Spent the last three days snowed in. I would have stayed again but my office was open and the only problem I have is finding a spot to park in once I get back. The snow is annoying. I have a very clear recollection of being in elementary school and walking home one blistering cold morning. I decided then and there that I would rather die in the heat than in the cold. With the heat you just pass out and you’re done with. With the cold you slow down and get sluggish. I understand that you get sleepy as you become hypothermic, but I’m not patient enough. What if I’m only freezing in 30 degree weather? It’ll take me forever to go hypo. With the overheating, it’s over. I know a baseball player just died a few days ago from heat exhaustion, but I understand he was also doing some over the counter meds that didn’t go with his regimen. Sad. I still pick heat.
Want to read my rant about the peace marches and how they’re nice but in the end will do nothing? If you are already offended by the description I’ve just given, I’d recommend *not* clicking. Otherwise…
This annoying war talk has taken me back to late 1990 when everyone was whining about the exact same things about going to war. Almost all of the points are the same. There were rallies then, too. Why doesn’t anybody remember this? Why weren’t there rallies before we attacked Afghanistan?
If you will step into the wayback machine briefly you will find several instances of pacifist folks who said we shouldn’t attack Afghanistan. These guys were berated as unAmerican and ignored for the most part. Now that we have become comfortable again we are playing our favorite game… the Second-Guessing game. You don’t have to know anything to play! You just need an opinion. No wonder it’s so popular. Anyway, so, were we really more justified attacking Afghanistan than Iraq? Polls show that even *more* people were opposed to 1991 Iraq war compared to the upcoming 2003 Iraq war. And the sad thing is that this appears to be extremely party-line driven. People who didn’t like Bush in the first place I’m sure will chime in on this anti-war thing if they think it will get rid of Bush. Outside of our country where there are no partisan lines, the world generally loves to bash the president of the United States. I remember the good ol’ days when all I heard was Clinton bashing during the Lewinsky debacle which was replaced by controversy over the pardons he made which replaced by controversy of Bush’s bushisms and how he had no command of the English language. Too bad all this nonsense was happening at the same time the 9/11 hijackers were going about their business with flight training and attending Al Q’aada summer camp. They weren’t plotting their attacks with a president in mind. They wanted to f*** up our country and everything it stands for. Whenever I hear someone rant about how we’re headed for World War III, I am reminded of my 4th grade math teacher, Mr. Waltman, bitching in 1981 about how Reagan “was gonna lead us into nuclear war and World War III, no doubt about it!” Right. Everyone always pulls out the ”This will lead to World War III” card whenever they want to justify why we should not pursue a military resolution. Attacking the son of a bitch that is Saddam Hussein will not result in World War III. It’s impossible. I’ll bet the farm on it. After this war is over and the coalition forces have ousted Saddam, the protesters will return their focus to complaining about domestic issues and trying to pin blame for anything and everything. So, I hope this rant doesn’t piss off too many of my less conservative friends. In a year we’ll all have an entirely new issue to talk about. Bet me on this.
