Here's another example of someone covering for Obama. She worked with him when he was president of the Harvard Law Review, but didn't say anything while he was running for president because she "thought maybe it wasn't fair." But now that he's elected and a disaster, she's on record saying that he's always been this way:

[W]hen he was at the HLR you did get a very distinct sense that he was the kind of guy who much more interested in being the president of the Review, than he was in doing anything as president of the Review.

A lot of the time he quote/unquote "worked from home", which was sort of a shorthand - and people would say it sort of wryly - shorthand for not really doing much. He just wasn't around. Most of the day to day work was carried out by the managing editor of the Review, my predecessor, a great guy called Tom Pirelli whose actually going to be one of the assistant attorney generals now.

He's the one who did most of the day to day work. Barack Obama was nowhere to be seen. Occasionally he would drop in he would talk to people, and then he'd leave again as though his very arrival had been a benediction in and of itself, but not very much got done.

We're boned. We are so boned.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 1 kb.

I have been surprised at how many people were shocked that I shared an ultrasound room. Is it because it's a military hospital? I've never tried to have a baby anywhere else. But there's always been more than one person in the room when I've been there for an ultrasound, just never someone so loud and obnoxious. None of you readers who had babies on other installations had to double-up on ultrasound rooms?

Oh, and I totally called it: I've already had two people tell me that yesterday's news was good. One was even excited about it. Wow.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

A quote from the State Department:

The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment."

That arrogant, cowboy, unilateralist administration! Don't they care about our allies? Don't they care about diplomacy?

Oh wait, it wasn't Bush?

Bah, forget it then.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

The few people I know who voted for Obama usually specified that his having Warren Buffett backing him up was proof that he would do a great job with the economy. So I am wondering how those same people are reacting to Buffett's rejection of all this stuff Obama is proposing: card check, criticism of corportate jets, cap and trade, etc. I mean, he was so nice and gentle, but even so there are little hints throughout the three-hour interview that his man Obama is messing up:

BECKY: David Paterson, the governor of New York, wrote an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal over the weekend, and he said, "The mortgage plan that the president has proposed is the right one." Do you agree with that?

BUFFETT: Well, I don't even know all the details, but I would say that the administration ought to be willing to listen to very prompt suggestions on ways to make it a little bit better.

Bwahaha.

BECKY: I feel like I have heard that from the president, that we will stand behind the banking system and it will be here. What can he say more specifically than that?

BUFFETT: I'm not sure he said it quite that way...

This exchange was sure interesting:

BECKY: We have people asking questions about things that the administration has already put out. In fact, Bob wrote in from Baltimore, Bob Knott, who says, "On a scale from one to 10, how would you assess the value to the US economy of President Obama's recently enacted stimulus plan?"

BUFFETT: Oh, well, the stimulus plan's going to take a long time to kick in. I mean, there'll be certain things kick in fast. But the stimulus plan is part of the recovery, but it's not the most--it's important to put it in, but there's other things that need to be done now to restore confidence. You're not going to--you're just not going to see that much happen.

Fantastic. Good thing we rammed that monstrosity through.

Slate has some more shocking quotes from Buffett.

Anyway, I'm just curious. I read the whole thing, and it seems like Buffett truly likes and supports Obama -- but if he calls him "articulate" one more time, I'm gonna lose it -- so he hesitates to flat-out call him on the carpet and tell him that he's making some bad choices. But he hints at it plenty.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 405 words, total size 2 kb.

Even though I talked about getting one last time, I never did. So I just went and bought this t-shirt. Because we're back to the freaking Schroedinger's cat phase of pregnancy.

I was talking to a friend earlier and I said that this is, oddly enough, the phase I don't mind so much. Because it's the phase I cannot control. There is nothing I can do to make a dead baby alive or an alive baby dead, so I just wait it out and see. I find this phase more comforting than the actual getting pregnant process, where I over-think everything and beat myself up wondering what else I could've done to maximize my chances that month.

Don't get me wrong: this Schroedinger phase is absurd. But it's the closest thing I have had to a "vacation" from thinking about fertility for the past 2+ years. Nothing I can do will change the outcome next week, so I just live for the next ten days and go from there.

Posted by: Sarah at 11:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.

We had to share an ultrasound room today with The Most Annoying Couple On The Planet. The guy talked just like Frito from Idiocracy, I am not kidding. He would've totally taken first place in a douche-off. So we got to hear all their business: here's their baby's head, here's the arms, oh look the baby's kicking. Then they turned the heartbeat monitor WAY up so we could all enjoy their baby's being-aliveness. The guy asked if they could stay there and watch their baby all day long. No, dude, there's someone else in the room who is silently crying behind that other curtain because she's been forced to listen to your joy while she waits her turn in agony because she's bleeding onto her exam bed.

Then it was our turn, in which we preceded to find no heartbeat. Sigh. They sent me to redo my labwork. An hour later, the doctor comes in and tells us it's either 1) the baby is dead or 2) it's possibly multiples, in which case we might not see heartbeats yet. Only the labwork will reveal the answer, but unfortunately it's not completed yet, so go on home and we'll give you a call.

So the husband went back to work and I went grocery shopping, because disappointment is such a normal part of our life that it makes no sense not to act like business as usual. And I made plans to eat my weight in fried mushrooms tonight and then get to work on losing ten pounds tomorrow. Oh, and to unload all my baby stuff on craigslist.

Five hours later, the nurse finally calls with the lab results: my hormone levels haven't dropped any, so all we can do is check again at the end of next week and see what we see then.

Dragging the agony out...that sounds like fun.

This is exactly the crappy situation I worried about the last time, the something in between alive and dead scenario.

And if anybody dares tell me that this is good news and that I should be happy that at least the baby isn't definitively dead -- and I swear I know somebody in my real life who will so do this -- I will freak out.

So, um, that's my WTF news.

Posted by: Sarah at 10:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 2 kb.

The first thing my husband did was quote Raising Arizona with a big grin on his face: "When there was no crawdad to be found, we ate sand." "You ate sand?" I smiled back. "We ate SAND," he finished.

He told me was that SERE was so much worse than he ever imagined. I said that I had been crying and worrying about him all week. His response: "You definitely should have been."

The thing about SERE is that everyone is supposed to go in fresh. My husband can't tell me a lot what he went through without revealing the confidential parts of the course, but suffice it to say that the few things that he was allowed to tell me me were plain awful. And I know there are more things that he can't explain in mere words even if he could, things I will never be able to understand.

He said he came away from the training with so much respect for people like John McCain. My husband spent a few days as a simulated prisoner, and he said it was enough to make you wish you were dead. He said he cannot imagine how POWs survived for years on end in a real prison, with real guards and real solitary confinement and real torture.

One facet of the desperation they felt can be summed up by a story he told. During the evasion part, my husband was lucky enough to happen upon a snake. He killed it and then carried the dead snake with him until the next day when they could safely make a fire and eat it. But the saddest part was when he said that he was so miserable from the weather that he didn't even notice how starving he was. And he was starving enough that he lost more than 20 pounds in one week.

But he's been in a good mood since the moment I saw him grinning at me. I suppose liberation from such an ordeal must make you happy in so many ways.

Me, I had trouble falling asleep last night and woke up very early this morning, listening to him breathe -- and hack and cough, since his weakened condition has made him sicker than I've ever seen him -- and just being so thankful that he's home, and thankful that the whole thing was simulated.

All I could think about all week was how wives of real POWs could bear it. I couldn't bear one week of agony, knowing that somewhere out there my husband was being mistreated...by paid professionals who only mean to teach the soldiers valuable lessons. I don't know how ladies in the past woke up every morning knowing that their husbands were truly being tortured.

And his hands. His poor hands, destroyed from clawing his way through thorn bushes under a new moon in the pouring rain to evade the enemy. Every time I see them, it's a reminder of all he went through.

But he survived. He returned with honor. And I'm very proud of him.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:08 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 517 words, total size 3 kb.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:20 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 4 words, total size 1 kb.

Teresa found a list of the top ten books that Brits lie about having read. Heh. Well, I've read six of those ten books, and two of them in the original French. So la di da for me.

And I wouldn't read Ulysses or Dreams From My Father if you paid me. I took a course in college where the professor offered that if any one of us could 1) read and 2) understand Ulysses, we'd get an automatic A in the class. No takers.

Incidentally, I find it hilarious that people are lying about having read Obama's book.

Posted by: Sarah at 10:46 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 103 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I've read only one! The first one, of course. And I might have read it in 1984 (or was it late 1983?). I started reading the Bible back in 1992, but never finished. Did you read all seven parts of Remembrance of Things Past? I'm surprised Obama's book isn't number one. I wonder what the American top ten list would look like.

Posted by: Amritas at March 06, 2009 11:36 AM (+nV09)

2 Amritas -- Oh yeah, you're right: I only read the first book of Proust. Whew, that was plenty though.

Posted by: Sarah at March 06, 2009 12:03 PM (TWet1)

3 Yeah . . . I wanted to read 1984, but never did. I've read the Bible, but it's not really one of those books people read all the way through at once. I've read every word at some point, but never in order, and never all at once. Teresa makes a great point, though, which is why I probably didn't do well in my AP English class: I could never figure out why all the books people insisted where "great literature" had to be so damned depressing. No joke! We had to read Crime and Punishment in AP English. The only reason I passed that portion of the class is because my boyfriend read it, loved it, and explained the rest of it to me. I was depressed enough by life – I didn't need a modern Russian author making it worse. :p Give me my sci-fi and fantasy brain candy! And Ayn Rand. Because she makes literature WORTH it!

Posted by: Deltasierra at March 06, 2009 02:06 PM (fPHZv)

4 Top 10 books Sovereign Kingdom University students claim they've read: 1. القرآن Al-QurÂ’ān 2. Dreams frOm My Father 3. The Audacity of hOpe 4. The Communist Manifesto 5. 毛主席语录 Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong, a.k.a. The Little Red Book 6. 김일성 전집 Complete Collection of Kim Il Sung's Works 7. 세기와 더불어 With the Century (Kim Il Sung's autobiography) 8. 김정일 전집 Complete Collection of Kim Jong Il's Works 9. Mark Zepezauer, The CIA's Greatest Hits 10. Anything I wrote

Posted by: kevin at March 06, 2009 09:59 PM (Wxe3L)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Rush Limbaugh challenged Pres Obama to a debate. Oh, if only this could happen.

I would rather have an intelligent, open discussion with you where you lay out your philosophy and policies and I lay out mine -- and we can question each other, in a real debate. Any time here at the EIB Network studios. If you're too busy partying or flying around giving speeches and so forth, then send Vice President Biden. I'm sure he would be very capable of articulating your vision for America -- and if he won't work, send Geithner, and we can talk about the tax code. And if that won't work, go get Bob Rubin. I don't care. Send whoever you want if you can't make it. You don't need to be leaking stories to Politico like this thing that's published today. You don't need to have your allies writing op-eds and all the rest. If you can win at this, then come here and beat me at my own game, and get rid of me once and for all, and show all the people of America that I am wrong.

Rush would crush Obama to smithereens.

In other challenge news, Greg Mankiw tells Paul Krugman to put his money where his mouth is.

How big of a dork does it make me to say that I would pay real money to see these two smackdowns go down?

It's like a blogger nerd's SuperBowl.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:18 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 243 words, total size 1 kb.

1 You know, I don't think that Rush and Obama having a debate would do much. I mean, you are assuming that Obama answers the questions asked, and doesn't somehow go into another answer a la: "Well, I need more than chocolate, and for that matter I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom. And choice when it comes to our ice-cream, and that Joey Naylor, that is the defintion of liberty." That debate would most likely be a win for both according to their respective supporters. And Obama would keep his cool, and Rush might get all frustrated because Obama wasn't answering the questions, and so some people who didn't understand what was going on would assume that because Rush was frustrated, he must be losing the debate...nah, I don't see anything good coming from it. I mean, according to me, all the debates before the election were a waste of time. All spin.

Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at March 05, 2009 04:14 AM (irIko)

2 OMG - CVG totally nailed how the President answers without giving answers! That was awesome!

Posted by: airforcewife at March 05, 2009 05:28 AM (Fb2PC)

3 I would watch this too, with popcorn. Heck, I would probably *pay* to see this! However, I think CVG is partially right, in that if the debates were held like the presidential debates, it might not be as effective as we'd hope it would be. I would rather see questions posed by supporters of either side to each of them – a liberal to Rush, a conservative to Obama – or that they each got to write their own questions, or have more time to rebut each other. I do think that Rush would smash Obama, rhetorically. He would out-argue and out-articulate him. But Obama's followers would only see it as Rush beating up their beloved president, and act accordingly. In a truly fair world, this debate would be FREAKIN' AWESOME. In OUR world, this debate could never, ever occur. The media would never allow it to be equitable, no matter who won.

Posted by: Deltasierra at March 05, 2009 08:43 AM (fPHZv)

4 Boring.... Rush would steamroller the President so badly his supporters would cry and whine worse than when Bush became president over Gore. That is why Obama was elected in the first place complete hissy fit anger. Surprise! now he's a liberal? Not a surprise.

Posted by: Ruth H at March 05, 2009 08:57 AM (hBAQy)

5 CVG, I agree completely. But I don't think Sarah is saying "a debate would do much." I think she just wants to see what Rush will say and how Obama will respond. She didn't say anything about the debate persuading anyone. Wanting to see a debate does not necessarily entail the American public actually listening to it and suddenly realizing, OMG, Rush is right, what were we thinking!? That will never happen, though I constantly hear conservatives say, oh, if only our message got out. It is out (remember Joe the Plumber?) and millions still don't care, because ... We Will Never be Popular for Doing What’s Right. Well, maybe not never. But it is a fundamental fact that the Left is basically the party of the superficially good, and is therefore destined not only to be popular, but make the people who espouse its ideas popular. Everything they say makes sense – at first. It sure sounds good to be nice to everybody, give away the store, to flatter everyone, to believe our enemies are nice people and everyone’s values are OK. Conservative policies for this country are largely a matter of tough love. They do work, but tough love is seldom requited at the time.

Posted by: Amritas at March 05, 2009 09:22 AM (+nV09)

6 I have to admit that I stole the quote from "Thank you for smoking." It's a scene where Nick Naylor, spokesperson for Big Tabacco, is explaining to his son how things work in his job. Joey Naylor: ...so what happens when you're wrong? Nick Naylor: Whoa, Joey I'm never wrong. Joey Naylor: But you can't always be right... Nick Naylor: Well, if it's your job to be right, then you're never wrong. Joey Naylor: But what if you are wrong? Nick Naylor: OK, let's say that you're defending chocolate, and I'm defending vanilla. Now if I were to say to you: 'Vanilla is the best flavour ice-cream', you'd say... Joey Naylor: No, chocolate is. Nick Naylor: Exactly, but you can't win that argument... so, I'll ask you: so you think chocolate is the end all and the all of ice-cream, do you? Joey Naylor: It's the best ice-cream, I wouldn't order any other. Nick Naylor: Oh! So it's all chocolate for you is it? Joey Naylor: Yes, chocolate is all I need. Nick Naylor: Well, I need more than chocolate, and for that matter I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom. And choice when it comes to our ice-cream, and that Joey Naylor, that is the defintion of liberty. Joey Naylor: But that's not what we're talking about Nick Naylor: Ah! But that's what I'm talking about. Joey Naylor: ...but you didn't prove that vanilla was the best... Nick Naylor: I didn't have to. I proved that you're wrong, and if you're wrong I'm right. Joey Naylor: But you still didn't convince me Nick Naylor: It's that I'm not after you. I'm after them.

Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at March 05, 2009 10:04 AM (irIko)

7 CVG, I was wondering what you were referring to. Thanks for providing not only the source, but the context! I like the last line: It's that I'm not after you. I'm after them. Obama would not be after Rush; he'd be after his suppOrters. cOnvincing them is the key to victOry. Defeating Rush is beside the point.

Posted by: Amritas at March 05, 2009 10:28 AM (+nV09)

8 Oh I loved that movie, CVG!

Posted by: airforcewife at March 05, 2009 11:45 AM (Fb2PC)

9 Oh, that might be worth getting cable TV for! Sign me up for a popcorn party in the parallel universe where it happens, LOL - it would be TOO. FUN. And WAAAY good call, CaliValleyGirl. :-)

Posted by: kannie at March 05, 2009 02:38 PM (iT8dn)

10 oh I'd be all over that, I'd even pay and I redefine cheap. while we're at it I'd pay to watch al gore debate actual scientist, you know people who actual know about climate change. btw. i have the hardest time leaving you comments. I always get a message saying too much spam and commenting is down. Am I the only one? Is the computer on to the fact that I tend to have little to add to the conversation.

Posted by: the mrs. at March 06, 2009 09:29 AM (NJQf+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Also via David, a very interesting and different type of post with thoughts on the coming century: Forward to the past.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:05 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

David sent me a link called Rattling the Cage: Waiting for Bibi's New Deal:

In other countries, beginning with the US and Europe, a new economic era has begun. Laissez-faire, anti-tax, anti-government capitalism is understood to have failed (it sure as hell didn't prevent this disaster, did it?), and the response has been a turn to the Left. In other countries, it's understood that government has to step in with more liberal, social democratic, Keynesian, New Deal-style policies or the economy is going to sink through the floor.

Not here, though. Here people are scared of losing their jobs, afraid to spend a nickel, their hearts go out to the factory workers who've gotten laid off, they read about how charities that keep hundreds of thousands of poor people afloat are about to go bankrupt, and what is their idea of change, of an Israeli New Deal? Bibi Netanyahu. The world's last reigning (or soon-to-be-reigning) ideological Thatcherite.

The article is not meant to be flattering; the author apparently wants an Obama. But I must say that when I read that intro to the article, I felt jealous of Israel. They get Benjamin Netanyahu and they're complaining about it.

Dude, I will trade you leaders any day of the week.

Our ship has hit a hurricane, and this is our crew, folks. To the poor and the soon-to-be poor: Don't expect a whole lot from the incoming government. The New Deal under Prime Minister Netanyahu looks like it's going to be a copy of the Old Deal under Finance Minister Netanyahu: Every man for himself.

Yes yes yes! Oh wait, that's meant to be a bad thing?

The whole article is about how Netanyahu didn't "solve the ecominy" last time he was in office; it just righted itself eventually. That's meant to be an insult, that Netanyahu didn't do anything. But in my estimation, presidents or prime ministers ought to stay as far away from touching the economy as possible. The free market will eventually right itself, but not if you tinker with it too much.

Our new president is a tinkerer of epic proportions. I'll take their guy over ours whenever they want to trade.

Not to mention that he ain't so bad on the eyes...

Rawr.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:02 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 381 words, total size 3 kb.

1 I do like Netanyahu. I'm glad he's in Israel right now, although I wouldn't expect our relations with Israel to get stronger - Netanyahu was oil and water with Pres. Clinton, I don't think he'll be best friends with Pres. Obama. But truly, I think that Israel needs to separate themselves from us for a bit. If they hadn't been so close to us the last couple years they might have taken out Iran's nuke reactors already. In any case, Netanyahu is a very interesting story - you can't really judge him unless you do so in the context of his brother. And then there was that whole nanny debacle... Fascinating to read up on, though.

Posted by: airforcewife at March 05, 2009 03:44 AM (Fb2PC)

2 He looks like James Bond! I'm in total agreement with you, on every point. We should propose a trade at the next big national tea party movement! Free trade is good for the economy, right?

Posted by: Deltasierra at March 05, 2009 08:25 AM (fPHZv)

3 Thatcher? Under her Britanistan came so close to becoming like the fascist nightmare of V for Vendetta! Even we wouldn't want that to happen to the occupiers of Filastiiiin! Why are conservatives so obsessed with Thatcher and Reagan? They're so old, man, so 80s. Marx, Engels, Stalin, Mao, Che ... they are the wave of the future! "Every man for himself"? How about every man and womyn for us, the Great Leaders? Under our unerring leadership, we will revive the dying world economy through sheer superhuman desire. What we want will be ... or else! Why do you blindly believe that "he free market will eventually right itself"? It's like waiting for a wrecked car to spontaneously fix itself. Intervention is needed on a glObal scale in the Newest Deal. We are smart. We, not a billion (gag) in-DUH-vidual capitalists and consumers, know what is best for the world. Believe us. You have to. After all, we are all soci@lists now.

Posted by: kevin at March 05, 2009 10:27 AM (+nV09)

4 I would so go for that trade...at least in ideologies re: economics. Please.

Posted by: Leofwende at March 05, 2009 11:40 AM (jAos7)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Want to see a remarkable gulf between how the left and right view the world?

Point: Aspiring to Mediocrity: With hard work and success to be punished by Obama administration, productive Americans scale back.

Counterpoint: Your Idiot Hero Of Your Idiot Book For Idiot People

I recommend reading all the comments too. It stuns me how these two groups of people have fundamental differences in worldview and in their definitions of human nature.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:28 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.

I thought I'd weigh in some thoughts on the "designer babies" thing that hit the news. I don't know if I'm gonna say what you think I'll say.

Two years ago, back when we thought we could control our destiny, my husband and I had a discussion about which month of the year we'd prefer our baby to be born in. Subtract 9 months, and that's when we should get to work. I can't even laugh at us because I still find it so frustrating. We also had a definite gender preference and a few other minor desires.

Nine months later, when I finally did get pregnant, I had been hit with a good dose of perspective. I wrote that I had decided that none of these preferences mattered anymore, and that all we wanted was a healthy baby to join our family.

But when that baby died, and then the next one did too, I started to lose that sense of perspective. I hate to say that I started to feel entitled to happiness. We now deserve to get exactly what we want -- boy and girl twins, of course -- because of the heartache and headache we've endured. And now at this point, if I could make it be twins, I would. I would also select for gender if I could. And one of my worst fears is spending these years trying to have a baby and then to get one who has severe health problems or birth defects. I would factor that out as much as I could.

So I kinda understand where these people are coming from.

I haven't yet had to do IVF. IVF is rough. It's painful. People who do it have been through years of sorrow and then endure physical, chemical pain in order to conceive. And I don't blame them if they want to tweak the results a little bit.

I don't see this becoming The New Thing. I don't imagine that people are going to bypass the regular old having-sex route to babies and opt to spend tens of thousands of dollars and give themselves painful shots, just so they can pick blue eyes.

And, from the CBS article, I don't give a rat's behind about this "worry":

Secondly, you're going to have the rich using these technologies, and that's going to advantage them further. It's not going to be something the poor get to do.

Cry me a river. Conversely, the rich aren't going to get welfare checks to raise their 14 babies.

I understand people's revulsion to the "playing God" aspect, but I've never heard anyone bring up this argument. I'm open to discussion on this idea, and I know I haven't thought every aspect through, but I can sympathize with these IVF patients that they feel they're due a little control in their lives. I grok that.

I heard Rick Santorum on TV the other day discussing this, saying that artificial insemination is an abomination against God. It reminded me of the time Bill Maher said that people who can't conceive should "take the hint."

The only abomination is being emotionally and financially ready to raise a family and to find yourself thwarted.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:53 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 539 words, total size 3 kb.

I never really bought into the idea that it was better to have Obama as president and be in the vocal opposition than to have RINO McCain in office. I have been scared of irreversible policy changes. And this partnering with the global community, crippling us while helping them, is one of them:

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown will discuss global financial supervision and coordinated measures to support the economy with US President Barack Obama this week.

Brown will become the first European leader to meet the US president on Tuesday, since Obama’s inauguration. “I believe there is no challenge so great or so difficult that it cannot be overcome by US, Britain and the world working together,” Brown wrote in the Sunday Times.

“That is why President Obama and I will discuss this week a global new deal, whose impact can stretch from the villages of Africa to reforming the financial institutions of London and New York, and giving security to the hard-working families in every country.”

Brown said the two countries’ “partnership of purpose” should be directed at fighting the economic downturn as well as terrorism, poverty and disease. Britain is keen to get US support for the bold aims of a G20 summit on April 2.

Every word in this short article makes me shudder.

-- I don't want my country to promise to give security to families in every country.

-- I don't want even more American tax dollars to fight poverty and disease in other countries.

-- I don't want an American New Deal, much less a Global New Deal. Ugh, I can't stand the word global.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:34 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 282 words, total size 2 kb.

Rachel Lucas' encounter with British salsa reminded me of our adventure eating at a "Mexican" restaurant in Germany. And those scare quotes are definitely needed. My husband ordered something like enchiladas and it came covered in European salsa, which he tasted and then remarked, "Um, this is marinara." I'll be darned if it wasn't. Straight up marinara on top of enchiladas. Oy.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:05 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.

I don't know if I can take this. My heart hurts:

When I wrote the other day about bearing my burden while my husband is at SERE, I had no idea that the scales would tip towards him so quickly. He has begun his last week of the class, which means he's at the "practical application" point of survival, evasion, resistance, and escape. And my heart hurts so bad for him because it's been pouring rain. Just pouring. And they're forecasting snow for tomorrow.

I know my husband is a tough guy and that he'll figure out how to get through this week, but there is nothing that hurts me more than the thought of him suffering. I've sat here all weekend in my warm house with my electric blanket, and the sound of the unrelenting rain is just killing me.

It makes me cry to picture him trying to survive outside in this weather. It is a far heavier burden than anything happening to me.

The sound of that rain is just paralyzing me. It makes me sick. It makes me want to go find where is he is rescue him.

I can't stop worrying about him.

It's a different form of the agony of the unknown that we feel when we stand and wait.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:36 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 224 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I would call this the agony of the known. You knew what he was getting into, long before the rain started. And now every time you look out your window, you can see the conditions tormenting him. They are concrete, whereas the Middle East was abstract. We're still cavepeople who are more moved by what we see with our own eyes. We can close them, but we can't forget ... especially not when we feel cold ... and when you knit things that will keep others warm. I hope thoughts of you are keeping him warm.

Posted by: Amritas at March 01, 2009 08:23 AM (Wxe3L)

2 That is the thing about worry, it makes things worse. Now you must imagine him as strong and capable and taking care of the situation and I hope that is working well for him. Just keep thinking, he is prepared, he knows what to do. He can handle this. And yes, it is by far, worse than what you are going through but it will be over and he knows when that will be.

Posted by: Ruth H at March 01, 2009 10:21 AM (4u82p)

3 I haven't been here, but I can relate what you're saying to other places I have been--and I'm very sorry. Wish there was something better than that to say. . . .

Posted by: Lucy at March 01, 2009 02:05 PM (HGFog)

4 He has chosen this to make him stronger - and it will. Even as you are sad, I know you are simultaneously proud as you should be. I hope he never needs to use what he learns there, but if he does, it will have been time and effort well spent. With all the craziness happening in the world, politics, and economics, it encourages me to think of the two of you as part of our next generation.

Posted by: Amy at March 02, 2009 07:40 AM (I9LMv)

5 Hang in there Sarah.

Posted by: MaryIndiana at March 02, 2009 02:05 PM (XWWz+)

6 Thank goodness I was rather oblivious when flyboy went years ago, but the wondering and waiting does bite. big time. I know remembering that this makes him a tougher warrior doesnt help right at this moment but I betcha when he comes home he's going to remember it pretty fondly. At some point... maybe not right away!

Posted by: the mrs. at March 03, 2009 04:48 AM (NJQf+)

7 Aw heck... it'll give him great stories to tell and quite honestly, they're not going to let him have an untimely demise. Me... I'm bad. I'd be snuggled up under extra blankets and would later tell him I kept EXTRA warm for him

Posted by: Meadowlark at March 03, 2009 11:49 AM (SXBsQ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Don't feel bad that no one is stalking you at CPAC, Instapundit. We'll always have Vegas.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:43 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Who's stalking whom? One day there'll be some AWTM/Grok fan you've never heard of who wants a picture of himself with you two. At least you've both heard of me. Maybe I can be in the middle someday.

Posted by: Amritas at March 01, 2009 08:26 AM (Wxe3L)

2 This is one of funniest, and most hilarious nights ever...and I think it is great I have proof, of how goofy Sarah and I are... I like being goofy, even when I am accusessed by a commenter of being Sarah's Mom...

Posted by: AWTM at March 01, 2009 10:28 AM (zGVWd)

3 I love this photo! AWTM, I know what you mean, but I'd be honored if someone told me I was Sarah's relative!

Posted by: Amritas at March 01, 2009 01:52 PM (Wxe3L)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Via Cass, a hilarious article about how Pres Obama is gambling:

Instead, no sooner had he finished describing his plans for spurring an economic recovery and shoring up the crippled automotive and banking industries than he was off to the races, outlining his ambitions for overhauling energy, health care and education policy.

The House chamber was filled with veteran legislators who have spent decades wrestling with those issues. They know how maddeningly difficult it has been to cobble together a coalition large enough to pass a significant education, health care or energy bill.

And here stood Obama, challenging them to do all three, at a time when trillions of borrowed dollars already have been committed to short-term economic rescue schemes and when new taxes risk stunting any recovery.

Is he naive?

There's a simple answer to that last rhetorical question.

(My husband and I love making that goofy face and answering obvious questions with that stupid uh-huh. It was the first thing I thought of when I read that absurd article.)

Posted by: Sarah at 04:25 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 2 kb.

I spent the day with some of my favorite people: I watched the Conversations With History interviews of Mark Steyn, Christopher Hitchens, and Victor Davis Hanson.

And I totally snorted when I saw at the end of the video that the opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of University of California, Berkeley. Heh. No joke.

Posted by: Sarah at 12:17 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.

1 But...but...UC Berkeley is well known as a hot bed of conservatism!

Posted by: MaryIndiana at February 28, 2009 12:30 PM (bRTJt)

2 It is, cOmrade Mary! Real radicals go to Sovereign Kingdom University and learn from true revolutionaries like us! We are the true heirs of Patrice Lumumba Peoples' Friendship University (now conquered by capitalists - sob), not the campus once contaminated by the likes of Vince Sarich! Did you know Chomsky was just a military tool? [Chomskyan linguistic] advocates may have in fact abandoned even their supposed anti-establishment bias by regularly and routinely accepting funding from the Army, the Department of Defense, and elements of the US intelligence apparatus. As Peter T. Daniels recently observed on the USENET newsgroup "sci.lang" (in a message thread humorously entitled "Wither Linguistics?"): "Perhaps you need your hearing checked. For fifty years now, this professor has been funded almost entirely by the US Department of Defense. He looks on this as an amusing irony; I look on it as insufferable hypocrisy." Omericans don't know what real Leftism is, but Porkulus and pals will teach them! You're gonna miss Carter and Clinton when we're done with the USSA.

Posted by: kevin at February 28, 2009 01:50 PM (Wxe3L)

3 I'm so glad you pointed out the Steyn video to me. As you know, I am normally audiovisually averse (AVerse?) but I momentarily overcame that to listen to him. I'll have to listen to the others. And although I didn't tell you at the time, I was surprised by the Berkeley connection. I haven't seen the clock tower pictured at the beginning in 17 years! I left the Left, and never went back.

Posted by: Amritas at February 28, 2009 02:04 PM (Wxe3L)

4 One of your favorite people was NOT happy that I hung up with you prior to him being about to say, "hello." Hubs said to tell you he will miss you. I'm sorry I missed the programs you had a chance to see!! I'm sure I will be DVR-ing lots of stuff in the coming days for when I can't sleep.

Posted by: Guard Wife at February 28, 2009 06:10 PM (i0ZCx)

Hide Comments | Add Comment