Army: UR doin it wrong

(My compliments to Chuck; I totally stole his joke.)

Posted by: Sarah at 12:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

Read Grim's Blackfive post on The Caste of Killers, and make sure to click through to Shannon Love's Don't Be Preedy.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:30 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

Surviving in a post-American world

ObamaÂ’s Potemkin Military Reception=No Scandal; Troops Plan Who Will Take What Questions From Bush=Huge Scandal

(via Boxenhorn and Amritas, respectively)

My husband left this morning for a week of training (marksmanship camp...no fair!) and my mother leaves Wednesday. I will be back online like my normal self after that.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:11 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.

So many people did such a good job of answering Sis B's question. I concur with the fundamentals of what they said (and I would settle for a school voucher system any day as opposed to the soup sandwich we currently have.)

Any discussion of what I think the role of government is would have to include talk of rights. I believe we have inalienable rights to life, liberty, freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, etc. Those are rights to be left alone. To not be meddled with. To live and let live. We need a system of government when our community gets too big to handle as an individual, but the role of government ought ideally to be to protect our right not to be meddled with.

My husband and I love watching the series Deadwood. You can see on this show the evolution of government: Jack McCall kills Wild Bill, and then, aw crap, now we have to have a trial instead of just stringing him up. And then maybe it would be a good idea to have a sheriff and so on. You see these people who moved West to be left alone now being forced to create a government of sorts as the community gets bigger. And they downright resent it. Seth and Saul wanted to move West to open a hardware store, so they bought land, erected a building, and started selling boots and pans. They didn't need a permit, they didn't need a building inspection, they didn't have to belong to a guild or pay union dues; they just set to work filling a need in the camp: hardware. Can you imagine what they'd think if they saw what has to be done to start a business today?

I'm not saying life was better in every way back then, but Deadwood illustrates the gradual relinquishing of complete individuality and the loaning, if you will, of some of your rights to an authority. People entrusted the sheriff with their right to life and their right to justice. In return, the sheriff mediated their disputes (most notably between Hostetler and Steve the Drunk. Which was enough to make you wish you didn't live under the rule of law, so you could choke that hooplehead Steve out and be done with it.)

I liked CaliValleyGirl's analogy of government as a home owner's association. We in the United States have entrusted our government with some of our rights. We are too big to defend ourselves individually, so we entrust them with our national defense. We needed a system of interstate roads, so we entrust our motorways to them. But I personally think that what we now entrust our government to do goes way beyond promoting the general welfare.

Broadly speaking, I think the difference between the left and right is that the left wants to entrust more things to the government. I think they see our country as one big family. In my family, I have a crappy little job where I make about $75 per week. My husband makes more than that in a day. But all our money goes into the same bank account, and I am allowed to spend whatever I think is prudent on clothes or yarn or books. My husband does not restrict my spending to only what I make, because we are a family and we love each other. And sometimes I think that the left sees our country as an extension of a family, where the person who makes $75 per week is entitled to the same equality of result as the person who makes $7500. I think that's illustrated by Lileks' Parable of the Stairs story about his tax refund:

“I think the money should have gone straight to those people instead of trickling down.” Those last two words were said with an edge.

“But then I wouldn’t have hired them,” I said. “I wouldn’t have new steps. And they wouldn’t have done anything to get the money.”

“Well, what did you do?” she snapped.

“What do you mean?”

“Why should the government have given you the money in the first place?”

“They didn’t give it to me. They just took less of my money.”

That was the last straw. Now she was angry. And the truth came out:

“Well, why is it your money? I think it should be their money.”

What I see is that James Lileks made that money and he should be able to use it to build stairs to improve his home. But this Democrat canvasser thought it should've all gone into the collective national bank account and then been doled out based on who needed it.

On the same note, after she wrote this post, CaliValleyGirl elaborated on the theme in an email. She wrote:

I mean, imagine you are walking down the street with my dad and you meet someone who asks you for money. And you say sure, and slip your hand into my fatherÂ’s pocket, take his wallet, take out a $20, give it to the guy, and now you feel good, because you helped that person. But really, YOU didnÂ’t help that person.

This, to echo back to Sis B, is the left-wing mindset that I will never understand. Why should the stair money belong to all of us? Why should anyone be entitled to the fruits of Lileks' labor? And how do people justify taking money out of CaliValleyDad's pocket and giving it away to people who didn't earn it? (A question which, sadly, CaliValleyGirl never seemed to get an answer on.) The United States is not one big collective family with a shared bank account. It was never meant to be that. I don't know why we've drifted towards that; I find it maddening. I don't need to be Deadwood, but I don't want to be what we are right now.

I have heard Sean Hannity do man-on-the-street interviews with young people, asking them what people have the right to. Most of them quite readily agree that people have the right to shelter, food, education, transportation, and health care. I firmly believe that the government should grant none of those things as a right. In order for a penniless person to have any of those things, the government has to take Lileks' stair money and give it away. The role of government should be limited to enforcing the laws that protect our inalienable rights: the laws that prevent someone from coming into Lileks' house to steal his stair money, the laws that ensure that the contractor who builds the stairs will face justice if he doesn't fulfill his contract, and the laws that protect Lileks' right to defend his family should anyone step foot onto that staircase to do them harm. The government's role, in my opinion, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Lileks should get to have the stairs in the first place. If he earned the money for them, he gets them; he shouldn't have to relinquish his stair money so that other families can feed their kids or have a house.

Leonard Peikoff says it well in a speech I read back in 2000, a speech that resonated with me instantly and which obviously became a part of my knowing. I didn't realize how closely I'd echoed it nine years later in the beginning of this post until I googled it to quote here:

The term "rights," note, is a moral (not just a political) term; it tells us that a certain course of behavior is right, sanctioned, proper, a prerogative to be respected by others, not interfered with -- and that anyone who violates a man's rights is: wrong, morally wrong, unsanctioned, evil.

Now our only rights, the American viewpoint continues, are the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That's all. According to the Founding Fathers, we are not born with a right to a trip to Disneyland, or a meal at Mcdonald's, or a kidney dialysis (nor with the 18th-century equivalent of these things). We have certain specific rights -- and only these.

Why only these? Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want -- not to be given it without effort by somebody else.

When I talk about Our Gulch, when I reference Fight or Flee, I am talking about my people. My tribe, as Whittle would say. And the people I want in my Gulch, they all have this same definition of rights. Most people I am friends with have this definition; most of the bloggers I read share it too. It seems to me that we are numerous. So to me, the interesting part of Sis B's question is this:

I think that part of what mystifies me about it is the vast chasm between what I hear regular conservatives saying they believe and the type of government that has been established under the guise of conservativism the past 8 years.

I am equally mystified by this. If everyone I know feels like I do about rights and the role of government, why don't we ever have a government that suits us?

I think the answer lies in compromise. My tribe was mad that Pres Bush was soft on immigration and that he signed the prescription drug plan. Many in my tribe were mad about the marriage amendment as well. I also remember vividly in 2004 when Bush won and said he was going to privatize Social Security. I couldn't believe my ears and was thrilled beyond belief. But it didn't pan out. The federal government is one whopping compromise where no one ends up happy with the result.

And it's not just Republicans who embody this chasm. Remember how Pres Clinton fficial&client=firefox-a">was "the best Republican president we've had in a while"? I am sure Obama supporters are mad that he hasn't completely pulled out of Iraq and that closing Gitmo is "complicated." It's the nature of politics that all presidents are going to govern from the center and end up ticking off their constituents.

Which is why I agree with Mrs du Toit and CaliValleyGirl that politics should be local, and that we ought to live in gulches. Another fundamental belief I have about the workings of government is that it should vary by locality. There should be very few federal laws; most things should be left up to the states, and then you could live in the state that you feel best represents your worldview. It would be far easier to get one of 50 states to suit you than it is to get the entire country to. People pay far too much attention to federal elections and lawmaking.

Towards the end, Sis B adds:

But when this election was done and the Republican party had its collective ass handed to it, my first thought was, "I hope that this allows the party to get back to the fundamentals of its beliefs and that they re-emerge in four or eight years with a strong, coherent platform." Seriously. I want the conservatives to get back to their roots and come back strong.

I don't see that happening.

I think I disagree with her. I think four years of President Obama will be plenty to make people in the center lurch rightward. And I hope we see a resurgence of conservative/libertarian principles on the national stage. I want Republicans to stop their pandering and quit trying to be Democrat Lite. I want to be the party of tough love. I want to be the party of individual responsibility. I want to vote for someone who denies the Democrats their premises. But, you'll remember, I was not a McCain supporter from the beginning. I supported Fred Thompson, who was far closer to my ideal politician than what I ended up having to vote for. Not perfect, but as close as it probably gets. (I don't imagine we could ever get away with President Z.)

So, at the risk of sounding like Forrest Gump, I guess that's all I have to say about that. Sis B has now asked her Democrat readers to explain their side. If you are interested in this exchange of ideas, keep your eyes on this post and the comments.

For additional reading about the role of government from people whose brains work far better than mine, check out Mrs du Toit's The Day Liberty Died (via Amritas) and den Beste's Citizen Soldier.

Posted by: Sarah at 11:32 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 2152 words, total size 13 kb.

1 Funny, I would label myself a "liberal" - note the lack of capital letter. This is the best definition I could find as to why that word fits: favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible So I don't feel that Sarah's view of government is all that different from mine. Let folks do what they want to do - don't impose your religion, don't tell me what marriage means, don't go crying to Washington over what happens in your backyard, take care of your own business, etc. Seems to make sense to me. I find it curious that most people who deride liberals seem to believe that all of them want the government to do everything for them - some certainly do, but not all of them. Many people label themselves "liberal" because they want to be left the hell alone by other people. Frankly, I don't see the Dems or the Republicans supporting this ideal at all. Both are pretty far from it. Granted, maybe that's our fault. We make hunger, education, finance and all types of other social/personal issues a political issue and what can a politician do about them short of legislating and making it a Washington problem? Great post - thanks

Posted by: Sarah's Pinko Commie Friend at April 12, 2009 02:55 PM (4bitt)

2 Pinko -- I have seen many bloggers that I consider on "my" side use the small-l liberal designation. Like in a "taking it back" way.

Posted by: Sarah at April 12, 2009 03:10 PM (TWet1)

3 As in, "its cool, I'm taking it back!" ? Nice

Posted by: Sarah's Pinko Commie Friend at April 12, 2009 04:23 PM (4bitt)

4 Pinko -- I just knew you would get my Randal reference... Incidentally, I should've commented about your last paragraph. Excellent point. Why do we focus so much on social issues during the campaign: I don't want the government hand on any of those things. So what I want to know is this: Do you think Obama's "leaving people the hell alone"? I know you favored him over McCain; are you happy about his policies so far? Because to me, taking the reins of the banks and car companies is pretty freaking far from leaving us alone. I think it's a major entwining of government and business. What do you think?

Posted by: Sarah at April 13, 2009 02:44 AM (TWet1)

5 Excellent post Sarah. It's hard to explain each of our individual belief systems but I think you and CVG did an excellent job of it. People seem to forget about states rights and how they were the foundation of everything. If you want to live in state that honors gay marriage then you can move to one that does. However people don't want to be uprooted from their own community, so they just attempt to change their communities collective mind. If the community doesn't like that idea then the person might say well let's make it a national law, so then I don't have to be inconvenienced by moving. I consider myself conservative but have some very socially liberal ideas. I believe in a woman's right to choice to control her own body. I believe that all children in our country have a right (yes, strong word I know) to a decent education and free health care. I don't mind my taxes going to pay for education and health care because in the end it makes our country stronger and more competitive in a global market. Some conservatives don't agree with me and that's ok. I respect their opinions because they are educated on the issues or have strong moral beliefs. Which brings me to a point. One of the reason's I dislike Liberal ideology even though I am slightly liberal myself, is that most of the people I speak with don't seem entirely clear on what they believe. It's just seems to be this blanket idea of everyone should be taken care of. Everyone has a right to everything to make them comfortable in life. This ideology is something that seems to be fostered in the PUBLIC school system. Which is why so many people these days choose to home school. If the liberal side doesn't want prayer in schools because of the 'separation of church and state' (NOT a RIGHT granted in the constitution by the way, but read as an INTENTION by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote) then quit stuffing another ideology down the kids throats. It's an idea of entitlement that bothers me. No one ever said life was going to be fair. The other thing I take issue with is the vitriol that is spewed by both the liberal and conservative sides. Name calling won't help. The original post asked for no name calling, however there was still a jab at the other side when she said that 'But when this election was done and the Republican party had its collective ass handed to it,' I call bullshit on that. Obama received 52.9% and McCain received 45.7% Hardly a landslide sweetheart. I don't think Obama is going to have 8 years of governing. He has shown so far that he does not in fact have the experience needed for the job. He election galvanized many conservative-lite people into becoming more involved in their local governments and say, no more, lets change this.

Posted by: Mare at April 13, 2009 03:55 AM (TWet1)

6 Tomorrow I will be sending out my first quarterly estimated tax payment for this year. I am self-employed, so I self-deduct my taxes, and actually notice how much of my money is being siphoned away. And what struck me was that my federal tax payment was nearly 10x that of my state tax payment. And I thought how wrong that isÂ…it should be the other way around. Why are we sending so much money to Washington, when supposedly WashingtonÂ’s job is to send it back to us? Why donÂ’t we keep it in our states, and send a minimal amount to the federal government? I just donÂ’t get it. Mare, I agree with you on the public education thing, but I would argue that it's not a right. I would say, like you did, it's just a smart thing to do as a nation and makes us stronger. A good education takes care of a lot of problems...problems we still have in this country, so I feel we are failing ourselves in that way, because we aren't giving public school children that good education.

Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at April 13, 2009 05:20 AM (irIko)

7 I know 'right' is a strong word in this case. But my thought process is that the system already exists. We are already paying for it. Ultimately if we want people to take personal responsibility for their own lives and not need the help of the federal gov't then we must give them the tools to succeed. Education is the key to that. And I used the word 'decent' very specifically. It does not have to be perfect. It has to get the job done to prepare kids for either college, the military or a trade. What they do after that is up to them. Then again, education is not a something guarnteed in the Bill of Rights. Just my 2 cents, your mileage may vary

Posted by: Mare at April 13, 2009 06:53 AM (y9A8i)

8 I know 'right' is a strong word in this case. But my thought process is that the system already exists. We are already paying for it. Ultimately if we want people to take personal responsibility for their own lives and not need the help of the federal gov't then we must give them the tools to succeed. Education is the key to that. And I used the word 'decent' very specifically. It does not have to be perfect. It has to get the job done to prepare kids for either college, the military or a trade. What they do after that is up to them. Then again, a right to an education is not something guaranteed in the Bill of Rights nor do I think we need an Amendment to make it so. Just my 2 cents, your mileage may vary

Posted by: Mare at April 13, 2009 06:54 AM (y9A8i)

9 "So what I want to know is this: Do you think Obama's "leaving people the hell alone"? I know you favored him over McCain; are you happy about his policies so far? Because to me, taking the reins of the banks and car companies is pretty freaking far from leaving us alone. I think it's a major entwining of government and business. What do you think?" Well, I don't really know what to think about government intervention in business/economy. As a business owner, I believe pretty strongly that perception is reality in the market. So I sometimes feel (perhaps selfishly) that whatever it takes to turn people's attitudes around makes me happy. Granted, the idea of giving money to failed businesses bugs me a ton. I'm not sure how I feel about him so far. Know this, I don't consider this guy the second coming. I think that most people can agree that he is an "interesting" fellow. I like him (hey, I like McCain too) and I'm interested to see what he does. I like the fact that he hasn't rushed the pull out in Iraq, because I'm not in favor of leaving till the job is done. Granted, I'm not sure that anyone agrees on what "the job" is anymore. But I think he'll temper some of the issues that liberals are wrong about. But I also think he believes he or policy can "fix" everything. I don't believe for a second that the government (or either party) is responsible for the housing industry debacle - I blame the banking industry pure and simple. Now, they didn't cause it, but can they fix it? And if they can, what precedent does that set going forward? I think that most of us want the American Economy to be strong, and I don't have enough economic education to believe that the free market will automagically right itself for the best without interference. So to answer your question, I don't really know. If it works then I'm happy as a business owner. As a felow armchair quarterbacking the oval office I feel more inclined to complain about the intentions but admit that I don't have the expertise to provide a better answer. I still like Obama, I think its interesting to see how he'll deal with his early-term issue. I thought Bush did a great job with 911, even if I thought he botched some other stuff. But 911 was something that could be handled "right" and he was in a position to do something. I'm not sure that the president should be doing something at all, or whether or not the president has a "right" thing in his arsenal at all. I would have been interested to see what McCain would have done with regards to the economy. I'm not regretting my choice of vote yet (with regards to the economy anyway). does that backpedal make any sense?

Posted by: Sarah's Pinko Commie Friend at April 13, 2009 01:28 PM (4bitt)

10 Oh, to actually have a party of tough love and individual responsibility. If we are ever able to make that the entire platform of the republican party, I will be thrilled.

Posted by: Leofwende at April 13, 2009 07:49 PM (28CBm)

11 For examples of just how intrusive government threatens to become in day-to-day life, see my regulating absolutely everything thread...also this. Not to mention the whole CPSIA debacle.

Posted by: david foster at April 14, 2009 03:04 AM (ke+yX)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I had to work this afternoon demonstrating another science kit. This one was aimed for four year olds, so it was pretty basic. But the kids seemed to have fun.

I thought of this recent Joanne Jacobs' post (via Amritas) while I was there. I was looking over the other science kits on display, and the one for the kids aged 8+ had a warning label: "This set contains chemicals that may be harmful if misused." On the back of the box was the list of contents: gelatin, sugar, baking yeast, and food coloring.

Now I freely admit that chemistry was my weakest subject in school, but I'm having a hard time figuring out a combination of those contents that could be harmful. Am I missing something? Or is this an example of warning labels gone wild?

It's a far cry from the 1950's kit with uranium and a geiger counter!

Posted by: Sarah at 12:04 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

Chuck Z cracks me up...

As we all know, when a veteran runs into a problem, we just pull out the gun we've hidden in our bible and start shooting.

I am still working on my answer to Sis B. I wrote for over an hour this morning, but I need to sit on it a little longer. I am not good at blog assignments: the longer it takes me, the less I like the result. But we'll see what I manage to come up with.

For what it's worth, I'd love to have Sis B write on the same topic: what the role of government is, what powers it should have, etc. Because I don't understand her side any better than she understands mine.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:50 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

In addition to SpouseBUZZ Live and my husband having to work over the weekend, we were also mentally dealing with this: A Lot Can Change In 36 Hours.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:31 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Hear Hear! I totally feel you

Posted by: Darla at April 11, 2009 10:14 AM (LP4DK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

UPDATE: Everyone is giving really good answers. Make sure you still go over and read Sis B's comments section. And if Chuck Z can craft an answer without using the word "commie," then you can too! If you answer on your own blog, leave a trackback either at Sis B's or here, so we can read them all. I know Sis B said not to just quote people, but I keep going "Yeah, what she said, and what he said!" However, I did give this lots of thought last night before I read anything here and plan to try to answer on my own...as soon as I get home from making more foam houses at work.

Also, I would like to say that I lurve my imaginary friends. I know that many of you disagree with me on several issues -- AirForceWife, Andi, CaliValleyGirl, Mare, etc have all let me know when they do -- but when we boil it down to the essentials, just the basic framework we work under, we are all so similar. And that's why we read each other: we know we have common ground, and the rest is just details. It's also why we seriously need a gulch.

*****

Anyone want to try to answer Sis B's question?

I know I have a bunch of Republican readers and close friends, but for the life of me I cannot figure out what any of you think about actual issues. It's all hidden behind snark and namecalling and eye rolling and back patting and I seriously, honestly, to my core, want to know what you believe and why. I want to know what you think about how the government is supposed to work. What does a functioning government look like to you? Please, if you care to answer this question, do so without saying words like "libs" or "dems" or hippies, commies, fags, or any derivative thereof. I want to know what, if any, moral authority government should have. What is the government's purpose in relation to the economy? What powers should the government be allowed to have and what should be limited? What is your view of the constitution? What are your beliefs about ALL the amendments within the Bill of Rights, not just the second?

I think that part of what mystifies me about it is the vast chasm between what I hear regular conservatives saying they believe and the type of government that has been established under the guise of conservativism the past 8 years.

I am gonna take a stab at it when I get back home. It seems like a hard task to me, because I will not be able to grant any common ground. To answer this, I will have to start from the beginning and delineate all my premises. Because what's obvious to me is not obvious to a Democrat. Obviously.

On the other hand, it's easy. The government has the authority to do what the Constitution says and nothing more. End of story. (P.S. I completely freaked out a centrist Republican friend here in town in a discussion of education funding by saying that I don't even think there should be a Department of Education. If it's not in the Constitution, I don't want government doing it. That's why Republicans like me have been horrified by many of our own politicians. We see them as Democrat Lite instead of a true alternative.)

I will try to formulate my thoughts on the drive home. Husband, you start thinking too, because this will have to be a collaborative effort in order for it to be done right.

(And, keep in mind that my comments section is plain awful, so if you start a long comment here, for your sanity, please copy to the clipboard before you post it. Because nine times out of ten, it will disappear. I know this. I am working on moving and was going to do it right about the time I went crazy. I will get to it soon, I promise.)

Posted by: Sarah at 05:01 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 689 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Thank you and I look forward to the discussion! Normally I would be looking for a debate, but I'm too tired for that these days. I really just want to know what you think. Travel safely!

Posted by: Sis B at April 05, 2009 09:22 AM (GFl+S)

2 I am not a Republican because so many Republicans are, as you put it, "Democrat Lite". Your premise is that the Constitution sets the limits of government. A question for you and those on your side: Does it still make sense to adhere to an 18th century document plus amendments in the 21st century? Can't blind traditionalism be dangerous? (I have my own answers, but I'd like to hear what others have to say.) A question for your opponents: Is the Constitution too constricting? What extra powers does the government need, and why? Or is the Constitution already sufficient? Is the Right misinterpreting it, and if so, how? I've noticed that people on both the Right and Left claim to be the true heirs of the Founding Fathers. This reveals a shared premise: a belief that the Founding Fathers more or less embody the ideal. But one must be careful, as iconic associations can be crutches: e.g., "I am right because I think some famous person would agree with me" or "I am right because I think my beliefs are in accordance with some famous document". Take away those crutches. Forget the glory of the Founding Fathers and their writings. Are your arguments valid for today? Can you convince someone who has never heard of the Founding Fathers or the Constitution that your ideas are the ones America needs? Without relying on the emotional appeal of the past, can you demonstrate that you are objectively correct?

Posted by: Amritas at April 05, 2009 11:42 AM (Wxe3L)

3 BTW, the "you" in my comment above referred to Sarah, not Sis B. Thanks to Sis B for asking good questions! We may have answered these before, but they are always worth re-answering, as our answers can change over time. Mine certainly have ...

Posted by: Amritas at April 05, 2009 11:46 AM (Wxe3L)

4 BTW, the "you" in my comment above referred to Sarah, not Sis B. Thanks to Sis B for asking good questions! We may have answered these before, but they are always worth re-answering, as our answers can change over time. Mine certainly have.

Posted by: Amritas at April 05, 2009 11:46 AM (Wxe3L)

5 Absolutely looking forward to this...

Posted by: Sarah's Pinko Commie Friend at April 05, 2009 12:09 PM (4bitt)

6 I don't know . My ultra conservative friends seem to know exactly how to "fix" things as do my liberal friends, but I just don't know anymore. Sorry I can't be of help.

Posted by: Judy at April 05, 2009 01:36 PM (uguBi)

7 Darn, I was all set to use the word hippie-commie. I am a reformed Republican who can't bear to be a Democrat, so that leaves me as an Independent. I believe the government should do as little as possible. They should listen to what the people want, not what they think is best for us. (Can you say 90% NO votes as far as public input on the original TARP funds, yet they still voted it through) Politicians are in it for themselves and their buddies. The little people will continue to take a screwing until we stand up and vote out the people who do not do as their constituents want. But I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by: meadowlark at April 05, 2009 02:39 PM (+7zhB)

8 The Constitution itself is a doctrine that is vague. What powers the government have largely depend on your interpretation of the constitution. The two extreme views are: 1) Broad scope of powers that marginally relate to commerce and the general welfare. 2) Minimalistic view that creates a mere truism of the elastic cause, and limits the commerce power to only a narrow view of interstate commerce (just the journey for example). Anything in between would lead to a debate over the elastic clause, or the degree to which Congress can regulate interstate commerce. A conservative, economically speaking, and this is my opinion, would look to the free market as a base, and only intervene in instances where either positive or negative externalities need addressing. Education +, pollution -. I'll give you more if you find this insightful. You could make the argument that although the constitution gives our government power we shouldn't exercise it because it would lead to a bad outcome, i.e. not pareto optimal (or any other example of what you could argue is not a good outcome).

Posted by: John Limberakis aka Econotics at April 05, 2009 05:34 PM (xoTm3)

9 On the founding fathers debate: This is relevant if you are an orginalist... but even then you had two competing camps: 1 - Hamilton and broad powers (banks, bonds, programs etc) and 2 - anti-federalists, better known as Jeffersonians who favored extremely limited federal government. They passed the Constitution as well thinking it would be used for their concept of limited government. The federalist papers are also a mixed bag. In analyzing public policy I tend not to care about factors such as these - whether or not our founders knew what was best is a mildly amusing premise - after all it was our founding fathers who compromised on "universal suffrage" and found it in their wisdom to judge slaves and freed slaves as 3/5th people. I base my opinions on principles like GDP growth, economic soundness, and freedom. I suppose the most important power the founders gave us is to govern, in a democratic-republican fashion, how we see fit.

Posted by: John Limberakis aka Econotics at April 05, 2009 06:11 PM (xoTm3)

10 To Sis B: Conservative is a blurred term now-a-days. If you base your definition of what is conservative on Bush, or a Southern Republican, you are socially conservative (not favoring social freedoms - forget abortion here temporarily) and economically a mixed bag. Southern Republicans favored big government from 2000-2006 when they lost power. They are a coalition of the religious right, the dwindling number of Reagan Democrats, and businesses. The coalition is falling apart... Many conservatives did not approve of the expansion of big government during 2000-2006 but were complacent in it. I think the new, not neo, conservative is like me, a Western Republican. Socially libertarian (Except perhaps for abortion) and economically responsibly libertarian. I'd love to post later on my beliefs but I wanted to get those three posts on the table first. Frame the perspective if you will...

Posted by: John Limberakis aka Econotics at April 05, 2009 06:37 PM (xoTm3)

11 I think that this has to be answered on two levels. The unemotional intellectual level is all well and good - and I want to hear it! - but in my opinion, reverence for the Constitution is the only thing standing between America and European (or Hawaiian) style socialism. If you want to see what America looks like without this reverence, look at what's happening in America's universities: http://www.rishon-rishon.com/archives/071696.php The natural inclination of most people is that when there is a problem, government should DO SOMETHING, or at least TRY. Nobody respects the importance of Organic Systems http://www.rishon-rishon.com/archives/031769.php They magically "just work" and nobody gets any credit. When people live with them, as they do with capitalism, to the extent that we have it, they just take for granted all the good stuff and want to "fix" the stuff they don't like. At the most abstract level, government should be in charge of the laws which create the right kind of organic system. I am not a "real" libertarian because I don't think that the absence of government means capitalism. The absence of government means Somalia. Capitalism, like socialism, is a government creation - just a different kind of creation, one created by laws, not bureaucracy. In addition to setting up the capitalistic system, I would add to government responsibility functions that capitalism doesn't solve well (or at all): Defense, the courts, roads, the electricity grid, etc. Even in these cases, government should be kept to a minimum by contracting out parts of these services that can be effectively provided by the free market. This is the area where things get blurry, and I am willing to investigate and debate where, exactly, the line should be drawn. I am also in favor of the government getting involved with social welfare. I am not willing (at least in rich countries) to let people die in the streets because they made bad choices, or because of circumstances beyond their control. I think that these services can usually be provided by the free market, with government getting involved in the form of vouchers. Finally, I do think that the government should subsidize education. This, too, should be provided in the form of vouchers, to let the free market provide it in the most efficient way, and provide parents with as many choices as possible. Having said all that, the US Constitution deals with very few of these issues. Mostly, what it deals with is the division of power. The US has three levels of government: local (not provided for by the constitution), state, federal; and three branches of government: executive, legislature, and judiciary. When the US Constitution was written, democracy was not at all taken for granted, and the most important question to the founders was how to keep a dictator (or monarch) from taking power. Their solution was to disperse power as widely as possible. I don't think that there's anything in the Constitution which prevents European-style socialism in America.

Posted by: David Boxenhorn at April 05, 2009 09:55 PM (Yw3OE)

12 I have lots to say about this (you know I do), but I'm still exhausted from this weekend. And I'm sorry, Sarah. I just can't agree with you on Rambo. I can't. I'm glad you're willing to look past that and remain friends on our common ground.

Posted by: airforcewife at April 06, 2009 04:27 AM (Fb2PC)

13 I just wanted to say that in my answer there was a typo...I said something like in the best of all situations you would live in another country...I meant county...(see in my best of all worlds it would be even more regional than state). I was talking to the hubs about it last night, and he said he thinks there shouldn't be public schools either, but there should be public funding for education, it should just all go through the voucher system...I liked that idea.

Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at April 06, 2009 04:30 AM (irIko)

14 Got my response up. Just in case the trackback didn't work here it is... http://www.unliberaledwoman.com/?p=1278

Posted by: BigD78 at April 06, 2009 12:53 PM (W3XUk)

15 Seriously, do you have any idea how hard that was to write without using "commies, fags, and libtards?"

Posted by: Chuck at April 06, 2009 05:54 PM (meX2d)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The rejuvenating weekend I have been looking forward to has been somewhat marred...

Posted by: Sarah at 02:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

Beth's Contradictory Brain: Getting It Out

Posted by: Sarah at 06:55 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

An inspired line from Mark Steyn:

You can live as free men, with all the rights and responsibilities and vicissitudes of fate that that entails. Or you can watch your society decay and die before your eyes — as England, once the crucible of freedom, dies a little with every day.

And an awesome article about my favorite.

In unusually blunt language, Netanyahu said of the Iranian leadership, “You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying, and that is what is happening in Iran.”

You know, every time I swoon over Netanyahu, I think about the funny exchange on South Park when Cartman tries to get the girls to scream and squeal over his new boy band:

CARTMAN: Let's go crazier than that! I mean, you have to act like it's freakin' Leonardo Di Caprio!

BEBE: We wouldn't give a rat's ass if Leonardo Di Caprio came walking past us.

THE OTHER GIRLS: Yeah.

CARTMAN: Fine! Who would you go crazy for?

THE GIRLS: ...Matt Lauer.

Heh.

[Both via Boxenhorn]

Posted by: Sarah at 02:13 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 2 kb.

Since I am so open on my site, it must seem like I say everything here. But I don't. Sometimes I freely show my weaknesses; other times I combat my sadness by hiding it behind sarcasm or the lessons I've learned. But I kept from you the fact that I was straight-up broken for a while. I had some of the hardest days of the last decade of my life, which is why I had to silence my head.

I didn't want to let on how bad things were because I was embarrassed. I was embarrassed that I wasn't coping well, that I was crying constantly, that I was unable and unwilling to leave the house, that I thought that things would be better if I rolled over and grabbed the loaded gun that was a mere arm's reach away from my bed. But I am doing much better now. I really think I had a minor form of postpartum depression and that my problems were hormonal instead of emotional. I am feeling much better, and while I still choke up thinking about what happens if Baby #4 also dies, I am past the worst of things.

I only told a handful of Real Life folks about this baby. One lady I told was the leader of my knitting group. And when I sent out an email that the baby had died, she asked why I couldn't go to a different doctor or see a specialist in the nearby metropolis.

And her email irritated me.

You all know how much I hate my doctor and how I have indeed considered seeking a second opinion elsewhere. Her email was not at all offensive, but the timing just hit me wrong. My first thought was, "Do you not think I am smart enough to have thought of that on my own?" My second was, "Do you not think I am capable of managing my own care?" She implied neither of those, but that was how I mentally responded.

The friends I have who have gone through infertility and loss, they all seem to echo the idea that no advice is good advice. I guess I haven't done a good job of explaining how perfectly reasonable advice can just kill you if you feel it comes at the wrong time or from the wrong person.

It was not my knitting friend's fault, and nor is she a stranger to struggle: she's a recent cancer survivor, one who still has wispy short hair. But I resented her advice nonetheless at the moment she gave it.

When you already feel like a failure, it is difficult to accept anything that smacks of the slightest criticism. Even if it's sound advice, even if it's factually accurate, whatever. It hurts to feel like someone is saying you're not competent enough to find the right doctor, you're not smart enough to google a bit and learn about blood clotting, and yes, even you're not emotionally strong enough to "adjust your reasoning" and try to develop a different meaning of life.

It also hurts when you pride yourself on having a healthy dose of perspective, when you constantly remind yourself of how life could be worse -- my husband could be dead, I could lose a living child, I could never have met my husband in the first place -- to feel like someone is saying that you lack perspective. This is me we're talking about, me. You know me, you have five years of my thoughts. Do you really not think that when I am lying there wanting to shoot myself, that I think of how long Heidi has lived without Sean, how Mare's friends only had their baby for 24 hours, how I have friends who are my age and older who have never married and may never get to find out if they have fertility problems? I do this to myself enough; I don't need to be reminded of it. Or at least I sure didn't the other day when I was already a mental disaster.

And maybe that doesn't make sense to people who are content right now, or whose human chorionic gonadotropin is at zero, but that's the way it feels when you are suffering.

I'm not upset because none of you had any way of knowing how bad things were. Because I didn't tell you. Because I was embarrassed that I was being weak. I was embarrassed that my head was a jumble, that I wanted everyone to go away and leave me alone...but also sending flowers was nice. I wanted to push you away but I wanted you to resist. That's some hormonal nonsense right there. I felt like such a woman for a while.

But my husband handled me beautifully, being understanding and nice and exclaiming gently in frustration, "But I don't know what right looks like!"

And renting Henry Poole Is Here for me. That was great timing.

So I'm better, and I'm technically back. But my mother is visiting and the whole family is headed to SpouseBUZZ Live this weekend, so blogging is still gonna be sparse.

But I'm back.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:39 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 871 words, total size 5 kb.

1 And welcome.

Posted by: Lucy at April 01, 2009 07:32 AM (0nTD7)

2 I cannot wait to give you a huge hug this weekend...I hope Teh Mr. Grok won't be jealous. Love you!

Posted by: Guard Wife at April 01, 2009 08:10 AM (N3nNT)

3 Glad you're back. When you already feel like a failure, it is difficult to accept anything that smacks of the slightest criticism. Good advice for many different situations.

Posted by: Amritas at April 01, 2009 09:01 AM (+nV09)

4 Welcome back.

Posted by: Padraig at April 01, 2009 09:18 AM (47xDn)

5 *applauds* Bravo Sarah. I love your complete honesty. And you're right... I have felt that way and didn't quite articulate or understand why I just didn't want anyone to say anything... but I did want something. Glad to see you pick yourself back up again. Hopefully this "picking back up" will be a good reminder if you feel low again. We all go through it. Its called being Human.

Posted by: T at April 01, 2009 10:27 AM (KV0YP)

6 I've admired you since the first day I read your blog and more so now. I loved meeting you in person last year at SBL and am looking forward to seeing you this weekend. Safe travels.

Posted by: Susan at April 01, 2009 10:32 AM (4aKG6)

7 *welcome back hugs* So glad to "see" you again. :-)

Posted by: kannie at April 01, 2009 10:42 AM (iT8dn)

8 I wouldn't give you advice because I have none for the situation you are in...other than to say, I have been there myself. Somedays it is just easier to stay in the house and not answer the phone because it is just to exhausting to have to talk. I am glad you are back.

Posted by: Judy at April 01, 2009 10:43 AM (uguBi)

9 dear lord let this comment go thru. Really your comment thingy hates me. But anyways, so glad your back and feeling somewhat better. Perspective is one thing, but lose is lose and it still hurts. Even with perspective there is still a sting. Enjoy your family visit and spousebuzz!

Posted by: the mrs. at April 01, 2009 11:23 AM (NJQf+)

10 I love you Sarah. Never met you, hardly ever commented on your blog, and you don't know me from Adam, but I just love you to death. You are a beautiful soul, and I am thankful that you can share so eloquently. My heart breaks for you now, but I am hopeful for your future. Welcome back.

Posted by: RC at April 01, 2009 01:05 PM (NIWH+)

11 Och, your terrible pain was so evident - I didn't dare write a thing. I've been in that horrible place before and it really is a mental maze...you wend your way through it. Congrats on having a husband who knew to hold your hand and congrats to you for being so honest about it all. Enjoy each other...

Posted by: LauraB at April 01, 2009 01:33 PM (Jbj8P)

12 When you already feel like a failure, it is difficult to accept anything that smacks of the slightest criticism. Thank you for explaining that, and more. I wish I'd thought of that without you having to say it, for I would've known what NOT to say. And now I won't say you shouldn't have been embarrassed about your emotional state, as that would be the pot calling the kettle black (as in, I am accused of being far too hard on myself, too--maybe we can just be to hard on ourselves together, haha!). And maybe that doesn't make sense to people who are content right now. It makes sense to me, and so I offer my apologies for not having been more thoughtful or sensitive. And I'm so glad to hear how wonderful your husband has been. Of course, if you picked him he must've been good...

Posted by: FbL at April 01, 2009 09:33 PM (HwqvF)

13 Yay. Your blog is usually the first one in my favorite blogs folder I click on, and I have missed it. Glad to see you back.

Posted by: TW at April 01, 2009 09:58 PM (qWzEG)

14 so glad to see you!

Posted by: queenie at April 02, 2009 04:03 AM (b2/6D)

15 And that, dear cousin, is exactly why i haven't said *anything* for the past few days or weeks. i know that there was nothing that i could say that would be right. I probably should have said, i'm thinking of you, a few more time but i think i've said that a hundred times and you already know that. i did wonder how the husband was dealing with all this so it's good to know he's ok. i hope you enjoy some peace with your family and i love you.

Posted by: kate at April 02, 2009 08:10 AM (JIGe1)

16 You can only imagine how many different times i have wanted to write an email and say a few words of comfort but have been afraid to. Because I can only imagine in my way what you have gone through and how thoroughly you have been beaten down by events you cannot control. I do not know how you have kept yourself sane. I do applaud you and wish you all the best. And a better dr. ;D

Posted by: Ruth H at April 02, 2009 08:13 AM (Y4oAO)

17 I've just re-read this a week later now that things have (I hope) calmed down a bit. I just want to clarify one thing: It hurts to feel like someone is saying ... you're not emotionally strong enough to "adjust your reasoning" and try to develop a different meaning of life. I never, ever meant to imply or to say that I thought you aren't strong enough to adjust your reasoning. If I thought you weren't strong enough, I certainly wouldn't have suggested that you try to do so. If I had known you were contemplating your gun, I certainly would not have said anything at all. If I thought you weren't competent or any of the things you said above, frankly, I probably wouldn't be reading this blog. What I said, I would say to my own sister if she had said to me what you posted. If that gets me a lot of "I'm frickin' glad I'm not your sister then" from people here, so be it. I never intended to hurt you more, road to hell, good intentions, etc.

Posted by: Anwyn at April 07, 2009 02:45 PM (dzxw9)

18 Anwyn -- I know you didn't mean to, but that's why I wanted to write and explain that all these little things that people don't mean to be hurtful sometimes are, if they're taken at the wrong moment. Thank you for writing back.

Posted by: Sarah at April 10, 2009 03:20 AM (TWet1)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

This blog has been responsible for some of the best experiences of my life. I wouldn't have any of my close friends without this blog. Sometimes it brings me such joy and comfort. But it is also responsible for some of the most stressful moments of my life. It sucks to lose a baby. It sucks even worse to hear that you deserved it, that you talk about it too much, that you're self-absorbed or just plain wrong for your feelings about it. That's hard to take, and I'm starting to wonder if it's really healthy for me. I'm tired of lying in bed at night losing sleep over something that I or someone else said on the blog.

I'm shutting off the computer for a while. Truly off: no email, no Facebook, no blog. I need to quiet the noise in my head for a while.

I'm not doing well and I need to find a way to cope. I'm gonna try silence for a few days.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:00 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I hope you know that you have my support and prayers. I wish you the most healing of silences.

Posted by: dutchgirl at March 28, 2009 09:11 AM (Sj3hy)

2 I'm sorry. . . .

Posted by: Lucy at March 28, 2009 05:17 PM (NPbK+)

3 Sending lots of cyber hugs and prayers. I hope the silence quiets the noise.

Posted by: HomefrontSix at March 28, 2009 08:49 PM (RlqpK)

4 Im so sorry that you have had to suffer not just physical pain but also the emotional beating that some feel they have the right to hit you with. you and your husband are in my thoughts and prayers.

Posted by: orlane at March 29, 2009 03:45 AM (KEe63)

5 It's hard to know what to say...but the people who are the most blessed are often the most inconsiderate because of their blessings. They don't know how lucky they are. It's a pain in the ass paradox. But say what you feel, because suppressing it won't help. There are many of us who know what you are going through, and understand.

Posted by: Mrs. Who at March 29, 2009 08:23 AM (x4sNM)

6 Sending you and your husband love and prayers. I hope the silence heals. I think you are one of the bravest woman I've read on the webs.

Posted by: Mary at March 29, 2009 02:48 PM (/hR4y)

7 I wish you peace.

Posted by: Amy at March 30, 2009 05:08 AM (I9LMv)

8 Sarah - I am sorry you are receiving nasty comments, etc. Not sure how anyone could say "you deserve this". Hoping you are feeling better. Keri

Posted by: keri at March 31, 2009 04:42 AM (HXpRG)

9 I am so sorry that you have had to deal with people who make you feel even worse than you already do. I have been reading your blog for a while now but have never commented. You are one of the strongest women I've ever "known", and do not deserve to feel the pain you are experiencing, let alone any additional pain caused by others. You are in my thoughts and prayers daily, and my heart aches for you.

Posted by: kris at March 31, 2009 05:16 AM (gGk2/)

10 Great site this tryingtogrok.mu.nu and I am really pleased to see you have what I am actually looking for here and this this post is exactly what I am interested in. I shall be pleased to become a regular visitor

Posted by: kedpesplaws at April 04, 2009 04:53 PM (3xhy+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I'd like to add something to my grokking post from yesterday.

I am not better off for having this wisdom. If I could give it all back, I would. Without question. If I could magically go back in time and have a baby when I first tried to, without difficulty or heartache, I would do it in a heartbeat. I don't want to be wise and well-versed in life's lessons; I want a two year old instead.

I am, quite simply, gut-gnawingly jealous of people who can control their family planning. I am jealous of their naivete and their happiness. I don't want them to be wise like me; I want to be naive like them. I envy them, in a way that is entirely unhealthy.

I have also learned that dwelling on this doesn't do me any good either. It just makes me more insane and unfulfilled.

The meaning of life, if you ask me, is to create life. It's to pass on your genes and your values to another generation. And I haven't been able to do that. I cannot participate in the meaning of life. I can't begin to describe how that feels.

I don't want you to have trouble getting pregnant. I don't want you to not have children. I don't want you to get anywhere near knowing what it feels like.

I just want what you have.

So much so that I don't even know how to deal with it anymore.

Posted by: Sarah at 11:09 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 1 kb.

Just another one of those days where everything goes wrong: it's a training holiday but my husband's company was made to work; had to run an errand for a friend and stood in line forever behind a lady on a cell phone who couldn't decide on a Gatorade flavor; still in pain but can't take meds because I had to go to work, etc. I didn't think it was possible to be in a worse mood today. It was. Remember my nice new windshield? Not so much anymore.

I give up. Let's go back to bed.

Posted by: Sarah at 09:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 98 words, total size 1 kb.

A person in my life is newly pregnant. An intermediary called me to tell me the news so I'd hear it in person and not through the grapevine. When I realized that this girl was only as pregnant as I was -- 7 weeks -- I remarked that they were not out of the woods yet and said to pass on my congratulations and that I would continue to hope that everything goes well with the pregnancy. The intermediary said, "Well, she has been to the doctor and everything looks fine." And I, complete cynic about pregnancy that I now am, refrained from reminding this person that I too had a healthy happy 7 week old baby once, a baby that subsequently and unexpectedly died.

And it irked me, irked me that someone could be so naive about pregnancy woes while having been acquainted with me for the past few years. That someone thought that good-to-go at 7 weeks put you in the clear. That this person was so...oh crap...I am not really going to let this word pop into my head, am I?...

flippant.

And all of a sudden, I grokked. I understood what she was feeling when she said that, even if I still disagree that I personally was coming off as flippant. But I also realized that it doesn't really matter, because I am sure this intermediary never would've characterized herself as flippant either.

But it's this naivete with the process, this happy-go-lucky vibe, that's hard to swallow when your own journey has been like dragging and clawing to Mordor. You want other people to have a healthy fear of pregnancy, an inkling that things can go terribly wrong very quickly; you want them to realize that bringing a child into this world, though it seems to happen easily to a great many people, is actually a miracle of engineering and timing. But people who've never suffered just don't have that perspective and never will, no matter how close they are to you or how hard you try to encumber them with your anguish.

They will sound flippant to your ears, no matter what.

What I have learned from this process, and from the whole flippant flap, is that I have to let it pass. I have to let these people be naive. Either they will learn the lesson the hard way, as I did, or they won't and life will turn out happy and jolly for them. But having me rain on their parade doesn't help any of us. It cannot make them understand the suffering that some of us go through to have children. I cannot give them wisdom they are not in a place to understand. It will only make them resent me for not letting them live their own life and learn their own lessons, as I resented her.

But I get it now, two years later. And these are the times when I am happiest as a blogger, when I can document my learning process.

And say that I finally grok.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 515 words, total size 3 kb.

Unliberaled Woman got noticed by friends of Michael Yon. Now that's cool.
I wonder if there's such a thing as a Yonalanche?

Posted by: Sarah at 06:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

How To Drive Yourself Insane
by Sarah

1) Marry the most wonderful person on the planet. Have everything in common, down to what foods and movies and columnists you like. Never quarrel. Have the happiest homelife imaginable.

2) Save 50% of your income for the first five years of marriage. Never go out to dinner or on vacation. Delay all gratification. Make every decision based on your financial calculator so that you'll have a substantial nest egg.

3) Reach all your financial, professional, and emotional goals. Decide it's finally time for life's most important goal: to become a family.

4) Watch all your babies die and half of your money disappear in the stock market.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

I know there are people out there who think that the media is in Republican pockets because it's all owned by big corporations. Really, I have always found that position untenable. I truly can't understand how anyone who listens to the news for ten minutes would possibly think it is right-wing. But those people exist, a constant reminder to me that people can hear the exact same thing and come to completely different conclusions.

But can anyone really defend the media for how they give Democrats a pass on everything? Is it possible to ignore they way Bush was treated vs Obama? I don't think it is.

A link via NRO: Forgetting about AlzheimerÂ’s:

When President Bush and Vice President Cheney claimed that reversing their tax cuts would hurt many small businesses, the fact-checkers of the press zinged them for exaggerating the impact. Most small businesses, they pointed out, would not be affected. Good for the media: Journalists ought to inform the public when their leaders are making false or misleading statements.

But they ought to do so whether the politicians in question are Republicans or Democrats, and whether the claims help liberal or conservative causes. Last night, President Obama said that his liberalized policy on funding for embryonic stem-cell research would aid the search for cures for AlzheimerÂ’s disease. ShouldnÂ’t news outlets have reported that even scientists on ObamaÂ’s side of the issue say thatÂ’s a pipe dream?

Posted by: Sarah at 10:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 249 words, total size 2 kb.

You know the problem has burrowed deep in your psyche when you dream about doctors and genetic testing and surrogates.

I am still feeling about the same, but I am going to try to stay off the meds today. I actually have to leave the house to go get my bloodwork done, so we'll see if I can make it.

And then I go to my knitting group to knit for other people's babies, like I always do. Always a bridesmaid...

Posted by: Sarah at 03:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.