People keep talking about how the world changed on 9/11.
It didn’t. The world was filled with terrorists, and bombs, and people living in fear, and attacks on home grounds. The world remained exactly the same. Only our perception of it changed. We became both of and in the world.
It’s five years later. Anyone feeling safer?
I also find it interesting that the Democrats have surrendered the moral high ground in terms of TV presentation. Here the GOP managed to get the Reagan biopic banished to cable because they didn’t like the way it presented their political saint, and now the Democrats managed to get the miniseries on 9/11, based on the findings of the bi-partisan committee, re-edited so that it wouldn’t seem as if President Clinton was too distracted by Monicagate to go after bin Laden…except I find it difficult to believe any reasonable person could think that the harassment over Lewinsky didn’t impede Clinton’s effectiveness on any number of levels.
Quick, kids. There’s some history. Let’s rewrite it.
PAD
• 
“I don’t know how much any of this is applicable to the situation in the Middle East.”
The mindset…the mindset is the same.
The most powerful weapon in the world is a man wholly dedicated to his cause…
There is one situation where the use of nuclear bombs could potentially be of use in the Middle East but I’m hesitant to even bring it up. If radical Islamic types were to fear that Israel or the USA or whoever would destroy Mecca it could be a powerful deterrent. The problem is that to even threaten such an action could set them off so the deterrent factor might be greatly overwhelmed by the rage the threat would incur.
It also presupposes that the radical Islamists are, in fact, true believers, which I have some doubts over. Certainly, Bin Laden has not shown himself to be in any hurry to collect his 72 virgins. The Japanese military mindset believed that a glorious death in battle was a thing to be desired. The atomic bomb took away all hope of that and gave the Emperor the excuse he needed to overrule them. I’m not sure that the people we are facing today are of the same mind.
And, at any rate, the Japanese were first and foremost, patriots of Japan and its culture. If the people we are fighting are true believers in their version of Islam, blowing up Saudi Arabia will not mean much, unless they happen to be there. A radical living in London or New York will not be stopped. In this case we are fighting an ideology, not a country. Bombs are too broad a weapon in such fights. Seems to me that this is a war better fought with assassinations–kill the leaders, kill the leaders that replace them, then the ones that replace them, until the quality of leadership is so degenerated that they cease to be effective.
(A story today says that we had the chance to take out a bunch of them at a funeral and didn’t do so because it goes against the rule of engagement. If true,our policy is asinine. What a lost opportunity.)
“What, really, was Clinton’s excuse? With a “peace dividend” and a good economy, couldn’t he have rallied support for the War On Terror?”
“With Ken Starr and the GOP Congress attempting to topple his Presidency? Absolutely not.”
This overlooks a few things: A.) Clinton was President for SIX YEARS before the Lewinsky scandal even broke. How often did he talk about terrorism or rally the country during that time? B.) Presidents from Washington to Dubya have been “under siege” in one way or the other. The good to great ones can overcome the obstacles and, like a martial artist, even use their opponebts’ aggressiveness and arrogance against them (as both Clinton and Gingrich both managed to do to each other)
C.) As stated earlier, if he truly felt he was crippled and couldn’t carry out the duties of the presidency, then he should have stepped down and let Gore do what he could not. If he did feel he could rally the country, then why didn’t he? Because he didn’t know about the threat or didn’t care?
“What, really, was Clinton’s excuse? With a “peace dividend” and a good economy, couldn’t he have rallied support for the War On Terror?”
“With Ken Starr and the GOP Congress attempting to topple his Presidency? Absolutely not.”
This overlooks a few things: A.) Clinton was President for SIX YEARS before the Lewinsky scandal even broke. How often did he talk about terrorism or rally the country during that time? B.) Presidents from Washington to Dubya have been “under siege” in one way or the other. The good to great ones can overcome the obstacles and, like a martial artist, even use their opponebts’ aggressiveness and arrogance against them (as both Clinton and Gingrich both managed to do to each other)
C.) As stated earlier, if he truly felt he was crippled and couldn’t carry out the duties of the presidency, then he should have stepped down and let Gore do what he could not. If he did feel he could rally the country, then why didn’t he? Because he didn’t know about the threat or didn’t care?”
———————-
My favorite has always been Jimmy Carter and how he let a planeful of hostages suffer a LIVING hëll for over a year.
Too bad he wasn’t a comic book fan…he could have learned the lesson “with great power comes great responsibility”…and yeah, I know, I know, Y’all are probably gonna say that Dubya is using too much of it…whereas Carter didn’t use it at all…its like giving Superman’s power of flight to a guy with acrophobia.
“There is one situation where the use of nuclear bombs could potentially be of use in the Middle East but I’m hesitant to even bring it up. If radical Islamic types were to fear that Israel or the USA or whoever would destroy Mecca it could be a powerful deterrent”
—————————-
all we’d have to do is destroy the Dome of the Rock and that’d get the big 3 all hot and bothered (‘specially the Christians–destruction of the Dome is supposed to be the first sign that the End Times are coming….)
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 13, 2006 11:55 PM
In this case we are fighting an ideology, not a country. Bombs are too broad a weapon in such fights.
Moreover, Bill, the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the only ones in existence at the time. Today there are a multitude of countries that have nukes and more with the ambition to acquire them.
Worse still, the breakup of the Soviet Union has left some nukes as yet unaccounted for. That disturbs me to no end. Enriching radioactive material into weapons-grade stuff is an incredibly expensive and labor-intensive process, and may be out of reach for a lot of terrorist groups. But there’s a lot of weapons-grade šhìŧ out there that’s not under the control of any responsible country…
Mutually Assured Destruction was a fragile balance of power in any event. A lot of people are unaware of how close we came to going to war with the Soviet Union during the Reagan years. His posturing was credited with toppling the Evil Empire, yet at one point during his administration the Soviet military was at the highest of high alerts. They were expecting to go to war with us. It was a much closer thing than people realized.
“all we’d have to do is destroy the Dome of the Rock and that’d get the big 3 all hot and bothered (‘specially the Christians–destruction of the Dome is supposed to be the first sign that the End Times are coming….)”
This discussion is getting really strange.
I have no idea why you would want to destroy the dome of the rock, or use nuclear weapons in this war.The only people I know who want to destroy the dome of the rock are a realy small crazy faction of the Israeli extreme, religious right.
Instead of comparing the war against Islamic radicalism to WWII, think of it as more similar to the cold war.
This war is not going to end with a bang, or with the death of one leader.
Look, so long as there is no use of nuclear or major biological weapons by terrorists (and maybe even then), terrorism is not such a big deal. All terrorism does is annoy you like a fly, try to make you miserable and afraid, and cause you to make stupid decisions. What you do is take certain defensive measures, use offensive force against terrorists when possible, live our comfortable western lives (which we are still able to do), and try not to scare yourself to much, since that basically is the point of terrorism.
The hard part is dealing with the ideological sickness that has affected the Muslim world. And that requires a complex solution, applying economic, diplomatic, military, cultural and social tools. I am not sure world leaders or the people understand that sufficiently.
This is also connected to the discussion about the nature of the human species above. Humans are emotional, they seem to be able to care about others, empathize, help each other, but also to be blind and irrational.
About political discussion and divisivness. It would be nice if politicians and people at large listened and understood the reasoning, motivations and concerns beyond others’ arguments, and then tried to have some form of synthesis. Instead the tendancy of each side is to treat the other as if it is crazy, and the result is that they cancel each other, instead of moving toward improvement. This is true of many issues.
By the way, I am currently visiting my sister in Burkley, and I find all the homeless + all the talk of mugging etc. to be much more scary than my country.
Micha, when terrorists are able to end 2,996 lives on one day as they did on September 11, 2001, it is more than an “annoyance.” Attacks of such magnitude may be the exception rather than the rule, but even one is too many.
Something else I forgot to attend to…
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 11, 2006 09:27 PM
Hey, if we’re quoting songs…
nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight
Got to kick at the darkness ’til it bleeds daylight
Bruce Cockburn, “Lovers In A Dangerous Time”
(Bûŧŧhëád voice) Huh-huh-huh… “çøçk”… huh-huh-huh…
For me personally, nothing changed. And why should it? Atrocities are committed all the time. The fact that this one happened to occur within the same arbitrarily drawn national boundaries as those that I live in doesn’t really mean anything to me. That doesn’t mean I’m apathetic. Quite the contrary… it pains me every single time something like this happens (although, at the same time, I’m always reminded of that line from Hannah and Her Sisters: “The question is not ‘why has this happened?’. The question is, given the nature of man: “Why doesn’t it happen more often?”). This was just one more.
Do I feel safer? No, but I never felt unsafe. Sure, there are people in foreign countries who would like to see me dead because I don’t worship their god, or whatever. So what? There are people right here in this country who would like the same thing, simply because I married a man instead of a woman. Does this mean they get to? Why should their problems become my problems? I feel unsafe when I go swimming in the ocean, so I don’t go in the ocean anymore. But there’s no way to actively avoid a terrorist attack (aside from the obvious: avoiding commercial jets and major metropolitan areas), so to feel unsafe is to live in fear, and that’s something I just can’t do.
His posturing was credited with toppling the Evil Empire, yet at one point during his administration the Soviet military was at the highest of high alerts. They were expecting to go to war with us. It was a much closer thing than people realized.
In fairness to reagan, the closest we ever got to war was when the Finns or Norwegians or some other country not usually associated with nuclear holocaust sent up a space rocket and the Soviets came within a minute or two of launching a full scale reprisal against the USA.
It was later discovered that the Russians HAD been told about the rocket and someone forgot to file the report. The world almost ended due not to ideology but a clerical error. There’s a lesson in that somewhere.
Did someone actually say the Japanese were going to put airplanes on Submarines?
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 14, 2006 06:56 AM
There’s a lesson in that somewhere.
Yes. The Norwegians and the Finns shouldn’t be allowed to have space rockets. 🙂
Posted by: Nivek at September 14, 2006 07:36 AM
Did someone actually say the Japanese were going to put airplanes on Submarines?
Yeah, they were going to launch them out of the screen doors.
What, you didn’t know that???
😉
Sean, my wife’s doing fine. Thanks for asking 🙂 She’s tired, what with the growing one baby and caring for another one, but he’s starting to play on his own more, so it’s not as wearing on her as it used to be.
Thinking about what past plans we’re learning of, it does make you wonder what our so-called security experts are doing with their time. I think the public has an expectation that the Federal government has all these contingency plans…like the (now-cancelled but pretty good) show Threshold from last season. Somewhere, there’s an office in Washington that has a cabinet full of contingency plans that just need some triggering event and proper authorization to implement. Like what to do in case aliens actually do land on Earth. Or a nuclear power plant melts down. Or a major hurricane floods out a big US city. Or terrorists fly a couple planes into skyscrapers.
Except we know now that no such plans exist. Or if they do, no one’s activating them.
I think the Feds expect the state and local emergency personnel to respond to things like 9/11. Which begs the question…how is the NYPD going to stop a hijacked plane?
It seems pretty obvious that if a group of people…like us here on PAD’s blog…can come up with ways we could be attacked, and formulate effective response plans, then someone could actually PAY a group of similar people to do the same in a formal way, and have those plans on file. Sadly, it’s pretty obvious that advanced planning is not a big priority for our government. I don’t ever recall hearing about a politician bragging about some great contingency plan he just drafted.
“Did someone actually say the Japanese were going to put airplanes on Submarines?”
Sure, check this out.
http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/JapaneseSubmarineI-401fou.html
And here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_aircraft_carrier
>Did someone actually say the Japanese were going to put airplanes on Submarines?
Why not? The Americans and British experimented with the idea. The silliest one being a British design which had the sub unable to submerge while the aircraft was aboard. Talk about “unclear on the concept.”
As for the Japanese ones …
“The Japanese employed the “submarine aircraft carrier” concept extensively, building some 47 boats capable of carrying seaplanes. I-14 was a fairly large seaplane-carrying submarine, having hangar space for 2 aircraft. Most IJN submarine aircraft carriers could carry only one aircraft, but the giant I-400 class boats could carry three. Hangars were built into the lower section of the sail. I-14 was scrapped postwar, and all the I-400s were scuttled in 1946. All had been at sea at the time of Japan’s surrender, preparing for an attack on the US fleet anchorage at Ulithi Atoll. Earlier in the war they had been preparing for a cancelled attack on the Panama Canal.”
Aircraft-carrying submarines… who knew?
Actually, while it seems silly on its face, it makes sense when you think about it. I mean, submarines can and do come to the surface.
I learn something new here almost every day.
That does sound pretty cool. I guess the main problem would be the size of the submarine to accomodate the flight deck and all of the support equipment and personnel.
“Except we know now that no such plans exist. Or if they do, no one’s activating them. “
These plans do exist, but Harlan Ellison said they were too similar to things he’s written/thought and would sue if the government tried to use them…
😉
Den, the Wiki entry says that the I400 class used a catapult to launch the planes, probably similar to that used by some destroyer and battleships that carried a single aircraft. I can imagine that’d put a good deal of stress on the aircraft and pilot, but then again, WWII aircraft had much lower stall speeds than today’s jets. The planes could be assembled and ready for launch in 45 minutes by a 4 man crew, so they didn’t need that large a support crew.
The more startling fact to me is that the I400 class carried enough fuel to go around the globe 1.5 times, enough to get to America, strike, and return to Japan with fuel to spare. With planes that were designed to be ditched after use, Japan could have sailed these things 200 miles off shore, launched an attack wing, dropped several bombs up to 200 miles inland, and still have a decent chance of recovering the pilots before submerging, steaming back to Japan (or just the Japanese fleet), re-arming, and repeating. Slow, but effective, and very difficult to stop. But like the Me-262, it came too late in the war to be very effective.
“Aircraft-carrying submarines… who knew?”
Gerry Anderson did. Sky-Diver rocks!!!!!!
Jerome Maida –
How often did he talk about terrorism or rally the country during that time?
How often did Clinton need to?
The people behind the WTC attack in ’93 were caught, unlike some of those behind 9/11…
There’s also a difference between you being able to do your job (as Clinton was able to do) and others preventing you from doing it properly (as the Republicans attempted to do).
Let’s be honest here: if 9/11 never occured, we’d probably still be just as uninformed about the threat of terrorism as we were before 9/11. We’d just be saying to ourselves “gee, that stuff only happens in Jerusalem/Bali/Madrid/London”.
And Bush still would’ve found an excuse to get us into Iraq.
And Bush still would’ve found an excuse to get us into Iraq.
Iraq had WMDs regardless of 9/11…
“Iraq had WMDs regardless of 9/11…”
1) Iraq didn’t.
2) Bush would never have been able to play the fear card on the nation well enough to get us into Iraq without the threat of another 9/11 to use as his parties favorite boogie man.
Iraq didn’t have WMDs after the first Gulf War.
Even if it had them, it would not have been enough of a justification to invade them. Russia has WMDs. Korea has them. Iran has them. What would have separated Iraq from the rest?
9/11, and Bush’s connecting of non-existing dots between terrorists and Iraq.
I actually do feel slightly safer, in that I agree with Peter that the world hasn’t changed all that much and at least now terrorism threats are part of the national discussion. There’s been a criminal lack of action in those areas — airline security remains a joke but now it’s inconvenient, while the police element of securing against terrorism action has been both underdeveloped and idiotically changed for political gain — but I long thought that some sort of terrorist blow in New York, San Francisco or Seattle was inevitable and I feel better now that this isn’t *totally* ignored.
I’m just sad it may take another unique, horrible incident to push these issues along, the way that some drunk drivers have to get arrested twice before they’ll pay attention to that part of their life.
The world has not changed. Our perception of the world has changed. Terrorism has been around for thousands of years. The only difference between today’s terrorism is the immediate media exposure. Terrorists thrive on this more than anything. Instant gratification is what they have now.
Those in power would like us to believe we are safer now, but if that were the case why would they insist on us being vigilant. I believe the chances of our country being hit by a another major terrorists attack increase everyday that our armed forces spend in Muslim countries. The people in these countries countries are glad we came, but polls show that they do not wish us to be there any longer. We are outsiders to these people. We are Crusaders, nothing more, nothing less.
I believe in the Iraq invasion’s one good intent, the removal of Saddam from power. Of course, history tells that he is one our mistakes as was bin Laden. Those in power supported Saddam until he became an inconvience. Rumsfield himself is seen in a picture with Saddam from the 80s. Do you think Rummy was asking him to stop gassing his own people or trying to keep the Soviets out of Iraq?
One more thing. I am getting irritated every time Hannity, Levine, Limbaugh, etc… say that the President never said Saddam had a hand in 9/11. He dámņëd sure had Powell mention that Saddam let Al-Queda have a presence in Iraq in the briefing before the U.N. basically saying they were in league together.
Truthfully, I don’t blame Bush about what’s happening. The people around him are the problem: Chaney, Rummy, Rice. The only voice of reason left his job in disgrace ruining his chances to ever be president. Despite what you hear from the right, they will never nominate Condi to be president.
As a Democrat, I want a candidate that believes what they say, not what the party tells them. With the front runners we have, that is not going to happen. I cringed when I voted for Kerry. It made me sick to my stomach, literally. I want someone that has no fear. Mainly, I want a president that doesn’t embarass me everytime he says nuclear. Michael Savage says Bush’s accent is faked. I hope he’s wrong. Why would anyone want to sound like that?
“Micha, when terrorists are able to end 2,996 lives on one day as they did on September 11, 2001, it is more than an “annoyance.” Attacks of such magnitude may be the exception rather than the rule, but even one is too many.”
I hope the term annoyance did not create the impression that I don’t take 9/11 seriously.
But what does an attack like that do, and what do you do about it?
It does not threaten sovereignity, it does not destroy the economy, or the military, nor does it topple the government. All it does is kill, create some orphans, widows, the berieved parents, and puts everybody else in a state of fear.
So you take more security percautions, you use intelligence, and try to reduce the risk as much as possible so that life can go on. Apparently you have succeeded in doing that.
Will there be another terrorist strike on US soil? Eventually probably. But it seems that natural disasters hit your country more frequently. And again, the only thing you can do is try to be better prepared.
Slow, but effective, and very difficult to stop. But like the Me-262, it came too late in the war to be very effective.
Same thing with Atragon.
This is taking an interesting turn.
Before I go off on this tangent, please understand that I feel that 9/11 will always live in memory as a terrible day. Both for what happened, and for what happened after. I by no means want to reduce the impact or pain felt by all of us, especially those of us who lost friends and family that day.
But where does 3000 American deaths rate? Surely the magnitude of the event, playing out live in all our living rooms, added to the horror we felt. But according to the CDC, 3000 death places 9/11 ahead of diabetes deaths, and behind cerebrovascular diseases (I had to look that one up…I think it’s stroke related deaths). 9/11/terrorists would place 9th among causes of death for the 25-44 set. And that’s assuming that that terrorists could kill an equal number of people each year. The rest of the list can be found here http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/111riske.html , but accidents are #1, HIV #2, heart disease #4, and suicide #5.
All of which is in the Fun With Statistics realm. I’m sure someone could dig up numbers on what we spend as a country in an effort to combat these deaths, and compare it to the price tag for killing terrorists using the US armed forces. My gut feeling is that you could add up the entire top 10 and not equal what we’ve spent over the past three years overseas.
I think the reality is that, right now, terrorism for the average American ranks up as an annoyance.
Which is not to say that our efforts have not been well spent. The threat posed by the top 10 should be relatively stable. We’re not at any serious risk of accidents suddenly skyrocketing, and killing 3 million people, the way a terrorist could were they to activate a nuclar device in New York or Chicago.
It’s an interesting thing I like to airplane crashes. When it comes to actual life lost, air travel is safer than walking. That may be an exaggeration, but not by much. But because plane crashes are so graphic, and the concentrate the loss of life to a single moment, they carry a greater impact than the simple loss of life would suggest. 9/11 takes this effect and magnifies a thousand times.
“Same thing with Atragon.”
Thank goodness for that. I don’t know how we’d have withstood a flying super submarine armed with freeze cannons. 😉
Uhm… who’s Atragon?
By the way, I am currently visiting my sister in Burkley, and I find all the homeless + all the talk of mugging etc. to be much more scary than my country.
this is much like terrorism in that the fear is disproportionate to the risk.
you being scared to go out on the street there because someone might mug you would be like me being scared to go out on the street in Jerusalem because someone might blow me up.
Bobb and Jerry, what I’m saying is that Bush would have found a way to invade Iraq and would likely have used the threat of WMDs and the UN’s inaction over Iraq’s acitivities. Would he have had as much support from the American people? Nope. His not having much support now certainly isn’t slowing him down though.
Russia has WMDs. Korea has them. Iran has them. What would have separated Iraq from the rest?
Bush wanted to invade Iraq. That’s the difference.
Chris, I guess, short of the fear generated by 9/11, I don’t see how Bush could have gotten the authority to invade Iraq. It took a terrifying attack on our own soil, live and on TV, to spur Congress to grant Bush the sole authority to pursue terrorism. Absent that, he’d need another congressional delcaration/approval to send the military into Iraq. Iraq having weapons…of mass destruction or otherwise…may have been a factor in Bush’s decision to attack, but it wouldn’t have swayed many even in the GOP.
There’s a reason why conspiracy theories about Bush having some involvement in 9/11 are still around…they make sense in a twisted, scary kind of way.
9/11, and Bush’s connecting of non-existing dots between terrorists and Iraq.
A set of dots that the Bush Administration STILL is trying to connect, even after a new Congressional report also says such dots don’t exist.
Actually, isn’t their current tactic trying to pretend that they never explicitly tried to connect those dots?
“Actually, isn’t their current tactic trying to pretend that they never explicitly tried to connect those dots?”
I dunno, what’s today…Thursday? Don’t they usually go with “last throes” on Thursdays?
Chris,
I see some of your point but don’t think that there would have been the public support for Iraq without 9/11 having happened. No 9/11 means no mass fear. No mass fear means no support for Bush waging a war to protect us from another 9/11.
Would they have tried to find some other excuse to go into Iraq? Yeah. Some of the members of the Bush administration had been trying to do that since 1997. But it would have to have been something just as horrific as 9/11 rather then just something that they hatched on their own.
Uhm… who’s Atragon?
Yeesh. In 1963 the undersea Mu Empire demanded that the UN stop Imperial Captain Jinguji from completing his super-submarine Atragon, or the surface world would face anihilation. This request was, in hindsight, idiotic since up to that time we had no idea that Imperial Captain Jinguji was even still alive, much less completing his super-submarine Atragon. The inhabitants of Mu were indeed technologically impressive but they didn’t know wise battle tactics from Shinola, the most widely quoted of which was Clauswitz’ famous dictum of “Never, ever tell your enemy that they have a super-submarine at their disposal.” Thus warned we were able to convice Captain Jinguji to abandon his quest to restore Imperial Japan and instead take the battle to Mu where he prevailed, despite the fact that the Mu Empire used their giant water dragon Manda against the mighty sub.
The fact that you don’t know any of this is just another sad example of the failures of our public school system. I blame the teachers and wonder just when they will begin to earn those 4 figure saleries they are always complaining about.
“Uhm… who’s Atragon?”
Well, Duh. And it’s not “who’s Atragon,” but “what’s Atragon?”
I have a friend who has a degree in English Lit, works sometimes as a substitute English teacher in Buffalo, and spends his summer as a cartoonist at a Six Flags theme park. And he always says that it what having an English Lit degree and being a teacher will get you. You can draw cartoons if you’re really lucky.
I have a friend who has a degree in English Lit, works sometimes as a substitute English teacher in Buffalo, and spends his summer as a cartoonist at a Six Flags theme park. And he always says that it what having an English Lit degree and being a teacher will get you. You can draw cartoons if you’re really lucky.
Actually, isn’t their current tactic trying to pretend that they never explicitly tried to connect those dots?
on Sunday, Vice President Cheney said, “You’ve got Iraq and Al Qaeda, testimony from the Director of C.I.A. that there was indeed a relationship — Zarqawi in baghdad. et cetera.”
and Condoleeza Rice said, “There were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda.”
Have any of the other Canucks read Michael Coren’s argument for the use of nukes in Iran to end that little situation? Please tell me you find the idea a tad ludicrous.
Other tangent, got to hear the baby’s heart beat today. Apparently I grinned like a goof.
Manny–Voice Of Experience time–once you see the first sonogram picture, you won’t stop grinning for a week.
Manny, just wait until you feel him or her kick for the first time! 😉
-Rex Hondo-
Sean, thanks, any and all help appreciated. Rex, apparently, last week about 4am, Erin tried to wake me up because she thought she felt the baby move.
My only problem is that I have to spend so much time on the road to keep our stuff together that I’m missing important things. The doctor put Erin on medical leave from work 5 weeks ago, so she’s only taking in 55% of her pay. Things is tight, but we persevere.
Thanks again, and KEPLA!!!
Things is tight, but we persevere.
Amen to that. My wife got canned the very first day she wore maternity clothes into work, and was told that “the relationship just wasn’t working out.” Indiana being an at-will employment state, the burden of proof would have been on her to prove wrongdoing, so we just said “screw it,” and took unemployment.
You just never really know how far you’d go for your offspring until you’ve got one in the oven.
-Rex Hondo-