There are many things about being "married to the military" that are interesting. After much thought, debate, and laughing, I came up with...drumroll, please... "The Top Ten Most Annoying Things About the Military"For a recap, we've already done 6-10:
#10: Military Clocks Run in a Different Universe than Regular Clocks
#9: Your "Worth as a Person" is Defined by Your Husband's Rank
#8: The Uniforms
#7: It's Impossible to Get a Damn Vacation (aka "Leave")
#6: If Something Goes Wrong, It's Always Someone Else's Fault

And........#5: Military Health Care

First of all, I will admit there are some great things about military health care.  For one, I don't have to worry about a co-pay with doctor's visits.  I can go bother them everyday if I want.....oh, wait, I can't get an appointment...never mind.

A breakdown of the annoying features:

1) I no longer exist.  I am a dependent of my husband.  I call to make an appointment, and they ask for the social.  Now, one would think they would want MY social security number, as I'm the one getting an appointment.  Nope, they want the husbands.  I needed a referral to see an outside doctor.  I had to take my husband in to the doctor's with me to convince them I needed the referral.  I surprised I don't need a permission slip from him to drive to the appointments.

2) Scheduling an appointment.  It once took ten calls over a three month period to get an appointment.  See, they only fill the appointment book up one month in advance (in most cases).  But the slots fill up as soon as they open up a new week to make appointments.  Ten calls....three months....glad it wasn't something IMPORTANT I needed to be seen about.

3) If you're female, you know there is an annoying and painful procedure we go through each year.  You get to cross your fingers that you get a female to do it.  (And don't even say, "But you have a right to request a female"....yes, you have that right...you also have the right to wait six months for a female to be available).

I know I'm lucky to have health insurance, and all that.
But between needing "parental authorization" to make an appointment, having to sacrifice a lamb during the new moon to find an open appointment, and putting up with a man wielding the duck lips, I kind of wonder how good Blue Cross Blue Shield is.

I've been running across quite a few controversies lately regarding free speech.  A short summary:

1) Many Muslims are boycotting Facebook due to pages or groups that either directly or indirectly insult Allah.  It is their avowed purpose in doing this to get Facebook  to not allow pages like this.
2) The U.S. House of Representatives was considering a bill that would make "hate speech" a federal crime.  This included pastors who spoke from the pulpit against homosexuality. 
3) (This one is from a couple of years ago) A valedictorian, during her speech at the graduation ceremony, preached about how Jesus was the only way to heaven. 
4) And the multiple instances of (perceived) racist, religious, or sexist comments by public figures.

This is, of course, more than one question.  Free speech by an individual is different than official policy that discriminates against people.  Company policy about hiring is different than a pastor speaking from the pulpit.  A group of people boycotting something is different than one person making "un-pc" comments. 

As always, I love to hear from my readers.  If I get a good response, I'll post some of your comments regarding free speech. 

Questions: Should free speech be allowed?  Does free speech include sexism, religious intolerance, racism?

Does a person speaking at a graduation ceremony (where the school went back and forth on whether the audience was "captive") have the same rights?

Should companies, such as Facebook, give in to boycotts such as this?  If they do, does it devalue freedom of speech? 

Yes, I'm going to anger a bunch of people with this post.  Live with it.

I ran across this story and was both surprised and confused.  Unfortunately, that is becoming a trend with the crazy news that's going on lately. 

Matthew Kachinas was an OB-GYN in Florida who was willing to perform late 2nd trimester abortions.  There are few who are willing to do that.  The woman, who conceived via in vitro fertilization, was carrying a girl and a boy.  The girl was "normal" according to tests, but the boy appeared to suffer from Down syndrome and heart problems, among other things.  The woman decided to have a "selective-reduction procedure." 
I love the names they come up with for these things.  A "selective-reduction procedure"?....get real, she decided to kill the boy. 

Dr. Matthew Kachinas, while not having any experience with the procedure, agreed to do it anyway.  He ended up killing the girl, who the woman wanted to keep.  Of course, after an ultrasound a week later showed the boy was still alive, the mother ended up aborting him also. 

Dr. Matthew Kachinas told reporters he was suicidal and distraught over the situation.  His medical license has been revoked.  He has been released after having a psych evaluation. 

Now, some questions come to mind:
He has aborted God knows how many other healthy children, but aborting this girl made him suicidal? 

He lost his license for killing the wrong kid?  Doesn't killing any kids seem contrary to the idea of "do no harm"? 

The woman in this case had in vitro fertilization, seeming to indicate she has had prior troubles getting pregnant.  Would she be happy with any child?  This isn't a shopping trip- you don't pick out what you want and discard the rest. 

Got to reading the "fine print."  Turns out that you only get the $5.00 when the person reaches the cash-out amount of $50.00 and cashes out themselves.  I knew the $5.00 per sign-up was too good to be true.
I'm going to continue to read the articles, etc., because I find them interesting, but thanks to anyone who signed up. 

On another note, let me get caught up on everything and I'll do a "current event" blog.  I've been busy mystery shopping (which I do in my spare time to make a little extra cash), and have fallen horribly behind!  Give me a day or so everyone! 

Odd things catch my attention, and as I was browsing blogs, I found something called "Readbug."  It (supposedly) pays you between .03 and .08 (or maybe it's .10) to read and rate an article.  The problem is that the minimum cash-out is $50.00.  I'm averaging a dollar a day, which isn't bad, since I like to read, some of the articles are interesting, and I get to rate "1 star" the ones that are written with bad grammar and horrible spelling. 

Anyway, here's the experiment: you get $5.00 for every person who signs up.  So, if ten of you cynical people out there would sign up, I could try to cash out and see if this site is legit or not....probably not, but you never know. 
Do this sarcastic, cynical red-head a favor?  Link is below.

(I've tried to figure out if the site would be "self-sustaining" and am still not sure.  The google ad clicks alone wouldn't pay for it...BUT, some of the articles are blatant ads for a product, so I'm sure they get a cut if someone buys because of the article, plus they could be using us a screening process to sell the high-ranking articles to article mills....so it's up in the air.)  

Yay!  I've finally got all of the posts switched over.  I have a problem with procrastination.  Anyway, I've got an article coming out with The Spiteful Critic, and as soon as it posts, I'll post a link. 

It's called: "The 13 Most Outrageous Political Statements of 2010"

There are many things about being "married to the military" that are interesting. After much thought, debate, and laughing, I came up with...drumroll, please... "The Top Ten Most Annoying Things About the Military"For a recap, we've already done 7-10:
#10: Military Clocks Run in a Different Universe than Regular Clocks
#9: Your "Worth as a Person" is Defined by Your Husband's Rank
#8: The Uniforms
#7: It's Impossible to Get a Damn Vacation (aka "Leave")

And here is:
  #6: "It's Not MY Fault"

Something is going to go wrong at work.  It always does, it doesn't matter what your job is: farmer, factory worker, manager, military.  The difference is that in the military (and in the government), it's NEVER ANYBODY'S FAULT! I love my husband, don't get me wrong.  But we've been married for four years, and never once has he come home from work and said he screwed something up.  It's always the blue crew, or the gold crew, or "A" crew, or the electricians.   

I know from going to parties that it isn't just him, everyone else on the crew says "the problem of the day" is not their fault....it's "them-over-there-they did it!"   I thought this was just the military.  But I've been watching the news the last three years, and I realized its the entire government.  Not a single person in the entire government will say "It was my fault."  They may "have been misinformed" or "made a bad judgment because they had bad information"..and that's a very max.   

Come post the last military or government "It's not my fault" moment you heard or saw!  (If you can't think of one, turn on the local news).

I'm undecided on the new law in Arizona.  Part of it is my complete disconnect from the situation on the border and complete lack of knowledge about drugs.  My husband is endlessly calling me naive.  I don't know if it's because I grew up in a small town in Iowa.  (I was amazed two years after I graduated high school to find out people actually did drugs in Iowa...I thought that was a city thing).  I've never even SEEN any drug except for marijuana.  I used to work for an ex-cop who laughed when I expressed disbelief that there were actually prostitutes in the city we worked in (Jacksonville, FL, which had the honor of having the highest murder rate in Florida that year).  So, I admit, I'm naive.  So any discussion involving drug problems/border issues, I have a tendency to listen rather than speak, as I'm quite sure others have more knowledge than I do.  I did find the following letter interesting.  Here's the link to the original: San Francisco Chronicle and a copy is below:

I'm an Arizona state senator. I want to explain SB1070, Arizona's immigration bill, which I voted for and which was just signed by Gov. Jan Brewer.

Rancher Rob Krentz was shot to death on his ranch over a month ago and the shooter fled into Mexico. His family suspects a drug smuggler is responsible. I participated in a state Senate hearing two weeks ago on the border violence that is, and has been, sweeping our border communities for years. From those hearings, we learned that:

-- The people who live within 60 to 80 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border have been terrorized by the Mexican drug cartels and human smugglers. One rancher testified that 300 to 1,200 people cross his ranch every day, vandalizing his property, stealing his vehicles, cutting down his fences and leaving trash. He testified that in the last two years, he has found 17 bodies and, alarmingly, several copies of the Quran.

-- Another rancher testified that drugs are brought across his ranch in a military-style operation, with guards armed to the teeth. A point man with a machine gun goes in front, a half-mile behind are the fully armed guards, a half-mile behind them are the drugs, and behind the drugs are more guards. This was not the only rancher we heard who talked about the drug trains.

-- One man told of two border crossers who came on his property, one of them shot in the back and the other in the arm by drug runners who forced them to carry drugs and then shot them. They frequently hear gunfire at night and are afraid to leave their ranch for fear of what the smugglers will do to it.

The Border Patrol is not on the border. It has set up 60 miles away with check points that do nothing to stop the invasion. The officers are not allowed to use force in stopping anyone who is entering.

The national media do not report on these stories because it conflicts with their perception of the illegal immigration issue, which is based on an assumption that all illegal immigrants are law-abiding landscapers, maids and day laborers. While this is true in many cases, it is also true that our federal and state prisons and county jails are full of a disproportionate number of illegal immigrants who are committing a disproportionate number of crimes.

The federal government has failed to do anything substantive to help border states like Arizona. We have been overrun by immigrants and, once they are here, the state has the burden of funding services that they use. With a $3.5 billion state budget deficit, we have many difficult decisions to make, and one of those decisions is that we don't have the money to care for people who are not here legally.

This has to stop. The border can be secured. We have the technology, we have the ability to stop this invasion. We must know who is coming into the country, and they must come in an organized manner - legally, so that we can assimilate them into our population and protect the sovereignty of our country.

The national media has distorted, disfigured, and dismembered Senate Bill 1070 to the point that its reputation no longer bears any resemblance to what the bill actually does. Those who claim it is racist, or will foster a Nazi-state are themselves fostering unwarranted and irrational hysteria.

The fact is that Senate Bill 1070 merely makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally. It also explicitly prohibits law enforcement officials from solely considering race, color, or national origin in determining immigration status.

Many lawmakers who supported SB1070, including me, also support amnesty, but not until we secure the border. Failing to secure the border only moves us closer to some form of a North American Union with no borders and no national sovereignty. Many of those protesting SB1070 have called for just that.

Maybe it is too late to save America. Maybe we are not worthy of freedom anymore. But as an elected official, I must try to do what I can to protect our Constitutional Republic.

Living in America is not a right simply because you walk across the border. Being an American is a responsibility. Freedom is not free.

Sylvia Allen, a Republican from Snowflake, serves in the Arizona Senate.

There are many things about being "married to the military" that are interesting. After much thought, debate, and laughing, I came up with...drumroll, please..."The Top Ten Most Annoying Things About the Military"

#7: Getting a Damn Vacation a.k.a. "leave"

The origins of the term "leave" escape me...perhaps it developed when the first people tried to take vacation and continually heard from the higher command, "But you can't leave!"  

The needs of the military always come first.  I have no problem with that.  But the military doesn't do well at DEFINING their needs.  

For example, right now my husband is based on shore duty.  The boat he's on isn't going out to sea.  It's a training facility.  There is no one to fight, no place they need to be.  He's got over 50 days of leave stockpiled.  He wanted to take four days off to go to a Corvette show in Illinois.  Four days.  That's it.  

"Nope.  We need you."  

I ask him why- is there some special inspection going on?  No.  A class of students graduating?   No.  A nuclear attack we're preparing for?  No.

This, of course, begged the obvious question.  Would the Navy really fall apart and be unable to function if First Class Petty Officer "X" isn't on the "moored to the pier" boat for four days?

Is our country really at risk if he takes four days off?

Here's the really annoying part.  When he hits sixty days of leave, he has to take leave or they have to pay him for the extra days over sixty.  He'll hit sixty some time in the spring.  Nothing is going on then that we want to do.  I can already guarantee that they'll come up to him around April 15th, and say, "You HAVE to go on leave."  And they'll make him take ten days off.  Great, wonderful.  We'll enjoy "give the government an arm and a leg" day together!  WooHoo!   

And this isn't an isolated incident.  He missed his own sister's wedding.  They let him off in time to get to Illinois by 11:00 that night.  Uh, what?  Nice of them to let him off when he's already missed the wedding!  I was in ICU once w/ pneumonia and septic shock.  He had to work all day and then come visit me.  I was only in the hospital for TWO DAYS!  Couldn't they have spared him two damn days!  (excuse my language).

As always, I don't complain without proposing a solution.  And here it is (Obama, Secretary of Defense, take note, a bona fide genius is about to dispense advice):

Instead of asking "What would Jesus do"......ask "Is the Navy (or Army or Marine) really going to fall apart if we lose this guy for X number of days?  Is our national security really at risk by losing this guy?"    

If the answer is "yes", we need to give these guys a pay raise! (I won't even go into the percentage of military members who are considered to be at the poverty level)  
If the answer is "no", let them take a damn vacation!

I've been perusing news article in respect in the NYC bomber, Faisal Shahzad.  The bomber himself has admitted to the location in which he received his training, which is known to have both the Taliban and al-Quida active in the same area.  From what I have read, Shahzad has NOT admitted to training by either group, but it is assumed at this point. 

Attorney General Eric Holder flat-out stated that "they know" the Pakistani Taliban provided training and direction for the attack, and that they expected to soon find evidence that they also helped fund it.  Fears are also expressed that the Pakistani Taliban, which prior to the last six months, had not managed to have any (credible) plots actually get onto U.S. soil. 

The continued plots and attempted attacks on the U.S. bring up a entire list of questions that are being debated.   Instead of throwing my view out there, I'm going to ask you for your opinion.  I'll do another post summing up the views that you, my dear readers, express! 

Major questions:
Are the attacks a religious issue: Islam vs. Christianity? 
Does continued U.S. presence in the Middle East contribute to further attacks? 
Is the "feeling" of anti-U.S. a wide-spread feeling among people in the Middle East or is it a radical view of smaller groups of people? 

Sources:
FoxNews.com: "Terrorist May Have New Focus on Striking U.S., Officials Say".  Link to article.
MSNBC: "Pakistani Taliban behind NYC Bomb."  Link to article.