Blue Guy in Red Land

I read this article, and while it’s long, it’s fascinating.  http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051101faessay84604/melvin-r-laird/iraq-learning-the-lessons-of-vietnam.html

The man who wrote it was Nixon’s first Sec of Defense, and from what I understand, is villified in the current military as a weak and cowardly man. Of course, many of the brass who trumpet this opinion where low ranking grunts when Laird was in power, so their perspective might be different. 

I found the article very interesting.  Sec. Laird presents a pretty reasoned argument, although there was some standard GOP spin in there about "things on the ground are better than what the press says", etc etc. But I do like having specific goals that result in drawdowns of troop levels. I also agree with keeping those goals top secret. Let the chairmen of the committees know, but otherwise, it’s need-to-know only. Throw in Hillary’s test of "Our patience is not limited….if you aren’t even TRYING to help yourself, we will wash our hands of you" and I think you have a sound plan.

When Saddam conquered Kuwait, and we went into free Kuwait, we had every justification in the world to overthrow the regime at that moment. It’s like a child…you have to punish them pretty close to the infraction, or you lose your chance. If the standard is you can be invaded for things you did decades ago, then we could be invaded for Jim Crow laws…or what we did to the Native Americans in the 19th century. I mean, come on! Bush the Father made a huge mistake by not driving a sword through Saddam’s heart in 1991 when he had a chance and was justified in doing so. That’s what pisses me off about this whole Iraq mess now…it’s all tied into Bush and his daddy and vengeance. Yes, we get a good result that Saddam is gone…and IF Iraq can muster an Islamic democracy, then that’s a very good thing. But we’re going about it like bumbling idiots….and about 14 yrs later than we should have done it.

When I first heard that Hillary Clinton was coming to Atlanta to speak, I was stunned.  Although Atlanta is an island of relatively progressive philosophy in a sea of Blood Red Georgia, the fact that Hillary Clinton would come to Atlanta still surprised me.  It wasn’t but a year ago that we in the Georgia Young Democrats begged Nancy Pelosi to come and speak to our state convention.  She initially agreed, but then backed out around Christmas, scuttling the plans we had built around her.  Unfortunately, we had already signed contracts for the hotel, so we took a financial bath.  It seemed we couldn’t beg, borrow, or plead for a nationally known Democrat to come to Georgia.  I suppose that with as crazy as the Bushies are, the threat of assassination is real.

I then discovered that Hillary was coming at the invitation of Stuart Eizenstat who worked in the Carter and Clinton administrations.  The lecture she presented was endowed by his family in honor of his father and uncle. Bill Clinton spoke in 2003, which I somehow missed.  This year, though, we got at least two emails from Bobby Khan, chair of the Georgia Democratic Party, telling us about this free event.  If Hillary Clinton was coming to GEORGIA, I would be there.

I arrived 50 minutes early for the lecture, and there was already a line around the synagogue.  Apparently, the Ahavath Achim ("AA" for short) Synagogue is where all the power Jews go.  I had heard of this synagogue’s existance, but I wasn’t sure where it was, since it wasn’t in Druid Hills where I live.   Lots of politically involved Jews attend this synagogue, including Bobby Khan, Sen. David Adelman, former Sen. Liane Levetan, and Rep. Mike Jacobs.  I’ve never been in a synagogue, but this one is much like a church.  In fact, it reminded me very much of any large megachurch, except you didn’t see a cross or an alter.

No cameras were allowed by the public, so people with camera phones had to put them back in their car.  All we had to do was go through a metal detector.  Compare this to a Bush event (or really, almost any GOP event) where you must sign some sort of loyalty oath before being let in.   I did not wear any buttons or clothing to indicate that I’m a Hillary supporter, and I was never questioned.  Even though a lot of people had arrived before me, there was still good seating to be had, and I got to sit relatively close to the front.

I noticed some interesting features of the AA synagogue.  First, there are several plaques with nameplates of people who have died.  I guessed this from the "In memorium" inscription above the plaques.  The interesting thing is that next to each name is a light.  Some where lit and others were not.  I’m not sure why this is the case or what it signifies.  I also noticed that the prayer books and the Torah were printed upside and backward.  I knew Hebrew was read right to left, just the opposite of how English is read.  But I wasn’t expecting the English version to be printed with the front of the book where you would normally expect the end to be.  It was interesting.

The event was supposed to start at 7pm, but didn’t get rolling until 7:30pm.  I had no idea that Jews ran on Queer Standard Time (QST) ;-)  Anyway, the second Hillary appeared on the stage, the audience erupted in cheers and rose to its feet.  We had a brief welcome by the President of the synagogue followed by a small lesson about the fall harvest festival that is going on in the Jewish calendar.  Then Stuart Eizenstat introduced Hillary, who really needs no introduction, but we all know these things are carefully choreographed.

On a side note, the number of Secret Service was truly amazing.  They were taking NO chances on her safety.  A lot of people were dressed up, but you could make out the Secret Service folks thanks most of the fact that they were the ones you could see scanning the crowd.  They were positioned all over the synagogue.  Again, that goes to my crazy right winger theory of why national Democrats are rarely found in Georgia.  Not only does it have to do with the extremist voting pattern of the state in national elections especially, but there’s a good chance that some Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity loving crazy will try to take out Hillary for "the conservative cause".   When the speech was over, and everyone was pouring into the parking lot, we were all stopped by the entrance of the synagogue until Hillary could get into her (bulletproof, I’m sure) vehicle and start back to wherever she was going next.  Since there were a lot of trees and the area was pretty dark, I am not surprised that the Secret Service required this.

Hillary looked fabulous in a black power suit with medium heeled pumps.  Her hair was flawless, as was her make-up.  I’ve seen Hillary looking pretty rough in the past, but she was definitely "on" for this event.  She launched into a speech that covered broad themes…themes I’m convinced we’ll see in late 2007 and 2008 when she runs for President.  It is only October 2005, and she is well on her way to developing thoughtful arguments for where our country should go in the future. 

Many might expect that Hillary would throw out some red-meat before a largely friendly crowd.  But her criticism of Bush was not too pointed.  She never mentioned him by name, and she criticised things like planning, budgeting, etc.  She didn’t go after the cronyism charges or the lack of intelligence thing that so many of us in the progressive world despise about the man. 

She spent a good deal of her speech on national security issues.  Turns out that her being on the Armed Services Committee has been a good thing, although I shouldn’t be shocked that Hillary had a plan when she asked for the assignment. She has obviously put a lot of thought, effort, and time into developing her positions in this arena, and they come off as such.  I’ve often wondered why she’s made pro-Bush votes in the Senate, such as voting for the Iraq War, and not being sorry about it.  She has even stated that having a deadline for getting out of Iraq is a mistake. 

This does not mean she agrees with Bush.  She deplores the lack of planning for the post-invasion phase of the war.  She made a statement that just because Iraq didn’t have weapons of mass destruction doesn’t mean those weapons don’t exist.  I’m not sure what she meant by that, unless she meant that other nations who hate the US have weapons of mass destruction.  That seems a bit obvious, but surely she doesn’t make the argument that the WMD were there, but removed before we invaded?  I’m not sure it’s that important.  Most people understand we were lied to in order to go to war with Iraq.  We can argue motives for those lies (was it deliberate…or just "intelligence" errors?  I believe Bush and company lied to us on purpose and cherry picked bad intelligence to make their case) until the cows come home, but the point is, we’re in Iraq, we’ve broken it, and we have to make a good faith attempt to fix it.

This brings me to Hillary’s answer to the question of when the troops should come home.  I agree that setting a date only lets the insurgents know they can wait us out.  But Hillary also thinks the open ended "We’ll be there as long as necessary" mantra of Bush is also a mistake.  The Iraqis must understand that they will have benchmarks of progress in taking over their own security and setting up a working government.  As those benchmarks are met, troops can be withdrawn accordingly.  But there will also be the threat that if we do not see a good faith effort in making progress, that we will withdraw our troops and leave them to fend for themselves.  In a way, it’s a tough love advocacy, and it makes sense.  The Iraqis are not going to become part of the USA.  They do need to take responsibility for their own country and their own futures.  We have the duty and obligation to help them.  If they don’t show they are willing to help themselves, then we will have done our duty in trying to help, and we can leave with a somewhat clean conscience (as clean as the Bush regime can leave us).  This is a sensible compromise that keeps our promises but also doesn’t keep us in a quagmire.

Hillary is also a member of a Pentagon panel (the only sitting Senator on it too!) that is rethinking the structure of our military.  She said that we should expect to see more special forces in all branches in the future which will concentrate on a specific region of the world.  Those serving will learn the language and become immersed in the culture of their area and will specialize in much more tactical strikes when used.  At the same time, though, we mustn’t neglect our conventional warfare.  Even though she hopes that China will become our friendly competitors, we would be foolish to ignore the growing Chinese power and the fact that they are dramatically increasing their military spending.  So we will have to have two kinds of armies, it seems.  A smaller conventional one to answer the growing power of the Chinese, and this newer special forces heavy one to fight terrorists and the states that sponsor them.

Hillary also mentioned health care, but she did it from a business viewpoint.  With costs rising dramatically,  the private and public sector must work together to find a solution.   Neither sector can do it alone.  In a global economy where many of our competitors provide universal healthcare, the American system of employer-based healthcare is quickly becoming unsustainable.  Companies are chosing to locate in places like Canada (ex. Toyota) where health care costs are not a cost of doing business.  The auto industry in the US is in grave danger in large part due to pension and health benefits.  Private industry appears to be reaching a point where it will work with government for a solution to this problem that doesn’t overburden taxpayers, but also helps business remain competitive in worldwide markets.  Hillary didn’t offer any answers, but she did offer this method of solution.  It could work if business and the public become willing to sit at the table together and come to a mutually beneficial solution.  But, Hillary warned, there is a LOT of money to be had in healthcare, and plenty of people becoming quite wealthy under the current system, and they will fight change to the bitter end.

Hillary also catalogued a litany of things that from WWII forward were bipartisan approaches to national problems.  You had a consensus that after WWII, we had to help rebuild not only our former friends, but our former enemies as well, even thought that meant keeping high tax rates.  You had Eisenhower building the interstate highway system (she told a funny anecdote about being told by her teacher that President Eisenhower wanted her to study math just after Sputnik, and even though Hillary hated math, she wasn’t going to disappoint the President).  Even with Nixon, you had the creation of the EPA, and the Endangered Species Act.  Ford reached out to all Americans after the horrors of Watergate.  Even Ronald Reagan knew in 1983 that to help put Social Security back on track would take Democrats AND Republicans.  Even Bush the Father worked with Democrats to solve the fiscal crisis in 1990, even though it meant raising taxes and alienating his base.  He did what was right for the country, and we’ve lost that.  That’s why Hillary has reached out to GOP members like Newt Gingrich to shore up her credentials in working with the GOP.  Even when you disagree on a vast majority of topics, there are areas where you can work with  your political enemies.  We’ve lost the ability and willingness to behave in a bipartisan way, and it’s important for the country to get back to it.  Hillary also mentioned that had we stuck with Carter’s program of investing in alternative energy, we wouldn’t be where we are today with energy prices and oil dependence.  She said there’s no excuse that we don’t have a "Manhattan Project" for alternative enegy sources, especially since the energy crunch is only going to get worse as China and India grow their economies and look for resources to fuel it.  If we invest in alternative energies now, we can find solutions that we could sell to India and China that would not only put Americans to work, but help us compete in the future.  She makes a lot of sense.

This being a largely Jewish audience, she spent the last portion of her speech on Israel.  She said that she supported Sharon’s move toward non-engagement in Gaza, not in small part because we have no business dictating to a democratically elected leader.  Sharon knows his country and its circumstances better than we do here in Atlanta, NY, or anywhere else.  She imagines it was hard for him to withdraw like that, but she feels he did what he thought was best, and the US should support him.  It also provides the Palestinians a "put up or shut up" (my words, not Hillary’s) moment since they have a terroritory that is just theirs now.  She mentioned support for the wall that is being built in the West Bank, and the need for education reform in Palestine so that children aren’t taught to hate.  One thing she pointed out was her belief that teaching your children to hate is a form of child abuse.   I’m very pro-Israel on an emotional level.  I understand there has been some horrible oppression of Palestinians by Israelis, but at the core, the Palestinians abandoned their land in 1948 because they thought that the Arab armies would crush the new Israeli nation.  They gambled and lost.  Quit yer bitchin’, I say!  I firmly believe that Israel just wants to live in peace and enjoy the life of a thriving democracy.  This is the homeland of the Jewish people owed to them in no small part to the Holocaust.  Israel is here to stay, whether the Palestinians like it or not.   It’s odd that this puts me on the side of Bush and the Christian Taliban, but they like Israel for one reason only:  they believe that supporting Israel, they will provoke the 2nd coming of Christ.  They could give a rat’s ass about the Jews or their homeland.

The questions that came weren’t all that difficult.  Hillary talked about Darfur, and how China has blocked any resolution in the UN Security Council due to some deal they have with the Sudanese government.  She urged continued pressure to be applied to our public officials to speak out and act on the Darfur genocide. She talked about why she voted no on John Roberts (he was evasive in his answers and didn’t let us see there was a human being under that big brain of his), and she said that if she were on the Judiciary Committee, her first question to Miers would be ""Please tell us one thing you disagree with President Bush."  I’m sure the silence would be deafening if she were asked that question.

Hillary’s development as a potential presidential candidate is impressive.  Her presentation last night was flawless.  She had notes, but she rarely looked down at them, instead focusing on different people in the audience.  Her voice was well regulated, and she came across as reasonable.  The far right has painted her as such a harpie that seeing her in person is an amazing experience.  She’s calm, reasonable, and friendly.  She has learned her craft in politics well.  Of course, she is married to the master :)  It’s only 2005, and Hillary has a better rationale for being President and a better theme than John Kerry or Al Gore ever did.  I can also see why the GOP is terrified of her…the country, once they got to see her and experience her, would actually like Hillary, and the lies about her would be exposed for what they are.

I fully expect Hillary to annouce her candidacy about two years for now for President.  A Clinton restoration is just what this nation will need after 8 disastrous years under Bush.  I just hope there’s a country to save by the time 2009 gets here.

I first heard about about former Marine (yes, I understand that "once a marine, always a marine") Josh Rushing on CNN as they interviewed him regarding the controversy of his new job with al-Jazeera as an on-air personality for its new English-language network.  Then today I read this story:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1590885,00.html

The Right in this country would have you believe that they virtually deify all military veterans, but their actions belie this stated belief.  If vets are so revered by the Right, then why has Bush consistently cut veteran benefits and underfunded the Department of Veterans’ Affairs?  People who have fought for our country, many of whom suffer irreparable injuries not only to their bodies, but their psyches, deserve better, but this administration and Congress consistently cuts vets off at the knees (no pun intended).  Then you have countless examples of right wingers who have dodged military service when their time came up.  Examples include my Senator, Saxby "Bad Knee" Chambliss who claimed a bum knee in Vietnam and then won office by running commercials declaring triple amputee and Vietnam Vet Max Cleland to be Osama’s right hand man for not kow-towing to Bush’s demands for the Homeland Security Department.  You also have Dick Cheney, Rummy, and the whole gang of neo-cons running things in the Bush Administration who avoided service in Vietnam for one reason or another.  And they called Clinton a draft dodger!  And let us not forget the bungling of Iraq where troops have been underfunded, understaffed, and overextended.  This abuse has even taken in the National Guard who are treated as just another division of the full time military.  Finally, we have the latest exposure of the grotesque underbelly of the right when it comes to our military…they are threatening a former Marine’s life because of the job he has taken with al-Jazeera.

Josh Rushing was a media spokesman for the Marines during the initial stages of the Iraq war.  Good looking (OK, hot as hell), charismatic, and well spoken, he ended up being featured in an independent film about media relations during the invasion and aftermath which many said was sympathetic to al-Jazeera.  I haven’t seen the film, so I can’t personally comment one way or another.  But it does come apparent that Rushing rethought this war and his reactions to it during his time overseas.  Thus the seeds of his "treason" (according to the Right) were sown and took root.

al-Jazeera wants to expand its reach beyond the Arabic speaking world.  It’s already known for its no-holds-barred coverage that slants heavily toward the Palestinian cause and with a definite anti-Western slant.  So a new English language channel is being launched, which should be interesting.  I would be surprised if any cable company in the US will carry it though, as the pressure from the right would overwhelm any company daring to do so, even on a paid-prescription basis.   

It does not appear that Rushing knows exactly what he’ll be doing as an "on air personality" but I’m sure it will include commentary.  Rushing is not a fire-breathing America hater as the Right would have us believe.  He may be working for a network that doesn’t like our government too much, but I’m guessing he can be counted on to give a thoughtful, independent American voice to often-slanted coverage.  Hopefully, he’ll be more effective than Alan Colmes on Fox, who I think was chosen by Sean Hannity as the "left perspective" for his show because Colmes is a wuss, and an ugly one at that. 

The Right, it seems, will applaud vets who tow the GOP party line only.  The minute that a vet expresses a thought or completes an action of which the Right doesn’t approve, then that vet will be branded an America-hating traitor fit only for death by the hands of someone "righteous".  I’m not sure Rushing was wise taking the job with al-Jazeera, but I defend his right to choose the employment of his choice.  As long as he’s not asked to betray his nation (which I think he would NEVER do), then I don’t see a problem.  It’s up to him if he’s comfortable working for a company whose policy seems to be anti-USA.  It’s not anyone else’s business.  It is no more patriotic to work for Halliburton than for al-Jazeera, despite what Bushies would tell you.

This brings up an interesting point on where the GOP is leading America.  Since 9/11, we have been led down this rosy jingoistic path where "you’re either with us or against us."  Anyone who dares question Bush policy on ANYTHING is automatically labeled as a terrorist sympathizer and an America hating liberal. As someone who is a liberal on most issues, I find that offensive.  The liberals I know love this country every bit as much as the conservatives claim to.  That’s why we’re so ANGRY with what the the GOP is doing to this country.  The best ideals of the USA are being subsumed by this neo-fascist regime which demands total unquestioning loyalty to the GOP line.  That’s not what America is about.  From the far left to the far right, I don’t know anyone who wouldn’t do whatever he/she could to stop a terrorist if it was in his/her power.  Most Americans are just like the ones on Flight 77 that crashed in PA on 9/11 who took down the plane rather than allow the terrorists to turn them into a missile of their choosing.  The right would have you believe that only people who agree with Bush would behave that way.  We are now at a point where a man who decides to take a simple job as an on air personality has to take extra security precautions because of DEATH THREATS by people who claim to "love America".  If Americans don’t do something to check the power of the GOP soon (like in 2006), we will be led down a path that not only leads to a theocracy based on a singular interpretation of the King James Bible, but that jails and/or kills anyone who dares question or fight against such an occurrence. 

We must guard our rights as Americans with vigilance at all times, no matter who is in power.  I’m the first to admit that the left can also get carried away with trampling on people’s rights…but in this day, at this time, the Right holds all the levers of power, and it is the Right that we must fight against…lest the America that we love slip into dustbin of history.

It appears that our beloved President has decreed that there is a new standard for Supreme Court justices.  Only evangelical Christians may apply.  You know that Ruthie Ginsberg and Stevie Breyer are breathing a sigh of relief, being Jewish and all and therefore ineligible under the Bush guidelines.  They’re lucky that the House hasn’t tried to impeach them.  Of course, if the GOP ever gets 67 senators, I’m sure that will be something the GOP would try.  They’d immediately remove Breyer, Ginsberg, Stevens, and Souter for "judicial activism" which means that the right wing doesn’t like how your rule.  Judicial Activists are only acceptable when the outcome pleases the evangelical masses and strictly enforces the Old Testament, er, I mean, the Constitution.

I don’t know what to make of old Harriet.  Part of me thinks she may be another lesbian admirer of Bush a la Condi.  And no, I have no proof that Condi or Miers is a lesbian, but my gaydar sure does go off.  What good Christian girls do you know who would never get married and pop out babies like the right wing says is the only thing women are good for? 

But you can say one thing about Bush:  the women in his life are fiercely devoted to him.  That’s why Harriet was chosen.  She’s a born again evangelical like Bush who believes that a theocratic society based on right wing "Christian Taliban" values would be the best thing for America.  Bush selected her because he knows she wouldn’t cross him on the Court by voting a way he wouldn’t approve.  I’m sure the same is true about John Roberts, but the new CJ’s intellect does open the door to independence as he gains time on the bench.  Only once we start seeing his votes and opinions this term will we understand if he truly is Chief Justice Scalia or not.  Like the 22 Democrats who voted "aye" on Roberts, I probably would have joined them, voting my hopes rather than my fears.  We’ll see.

With Miers, you don’t have any sense of this blazing intellect.  You have the sense that she’s a Bush crony getting another plum assignment.  She’s proven her loyalty time and again, which is the only thing this president values.  And someone needs to let one of the closet case GOP homos get to her and tell her to lighten up on the eye make-up.  The heavy dark eyeliner is NOT flattering and makes her look like a dragon lady.  Of course, that’s been her role in the White House thus far….enforcer and protector of the President. 

I hope some Senator has the cojones to ask Miers if she really said that Bush is the most brilliant man she’s ever known.  If that is the case, sister needs to get out more.  I know a lot of Bush’s clumsiness with language and such is part of his schtick to make people think he’s a  regular guy.  But if you matched intellect between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, there’s no contest.  Bill Clinton would wipe the floor with Dubya on sheer brain power.   That Miers would say such thing about Bush does not speak well for her judgement.

That said, I wonder if the GOP senators will have the gumption to vote no on her.  The Washington Post has an article today about how GOP senators with presidential hopes are scared to cross Bush, because he will exact revenge come 2008 when they need to fundraise.  Still, it would be fun to see the GOP eat their own and vote down Harriet Miers.  Of course, then we could end up with Edith Brown or Patricia Owens.  *shudder*

It would have been quite easy for me to through myself a nice pity party yesterday.  I was sorely tempted, but I resisted.  The day wasn’t all that happy, but it wasn’t horrible either.  I’m already over the blow to my ego of HR deeming me "unqualified".  After all, this is the same bunch that said working your entire life in rural Alabama qualified as "public health experience in a developing country setting" and who said that a being a nurse in the federal prison system who has deported criminals to various countries also qualifies as international public health experience.  It’s sometimes good to be the recruitment lead for your division and to understand these things

After my post, I had several friends contact me to cheer me up and just let me know that they thought I was all that and a bag of low-fat potato chips.  It reminded me of the blessings of life that I do have.  I have good friends who genuinely care about me.  I even have exes who think I’m a good guy even though they certainly have reason not to hold such an opinion.  I have two dogs that are always happy to see me and follow me around the house, sopping up any and all attention I give them.  I’ve got a good job working with people I actually like and for a boss who’s wonderful, at least for me.  I’m financially secure at this point in my life, and I own my own home.  I’m also pretty healthy.  So there’s a lot to be grateful for.  Sometimes we just need reminders of these things, and last night, my friends gave me that reminder.

Today started normally enough.  Of course, I made the unwise choice to sleep in a bit later rather than carry my chunky butt to the gym like I should at 6am in the morning.  But that’s more common than I’d like to admit.  Evenings suck b/c I have activities planned most nights, and I’m not about to give up my political activities.

Even work was par for the course.  Then came lunch.  Today is National Coming Out Day, and for that event, the LGBT group at CDC had a "brown bag" lunch discussion.  The topic was LGBT families, since they appear to be under attack again soon by the Grumpy Old Puritans controlling the GA General Assembly.  It was a good discussion, but it made me feel bad.  Here I am 30 and single, and everyone around the table was discussing their same sex spouses of at least 10 yrs each, and the children they have together.

Which makes me wonder…will I *EVER* have that?  I thought at one point that I might, and that I’d found the guy I could build that life with.  But he turned out to have a secret called AIDS.  So the one guy I do pick ends up having a disease for which there is no cure and which is a permanent block to adoption…and he pretended he didn’t have it, so he couldn’t have to face it.  Of course, that meant no testing for him, which I didn’t know until we’d been together 2 years.  And yes, I’m fine.  Enough time has passed that my negative status has been affirmed.  But it doesn’t make me any less alone now.

Anyway, those old demons of self-doubt, which have been buried for a few years, started creeping back after that lunch.  Then I come back to find out that I’d been ruled "unqualified" for an immunization project officer job assigned to one of the states.  Now I work in Global Immunizations now, and I’ve been to Africa three times on missions.  If I really wanted to push, I could likely get assigned to Zimbabwe next year.  But I don’t want that.  First, it would be giving up 4 prime dating years.  Even if I were interested in dating Africans, US policy on gay people would basically mean I’d never be able to come back if I met someone.  Also, the odds of finding someone with HIV are huge in southern Africa, and if I wanted that, I’d have stayed with the guy I had.  Anyway, being told I was unqualified was kind of a slap in the face.  I’m trying to find out why I was deemed "unqualified".  Not that I want to leave Atlanta, mind you.  It’s just an ego blow, especially when I friggin’ WORK in immunizations and have for the past two years!

So it’s been one of those "blah" days, and I’m looking forward to just going home.