both the Right and Left claim to be the true heirs of the Founding Fathers. This reveals a shared premise: a belief that the Founding Fathers more or less embody the ideal. But one must be careful, as iconic associations can be crutches: e.g., "I am right because I think some famous person would agree with me" or "I am right because I think my beliefs are in accordance with some famous document". Take away those crutches. Forget the glory of the Founding Fathers and their writings. Are your arguments valid for today? Can you convince someone who has never heard of the Founding Fathers or the Constitution that your ideas are the ones America needs? Without relying on the emotional appeal of the past, can you demonstrate that you are objectively correct?

Posted by: Amritas at April 05, 2009 11:42 AM (Wxe3L)

3 BTW, the "you" in my comment above referred to Sarah, not Sis B. Thanks to Sis B for asking good questions! We may have answered these before, but they are always worth re-answering, as our answers can change over time. Mine certainly have ...

Posted by: Amritas at April 05, 2009 11:46 AM (Wxe3L)

4 BTW, the "you" in my comment above referred to Sarah, not Sis B. Thanks to Sis B for asking good questions! We may have answered these before, but they are always worth re-answering, as our answers can change over time. Mine certainly have.

Posted by: Amritas at April 05, 2009 11:46 AM (Wxe3L)

5 Absolutely looking forward to this...

Posted by: Sarah's Pinko Commie Friend at April 05, 2009 12:09 PM (4bitt)

6 I don't know . My ultra conservative friends seem to know exactly how to "fix" things as do my liberal friends, but I just don't know anymore. Sorry I can't be of help.

Posted by: Judy at April 05, 2009 01:36 PM (uguBi)

7 Darn, I was all set to use the word hippie-commie. I am a reformed Republican who can't bear to be a Democrat, so that leaves me as an Independent. I believe the government should do as little as possible. They should listen to what the people want, not what they think is best for us. (Can you say 90% NO votes as far as public input on the original TARP funds, yet they still voted it through) Politicians are in it for themselves and their buddies. The little people will continue to take a screwing until we stand up and vote out the people who do not do as their constituents want. But I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by: meadowlark at April 05, 2009 02:39 PM (+7zhB)

8 The Constitution itself is a doctrine that is vague. What powers the government have largely depend on your interpretation of the constitution. The two extreme views are: 1) Broad scope of powers that marginally relate to commerce and the general welfare. 2) Minimalistic view that creates a mere truism of the elastic cause, and limits the commerce power to only a narrow view of interstate commerce (just the journey for example). Anything in between would lead to a debate over the elastic clause, or the degree to which Congress can regulate interstate commerce. A conservative, economically speaking, and this is my opinion, would look to the free market as a base, and only intervene in instances where either positive or negative externalities need addressing. Education +, pollution -. I'll give you more if you find this insightful. You could make the argument that although the constitution gives our government power we shouldn't exercise it because it would lead to a bad outcome, i.e. not pareto optimal (or any other example of what you could argue is not a good outcome).

Posted by: John Limberakis aka Econotics at April 05, 2009 05:34 PM (xoTm3)

9 On the founding fathers debate: This is relevant if you are an orginalist... but even then you had two competing camps: 1 - Hamilton and broad powers (banks, bonds, programs etc) and 2 - anti-federalists, better known as Jeffersonians who favored extremely limited federal government. They passed the Constitution as well thinking it would be used for their concept of limited government. The federalist papers are also a mixed bag. In analyzing public policy I tend not to care about factors such as these - whether or not our founders knew what was best is a mildly amusing premise - after all it was our founding fathers who compromised on "universal suffrage" and found it in their wisdom to judge slaves and freed slaves as 3/5th people. I base my opinions on principles like GDP growth, economic soundness, and freedom. I suppose the most important power the founders gave us is to govern, in a democratic-republican fashion, how we see fit.

Posted by: John Limberakis aka Econotics at April 05, 2009 06:11 PM (xoTm3)

10 To Sis B: Conservative is a blurred term now-a-days. If you base your definition of what is conservative on Bush, or a Southern Republican, you are socially conservative (not favoring social freedoms - forget abortion here temporarily) and economically a mixed bag. Southern Republicans favored big government from 2000-2006 when they lost power. They are a coalition of the religious right, the dwindling number of Reagan Democrats, and businesses. The coalition is falling apart... Many conservatives did not approve of the expansion of big government during 2000-2006 but were complacent in it. I think the new, not neo, conservative is like me, a Western Republican. Socially libertarian (Except perhaps for abortion) and economically responsibly libertarian. I'd love to post later on my beliefs but I wanted to get those three posts on the table first. Frame the perspective if you will...

Posted by: John Limberakis aka Econotics at April 05, 2009 06:37 PM (xoTm3)

11 I think that this has to be answered on two levels. The unemotional intellectual level is all well and good - and I want to hear it! - but in my opinion, reverence for the Constitution is the only thing standing between America and European (or Hawaiian) style socialism. If you want to see what America looks like without this reverence, look at what's happening in America's universities: http://www.rishon-rishon.com/archives/071696.php The natural inclination of most people is that when there is a problem, government should DO SOMETHING, or at least TRY. Nobody respects the importance of Organic Systems http://www.rishon-rishon.com/archives/031769.php They magically "just work" and nobody gets any credit. When people live with them, as they do with capitalism, to the extent that we have it, they just take for granted all the good stuff and want to "fix" the stuff they don't like. At the most abstract level, government should be in charge of the laws which create the right kind of organic system. I am not a "real" libertarian because I don't think that the absence of government means capitalism. The absence of government means Somalia. Capitalism, like socialism, is a government creation - just a different kind of creation, one created by laws, not bureaucracy. In addition to setting up the capitalistic system, I would add to government responsibility functions that capitalism doesn't solve well (or at all): Defense, the courts, roads, the electricity grid, etc. Even in these cases, government should be kept to a minimum by contracting out parts of these services that can be effectively provided by the free market. This is the area where things get blurry, and I am willing to investigate and debate where, exactly, the line should be drawn. I am also in favor of the government getting involved with social welfare. I am not willing (at least in rich countries) to let people die in the streets because they made bad choices, or because of circumstances beyond their control. I think that these services can usually be provided by the free market, with government getting involved in the form of vouchers. Finally, I do think that the government should subsidize education. This, too, should be provided in the form of vouchers, to let the free market provide it in the most efficient way, and provide parents with as many choices as possible. Having said all that, the US Constitution deals with very few of these issues. Mostly, what it deals with is the division of power. The US has three levels of government: local (not provided for by the constitution), state, federal; and three branches of government: executive, legislature, and judiciary. When the US Constitution was written, democracy was not at all taken for granted, and the most important question to the founders was how to keep a dictator (or monarch) from taking power. Their solution was to disperse power as widely as possible. I don't think that there's anything in the Constitution which prevents European-style socialism in America.

Posted by: David Boxenhorn at April 05, 2009 09:55 PM (Yw3OE)

12 I have lots to say about this (you know I do), but I'm still exhausted from this weekend. And I'm sorry, Sarah. I just can't agree with you on Rambo. I can't. I'm glad you're willing to look past that and remain friends on our common ground.

Posted by: airforcewife at April 06, 2009 04:27 AM (Fb2PC)

13 I just wanted to say that in my answer there was a typo...I said something like in the best of all situations you would live in another country...I meant county...(see in my best of all worlds it would be even more regional than state). I was talking to the hubs about it last night, and he said he thinks there shouldn't be public schools either, but there should be public funding for education, it should just all go through the voucher system...I liked that idea.

Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at April 06, 2009 04:30 AM (irIko)

14 Got my response up. Just in case the trackback didn't work here it is... http://www.unliberaledwoman.com/?p=1278

Posted by: BigD78 at April 06, 2009 12:53 PM (W3XUk)

15 Seriously, do you have any idea how hard that was to write without using "commies, fags, and libtards?"

Posted by: Chuck at April 06, 2009 05:54 PM (meX2d)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The rejuvenating weekend I have been looking forward to has been somewhat marred...

Posted by: Sarah at 02:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

Beth's Contradictory Brain: Getting It Out

Posted by: Sarah at 06:55 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

An inspired line from Mark Steyn:

You can live as free men, with all the rights and responsibilities and vicissitudes of fate that that entails. Or you can watch your society decay and die before your eyes — as England, once the crucible of freedom, dies a little with every day.

And an awesome article about my favorite.

In unusually blunt language, Netanyahu said of the Iranian leadership, “You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying, and that is what is happening in Iran.”

You know, every time I swoon over Netanyahu, I think about the funny exchange on South Park when Cartman tries to get the girls to scream and squeal over his new boy band:

CARTMAN: Let's go crazier than that! I mean, you have to act like it's freakin' Leonardo Di Caprio!

BEBE: We wouldn't give a rat's ass if Leonardo Di Caprio came walking past us.

THE OTHER GIRLS: Yeah.

CARTMAN: Fine! Who would you go crazy for?

THE GIRLS: ...Matt Lauer.

Heh.

[Both via Boxenhorn]

Posted by: Sarah at 02:13 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 2 kb.