October 15, 2008

SNORT

We've all seen the clips of how stupid McCain voters are.
But all Obama voters are genuises, right?

(via Ace)

Posted by: Sarah at 02:33 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

October 14, 2008

I WISH I KNEW HOW TO QUIT YOU

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

A few links for tonight:

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

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

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

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

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

Right. Just as I thought.

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

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

Many commenters have started. God help us.

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

October 11, 2008

MY MOM IS MY BIGGEST FAN

OK, I just have to say this hilarious thing.

My mom said tonight, "You can't stop blogging. You're doing a disservice to the hundreds of thousands of people who read you."

HA!

I said, "Um, try like 300 people."

My mom thinks I am way awesomer than I am.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:03 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

October 10, 2008

FRAMERS

The Mrs has a neat post about what she'd do to change the Constitution. In it, she quotes Thomas Jefferson on his irritation with how people were interpreting the "promote the general welfare" phrase. I have never thought about that before, that the framers lived to see argument over what their words meant. Would that we could ask Jefferson a few more questions today...

Posted by: Sarah at 02:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.

THE GOODY BAG

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

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

SUCKER FOR ADVERTISING

I am the absolute worst sucker for food advertising. A pizza commercial comes on, and I want pizza. I see a Blizzard on TV, and I want one. It's become a running joke in our household that if there's food on TV, I will want it.

I just watched last night's South Park, and I immediately had a craving for Chinese food. I had to google to even find a restaurant around here.

Mmmm, that was a good treat.

Good thing this only works on me for food; otherwise, I'd be at the Tahiti Village timeshare or tangled up in a Bow-Flex. And working for T. Boone Pickins.

Posted by: Sarah at 12:57 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 114 words, total size 1 kb.

LINK

Peggy Noonan:

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

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

She was not cynical. She was informed.

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

(via CG)

And a comment here:

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

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

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

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

IT MAKES ME LIKE HIM EVEN MORE

Last night I was thinking about how everyone loves positive reinforcement. How even us hardened jerks like to hear that we're not all bad.

So I sent Neal Boortz an email.

I briefly said that I enjoy his show, that I took some heat for agreeing with him on voting, and that I was simply emailing to give him some positive feedback, which I'm sure he gets little of. I just wanted him to know that not everyone hates him.

His contact page says, "I probably won't answer your email. I rarely answer any emails. We get over 2000 a day ... do the math. Web Guy and Cristina will forward intelligent messages to me. If you're writing in to tell me you hate me, that's fine."

But he wrote me back. How awesome is that?

Even Neal Boortz has a soft spot for a compliment.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:12 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

October 09, 2008

VOTER FRAUD

Ruth H was right in her comment saying that she will have a hard time accepting Obama as her president since there has been so much voter fraud. I too am dumbfounded at the shenanigans that have been uncovered and the general apathy towards it. Rachel Lucas has the scoop.

Posted by: Sarah at 01:44 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

RED DAWN

When my husband got online yesterday, I had just read this ridiculous article at Slate about how, if they remake Red Dawn, they better remake it with the Americans as the bad guys and Iraqis as the Wolverines. Husband's sarcasm meter went to eleven:

Husband says:
I don't remember the Wolverines kidnapping people for ransom and executing people in other religious sects
Sarah says:
yeah
Husband says:
or making videos where they behead Russian soldiers
Husband says:
I also don't remember the Soviets rebuilding hospitals in Colorado or training a new American army and giving them classes on human rights and proper detainee handling procedures
Husband says:
not like we're giving previously oppressed religious and ethnic minorities a voice in their government or anything
Husband says:
because I'm sure the Russians had their doctors assisting Georgians in hospitals and buying books for schools

Posted by: Sarah at 01:37 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

October 08, 2008

THE LITTLE THINGS

I'm concerned about the little things that reveal Obama. Thomas Sowell explains why the little things matter:

Seemingly unrelated things can give important insights into someone's outlook and character. For example, after the Cold War was over, it came out that one of the things that caught the attention of Soviet leaders early on was President Ronald Reagan's breaking of the air traffic controllers' strike.

Why were the Soviets concerned about a purely domestic American issue like an air traffic controllers' strike? Why was their attention not confined to "the real issues" between the United States and the Soviet Union?

Because one of the biggest and realest of all issues is the outlook and character of the President of the United States.

It would be hard to imagine any of Ronald Reagan's predecessors over the previous several decades-- whether Republicans or Democrats-- who would have broken a nationwide strike instead of caving in to the union's demands.

This told the Soviet leaders what Reagan was made of, even before he got up and walked out of the room during negotiations with Mikhail Gorbachev. That too let the Soviet leaders know that they were not dealing with Jimmy Carter any more.

(Found via CG)

Posted by: Sarah at 03:53 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 2 kb.

HILARIOUS

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

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

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

October 07, 2008

RIGHTS

8:20PM Obama makes me want a cigarette, and not in that nice afterglow way.

I thought tonight's debate was phenomenally boring. I couldn't tell you at all "which one" I thought won or lost. I think McCain did well in some areas but he didn't wow me, and since I can't stand anything that comes out of Obama's mouth, I am not able to objectively assess his performance.

I can tell you what I thought the most egregious moment of the night was. The candidates were asked whether health care is a "privilege, a right, or a responsibility." McCain said it was a responsibility; Obama said it is a right.

Health care is a right.

Do people have just a completely different understanding of what the word "right" means than I do?

You never have the right to someone else's labor or money. And that's what national health care is. If you cannot afford it, you will need to take money from someone else in society to apply it to your health care.

You have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You have the right to free speech, to practice your religion, and to assemble.

As Leonard Peikoff says, you have a "right to action":

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.

The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree.

The scary thing to me is that Obama came right out and enumerated health care as a right, and that no one will call him on it or argue it. It made my jaw drop.

You know, in every debate, they repeat the same talking points. And we can discuss the nitty gritty of policies, and who will give tax cuts to whom, and whether we need a surge in Afghanistan, but I am far more interested in these little revealing statements. I was blown away when Obama said that we're "spending money on tax cuts," and I'm blown away again tonight to hear that he thinks health care is a right. These are the statements that expose a fundamental difference in worldview between Obama and me.

Obama thinks that Americans have the right to other people's earnings. He believes in redistribution of wealth. I find this remarkably frightening, and all of his policies stem from this worldview.

What I don't understand is how people are undecided. I have to imagine that the undecideds are people who just haven't been paying attention, because the difference in worldview between Republicans and Democrats is staggering.

Definitely read Peikoff's Health Care Is Not a Right.

MORE:

Vodkapundit quips:

7:52PM Obama says McCainÂ’s health care plan will give with one hand and take from the other. Which might well be true. ObamaÂ’s plan, however, will give with one hand andÂ… stuff will just appear in it. Really.

And:

7:58PM Obama: Health insurance “is a right.” We our endowed by our Creator with a really sweet no-co-pay plan from Aetna, and maybe some free speech. At least I think that’s what Jefferson wrote.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:22 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 663 words, total size 4 kb.

TONIGHT

I have been invited to liveblog the debate tonight at Chuck Z's place.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

THE PLEDGE

As we get within a month of the decision, I find myself revisiting Dean Esmay's pledge from 2004.

I tend to hold to a rather odd doctrine myself, which is that partisanship is supposed to stop at the water's edges: we can argue as loudly as we want about domestic policy, but we do our best to speak with one voice once we get past the nation's shores. Old-fashioned and crazy I know, but it's just how I see the world. There was a time in America when if you'd spoken of the Democrat Franklin Roosevelt as a liar, a traitor, and a warmonger during World War II, accused him of engineering the Pearl Harbor attacks, referred to our war over there as "Roosevelt's war" (as a few dipshit Republicans did back then) you might well have gotten yourself a bloody nose even in the most Republican counties in America.

Because debate all you want but, once a decision is made, partisanship should stop at the water's edges. At least so far as I'm concerned.

Now here is my interesting question: I've made myself some friends among conservatives by speaking this way. But I do find myself wondering: how many of you on the right will embrace such a philosophy if John Kerry should carry the election in November?

I don't want to hear why you think it won't happen. Indulge me: pretend it might. How many of you will have the patriotism to say, "I disagree with many of his policy directions, I do not think he is conducting our foreign policy in the right way, but I will do my best to get behind him and support him until elections come around next time?"

I'm genuinely curious. For that is the stance I intend to take. I will refuse to call him traitor, loser, liar, incompetent. He will be my President, my Commander In Chief, the Chief Executive of a great nation, elected by the will of a majority of the electors in these 50 great united States. So even if he does things I disagree with in conducting foreign policy, I will say, "I respectfully disagree with the President's directions, but I will do my best to express my dissent respectfully and hope that I am mistaken and that he has made the proper decisions after all."

That's my pledge. How many of you will take a similar one?

As I face the idea that Barack Obama might become my husband's boss, I wonder if I can uphold the same pledge I made to be respectful to John Kerry. I ought to be able to do it; it's not like Kerry's meeting with the Viet Cong is any less heinous than Obama's relationship with Ayers.

Good heavens, that just gave me pause. Why do the Democrats keep nominating people who consort with the enemies of our country?

Four years removed, I am having a hard time conjuring the gut feelings I had for John Kerry. It feels now like I dislike Obama more than I disliked Kerry back then, but I doubt this is true. Is there really any difference? (Well, the Obamessiah stuff is pretty unsettling.)

I can't promise that if Obama is elected I will like it. However, I will pledge to try to be respectful of the office of the presidency. I can, as MAJ Winters said, "salute the rank, not the man." I will write against Democrat policies, but I pledge that I will never call Obama names or compare him to a chimp, as classless people have done for the last eight years.

But really, it makes me sick to think I might have to do this.

P.S. This pledge in no way prevents me from laughing at stuff like this.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:57 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 633 words, total size 4 kb.

THE RICH

Lest anyone continue to say that the Republicans are the party of the rich...

Soros, Lewis, and the Sandlers form a core group of billionaire activists and Democrat partisans who have formed a group called The Democracy Alliance. They realized that they could magnify their power by working in unison and tapping other wealthy donors to further their agenda (the superb Boston Globe article “Follow the money” is a good primer on how money and 527 groups have come together to have a huge impact on politics in America).

The Democracy Alliance is a major avenue to help them achieve their goals. The roster of its growing membership consists of a list of billionaires and mere multi-millionaires who collectively hope to give upwards of 500 million dollars each year to further promote a left-wing agenda.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.

October 06, 2008

AN HONOR

My friend Amritas' website is waaay above my level. Both my husband and I have said that if anyone thinks we're smart, they should meet this guy. And it is so flattering that such an intelligent man reads my dopey little blog.

Amritas honors my blogoversary with a Tangut of my name. I think he's my longest-running blog friend.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:57 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

WHEN WE LEFT EARTH

I've been watching and thoroughly enjoying When We Left Earth. I didn't know as much about Mercury and Gemini as I do about Apollo, and I know hardly anything about the subsequent missions. It's been wonderful to see the original footage and relive those Apollo moments.

There are a couple tidbits I did learn that have made me smile. First, I didn't know that the LM on Apollo 10 was sent to orbit the moon without enough fuel to power itself off the moon. The men in charge of the space program knew that if they sent astronauts that close to the moon with the means to land, they would certainly land! To prevent them from jumping ahead in the program, they didn't give them enough gas to leave. And the crew joked that they totally would've tried to land on the moon if they'd been able to.

Second, Neil Armstrong left the LM a full 15 minutes before Buzz Aldrin did. You think that was the longest 15 minutes of anyone's life? Heh. Can you imagine sitting on the moon, waiting your turn?

I always am fascinated by the what-ifs of the space program. What if Ed White's first EVA had failed and he floated away from his Gemini shuttle? What if Apollo 8 failed to break the orbit of the moon and the crew was left to circle the moon for eternity? What if the LM of Apollo 11 crashed and Armstrong and Aldrin had to slowly die on the moon? Would there be a rescue mission to retrieve their bodies? So many what-ifs, and such a marriage of good furtune plus hard work to make it all a success.

I am looking forward to watching the final installment of the show to learn about the more recent missions.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

There are so many great writers out there; I am always sad when I "remember" a blogger I haven't read in a while. I've been back on the du Toits lately because of the gun thing, and I just found this new post at The Mrs' site: Fight or Flee. It is full of ideas that felt comfortable but simultaneously felt completely new, things I've never thought about before but which made me nod my head. It gave me a lot to think about.

Posted by: Sarah at 01:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.

NERDS

When I was subbing in the high school in Germany, a girl complained to me that she wanted to go to the homecoming dance but was afraid that she would only get an invitation from a nerd. I had to school her on how the high school nerd can go on to be a great catch.

I was reminded of this when I was flipping channels yesterday and saw the movie Can't Buy Me Love, which I liked when I was a young teen. In the movie, the school nerd pays the head cheerleader to go out with him and make him popular. Do you know who that nerd was?

PatrickDempseyBuyLove.jpg

McDreamy.

patrick-dempsey-versace-ad.jpg

Seriously. The actor who played a nerd in the 80's is now a hot doctor on TV. And who typified the 80's nerd?

AnthonyMichaelHallyoung.jpg

Anthony Michael Hall is now hunky Johnny Smith.

anthonymichaelhall.jpg

Never, ever discount nerds.

Posted by: Sarah at 07:49 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.

<< Page 42 of 179 >>
113kb generated in CPU 0.0559, elapsed 0.2577 seconds.
61 queries taking 0.2247 seconds, 296 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy