sweetheart-mine

it's kind of weird for the rsox, at second place in their division, not to have a starting pitcher on there, but it's understandable. beckett might be on there if our offense wouldn't tank half the time when he pitches, for some reason. the lack of papi is one big reason, needless to say, but dice-k is pitching terribly most of the time and the offense manages to hand him a win anyhow. it's a little surprising that manny made it this year. it really is not being his best year (though i love the guy anyway).

some might need an affidavit from witnesses to prove the timing of your rays enthusiasm.

so we had an unexpected long-lost friend show up yesterday, the two small-box shirazes i'd bought for this weekend are gone, and i can't remember what the brands were -- and it isn't even july 4 yet. i think one was "black box." it really wasn't bad but i'll have to experiment. the big boxes are ghastly; so far the small in general seem a cut above. what cryptique said: yes, they say the bag in the boxes keeps the wine better over the long term. too bad i won't find that out about the two we bought yesterday! also, i've read (from the companies themselves) that bottles are exp

edie makes a good point in that his reluctance to speak out is understandable to a certain extent, and i'm sure he did experience a lot of angst over it. but, like matt, i believe his first loyalty as secretary of state should have been to the people of this country, not to the going-wayward government and not to the military. he didn't convince me back then, though i did respect him at the time, so what he said gave me slight pause. i am very tired of the retrospective memoir-type books about this war and this administration. what difference can they make now? to me the people who w

this is true! tonight i'm drinking a bit of red wine out of a newfangled box. it's shiraz, and in this smaller box it is really not bad. of course, they're making the smaller boxes look friggin fancy compared to the old big ones, so maybe i'm a sucker. i don't think so but will confirm tomorrow. p.s. this red sox fan is not feeling good heading to the bronx after a sweep in tampa bay that got uglier by the night. never mind, though, talk amongst yourselves, we're used to it from the olden days.

don't worry, i will be glued, even if a few celebrators try to stand between me and the tv. there are baseball games, and then there are Baseball Games!

you have a very good point. we'll go for the corked stuff!

ditto. so many other paths to take. p.s. most surprises are delightful and i'm all for 'em!

ok, so a few people made political inferences that you didn't like. and even fewer engaged in "melodramatic posturing" and "angry rambling" though i certainly grant you that a very small number did. a lot of people participated in this thread, with some including sources for their opinions and with most offering their opinions without ranting; so why do you choose to be one of the ranters you're complaining about? most of all, if you wanted to bomb this thread by being extremely offensive and ugly -- to most of the participants who weren't even guilty of what was bugging you -- well, i

following edie's format, thank you, edie: 4th: stay away from the center of this resort town we live in and say goodbye to the cats as they run for weekend-long cover due to beautiful fireworks. 5th: go to cookout celebration for an unusual confluence of friends' birthdays in addition to the 4th. 6th: watch the red sox beat the yanks and drink bad wine.

nice refraining! good for you. and have a great evening.

my husband's grandparents lived on gull lake (and raised chickens there -- spiffier spot than usual for chickens, i'd say), and most of his few memories from childhood took place there. he was describing the whole area to me in great detail just the other night; he clearly loved it. so now i want to go, next time we drive to michigan, when we have an extra thousand bucks on hand for gas.

i have yet to see that sticker in maine. either for some reason the people aren't into it or i don't get out enough, probably the latter. the mind-set behind that sticker is obnoxious.

the bad singing is.

exactly. and i didn't know of rangel's position. if only it wouldn't be political suicide for him to get louder about this, but of course it would be.

i'm sure you're right, though it's too bad. the policy changes that would result from reinstating the draft would be a big step in a better direction.

thank you. one good thing came of it, though. i'm much better educated about the sensibility, if we can call it that, of a few posters, one of whom really surprised me.

that article gives me the creeps. need to learn more about it. hope i don't have more of the creeps after doing that.

don't be too sure. mccain said we would need another draft only if world war III occurs. now imagine a president mccain. what do you think will occur if we're in afghanistan and iraq, and then attack iran? the result (including the draft) isn't a certainty, but it is a possibility. like kidsmoke, i am old enough to remember vietnam, the draft, and especially the lottery system that works under the draft. believe me, you wouldn't like it.

you would think so, but a draft with all its consequences, which are profound, is not real to quite a few people who have never had to cope with it personally.

that's right. we've never had enough sand on the east coast or west coast, nor in the prairie lands. no one has brought that up before. why, now that you have, i'm starting to resent it. why should any middle eastern country have more sand than we do. it all makes sense now . . .

read the documents posted by viatroy. i know it's easier to just be skeptical and write off a fact one doesn't like as cliche, but really, if you truly want to know what's been going on and why, read the stuff written by the very people who have been deeply involved in the bush administration and who articulated their desire to control, yes, the middle east, and yes, because of its oil. it's that simple. read what they wrote.

bush surrounded himself with people who had had their own agendas for a long time. (see the PNAC site and read the "defense" documents. warning: will take you weeks.) in fact, i think it's pretty certain that they (cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, perle, and others) used him to carry out their own agendas, as outlined even prior to 9/11: gain control of the middle east and its oil. it was a wretched combination all the way around, since bush himself had other rabid flaws, as it turned out.

so do i, and use at least half of it for artwork. why is she smiling and mccain not?

ha!