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.

Now this might be an explanation for something that's puzzled me for a long time.

Second, if ever you've been amazed when you heard people on the left say that mainstream liberal media outlets such as the New York Times are not liberal but "conservative," Obama's remarks about the Warren Court reveal where such people are really coming from. The reason they regard the mainstream media as "conservative" is that the mainstream media do not advocate the overthrowing of the U.S. Constitution, of free enterprise, and of property rights--and those are the things that true leftists/progressives, such as Obama, seek.

(via Amritas)

Posted by: Sarah at 02:58 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

I need to read Varifrank more often than I do.
Shoot, I wish I were Varifrank. That man can write.

His post about the blood on the carpet of your soul.
His post on the Truman-Dewey race.
And finally, Monster.

You know, just bookmark him.

Posted by: Sarah at 01:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

The Mrs has a neat post about what she'd do to change the Constitution. In it, she quotes Thomas Jefferson on his irritation with how people were interpreting the "promote the general welfare" phrase. I have never thought about that before, that the framers lived to see argument over what their words meant. Would that we could ask Jefferson a few more questions today...

Posted by: Sarah at 02:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.

When my husband got online yesterday, I had just read this ridiculous article at Slate about how, if they remake Red Dawn, they better remake it with the Americans as the bad guys and Iraqis as the Wolverines. Husband's sarcasm meter went to eleven:

Husband says:
I don't remember the Wolverines kidnapping people for ransom and executing people in other religious sects
Sarah says:
yeah
Husband says:
or making videos where they behead Russian soldiers
Husband says:
I also don't remember the Soviets rebuilding hospitals in Colorado or training a new American army and giving them classes on human rights and proper detainee handling procedures
Husband says:
not like we're giving previously oppressed religious and ethnic minorities a voice in their government or anything
Husband says:
because I'm sure the Russians had their doctors assisting Georgians in hospitals and buying books for schools

Posted by: Sarah at 01:37 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

There are so many great writers out there; I am always sad when I "remember" a blogger I haven't read in a while. I've been back on the du Toits lately because of the gun thing, and I just found this new post at The Mrs' site: Fight or Flee. It is full of ideas that felt comfortable but simultaneously felt completely new, things I've never thought about before but which made me nod my head. It gave me a lot to think about.

Posted by: Sarah at 01:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.

When I was subbing in the high school in Germany, a girl complained to me that she wanted to go to the homecoming dance but was afraid that she would only get an invitation from a nerd. I had to school her on how the high school nerd can go on to be a great catch.

I was reminded of this when I was flipping channels yesterday and saw the movie Can't Buy Me Love, which I liked when I was a young teen. In the movie, the school nerd pays the head cheerleader to go out with him and make him popular. Do you know who that nerd was?

McDreamy.

Seriously. The actor who played a nerd in the 80's is now a hot doctor on TV. And who typified the 80's nerd?

Anthony Michael Hall is now hunky Johnny Smith.

Never, ever discount nerds.

Posted by: Sarah at 07:49 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I married a former nerd. He was still a nerd when we started dating in school. Now, at 33, he's super-cool, with a neat job and a slick sense of humor. Oh, and he's filled out now and is totally hawt. And the best part? I loved him when he was a nerd, so he's totally devoted to me! YAY for nerds!!!

Posted by: airforcewife at October 06, 2008 08:57 AM (mIbWn)

2 Nerd Pride!!

Posted by: Kasey at October 06, 2008 11:21 AM (cACJz)

3 That's hilarious I was watching the same movie yesterday. The goofiest dudes can turn into some gorgeous men!

Posted by: Stephanie at October 06, 2008 12:55 PM (szNG2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Last week, I decided to buy a handgun.

Actually, that's not such an accurate statement. Kim du Toit and Bill Whittle helped me decide to buy a handgun a long time ago. But I'm just now getting around to turning theory into reality.

Kim du Toit's goal of turning us back into a nation of riflemen worked on me. I began to see gun ownership in a whole new light after reading his site. And he's right that

after reading my stuff, people have come to realize that they donÂ’t have to be ashamed of wanting to own a gun, of wanting to protect their families, of wanting to protect themselves, and of understanding that the Second Amendment isnÂ’t about hunting, buddy.

I began to understand what Mrs. du Toit meant when she said:

I expected other people to protect me. I expected my husband to do it when he was home and I expected a cop to be there to rescue me if something happened to my husband. Yet I was perfectly happy for a criminal to be shot, by someone else, if he threatened me or my kids. Shame on me.

It was the realization of that hypocrisy that finally pushed me over the edge. I should not expect others to do for me what I am not willing to do for myself. I was the one whose morals were all screwed-up. How dare I think that someone else should risk his or her life for me (be it my husband or a police officer) if I wasn't willing to lift a finger for anyone else or even myself?

It was after this realization that the real meaning of the Second Amendment became crystal clear. Not only did I have the right to defend my country and myself, I had the RESPONSIBILITY to do so.

And his essay on Why I Own a Gun is crucial, especially the section on Civic Responsibility. Plus, in his discussion of the Second Amendment, he combines two of my loves, grammar and the Constitution:

Now for the penultimate phrase: ”the right of the people to keep and bear arms”. Not just “the people who can afford to buy a gun license”, or “only the police” or “only Mayor Daley’s bodyguards" -- it says, “the people” without qualification. Can’t be much plainer than that, really --

-- except perhaps for the last phrase: ”shall not be infringed.” Note carefully that the Second does not say, “Congress shall not” or “government shall not” or “Mayor Daley shall not”. The use of the passive voice is quite intentional: it is a clear, universal statement that the right to keep and bear arms cannot be circumscribed, by anyone or by any institution.

And that, my friends, is the perfect example of the role of passive voice. Take that, grammar check.

So Kim du Toit, who will be sorely missed when he retires from blogging soon, laid the foundation for me to accept my role as a gun owner. But Bill Whittle, he really solidified it for me. Allow me to repeat a quote from Freedom that changed so much for me:

We as a nation suffer an appalling number of handgun-related deaths each year -- perhaps 11,000 of them. The number is not important; each is a personal tragedy and those lives can never be replaced.

If we attempt to reduce this horrible number by banning handguns, we are taking away the property of a person who has broken no laws, by a government whose legitimacy is determined by a document that specifically allows that property, namely guns.

Destroy that trust by punishing the innocent, by pulling a plank from the Bill of Rights, and the contract between the government and the people falls apart. Once the Second Amendment goes, the First will soon follow, because if some unelected elite determines that the people can't be trusted with dangerous guns, then it's just a matter of time until they decide they can't be trusted with dangerous ideas, either. Dangerous ideas have killed many millions more people than dangerous handguns -- listen to the voices from the Gulag, the death camps, and all the blood-soaked killing fields through history.

The Framers, in their wisdom, put the 2nd Amendment there to give teeth to the revolutionary, unheard-of idea that the power rests with We The People. They did not depend on good will or promises. They made sure that when push came to shove, we'd be the ones doing the pushing and shoving, not the folks in Washington. And by the way, gun rights supporters are frequently mocked when they say it deters foreign invasion -- after all, come on, grow up, be realistic: Who's nuts enough to invade America? Exactly. It's unthinkable. Good. 2nd Amendment Mission 1 accomplished.

And thus I became a rifleman, even before owning a rifle.

And thus ends the poetics, and now we get down to the brass tacks of actually becoming an owner.

On Monday, I went to the webpage for our local sherriff's office. The link to info on handgun purchase is broken, naturally. I had to go down to the office, provide my driver's license and a thumbprint, and I got the paperwork. I needed a character witness, which proved a tad difficult. It had to be someone who lives in my county, who has this state's driver's license, and who has known me for more than six months. Finding someone who fit all three criteria was not easy; most of our military friends have licenses from other states. I ended up having to asking the girl who cuts my hair, which was a tad awkward. Luckily she said, "You just figured I was a redneck Republican who would agree to do this, didn't you? You were right!"

I returned the paperwork on Tuesday, and I picked up the permit on Friday. This afternoon I headed to the gun show and a couple of stores with my husband's friend. I haven't settled on one yet, but we plan to return next weekend to rent a couple at the range and see what is a good fit for me.

(And yes, I fully expect to get suggestions here.)

So Kim du Toit hooked another one in the twilight of his blogging. Plus, I got two permits, so I can buy one for my husband when he gets home too.

We're joining this nation of riflemen.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:05 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 1080 words, total size 6 kb.

1 So I'm curious, which one are you thinking about? I'm a big Sigarms fan (though my Kimber is always handy).

Posted by: R1 at October 04, 2008 07:52 PM (MeRbG)

2 AWESOME.

Posted by: kannie at October 04, 2008 07:56 PM (f+LJo)

3 Great minds, Sarah...great minds. YES. We CAN go shooting. We have lots of ranges around here.

Posted by: Guard Wife at October 05, 2008 07:25 AM (eb8pN)

4 DH would like to know how much money you want to spend first. Budget, alwasy preminent in the discussion of firearms.

Posted by: awtm at October 05, 2008 07:27 AM (4JZ6n)

5 Hopefully around $400, no more than $500 if possible.

Posted by: Sarah at October 05, 2008 07:35 AM (TWet1)

6 OK dear... now DH is suggesting that the following might be good choices... handgun: Springfield XD in the 45 cal Springfield 1911 champion in the 45 cal shotgun? Remmington 870 express police model with an 181/2 inch barrel, or similar Mossburg N 500 Mossburg makes a 410 that is specifically designed for ladies that has a front pistol grip, it is easy to shoot Rifle? Ruger mini 14 *of course this is all pending on your comfort and ability with each... also note gas op rod, design AR type rifle. such as made made Patriot ordinance very accurate, very easy to maintain, and can be used for a lifetime without lubrication. spend the money for that and some sort of non magnified illuminated site... such as the EO techcivilian model that takes AA battries... *all of this will be intimidating, price wise, which is why purchasing a weapon is a BIG deal, but the high end is good and will hold value for a long time...an AR style with an adjustable stock, would make a weapon for both of you.... (Also note Sarah I have a pistol 22, Walter it is small, but I can shoot accurately with it. I like that as my carry around weapon. I am able to also shoot 9, etc...but I am still comfortable most with my 22. a good practice a ruger 10 22 is a fun weapon to practice with, and cheap to take out and shoot for the weekend, it is under $200. Enjoy and have fun. Pick what you want. Oh and I would urge you to become a member of the NRA, although you will get endless streams of mailings....)

Posted by: awtm at October 05, 2008 10:00 AM (5wJH6)

7 I know exactly what AWTM means about endless mailings... I feel guilty for the NRA spending so much on double mailings for our one household, simply because DH and I are both members. Welcome to the club!

Posted by: Green at October 05, 2008 10:35 AM (6Co0L)

8 We get triple mailings, as 3 members in our house are life members. Everytime I get something I am like..."preaching to the choir"... I wrote them a note asking them to stop it...

Posted by: AWTM at October 05, 2008 11:13 AM (5wJH6)

9 10-15 years ago my wife decided she wanted to get a gun (now 6). Neither of us is from a 'shooting' family, though we both had done some .22 rifle shooting as youth. When she told her family what she had done the universal response was "What in the world do you want a gun for?" Her reply is the absolute best I have ever heard anywhere: "Because 'they' don't want me to have one." BTW, her first is still her favorite - a .22 Ruger single-action revolver; it's attractive, reliable, easy to handle, cheap to practice with, and it makes you think about each shot seperately.

Posted by: Glenmore at October 05, 2008 02:41 PM (ivcr2)

10 I have a Glock 19 (9mm) with a 15 round magazine that I've owned for about 14-15 years. Light, accurate and dependable. I've put thousands of rounds through it over the years. Hubs took it through the police academy and took "top gun" with it. I've owned several other weapons since I bought the Glock, but it's the one I always go back to. Hubs carries a Sig P226 and loves it. I'll second the Remington 870 express as a shotgun. That puppy is a workhorse. We have the Combo - it's a little pricer, but with 2 barrels hubs uses for hunting, but the shorter barrel is onthe rest of the time. Easier to use in tighter quarters if ever needed for home defense. Good luck in your hunt.

Posted by: Tink at October 05, 2008 03:38 PM (MgDah)

11 Whatever handgun you end up getting, make sure it fits. Something you can hold well and doesn't beat the hell out of your wrist when you shoot it. Practice will strengthen your wrist and later you can get something larger. Rifles are the same way. If you get a shotgun, I recommend a 20 gauge. Some will tell you that a 20 is too small, but so what? Recoil is far lighter than a 12 and with smaller buck you have just as many pellets to spread around. Take your shotgun to the range and set up a bunch of blank targets. Shoot different loads from different manufacturers at different ranges...you'll see pellet spreads from different loads and you can select the best all around load for your shotgun and choke. (Its better to know this now than when you really need to know.)

Posted by: deskmerc at October 06, 2008 12:33 AM (Ho1gG)

12 I own a Springfield 1911 .45 and I couldn't be happier with it!

Posted by: Ashley at October 06, 2008 07:11 AM (N3J7C)

13 My husband has a Kimber 1911, and I have a .38 Special revolver. My gun was my husband's Christmas gift to me the Christmas before we were married. I had never shot a gun, or even seen one in person outside of a display case, before meeting my husband. He was proud of buying me a gun. "Nothing says 'I trust this woman' like buying her a gun," he told his friends. I still haven't gotten around to getting a concealed carry permit, though hubby has one. Our guns stay in the house anyway, unless we're going to a shooting range.

Posted by: Emily at October 06, 2008 09:29 AM (jAos7)

14 I plan on buying my first handgun soon, as well. But as I am an Ohio resident, I cannot buy here. Are you planning to do concealed carry?

Posted by: Kasey at October 06, 2008 11:24 AM (cACJz)

15 Sara, I don't know how to add a picture to a comment, but this one is appropriate. http://motivatedphotos.com/?id=3227 I own a rifle and a shotgun, but my wife and I are looking a his and hers pistols. She likes the Kahr P40 and I like the Kimber Ultra Carry II in .45 caliber. Welcome to responsible American adulthood! You should email Kim and let him know of his influence and impact. He will be sorely missed when he retires from blogging.

Posted by: SciFiJim at October 06, 2008 12:38 PM (AJ1Z9)

16 You mught look hard at a double action revolver in .38 Special or .357 Mag. There are bazillions of them on the used market. The best thing about a DA revolver is that you don't need to worry about safeties or magazines or any of that nonsense. You want it to be safe, keep your finger off the trigger. You want it to go "BANG!" pull the trigger. It is that simple and there is much to be said for simple.

Posted by: Peter at October 06, 2008 08:56 PM (I4yBD)

17 Sarah, Congrats--but I gotta ask, did you need to buy a permit to carry (open), to carry concealed, or to own a gun at all? (Because if th answer is to option #3, you really need to move.) Now then, on to specifics; For simple, everyday home defense, Carren has an ultralight taurus 38.. It has no hammer to get hung up in anything, is small, and fits in her hand (or my left hand) well. .38 is not my favoritest caliber, but it's loaded with +phollowpoints so it will do the job. It has a five-round cylinder, which is about all you'll need for most situations. DO NOT rely on anything lower than .38 for self-defense. .380, .25., .32, .22, all fun plinking guns, but they have tiny bullets with tiny powder charges, and save for hea shots, will likely NEVER stop someone intent on hurting you. And by stop, I mean kill. Okay, now that we've established a baseline for handguns, (and I'm not really tickled about the .38, I'd prefer a .357 or .40 for her) we should discuss long guns. Forget a rifle for home defense, and I doubt you'll carry one in your purse. So we are left with shotguns. A double barrel shotgun has a wonderful threatening posture when pushed into someone's nose, but a semi-auto shotgun (a la the mossberg 500) has that beautiful sound from racking the chamber. That sound is often enough deterrent. Go with the mossberg. you should be able to find one for under $300, if not, I'll sell youone of mine. (I traded a lawnmower for one.) If you do want to get into semi-auto rifles, I suggest mil-surplus, as they are usually plentiful, relatively inexpensive, and generally reliable. An M1 carbine (not the garand) is a good starter. the Carbine shoots a .30 caliber pistol cartridge, and is easy on recoil. (The garand shoots the .30-06 and after a hundred rounds or so, bruises my shoulder pretty good. The M4/M16 family, even in the .223 poodleshooter cartridge, is acceptable, as is any AK-47 variant (plus, they look great when you're doing the happy dance on the lawn.) Back to the original question. You need a gun to fit your hand, first and formost. Large-frame pistols (the 1911 comes to mind) likely will not. But then again, it may. Try them out at the range or gun store. On the range, if you ask, most folks will let you shoot their guns, especially if you tell them you are new to shooting. Caliber is secondary to frame. If you can't hold it, you can't shoot it. after frame, caliber comes to play. Ammo cost can be prohibitive, so I choose to stick to .40 cal, which is just as effective as .45, and usually 2/3 the cost. 9mm is cheap and plentiful, but I think it's an underpowered cartridge (although most 9mm pistols have large cap magazines, offsetting the weak bullet). That being said, I'd take a 9mm over a .38. .357, 44. and .50 are monster rounds, and if you don't have a heavy frame pistol, will start to hurt your wrist after a few shots--the weight of the frame does help absorb recoil. a .22 pistol is great for plinking, and will help strengthen the wrist for hose larger calibers. Yuo'll need to schedule lots of time for the range, and (despite what hubby says he can teach you) you really should look to training from a certified instuctor. They can make light years of difference in how fast you progress in terms of accuracy and speed. Repetiton of bad habits only makes you more dangerous to everyone, including yourself. Finally, ammo. For home defense, your only choice should be frangible ammunition. It WILL NOT penetrate walls, even plasterboard walls. It will, however, make big holes in people/dogs/groundhogs. This is important because you don't want an errant round (or ricochet) to go bouncing aruond the nursery, or worse, into the TV. you can even get frangible buckshot or slug rounds for your shotgun. For serious, if you really want to talk guns or have any other questions, you have my numbah. --Chuck

Posted by: Chuck at October 07, 2008 08:21 AM (04i8A)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

My husband is deployed right now, so we don't pay a dime of taxes. And even when he's here, as a one-income family, we don't pay that much into the pot. But I, like Morgan Freeberg, try to look at what's best for the entire US and not just my own wallet.

Classic example of gulping the liberal koolaid without knowing you're gulping it: "Oh don't worry, that's a tax on super rich people, not you!"

The pattern is that if it can be categorized as a tax cut for 95% of us, then everyone should be thinking of it as a tax cut for all of us, even if the remaining five percent see their tax liabilities go shootin' so freakin' high that it ends up being a net increase. It all depends on your point of view: In my world, if we all end up paying more, then we all end up paying more.

But I notice if you look at this through the left-wing lens, whether you know you're doing it or not...like factcheck.org and the AP up there...then 95% of us pay less taxes.

We'll just pay more for goods and services, that's all.

Or, as commenter aharris said:

So, I can pay less taxes until those who produce the goods I depend on for my livelihood: gas, food, clothing, etc., start hiking prices to compensate for their increased tax burden. I can look to pay less in taxes and enjoy no impact on my life until my husband's division of the company who has to yearly justify its existence and profitability to its German headquarters can no longer show enough return on its investment vis a vis the tax burden on business in the US and the Germans decide to pick up and re-locate the entire division to Mexico where they already have a small plant in operation. My husband might lose his job, or if he's valuable enough, he might be offered a transfer, and all of a sudden, I am forced to face becoming a citizen of Mexico.

I don't care if my husband would take home more money under an Obama presidency because I am not shortsighted enough to make voting decisions based on what is best for me personally. Shoot, if I did, wouldn't I be anti-war? Bring the troops home and give me a tax cut, future of the US be damned!

And make my knitting for charity tax deductible while you're at it. Heh.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:55 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 417 words, total size 2 kb.

1 My craftiness is a deduction because I donate the goods/materials to charitable organizations. My mamarazzi photog hobby is also a little deduct - used to be up to 2% of your adjusted gross income not sure what the rules are now but it's the only justification I have for my new camera. I lurve my accountant but he cringes when he sees me coming Glad you're home safe and sound.

Posted by: Susan at September 22, 2008 04:55 AM (4aKG6)

2 On aharris' comment: I work in commercial real estate and do a lot of looking over office leases. In nearly every case, the lease has a clause that passes any real estate taxes down to the businesses leasing the space. It's absolutely true; when business taxes go up (think Obama's proposed windfall profits tax on the oil companies in order to give "working people" another stimulus package), the higher cost eventually trickles down to the consumer. Even if you don't believe in trickle-down economics when it comes to tax breaks for the rich or for companies, it is hard to deny the reality of trickle-down expenses.

Posted by: Emily at September 22, 2008 06:10 AM (jAos7)

3 So..according to Joe Biden Logic are you and your DH somehow not "Patriotic"?

Posted by: MaryIndiana at September 23, 2008 08:13 AM (eq7wt)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Don't you love when commenters rip on everyone else for being stupid...and then reveal their own shortcomings? I was watching a youtube clip of some Obama splices and saw this recent comment:

Hahahahaha.
If you believe this clip to show the truth about Obama, chances are good that your IQ is way below average.
The sheer amount of cuts mid-sentence in this clip is pretty much proof of that.

Besides, doesn't the US constitution explicitly encourage people to be critical about government and their own country? I guess morons just forgot that little tiny detail.

Maybe I am a moron, but I don't remember that "explicit" part of the constitution. Do you think he means the part of the Declaration of Independence about throwing off the despotism, or is he just running his mouth?

Or maybe he thinks that Thomas Jefferson really said that dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Heh.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

I admit that everything I know about economics I learned from Thomas Sowell, but this morning I feel like I know more than some folks on TV. I want to throw stuff at the screen when they start talking about gas price gouging. I just actually heard someone say, "The oil companies are making a profit and it needs to stop." Oh puh-lease. This can't be considered serious commentary.

Here's some basic economics:

What all this boils down to is that prices higher than what observers are used to are called "gouging." In other words, prices under normal conditions are supposed to prevail under abnormal conditions. This completely misunderstands the role of prices.

Why do prices exist at all? To cause things to be produced and made available to the public -- and to cause consumers to limit how much they consume. Why then do prices suddenly shoot up? Because there is either less of a supply available or more of a demand, or both.

And here's more, worded differently:

Prices are not just arbitrary numbers plucked out of the air. Nor are the price levels that you happen to be used to any more special or "fair" than other prices that are higher or lower.

What do prices do? They not only allow sellers to recover their costs, they force buyers to restrict how much they demand. More generally, prices cause goods and the resources that produce goods to flow in one direction through the economy rather than in a different direction.

Plus a breakdown of why price gouging is necessary and helpful:

One hotel whose rooms normally cost $40 a night now charged $109 a night and another hotel whose rooms likewise normally cost $40 a night now charged $160 a night.
[...]
What if prices were frozen where they were before all this happened?

Those who got to the hotel first would fill up the rooms and those who got there later would be out of luck -- and perhaps out of doors or out of the community. At higher prices, a family that might have rented one room for the parents and another for the children will now double up in just one room because of the "exorbitant" prices. That leaves another room for someone else.

Someone whose home was damaged, but not destroyed, may decide to stay home and make do in less than ideal conditions, rather than pay the higher prices at the local hotel. That too will leave another room for someone whose home was damaged worse or destroyed.

In short, the new prices make as much economic sense under the new conditions as the old prices made under the old conditions.

Too bad few people on TV have any sort of economic sense.

So people who don't need to gas up their cars this week will wait for next week, leaving the gas for people who really need it right now. Duh, that's how the market works during a crisis. And gas station owners will have to replenish their pumps with more expensive gas, so they have to adjust now.

Really, if I can understand it, it ain't that complicated.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:42 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 537 words, total size 3 kb.