November 08, 2006
November 07, 2006
DANG
Woah...Neil Armstrong didn't say what you think he said!
Posted by: Sarah at
11:24 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I've always known that what Armstrong said wasn't what he meant (or was supposed) to say. Both 'man' and 'mankind', in the context of his sentence, mean the same thing... which confounds the point of his message.
However, I've always thought that Armstong's 'flub' SOUNDS better. And every listener seems to understand the meaning of the sentence perfectly fine anyway.
Sometimes correct grammer just isn't as profound. I say that they should leave his message, flubbed and distorted and all, exactly as it is. SCREW THE INDEFINITE ARTICLE!
Posted by: Will at November 07, 2006 12:10 PM (QRBGL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 05, 2006
LINKING
Here's a long
discussion on Donald Rumsfeld. Yesterday Tim asked my husband whether he thought Rumsfeld should be replaced. My husband replied that what Rumsfeld does is
way above his pay grade and he doesn't have any access to information that would make him able to make that call. My husband is a smart man.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:26 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 57 words, total size 1 kb.
1
The husband is a politically astute man, and that's good.
Posted by: RobRoberts at November 05, 2006 09:07 AM (Oq2fc)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
JUSTICE
Suck it,
Saddam.
How quickly can we get the noose around his neck?
Posted by: Sarah at
02:48 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.
1
As I was talking to my husband in Iraq this morning he was excited to tell me about it! He said that they put it out over the radio while on patrol.
Posted by: Curly26 at November 05, 2006 04:29 AM (kQWmi)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 03, 2006
FYI
MaryIndiana -- FYI, there's a pupdate up
at SpouseBUZZ!
Posted by: Sarah at
10:30 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.
1
SouseBUZZ? Cool.
My husband David just joined the US Army JAG Corps, so he's now in the Reserves!
Posted by: Nancy at November 03, 2006 07:57 PM (8i2KG)
2
Awesome, Nancy. You're the target audience for SpouseBUZZ: folks who don't have an immediate military community. So we become each other's virtual community! Check us out.
Posted by: Sarah at November 04, 2006 02:19 AM (7Wklx)
3
Thanks for the link,Sarah. He looks so peaceful
and contented with his little toy. Who would
ever suspect that behind that smile lays the
palate of a mini-blind connoisseur!
Posted by: MaryIndiana at November 06, 2006 11:23 AM (YwdKL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
OBSESSION
I'm setting my DVR for a special Fox News showing of the movie
Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West on Saturday night at 8 PM ET. For more info, see
here.
I have to tape it, because I won't be home. My husband and I will be hanging out with Tim and Patti! Tim organized a book signing for The Blog of War. If you're anywhere near the Aiken Office Supply in Aiken, SC, this weekend, drop in and see us!
Posted by: Sarah at
10:22 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.
1
HAVE FUN and tell him HELLO!!!!!
I so want to see pictures!!
Posted by: armywifetoddlermom at November 03, 2006 04:04 PM (IVwWm)
2
Ohhh what a great time. Tell him we miss him here on the 'net.
But doesn't it figure? All the travelin' I'm doing lately and nothing in SC. Hmmmmm must work on that!
Posted by: Tammi at November 04, 2006 03:02 AM (3UQTn)
3
Sarah,
It was so nice to see you in our Chat Room (affectionately referred to as the Big Blue Ballroom).
Glad you popped in for the interview with our favorite milspouses and hope you'll drop by again to tune in. We've a nice group of bloggers that join us everyday. You'd make a welcome addition.
I'm perusing your site and I like it -- you're a smart gal!
Andrea (& Mark)
Radio Patriots
Posted by: Andrea & Mark - Radio Patriots at November 04, 2006 07:30 AM (U+oOd)
4
I read the synopsis. I feel like I'd be more scared if each instance of 'islam' was replaced with 'conservative.'
Posted by: Will at November 04, 2006 11:18 AM (QRBGL)
5
Wow, Will. That's one of the dumbest things you've ever said here.
Posted by: Sarah at November 04, 2006 03:04 PM (7Wklx)
6
Will, do you realize that your arrogance ensures your ignorance?
If conservatives (or non-liberals if you prefer) are really as awful as you seem to believe, and they constitute a major political force capable of winning huge numbers of votes in the United States, then by direct implication good governance through democracy is a farce. Have a little faith in your fellow human beings, and try to understand them a little better.
As evidenced by your writing style (if not content), you are intelligent enough and old enough to understand the basic precepts of courtesy and logic, if not experienced enough to appreciate their value. Come, on--step it up a bit here.
Posted by: Piercello at November 05, 2006 06:54 AM (EZcuZ)
7
Sorry dad... I mean, Piercello.
Posted by: Will at November 06, 2006 11:22 AM (QRBGL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
HUH?
Who woulda thought we'd read
this this morning?
Let's go back and clarify: IRAQ HAD NUCLEAR WEAPONS PLANS SO ADVANCED AND DETAILED THAT ANY COUNTRY COULD HAVE USED THEM.
Just when I think things couldn't get any weirder...
Posted by: Sarah at
04:38 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I'm pretty sure the report is talking about the time right after the first gulf war... in 1991, we found (and subsequently destroyed) a nuclear program. It was a pretty big gaffe on the part of the CIA, who were completely unaware of the program.
In 2002 however, Saddam had nothing.
And I think it's hilarious that powerlineblog and the administration are hurting national security by releasing these plans... and by hilarious, I mean like, "oh, look, Bush is doing something stupid - that's hilarious." You know, not really hilarious.. just kind of sad, but funny in a 'we're-all-dead-in-the-long-run' kind of way.
Posted by: Will at November 03, 2006 10:27 AM (QRBGL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 24, 2006
WHY VOTING MATTERS
Bleak House: Republicans deserve to lose, but what happens if Democrats win?
First, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has promised that election of a Democratic House would insure "a rollback of the [Bush] tax cuts." Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, who would be chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, would make sure no tax cut extension bill would ever get to the floor. He voted against the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts and the bill that later extended the tax cuts until 2010 (as did all but seven of the 205 Democratic House members). In September Mr. Rangel said that he "cannot think of one" Bush tax cut he would agree to renew.
Investors Business Daily recently pointed out that since the Bush tax cuts took effect in 2003, "the economy has added $1.26 trillion in real output, $14.4 trillion in net wealth and 5.8 million new jobs." But that progress doesn't seem to matter to the liberals, whose primary goal is to raise income tax rates. "Taxing the rich" will be the leading economic argument of a 2007 Democratic House, and a rollback tax bill of some kind will reach the floor.
Second, President Bush will not be able to re-energize his effort for individually owned Social Security accounts, for "preventing the privatization of social security" is in the Democratic National Committee's "6-Point Plan for 2006." Democrats don't trust people to own or invest their own retirement funds--better to let a wise government do that, for as socialist Noam Chomsky says, "putting people in charge of their own assets breaks down the solidarity that comes from doing something together." And since Congress gets to spend Social Security tax receipts that aren't needed to pay benefits, letting people invest their payments in their own retirement accounts would be a costly revenue reduction that the new, bigger-spending Congress won't allow to happen.
Via Instapundit. Yikes. Read the remaining points. Double yikes.
Posted by: Sarah at
11:31 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 327 words, total size 2 kb.
1
But reflect on this: the very people saying these things are confident that they're going to sweep into power and sweep the Republicans out. Why? How can they be so sure that there are enough lunatics out there to accomplish that miracle? Mark Foley?
(By the way, your anti-whatever filter keeps rejecting my E-mail address and URL because it ends with dot-info. What on Earth is wrong with dot-info domains?)
Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at October 24, 2006 12:41 PM (PzL/5)
2
Unfortunately, I share a whatever-filter with about a hundred other mu.nu bloggers, so whatever one filters, we all filter. Sorry. But no worries, I know who you are!
Posted by: Sarah at October 24, 2006 04:58 PM (7Wklx)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 22, 2006
LIFE IMITATES ART
Woah. It's a real-life
John Doe! I wonder if this guy knows how many dimples there are in a golf ball...
Posted by: Sarah at
02:14 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.
1
http://anticollective.blogspot.com/2006/10/how-i-saved-world.html
Posted by: I at November 03, 2006 04:30 AM (Z9Jj/)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 20, 2006
LINK
John Hawkins has a
great interview with Larry Elder on race, health care, free trade, and blogging.
Posted by: Sarah at
10:50 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Man, I love Larry Elders.
Posted by: Erin at October 20, 2006 05:07 PM (023Of)
2
There's a lot of constructive and destructive things to say about Larry Elders. Instead I'll just write out dictionary definitions.
Liberal - 1. abundant, ample, 2. giving freely, generous, 3. open minded, 4. not strict or rigorous, 5. for the general broadening of the mind, 6. favouring moderate politcal and social reform.
Conservative - 1. adverse to rapid change, 2. moderate, avoiding extremes, 3. (of an estimate, etc.) purposely low, 4. tending to conserve
Oxford dictionary puts the most important meaning of each word (in modern English) first.
All of this confirms my suspicion that dictionaries are useless.
Posted by: Will at October 20, 2006 06:03 PM (QRBGL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 14, 2006
GOOD LINK
I started feeling antsy and came in to check blogs. I found a great post on the supposed
654,965 dead Iraqis over at Annika's. And I was so engrossed in reading it that I missed Suppan's homerun. Dangit.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:58 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Numbers like these are bound to happen when the military starts running foreign policy. The CIA should be in charge of this mission, not Rumsfield, Cheney and the PNACs.
Posted by: Will at October 15, 2006 03:11 PM (QRBGL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 13, 2006
BLAH
Lileks has a
good bleat today and a link to an article called
"Imagine Earth Without People". Take a deep breath and dive in. Now, I'm no biologist, but you know what else earth probably wouldn't have if it didn't have people? Pandas.
Posted by: Sarah at
04:24 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Pandas? What are you talking about?
Posted by: Will at October 13, 2006 01:55 PM (QRBGL)
2
Panda females reject their young. Humans have to force pandas to mate and then keep the infant panda alive with great effort. Pandas don't breed well on their own, but we want to keep them alive because they're cute and fuzzy.
Posted by: Sarah at October 13, 2006 03:23 PM (7Wklx)
3
Wow, that's pretty dumb Sarah. How do you think Pandas have existed for hundreds of thousands of years?
The worst part about this post is now I have to think about humans forcing pandas to mate.
Posted by: Will at October 13, 2006 10:54 PM (QRBGL)
4
And like the article hypothetically daydreamed, if all humans disappeared right this second, there'd be about 1000 pandas who fight when they mate and reject their infant young and spend 14 hours a day eating bamboo instead of mating. Maybe their numbers could bounce back eventually, but zoos are the ones fighting to keep panda numbers up right now.
http://www.fws.gov/species/species_accounts/bio_pand.html
http://www.usaweekend.com/01_issues/010624/010624panda.html
So maybe my offhanded snide comment wasn't 100% perfect, but it's not entirely without merit.
Posted by: Sarah at October 14, 2006 03:05 AM (7Wklx)
5
Yeah, it's too bad we've nearly driven them to extinction. If I were a right-winger trying to back up my position, I'd just say that all the animals would be dead anyway if it wasn't for Noah and his ark. Now there's some hypothetical daydreaming you can sink your teeth into.
Posted by: Will at October 14, 2006 12:01 PM (QRBGL)
6
Will, that last comment makes absolutely no sense. Wanna try again?
Posted by: piercello at October 14, 2006 12:30 PM (Rg1Yo)
7
Sorry I don't fit into your stereotype, Will, but I don't believe in the Ark.
Posted by: Sarah at October 14, 2006 01:00 PM (7Wklx)
8
It's hard to pigeon-hole you Sarah... I hate that... it makes your blog way too addictive.
Posted by: Will at October 14, 2006 02:43 PM (QRBGL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 12, 2006
October 02, 2006
LINK
Absolutely horrifying:
Is There Blood On His Hands? The Case Against Kofi Annan
And absolutely mindboggling:
At Gitmo, detainees get La-Z-Boys, pastries
Posted by: Sarah at
02:44 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Do you really think the UN has any power without the support of America. The UN is around because of America, and with America disowning it, it cannot function. You can't really pass off the genocides of the world as the UN's responsibility. With America tied up in Iraq, there's no hope for Darfur.
Posted by: Will at October 02, 2006 01:04 PM (H4u2c)
2
So what you are saying, Will, is that the UN is useless
at best and we might as well shut it down?
Posted by: Pixy Misa at October 02, 2006 10:31 PM (FRalS)
3
Pixy dust,
I guess I am saying that, if this is the best we can do.
However, I was kind of hoping that after all the good it did in WW2, America would want to continue on its promise of supplying freedom and hope to the world. You know, the opposite of occupation?
Posted by: Will at October 12, 2006 12:05 PM (QRBGL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 25, 2006
LINK
Secrets of 'South Park'
Posted by: Sarah at
04:55 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 6 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I think the reason you can make fun of every religious person except muslims is that it's only innocent muslims who are being killed by war in large numbers EVERY day in their own, home countries. The innocents maybe aren't targeted, but that's the reality of the situation.
So basically, until I see South Park mocking 1930s, german Jews, I continue to remain skeptical about whether or not muslims in 2006 should be mocked.
Which is too bad, because I'm very much a fan of mocking every religion all the time.
Posted by: Will at September 25, 2006 09:24 PM (H4u2c)
2
So Cartman dressing like Hitler and marching the people of South Park through the streets chanting "Wir mussen die Juden ausraten" doesn't count?
Posted by: Sarah at September 26, 2006 03:45 AM (bw5Sm)
3
No, because that's mocking Hitler.
Posted by: Will at October 01, 2006 05:42 PM (H4u2c)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 23, 2006
September 17, 2006
ANNIKA RULES
My husband's reaction to the Muslim Brotherhood
demanding a personal apology from the Pope: "Just who in the hell do these people think they are?" I think that sums up the influence Islam knows it has over the West these days.
Annika has a good roundup of what she's calling "the next 'cartoon' riots." My favorite bit is this quote she found from an Indonesian protest organizer:
Of course as we know the meaning of jihad can only be understood by Muslims . . . Only Muslims can understand what jihad is. It is impossible that jihad can be linked with violence, we Muslims have no violent character.
Tell that to the Palestinians who immediately started attacking churches. Or the folks who threatened to suicide attack the Pope.
No violent character my foot.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:35 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Is all this nun shooting and church attacking activity considered a proper proportionate response?
Posted by: Deskmerc at September 17, 2006 11:47 AM (Z0+kX)
2
Muslims have got to get a sense of humour about their beliefs. They basically kill people who disagree with them. That's messed up, and I don't need the pope to tell me that.
They remind me of those goth kids in high school who'd act all depressed all the time (like they have any more right than the rest of us) and would become seriously offended if you in any way made light of their "alternative" (but strictly uniformed) lifestyle.
More importantly, why do they care if non-muslims think Mohammed was a fruit? We're not practicers of that faith, so unless they're trying to convert us all, why do they care?
I'm an atheist and everything I wrote applies to christians as well - but I at least respect the fact that christians know they're a joke and don't fight it.
Posted by: Will at September 17, 2006 12:27 PM (H4u2c)
3
Will-I think it has something to do with "shame cultures" vs "guilt cultures." For a member of of a shame culture, external perception is everything, and being disrespected--by anyone--is a horrible thing.
I doubt if very many Christians would agree with the last part of your comment.
Posted by: david foster at September 17, 2006 02:33 PM (/Z304)
4
Thanks Sarah, but it is you who rule!
Posted by: annika at September 18, 2006 04:00 PM (qQD4Q)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 06, 2006
OIL
Interesting
discussion going on about oil and the future of our energy. Also found via
Hud, who always finds the good stuff.
Posted by: Sarah at
06:38 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Haven't read all the comments, but on the plane over I saw a real interesting episode of 60 Minutes and it talked about oil pressed out from sand. Apparently up in Northern Canada there is loads of this stuff, which before wasn't profitable to extract. But now with gas prices so high it is a veritable option. A huge sign to the profitablity is that many American oil concerns have started investing into it. And there is enough that it actually produces enough to seriously compete with Saudia Arabia.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/20/60minutes/main1225184.shtml
Pretty interesting.
Posted by: calivalleygirl at September 06, 2006 07:08 AM (deur4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
79kb generated in CPU 0.2148, elapsed 0.2609 seconds.
63 queries taking 0.2325 seconds, 246 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.