Commies!

On April 9, in a post called “Hypothetical,” I posted a hypothetical news article about the US government spying on Americans’ web usage and compiling a database on over 96 percent of us. People were kind enough to give their responses, from which I have taken selections here…

Greta: Really, it doesn’t bother me if it protects my family.

Don: It sounds reasonably ok to me…
Al: I’d be absolutely appalled if I discovered that my government had such a program.

Chris: Doesn’t bother me one bit.

Dale: Perhaps the threat to America is not government versus the people but the military vs Congress vs Supreme Court vs the Executive Branch, etc., etc.

Meg: Ben Franklin was right. If you trade liberty for security, you get neither.

Bless you Meg and Al, and you too Dale for doing your own thinking. I’m concerned and alarmed that Greta, Don and Chris would be willing to go along with it.

My hypothetical was inspired by an article about Communist China.

BEIJING (Reuters) – China has recorded details of more than 96 percent of its population on a police database, state media reported on Friday, supplementing Internet and other state-sanctioned surveillance.

To make the American version, I had to change the words a bit. But it’s essentially the same article, a Communist Chinese program imposed on the US.

You might think the program is evil in China because they have an evil government, but OK in America because we can trust St. George … or because Americans inherently love liberty and would never misuse such a program.

Well, my view is that evil is as evil does, and the Constitution was set up to limit government power specifically so that we don’t slide down the slope into totalitarianism in pursuit of a little temporary security.

I’m aghast that there is such a strong tendency in America to surrender our rights.

Greta, Don, and Chris — Hail your new leader:

60 Responses to Commies!

  1. donsingleton April 11, 2006 at 1:52 am #

    Interesting, however there were certainly significant changes, notably the Chinese restrict access to Web sites and blogs posting sensitive material, including topics related to democracy or independence for Tibet and Taiwan and in your hypothetical article you have us monitoring topics related to Islam, terrorism, illegal immigration, drugs, and weapons.

    Neither Tibet nor Taiwan threaten violence against the Chinese state. Both would just like to be left alone, and not absorbed into China.

    Islamofascists and terrorism do threaten violence against us, and while immigration is good, it needs to be controlled, particularly so that drugs and weapons, as well as Islamoterrorists can not cross into our country along with people that want to pick lettuce and mow our lawns.

  2. Meg April 11, 2006 at 2:09 am #

    Don, Just admit you don’t mind being spied on. The article said 96% of people were spied on and you said, it sounded “okay.”

    Brainhell, What more can you expect from people who support a President who used to have fun blowing up frogs?

  3. brainhell April 11, 2006 at 2:09 am #

    > Neither Tibet nor Taiwan threaten violence against the Chinese state.

    Says you, Jackson. I agree with you, but China says they have a right to rule Taiwan, just like Lincoln said the union must be preserved.

    All I did was substitute our hot topics in place of theirs.

    You signed up for an oppressive police state, Don.

  4. Indan Chris April 11, 2006 at 2:19 am #

    There you go again.

    >Bless you Meg and Al, and you too Dale for doing your own thinking.

    So, what, Greta, Don and myself don’t think for ourselves? Because last time I looked I didn’t have a USB port in the back of my head for someone to upload their thoughts to me. What good are your rights if you’re dying from nuclear fallout?

    “By God, I have a month to live thanks to that dirty bomb, but at least Bush isn’t spying on me.”

    “Mommy, why is my hair and teeth falling out?” “Because we have to right to talk on the phone, honey.”

    And Meg, the only reason you should be scared of being “spied” on is if you’re breaking the law. You know, like Clinton did when he raped Juanita Broaddrick.

  5. donsingleton April 11, 2006 at 2:54 am #

    Meg, I dont have anything to hide. Spying on me would be a waste of time, but it does not frighten me. Now if I was doing something I was not supposed to do……

    BH Says you, Jackson. I agree with you, but China says they have a right to rule Taiwan, just like Lincoln said the union must be preserved.

    But even China does not say that they fear Taiwan will attack them. They just see that Taiwan has a lot of money, and they have a “justification” for saying they should rule it. It is not like West Germany wanting to unify with East Germany even though they knew it would hurt their economy having to bring East Germany up to their level.

  6. Meg April 11, 2006 at 2:57 am #

    IC,

    History says your examples should be more like this:

    “Mommy why is Daddy being taken away? Because the government caught him speaking out against the war, thereby giving aid to the enemy, and the government is trying to protect us against that enemy.”

    Oh, and isn’t blowing up frogs against the law? I would LOVE to be the prosecutor in Midland, I’d hall Bush into court so fast it would make his head spin. Darn those statutes of limitations!

  7. Al Kasprzyk April 11, 2006 at 3:02 am #

    Frogs… French… Frogs… French…

    There’s a thought in there somewhere. 🙂

    What is this frog story, anyway?

  8. Meg April 11, 2006 at 3:05 am #

    Don,

    “Meg, I dont have anything to hide. Spying on me would be a waste of time, but it does not frighten me. Now if I was doing something I was not supposed to do……”

    The fact that it doesn’t scare you is what’s really scary. Have you read 1984?

  9. Meg April 11, 2006 at 3:10 am #

    Al, Bush used to blow up frogs, for fun, when he was a little boy. Just thinking about people hurting defenseless animals it makes my face turn red.

    “We were terrible to animals,” recalled Mr. Throckmorton, laughing. A dip behind the Bush home turned into a small lake after a good rain, and thousands of frogs would come out.

    “Everybody would get BB guns and shoot them,” Mr. Throckmorton said. “Or we’d put firecrackers in the frogs and throw them and blow them up.”

    http://partners.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/052100wh-gop-bush-bio.html

  10. Indan Chris April 11, 2006 at 3:13 am #

    Show me where someone was arrested for speaking out against the war.

  11. Meg April 11, 2006 at 3:15 am #

    IC, Show me where someone got blown up with a nuclear (not nukculare) bomb because our laws prevented us from spying on them.

  12. Indian Chris April 11, 2006 at 3:18 am #

    Give me a year or two and I will.

  13. brainhell April 11, 2006 at 3:38 am #

    > Show me where someone was arrested for speaking out against the war.

    That woman who wore an anti-war t-shirt to Bush’s speech was arrested.

    > So, what, Greta, Don and myself don’t think for ourselves?

    I notice that you are trying to divert into any number of topics rather than address that you signed up for a Communist Chinese police state. (I should have typed “Bless you Al and Meg. And you too Dale…”)

    > What good are your rights if you’re dying from nuclear fallout?

    What good is a president who doesn’t protect us from a dirty bomb? The GAO recently snuck enough materials for two dirty bombs in from the north and south. Meanwhile, King George is taking our right away while people like you applaid him for ‘protecting’ us! Good going, Comrade Chris!

    > …Taiwan…

    Don,

    From the Confederacy’s point of view, they were no threat to the North, just wanted to be left alone. You signed up for a totalitarian Chinese Communist police state, Don. Don’t try to scurry off down into a side debate about China, take personal responsibility for what you did!

  14. Al Kasprzyk April 11, 2006 at 3:39 am #

    Indian Chris — I don’t think what might happen in Iran counts.

  15. Meg April 11, 2006 at 3:41 am #

    I.C.

    What, did your crystal ball tell you that was going to happen?

    Here is an example of people being arrested for just looking like the people we were fighting:

    http://www.children-of-the-camps.org/

  16. brainhell April 11, 2006 at 3:50 am #

    Meg,

    If I may, Chris is going to say that WWII is ancient history. We don’t round up and jail innocent people any more — except that over 70 percent of the ‘insurgents’ we were jailing in Iraq a while back were innocent.

  17. Meg April 11, 2006 at 3:55 am #

    WWII is ancient history???!?!?!?!?! People who fought in it are STILL Living!

    Ugh, but you are most likely right Brainhell.

    IC,

    Scratch my WWII example, and let’s go with Brainhell’s example about the woman wearing the anit-war t-shirt.

  18. donsingleton April 11, 2006 at 4:17 am #

    Although she was arrested at other times, she was just removed from the speach for wearing the T Shirt, as was another woman who was wearing a support our troops shirt

    And it was not Bush or any of his people that removed either of them.

    It was the capitol police enforcing a no-demonstration rule congress itself instituted for the gallery.

  19. Greta April 11, 2006 at 4:18 am #

    OK – you caught me “red-handed.” You blew my secret agent cover as an agent for the Chinese Communist party – so sue me. Matter of fact, get the ACLU to sue me!

  20. Greta April 11, 2006 at 4:28 am #

    You totally twisted the story to gain the results you wished for. You could have asked it 1,000 ways and you could twist it so someone would agree even if they are opposed to the whole thing.

  21. brainhell April 11, 2006 at 5:17 am #

    > You totally twisted the story to gain the results you wished for.

    The result I wished for was for you and the others to say “This is going too far.”

    > … you could twist it so someone would agree even if they are opposed to the whole thing.

    How do I get someone to agree with something they oppose? That’s impossible.

  22. brainhell April 11, 2006 at 5:22 am #

    > Although she was arrested at other times, she was just removed from the speach for wearing the T Shirt…

    Don, you are mistaken. She was ARRESTED at the speech FOR WEARING the shirt. No one said Bush arrested her. You asked “Show me where someone was arrested for speaking out against the war.” That’s done, cross it off your list — and don’t bother trying to move the goal posts.

  23. Greta April 11, 2006 at 5:46 am #

    Do you think communism is bad?
    Do you think people in Communist China are treated unfairly?
    Do you think people should be persecuted for their religious beliefs?
    Do you think that the Department of Homeland Security is a neccesary entity in the US?
    Are you opposed to the governement breaking up child porn rings? Terrorist cells? Drug dealers?

    Just the way you word it – and I don’t change my beliefs – but am open to others.

  24. brainhell April 11, 2006 at 6:07 am #

    > Do you think communism is bad?

    Yes.

    > Do you think people in Communist China are treated unfairly?

    Yes.

    > Do you think people should be persecuted for their religious beliefs?

    No.

    > Do you think that the Department of Homeland Security is a neccesary entity in the US?

    Remains to be seen, but they haven’t made our borders secure against smuggling of radioactive materials. Someone should.

    > Are you opposed to the governement breaking up child porn rings? Terrorist cells? Drug dealers?

    Nope.

    > Just the way you word it – and I don’t change my beliefs – but am open to others.

    It was a pretty starkly oppressive hypothetical program. I think that many of us are too willing to surrender American values in pursuit of a little temporary security.

  25. Indian Chris April 11, 2006 at 6:22 am #

    Bh and Meg, like Don said, she wasn’t arrested. But anyway, protests aren’t allowed in the US Capital. It’s law. No one has been arrested for protesting this war. Everyone who’s been arrested has been arrested for other reasons. Trespassing, causing a disturbance and such. Including your hero Cindy Sheehan.

  26. donsingleton April 11, 2006 at 8:17 am #

    BH – she was removed, she was not arrested, for wearing the shirt, and you just admitted it. And it was IC that asked that (in #10 http://hooahwife.com/?p=825#comment-1212), not me.

  27. Meg April 11, 2006 at 8:31 am #

    Actually, she was arrested.

    http://dailynightly.msnbc.com/2006/01/cindy_sheehan_w.html

  28. Indian Chris April 11, 2006 at 10:11 am #

    Okay. You want me to say “She was arrested for protesting the war” then you’ll say “Ah ha, see” then I’ll say “But she wasn’t arrested for protesting the war, she was arrested for protesting period which isn’t allowed in the US Capital” then you’ll say “Well, what about the other woman. She wasn’t arrested” then I’ll say “She wasn’t protesting, she was supporting” then we can go on and on back and forth leading no where while I get more and more bored with this.

    And I’ll admit I’m wrong when that day comes.

  29. Dale April 11, 2006 at 10:19 am #

    I think that it is easy to lose sight of what is important.
    “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    When you are not a player in the political process, it is easy for you to say “Just surveill me, I have nothing to hide.” However, if you are active , the idea that you may be surveilled and have your information used against you is significantly intrusive.
    What would you do if it was disclosed that your 19 year old son or daughter had contributed to an Islamic “charity” that supported terror tactics AND this inforamtion was learned by data mining techniques? Your son or daughter thought they were contributing to a charity that provided food and shelter to children but the FBI knows otherwise.
    How about the payments you made to your psychiatrist, who happens to be a Muslim-American, but you did not know that his brother was in Syria for military training? You are placed on the No-Fly list but don’t know why and are picked up for questioning by the FBI and held for hours.
    Or , suppose you are a journalist with Middle East connections and all of your telephone calls are being monitored to your Mid East friends that are politically incorrect; those tapped calls include those of your 16 year old daughter discussing her emerging sexuality with her girl friend; or your kooky uncle who always says ‘we should just kill the b*st*rd’ when talking about the President. He does not mean it, he is just an old man spouting off but one day you say ,”I agree, Uncle Bill.” Now you are conspiring.
    Which one of you parents would allow a stranger to listen to your children’s phone calls?
    And what happens when it is your county government and not the FBI who monitors you? or your family?

    I know I risk sounding paranoid. I am not. There is just no logical reason why you sould give someone else power over you. Which of you would give this power to your neighbor, your cousin, your mother-in-law, or your boss? If you cannot give this power to someone that you already know, why in the world would you give it to someone you do not know?

    Do we really need another lesson in why we should not trust ANY government?

  30. brainhell April 11, 2006 at 11:09 am #

    > And I’ll admit I’m wrong when that day comes.

    The day has come and gone many times. This is just another chapter.

    Both Meg and I have provided URLs to articles about her BEING ARRESTED. You and Don both said she was not arrested. I understand that you intend to dance around about WHY she was arrested. But you stated flatly that she was not arrested. Flatly. you both said she was not arresed.

    SHE WAS ARRESTED.

    It’s your right to debate about WHY she was arrested, but please, for your own sakes, realize that SHE WAS ARRESTED.

  31. brainhell April 11, 2006 at 11:09 am #

    Commies.

  32. Al Kasprzyk April 11, 2006 at 1:49 pm #

    Brainhell asks, “How do I get someone to agree with something they oppose? That’s impossible.”

    I disagree. Reasonable people should be persuaded by rational arguments. I have changed my opinion over time on several important topics though reading the intelligent arguments of others. Too many people seem to gloat about their closed minded attitudes — this is nothing to be proud of, but something to be deeply ashamed about.

    In answer to Greta’s question about whether people should be persecuted for their religious beliefs (not, I think, a direct question, but serving the purpose of illustrating a point), Brainhell answers an unequivocal “no“. Are you so sure?

    What is their religious belief is to torture young children? Or to subject women to an inhuman existence? You seem to be assuming a priori that the religion in question is reasonable, perhaps supposing that it is one of the major religions.

    Perhaps the problem lies in “persecute”. What does it mean to persecute somebody? Is imprisoning somebody for breaking the law persecution? It is clearly a word with negative connotations; is France persecuting Muslims by banning the hijab in state schools?

    On a different matter, Indian Chris points out that “protests aren’t allowed in the US Capital”. He doesn’t offer any justification for this ruling, nor an interpretation of the morality. It resembles a similar law recently enacted in the UK.

    On 7th April 2002 Tony Blair said “When I pass protestors every day at Downing Street, and believe me, you name it, they protest against it, I may not like what they call me, but I thank God they can. That’s called freedom”. On 2nd August 2005 he demonstrated his true feelings by banning unauthorised protests outside Parliament.

    The area in which non-government sanctions protests are prohibited includes The Houses of Parliament, Parliament Square and Downing Street, the Home Office, the Foreign Office, the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence. Robin Grant wrote a very good article at the time, which I suggest you read.

    Fortunately we still possess a sense of what liberty entails. The Parliament Square Peace Campaign is doing a wonderful job highlighting this injustice. Perhaps something similar exists in the US?

  33. Al Kasprzyk April 11, 2006 at 2:02 pm #

    Brainhell quoted an article, part of which read: “Cindy Sheeham wore a shirt with the message ‘2,245 Dead. How many more?’… [she] was arrested around 8:30 p.m. ET on charges of unlawful conduct.”

    To this, Don Singleton immediately replied “BH – she was removed, she was not arrested, for wearing the shirt, and you just admitted it.” I really understand how Don’s response squares with the evidence Brainhell provided.

    Perhaps “unlawful conduct” refers to some action other than the wearing of the shirt? If so, what?

  34. Al Kasprzyk April 11, 2006 at 2:05 pm #

    I’m full of typos this morning. 🙁

  35. Meg April 11, 2006 at 7:42 pm #

    Al, “Unlawful conduct” is what she was arrested for. But she was still arrested.

    It’s really a minor point though. The fact is that we are not a country that can be trusted with ability so spy on everyone, because human nature has not substantially evolved since: WWII, the Milgram experiment, and McCarthyism.

    The founding fathers knew that governments (even democratic ones) couldn’t be trusted with free reign. The question is, given that history is required to finish high school, why doesn’t everyone else know this (or at least acknowledge that it has been problematic)?

  36. donsingleton April 11, 2006 at 9:28 pm #

    Al I suspect she resisted being removed, while the lady with the Support Our Troops went quietly.

  37. brainhell April 11, 2006 at 9:43 pm #

    Don and Chris: You stated that she was not arrested. Now slowly form these words: “She … was … arrested.” Feel free to debate whether or not therre was good reason, but admit you were wrong, you Commies.

    Al: Yes, persuasion is possible, but I meant that it is impossible to get someone to agree with something that they concurrently oppose. And of course you can flavor any bad thing as a good thing. Naturally I would ‘persecute’ a religion that involves eating live children. You’re playing transparent rhetorical games.

  38. donsingleton April 11, 2006 at 11:36 pm #

    BH, are you unable to debate anything without namecalling and ad hominum attacks?

    Is that why your “brain” is “hell”?

  39. Greta April 11, 2006 at 11:58 pm #

    Personally, I could give a rat’s ass what happens to “she who not be named” the media whore. This discussion is going nowhere because hate has fogged BH’s rose colored glasses that were blue to begin with.

    Thanks Al, for recognizing my points.

    Meg, I know there is love in there somewhere, I do not hate – loathe, despise maybe, but hate & spewing hate doesn’t make your point. You are always a good sport & I enjoy your comments.

    Good arguments can persuade anyone, but when you start with an attack, nobody will follow, they will shutdown! Including this open-minded & opinionatedperson!

  40. Al Kasprzyk April 12, 2006 at 2:21 am #

    In response to my comment here, Brainhell replied, “[y]ou’re playing transparent rhetorical games”.

    More or less. But I think less rather than more. I picked up on your response to the religious persecution question because the possible undesirable consequences struck me immediately.

    Religious matters should not be placed on a pedestal, protected from valid criticism. But this would be the consequence of your response — criticism is often perceived as persecution, and so would be stifled when it came to religion.

    Groundless criticism is a form of persecution, and is undeniably wrong. Hateful, or vengeful abuse is persecution, and again has no place in civilised society. But persistent valid criticism is often intensely annoying to the recipient — this is an acceptable form of persecution.

    My point is this: unwarranted persecution is often portrayed by the instigators as valid criticism; conversely, valid criticism is often perceived as persecution. Thus opposing persecution per se is ill-advised.

    Nothing new here. So yeah, probably right actually… more rather than less… 🙂

  41. brainhell April 12, 2006 at 3:18 am #

    >BH, are you unable to debate anything without namecalling and ad hominum attacks?

    Don,

    I notice a sudden topic change…

    Greta,

    Fine that you don’r care anout Sheehan, but are you concerned that Don and Chris say she was not arrested? And yes, niceness is good, but I’m horrified that you and Don and Chris signed up for a Communist totalitarian state!

    Al K.,

    I didn’t mean that your rhetorical games were malicious. In my mind persecutioin is inherently unfair, even if the dictionary doesn’t say so. So, using that definition, persecution is always bad. Criticiism of those crazed Scientologists, for example, is just criticism, despite that they would call it persecution. Same with calling Don and Chris on their factual errors. Some might call it mean, but facts is facts and they ain’t got ’em.

  42. Al Kasprzyk April 12, 2006 at 3:44 am #

    Brainhell — fair deal.

  43. donsingleton April 12, 2006 at 7:45 am #

    BH What topic change?

  44. brainhell April 12, 2006 at 9:07 am #

    Don: You stated that she was not arrested. Now slowly form these words: “She … was … arrested.” Feel free to debate whether or not there was good reason, but admit you were wrong, you Don.

  45. donsingleton April 12, 2006 at 9:52 am #

    She was NOT arrested for wearing the shirt, in violation of policy as the Capitol Police knew it at the time. She may have been arrested for resisting the police, or unlawful conduct. I know she has been arrested for such events several times, including a few trespassing charges.

    She should have been charged for exceeding her 15 minutes of fame.

  46. Meg April 12, 2006 at 9:06 pm #

    Don and Chris,

    Your hair splitting about Cindy is really beyond the point.

    So okay, forget about her, and look at all the other examples, throughout history, where the US and other countries have treated citizens badly during war. You can look at Japanese internment during WWII, or you can look at spying on peace groups during this war on terror.

    The fact is, governments have proven themselves unworthy of this kind of power over and over again in history, not only because they abuse it, but because they can’t even use the powers effectively to protect us.

    Did you know that there were available wiretaps before 9/11? And guess how many wiretap warrants the government requested for the hijackers? Zero. They don’t even use the tools they have! Why should we give them more?

  47. brainhell April 13, 2006 at 12:03 am #

    Meg,

    There’ll be no end of new rhetoric about new topics. I for one am very interested in how assiduously Don and Chris can deny the bald facts.

    Don,

    > She was NOT arrested for wearing the shirt.

    You stated flatly that she was not arrested. Period. I understand your spin on WHY she was arrested (it may have been for driving too slowly), but you stated flatly that she was not arrested. You said she was not arrested. Not. Arrested. You didn’t add and clauses, you said she was NOT arrested. At all. And you were wrong. Hello in there!

  48. donsingleton April 13, 2006 at 1:34 am #

    She was removed without arrest. Whether she was arrested an hour, or a week, later, is beside the point. I have no doubt she was arrested many times.

    Meg, if you really believe governments have proven themselves unworthy of this kind of power over and over again in history, do you recommend we get rid of governments and live in anarchy?

  49. Meg April 13, 2006 at 2:02 am #

    Don,

    Do you know what minimizing an argument means? Well, it’s a frowned upon technique for debate. Don’t twist my point to suit your needs. Try arguing with it based on its merits.

  50. brainhell April 13, 2006 at 3:36 am #

    Don,

    Your ability to deny reality is phenomenal. You ought to be president, really!

  51. donsingleton April 13, 2006 at 7:46 am #

    Meg, this thread is getting a bit long, and quite boring, especially with regards to BH

    In regards to the lack of requested wiretaps of the 9/11 terrorists, the FBI wanted to get search warrents and wiretap warrents but because of the wall Jamie Gorilic established between law enforcement and intelligence their bosses would not let them proceed

    BH, thanks for your endorsement, but I dont plan to run. My ethics prevent me from becoming a politician (in either party).

  52. brainhell April 13, 2006 at 8:33 am #

    Your ethics!? ¿Quales tienes?

  53. Meg April 13, 2006 at 9:39 pm #

    Don,

    “In regards to the lack of requested wiretaps of the 9/11 terrorists, the FBI wanted to get search warrants and wiretap warrants but because of the wall Jamie Gorilic established between law enforcement and intelligence their bosses would not let them proceed”

    But that isn’t the law’s fault. It’s the law enforcement agency’s fault.

    BH,

    Excellent Spanish! : )

  54. donsingleton April 14, 2006 at 12:55 am #

    No it is Jamie Gorilic’s fault

  55. Meg April 14, 2006 at 1:15 am #

    Well then Don, propose new laws against her and not new interpretations of the executive power.

  56. donsingleton April 14, 2006 at 9:28 pm #

    That is exactly what the Patriot Act was (i.e. a law against the stupid Gorilic wall. If you are asking for a law specifically against Jamie Gorilic, a Bill of Attainder would be unconstitutional (The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.”)

  57. Meg April 15, 2006 at 1:55 am #

    The Patriot Act was more than just a law about how to get America’s intelligence agencies to stop being dumb. It was about taking away personal liberties that there is no evidence the government needs.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Hooah Wife and friends » Al K., master of pseudoscience - May 8, 2006

    […] On April 8 I created a hypothetical government spying program and asked the folks at the Hooah Wife blog how they’d feel about it.  I was appalled that several people thought it was a good idea.  The hypothetical I’d described was inspired by a government spying program in Communist China.  When I revealed this, and called them commies, some took umbrage.  Not Hooah Wife commenter Al K., he cooked up a plan to hoist me on my own petard.  Or at least, I assume he did.  We’ve emailed each other before.  A few days after my hypothetical, he emailed me a scientific article called “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.” […]

  2. brainhell: 04/01/2006 - 04/30/2006 - August 14, 2006

    […] Tuesday, April 11, 2006 Hooah BrouhahaThere are some Bush supporters and Intelligent Design folks who are worried about those darned illegals and that danged ACLU — at a blog called “Hooah Wife.” But to the credit of the rather fetching and tolerant woman who started the site, Greta, she has invited others to contribute to the blog. I have been lucky enough to have been given that honor. On the site, I frequently spar with people who support warrantless wiretaps. So when I ran across a news story on Sunday about how China spies on its citizens, I was inspired to flavor the article about the Chinese program in American terms, and ask if people would support such a hypothetical program. To my horror, several did. On Monday, I revealed the basis of the hypothetical, and maturely and restrainedly called people Commies. Some feathers were ruffled. God Bless America.Left grip is 26 pounds (22, 25, 26), right grip is 70 pounds (60, 70, 65). Yesterday, because a provisions error by the home nursing agency, I did not have a ceftriaxone dose. But I resumed today, about four hours before I took these metrics. […]

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes