Is America Really Going To Do This?

There are, alas, many in the west for whom all this is music to their ears. Whether through wickedness, ideology, stupidity or derangement, they firmly believe that the ultimate source of conflict in the world derives at root from America and Israel, whose societies, culture and values they want to see emasculated or destroyed altogether. They are drooling at the prospect that an Obama presidency will bring that about. The rest of us canÂ’t sleep at night.

(Via Oda Mae)

Posted by: Sarah at 04:58 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.

Blue Collar Muse has posted an excerpt from Atlas Shrugged. I have been telling myself to pull the beautiful copy that Amritas bought me from the shelf and read it again. The excerpt -- Socialism's Lying Promise -- may just prompt me to do that. But I fear it will only succeed in depressing me even further.

I also clicked through to Blue Collar Muse's old post entitled Conservatives Shrugged. I understand this struggle, this desire to shrug, and identify with the dilemma of just wanting to win so we don't have to suffer through Dems vs wanting an actual candidate who's worth a damn.

(As usual, thanks to Amritas for the links. He's been on fire lately.)

Posted by: Sarah at 04:22 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 120 words, total size 1 kb.

Man, you guys thought I was crazy when I linked voting and taxes:
White People Shouldn't Be Allowed To Vote
(via Amritas)

Posted by: Sarah at 10:23 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

Second Place To A Cheeseburger
Yes, honey, I dimed you out again on SpouseBUZZ.

UPDATE:

Interesting postscript to the cheeseburger story. Tonight when the webcam pops up, there's my husband, ceremoniously eating a cheeseburger on camera. With this devilish, I'll-show-you look on his face. We both cracked up.

I love how he can turn something irritating into something endearing.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:19 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

Now here's a Democrat I'd like to have a beer with. (OK, you too, pinko commie friend.)
Orson Scott Card: Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

Via Powerline. Also via them is this post: "I Was Born In Colombia, But I Was Made in the USA."

Posted by: Sarah at 04:57 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I don't think anyone expects unbiased truth from the media, except the media themselves, who claim to be providing it. It is the profound dishonesty that offends so many. You are unlikely to get a beer with Mr. Card, sorry to say, as I'm 99% sure he is LDS. =)

Posted by: Sig at October 22, 2008 03:38 AM (n369L)

2 Oh yeah, crap Sig...I did know that. OK, a milkshake

Posted by: Sarah at October 22, 2008 03:56 AM (TWet1)

3 trr is the poster child for the Democrat Party, expect nothing and care even less about the consequences. Hell, considering their track record of failed policies, (the top ten poorest cities are run by DÂ’s), it all makes perfect sense. Also, thanks for enlightening me on the reasoning behind ObamaÂ’s support. Just take away reason and accountability from the average personÂ…and youÂ’ll find some of that Hope/Change. You couldnÂ’t be a more perfect example of why IÂ’m a Republican. Thanks. And who you trying to kid, you donÂ’t drink beer, you reek of w(h)ine.

Posted by: tim at October 22, 2008 08:41 AM (nno0f)

4 Hi Tim, Tasty personal attack! I highly doubt that I'm the Democratic posterchild. Truthfully I don't feel that my beliefs are all that different from the average Republican's. I'm all for gun rights and pro life, and whatever talking points you want to throw out there. Having said that, I'd like to address your comment about "expecting nothing" and "not caring about the consequences." I'll stand by not expecting much from a Presidential candidate for a number of reasons. First, the Presidents is in Washington and I live in middle America. If I want change in middle America I should be doing something about it here, not expecting Washington to do it for me. While I should be able to trust that positivity will come (and let's be honest, it did from Clinton, it did from Bush, it will from McCain or Obama) I don't expect the person in the chair to set the tone for the direction my life and affairs will take. So, in essence, I think I take alot of responsibility for my own consequences and that which I have influence over. This is what I don't get - the bile on both sides and the willingness to attach so vehemently. Right now, I think its bad for either party to control all 3 branches. I think this country requires both viewpoints, as neither is all the way correct. The Republican agenda generally has alot of good things going for it and a few black marks (in my opinion) that I can't square with. Having said that, often I vote D based on what I expect the candidate to actually accomplish as opposed to the ideology involved. Different strokes for different folks. I can foresee a day where the issue that I support the D's for to be "handled" to my satisfaction and I might very well vote R with a clear conscience. Oh, and you're right, I'm not a beer drinker, or even a w(h)ine drinker as you suggested. I can't handle much more than a diet caffeine-free Dr. Pepper being such a weak-willed lefty and all. (Insert jokey emoticon here) - trr

Posted by: Sarah's Pinko Commie Friend at October 22, 2008 11:48 AM (n5dnp)

5 “I'm all for gun rights and pro life, and whatever talking points you want to throw out there.” So to you, the 2nd Amendment and the rights of an unborn child are merely “talking points”? I’d say they are just a tad more than that and evidently above your pay grade. “I'll stand by not expecting much from a Presidential candidate for a number of reasons. First, the Presidents is in Washington and I live in middle America. If I want change in middle America I should be doing something about it here, not expecting Washington to do it for me.” So you can’t comprehend that what happens in Washington actually affects and has the potential to change your life ALL the way over in “Middle America”? So when Pres. Obama, (no, I’m not conceding), in Washington, raising taxes, and he will, you won’t be affected ‘cause your WAY over there? While I commend you on you attitude of “not expecting Washington to do it for me” I don’t see the correlation to your (incorrect) theory that what happens in Washington stays in Washington. Can I assume you’ve heard of the Supreme Court? By they way, the next president will probably appoint 4/5 new justices. Though don’t worry, what they decide won’t affect anything where you live. “While I should be able to trust that positivity will come (and let's be honest, it did from Clinton, it did from Bush, it will from McCain or Obama)” It would depend on what you mean by positivity and since that’s seems to be such a broad term, I’ll let that one go. “I don't expect the person in the chair to set the tone for the direction my life and affairs will take.” I don’t know anybody who believes otherwise. So again, you’re mixing apples and oranges. “So, in essence, I think I take alot of responsibility for my own consequences and that which I have influence over.” Tell me again why you’re a Democrat… “This is what I don't get - the bile on both sides and the willingness to attach so vehemently.” I don’t have a problem with our politicians being passionate about the views and principles they hold. Hell, I want them to be. Their jobs involve serious issues that impact us all, well not you apparently, and have the potential to impact us in various ways. But lying, conniving and being untruthful are unacceptable, yes. And I’m not a fan of nuanced, double speak that is favored by lawyers like the Obama’s , Clinton’s and the Edward’s. “The Republican agenda generally has alot of good things going for it and a few black marks (in my opinion) that I can't square with.” And so you’re a Democrat because… “Having said that, often I vote D based on what I expect the candidate to actually accomplish as opposed to the ideology involved.” I don’t see how a candidate will meet you expectations without relying on their ideology, that being their beliefs and ideas? What else is left, Hope/Change? Though I guess since you don’t expect “much from a Presidential candidate” I can see why you’re a Democrat and why no doubt you’ll be voting for Obama. ‘The Democrat Party –expect nothing, ‘cause that’s what we deliver.’ “I can foresee a day where the issue that I support the D's for to be "handled" to my satisfaction and I might very well vote R with a clear conscience.” WTF are you trying to say? You need to figure out what you believe in and pick a party that honors those beliefs. To say you’re confused about which party represents your views is a major understatement. It doesn’t make you a bad person, I’m just sayin’…

Posted by: tim at October 23, 2008 07:15 AM (nno0f)

6 Ok, here we go. "So to you, the 2nd Amendment and the rights of an unborn child are merely “talking points”? I’d say they are just a tad more than that and evidently above your pay grade." Comments about my pay grade notwithstanding my point was that I don't blindly commit to either party's ideology. some things I think the dems have "right" some things the Republicans have better. "So you can’t comprehend that what happens in Washington actually affects and has the potential to change your life ALL the way over in “Middle America”?" I can comprehend it just fine, its just that the only influence I have is a voice every few years. Therefore I don't sweat it, I deal with what comes and take responsibility for what I can control. "Tell me again why you’re a Democrat…" Never claimed to be one. Often I vote Dem. Sometimes I might not. I vote the candidate and what I expect them to be able to control as neither party has it all right and I don't feel obligated to throw in my lot with either. "I don’t see how a candidate will meet you expectations without relying on their ideology, that being their beliefs and ideas? What else is left, Hope/Change?" My expectations are don't embarass me, don't get me killed, and leave it better than you found it. Their ideology certainly matters, but doesnt set the tone since there are other branches of government that influence what legislation is passed. The president is one cog in the wheel - important to be sure, but not he end-all and be all. I don't want either party in control of all 3 branches, therefore sometimes I like the pres to be a Dem and sometimes not. "WTF are you trying to say?" What I mean is that I support the Dem agenda when it comes to ending abstinence-only sex-ed, gay rights, a diminshing of pandering to the religious right, etc. That's how I feel and I respect that others feel differently. There are some things that I expect to be addressed as time goes on. The Dems seem to be more about enforcing a perceived equality. On certain issues, I think we still need that approach. On others (affirmative action for instance) I think we need to rely on the fact that opportunity does exist rather than trying to force it. "You need to figure out what you believe in and pick a party that honors those beliefs. To say you’re confused about which party represents your views is a major understatement. It doesn’t make you a bad person, I’m just sayin’…" I know exactly what I believe in. And I'm not confised about which party represents my views because neither does a very good job of representing me. I will say this - the politics of the last few years have promoted the idea that each person should be able to be summed up by adherance to one party's ideology or the other. I just disagree with this. Some Democratic policies make me very uncomfortable. redistribution of wealth for instance - I run a business and I want to keep my money! How about socialized health care? I really don't think that's going to solve anything. But as I said before there are a few things that the Republican ticket promotes that I don't buy into. Ergo, I may be represented by either party or neither, but don't try to sell me that I have to cast my lot with one other. I think its rather dismissive to judge someone as confused because they don't feel that their beliefs align perfectly with a given party. At any rate, I appreciate your response. I realize that I probably don't hold that same values as many of Sarah's loyal readers. Having said that, I can admit that the views expressed on this blog have helped to shape my own beliefs, and I hope that the "other side of the aisle" can see the why there are differing opinions. - trr

Posted by: Sarah's pinko commie firend at October 23, 2008 01:06 PM (xAF2d)

7 *eating popcorn* I come here today to watch the intellectual volley between Tim, and the Pinko

Posted by: awtm at October 24, 2008 06:00 AM (skcC5)

8 Well, I don’t want to disappoint awtm…the popcorn smells great… “I don't blindly commit to either party's ideology.” Didn’t expect you too, I don’t. I suspect most people don’t. “…, its just that the only influence I have is a voice every few years. Therefore I don't sweat it, I deal with what comes and take responsibility for what I can control.” No, you only have one vote. You can influence people with your words and actions and do I dare say, you can join a party and/or an organization(s) (NFIB, US Chamber of Commerce, etc.) that best represents your views and values. “Often I vote Dem.” That would make a Dem. “What I mean is that I support the Dem agenda when it comes to ending abstinence-only sex-ed, gay rights, a diminshing of pandering to the religious right, etc.” Sex-Ed in the late 70’s was NOT abstinence-only sex-ed so I doubt it is now. Gays don’t have rights? Really, didn’t realize that. Is that so important to you, are you gay? And I’m not asking derogatorily, I don’t care what you or anybody does in their bedroom. What wrong with the religious right? I’m an atheist and I don’t have a problem with the R’s in regard to this. I hardly think they pander. “The Dems seem to be more about enforcing a perceived equality.” Now we’re getting to the meat of it all. The Dem’s want to take from the ‘Have’s’, people that have earned what they have, and give it to the ‘Have Nots’, people who are were they are because of no fault but their own. This is the fundamental difference between the Party’s. “I know exactly what I believe in. And I'm not confised about which party represents my views because neither does a very good job of representing me. I will say this - the politics of the last few years have promoted the idea that each person should be able to be summed up by adherance to one party's ideology or the other. I just disagree with this.” Most people are able to prioritize things that matter the most to them and figure out which party best represents them the best. Me, I’m for national security, low taxes, less government, this are the things that make me an R. I’ve always viewed people such as yourself as a lot like bisexuals- make up your freakin’ mind already. If you don’t belong to party how do you expect to have a voice? Last time I checked, Independents didn’t have a convention, nor a candidate running for POTUS. You’re in the creek without a paddle or a chance. “Some Democratic policies make me very uncomfortable. redistribution of wealth for instance - I run a business and I want to keep my money! How about socialized health care? I really don't think that's going to solve anything.” Agreed, I’m a small business owner myself. So you’ll be voting for McCain then right? I would think this would take precedent over gay rights, sex ed. and such. “Ergo, I may be represented by either party or neither, but don't try to sell me that I have to cast my lot with one other. I think its rather dismissive to judge someone as confused because they don't feel that their beliefs align perfectly with a given party.” Again, most people aren’t in lock step with their respective party. But most people pick a party based on what is important to them, what BEST represents their values and beliefs. I apologize for my dismissiveness and it seems we have more in common than not. Anyways good chatting with ya’. Sorry if my answers were too brief, time is short today and there was much, probably too much, to cover in this exchange.

Posted by: tim at October 24, 2008 11:24 AM (nno0f)

9 “As far as only having one vote, well I don't even really get that with the electoral college and all.” Ah come on man, certainly you understand how it works, how individuals votes actually count toward the Elec. Coll., right? “As far as national security, low taxes and small governmentare concerned I'm in agreement. I don't buy into the fact that the president is responsible for natsec” You really don’t understand what a president can and cannot do, do you? How’s this – “I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. [snip] I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons. I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material. And I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBM’s off hair-trigger alert.” see here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o84PE871BE That’s from the man you are going to vote for. Sleep tight. “Nevertheless I think we made the decision and we have to take the responsibility to see it through no matter how long it takes.” Again, your man Obama wants TO GET OUT!!! Gezz, dude why the eff are you voting for a guy who is totally at odds with what you seem to value the most? Please watch the video, its’ in his own words! And I AM trying to influence you and anyone who is reading this. Get the facts, educate yourself, don’t take my word for it. Vote for the person who best represents what you determine is most important to you. More importantly don’t cling to flowery words and just blindly go along with the crowd. I’m going now and bang my head against the wall, maybe then I’ll understand the Hope/Change thing you people are grasping at. ARRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!

Posted by: tim at October 25, 2008 09:28 AM (nno0f)

10 trr, Chew on this- Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) of Fannie-gate fame, announced yesterday that he wants a 25% cut in military spending. AND (same article)- House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k) Tax Breaks Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nationÂ’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive. Read it all- http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/it-has-begun-dem-leaders-call-for-25.html#comments Yup, don't know why I'm a R, nope can't figure it out... Hope/Change

Posted by: tim at October 25, 2008 09:43 AM (nno0f)

11 "Ah come on man, certainly you understand how it works, how individuals votes actually count toward the Elec. Coll., right?" Yup, I get it, its more the issue that some folks believe in one-man-one-vote and that's not really how it works. I live in Illinois - my vote is pretty much unimportant as my state's E-votes are going to the Dems. "You really don’t understand what a president can and cannot do, do you?" I get it plenty - what I'm saying is that the president isn't doing the work. Budgets and all that don't worry me - like most of us the people who are tasked with taking care of us will make do with what they have. Also, the president may have an agenda, but there are 2 other branches of government to temper that agenda. I sleep fine - our military is the most dominant on the planet. Nuclear threats don't worry me - its individuals that we have to worry about these days. This is more of a personal thing now - law enforcement and men-on-the-ground less than missle systems and what not. Are you really still worried about negotiating with Russia? I get that he wants the pull-out and I'm not necessarily in favor of that. But don't make the mistake of presuming that you understand what I value most. Once again the "you people" commentary is what I object to, as is your assertions that someone should pick a side and stick with it. That's the problem with the politics of the last 8 years (of which both sides are guilty). I refuse to buy into "you're either with us or against us" - look, I log into this site because Sarah is an old-school friend of mine. I don't dismiss all Republicans with judgmental commentary and empty generalizations. I genuinely feel that I understand the Republican agenda much more than I used to, and I agree with some of it. I don't buy into hope/change either. Its kinda why I've bothered to remain in this discussion - I don't think that all Republicans are war-mongering rednecks or any other silly stereotype you want to apply, nor do I think its fair to apply to the Dems (even though once again I don't consider myself a Dem). If it had come down to say Huckabee and Clinton I would've voted Huckabee. If it had been Romney/Clinton I'd have had quite a quandry as I really don't believe in either. Ergo, I vote the sitution and not the party. Right now McCain doesn't fill me with confidence. I think he has no opinion of his own, and he's allowing a campaign to determine his future. Now before you roast me on that, Obama and any other candidate will do the same thing. I just dont feel that McCain is a guy I can trust to do the job - I trust Obama to makes speeches and deal on his feet than McCain. I trust him to make decisions better than McCain and what I have to go on is their campaigns at this point. McCain has run a scattered, pandering campaign. That's my take. I believe that Obama is the lesser of two evils at this point. Not necessarilty a desirable candidate, but I only get 2 choices. I'd love to see Obama come in as president and see the house or senate go back to the Republicans. I would think we'd get a little more moderate decision making on the issues that you and I are concerned about (taxes, economy, security, etc). time to put this discussion to bed yet?

Posted by: sarah's pinko commie friend at October 25, 2008 09:48 AM (C8APQ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

All my hiatus has done is remove the outlet for my thoughts; it hasn't slowed down the thought process or made me able to ignore the news. So I'm sitting here, itching to blog, and I realized that my moratorium is self-imposed and all I need to do to blog is just log in.

A few links for tonight:

A comment from Varifrank on Vodkapundit's post about the danger of a Democrat president plus a Democrat Congress:

Be careful “Benjamin”, if “comrade napoleon” discovers that you are causing dissent amongst all the animals here on the farm, he will deal with you as surely as he has dealt with “Boxer”.

Ok, now that the animal farm parable is out of the way, I can continue my response in the right context.

A question to all - How many of us already feel that its simply too dangerous to our homes to display a McCain/Palin sign on the front lawn or a bumper sticker on our car? How many of us dare not speak against “Comrade Napoleon” or his ilk while we are at work for fear of repercussions to our careers?

Ok, now which of us thinks that after the election is over that it will all suddenly become calm and business like with respect for all from those who are victorious against those of us who have lost?

Right. Just as I thought.

Also, a post at Cold Fury, suggesting that I oughtn't take that pledge to respect an Obama presidency. Interesting reading.

And I'm making my way through the comments at Dr. Helen's post about when it might be appropriate to "go John Galt."

Many commenters have started. God help us.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:45 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 299 words, total size 2 kb.

1 You know how I feel about the current occupant of the White House. I give my respect NOT to the man, because that would not be possible for me, but to the OFFICE that he holds. If you can't do that... you have a problem if he wins, don't you? LAW

Posted by: liberal army wife at October 14, 2008 04:45 PM (rcqzY)

2 I was going to write a comment about how much I love your blogging, Sarah, but that I completely understand how walking away from it for a while can be a good thing. I think the trick is not to actually DECIDE not to blog. Just don't do it if you don't feel like it. That way there is no pressure to blog when you don't want to, and if you do feel like blogging you don't have to explain why you are breaking your self-imposed hiatus. But then I read liberal army wife's comment and couldn't resist -- please forgive me. I would have a real problem showing respect to a man who said our troops COULD NOT win in Iraq and who, if he had his way, would have pulled them out in defeat two years ago, and who cannot even to this day admit that he was wrong about the surge. What is there to respect? That the financial markets collapsed and made people forget about national security and so many of the issues I believe are of utmost importance, allowing him to regain his lead in the polls? Respect the fact that an inexperienced, arrogant man was able to bamboozle (his words) enough people into thinking he had ever done anything in his life besides game the Chicago machine and align himself with the likes of Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers and ACORN? Respect the man whose followers are doing everything they can to silence anyone who disagrees with him? Show me something to respect and I will respect it. I am not going to be saying or doing the horrible stuff those on the left have said and done to President Bush for the past eight years, but respect is something that is earned and in my mind convincing people to vote for someone they really know so little about falls way short of earning my respect.

Posted by: Lorie Byrd at October 14, 2008 07:02 PM (vBoqv)

3 Lorie -- Well, the goofy thing about LAW's comment is that the post I referenced was actually my pledge to respect the presidency, even if I can't respect the man. I already said that I can do that. So I don't really understand her snark anyway. But I rarely do... But Lorie, it's always good to hear from you.

Posted by: Sarah at October 15, 2008 02:15 AM (TWet1)

4 I am not going to be saying or doing the horrible stuff those on the left have said and done to President Bush for the past eight years That's such an excellent point. And it's something to consider because it's true for most people.

Posted by: airforcewife at October 15, 2008 03:10 AM (mIbWn)

5 Yes, reading comprehension is important...to some. Lorie's & AFW's comments hit the mark for me as did your previous posts, Sarah, regarding what happens once someone becomes President. I'll stop there. It's best for all if I do.

Posted by: Guard Wife at October 15, 2008 03:35 AM (eb8pN)

6 The question is why do you wish you knew how to quit? You are a great blogger, your thoughts get honed and become more precise as you blog. I think it is a great thing for you right now. Even though you are starting a job you will still have a great deal of alone time to think and blog. When you become a mother you will find it very easy to sit and rock instead of blog. But you will still have all your thoughts on what is going on. Right now we appreciate your sharing your thoughts with us.

Posted by: Ruth H at October 15, 2008 04:44 AM (wWMQq)

7 I just have to say that I was secretly hoping you'd break your hiatus & I'd see a new post... :-) Thanks! :-) But absolutely no pressure when there's nothing to blog about or no time to do it... sometimes a break is okay! :-) Right now, there's a TON of stuff I would love to get out of my head, and blogging is how I do that. But since our main PC is down, I'm having to just let these thoughts rattle around and then - ideally - run out my ears or something. I guess. Anyway, welcome back, and have a nice, no-pressure week! :-) Oh - and more on-topic, yeah, I've been afraid to openly display political signs, opinions, etc. for years now - and I'm in a state that generally agrees with me!

Posted by: kannie at October 15, 2008 06:16 AM (f+LJo)

8 I WISH I KNEW HOW TO QUIT YOU I hope you never know how. it hasn't slowed down the thought process or made me able to ignore the news. You can stop blogging, but you can't stop thinking. Share your thoughts whenever you're willing. You make me think, and that can only be a good thing.

Posted by: Amritas at October 15, 2008 07:55 AM (+nV09)

9 Muah-ha-ha-ha *evil laugh*...well, it's like the Godfather right? We just pull you right back in again, huh? Well, what I have to say about respecting the office not the man is this: if anyone is under the impression that merely by having Obama as president will win our respect in the world, they are sadly wrong. I have lived outside of the US during the presidencies of Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. and I always, always always had to defend the POTUS from their snide remarks. I defended Clinton glady, because he was an American, and I sure as $hit wasn't going to have some German or French person talking smack about him, while I never lashed my tongue out at Chirac or Schroeder like they did at Clinton and Bush. I respect the "sovereignty" of that office (meaning, once the guy gets there, he is there...and "it is what it is"). But I agree with Lorie Byrd about respect being earned. And so far, I don't find much to respect about Obama. My respect for McCain is rather limited as well: POW and his support for the surge even if it cost him the presidency. There are other things in his behavior and life that I find rather distasteful. I think both VP candidates do a much better job of garnering my respect than their presidential counterparts. And although I feel like I am living in Atlas Shrugged, I could never go totally John Galt, I just love America and working too much!

Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at October 15, 2008 09:36 AM (irIko)

10 God help us, indeed, if the system gets so far gone that enough people do a 'John Galt'. I hope we don't get that far. By the way - my husband has never read Atlas Shrugged. So this weekend, I made the comment about people doing a John Galt, and then had to explain the whole thing to him. He may never read it, but he got the concept immediately. He (we) just bought a business this year, and the financial situation has already had an impact on it. We have much to think about, but we're not going anywhere yet.

Posted by: Barb at October 15, 2008 11:03 AM (iaV9O)

11 Aside from the Bible, Atlas Shrugged is my favorite book.

Posted by: HomefrontSix at October 15, 2008 10:30 PM (4Es1w)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

That post I wrote the other day about how health care is not a right?
Bill Whittle does it and does it better.

Posted by: Sarah at 01:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

Peggy Noonan:

But these were not the great causes. Neither party has clean hands. Or rather, both parties have dirty hands. Here is the truth, spoken by the increasingly impressive Sen. Tom Coburn: "The root of the problem is political greed in Congress. Members . . . from both parties wanted short-term political credit for promoting homeownership even though they were putting our entire economy at risk by encouraging people to buy homes they couldn't afford. Then, instead of conducting thorough oversight and correcting obvious problems with unstable entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, members of Congress chose to . . . distract themselves with unprecedented amounts of pork-barrel spending." That is the truth.

And yet at the debate, when one citizen-questioner invited both candidates to think aloud about the responsibility of our representatives in Washington, they both gently suggested she was cynical.

She was not cynical. She was informed.

Why would anyone trust either candidate to help dig us out of this if they can't speak frankly about what got us into it?

(via CG)

And a comment here:

The biggest problem though isn't the candidates, it's the populace. Article II of the US Constitution, dealing with the powers of the presidency, is only a page long. In there, you will find nothing about tax reform, health care, retirement management, economic stabilization, hope, change, or straight talk.

We, the people, have lost our sense of direction. Instead of thinking about the president simply as someone who represents us on the national scene, we think of him or her as our leader which was never supposed to be the case.

The office is practically a figurehead, yet those around us treat it like an elected dictator, always giving the office more power to 'save us from ourselves'.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:32 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.

If Mark Steyn had gone to jail, I would've become his lovesick penpal.

The point is not that President-designate Obama is a "close friend" of the unrepentant Ayers, or that he was only eight when his patron was building bombs to kill the women of New Jersey. As Joe Biden would no doubt point out on his entertaining "This Day In History" segment, McCain was only six when Czogolsz killed President McKinley. But I doubt he'd let the guy host a fundraiser for him.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:37 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.

AWTM blogged the debate too, which I failed to point out earlier. Brought to you by Carl's Jr.

And 13 years late is better than never.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:27 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Heheheh... brought to you by Carl's Jr. Do you get paid each time you say that?

Posted by: That 1 Guy at October 04, 2008 05:10 PM (ZHgID)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

If you've been to my house, you've surely noticed my cowboy-themed bathroom. I've heard all sorts of comments on it, ranging from "Oh my, that's...different" to "No fair, your wife lets you have a picture of The Magnificent Seven hanging in your bathroom!" I fell in love with the shower curtain when I was engaged, and my mom bought it for me as a gift.

One of my friends likes the curtain too and wanted to get one. She searched eBay.

Nobody tell my husband I'm sitting on a gold mine...

Posted by: Sarah at 10:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.

Rachel Lucas on racial hypocrisy.

I heart Thomas Sowell.

Posted by: Sarah at 07:25 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.