I just heard about the attacks in India. It is horrifying.

Something caught my eye in the MSNBC article:

Alex Chamberlain, a British restaurant-goer at the Oberoi, told Sky News television that the attackers singled out Britons and Americans. He said a gunman, who appeared to be in his early 20s, ushered 30 or 40 people from the restaurant into a stairway and ordered everyone to put up their hands.

"They were talking about British and Americans specifically. There was an Italian guy, who, you know, they said: 'Where are you from?' And he said he's from Italy and they said 'fine' and they left him alone. And I thought: 'Fine, they're going to shoot me if they ask me anything — and thank God they didn't," he said.

Perhaps he just meant that they would recognize his accent, but the way I read it was that he would tell them the truth. If that's the right reading, he is very brave.

What would you do? Would you say that you're an American or would you lie and say you're Canadian or fake a French accent?

I think I would tell the truth. I hope I would.

Posted by: Sarah at 11:22 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 1 kb.

I keep having these conversations with people, and then a few days later I read something in Atlas Shrugged and think, "Aw nuts, that's how I should've answered."

Right now I am at the part where Cherryl Taggart realizes that Jim isn't who she thought he was.

"Jim, what is it that you want to be loved for?"
"What a cheap shopkeeper's attitude!"
She did not speak; she looked at him, her eyes stretched by a silent question."
"To be loved for!" he said, his voice grating with mockery and righteousness. "So you think that love is a matter of mathematics, of exchange, of weighing and measuring, like a pound of butter on a grocery counter? I don't want to be loved for anything. I want to be loved for myself -- not for anything I do or have or say or think. For myself -- not for my body or mind or words or works or actions."
"But then...what is yourself?"
"If you loved me, you wouldn't ask it."

Last week, I met a neighbor, one of those people who likes to psychoanalyze everyone. I made a joke in the group about how my husband has never been described as "nice," which is true: my husband has many wonderful qualities, but "nice" doesn't really suit him. The neighbor asked me what quality first drew me to my husband. I sat for a moment, deciding between his intellect and his integrity. As I thought on, I realized I ought to indicate his intellect, since his integrity is something that I have grown to see over the years and not necessarily something I knew right from the beginning.

The neighbor interrupted my thoughts, saying that I was taking too long, that a real answer would come from the gut and not require so much deliberation.

I said, "His intellect." The neighbor looked at me like that was a cheap thing to be loved for.

What I wish I'd answered, what I thought of later that night, is that my love for my husband doesn't come from my gut; it comes from my brain. I love him with my mind, not with my heart. A quick response to that question would be false, because the response has to come from my thought process.

My husband and I were in the same friend group for about six months before we began dating. I remember vividly at one point telling a mutual friend that I could see myself marrying someone like Mr. Grok. I was reminded of that today when I saw who Cherryl thought she was marrying. And I realized that the love that developed for my husband was similar to what Dagny feels for John Galt: she loved him even before she knew he existed. I loved my husband's qualities before I ever had any inkling he would become my husband. In fact, he had declined my suggestion that we date. Weeks later, he came to me with his mind and said that he had made a mistake and we should be together. We figuratively shook on it, and that was that.

Effectively, our love was transacted like a pound of butter on a grocery counter.

My husband earned my love. I too had to earn it from him, and it took him two weeks longer than I to weigh the merits of it. And the moments when I feel the most love for my husband, the moments when it feels like my heart is swelling, it is really my brain swelling. It happens when he has excelled at a task, when he has become frustrated with himself because he didn't live up to his potential, or when he has displayed his sharp wit or keen intellect.

I don't think my neighbor would've understood that.

But I wouldn't have it any other way.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:47 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 649 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I totally get what you are saying here: I could have married my husband after knowing him for 2 days. I wasn't "in love" yet...but I knew that he was someone I could grow to love and get attached to. I already loved his character, because that was the character I was looking for in a man...now I just had to get attached to this person.

Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at November 26, 2008 05:08 AM (irIko)

2 I decided to marry Deltasierra in 3rd grade. She was a) nice to me and b) pretty. She smiled a lot. Over time, I came up with some other good reasons, but I have never had cause to doubt the initial reaction. =) Sig

Posted by: Sig at November 26, 2008 07:36 AM (exefa)

3 "Love is like an hourglass, with the heart filling up as the brain empties." Jules Renard

Posted by: tim at November 26, 2008 10:01 AM (nno0f)

4 There seems to be a whole lot of Atlas Shrugged reading going on lately.

Posted by: Tom at November 26, 2008 10:18 AM (lgq5k)

5 I knew I would marry DH when I was 15, I even made the pronouncement... funny, smart, handsome, and unique perspective, that always made me see something different.. We were friends, but did not date romantically, until I was 19. I have asked him what his trepidation was, all of that time alone we spent, me WAITING for a kiss, or some indication of "boy lurves girl"... he answered..."I cared about you too much, I really respected you." Huh....??? Who knew 17 year old boys had sooo much restraint?

Posted by: AWTM at November 26, 2008 12:07 PM (3Q/t2)

6 I had a list of traits and qualities I wantted in a husband. I even told my mom I wouldn'y get married unless 'he' fit the bill. Then 'he' just happened to be in the same platoon during basic training. We met in March, started dating in July, engaged by October, married in January. He was just what I had knew I wanted.

Posted by: Jen at November 26, 2008 08:29 PM (59GjO)

7 I had two lists. The list of "must-haves" (honesty and integrity, intelligence, shared values, sense of humor, etc.), and the list of "deal-breakers" (smoking or other serious addictions, complacency/lack of ambition, anger management issues, dishonesty; those kinds of things). I met my husband online, and so I got to know his personality before I ever met him in person. By the time we met IRL, I knew that (as long as he hadn't lied to me) he had all the qualities I was looking for, as well as a few that I considered to be bonuses, and none of the problems that I had hoped to avoid. I knew before I met him that he was someone who (as long as he was honest) I could at least be great friends with, even if we had no chemistry. When I met him in person after talking to him for a month online, I was pleased to find out that he was exactly the same person I had gotten to know; he wasn't some "internet weirdo" who pretended to be someone else to pick up chicks. I had been pretty sure that he was for real, but it takes meeting a person face to face before you really know. I also found out that first date that I was definitely attracted to him, so more than friends was definitely an option. The things I love most about my husband: his intelligence, his eagerness to learn, his sense of humor, his cuddliness, his integrity, and his determination. He exemplifies these qualities daily in everything he does and thinks and says and believes.

Posted by: Leofwende at December 01, 2008 10:25 AM (jAos7)

8 Doesn't matter what you love him for, all that matters is you love him.

Posted by: bx19 at February 15, 2010 05:56 PM (bWGnc)

9 I sometimes wonder if I think too much, when it comes to love, not that I've had too many opportunies to give falling in love a try.  "Letting go" of the brain doesn't seem to be an option for me.  Does that make me a "pound of butter" kind of person?

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at February 15, 2010 10:44 PM (vqKnu)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I was just getting ready to leave for work when this email from CaliValleyGirl popped up:

Just wanted to make sure that you didn't slip in the shower or anything...no long email needed, just a sign of life!

Heh.

I am here, just busy. Worked all day Saturday. Stayed up until 3 AM online with Amritas. Babysat yesterday. Eek. I came home from the experience thinking that there's no way I can be a mother, that I will do a horrible job, that I don't have the patience.

And then I caught my favorite episode of Scrubs ever, and realized that I probably will find the courage.

I got in bed last night and grabbed my Atlas Shrugged. And I remembered something that I hadn't thought of until last night: the men of Galt's Gulch only lived there one month of the year. They weren't allowed to wall themselves off from the reality of life; they had to keep jobs and live amongst the looters. But they returned to the gulch once a year to be with likeminded individuals.

So really, we have this gulch. The gulch is any time we get together, at the Milblogs Conference, at a SpouseBUZZ, at a house in Ohio, or even just typing on the internet until 3 AM.

Seems like we've had our gulch all along.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:40 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 2 kb.

The best part about living in Germany was that sending mail to Iraq was free. No stamp necessary. And I milked that for all it was worth, sending articles and photos and many letters. 215 of them, to be exact.

This time around, I sent 45. Granted, we had more regular contact via internet, so there was less to say in letters. And he was deployed for half as long. But still...

I think I am proof that people abuse privileges they don't have to pay for.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:47 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I would contend that you are proof that *some* people abuse the privileges they don't pay for.

Posted by: Sis B at November 22, 2008 04:57 AM (0ScrO)

2 I abused the hell out of the "free mail" privilege from Afghanistan. I didn't keep count, but it wasn't uncommon for me to write 4 or 5 letters in a slow day. I would go a week or two without, and then write another batch. Most were to my wife, some to Mom (who didn't get a SINGLE letter from my little brother in Iraq the year before), and a lot to random people I knew only from the Intarweb. One female I knew from a forum I was on was a school teacher, and she read some of my letters (or parts of them, at least) talking about the people and the landscape and the climate and whatnot to her students while they were learning about that part of the world. So some good came from it, I guess. There is nothing better than getting a letter from home when you're in the middle of nowhere. They couldn't always get us water, food, or ammunition, but when they did come through, they brought the mail, too. Sig

Posted by: Sig at November 22, 2008 07:24 AM (/W1Z3)

3 Uh yeah...I remember the sending 12-packs of Diet Mountain Dew...and feeling bad that the packages were so heavy. I abused it too, all of the time! I can't imagine how much it would cost to send those packages from the US. Ouch.

Posted by: Nicole at November 22, 2008 09:30 AM (xPxyx)

4 So Sis, you're saying that if it were free to send packages and mail to your husband, you wouldn't do it more often than you do now? And I thought I was good at self-discipline...

Posted by: Sarah at November 22, 2008 10:51 AM (TWet1)

5 Um, OK. Well, I don't abuse all free privileges either: I don't take free meds from the health clinic, for example. I have always been a nazi about heating and cooling, even when we lived on post and didn't pay energy bills. But I still stand by my generalization that we don't treat resources the same way when they're free as we do when we have to pay for them. Next time you use an anecdote to make a point, I'll try to remember to point it out to you as "not proof of a theory." You know, not every girl's brain is like spaghetti. Only *some* of them. Yeesh, nitpick much?

Posted by: Sarah at November 22, 2008 07:46 PM (TWet1)

6 Aw, I didn't mean to nitpick. I don't think you abused your mail privileges, either, but that's just me. And I totally expected flak over the girl brain spaghetti thing and didn't get it! I knew you were out there lurking with that thought.

Posted by: Sis B at November 23, 2008 09:32 AM (0ScrO)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Yesterday I happened upon a private reading We The Living. I got this indescribable excitement and wanted to grab him and talk his ear off. Of course I didn't. I stared holes into the top of his head, but I couldn't even get him to make eye contact. Still, it kinda made my day.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:38 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.

I am not the Sarah who rejected the 99-Cent Dating Experiment. I think it's very funny and cute. If a guy had done that for me, I would've found it endearing. Of course, all of the gifts I can remember in my life had nothing to do with money: the handmade wooden keychain, "I love you" spelled out in pink Starbursts (my favorite flavor), a potted violet my 8th grade boyfriend walked a mile in the rain to buy for me. And my husband didn't have to buy me a thing to get me to fall in love with him: We went to a free production of Man of La Mancha, he baked cookies from a tube of dough, and he wanted to know my thoughts on Sartre.

I'd trade the diamond bracelet for the one made of Reardon Metal any day of the week.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:25 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

Dr. Helen quoted Ted Nugent (heart) -- "You don't need tough love in America, you need tougher love. " -- in her post about how we need to speak up:

Too many times, we let liberals get away with making fun of Republicans and those of us who do not agree with them politically. This needs to stop and the only way to do it is to speak up in the classrooms, public and at work. Remember that we are 56 million strong--those of us who did not vote for Obama. We are hardly alone.

As you know, I have been reading Atlas Shrugged again. Every time I read it, I remember how empowered it makes me feel. My husband mentioned a small dilemma today, and I said, "Tell them how you really feel; let them have it!" Then I laughed and said, "Sorry, I am being a bit too Reardon, aren't I?"

Reading this book makes me want to speak the truth.

On my flight the other day, while discussing the Obama book with my row-mate, the conversation turned to health care. This man, who was not an Obama supporter, said he agrees with "free" health care and thinks that it's something that the United States can do for its citizens.

I didn't say what I really wanted to say: Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.

And looking back, I kind of wish I had said that. At least the conversation would've turned a different way and perhaps it would've made this man think new thoughts. Instead I took the wimpy way out and reminded him that nothing is "free" in this world. I wish I had been more assertive in the conversation though. He was asking my opinions and I held back, for fear of sounding cold.

As I said in an email to a friend a while back, I wish I were more like an Ayn Rand character. I wish that I didn't worry whether my positions sound nice or not. The Nuge is right: we need tougher love in this country.

I wish I were bold enough to tell a stranger on a plane that I don't believe everyone is entitled to cheap health care. I'm not there yet.

I wonder how many times I'll have to read Atlas Shrugged before I have that confidence...

Posted by: Sarah at 04:33 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 397 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I believe in speaking up, but how do you define what's appropriate? Your for instance about healthcare, I would discuss that with someone I knew fairly well. Not with a stranger on a plane. But then I also just stopped discussing politics altogether during the campaign because it became increasingly difficult to not want to choke someone for being stupid. I think if we can speak up in a logical and polite fashion then we should. Also not everyone has the same social finesse as you do Sarah. I have no problem talking to people but a lot of folks are a little more shy. Maybe the 56 million of us who didn't vote for Obama could wear lapel pins or something?

Posted by: Mare at November 19, 2008 04:13 AM (APbbU)

2 The problem with speaking up when someone is pontificating is that they usually don't want to hear it. I adore a good discussion - even with people I don't politically agree with (and there are lots of those everywhere) as long as it can stay civil and the person I'm speaking with can give me facts as well as passion. And with one other caveat - the person I'm talking with has to be as open to hearing new facts and re-evaluating their belief system as I am. That's not too much to ask, I think, and that places the onus just as much on me as on the person I'm discussing with. The problem is that if someone's entire political worldview can fit on a 2 x 12 bumper sticker, there isn't depth for discussion.

Posted by: airforcewife at November 19, 2008 07:34 AM (Fb2PC)

3 Mare, I also just stopped discussing politics altogether during the campaign I kept my mouth shut "in real life" unless someone came "out of the closet." I always let others make the first move, unless I know we share common ground (and I do share some with people on the opposite side of the aisle - they're not another species!). airforcewife, The problem with speaking up when someone is pontificating is that they usually don't want to hear it. Yes. Such people are not interested in initiating a discussion; they intend to impress others with how "virtuous" they are (since they have the "right" beliefs). Questioning their "virtue" only angers them. Rage will blind them to whatever merits the opposing position may possess. the person I'm talking with has to be as open to hearing new facts and re-evaluating their belief system as I am. That's not too much to ask It depends on how "open" one is. It's "not too much to ask" if one is willing to take a few new steps in one direction or another. But expecting people to 180 because of something one says is too much. I'll admit it - I'm not likely to go back to the left any day soon. I don't have a totally open mind about Communism - or jihadism. And I'm not sorry about that. People have vast emotional investments in their core beliefs. Striking those beliefs directly is likely to fail. Questioning peripheral beliefs is safer, though it falls far short of what Nugent demands. (Not that I feel any need to please him.) Sarah's "nothing is 'free' in this world" or her unsaid "Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should" exemplify a third, more effective approach: question the underpinnings of the core beliefs rather than the beliefs themselves. The problem is that if someone's entire political worldview can fit on a 2 x 12 bumper sticker, there isn't depth for discussion. But just enough "depth" to identify that person. That's all politics is for a lot of people. Tribal insignia. Why bother to question their badges? Good advice!

Posted by: Amritas at November 19, 2008 08:24 AM (+nV09)

4 I too, tend to keep my politics under the table IRL, unless I know the other person is open to having a genuine discussion. Where I live, such a thing is a rarity, so I am thrilled with the fact that we have become good friends with another couple in Beowulf's unit that has the same core conservative beliefs that we do. My husband, this couple, and my parents are really the only people I can think of IRL that I will talk politics with. I had some conservative friends my senior year in college, but they are spread all over the place now and I rarely see them anymore. What I am more likely to do, if politics are brought up with someone who I'm not sure how they think, is ask questions. I will ask them specifically why they think that it will work, or bring up the negatives that other countries have experienced with socialized medicine, or bring up how even the military has trouble being effective and efficient (people having to make appointments months ahead of time, a guy from hubby's platoon sitting in the emergency room for 9 hours before he saw a doctor after cutting off the tip of his finger, etc). And how they think doctors will get paid, what about malpractice suits, and what will happen to the pool of doctors when their pay is effectively "capped". I'm much less likely to tell them straight out that I disagree (I'm really kind of a shy/timid person unless I know you), but I will ask questions.

Posted by: Leofwende at November 19, 2008 09:31 AM (jAos7)

5 Leofwende, My husband, this couple, and my parents are really the only people I can think of IRL that I will talk politics with. That's a lot more than I have in IRL ... namely, zero. I'm envious. Somebody send me the map to the gulch ASAP! What I am more likely to do, if politics are brought up with someone who I'm not sure how they think, is ask questions. Good idea. I'm too shy to even do that, but I do listen to the other side. My goal is not to sway them over but to understand their POV better.

Posted by: Amritas at November 19, 2008 10:56 AM (+nV09)

6 Amritas: It's "not too much to ask" if one is willing to take a few new steps in one direction or another. But expecting people to 180 because of something one says is too much. That's why I said they have to be as willing as I am to look at evidence. If I'm not willing at all, I have no right to expect them to be. But this also applies to them. Don't expect me to listen to a rant about some person who called Barack Obama some name if you have bumper stickers on your car calling George Bush names. On the same subject, don't expect me to be more respectful towards a president I didn't vote for than you were towards a president you didn't vote for. I will be, because I have a sense of decency and respect towards office. But don't expect it, because you didn't put that tip in the karma jar. That's what I mean by that. I just expect people to be as open themselves as they expect other people to be listening to them. Invariably this doesn't happen. As you said, because they consider their views "right".

Posted by: airforcewife at November 19, 2008 12:36 PM (Fb2PC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

As I sat down on my cross-country flight, I noticed my seatmate was reading Change We Can Believe In. I rolled my eyes, thinking it would be a long flight. I then took out my Atlas Shrugged, hoping the vibes off of my book would vanquish the vibes off of his.

A while later, he starts chitchatting, asking me where I hail from. I told him I was originally from Illinois, and he pointed at his Obama book and said, "He must be your man then." I smiled noncommittally. Then he said, "I didn't vote for him; I bought this book so I could figure out what the heck he's planning on doing."

So we had a nice chat the entire trip, laughing and pointing out the inconsistancies in Obama's plan.

Moral of the story: Don't judge a bookholder by its cover.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:35 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Comrades! Moral of the story: Don't judge a bookholder by its cover. Even a conservative clock is right twice a day! We must not fool ourselves into believing that everyone who has Barack's blessed bOOk is one of us. The enemy is everywhere. Be vigilant! The eye of the prOletarian dictatorship must never blink!

Posted by: kevin at November 15, 2008 09:55 AM (a1nQd)

2 Okay, now THAT is an awesome story!

Posted by: airforcewife at November 15, 2008 10:07 AM (Fb2PC)

3 I'm so glad you had such a fun flight! I had a spastic sleeper sitting near me. It did keep things interesting, but it made me a little nervous. I thought I might lose an eye or something. I'm sooooooo glad you're here and I'm here. Here I am on your blog & you don't even know & you're sitting right across the room!

Posted by: Guard Wife at November 15, 2008 10:31 AM (zYnMa)

4 http://paklokjiukppprtf.com paklokjiukppprtf paklokjiukppprtf paklokjiukppprtf

Posted by: Ecoriartera at November 27, 2008 12:24 PM (ZSOjv)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

We SpouseBUZZ authors have often mused about how fantastic it would be to all live on the same street. We laugh about it, but under that laugh is the sorrow of knowing it will never be.

Amritas and I were talking about this tonight, after I read AirForceWife's comment over at CaliValleyGirl's site and sighed and said, "I love my imaginary friends."

I think often about Mrs du Toit's post Fight or Flee:

Imagine the country with everyone having all their belongings in a moving truck. Then folks start looking around for a place that has people who are more like them (however folks want to define that), and they talk and share opinions to determine what it is they do want, and then everyone hits the road in their pre-packed moving vans, to move to where they can find camaraderie and fellowship with people of like minds. THAT is America. That is what the Founders gave us, but some folks didnÂ’t get the memo, or havenÂ’t fully grasped what the Founders meant.

Amritas and I got a little giddy, planning our gulch. We want Steven den Beste and the du Toits as neighbors. I want Varifrank on my street. And Baldilocks, and Lileks, and Whittle. I want my virtual neighborhood to become my real one.

Imagine the 4th of July BBQ conversations we'd have!

And, to paraphrase AirForceWife's comment, a community where you share common ground with your neighbors wouldn't be a FAIL.

But it honestly hurts my heart to even write this post.

It hurts to think about how wonderful it would be in our gulch.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:06 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

CaliValleyGirl's newest post lays a lot of foundation on her position and then asks a meaty question of Democrats at the end. I think I only have like three Democrat readers, but I would be interested in hearing your take on her question.

Posted by: Sarah at 11:50 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Democrat reader 2 of 3 here Actually, I don't label myself a Dem, but I did vote hopechangeyeswecan so I'l chime in. I'm a business owner, and I don't give a rip how much they tax me. I believe pretty strongly that taxes don't have a whole lot to do with business savvy. The intial blog post talked a bit about home builders and the impact of the economy. One of my best clients is the highest of high-end home builders in our area. His company is doing incredibly well at the moment, because he doesn't carry nearly the debt that other builders carry. Amongst other things, he has run his business very responsibly while others leaned on the bubble and got burned. We were talking business the other day and I asked him bout taxes. He voted McCain, but he also didn't think the taxation issue was going to affect him at all. few percentage here or there wasn't going to make or break him. My wife's uncle is a wealthy cat, as are all his friends. They voted M, but they still aren't crying about the tazes as they'll never notice the difference. The Obama argument (whether you buy it or not - I don't think I do) is that the extra few percent from the folks at the top doesn't impact them like the monet does out of the pockets of the folks at the bottom. Not necessarily my opinion, but I think that's the general argument. Having said that, sometimes perception matters more than reality. I don't believe that the little tax credit to the folks at the bottom or the middle will make that big of an actual difference to there lives. But if they believe it makes a difference, then money spent goes up and consumer confidence (whatever that is) goes up and the perception of the health of the economy goes up. So I might agree in broad strokes that if the low-to-middle of the income spectrum believe that the tax cuts make things better for them then that will translate into a stronger economy. I'm not sure how that actually shakes out - whether the bottom-to-middle have the economic stroke to make an influence. In a smaller society, I don't have a problem explaining to the guy making more that his percentage has gone up. The more confilcts we fight and companies we bail out the more we have to pay for it. I don't necessarly like it but the money has to come from somewhere. The better question from where I'm sitting is whether or not this government, which I agree is supposed to be serving the people, is spending money to serve the will of the people or not.

Posted by: Sarah's pinko commie friend at November 11, 2008 02:13 PM (xAF2d)

2 Yeah, but whattaya gonna do? Aren't we all the same people after all?\ I don;t disagree with the sentiment at all.

Posted by: Sarah's pinko commie friend at November 11, 2008 06:14 PM (xAF2d)

3 "rural Arkansas is no more real than Manhattan." Then I doubt she's ever been to Manhattan.

Posted by: tim at November 12, 2008 05:18 AM (nno0f)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

It's Whittle, baby.

On Tuesday, the Left – armed with the most attractive, eloquent, young, hip and charismatic candidate I have seen with my adult eyes, a candidate shielded by a media so overtly that it can never be such a shield again, who appeared after eight years of a historically unpopular President, in the midst of two undefended wars and at the time of the worst financial crisis since the Depression and whose praises were sung by every movie, television and musical icon without pause or challenge for 20 months… who ran against the oldest nominee in the country’s history, against a campaign rent with internal disarray and determined not to attack in the one area where attack could have succeeded and who was out-spent no less than seven-to-one in a cycle where not a single debate question was unfavorable to his opponent – that historic victory, that perfect storm of opportunity…

Yielded a result of 53%

Posted by: Sarah at 12:55 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

Last night on TV, Stephen Moore said that Obama is the Democrat's Ronald Reagan. I think that's absolutely right, though it's the first time I've heard anyone say it.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:21 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

Leofwende had a link up to a blog I've never seen before. And I'm hooked.

Anti-Obamanomics: Why Everyone Should Be in Favor of Tax Cuts for the “Rich”

People have not grasped the profound insight of Mises that, in a market economy, in order benefit from privately owned means of production, one does not have to be an owner of the means of production. This is because one benefits from other people’s means of production—every time one buys the products of those means of production.
[...]
In contrast, the view of redistributionists, such as Obama, founded in the most complete and utter ignorance, is that the only wealth from which an individual can benefit is his own.[...]The redistribution of wealth is allegedly necessary to enable an individual who does not own the wealth presently owned by others to benefit from that wealth. Only as and when their property passes to him can he benefit from it, the redistributors believe. This is the kind of “largesse” Obama intends to practice. It is taking funds from those most prodigious at accumulating capital, capital that would benefit all, and then giving the funds to others to consume.

Now, it's a very long blog post on economics, so it don't exactly read like Frank J. But this blog post does a good job of explaining why tax cuts for the rich are better than tax cuts for the middle class. I plan to tuck the $1000 example away in my brain in case I ever need to explain it to someone.

Leofwende linked to this post: The Myth that Laissez Faire Is Responsible for Our Financial Crisis. I mean, duh, how could I not want to click on that? And after reading it, I finally clearly understand what happened to lead to the bailout.

I will have to keep reading George Reisman's Blog. Get my smart on.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:56 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Back when I was in high school, 1953, Charles Wilson who was president of GM said what we young Democrats thought was infamous, "What's good for General Motors is good for America." Now with a lot of experience and age I realize that what is good for the companies that are the engine of our economy is actually very good for America. A lot of Democrats do not seem to understand that even though many of them are up in years as I am.

Posted by: Ruth H at November 07, 2008 04:07 AM (4eLhB)

2 OMG, I actually found that blog before you did...amazing...it was just 2 days ago, because I was doing a Google search on laissez faire and the financial crisis, and that one of the top results...I feel so proud, like I should get a "good little grasshopper!" pat on the head from my TTG guru...;-)

Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at November 07, 2008 05:40 AM (irIko)

3 Glad you liked it!

Posted by: Leofwende at November 07, 2008 06:20 AM (cZoqf)

4 the view of redistributionists, such as Obama, founded in the most complete and utter ignorance Rightist projection. Reisman's ignorance is infinite. Laissez faire? Anything goes? Only a Republican could possibly believe a boat could sail without the guidance of a Great Helmsman! Would you fat cats let go of the steering wheels of your gas-guzzling SUVs? Never! If control is good for you, it is good for Omerica! Half of your country has freely chosen Great Leadership! How long can you remain deaf? Or blind? Look at the wonders of the kolkhozes and the Great Leap Forward. Can we replicate such miracles in the mOtherland and be "dizzy with success"? Yes we can!

Posted by: kevin at November 07, 2008 06:33 AM (+nV09)

5 Wow...I must have missed the part of the great 'O'ne's speech where he revealed the spot we could all go get our Kool-Aid and crack. Glad Kevin heard it loud and clear, though.

Posted by: Guard Wife at November 07, 2008 07:12 AM (eb8pN)

6 Does your blog have a kos-kids fatwa on it all of a sudden, Sarah? Seriously; more in the last few days than since I started reading it.

Posted by: Leofwende at November 07, 2008 07:38 AM (cZoqf)

7 I think Kevin's comment is facetious. He's pretending to drink the kool-aid. Kevin is showing how silly kool-aid drinkers are...especially the reference to The Great Leap forward which resulted in starvation and many problems...no one would ever call that a success.

Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at November 07, 2008 07:45 AM (irIko)

8 You may be right, CVG. It does seem enough over-the-top that it could be sarcastic. All right.

Posted by: Leofwende at November 07, 2008 08:01 AM (cZoqf)

9 Problem is, it's very hard to parody the Kos denizens.

Posted by: Patrick Chester at November 07, 2008 08:25 AM (MOvul)

10 Kevin is a trip! Kevin you are like an SNL skit that would get banned and then only seen on Pat Dollard's site...me likes!

Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at November 07, 2008 09:11 AM (irIko)

11 I can't believe my sense of humor is gone such that I didn't pick up on Kevin's snark-asm. But, in truth, I love Kool-Aid. Just not Ko'O'l-Aid.

Posted by: Guard Wife at November 07, 2008 11:26 AM (eb8pN)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

As if today could get any worse...

"Jurassic Park" author Michael Crichton dies

I love Michael Crichton's work. His thoughts on horseshit remains one of my favorite arguments. The appendix to State of Fear is one of my husband's favorite writings. Airframe is a genius indictment of journalism. And I had hours of enjoyment and mental exercise listening to Next on my last car trip.

To this day, I have an irrational fear of velociraptors.

I would recommend any single one of his books. I am deeply saddened that he won't be around to write any more for us to enjoy.

What a loss.

Posted by: Sarah at 09:48 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 106 words, total size 1 kb.

An awesome bit of semantics:

I would like to focus on Obama’s phrase “the wealth.”

I understand the use of the word “the” in phrases like “the nation” or “the country” or “the public.” Those are things or abstract concepts or generic groups of people.

Wealth, however, is the savings and equity of each individual. There is no “the wealth.” There is only my wealth and your wealth and Joe the plumber’s wealth and so on. You can spread the SARS virus around or you can spread “the love” around, but when you starting talking about spreading “the wealth” around what you are really talking about is spreading my life savings or someone else’s life savings around.

Via Amritas, of course.

Posted by: Sarah at 07:19 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.