March 2003

StrayCat and the heyday of The Mustang Ranch.

More from Tia on the old glory of LPIN.

And here is a frank admission!

Phoenix on prices.

Remember Divine Brown?

Dennis Hof on his top booker.

A bad apple at Kitty's. Madam Suzette's response, and Madam Jan's response.

A 1976 visit.

Happy Hooker's observation.

Cowboy on Bree.

You might wander through Flame's thread. Notice how many times she has edited her initial message?

Kitty about Mack, the owner of Angel's. Here and here. And she also talks about Jerry, the owner of the WildKat Ranch.

Crystal on her connection to Sue's in Elko.

Read OffLeash's opening comment.

Mike Dallas makes the statement, "I don't know much about 'double baggers' ...".

Ava's (ExoticSyren) post.

A sample thread about the war in Iraq.

EDITORIAL #013 :

I oppose the U.S. war in Iraq. I will use this week's editorial to explain my position.

It is hardly an original observation to state that political discourse in the United States is dominated by the extreme positions on any topic. This is exacerbated by a news media which will usually give preferential attention to those who yell the loudest and make the most dramatic claims, which often includes painting those with the opposing view in the least favorable light possible. Facts and truth are of secondary importance.

Trying to jump-start a debate on America's war in Iraq is not easy. Any statement that gets made can, and often will, be misconstrued. People will say that anyone who opposes the war must believe this or not believe that, without the person who says they oppose the war ever stating their opinions on this or that. The same can be said of those who criticize the people who support the war. The fact is that people have different reasons for supporting or opposing the war, and it can not be assumed that they agree with all, or even most, of the reasons of those on their own side.

Following are the two concerns I have. Do not assume anything else about my position on the war based only on these two statements :

1. I did not, and still do not, believe that Saddam Hussein's regime posed a sufficiently urgent threat against the United States to warrant a war against Iraq.

2. President Bush's administration did not, prior to starting the war, state what their intended goals were beyond the most superficial - "Get rid of Saddam".

Do not assume that because I oppose this war that I oppose all wars. I am not a pacifist. Nor, however, am I a hawk. I believe that war is indeed the last option, but sometimes it is necessary. For the record, I supported the Gulf War, and I supported the war in Afghanistan. I do not, however, support this war in Iraq.

Do not say that I said that Saddam Hussein is not a threat. I did not say that. Saddam Hussein is indeed a threat, against the United States and the citizens of Iraq and to much of the rest of the world, too, for reasons that are very well known and publicly proven. Just review recent history. However, nobody has demonstrated to my satisfaction, not even closely, that he and his regime is anywhere nearly a sufficient threat to merit this war.

If you say that I am somehow helping Saddam Hussein by opposing this war, then you are either an idiot or a liar, or both.

Do not assume I will be burning the American flag or any other such protest merely because I oppose the war. I do not agree with such protests and will not participate in them and I do not think highly of those that do engage in these types of protests, although I do support the right of those to perform such protests. My protest is directed against President Bush and his administration, and that alone.

Do not assume I will never publicly protest in a demonstration against this war. For the time being I'm waiting to see how this war works out. If it is successful, then I will admit I was wrong, although I may be wrong for all the right reasons. However, if it is not successful, then I may engage in peaceful protests. I do not know, in advance, what constitutes success and what does not - too bad the present U.S. administration didn't better articulate this very point of what is success and what isn't before starting this war.

Do not assume I think that the present administration started this war out of greed for Iraq's oil. I do not. Certainly, stability in the Middle East is needed for a variety of reasons, just one of which is a secure global oil supply, but I do not believe that is the primary reason President Bush and his administration started this war. I believe they feel the September 11, 2001 attacks gave them a "mandate" to eliminate all threats, and have, possibly, lost sight of all perspective on the world situation and have developed an "us against them" attitude. I pray I am wrong, because our government's administration scares me.

Do not assume I like the United Nations because I oppose this war. I do not dislike the UN, but I am not a big fan, either, and I do not approve of the way the French government threatened, in advance, to veto any resolution that may (repeat, may) have supported the war. I admit that it would have been good for the United States to get a UN resolution supporting the war, but I do not consider it absolutely necessary. Again, to me the primary concern was whether Saddam Hussein posed a sufficient threat to require deposing him, not whether the UN thought he was.

Do not assume I will be blaming America's soldiers for fighting in this war. If you do, then you will be wrong.

Do not assume I am jumping on the bandwagon to criticize the administration because the war is taking longer than they indicated it would. I am not. Unpredictability is an essential nature of war, and my feelings about this war were formulated before it began.

If you assume that I am frightened by news reports of unrest in the Muslim world against the United States, then you assume correctly. The whole point of the war, according to our administration, was to increase our security. I am scared that it may cause the very opposite to happen. I pray it doesn't.

For those who say that what the United States does in Iraq can not make the situation there worse, I say they have a short memory. Look at what happened in Afghanistan. The U.S. supported Afghanistan in its war against the Soviets, but then after the Soviets left, we, the United States, left too without providing support. Religious zealots took over the country (remember the Taliban?), and indeed things got worse. Much worse. Remember September 11, 2001? For all the problems that the evil Saddam Hussein has caused, and I am not afraid to call him evil because that is exactly what he is, at least he is not a religious zealot.

On Tuesday, November 06, 2001, President Bush said, "You're either with us or against us ...". In Matthew, Chapter 12, Verse 30, Jesus said, "He who is not with me is against me ...". Coincidence? Hardly. President Bush's chief speechwritter is Michael Gerson, an Evangelical who is known for inserting little coded messages and phrases into Bush's speeches for Evangelical Americans to pick up on. Some say this is done merely to secure a major Republican constituent base for the 2004 election. I pray that they are correct.

Be seeing you.

Bashful