November 08, 2007
INGENIUS
This is the most heartwarming chuckle I've gotten in a long time. Check out
JR's new prosthetic.
(Can you tell I'm the first milblogger on the scene? All the others partied like rock stars last night while the pregnant lady was sleeping. So now I have plenty of time to screw around on the internet while waiting for them.)
Posted by: Sarah at
08:58 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.
October 29, 2007
YUP
Here's a
Mark Steyn quote to go along with
the Peggy Noonan one from the other day:
It seems to me, for example, that when anti-war types bemoan Iraq as this generation's Vietnam "quagmire," older folks are thinking of the real Vietnam – the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and whatnot – but most anybody under 50 is thinking of Vietnam movies: some vague video-store mélange of "The Full Metal Deer Apocalypse."
Posted by: Sarah at
08:38 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.
October 28, 2007
LINKS -- WILL SAY MORE LATER
Two links found off Instapundit...
Peggy Noonan:
I'll jump here, or lurch I suppose, to something I am concerned about that I think I am observing accurately. It has to do with what sometimes seems to me to be the limited lives that have been or are being lived by the rising generation of American professionals in the arts, journalism, academia and business. They have had good lives, happy lives, but there is a sense with some of them that they didn't so much live it as view it. That they learned too much from media and not enough from life's difficulties. That they saw much of what they know in a film or play and picked up all the memes and themes.
OPFOR:
Members of the Iraqi Army in Besmaya collected a donation for the San Diego, Calif., fire victims Thursday night at the Besmaya Range Complex in a moving ceremony to support Besmaya's San Diego residents.
Iraqi Army Col. Abbass, the commander of the complex, presented a gift of $1,000 to U.S. Army Col. Darel Maxfield, Besmaya Range Complex officer in charge, Multi-National Security Transition Command Iraq, to send to the fire victims in California.
Posted by: Sarah at
04:55 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 1 kb.
1
We're here now, in Iraq, forever. Deal with it.
Posted by: Will at October 28, 2007 01:27 PM (0Yps+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 15, 2007
LINK
A nice snappy post from
QandO.
(Found via
RWN)
Posted by: Sarah at
06:06 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.
October 06, 2007
PATRIOTISM
From
an article discussing how Katie Couric is uncomfortable "saying ‘we’ when referring to the United States.” (via
Photon Courier)
I’ve come around to the view that the culture war can best be understood as a conflict between two different kinds of patriotism. On the one hand, there are people who believe being an American is all about dissent and change, that the American idea is inseparable from “progress.” America is certainly an idea, but it is not merely an idea. It is also a nation with a culture as real as France’s or Mexico’s. That’s where the other patriots come in; they think patriotism is about preserving Americanness.
Yet the strangest and most ironic aspect of our national culture is that we have an aversion to talking about a national culture.
Posted by: Sarah at
05:06 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.
October 05, 2007
LINK
Mistakes were made in Iraq. No, not our mistakes, theirs.
Mission Accomplished
I can't say enough how interesting this article was. It addresses all the common complaints about OIF, from the
Iraqi side. It breaks down Sunni worries and Shia strategies. It is crucial reading. I plan to read it again.
Oh, and like the der Spiegel article, this one wasn't written in the US either. Why can't our press come up with stuff like this?
Posted by: Sarah at
04:52 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.
October 03, 2007
MAYBE NOT THEN
The husband and I have been hesitant to see
Flags of our Fathers and
Letters From Iwo Jima. If
Lileks' reaction is any indication, then we were right to be leery.
But I seem to be in the minority in my reaction. IÂ’m sure Eastwood intended the movie to be respectful, but sometimes it seems like the second half of his career has been spent apologizing for the first half.
Posted by: Sarah at
05:02 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.
1
The two movies are both good, but about as different as can be.
Letters from Iwo Jima was incredible. I wouldn't call it a "biased" movie; it shows good and bad people on both sides, although you don't see much of the Americans here. My wife (who is Korean) totally hates the Japanese, yet even she was impressed with it.
I guess one reason why I loved it was that I've seen about 1000+ of American war movies, but so few that showed how the US looked through the enemy's eyes; it's an interesting change of pace.
Posted by: John Rohan at October 03, 2007 05:41 AM (BfPzY)
2
My husband and I watched
Flags of Our Fathers, and though it was an interesting premise (talking to vets to get the story behind the story) and made people aware of what happened on that hilltop and thereafter, the movie itself was terminally depressing. Even my husband, who loved
Band of Brothers, was not entirely happy with this movie. Unfortunately, I'm not well-versed enough with history and military politics, etc., to make a judgment, but something about it was . . . unsettling. As if there was a veiled agenda. Or maybe I wanted there to be one, because it seems anything coming out of Hollywood should have one.
And yet, it did show how the media and general public did
not understand PTSD and the need for slow, sensitive reintegration, despite the need to worship their heroes. That was very interesting, and sad.
I don't know. It's worth it to see it for yourself, but don't buy it until you've watched and made a judgment. I'd have to ask my husband for his opinion again, honestly. At this time, I have no desire to see
Letters from Iwo Jima, but I might give it a try later, out of curiosity.
Posted by: deltasierra at October 03, 2007 09:13 AM (r+3ie)
3
Do yourselves a favor, DON’T watch the movie, you’ll regret it if you do. To give you an idea they could have easily titled the movie “Ira Hayes was a Drunk” or “Let’s Understand How the Japanese Felt” WTF ever. In hindsight walking out was a better option.
However DO read the book, itÂ’s excellent and unlike the movie itÂ’s actually about the men/battle of Iwo Jima. (Now thereÂ’s a thought Mr. Eastwood).
Posted by: tim at October 03, 2007 11:03 AM (nno0f)
4
I bought
Flags of our Fathers for my husband but he didn't make it through the whole thing. He said that it made him really angry and that I shouldn't watch it because it would just make me an emmotional wreak about him deploying. So here it sits on my shelf, sad, because no one will watch it.
Posted by: Kasey at October 03, 2007 01:08 PM (tttDj)
5
I should add here that if anyone has watched all the movies already and is still in desperate need of some WW2 nostalgia, here is one incredible website you can easily spend hours with. It has an enormous amounts of beautiful color WWII photos, and other media:
http://www.ww2incolor.com/
Posted by: John Rohan at October 04, 2007 01:03 AM (BfPzY)
6
Sarah - Have you watched any of Ken Burns' The War that's been on PBS?
Posted by: Keri at October 04, 2007 04:27 AM (l3uZP)
7
Letters gives a very strong impression that very few Japanese were captured because Marines just shot them...didn't want to be bothered guarding them when they could be out killing more Japanese. That angered me the most about both movies...
Posted by: lcb at October 05, 2007 11:39 AM (7SkrQ)
8
Both movies are huge disappointments. Eastwood has become so incredibly negative in his old age. His last 4 movies are utter downers.
Flags seems to have the subtext that the pacific war was a pointless exercise. And white people are racist. How profound. It was very cynical and negative.
Letters gives a laughably one sided view of the Japanese. he should have bothered watching some Japanese films about WWII. The government of Japan back then was evil. They weren't the good guys. Although he vague touches on this, it still completely ignores the monumental atrocities committed by the Japanese in the war and instead was all about Japanese GIs pining for home and then dying "needlessly." It does show the human side of the soldiers and both movies are well made with excellent cinematography and acting. But they are relentlessly negative stories with no real point, IMO. They both basically say war is pointless and people die in them for no good reason. Well, wars are pointless in that stupid leaders on one side or the other get their people into these situations and needless destruction ensues as a result. But we know what would happen of the evil people got their way all the time. Wars prevent them from winning. For someone of Eastwood's generation to question WWII is pretty shocking.
I know he is closer to the end than the beginning of his life, but he should find something positive to say or no one will watch his movies anymore. I am getting turned off and I'm a long time fan.
Posted by: James Hudnall at October 06, 2007 08:24 PM (RggAf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 02, 2007
September 12, 2007
HEH
Niiiice:
Imagine if a more reliably sober-minded sort — say Zbigniew Brzezinski, David Broder — prophesied six years ago that in 2007, Bin Laden would still be at-large and giving televised addresses in which he offered generous blurbs for Noam Chomsky, touted global warming, expressed disappointment with the Democratic majority in Congress and championed a flat tax so low it would make Steve Forbes blush like John Ashcroft at a Pussycat Dolls audition. Most of us would have suggested that Messrs. Brzezinski or Broder should open the window when they cook their meth.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:42 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.
1
thanks for making me laugh this morning...now I am picturing John Ashcroft dressed in a corset singing "dont cha...."
I am a sicko
Posted by: armywifetoddlermom at September 12, 2007 05:02 AM (VEnp4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 05, 2007
AWWW
I saw this today and my heart just melted because, you know, we have a Charlie too.
Soldier looking for way to get his dog back from Iraq
He's got pictures of this cutie on his
blog.
Posted by: Sarah at
06:15 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I love the fact that people are so willing to do so much for their animals. I suppose it is b/c I am such an animal lover myself. We have about 5 houses of Saudi neighbors right now that have stated that they hate dogs and are afraid of them, it is making all of the American households in our neighborhood live on pins and needles with our animals! UGH! Lovin' the animal lovers even more right now
Posted by: LMT at September 06, 2007 05:51 AM (ASoq0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 04, 2007
LINKS
Two witty observations about the Larry Craig fiasco:
Jack Kelly:
When a scandal involves a Republican, his or her party affiliation is mentioned in the lead. When it involves a Democrat, party affiliation typically is mentioned deep in the story, if at all.
But media bias is not the main reason why Republicans suffer more from scandals. Democratic voters expect Democrats to steal on their behalf. Lawmakers are judged on the basis of how many goodies from the federal treasury they can shower on their constituents.
Mark Steyn:
Instead, Sen. Craig copped a plea. Because of that, he should disappear from public life as swiftly as possible and embrace full time the anonymity he cherishes in his sexual encounters. Not, as the left urges, on grounds of "hypocrisy" – because he's a "family values" politician who opposes "gay marriage" yet trawls for rough trade in men's rooms. A measure of hypocrisy is necessary to a functioning society. It's quite possible, on the one hand, to be opposed to the legalization of prostitution yet, on the other, to pull your hat down over your brow every other Tuesday and sneak off to the cat house on the other side of town. Your inability to live up to your own standards does not, in and of itself, nullify them. The left gives the impression that a Republican senator caught in a whorehouse ought immediately to say, "You're right. I should have supported earmarks for hookers in the 2005 appropriations bill." That's the reason why sex scandals take down Republicans but not Democrats: Sex-wise, the left's standards are that whatever's your bag is cool – which is the equivalent of no standards.
Posted by: Sarah at
02:57 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I think party affiliation is at the top for both Democrats and Republicans. My issue is more with hypocrisy. If someone stands for family values and lobbies against gay marriage, then they shouldn't be asking for a blowjob in the men's room.
Posted by: Non-Essential Equipment at September 04, 2007 09:59 AM (7qeW4)
2
Non-Essen.,
Your right, he should have been lobbying for blowjobs in public restrooms. That way, no harm-no foul.
Did you read the post?
Posted by: tim at September 04, 2007 10:42 AM (nno0f)
3
NonE -- Yeah, if you didn't read the whole Mark Steyn article, I recommend it. It may not change your mind about "hypocracy", but yours is the exact argument Steyn tries to knock down. And the Kelly article points out that Dems do bad things too...but is it OK for them to do bad as long as they don't take a stance against bad stuff? Is it OK to solicit anonymous gay sex in an airport as long as you support gay marriage? I'm not sure those are 100% related.
Posted by: Sarah at September 04, 2007 11:09 AM (TWet1)
4
I'm not sure government officials should be dictating the standards of sexual behavior to begin with.
Posted by: Sabbrielle at September 04, 2007 11:38 AM (DpeUa)
5
Sabbrielle,
Even in PUBLIC restrooms?!? WTF!
Posted by: tim at September 05, 2007 03:33 AM (nno0f)
6
Tim, if he lobbied for blowjobs in public restrooms, he might have a better chance of winning the next election if he stays in the game. What man can turn down free blowjobs? =)
You're right -- I didn't get to Steyn. I read the Kelly clip and moved on. I've read far too many posts making this a Democrat vs. Republican thing when it really should just be a one failed leader thing.
I really feel that both Democrats and Republicans get it when they act badly. How long did the Clinton thing go on? As many Democrats have had their feet put to the flames.
I agree with Steyn to a certain extent. Life does have a certain amount of hypocrisy. But I, for one, would like to hold our political leaders to a higher standard. Sad and misguided, I know, but I feel that if someone takes on a leadership position they should be, if not above reproach, at least doing the best they can.
Maybe the gay marriage thing doesn't play (but it does make one thing). But this isn't only gay marriage. This is someone who is interested in legislating morality and is a reason why a cop has to sit in the public men's room to begin with. Frankly, if you are elected on a family values/morals platform, well, then perhaps you should think about walking the walk.
Posted by: Non-Essential Equipment at September 05, 2007 07:06 AM (5E6aG)
7
I don't think that legislating morality has anything to do with cops sitting in public restrooms. I have to send my son in there (alone, sometimes!), and aside from the obvious ick and health reasons - that is not something that people should be exposed to. Period. There are hotels everywhere - hook up in the privacy of a room whatever your sexual orientation is.
I'm not defending Craig, by the way, and I'm glad to see him go. But the equation of restroom sex to morality platforms in elections is absolutely disengenuous.
The one thing I did learn from this was how such a hook up "goes down" from a friend of mine. All that talk about "toe tapping", and I thought I would have to teach my son to walk into a bathroom dragging feet on the floor to absolutely avoid the faintest sound that could possibly be misconstrued as a tap.
Turns out that there's some complex "Simon Says" action going on.
Learn something new every day...
Posted by: airforcewife at September 05, 2007 02:10 PM (emgKQ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 01, 2007
SHEESH
Ecofashion? I'm all for not being a jerk to the earth, but are we really calculating the carbon footprint of our back-to-school clothes now? Kids not only have to worry about looking cool; they now get to worry that their clothes are "grown with petrochemical fertilizers."
Hey Mom, when I wanted those Guess jeans in 6th grade, instead of telling me that I didn't need to wear a certain pair of jeans in order to make the right friends, maybe you could've said acid wash causes acid rain.
Posted by: Sarah at
05:06 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.
1
"Acid wash causes acid rain." I love it! Mothers should be using that for years.
Posted by: Butterfly Wife at September 02, 2007 05:06 AM (18CO/)
2
Did you see the name of the founder of Ecofashion 101? "Summer Rayne Oakes"
I'm seeing tie-dye, long hair, wire-rimmed sunglasses, and a headband with flowers . . .
I'm not going to knock too hard on the idea, though, because I'm getting a little tired of the idea of "disposable clothes". There's a bit of a movement out there to recycle clothing you own and make it into something new that you can wear again, but not a lot of people know how (or have the time) to refashion what they buy. I'm trying to learn, so I can make an article of clothing last two or three times its normal lifespan. My poor children will probably grow up the way I did: Hand-me-downs and mended clothing. I didn't care that much, though. A lot of styles for children (especially girls) are really not what I want to dress them in, anyway.
Posted by: deltasierra at September 03, 2007 09:51 AM (r+3ie)
3
1)Without "petrochemical based fertilizers," probably half of the people on the planet would starve.
2)Wonder if any of those people singing the praises of "hand-picked cotton" have every done any cotton picking? I understand it's uncomfortable to the point of being painful.
Posted by: david foster at September 03, 2007 01:45 PM (gguM0)
4
The environment is so anti-american i want to kill and rape it
Posted by: Will at September 04, 2007 12:44 AM (XLrHM)
Posted by: casodex at September 16, 2007 05:27 AM (tNaw8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 24, 2007
HEH
This experiment was really interesting:
Six weeks without a wash: The soapless experiment
Posted by: Sarah at
04:56 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Ewww....that wouldn't be the experiment for me, that's for sure. My ultra curly hair would probably have to be shaved off after the first week! Interesting article.
Posted by: ABW at August 24, 2007 09:15 AM (kQWmi)
2
Uh, yuck.
The skin thing, though, could have easily been tested without her getting all nasty.
Just look at what happens to women in the third world where they don't have Oil of Olay. Then, look at Sophia Loren.
I'm going to stick with my moisturizer, thank-you-very-much.
Posted by: airforcewife at August 24, 2007 11:49 AM (emgKQ)
3
Freakin' gross. She missed a friend's wedding for that crap? Stuuupid.
That said, anyone that spends 2,000 pounds (that's what, $4,000?) a year on beauty products has bigger issues than that experiment can address.
Posted by: Erin at August 24, 2007 06:01 PM (XRza7)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 23, 2007
I AM JOE'S BREAKING HEART
I didn't even have to make it to the article body to feel a lump in my throat over this one (via
LMT):
Family Loses Second Son in Iraq War
And what came to mind was this:
Executive Mansion,
Washington, Nov. 21, 1864.
Dear Madam,--
I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the Adjutant General of Massachusetts that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle.
I feel how weak and fruitless must be any word of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save.
I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.
Yours, very sincerely and respectfully,
A. Lincoln
Posted by: Sarah at
12:24 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 192 words, total size 1 kb.
1
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=477259&in_page_id=1811
The British covered it as well with some moving photos. Very sad.
Posted by: Oda Mae at August 24, 2007 12:14 AM (SLyCG)
2
Your post touched me and I wish the story of military casualties did not have to be replayed but I had to link this post to mine about another fallen member. Your letter from Lincoln reminds me that although there have been many others who have gone before, they are all unique and worthy of remembrance. Thank you for posting this.
Posted by: Lemon Stand at August 30, 2007 05:56 AM (DIsMj)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 14, 2007
July 23, 2007
WOAH
A fascinating story via Amritas
Terrorist Hunter: By day, Shannen Rossmiller is a Montana mother of three. At night, she takes down AmericaÂ’s enemies. ItÂ’s a compulsion even she canÂ’t explain.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:11 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.
July 21, 2007
WHAT IS HAPPENING TO US?
Should people with no kids pay more taxes to cover the slack for those who can't afford their own kids? Good thing I'm not the only one who was horrified at the suggestion:
this comments section was reassuring.
Posted by: Sarah at
04:38 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Try to grok the bigger picture, and take it from the 3rd richest man in the world:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/art icle1996735.ece
Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.
Posted by: q at July 21, 2007 05:40 AM (OIxDY)
2
q -- Congrats on missing the point of my post entirely and twisting it so you could make your own point.
Posted by: Sarah at July 21, 2007 06:11 AM (vrR+j)
3
If I missed the point in your two-sentence treatise, then yes I do deserve a commendation. I assumed you were on the topic of lower tax levels for families with kids versus families without. My point was maybe, as Warren Buffett testifies, the whole tax system is to be questioned. If that's a major twist for you, maybe you should see a back doctor.
Posted by: q at July 21, 2007 10:06 AM (OIxDY)
4
You already do pay proportionally more taxes for the two of you than a married couple with children, because of the deductions for children. Anything other than that is ridiculous.
Posted by: Anwyn at July 21, 2007 04:05 PM (aytNf)
5
Let me amend: anything other than that, that is specifically aimed at giving other people more money to raise their children, is ridiculous.
Posted by: Anwyn at July 21, 2007 04:06 PM (aytNf)
6
q -- My point was about taking personal responsibility for raising your own children without stealing money from others to do so. I do agree the tax system is broken, but that's another point entirely.
Posted by: Sarah at July 21, 2007 04:54 PM (vrR+j)
7
The personal responsibility dogma, ala the Ayndroids. Seems like quite a dodge. Does the idea of people with less disposable income paying less taxes than those with more really constitute stealing to you? How far do you carry that argument -- aren't all taxes stealing, then? Seems more likely you are on a roll of posting on a cranky lark. Maybe it's time to go back to knitting tales.
Posted by: q at July 22, 2007 03:20 AM (OIxDY)
8
q -- Look, did you even click on the link? It didn't say anything about rich people. It asked whether "dual income zero kids" folks should have to pay higher taxes. My brother-in-law and his wife fall in that category, and together they bring home about $3000 per month. What on earth makes it OK for them to have to pay more taxes than their peers with kids? They should not be punished for choosing not to start a family. This article's question doesn't rule out the fact that my brother-in-law might be expected to pay more taxes than someone who makes MORE money than him, simply because that person has kids and he doesn't. That's absurd. If you choose to have kids, you choose to provide for them. Why do you get to demand that others should contribute to your childrearing?
Posted by: Sarah at July 22, 2007 04:39 AM (vrR+j)
9
What a silly idea! Please! We have 2 short of a hockey team, and I choose to stay home. The funny thing? We have MORE disposable income and a more comfortable life now than we did when we had three kids and a dual income family!
I submit the idea that part of the problem is our collective horrible money management skills - and we have no one to blame for that but ourselves. God knows hubby and I have had to be smacked a few times with the debt stick to finally figure it out.
But never ONCE did I think anyone owed me anything. Heaven forbid!
Posted by: airforcewife at July 22, 2007 12:07 PM (emgKQ)
10
S, I agree with you -- basically neither family should be paying high taxes. But by participating in this rather artificial dog-eat-dog discussion you are pitting these types of families against each other, when the real culprit is the history of tax cuts for the rich. Hence my first "twisted" post.
Posted by: q at July 23, 2007 12:15 AM (OIxDY)
11
q,
I'm trying to figure out what you're saying. Do you think that:
- if tax cuts were minimized or eliminated
- and the rich paid what you consider to be their fair share of taxes
- then neither family would be paying high taxes?
Posted by: Amritas at July 23, 2007 05:18 AM (+nV09)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 20, 2007
LINKS
Two teasers to make you think and hopefully get you to read the blog posts to which they belong.
First: Thereby Hangs a Tale's Does America Support our Military Strategy? (via Achilles)
We have an angry voting public. About 71% are mad at the war and the President. But just what are they angry about? I’ve researched the polls and no poll that I can find goes beyond a simplistic, “Are you for or agin the war?” Are those polled just angry at a bullheaded (or principled, depending on your view) President? Are they frustrated by continued fighting in a war that may already be lost?
Second: Neptunus Lex's Us and Them Part I
It’s also popular to say that the people are “war weary,” but - apart from the very small percentage of those who are actually deployed, or their families - what do they have to be weary of? We live lives of ease, prosperity and entitlement our own parents could not have imagined, we shop at the mall, are very nearly fully employed, the economy is on solid footing, the stock market is through the roof and yet we go to the watercoolers with worried looks and tell ourselves that the country is very much on the wrong track, tut-tut.
Posted by: Sarah at
04:45 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 215 words, total size 1 kb.
1
"War weary" = "Media propaganda weary", that's all.
Time for coffee.
Posted by: Bark_of_Wonder at July 20, 2007 04:57 AM (4o6vo)
2
I need to print out that quote from Neptunus Lex and put it on my door. And my stationary. And just send it to people randomly.
Posted by: airforcewife at July 20, 2007 06:12 AM (emgKQ)
3
Yeah I was remarking the other day about how annoying it is when I hear people complaining about our national debt and the resulting "bad economy." They repeat whatever it is they hear on the news without doing any research....the DOW hit 14,000 the other day...totally exciting if you ask me...bad economy????
Posted by: Nicole at July 21, 2007 07:01 AM (S/s4V)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 19, 2007
HEH
Guard Wife
gives it to Ted Rall with both barrels. She uses phrases like "Left-wing cuckoobird who draws junior-high level cartoons for a living" and hands him his hat. Nicely done.
And this comments section at Standing By is fascinating. Go be a fly on the wall.
Posted by: Sarah at
04:28 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Awww, thanks!

(blushing)
Posted by: Guard Wife at July 19, 2007 02:04 PM (mMRvT)
2
Army Wife Toddler Mom also has a great post about this... linkage ain't workin so well for me at 0130 today, but it's there.
http://armywifetoddlermom.blogspot.com
Posted by: Green at July 20, 2007 08:35 PM (VqW06)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 10, 2007
LINKS
Some morning links before I head to the airport:
Mark Steyn: British bomb plot and Michael Moore-style health care
According to a report in the British Medical Journal, white males comprise 43.5 percent of the population but now account for less than a quarter of students at UK medical schools. In other words, being a doctor is no longer an attractive middle-class career proposition. That's quite a monument to six decades of Michael Moore-style socialist health care.
Incidentally, that was the exact same argument I tried to make at our office Christmas party in Germany.
John Stossel: Government is all about force
Government has nothing it hasn't first expropriated from some productive person. In contrast, the private sector – whether nonprofit or a greedy business – must work through persuasion and consent. No matter how rich Bill Gates gets, he cannot force us to buy his software. Outside government, actions are voluntary, and voluntary is better because it reflects the free judgment of creative, productive people.
And a great Mark Steyn quote from The Corner:
I want to bequeath the wonders of this earth to the next generation, but I worry that my grandchildren will never know the feeling that you've totally demonstrated your tremendous concern and commitment to taking action just by going to a concert and staying until halfway through the George Michael set when he started doing stuff from the new album.
Posted by: Sarah at
04:17 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 2 kb.
1
have you grokked James Ahearn yet? http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=triangle&id=5464232
Posted by: q at July 10, 2007 11:59 PM (OIxDY)
Posted by: Sarah at July 11, 2007 02:50 AM (vrR+j)
3
I had never read your post about your office Christmas party in Germany but now that I have....I agree! It brought back all sorts of anger I used to have (apparently still do!) about the way some civilians hide out in Germany, make ridiculous amounts of money, secure a ridiculous retirement, and then have the audacity to bad mouth the American government! I saw it many times over and had those same thoughts.
Posted by: nicole at July 12, 2007 02:58 AM (KFvr4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
93kb generated in CPU 0.0364, elapsed 0.1088 seconds.
58 queries taking 0.0931 seconds, 252 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.