u235

If there is any victory to be had in this unpopular war, it's allocated to the marketing strategist that equated money to support. Time and again the line has been used that to shut of or even limit funding for the war is to be unsupportive of the "men and women who are laying their lives on the line in a foreign land."

Ok, it's time to call bullshit on that.

Why is money support? How does funding a "war" ensure that those men and women don't give their lives and their health unnecessarily? The fact is - it doesn't. Just as the military was sending soldiers out without body armor (which costs money), just as the new Stryker APC doesn't protect against roadside bombs (Strykers cost money), in reality money is not the answer.

If you're still having a hard time grasping why giving the current administration unlimited access to funds is NOT the same as protecting our service men and women, consider this: When a heroin addict needs a fix, are you supporting them by giving them money? Or are you better supporting them by helping them get over their addiction?

This war has been an addiction, for the little man at the top who likes to play soldiers with real lives. Giving him the freedom to feed his addiction is not supporting our troops. Honestly supporting them means protecting them, only committing them when really necessary, and giving them hope by telling them when they can come home for good.

A soldier is really being supported when he gets to return to his or her family in one piece. And statistically, the sooner that happens, the better.

Ok so I encountered a new term today "babymoon". From the article I gathered that it's for first-time couples who want to enjoy their remaining moments as a duo before becoming a trio (or more). The article went on to describe the joys of a "spontaneous babymoon" given to one wife by her husband. While I was reading this all I could think of was some woman in Africa or South America or India hauling herself off the field she was tending to give birth and then rest long enough to recover and get back to work.

I'm not sure where the idea that pregnant women and their spouses need to spend a buttload of money just prior to having a baby (where you will be spending a buttload of money to cover hospital expenses, diapers, bottles, car seats... you know actual necessities) came from, but clearly the pre-natal industry has found a potential gold mine.

"A babymoon is not only about pampering, but about slowing down enough to savor the pregnancy," Ms. Perlman said . "It helps mom keep in touch with her sensuality, with her body, and to embrace the change that is happening in her life."

Wtf.

Ok first, "slowing down enough to savor the pregnancy". Correct me here, but most women who are pregnant are pretty slowed down as it is. You don't see 8 month pregnant women turboing from place to place in a frenzy. From my observation it's more along the lines of: heave yourself up from a seat, waddle over to next activity, sit down and perform activity, rest.

And savor? Savor what? The additional 40 lbs you're carrying around? Having a small animal stomp your internal organs as it tries to get comfortable within your abdomen? Or maybe they're referring to hemorrhoids? Or the fact that you can't take any cold or allergy medication other than Tylenol and Sudafed?

Next, "it helps mom keep in touch with her sensuality". Roflmao. No comment. Moving right along.

Finally, "and to embrace the change that is happening in her life". As opposed to what? Rejecting it?

It makes a lot of sense that the only people who would buy into the concept of a "babymoon" are newb parents. Once you've been through the "miracle" you realize what a lot of hype and nonsense all that crap is. Of course it rather has to be that way or humans would be more loathe to reproduce.

Hmmm... maybe that's not such a bad thing.

They did a DNA analysis on a "certified" relic of Jesus and found out that his Y chromosome didn't match his X?

... and we found out to whom the Y really did match?

I guess that enough time has elapsed that bits of information describing the current administration's early workings are leaking out. The latest fervor on what seemed to be a deceased issue, that of the patently illegal e-tapping of american's phones and email, has reached a new low. The news has described how administration officials tried to coerce (and that's using a nice word) the attorney general into renewing the NSA program by trying to force him to sign it while he was extremely sick. To be more descriptive, Ashcroft was in the hospital when the president himself called his wife telling her that he was sending people to his hospital room even though she had said he was too ill to have visitors.

Now that's a nice boss eh?

Regardless of the abusive tactics, Ashcroft refused to sign the document even when he was essentially too sick to move. You have to give the man credit, he clearly was made of some stern stuff. He was even able to lift his head from the pillow and tell them why he still wouldn't sign it.

When the deputy AG, who was witness to this, refused to be browbeaten into signing our president stepped in. In effect he decided that he had the authority to enable the program to continue, regardless.

Nice eh? Laws? What laws?

In in the after word to this nasty little story, the antagonists in question claim that they "saved countless lives" through their noble actions. Uh right yeah, the same way my little cousin prevents rain on a sunny day by doing their "sunny-day dance".

Like the title says: Easy to claim, hard to prove.

Oh, and one of the two goons that tried to harass an ailing man into signing a document against his will? Yeah, that's right - the poster-boy for truth and justice: Gonzales.