It's real, and it's spectacular.
I liked this round-up of Obama gaffes. Shoot, even I know the difference between Sanford and Son and The Jeffersons. And I never watched either show growing up.
But this one from back in May I hadn't heard yet, and it's a doozy:
In Cape Girardeau, Missouri, Obama showed off his knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by honing in on a lack of translators: “We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan.” The real reason it’s “harder for us to use them” in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or other non-Arabic languages.
You know, twice in the past week or so, I have made jokes about how $600 couldn't even buy earrings, and nobody got it. Once I explained, they were shocked that Michelle Obama had said such a thing. But they hadn't heard about it before I mentioned it.
In personal news, I have done all the normal fertility testing that they do. There's nothing wrong with me. There's nothing wrong with my husband. But we still don't have a baby. Fantastic.
Lileks writes on Dean Barnett's death. As only Lileks can write.
There are, alas, many in the west for whom all this is music to their ears. Whether through wickedness, ideology, stupidity or derangement, they firmly believe that the ultimate source of conflict in the world derives at root from America and Israel, whose societies, culture and values they want to see emasculated or destroyed altogether. They are drooling at the prospect that an Obama presidency will bring that about. The rest of us can’t sleep at night.
(Via Oda Mae)
Yesterday I went to the McCain rally. We stood outside for two hours in the cold to get in, and the line was huge. It was pretty fun, clapping and booing and laughing with the crowd. Ours is a swing state, and I hope things go well for us next week. At this point, I don't know what to think.
Sadly, this isn't Ohio: I only get to vote once.
Blue Collar Muse has posted an excerpt from Atlas Shrugged. I have been telling myself to pull the beautiful copy that Amritas bought me from the shelf and read it again. The excerpt -- Socialism's Lying Promise -- may just prompt me to do that. But I fear it will only succeed in depressing me even further.
I also clicked through to Blue Collar Muse's old post entitled Conservatives Shrugged. I understand this struggle, this desire to shrug, and identify with the dilemma of just wanting to win so we don't have to suffer through Dems vs wanting an actual candidate who's worth a damn.
(As usual, thanks to Amritas for the links. He's been on fire lately.)
This deployment has been easy. Regular contact, a cushy job, and a short-ish tour. So easy, in fact, that when the phone rang unexpectedly at 4 AM last month, there was no thought in my mind that something had happened to my husband. I have managed to avoid much anticipatory grief this time around.
But we lost a team leader in Afghanistan.
I attended the memorial service today. I had never met this soldier and neither had my husband, but I think we would've liked him. Actually, I know we would've liked him based on one thing that was mentioned during the service: his nickname for his wife was Sparta 6.
When you sit there in a memorial service, and you look at all the photos of the soldier and hear the eulogies, you can't help but imagine what people would say about your own husband. How would they describe him? What photos capture who he is? Would a fellow soldier swallow back tears while speaking about my husband?
I had managed to avoid thinking about my husband's mortality too much this time around. But today was a reminder that he will be leaving again next year, likely as a team leader. He will be back in the thick of things.
You know, it does horrible things to your heart to sit back on the homefront and watch other people's husbands die...
Now this might be an explanation for something that's puzzled me for a long time.
Second, if ever you've been amazed when you heard people on the left say that mainstream liberal media outlets such as the New York Times are not liberal but "conservative," Obama's remarks about the Warren Court reveal where such people are really coming from. The reason they regard the mainstream media as "conservative" is that the mainstream media do not advocate the overthrowing of the U.S. Constitution, of free enterprise, and of property rights--and those are the things that true leftists/progressives, such as Obama, seek.
These are the times that try men's souls.
I have been off the internet for a couple of days, but so much has come out. This Syria thing is huge, and a plot to assassinate Obama. And this 2001 tape of Obama that's out? Whittle says it all:
We have, in our storied history, elected Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives and moderates. We have fought, and will continue to fight, pitched battles about how best to govern this nation. But we have never, ever in our 232-year history, elected a president who so completely and openly opposed the idea of limited government, the absolute cornerstone of makes the United States of America unique and exceptional.
If this does not frighten you — regardless of your political affiliation — then you deserve what this man will deliver with both houses of Congress, a filibuster-proof Senate, and, to quote Senator Obama again, “a righteous wind at our backs.”
And Dean Barnett died, which makes me sad. I liked him.
My soul is tried these days.
So there's a stock boy at my new job -- I'm gonna peg him at about 18 years old -- who I suspect has a crush on me. Last week he followed me all around the store, gave me a "how you doin'?", and wanted to know how old I am. The look on his face was priceless when I told him. And I figured that would be the end of it, but today he asked me if my band is just a ring or if I'm married.
I've probably been married since he was in middle school.
One of the girls at work says that makes me a cougar.
You know, when I was 16, I worked at a concert arena. I was one of the only females, and I was a good 30 years younger than most people working there. I can't tell you how many times gross 23-year-old roadies would come on to me. I used to get so annoyed at the unwanted attention at work.
And now, shoot, I want to hug this kid.
It has been years since someone has shown an interest in me. It is sincerely the most flattering thing that's happened in a long time. I am just tickled pink that this kid even remotely thought it would be appropriate for me to talk to him. I have been giggling all day.
Now there's an ego boost. Heh.
Man, you guys thought I was crazy when I linked voting and taxes:
White People Shouldn't Be Allowed To Vote
Tim's wife, whom we all know as CPT Patti, was admitted to the hospital. They still aren't entirely sure what's wrong with her. I thought maybe some of you old-schoolers could leave some encouraging comments here for her so she can read them when she gets computer access. Hang in there, Patti. We know you're tough!
I'm re-reading Larry Elder's The Ten Things You Can't Say In America, and I came across a timely point:
An economics major in college, Reagan further argued that lowering taxes would increase money coming into federal coffers because it kick starts people into working harder, smarter, and with less need to conceal income.
But guess who else felt that way? JFK. That's right, JFK. In the December 24, 1962, issue of US News and World Report, "Kennedy's Latest Word on Tax Cuts, Plans for Business," in urging a tax cut, Kennedy said that "it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low -- and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now.
"The experience of a number of European countries has borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reductions in 1954 has borne this out, and the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget -- and tax reduction can pave the way to full employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budgetary deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous expanding economy which will bring a budgetary surplus."
Somehow I don't think Obama is the new Kennedy.
The Girl's husband is home from his 15 months in Iraq.
You know, she's probably gonna hate me for saying this, but I really enjoyed her husband's deployment. Since she's still stuck in Germany, we mainly communicated by IM. We chatted probably every other day, sometimes for hours.
We got to know each other better through those IMs than we ever did when we lived on the same post. I told her things I've never told anyone before and never plan to tell anyone again.
Her husband's deployment was good for our friendship.
But I'm still glad he's home.
I need to read Varifrank more often than I do.
Shoot, I wish I were Varifrank. That man can write.
You know, just bookmark him.
What happens when the voter in the exact middle of the earnings spectrum receives more in benefits from Washington than he pays in taxes? Economists Allan Meltzer and Scott Richard posed this question 27 years ago. We may soon enough know the answer.
Barack Obama is offering voters strong incentives to support higher taxes and bigger government. This could be the magic income-redistribution formula Democrats have long sought.
Sen. Obama is promising $500 and $1,000 gift-wrapped packets of money in the form of refundable tax credits. These will shift the tax demographics to the tipping point where half of all voters will receive a cash windfall from Washington and an overwhelming majority will gain from tax hikes and more government spending.
In 2006, the latest year for which we have Census data, 220 million Americans were eligible to vote and 89 million -- 40% -- paid no income taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center (a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute), this will jump to 49% when Mr. Obama's cash credits remove 18 million more voters from the tax rolls. What's more, there are an additional 24 million taxpayers (11% of the electorate) who will pay a minimal amount of income taxes -- less than 5% of their income and less than $1,000 annually.
In all, three out of every five voters will pay little or nothing in income taxes under Mr. Obama's plans and gain when taxes rise on the 40% that already pays 95% of income tax revenues.
And we have Barney Frank saying outrageous things like this:
I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of the money.
I put up a quote from Neal Boortz's piece To the Undecided Voter about how democracy fails when the scales tip and people can vote themselves more money. Andy McCarthy received a similar quote from this blog's namesake, Robert Heinlein.
A perfect democracy, a "warm body" democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction.... [O]nce a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader — the barbarians enter Rome.
I think our country is in serious trouble.
"I love mankind; it's people I can't stand."
Second Place To A Cheeseburger
Yes, honey, I dimed you out again on SpouseBUZZ.
Interesting postscript to the cheeseburger story. Tonight when the webcam pops up, there's my husband, ceremoniously eating a cheeseburger on camera. With this devilish, I'll-show-you look on his face. We both cracked up.
I love how he can turn something irritating into something endearing.
Now here's a Democrat I'd like to have a beer with. (OK, you too, pinko commie friend.)
Orson Scott Card: Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
Via Powerline. Also via them is this post: "I Was Born In Colombia, But I Was Made in the USA."
I love Penn and Teller's show. And this final episode maybe actually was "The Best." It was the perfect end to a really good day.
There's a story going on here in town that I simply do not understand. I thought maybe you could help me see what I'm missing.
A gas station owner has been fined $5000 for price gouging during hurricane season last month, when all the gas jumped. Most gas in town went to around $4.00, but apparently this guy was charging $5.50. And apparently he was the only one who raised his this high.
I don't see why this is illegal.
Gas is the most advertised commodity we buy. Ask anyone to tell you the price of milk or detergent, and I bet few people could do it. But everyone knows what gas costs. It's advertised on every street corner. If someone sold gas that day for $5.50, I would've had so much sticker shock that I would've kept going to the next gas station. Problem solved. If I did buy it there, well, I'm a sucker if it was $1.50 cheaper down the street.
But here's what I don't get. Let's say I own a store. I decide I want to sell a two-liter of Pepsi for $45. Is that illegal? It's stupid, but is it illegal? Is it price gouging? Is it only price gouging if there's a natural disaster?
I don't understand why this gas station owner couldn't set the price of gas at whatever he felt like. Is it because other gas stations would see his price and raise theirs? I know gas stations have price wars. Is there some regulating body that decides a price range for gas on any given day?
I really don't get this. What am I missing?
Dear John McCain,
You're crusin' for a bruisin'. Seriously.
We sent your campaign money. And you've spent several dollars of it sending me junk mail every day asking me for more money.
Stop doing that.
All you're doing is making me mad I got on your mailing list. It's not making me want to send you more money.
But I did like the photo of you and Sarah that you sent. It's on the fridge. (And I'm totally going to be Sarah Palin for Halloween.)
Knock it off with the mail. Please.
Oh yeah, are we getting another stimulus check? Really?
Can we refuse it?
Because last week my husband bought me a Garmin for my birthday, I bought a handgun, I dropped some money buying clothes for my new job, and I had to pay for a fertility treatment.
We're doing a plenty good job of spending our own money right now. I don't need to spend someone else's.
Stop taking money from a taxpayer and handing it to me to spend. Cuz I'd just buy a Glock.
Oh wait, on second thought...free Glock. Hand it over.
Some rich guy is out his hard-earned money and I get a free gun. Sounds totally fair to me, right? Sigh.
Some Soldier's Mom left a comment at AWTM, and this part caught my eye:
... and you just want to ask Barrack Obama, "Since when did it become acceptable in America to punish hard working people by taking their money and giving it to others because you think that's "fairer"? and that you can't imagine how he justifies giving tax "refunds" to people who don't even pay taxes! You see this as taking your "A" grades in school and giving them to people who got lower grades to make it "fairer".
Did I ever tell you that this is exactly what happened to me in France? I took a literature class, and we had some paper to write. After they were all turned in, the teacher reprimanded the class for missing the point of the paper. She explained what a good paper would've looked like. I felt pretty sure that what I had written was close to what she was looking for, so I was in the catbird seat. But then she laid this kicker on us: She had decided to go ahead and average all the grades and give us the average. I ended up with a C.
I wish I were making that story up. Or I wish it had been like a trick on the teacher's part, a way to teach us a lesson. Nope. It was real and the grade stuck.
I had done the assignment correctly and I got a C. Someone else who had turned in an F was feeling pretty awesome at this point.
I don't see how that's even remotely fair.
And Some Soldier's Mom is right that it's a good analogy for the taxes.
how can I explain personal pain
how can I explain my voice is in vain
how can I explain the deep down...driving
I had myself convinced that I was going to have triplets. I had them named, and at night before bed I would have visions of myself corralling toddlers. I was kind of excited that we might breed at more than replacement rate. Twins was also acceptable. I got comfortable with the idea of multiples. Shoot, one was feeling like a let-down.
But I never prepared myself for zero.
Sure, I knew it could happen. Just like I knew two years ago that it was possible to have fertility problems. But it's one of those things that happens to other people. It wasn't going to happen to me. Because everyone I know who did the treatment I just did got pregnant. And since I have been pregnant twice before, and we know it's biologically possible, I figured this was the boost we'd need to make this work.
I never put any energy into thinking it wouldn't.
I feel so much frustration and ire today. I feel emotionally incredulous. I feel biologically sickened.
I feel like a failure. Squared.
I want to have my husband's baby. He's handsome, strong, tall, and fit. He's super smart. He's only been sick once since I've known him. He has perfect vision and nice eyebrows. His genes belong in the pool.
And we've been ready for two years. We have a stroller. We have a the paperwork for a rider on our life insurance. We have the baby names we picked out eight years ago. And yes, though it's been mocked, we have a nursery filled with knitted stuffed animals and blankets.
We still see ourselves like the end of Raising Arizona. But it's just as cloudy for us to imagine as it was for H.I. McDunnough.
One year ago today, I told you all that I was pregnant. Little did I know that we too would have "no return of the salad days." And last Christmas, I consoled myself with the hope that we'd have a baby in the house by this Christmas. Not even close.
And, you know, I am always the first person to try to keep things in perspective. To be grateful that I have a great husband and a nice home and plenty of things to be thankful for. But today that's just not enough. Today I'm not content with the blessings I already have.
And I probably should stop listening to The Violent Femmes, because that's not really helping anything.
At the Milblogs Conference, during the tribute to our fallen, I mentioned Bunker Mulligan. Or, I tried to: I immediately choked up and barely managed to sob the words out.
It's been three years since the death of a man I never met, and it still hurts that much.
A while back, I found this old comment he left:
There are just too many things in this country I haven't seen to go wandering around the world looking for more. I still haven't been to the Black Hills, and I want to see Yosemite again. Washington is one of my favorite cities in the entire world--so much to do there. I've been four times and still want more.
I keep trying to plan a road trip from Corpus Christi through Big Bend to Vegas, then back along the northern route to the Grand Canyon, Painted Desert, then back to Corpus across the Llano Estacado and Comanche Country.
There will be time for golf when you get back!
He didn't get to do these things. We didn't get to play golf.
Mike is buried in San Antonio, and I had to see him while I was there. We located his marker and my friends stayed in the car as I got out to pay respects.
The sobbing started even before I saw his name.
I had tried to think of something I could leave there for Mike, but I couldn't come up with anything and was empty handed. My fellow SpouseBUZZ author Toad surprised me with the most perfect idea: he had brought a golf ball and a Sharpie for me.
I left Mike a little note on the golf ball and then sat there and wept.
I still miss him so much.
And I want this blog post to be better, because he deserves better, but I just don't know what else to say.
Damn, this weekend was rough.
I'm catching up on some blogs and came across this hilarious post-debate line by Varifrank:
SO - we no longer ask our Presidential candidates any questions that involve the military?
Three debates and I don't get any answers on these and many other important issues, I get the equivalent of what it feels like to have two used car salesman run back and forth and "ask their manager" if they can get me a "discount on the price for the undercoat" ( an undercoat that I don't want or particularly need, but will be forced to take to get off the car lot with my wits and my wallet mostly intact.)
I bought Stranger Than Fiction because AWTM liked it. So much of Palahniuk's stuff in this book reminds me of blogging. Take, for example, You Are Here:
Okay, okay, so maybe we’re headed down a road toward mindless, self-obsessed lives where every event is reduced to words and camera angles. Every moment imagined through the lens of a cinematographer. Every funny or sad remark scribbled down for sale at the first opportunity.
A world Socrates couldn’t imagine, where people would examine their lives, but only in terms of movie and paperback potential.
Where a story no longer follows as the result of an experience.
Now the experience happens in order to generate a story.
Sort of like when you suggest: “Let’s not but say we did.”
The story—the product you can sell—becomes more important than the actual event.
One danger is, we might hurry through life, enduring event after event, in order to build our list of experiences. Our stock of stories. And our hunger for stories might reduce our awareness of the actual experience. In the way we shut down after watching too many action-adventure movies. Our body chemistry can’t tolerate the stimulation. Or we unconsciously defend ourselves by pretending not to be present, by acting as a detached “witness” or reporter to our own life. And by doing that, never feeling an emotion or really participating. Always weighing what the story will be worth in cold cash.
That is how a hardcore blogger lives. Every life experience is seen through the lens of how it's going to be blogged. Everything is a vignette, put out there for all to read. And while you're living the joy or sorrow of a situation, in the back of your mind you're also composing the blog post about it.
It's a way to process. A way, like Palahniuk says, to step outside the situation a little and view it as a "detached 'witness.'"
Because sometimes you need that.
I'm not pregnant.
I'm leaving soon to start my journey to SpouseBUZZ Live San Antonio.
And yes, I am more than freaked out by this.
I can't even talk about it anymore.
I am an emotional, ridiculous mess today. I feel strung out and beaten.
God, I hope that means I'm pregnant.
John Murtha, classy as ever.
Mr. Murtha said it has taken time for the state's voters embrace a black presidential candidate.
"There's no question Western Pennsylvania is a racist area," said Mr. Murtha, whose district stretches from Johnstown to Washington County. "The older population is more hesitant."
Hogwash. My grandparents live right over the border in small-town Western New York. My 83-year-old grandmother is most likely voting for Obama.
Quit pointing out imaginary racism, Democrats.
Obama's proposed tax credits:
Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.
The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year.
We're so far from the concept of a "safety net" here that it's sickening. And there's more, as The String Beans say:
There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.
Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.
So both poor and rich people have a "disincentive to working harder" under the Obama tax plan. Boy, that sounds like a winner for the future of America.
We've all seen the clips of how stupid McCain voters are.
But all Obama voters are genuises, right?
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.
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.
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."
I said, "Um, try like 300 people."
My mom thinks I am way awesomer than I am.
The du Toits are quitting blogging. The Mrs laid out her reason why:
I loved blogging, but what was once a labor of love has become (all too frequently) too much like work. The writing part is still interesting to me, but all that goes with it is not fun anymore. Blogs, I think, are similar to a TV series. They have a lifespan and I sense I’ve either outlived mine or will have very soon. If I feel like writing, I can still do that, but won’t share it with strangers.
What I want, strangely, is my privacy back. I want to be anonymous… to be in a place where no one knows my name, or gives two hoots about anything I might say or write about, and anyone who ever read me forgets that I existed. I want no influence on anyone or anything, except what I’m making for dinner, for my family, or what flowers I want to plant in the Spring. That might seem like a strange thing to say for someone who has blogged about their personal life. I haven’t, however, blogged about all of it…
And I envy them and their commitment to shrug.
I want to try it out. Not permanently, but for about a week. It's my birthday present to myself.
I forgot to tell you guys that I got a job that I start this week. And then I head to SpouseBUZZ Live San Antonio. I will come back to the blog after that, just in time to let you know whether I am pregnant or not. And to tell you about my trip to pay respects to Bunker.
But I need to see what it feels like not to do this anymore. What it feels like to not constantly compose in my head. To not feel guilty about offending someone. To not worry that I've given too much of myself away. To not desire your approval.
(Now I just hope nothing really exciting happens in the debate this week.)
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...
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.
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?
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'.
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.
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.
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:
I don't remember the Wolverines kidnapping people for ransom and executing people in other religious sects
or making videos where they behead Russian soldiers
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
not like we're giving previously oppressed religious and ethnic minorities a voice in their government or anything
because I'm sure the Russians had their doctors assisting Georgians in hospitals and buying books for schools
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)
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.
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.
7:52PM Obama says McCain’s health care plan will give with one hand and take from the other. Which might well be true. Obama’s plan, however, will give with one hand and… stuff will just appear in it. Really.
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.
I have been invited to liveblog the debate tonight at Chuck Z's place.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You know, I'm not even comfortable hosting this pile of crap on my site, but it's the only way I can make my point.
Oh no wait, I'll just give you the link to the video.
So what do we have here? Here's like twenty or so liberals telling us to all go vote and that they don't care who we vote for as long as we do it.
You have to be kidding me that any of these celebrities -- who are talking about how important it is to express your views on global warming and health care -- would have done this if they thought for a second that it would encourage you to vote for John McCain.
God, this reminds me of the South Park 2004 election episode:
Kyle: You're doing the right thing, Stan. Don't you feel like you're a part of something now?
Stan: I guess...
Kyle: Look, it may not seem important now, but your vote really does count, and we all have to do our part.
Stan: Okay. [finishes up and seals his ballot, then walks away]
Kyle: Look... wait, what are you doing?
Stan: I'm voting.
Kyle: No, no, you... you wrote down Turd Sandwich.
Stan: Yeah, I know.
Kyle: ...Dude, you're supposed to vote for Giant Douche.
Stan: [annoyed] I thought I was supposed to make my own decision.
Kyle: Well yeah, but not if your decision is for Turd Sandwich! What the hell is wrong with you?!
Stan: Wait a minute, you didn't want me to vote, you wanted me to vote for your guy!
Kyle: Well, I just figured you'd vote for my guy! Whose f*ckin' friend are you?!
If there is a person on that entire video who is voting for John McCain, I'll eat my hat.
Seriously? Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen DeGeneres, Toby McGuire? These are the most obvious liberals out there. Jamie Foxx is wearing a motherscratchin' keffiyeh in this video. Were Susan Sarandon and Jane Fonda too busy to participate?
Celebs like Cameron Diaz tell us that if if we don't vote, rape will become legal, and Whoopi Goldberg thinks John McCain is going to make her a slave...and then a bunch of celebs get together and say "we don't care who you vote for"?
What a freaking joke.
And I am having a really hard time using the word "freaking."
Secondly, I don't "rock the vote." I found this video via Sis B, who encourages everyone to register because "many people have died to secure your right to vote."
If I've learned anything from Neal Boortz, it's that there is no constitutional right to vote.
I hate to be the one to break this to you [...]. But you're all wrong. There is no right to vote, at least not in a federal election..
Oh, it may be true that your state's constitution contains some sort of a guarantee of your right to vote in an election, but that's really as far as it goes.
Now I'm not going to give this entire chapter away right here. I'll just give you enough to whet your appetite for the publication of the book come next Spring.
In December of 2000 a law professor by the name of Michael C. Dorf wrote a column entitled "We Need a Constitutional Right to Vote in Presidential Elections." Professor Dorf, a law professor at Columbia University, by the way, was bitterly upset with the results of the 2000 election and the puddin' storm that erupted in Florida after the vote.
Here: Let me just share one paragraph from Dorf's column. [...] Remember ... this is a learned law professor writing this, not just someone sitting down to write a letter to the editor:
"Amidst the divisiveness of the United States Supreme Court's second foray into the 2000 Presidential election, it is easy to overlook the significance of the Court's earlier, unanimous ruling of December 4, 2000. A close reading of the decision in that case, Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, reveals a clear consensus for what will strike many Americans as an outrageous proposition: there is no constitutional right to vote in a Presidential election. The fact that the state in which you reside even permits you to vote for electors is purely a matter of legislative grace."
So ... there you have it. There's that, and more. I'm not going to give away this entire chapter here, but my research clearly shows that the founding fathers in no way intended to grant a universal right to vote in federal elections in the Constitution. As for the states ... well, it's pretty much up to them. What the Constitution does do, by virtue of the 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments, is set forth some parameters upon which a state cannot limit the voting franchise IF that state decides to offer a right to vote in its state constitution. In other words, a state can't formulate a constitution which says you can vote in a state or local election unless you're black, or a woman, etc. The same rule would apply to any federal elections as well.
I have learned to check myself and never let the phrase "right to vote" pass my lips. And everything changes when you look at it through this lens. I also agree with Neal Boortz that voting should be linked to taxes. He has an elaborate theory on this that goes something like this (and I hope I do right by him, this is all from memory): If you don't pay taxes, or you actually have a net gain via welfare or Earned Income Credit, then you don't get to vote. If you pay under $25,000 in taxes, you get one vote; under $50,000, two votes; and so on, maxing out at five votes for the wealthiest of Americans (so Bill Gates can't just control the country all on his own).
If you don't pay into the system, then you have no dog in this fight. You shouldn't be allowed to use your vote to get more of other people's stuff. It's the wealthy who make this country what it is, and they should get more of a say in how it is run. I realize that is probably an unpopular position, but Neal Boortz has completely won me over to its merits.
But since the system doesn't work that way, and any goofball off the street can have a say, I don't encourage people to vote. If they're not motivated enough on their own to register to have a say in who controls the purse strings of this country, then I'm not gonna give them a push. Because I don't want unmotivated people to vote.
If you sit down and research the issues, watch the debates, and learn about the policies, and then you decide to vote for Barack Obama, I can live with that. But if you go out and vote because some idiot celebrity like DiCaprio tells you it's important to voice your opinion on the financial crisis...well, that makes me want to puke.
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?
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?
Anthony Michael Hall is now hunky Johnny Smith.
Never, ever discount nerds.
Guard Wife also spent Saturday at the gun show, but she apparently got leered at. Not fair! I didn't get leered at.
But AWTM wasn't here to do my make-up, so that's probably why.
I've never celebrated a blogoversary before, but this one was too big to pass up.
So many people
all the short-fat people
all the nobody people
all the somebody people
I never thought I'd need so many people...
I've spent one-sixth of my life with you people.
When I was a freshman in college, I would type up these rants about things I read or stuff I thought people should be paying attention to, and I would tape them up in public bathroom stalls in the dorms.
I guess I've always been a blogger, even before blogging existed.
Thank you for reading.
Crochet, where have you been all my life?
I got a simple dc pattern from one of the ladies in my charity group, and this was a great way to use up all those little golf-ball-sized leftovers. And they crank out quick, in about 40 minutes or so each.
I was a woman possessed, figuring out color combinations so I could use every last inch of the yarn.
As requested, here's the pattern.
With F or G hook and baby yarn, chain 4.
Row 1: 15 dc in fourth chain from needle (first 3 chains counts as 1 dc): 16 dc. Connect with slip stitch (on this and at the end of every row)
Row 2: 3 chains, *2 dc in next stitch, 1 dc in next, rep from *
Row 3: 3 chains, 1 dc in same stitch, * 1 dc in next 2 stitches, 2 dc in next stitch, rep from *
Row 4: 3 chains, 1 dc in same stitch, *1 dc in next 3 stitches, 2 dc in next stitch, rep from *
Row 5: 1 dc in each dc,
Row 6-9: repeat row 5
I am going to keel over and die at how cute this knitted bat is.
Last week, I decided to buy a handgun.
Actually, that's not such an accurate statement. Kim du Toit and Bill Whittle helped me decide to buy a handgun a long time ago. But I'm just now getting around to turning theory into reality.
Kim du Toit's goal of turning us back into a nation of riflemen worked on me. I began to see gun ownership in a whole new light after reading his site. And he's right that
after reading my stuff, people have come to realize that they don’t have to be ashamed of wanting to own a gun, of wanting to protect their families, of wanting to protect themselves, and of understanding that the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting, buddy.
I began to understand what Mrs. du Toit meant when she said:
I expected other people to protect me. I expected my husband to do it when he was home and I expected a cop to be there to rescue me if something happened to my husband. Yet I was perfectly happy for a criminal to be shot, by someone else, if he threatened me or my kids. Shame on me.
It was the realization of that hypocrisy that finally pushed me over the edge. I should not expect others to do for me what I am not willing to do for myself. I was the one whose morals were all screwed-up. How dare I think that someone else should risk his or her life for me (be it my husband or a police officer) if I wasn't willing to lift a finger for anyone else or even myself?
It was after this realization that the real meaning of the Second Amendment became crystal clear. Not only did I have the right to defend my country and myself, I had the RESPONSIBILITY to do so.
And his essay on Why I Own a Gun is crucial, especially the section on Civic Responsibility. Plus, in his discussion of the Second Amendment, he combines two of my loves, grammar and the Constitution:
Now for the penultimate phrase: ”the right of the people to keep and bear arms”. Not just “the people who can afford to buy a gun license”, or “only the police” or “only Mayor Daley’s bodyguards" -- it says, “the people” without qualification. Can’t be much plainer than that, really --
-- except perhaps for the last phrase: ”shall not be infringed.” Note carefully that the Second does not say, “Congress shall not” or “government shall not” or “Mayor Daley shall not”. The use of the passive voice is quite intentional: it is a clear, universal statement that the right to keep and bear arms cannot be circumscribed, by anyone or by any institution.
And that, my friends, is the perfect example of the role of passive voice. Take that, grammar check.
So Kim du Toit, who will be sorely missed when he retires from blogging soon, laid the foundation for me to accept my role as a gun owner. But Bill Whittle, he really solidified it for me. Allow me to repeat a quote from Freedom that changed so much for me:
We as a nation suffer an appalling number of handgun-related deaths each year -- perhaps 11,000 of them. The number is not important; each is a personal tragedy and those lives can never be replaced.
If we attempt to reduce this horrible number by banning handguns, we are taking away the property of a person who has broken no laws, by a government whose legitimacy is determined by a document that specifically allows that property, namely guns.
Destroy that trust by punishing the innocent, by pulling a plank from the Bill of Rights, and the contract between the government and the people falls apart. Once the Second Amendment goes, the First will soon follow, because if some unelected elite determines that the people can't be trusted with dangerous guns, then it's just a matter of time until they decide they can't be trusted with dangerous ideas, either. Dangerous ideas have killed many millions more people than dangerous handguns -- listen to the voices from the Gulag, the death camps, and all the blood-soaked killing fields through history.
The Framers, in their wisdom, put the 2nd Amendment there to give teeth to the revolutionary, unheard-of idea that the power rests with We The People. They did not depend on good will or promises. They made sure that when push came to shove, we'd be the ones doing the pushing and shoving, not the folks in Washington. And by the way, gun rights supporters are frequently mocked when they say it deters foreign invasion -- after all, come on, grow up, be realistic: Who's nuts enough to invade America? Exactly. It's unthinkable. Good. 2nd Amendment Mission 1 accomplished.
And thus I became a rifleman, even before owning a rifle.
And thus ends the poetics, and now we get down to the brass tacks of actually becoming an owner.
On Monday, I went to the webpage for our local sherriff's office. The link to info on handgun purchase is broken, naturally. I had to go down to the office, provide my driver's license and a thumbprint, and I got the paperwork. I needed a character witness, which proved a tad difficult. It had to be someone who lives in my county, who has this state's driver's license, and who has known me for more than six months. Finding someone who fit all three criteria was not easy; most of our military friends have licenses from other states. I ended up having to asking the girl who cuts my hair, which was a tad awkward. Luckily she said, "You just figured I was a redneck Republican who would agree to do this, didn't you? You were right!"
I returned the paperwork on Tuesday, and I picked up the permit on Friday. This afternoon I headed to the gun show and a couple of stores with my husband's friend. I haven't settled on one yet, but we plan to return next weekend to rent a couple at the range and see what is a good fit for me.
(And yes, I fully expect to get suggestions here.)
So Kim du Toit hooked another one in the twilight of his blogging. Plus, I got two permits, so I can buy one for my husband when he gets home too.
We're joining this nation of riflemen.
AWTM and I always talk about how self-congratulatory blogging is; we blog because we like the sound of our own voice. Which explains why I ended up re-reading an interview of myself today. If that's not a douchebag thing to do, I don't know what is. But Blackfive bestowed me the honor of saying he likes me, and I had forgotten that interview.
Anyway, I had to laugh that things haven't changed much from one deployment to the next:
Sarah: I have more in common with him than with anyone on the planet; I got lucky that he was a guy instead of a girl! More than anything I just miss hanging out with him, watching Futurama and talking about politics. Each day we get to chat online for like 30 minutes.
annikagyrl: first war where that's been possible, i guess. Thank you Yahoo!, lol
Sarah: We're sorta an odd couple, I'm sure. For example, yesterday we spent our entire time talking about why the dollar is so weak against the Euro. Probably most couples don't talk about that stuff!
Chuck Z's wife laughed at me that my husband and I use our deployment conversation time to talk politics. But every chat is full of names like Obama, Palin, Krauthammer, and Steyn. We spend most of our time talking bailout and Biden. Is that abnormal? It seems fun to me.
My youngest brother misses being a kid. If he could be six years old for the rest of his life, he would take it in a heartbeat. But I have always enjoyed getting older and looked forward to the day I would be a grown-up. I have never wished I were still in high school or college; I have gladly passed those years by.
But I sure miss dancing.
Boy, did I used to dance. Any chance I could get, I was breakin' it down. That's probably why I weighed ten pounds less! And when I was home on break from college, my brother, who has remarkable skills for a white boy, and I used to turn his bedroom into a dance-off. Some of my best memories are dancing and laughing with my brother. But then I got married, and married ladies don't go shake their junk at clubs. I had successfully graudated to adulthood and left my party days behind, and I didn't really miss it...until CaliValleyGirl's wedding. It was my first dancing in five years, and it totally whet my appetite again. I really miss it. (And CVG said something funny like "You're too...Republican to dance like that." Ha.) I have started secretly dancing more here at home, with the dog staring at me like I'm nuts.
Shoot, it's a good thing I wasn't at the Penthouse Party, because if I had had 12 gin & tonics like AWTM and Guard Wife did, I woulda been on the pole.
So I don't regret much about growing up, but I do miss dancing. I started thinking about it again yesterday; respectable married ladies don't dance, but respectable moms sure don't. My dancing days are really over.
Maybe my brother can come for a visit and we can turn my house into a private club for a day.
AWTM blogged the debate too, which I failed to point out earlier. Brought to you by Carl's Jr.
And 13 years late is better than never.
I am feeling better emotionally tonight, especially after a great chat with my husband. I told him that I really miss him and that, while I have had fun watching the debates with his friend, it's not the same. He said:
well when you've been in love as long as we have personalites start to merge
you become more or less one person
it's like talking to yourself
Yep, I miss my better half.
On the physical side, I feel terrible. I was told I might have "some cramping," but this is nearly as bad as the miscarriage. I did not expect to hurt this much. I hope it doesn't feel like this tomorrow.
The farce continues at the fertility clinic. I found out I had to give myself a HCG shot, so I had to go pick it up. I arrived, the nurse handed me a paper with instructions, and I went home. I read the paper and saw it says that I have to come in the next morning for bloodwork. This had never been mentioned before, so I called and left a message for the nurse to confirm the info. She called back a few hours later and said that I do not have to come in. Geez almighty, could this process get any more muddled? Who's running this clinic, the Mad Hatter?
So Wednesday night I went to my neighbor's house so she could give me my HCG shot. She was gleeful. I pinched my tummy fat and she came at me with the needle. It didn't go in as easily as she thought it would, so there was a little more of a push than she geared up for. But it didn't hurt any more than any other needleprick. And that was that.
Thursday I didn't feel so great. My lower abdomen was hurting. Not serious pain, but enough to make me uncomfortable all day long.
And I couldn't sleep last night. I was pumped up on dorkosterone from the debate, and I started to miss my husband very much. I began to worry: worry that this might not work, worry that it might work too well, worry that this baby will also die, worry that I will be a bad parent. I did not sleep one wink last night, hence the middle-of-the-night debate post.
I was a zombie when I arrived at the cryobank this morning. The TV in the waiting room was playing Jon and Kate Plus Eight. That seems a tad inauspicious. And did you know that you hand carry the (ahem) male contribution to the hospital. They say the best place to keep it warm and safe is tucked in your bra. That's an awful weird thing to have tucked there. And you instinctively keep reaching up to make sure it's still there, so I'm sure I looked freakish to passersby.
I got to the clinic and was seen remarkably promptly. The process hurt a little more than I expected it to, but it was quick. They like you to lie there for 20 minutes, so the doctor and nurse left me alone in a room to become impregnated.
I took my knitting with me because I thought it would be a funny story to say that I was knitting while I got pregnant. But when the moment came, I didn't feel much like jokes.
I lay there alone for 20 minutes and cried.
Best comment I've seen so far about the debate:
Buford Gooch: CNN and ABC already had focus groups of “uncommitted” voters saying it was Biden by a landslide. I think too many of them mistook “uncommitted to candidate” for “uncommitted to an asylum”.
And am I the only one who had a problem with this answer to which long-held view Biden has changed?
BIDEN: Yes, I can. When I got to the United States Senate and went on the Judiciary Committee as a young lawyer, I was of the view and had been trained in the view that the only thing that mattered was whether or not a nominee appointed, suggested by the president had a judicial temperament, had not committed a crime of moral turpitude, and was -- had been a good student.
And it didn't take me long -- it was hard to change, but it didn't take me long, but it took about five years for me to realize that the ideology of that judge makes a big difference.
That's why I led the fight against Judge Bork. Had he been on the court, I suspect there would be a lot of changes that I don't like and the American people wouldn't like, including everything from Roe v. Wade to issues relating to civil rights and civil liberties.
I think Biden got this exactly backwards. Judges are not supposed to rule based on ideology; they rule based on constitutionality. No one else seems to be talking about this one, so maybe I am overreacting. But it simply doesn't matter what changes Biden would or would not like to see. The only thing that matters is what the Constitution says. It just seems to me that this is a gross misunderstanding of the judicial system.
Of course, he didn't do so hot on the legislative branch either.
Some may say that it was the shot of HCG, but I beg to differ.
I think Sarah Palin made me ovulate.
More tomorrow, but hellz yeah.
It feels a little narcissistic to blog this, but I have to let people know how touched I am. Long-time reader MaryIndiana started a Trying To Grok fan club on Facebook. And every time I look at it, I kinda want to cry. You can't imagine how honored it makes me feel.
And my little brother found the group and joined too. Sniff.
If you've been to my house, you've surely noticed my cowboy-themed bathroom. I've heard all sorts of comments on it, ranging from "Oh my, that's...different" to "No fair, your wife lets you have a picture of The Magnificent Seven hanging in your bathroom!" I fell in love with the shower curtain when I was engaged, and my mom bought it for me as a gift.
One of my friends likes the curtain too and wanted to get one. She searched eBay.
Nobody tell my husband I'm sitting on a gold mine...
From The Corner:
I just watched the Palin-Couric Supreme Court exchange. It strikes me that Palin's critics and defenders are both right. The Supreme Court question was a bit "pop quiz." What was trying to be gleaned here? Palin is not a lawyer or Supreme Court historian. But she could have said that, and then elaborated on her judicial philosophy. She could have discussed how court rulings have influenced policy she's had to carry out as governor, for example. But that on-camera confidence takes practice to acquire. And in the beginning, its really hard.
I heard the exchange too, and I knew exactly what Sarah Palin was doing. She was searching her brain for the right answer, the best answer. I know because I do it too, every time I sit on a panel at SpouseBUZZ or the Milblogs Conference. My body tenses when a question is directed at me and all I can think in my brain is "Don't say something dumb, please let me know the answer." And my moderators aren't out to get me!
In Las Vegas last week, Guard Wife asked me which SpouseBUZZ posts get the most comments. I got a deer-in-headlights look on my face and wracked my brain as quickly as I could to come up with what I thought was the right answer, the factually correct answer. I wanted to answer the question well.
The politician's trick though is to just open your mouth and start saying whatever is tangentially related to the question you've been asked to steer the conversation to what you want to talk about.
Sarah Palin apparently hasn't mastered that trick. But I don't really see why that is a bad thing.
If someone asks her which Supreme Court decision she doesn't like, I want her to really search her brain and come up with one. I don't want her to just start flapping her gums around the question.
Here's what happened at the beginning of the first presidential debate:
LEHRER: Gentlemen, at this very moment tonight, where do you stand on the financial recovery plan?
First response to you, Senator Obama. You have two minutes.
OBAMA: Well, thank you very much, Jim, and thanks to the commission and the University of Mississippi, "Ole Miss," for hosting us tonight. I can't think of a more important time for us to talk about the future of the country.
You know, we are at a defining moment in our history. Our nation is involved in two wars, and we are going through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
And although we've heard a lot about Wall Street, those of you on Main Street I think have been struggling for a while, and you recognize that this could have an impact on all sectors of the economy.
And you're wondering, how's it going to affect me? How's it going to affect my job? How's it going to affect my house? How's it going to affect my retirement savings or my ability to send my children to college?
So we have to move swiftly, and we have to move wisely. And I've put forward a series of proposals that make sure that we protect taxpayers as we engage in this important rescue effort.
So he spent at least a minute in a two-minute answer saying absolutely nothing. And then McCain does the same baloney, and then Lehrer has to come back and re-ask both the candidates to answer the fricking question. That's how politics works. You do everything you can not to answer the question.
Sarah Palin hasn't figured that out yet. That's why some of us are OK with her.
Rachel Lucas on racial hypocrisy.
I heart Thomas Sowell.
Somebody send Sarkozy a copy of Basic Economics or Capitalism and Freedom. Apparently he needs a good economics lesson:
The idea of an all-powerful market without any rules and any political intervention is mad. Self-regulation is finished. Laissez faire is finished. The all-powerful market that is always right is finished.
I just keep reading that paragraph, open-mouthed at its stupidity. Or, as LT Nixon recently quoted, "What you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."