My favorite episode of From the Earth to the Moon is "Spider", in which engineers build the LM. How do you design something to go somewhere we've never been and do things that have never been done before? These engineers had to tackle issues we never have to think about here on earth. And it seems scientists are working on these issues again as they prepare to go back to the moon as a stepping stone to Mars.

Once planners choose a base, the astronauts will immediately need to bring a host of technologies to bear, none of which currently exist. "Power is a big challenge," Toups said. Solar arrays are an obvious answer, but away from the poles 14 days of lunar sunlight are followed by 14 days of darkness, so "how do you handle the dormancy periods?"

Next is the spacesuit. Apollo suits weighed 270 pounds on Earth, a relatively comfortable "felt weight" of 40 to 50 pounds on the moon, but an unacceptable 102 pounds on Mars. "You can't haul that around, bend down or climb hills," Lee said. "Somehow we have to cut the mass of the current spacesuit in half."

And the new suit, unlike the Apollo suits or the current 300-pound shuttle suit, is going to have to be relatively easy to put on and take off, and to be able withstand the dreaded moon dust.

After three days, Apollo astronauts reported that the dust was causing the joints in their suits to jam, "and we're not talking about three outings," Lee said of the next moon missions. "We're talking about once a week for 500 days -- between 70 and 100 spacewalks."

Dealing with dust is also a major concern in building shelters on the lunar surface. Toups said it might be possible to harden the ground by microwaving it, creating a crust "like a tarp when you're camping." Otherwise, the dust pervades everything, and prolonged exposure could even lead to silicosis.

Dust also makes it virtually impossible to use any kind of machinery with ball bearings. Civil engineer Darryl J. Calkins, of the Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, warned that the combination of dust, low gravity, temperature swings and the high cost of flying things to the moon is going to define the lunar tool kit in unforeseen ways.

"You can't put a diesel up there; you can't put a 20,000-pound bulldozer up there; and none of our oils or hydraulic fluids are going to survive," Calkins said in a telephone interview. "We may have to go back to the 19th century to find appropriate tools -- use cables, pulleys, levers."

And even then, it will be difficult to level a base site and haul away the fill because there's not enough gravity to give a tractor adequate purchase. Instead, Calkins envisions a device that can "scrape and shave" small amounts of soil and take it away bit by bit.

But in the end, "you have to learn how to do it, with real people," McKay said. "This is hard, but we can learn it. And if we do it right on the moon, we will be able to answer my ultimate question: Can Mars be habitable? I think the answer is 'yes.' "

I love that first sentence: "bring a host of technologies to bear, none of which currently exist." It reminds me of Michael Crichton's insight on the horse:

Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?

But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was.

I can't wait to see what these scientists come up with.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:41 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 706 words, total size 4 kb.

I couldn't help but guffaw when my husband pointed out the funniest quote from France's labor riots:

You'll get a job knowing that you've got to do every single thing they ask you to do because otherwise you may get sacked.

Heaven forbid you have to do what your boss tells you to do.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:24 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Those wacky French! All this time we had it wrong, you're not supposed to do what your boss tells you to do.

Posted by: Vonn at March 27, 2006 10:14 AM (dEgRi)

2 I would have liked to have heard the context. It is either pretty funny or not funny at all, depending on whether we are supposed to be thinking about cases where the boss is only making reasonable, work-related demands or cases where the boss is asking for, let's say, sex. It is probaboy the former; I'm as ready as anyone to call the French whacky. I'm familiar with a lot of cases in this country, though, where people have been sacked after refusing to follow orders that were neither reasonable nor job relevant.

Posted by: Pericles at March 27, 2006 04:42 PM (ra2qX)

3 You're familiar with LOTS of cases in this country? You're a freaking human resources tech at Total Fina SA? Yes, I'm sure you are very familiar with complex labor laws IN FRANCE and their application and some common abuses of that system...Or you're just a tool who has to say something contrary on this blog all the damn time. Hmmm...yeah I'm gonna go with the latter. FAMILIAR and LOTS smell and awful lot like bullshit to me. I'm declaring shenanigans!

Posted by: Joe D at March 27, 2006 11:32 PM (OH/4Z)

4 Joe- I am familiar with a lot of cases in "this country," as in the U.S. You're right; I know very little about the labor situation in France, and nothing about cases of bosses making illegitimate demands on workers. My point was just that when you say "You've got to do what the boss says," you always have to qualify that, at least in your mind, with the phrase "as long as it ia reasonable, job-related demand." It is not buillshit, though, when I say that I know about a pretty good number of cases in this country. I've never given any indication on here of who I am or what I do for a living, and I don't think I'll start now. I'll let my arguments stand o fall on their own. Suffice it to say, though, that questions of illegal and unethical labor practices fall within the purview of my job.

Posted by: Pericles at March 28, 2006 12:24 PM (ra2qX)

5 Pericles, I'm sure your comment wouldn't have been taken the way it was if you weren't ALWAYS debating with Sarah. Every once in a while, it would be nice for you to just say, "Good point, Sarah." (And leave it at that) I do enjoy hearing your opinions...but throw her a damn bone for chrissakes. It's difficult to be criticized over and over and over. And I think we are all pretty clear on where you stand on a lot of issues...so saying something nice won't make us doubt where you are coming from. Seriously.

Posted by: Erin at March 28, 2006 04:58 PM (SWlCy)

6 Erin- I'll make you a deal. I'll contribute one post where I agree with something Sarah says, and leave it at that, for each time that you post a comment that disagrees with something she says, and leave it at that. Seriously, I'm sorry if I have crossed any lines in my posts here. I may not agree much with Sarah or most of the other commentators, but I've tried very hard not to remain civil and not to make any personal comments about anyone. If I didn't think that most of the people here were intelligent and willing to listen to people who disagree with them, I wouldn't bother posting or even reading. I've never thought that I was criticizing people by disagreing with them. To my mind, expressing reasoned disagreement with someone, instead of just scoffing at them, is kind of a compliment.

Posted by: Pericles at March 28, 2006 05:48 PM (eKf5G)

7 Pericles, Fortunately, I'm friends with Sarah...so whenever I disagree with her, I'm able to say it to her face. It doesn't happen very often, but I sure do let her know when it does (and it has happened fairly recently). The difference is that I make a point of telling her when I agree with the way she groks something... I think you are a pretty respectful person. I enjoy hearing about other peoples' opionions just as much as the next guy...but I also like to see warm and fuzzy comments to a friend that I think deserves them. Do whatever you want, dude. It is, as they say, a free country...Yay for that.

Posted by: Erin at March 30, 2006 12:42 PM (l3CR4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The Girl sent me this link with Charlie in mind: Game of fetch turns ugly
I don't know if Charlie could swallow a whole stick, but he appears to be working himself up to the challenge: two days ago he threw up a couple of pieces of tree bark.

In other Charlie news, he's gotten too smart for this house. Our kitchen pantry has a flimsy folding door, and Charlie has taught himself to open it and feast on the garbage. He bites the wooden slats and pulls! So now we have to have something constantly blocking the door, which makes my life annoying because I have to move a gigantic space heater every time I need to get food or throw something away.

I took some photos of the husband and the pup wrestling on Ace Ventura night. This one turned out hilarious:

Stay tuned for photos of Charlie's birthday party in April; he's inviting six of his closest friends over for cake...

Posted by: Sarah at 01:34 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.

I just had a long talk with Erin about how pessimistic and depressed I've been feeling lately. I can't read LGF without wanting to cry. My stomach is still in knots about Iran. And I just watched Season 2 of 24, which is reason enough to want to crawl in a hole. I'm losing it. And then I remembered Smink's advice:

First, go buy a six pack and swig it all down.
Then, watch “Ace Ventura.”
And after that, buy a Hard Rock Café shirt and come talk to me.
You really need to lighten up, man.

I don't have a Hard Rock shirt, but maybe my "I saw the Pope -- Des Moines 1979" shirt will work? And we certainly have beer and Ace Ventura. That's what my husband and I will do tonight, because I sure need a way to relax.

I also found that my spirits were lifted reading the Tanker Brothers blog today. I realized that I want to focus on reading MilBlogs for a while; soldiers always make me feel rejuvinated.

Posted by: Sarah at 11:44 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Hey, LGF makes me cry, too.

Posted by: Pericles at March 23, 2006 12:19 PM (ra2qX)

2 LGF makes me angry - it's the new McCarthy for a new era of fear. Also, I swallowed a pop can tab accidentally, and I'm quite worried about it.

Posted by: Will Somerset at March 23, 2006 03:05 PM (eIQfa)

3 Reading some Churchill might help, Sarah. Things looked pretty bad in the mid-late 1930s, too, and we came out of it OK. Try "The Last Lion: Alone" by William Manchester.

Posted by: David Foster at March 23, 2006 08:13 PM (qzQdM)

4 Not that I expect you care especially, but FYI, I have not been around much lately since a while back I had a few very severe seizures and have been busily bouncing around to hospitals to neurologists to radiologists to oncologists. At this point they are not assuring me that I will be alive through the end of the year, though it is still an open question whether I will recover - there are still seemingly endless tests that need to be done (and redone). On the plus side, MRIs do offer one a fair amount of time for contemplation and self reflection, just use good earplugs. Sadly I still have to work, though fortunately I can telecommute a lot, and I have good insurance. So I have been trying not to waste time on the internet (this is just a slip), but instead spending my time with things more important - reading good books that needed to be read or re-read (thank God for Plato and Plotinus) and spending more time with my Piano. There were a lot of things I never got around to. Now I realize that there are a lot I never will master that I wish I could have - lots of Chopin's beautiful waltzes, Beethoven's brilliant Sonatas (but still too hard dangit), Bach inventions, (the Goldberg variations are definitely not going to happen, alas, though they probably never would even if I live to be 100) and so on. I will be working on what I can, though since the meds make mind a bit fuzzy and my hands a bit slow, it is all the more time intensive. And of course, most of all, I need to hang out with the kids as much as possible. Kind regards and best wishes. Even if I fully recover I'll not be back, as I realize I should be spending my time on more important things. Sophia and me

Posted by: Mr. Silly at March 24, 2006 03:37 PM (xJvll)

5 Mr Silly -- I truly am very sorry to hear that. Though you and I never saw eye to eye, I certainly have never wished you harm or sadness. I hope that you do recover and live every moment to the fullest. All my best wishes, Sarah

Posted by: Sarah at March 24, 2006 03:51 PM (016Fe)

6 I found myself in the same boat as you today... so as I was reading through MilBlogs, I found you. Great site for me to find tonight. First: love your post on March 16th. Secondly: love the link you have to Homestar Runner. Many of my friends/family don't 'get' Homestar, but my husband is a HUGE fan. Now that he's 6 mo. into an 18 mo. deployment, there's no one for me to throw lines back and forth with. So it made me smile. Thanks for that!

Posted by: Emily at March 24, 2006 08:36 PM (ux3w4)

7 Mr. Silly: Stay strong, man.

Posted by: Pericles at March 24, 2006 10:48 PM (eKf5G)

8 Mr. Silly, I am saddened by your news. To think about all the bickering that has occurred in recent months, it makes me realize how menial it is in the grand scheme of things. I love my daughter with all my heart, and as a mother I sometimes get defensive when I read comments that have attacked her personally or miscontrued what she actually was trying to say. It must be very difficult to be burdened with this sadness, and I pray that either a miracle will occur and you will get well or that you will be able to live life to the fullest before it is your time to go. I've always told my kids not to judge a person until "you have walked a mile in their shoes." In light of your situation, my on-line exchanges with you now make me realize that I need to be more tolerant and understanding of those with different opinions even if I do disagree. It doesn't hurt to get one of life's lessons even at the age of 59. Take care and God bless. Nancy Sarah's Mama

Posted by: Nancy at March 26, 2006 04:20 PM (6s7Zq)

9 Mr. Silly, good luck to you in your efforts to recover your health, and consider that (from my family experience, for whatever that's worth) true, deep-seated optimism has a way of making itself medically apparent. As a cellist, my favorite Chopin is his cello sonata as recorded so intimately by Du Pre and Barenboim, which I someday hope to sit down and tackle... :-) IMHO, the passion generated by political difference has no place in the deeply personal circumstances of illness, and I sincerely wish for you a full recovery. -Piercello

Posted by: piercello at March 26, 2006 11:29 PM (plBen)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I saw some show yesterday with some newswoman talking about the anniversary of OIF I (honestly, I can never be bothered to keep the shows or the people straight). At the very end of the segment, she said something in closing about the toll of the war blah blah and something like "in a war whose outcome is far from certain." What a defeatist way of ending the show. I'd like to think my country isn't interested in getting into wars we're not sure we're going to win. And I'd like to think that three years in we're still committed to winning instead of being "far from certain." I wish she had ended the program by saying that the road may be hard but the US is not ready to give up. How different everyone's view of this war would be if newspeople threw a dash of optimism into their reporting.

LGF got an email about casualty statistics that's really something to ponder. Anyone who has a loved one in the fight should read it. It also brings up the same thing that I said while my husband was gone: a soldier's job is to soldier. These are things we should all keep in mind as we settle into OIF IV.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:25 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 215 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Dang. Thanks for the link.

Posted by: Erin at March 22, 2006 06:38 AM (5IZsN)

2 BTW...Can't wait to hear how Will and Pericles argue this one.

Posted by: Erin at March 22, 2006 06:39 AM (5IZsN)

3 I too would like to think that my country isn't interested in getting into wars it isn't sure it can win. Sadly, the reality seems to be somewhat different.

Posted by: Pericles at March 22, 2006 08:31 AM (eKf5G)

4 By the way, I thought that the LGF statistics about casualty rates were silly. I'm not one to harp on the casualty rate too much, because we'd be justified in staying in a war with a much higher casualty rate if the reasons for going to war in the first place were stronger. Still, this is just playing with numbers. The implication is that you're safer fighting in Iraq than here. The problem is that the numbers for the U.S. death rate includes people dying of old age. To make it meaningful, let's see the death rate for people in the prime of their life, as the troops are. Also, let's throw in not just death numbers, but also numbers for serious injuries. How about a statistic for the number of amputations in the U.S. versus the number for troops in Iraq? One of my conservative friends was scoffing at the civil war talk after the mosque bombing, saying that the number of people killed in sectarian violence after the bombing was not much more than a bad month in Detroit. Maybe he was right, but this was a week after the bombing, i.e., a week versus a month. I'm not saying that no liberal has ever played with numbers the same way, but if they did, LGF would be all over it.

Posted by: Pericles at March 22, 2006 10:10 AM (eKf5G)

5 Well, hell must have frozen over because Pericles and I agree on the statistics. I think the better comparison would be to past conflicts. Yes, each life is precious and an unbelievable heartache to families who love them. But as military equipment improves, casualties and deaths decrease. Those statistics would be more meaningful than a comparison to the public at large.

Posted by: Oda Mae at March 22, 2006 03:06 PM (93sjs)

6 "But as military equipment improves, casualties and deaths decrease." Unfortunately, as the enemy's military equipment improves, casualties and deaths can also increase.

Posted by: Amritas at March 22, 2006 03:18 PM (+nV09)

7 Damn pericles, you hit the obvious before I even got a chance.

Posted by: Will Somerset at March 22, 2006 06:54 PM (eIQfa)

8 http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/3/20/21940/0381

Posted by: Oda Mae at March 23, 2006 02:18 AM (fRZNM)

9 What do numbers prove, exactly? If the war is just and good, then endless sacrifices are justified. If the war is illegal and immoral, than just one death is a crime.

Posted by: Will Somerset at March 23, 2006 04:37 AM (eIQfa)

10 Will, The numbers don't really prove anything, but you already knew that. But I'm confused. Who determines the legality of war? What makes the war immoral? I'm so sick of hearing people use these words to describe the conflict in Iraq! The immorality of this war isn't absolute just because people like you say it is. I'm sure I can pretty much predict what you might respond with, but seriously. I want to know how you can justify calling this war illegal and immoral (try to do it in 100 words or less...I have a low attention span).

Posted by: Erin at March 23, 2006 05:55 AM (EnpkF)

11 Prove a controversial legal and moral position in 100 words: good luck with that, Will! I think the trick is to say that any time you are talking about shooting people and blowing them up, the initial assumption should be that this is illegal and immoral. It is up to to those who think that law and morality permit war in this particular case to prove otherwise. War is guilty until proven inncocent. One can argue that Saddam's failure to comply with the cease fire agreement is a legal justification for the war. Morally, it would be harder to justify. Traditional just war theory allows for preemptive but not preventive war; you can shoot first when you're about to be attacked, but not just because you speculate that years down the road a country might attack you. My own moral criticisms would center on the President's obligation to the troops not to put their lives at risk when no important objective justifies it. I'd also say that it was a moral failure to ignore the generals' advice about the number of troops. The Bushies ignored our moral obligation to be rsponsible for order in the country after we overthrew its government.

Posted by: Pericles at March 23, 2006 08:17 AM (eKf5G)

12 Erin, The initial cause for war was the imminent danger posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. The American people and congress agreed to the war because we didn't want Saddam perpetuating his own 9/11 with a nuclear bomb. This threat didn't turn out to be try. Moreover, it seems as if intelligence was skewed by the administration to create a cause for war rather than detect one. Colin Powell, a man who survived two tours in Vietnam morally intact, calls it a 'blot' on his record. So what are we left with? Taking out Saddam was right just because he was a dictator? When this war started, human rights were only a very minor reason to enter Iraq. Human rights became more of an after-the-fact justification only when it turned out that there were no WMD or prewar links to international terrorism. The extreme measure of military invasion should be reserved for stopping ongoing or imminent mass slaughter, and that wasn't happening in Iraq in March 2003. Humanitarian intervention might have been justified to stop the Anfal genocide in 1988 against the Kurds, but there was nothing like that going on in 2003. Clearly, Saddam was an awful dictator, but there are many awful dictators in the world, and toppling an awful dictator, in my view, does not justify military intervention. And even if you did want to justify this war based on the human rights issue, the fact is that Saddam is charged with killing 148 Shiites, illegal imprisonment and torture in a crackdown launched after an assassination attempt against Hussein in the Shiite village of Dujail in 1982. Killing 148? Shit, the green river killer almost has that topped. And how many civilians have been killed as a direct result of Operation Iraqi Freedom? 20 000? 30 000? How ten of thousands are maimed for life? But let's remember that this is called Operation Iraqi FREEDOM! So then there's the freedom angle. Allright, fair enough. Let's see how it plays. I hope they are all free and democratic at the end of the day. But I'll say this: When Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, the Iraqi people better be the free-est people on the face of the planet. They better have so much freedom they can fucking fly. And so I will end with a quote from Richard Hass, former aide to President George H.W. Bush, and president of the Council on Foreign Relations: "The war has absorbed a tremendous amount of U.S. military capacity, the result being that the U.S. has far less spare or available capacity to use in the active sense or to exploit in the diplomatic sense. It has weakened our position against both North Korea and Iran. It has exacerbated U.S. fiscal problems. The war has also contributed to the world's alienation from the U.S. and made it more difficult to galvanize international support for U.S. policy toward other challenges. Iraq's legacy could also lead to renewed American public resistance to international involvement." I'm going to go outside now and do a cart-wheel. A cart-wheel for freedom.

Posted by: Will Somerset at March 23, 2006 02:57 PM (eIQfa)

13 Will: No.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at March 23, 2006 09:36 PM (RbYVY)

14 No cart-wheel?

Posted by: Will Somerset at March 24, 2006 03:44 PM (eIQfa)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I just talked to my Swedish friend, and somehow something came up about a unit leaving for Iraq. She asked if we were still sending soldiers to Iraq, you know, since the bombing started this week.

Oh lord.

When I flipped out about the media's misrepresentation of the air assault, I honestly didn't even think about the repercussions for the global media. I didn't stop to think that the German media might be telling Germans that the US started bombing. What a mess they've caused.

Posted by: Sarah at 10:24 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

We went to Prague today.

Golly, I just love Europe.

MORE TO GROK:

Pertinent link: 17% of Americans view the US negatively

Anyway, I was just being snarky with my photo. However, I will say that my husband and I are two of the stingiest people you'll ever meet, which is part of the reason we hardly ever travel. So it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth when we spend money to go to another country and have to see crap like this. We also went to the Museum of Communism, and while we were happy to see them tell communism like it is, I was extremely disheartened to see that some of the stuff in the gift shop made fun of the US and George Bush. This just doesn't seem very appropriate to me, nor did the other poster that said something like "Remember when the US stood for freedom?" I don't see why that kind of "joke" has a place in the Museum of Communism.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:32 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.

Sweet merciful crap.

Right now on MSNBC on TV, they're announcing that the US has launched the biggest "air strike" in Iraq since 2003. This would be news if it were true, but what is really going on is an air assault, which is nothing like an air strike. An air strike is planes dropping bombs; an air assault is helicopters dropping troops onto the ground so they can kick down doors. Big whopping difference, news folks. Maybe you should get your damn terminology straight before you start blabbing your mouths.

As of right now, the MSNBC homepage has this graphic:

Which leads to this article: U.S. launches largest Iraq air assault in 3 years
Correct information in the article, which the military spoonfed them; incorrect information in their flashy photo.

Oh media, how I roll my eyes at you.

This is not just a nitpicky difference. The two words are completely not interchangable. Why didn't someone correct the anchorwoman, who repeated "air strike" several times? Oh, that's right, because no one at MSNBC has the first clue about the military.

Posted by: Sarah at 01:21 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

I haven't had any knitting content on the blog lately because everything I was making was a secret. But now the baby knitting is over and I'm just trying to pass the time until we move. I can't start anything big, so I've just been working to keep my hands busy. In the past two weeks, I've made two pairs of socks, a scarf, and a cozy for our portable DVD player.

The scarf sprung from a challenge from The Girl. The husband and I went to see King Kong over the weekend, and I knew that I didn't want to sit for three hours without knitting. So I told The Girl I was going to try out my Blind Knitting in the darkness of a movie theater for the first time. I realized that knitting in the dark is a bit different from knitting in the light. Even though I normally watch TV while knitting -- and I can even watch subtitled flicks -- I can still sneak peeks at my work. But there were no peeks in the movie theater. I found it takes more touch to knit in the dark; I had to put my finger on every stitch in order to knit it. And I was only brave enough for garter stitch! The process was much slower, but I think in time I'll get better. Now I just have to decide if I want to take knitting to see Superman Returns or X-Men: The Last Stand. I had trouble concentrating on that scarf when King Kong was fighting three t-rexes, so I'm not sure I'll be able to concentrate at all during two movies that will be the highlight of our summer! But maybe I can perfect my Blind Knitting before Spiderman 3...

Posted by: Sarah at 05:56 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 301 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Sarah - have you tried knitting with fun fur? It's all the rage here in the states right now. The scarves look adorable and they're quite warm. Not sure if you can get the fun fur there, but, when you get here - go to Michael's or the Rag Shop and you'll know what I mean.

Posted by: Kathleen A at March 14, 2006 08:06 AM (7qm8p)

2 Sarah, My mom is so excited to learn. She wants to know what knitting needles to bring and yarn...SHE CAN't WAIT...if you are still up for a lesson let me know, you can email me at home and let me know

Posted by: Stephanie at March 14, 2006 08:17 AM (Y1m/K)

3 My husband probably wouldn't let me sit next to him if I brought knitting to Spiderman 3 haha So glad you took me up on the dare!! I think that's just priceless.

Posted by: The Girl at March 14, 2006 03:42 PM (Od6M1)

4 That picture doesn't do my new scarf any justice! And I love that I can say, "Yeah, my friend knitted this in the movie theater while she watched King Kong." The color and everything is perfect. I wore it at home (by myself, on the couch) tonight because I love it so much! Thank you...

Posted by: Erin at March 14, 2006 06:30 PM (HjVHY)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

It's a coincidence that I made a cake yesterday, but maybe it's not too late to add Milosevic's name to it so he can have the same "honor" as Arafat and Saddam. "Suck it, Slobodan" has a nice ring to it too...

Posted by: Sarah at 04:10 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.

I just had a wistful moment at my new job. We recycle old used folders when a new client comes in, and today the folder that was on top to use was Heidi Sims'. It was sad for me to stick a new label on that folder. But at least I'm excited that Heidi will be visiting next week! I can't wait to spend some time with her now that I've gotten to know her better.

Posted by: Sarah at 09:04 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Sarah, If I may ask...where do you work? I've been curious because I worked at ACS when we lived in Germany and I've been wondering if you're there or somewhere else. Have a good day

Posted by: Nicole at March 10, 2006 12:32 PM (1ECnr)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I'm Nobody! Who are you?
Are you—Nobody—Too?
Then there's a pair of us!
Don't tell! they'd advertise—you know!

Earth heard a rumor that there's water on Enceladus...

Posted by: Sarah at 06:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

After the Incident, I knew we had to get a professional involved. Charlie's hair has been steadily getting more tangled. I handed over one big mess of hair to the dog groomer today...

and this is what they handed me back...

He doesn't even look like the same dog! But I'm sure this hair situation, although a bit chilly for our snow, will be much better for summer in South Carolina.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:38 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

1 He looks really sweet. Winston always looks like a different dog when they cut his hair too.

Posted by: Stephanie at March 09, 2006 08:46 AM (Y1m/K)

2 Ohhh... those Teddy Bear eyes. So sweet.

Posted by: Ruth H at March 09, 2006 10:13 AM (mcTrg)

3 Look at that face.....well, now that you can see it, that is. :-)

Posted by: Tammi at March 09, 2006 11:28 AM (lfQya)

4 Do you want me to crochet him a doggie sweater? He looks cute shaved but I must say I liked the hair in the eyes look too

Posted by: Angie at March 09, 2006 03:35 PM (SA3c9)

5 By summer you'll have to have him shaved again.

Posted by: Kathleen A at March 09, 2006 11:04 PM (7qm8p)

6 Oh my goodness, what a difference! He looks like Toby did a couple of months ago when I got him groomed. He looked like a little rat when I picked him up. I found out the next time I went in that they had gotten the files mixed up and cut Toby's hair really short. One nice thing--it grows back quickly! And Charlie's stil the sweet, lovable pup that he was before he got his haircut. I sure miss his kises when he'd come into the bedroom and literally fly through the air and land right on my face so he could give me kisses! It won't be long before I see all three of you! Charlie's "new do" makes him look a little angelic! Your Mama

Posted by: Nancy at March 10, 2006 03:07 AM (6s7Zq)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Colby Buzzell has another article out in the March issue of Esquire. Personally, Buzzell is a bit too existentialist for my taste, but this article features our friend LT A who was injured in Mosul. I can't believe LT A remembers pushing his own intestines back into his stomach...

Posted by: Sarah at 03:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

I suppose today is a milestone of sorts, though I don't really know how exactly it should be celebrated. My husband returned from Iraq one year ago today. I feel blessed that I've had him for 12 consecutive months without another deployment on the horizon; that's something to cherish in today's military. And that's all I have to say about that.

Posted by: Sarah at 07:58 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

This article will give you a lump in your throat. Heck, I got misty-eyed just reading the title: At his 80th birthday party, Holocaust survivor meets soldier who liberated him

Posted by: Sarah at 07:48 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

I get discouraged often. The other night, my husband comforted me as I defeatedly moaned about demographics and jihad. I fear Iran's nukes. I fear the birthrate. I fear what will happen if we don't put our foot down and say, "It's just a cartoon, dammit." I did mention to my husband that I feel awful pessimistic about the future of the world, so I pity those who honestly believe we live in Bushitler's Oil Junta; they must fret a lot more than I do. My moaning has got nothin' on these people.

When I get discouraged about the future, I just remind myself that we live in the last second of December 31st. There's so much more to come...

Posted by: Sarah at 10:49 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.

Several people have asked what's next for our family. We should PCS back to the US in about two months. We'll enjoy some hard-earned vacation time in the Midwest before we drive out to South Carolina for my husband's career course.

However, the finance career course might all be for naught, since my husband has answered the call for Civil Affairs officers. The active Army currently only provides 4% of CA soldiers, with the reserves pulling the majority of the weight. However, with changing needs of the Army, there has been a call for officers to volunteer to change their functional area to Civil Affairs. My husband has submitted his packet, so we should find out this summer if he's been accepted.

We've told very few people about his decision, and the ones we have told typically reply with "Wow, you two must like being apart." My husband hopes to be selected for either Arabic or Farsi training, which of course will mean that he'll be more valuable in the Middle East than in garrison. But it's what he really wants to do, and I couldn't be prouder. If someone has to be a Civil Affairs officer, I'd rather have the most capable person I know on the front lines.

So keep your fingers crossed that he gets selected for an exciting and important duty. And I'll keep my fingers crossed that he doesn't spend the remaining 16 years of his career away from home!

Posted by: Sarah at 05:45 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 247 words, total size 1 kb.

Pericles asked a question that I thought about a lot last night and that I'd like to answer as honestly as I can.

What I'm not sure that you recognize, at least not consistently, is that people who disagree vehemently with you can still love their country passionately. I question the intelligence and competence of Bush and his ilk, but I have never questioned their patriotism. I completely disagree with their vision about what is best for America, but I don't doubt that they are motivated by a concern for doing what is best. Based on my observations, you don't always give the people with whom you disagree that same kind of credit. Am I wrong?

I do in fact think you are wrong. I don't doubt either that John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Ralph Nader think that their plan of action is the best choice for America. You make it sound like I believe they're all in some dark room musing, "How can we make the US worse?" I think that Hillary Clinton honestly believes that her plans for health care, education, or business are in our country's best interest. But do I want to live anywhere near Hillary Clinton's version of America? Heck no.

There's a big difference between questioning someone's patriotism and questioning their credentials. You question Bush's intelligence, which is your prerogative, and I question the intelligence of others as well. Back to George Clooney as always, my beef is not with his patriotism but his knowledge. Why is a college dropout who played a doctor on TV someone we go to when we want political commentary? I have a hard time believing that Clooney spends nearly the time I do online reading various news sources, so why does anyone care what he thinks? I asked a Lefty about this once recently, and she said, "Gosh, I never thought about it because I just agree with what he says." Questioning his expertise is not the same thing as questioning his patriotism.

I think the "don't question my patriotism" phrase is overused and most of the time is a red herring. It's like calling someone a racist for opposing affirmative action: it's the easy zinger that often has nothing to do with the argument. However, I tried to think about it a lot last night, and I realized that it depends a lot on how you define patriotism.

Do you define patriotism as simply love for your country? Do you define it as the thought that your country is better than others? Do you define it as putting your country ahead of yourself? Do you define it as being willing to sacrifice for your country? What's the definition? Because I know a lot of people who don't have any of these feelings for the US.

I don't know many people like you, Pericles. I feel I've sort of gotten to know you through your comments, and I basically get the impression that you love an ideal version of the US that's neither represented by the Republicans nor the Democrats. Please correct me if my assessment is wrong, but that's what I have gleaned. But most of the people I've come in contact with are nothing like you. I was a French and International Studies major and I got an MA in ESL. I was constantly surrounded by people who jumped at the chance to be anywhere but the USA. My colleagues consistently thought that France/China/Fill-In-The-Blank was better than the US. When they travelled, they were ashamed to admit they were Americans. They graduated and many looked for ways to leave the US and find something better. They thought the grass would be greener anywhere but the USA.

So do I question their patriotism? I do. They don't have any deep feelings for their own country. And any feelings they might have include shame and guilt. Is shame for your country patriotism? They don't have a deep love for America that transcends their hate for Bush. They just don't want to be in the US, period. I'm sorry if I'm a bad person for refusing to see them as patriots. I'm sorry that the internet is filled with stories of yahoos who hate our flag and our country. Yes, I question these people's patriotism, and none of them are Republicans. That doesn't mean that I automatically question every non-Repub's patriotism, but I can't help but notice the consistent trend.

I respect people who love our country even if "Bush and his ilk" don't fit the bill, but like I said I simply don't know many people like this. If Hillary Clinton were elected president, the US would move further away from what I consider the ideal, but you can bet I'd still wear my US flag pins and leave the big USA country code sticker on the bumper of our car. Because I love my country no matter who's at the wheel and I still think she's the best country in the world.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:56 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 837 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Sarah, Very well said (as usual). This argument makes me think about anything or anyone I love. For example, I love my husband...And I don't go on the news criticizing him, I don't sit around the house complaining about him. I don't blog about him being an idiot. And I certainly don't insist on the right to do so. If I did, people would wonder why I am married to him! I think the same thing goes for America. I think people that truly love America don't incessantly criticize her.

Posted by: Erin at March 06, 2006 06:57 AM (U0Xxw)

2 "Why are our universities so durned un-American?" That was the most recent statement that I had in mind when I asked that question. Someday when I have some time on my hands----man, when will that be?---I might comb through past months of the blog looking to see if there is more of the same. And there might not be; I may have been unfair to you. Reading Erin's comment gives me a theory about how that might have happened, which is that when I read your posts and a lot of comments from people who are basically "in your corner" at the same time, then I walk away from the computer, what you said and what they said may start to run together in my mind. If you're more measured in what you say than they are, then this unfair to you. Here's a non-pointed question we can all think about, including (especially) Erin. What does it mean to love your own country, or to hate it? It certainly doesn't mean to love the leaders that it has at any one point. Our Founding Fathers would be spinning in their graves over the suggestion that we ought to do that. And no one consistently does this. I feel extremely confident that whoever commented in another thread yesterday that we should all be united behind our democratically elected presidemt would be bitching constantly if Kerry had won. In a democracy, we have to be able to criticize our leaders, in order to make informed decisions about how to vote next time. I think that what I love most about America is its founding principles (except for the slavery part, which took awhile to straighten out). So maybe Sarah is right that what I love is a very idealized version of America. For me, pointing out ways in which the reality falls short of the principles is an expression of love for the country, not hate. Putting those principles into practice is an incredibly hard thing, and I give us some credit for having done as well as we have, although that doesn't stop me from always wanting and expecting more.

Posted by: Pericles at March 06, 2006 07:43 AM (eKf5G)

3 Well, the "durned un-American" was more of a play on words that I was tying back to the quote that my professor gave me. Maybe those exact words backfired on me. Regardless, I don't think admitting a terrorist to your university is a very pro-American thing to do... And I can't help but think that people criticize Pres Bush at the kneejerk level sometimes. I think we should be able to criticize our leaders, but I don't necessarily think that "dissent is the highest form of democracy" or whatever the bumper sticker says. Dissent for the sake of dissent gets old, and I feel sometimes that Bush is damned no matter what he does: even when his Republican base is hopping mad at his decisions, few Democrats are happy. They seem to hate him even when he does exactly what Clinton did (I have Kyoto in mind right now). Meh, whatever. I can't imagine what might possess you to re-read my entire blog to try to trip me up over something I once articulated poorly, but be my guest if that floats your boat.

Posted by: Sarah at March 06, 2006 10:40 AM (DzQAT)

4 My working definition of a patriot is someone who acts in such a way that the consequences of their actions promote the interests of their country. It is not terribly patriotic, in my judgement, for a person to complain and carp about everything that is not going right, especially so when the volume is only turned up for the negatives. Well-informed criticism, on the other hand, is in line with patriotism, so long as it is intellectually honest and presented in a way that takes pains to avoid taking the side of our adversaries (namely, those who do not have our interests at heart). One of the first-order effects of the constant Bush administration bashing is that it makes it harder to convince our enemies (for we most assuredly have them) that we are in this to win, and another is that it makes the administration much less receptive to well-founded criticism. Both are bad for this country, which is why I regard ill-informed complaining to be unpatriotic. Ill-informed, by the way, also includes people who know only one side of the argument; If you are versed only in the talking points of one side, you are hardly in a position to make balanced decisions, especially if you choose to use condescending and arrogant language in somebody else's space! If you believe in the structural integrity of your opinions, then how can there be harm in being polite? Everyone involved is more likely to learn something that way, which advances the cause of patriotism. -piercello

Posted by: piercello at March 06, 2006 11:51 AM (plBen)

5 The idea of looking at old posts wouldn't have been to "trip you up"; I don't know where that comes from. Anyway, you're right that much criticism of Bush is kneejerk. Would you agree with e that much support for him is also? Kneejerkiness is no more a disease of the left than it it is the right; there are thinking and non-thinking people on both sides of the spectrum. It seems to me that every President frequently faces the problem of being damned no matter he does. I'm not sure quite how old you are, or quite how much of the Clinton presidency you remember. Criticism of him was unrelenting, even before Monica. People seriously sugggested that he had had aides like Vince Foster and Ron Brown killed! Sometimes it sounds like you think that the treatment Bush gets is novel, as if Presidents have always been put on a pedestal until now... Think about the treatment Kerry got during the election, by people like the Swifties. Would THAT have stopped if he had won? As far as Piercello's comments are concerned, let me start out by reminding you not confuse me with Sarah's other regular critic, Mr. Silly. I'll leave him to speak for himself, but I feel like I've maade an effort to be polite here. Let's remember that the condenscending thing goes both ways, though. What was it that Sarah's magnet said the other day? Actually, it wasn't the magnet I'm thinking of, but the line that the web site had below it "Even Bushisms make more sense than liberals." I don't hold Sarah responsible for that, and in fact I don't even mind it. Barbed political humor is fine, as long as it can go both ways. I'm not sure that some people here wouldn't consider "Bush is an idiot" jokes to be unfair and out of bounds. Anyway, I'm just a little uncomfortable with the idea that "Critism is fine, as long as it avoids taking the side of our advesaries." If Bin Laden says that we should not have invaded Iraq, am I taking his side if I say the same thing? My reasons are different, of course. I don't disagree with you that we have enemies, or that some of them must be killed by our military. I have real differences with Bush's overall strategy, though, and I simply can't agree that I shouldn't be allowed to express them. And I think I'm reasonably well informed. I don't know everything. I haven't had the experience of being in Iraq. On the other hand, I think I know some things that are relevant to the debate that most people who have served in Iraq don't know, so I don't accept that they are the only experts and I'm not allowed to have an opinion. The idea that we should understand both sides of the deabte is important. Why do I get the feeling, though, that the implication was that of course all supporters of the war already grok everything the critics have to say?

Posted by: Pericles at March 06, 2006 02:47 PM (eKf5G)

6 By the way, about this "admitting a terrorist to your university isn't very patriotic " thing. I posted this in that thread, but too late for anyone else to see it: Why is he in the country to begin with? That is the real question. Why criticize Yale for admitting him to a non-degree program, but not criticize the Bush administration for allowing him to be here to take the classes to begin with?

Posted by: Pericles at March 06, 2006 02:52 PM (eKf5G)

7 This is the kind of commenting I can appreciate! Pericles, if you've read or seen anything about what kind of visa this guy is on or how he got in the country, let me know. I'd be interested in looking into that when I find the time. Believe me, I have very little faith in the INS! This guy has no business being here, in my opinion. It irks me on a security level that he was allowed in the country, but it irks me a tad bit more, on an emotional level, that Yale fawned all over him like a rock star and wooed him to their school.

Posted by: Sarah at March 06, 2006 04:09 PM (DzQAT)

8 It is a student visa. The only other thing I know is that he was involved in a debate about the Taliban at Yale prior to 9/11. I'm not going to defend Yale; it is one of the most conservative of the major universities in the country, so let the conservatives defend it. But maybe the guy did something to redeem himself after 9/11? I have no idea. But his presence in the country would be more comprensible if he said "Fark this" after 9/11.

Posted by: Pericles at March 06, 2006 04:39 PM (eKf5G)

9 It sounds like a Republican wouldn't care if their country turned into a Facist state as long as the leader called himself a Republican. What is not patriotic about bashing the government, exactly? What's not patriotic about standing up for your rights as an individual? You, Sarah, you try to imply that democrats hate America when a republican leader is in power. You're wrong, you know. Hating a republican leader is a really different thing from hating America. In my opinion, it's the opposite of hating America. So wear your US flag pins when a democrat takes power. And I'll fly my flag while Bush is in power. Because to me, Bush does not equal patriotism or the principals of the United States of America. No one leader does.

Posted by: Will Somerset at March 06, 2006 06:09 PM (eIQfa)

10 Well said, Pericles! I was deliberately ambiguous about who I was targeting with my comment above, but you were not in those particular crosshairs. ;-) Let me also try to be more clear with regard to my differentiation between criticism and complaint. I think that much of the aforementioned complaining and carping falls into the category of negatively defining our options, either before or after the fact. The example you gave, that of not invading Iraq, is a classic negative definition. The problem with attempting to define a policy negatively is that it can be done an infinite number of ways without ever saying what it really is. Because no central position is ever positively defined, no debate is possible, and progress toward a workable solution is drastically impeded. I would describe such a negatively formatted claim as complaint, or carping if it is exceptionally unimaginative and/or repetitious. A shared negative definition with Bin Laden does not automatically constitute a shared policy goal, in the same way that each of us not liking apples would say nothing about our fruity preferences. Even if someone provides me with impeccable facts and reasoning in support of a negative policy (we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, because of x, y, and z), no opportunity for policy debate exists, because we must make policy decisions in real time (no pause button for figuring things out), and because no alternative has been offered, discovery of the best available course of action is not significantly advanced. I suggest that this type of argument may reaches the level of criticism, but certainly falls short of constructive criticism. The only debate that has any hope of achieving understanding in time to be useful is the one in which the participants clearly and positively state their goals, so that their policies can be examined in equal light in order that the best choice may be made. The internet facilitates all types of disagreement, but it is this last type of discussion that provides the tremendous opportunity for constructive change the internet offers. Articulating a course of action positively is easier said than done, I know--learning is the process of moving from negative to positive definition through trial and error, but it can take a looong time...and we don't always have enough, which is why merely complaining is usually a politically losing move. And finally, you are absolutely right with regard to political humor! It should be free to cut in any direction; those who wish to skewer their opponents with it should play by the same rules as when they are skewered, or be roundly condemned for hypocrisy. Thanks, Sarah, for the loan of your soapbox! And to Pericles, for the quality of your response.

Posted by: piercello at March 06, 2006 08:02 PM (plBen)

11 I'll keep this one shorter. If I understand you, Piercello, your main point is that it doesn't do much good to say that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, because we did, and the question is what to do now. I'll be the furst to admit that I don't know what we should do now. I do disagree, though, about whether there is a point to talking about whether the original decision was a mistake. It is very relevant to certain upcoming decisions that we need to make... decisions about whom to vote for. What could be a more reasonable basis for decising whom to elect than the wisdom of their past political decisions?

Posted by: Pericles at March 06, 2006 09:16 PM (eKf5G)

12 I was aiming broader--speaking generally, it is more productive to argue about what to do than about what not to do. As you correctly point out, pounding the table and repeatedly saying that invading Iraq was wrong is useless; not only because that decision is irrevocable, but also because it fails to dive into the context of the decision and account for WHY it was made that way, which is the useful part for determining your vote. Like you, I will be looking at the wisdom of past political decisions, but I will also try to reward those politicians who have the courage/leadership to actually define their positions over those who won't, even if I disagree with those positions. In times like these, the wrong action may be catastrophic, but the error of inaction has the potential to be more so. But I sure would like to see some more attractive candidates, for once! Last time my choice, although clear, was not without reservation.

Posted by: piercello at March 06, 2006 10:46 PM (plBen)

13 I assume you mean that it was clear that you were voting for Bush. Let me ask you this, out of curiosity. Saddam was an awful tyrant well before 2000. If we are supposed to accept now that overthrowing an awful tyrant was a sufficient justification for the war, why wasn't Bush talking about the need to invade Iraq in the 2000 campaign? And please don't just say "9/11 changed everything." That is a blanket excuse for inconsistency. We already knew about Al Queda, so in terms of giving us new information 9/11 changed very little.

Posted by: Pericles at March 06, 2006 11:02 PM (eKf5G)

14 Your assumption is correct. I suspect that we also agree that it is an insufficient justification for war to remove a bloody tyrant, awful as he may be. And while I agree that 9/11 did not change everything, I would also point out that it constituted undeniable and unignorable proof that some of the people who (for whatever reason, real or imagined) passionately hate the United States had grown bold enough to act directly against this country. It thus became non-career-enhancing for our politicians to ignore this hate (as well as the vital piece of new information that Al-Q was willing and able to act on that hate in a spectacular fashion), and required that they present plans for doing something about it. Until that point had been reached, no politician could have undertaken such a venture. It is an uncommon politician who can rise above the short term and self-interest of day-to-day politicking to achieve the long view of a patriotic statesman without getting whacked with a hell of a big stick first. Thus the interminable UN resolutions and the odd congressional declaration advocating regime change--inaction under the guise of action is politically safer in the short term realm of election cycles where politicians prefer to confine their operations. The WMD argument which swayed many initial supporters of the invasion of Iraq now comes down to a few possibilities: 1. The Administration (to falsely generalize it into a monolith) was lying through its collection of teeth, horrendously overstating the danger, and is now trying to avoid admitting this. 2. The Administration was misled by consistently faulty intelligence from all over the world (the same information it would have had to know was false for option 1) and is now trying to avoid admitting THAT. 3. The Administration has found evidence of WMD's, but doesn't know where they went and is trying to keep that secret under wraps for fear of political consequences. 4. The Administration has in fact found WMD stockpiles, or knows something about where they went, and is keeping that information under wraps in exchange for international cooperation, perhaps regarding Iran. One of the problems in deciphering politics is that it is frequently more effective to keep on an adversarial colleague in a compromised state (for leverage) than it is to denounce and remove him. The game is played that way at all levels, from children to great nations (and media organizations--anywhere power collects), and has never been an exclusively American trait. Of the possibilities above, 1 and 3 strike me as the hardest to pull off in the climate of political intrigue. Avoiding career-ending embarassment is a powerful incentive, but so is destroying the careers of your opponents, and there are too many people involved for 1 and 3 to be plausible to me. The next six months will have much to say about 4... Remember, all of the nations play the Great Game, and most would like to see us taken down a peg or five, and the existence of damning information coming out of Iraq would explain some of the world reactions to the invasion in the first place. Sorry for the length; the subject matter doesn't lend itself well to concise summaries! Out of curiosity, what do you consider to be sufficient justification to invade another sovereign country? Regards, Piercello

Posted by: piercello at March 07, 2006 12:46 AM (plBen)

15 Off of the top of my head, I don't have a complete list of reasons that might justify invading a country. Pre-empting an imminent attack is certainly on the list, and I'd include the prevention of human rights abuses on a big enough scale: genocide, certainly. It seems to me that there are two different things involved in justifying any war. One is showing that it is permissible from the standpoint of international law (at least what international law should say) and the other is showing that it is worth it from the standpoint of your own national interest, which is what your soldiers signed up to protect. This last part makes it harder to justify a war on humanitarian grounds, although I don't think it is impossible. It is easier if it is a true multinational effort, so that the risk is shared. In a different world, without 9/11, maybe humanitarian intervention in Iraq could have been justified, if we had built a true coalition and had a plan for what to do after the military was defeated. As it stands, though, I see the invasion as a gift to Bin Laden; we are killing terrorists, but we are helping him to recruit more, and we took resources away for the hunt for him. Besides, a lot of people in the Bush administration, notably Rumsfeld, were supporters of Saddam under previous Republican regimes. I just don't think that this crew can expect to be taken seriously when they say now that Saddam had to go just because he was so oppressive. We've all seen the picture of the grinning Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. Saddam was a brutal dictator when that picture was taken. If anyone is going to say that Saddam had to go just because of how he treated his own people, and have credibility, it has to be someone who would have refused to shake that hand. Sarah is going to tell us to start our own blog.

Posted by: Pericles at March 07, 2006 08:27 AM (eKf5G)

16 To get this back a little on track, I don't think that the patriotism of many Democrats can be questioned either. Some people on the left, maybe, but usually people far enough to the left that they can vote Democrat only by holding their nose. People I think of loosely as Greens. Although even many people in this camp, I think, are really patriots. They just have a very different vision of America's good than either Sarah's or mine. If I wanted to find examples of registered Republicans whom I couldn't call patriots, I think I'd look at plutocrats who sacrifice the country's best interest in the name of money. How about Duke Cunningham--is he a patriot?

Posted by: Pericles at March 07, 2006 08:43 AM (eKf5G)

17 Good morning Pericles, and anyone else who is still reading! In reverse order, Cunningham, although presumably patriotic in his youth and military career, gave up his patriotic status when he put his self-interest and its consequent damage to the United States and its governmental system before the integrity of his country. Also, why would you limit your definition of self-interested plutocrats to Republicans? Your point about consistency with respect to Rumsfeld, which I will respond to shortly ;-) , indicates nicely how universal to human nature the unease over hypocrisy really is; the prime criticism of any position has its roots in inconsistency, whether it is believed to be due to incompetence or untruthfulness, or some mix. Its relevance to the patriotism question comes in when conversations arise such as this one between those who hold differing viewpoints. If I bring you my opinion, an edifice of the facts I possess linked by logic, the only three avenues of meaningful challenge open to you are in the accuracy of my facts, the structural integrity of my logic and its complete foundation on the facts presented, and the evenhandedness of the standard of evidence by which my facts were selected. If you can successfully challenge any of these three things, and I still will not change my opinion, I have now laid myself open to the charge of choosing self-interest over patriotism, for my part in determining the best course for this country requires that I be as intellectually honest as possible. Anyone, whether Green, Democrat, Republican, or anything else, who will not engage in argument on that basis when trying to advocating policy that affects large numbers of people, I regard with deep suspicion. Present company, of course, excepted, as from what I can tell you don't fit that definition! Such debate is the best way to uncover reality, which always makes a better foundation for policy. This is the basis upon which I judge large parts of the media (as well as many politicians) to be acting unpatriotic, for they frequently cherrypick their facts, sometimes mis-stating them in the process, and then fail to challenge political statements on an evenhanded basis, with the discrepancy usually conforming to the political divide. If you assume that inconsistency is only apparent (because the biological structures underlying intelligence render it impossible, but that is another conversation!), you can assemble the various known pieces into a consistent shape that reveals unvoiced assumptions. In the case of many of the Democratic leadership, the most plausible consistent framework to me (given the facts I have!) is that of short-term domestic partisan gain, which indicates to me a fundamental misunderstanding of the seriousness of the global situation. The reason (at last!) that I find your critique of Rumsfeld et al unpersuasive is that I have a framework from which those actions appear consistent. The nature of geopolitics is not static, but relentlessly dynamic. Therefore, it is entirely plausible to me that the best available geopolitical strategy at the time (consistent with the constant goal of protecting the interests of the United States) could have been playing Iraq against Iran, bleeding them both down, wo that we would have more resources to deal with the larger threat the Soviet Union represented. Similarly, while going into Pakistan after Bin Laden would have been nice, doing so at that time was much more geopolitically dangerous (Pakistan/India nuclear tensions, and a fractious Iraq among others in the ME just looking for a chance to foment trouble, from an American perspective) and so did not advance American interests. With a scarcity of resources, best available solutions, while ideologically unsatisfying, still trump inaction. Of course, I'm a musician, so what do I know? ;-) I genuinely appreciate an honest debate, especially when it remains so delightfully civil! Piercello cellosophist.blospot.com

Posted by: piercello at March 07, 2006 02:58 PM (plBen)

18 Oh, I have no doubt that the Republicans supported Saddam out of a judgment about how best to preserve America's interests. Maybe they were even right, although this may come down to a question about when and to what extent you can afford to think about your long-term interests in foreign policy as opposed to your short-term ones. But having shown themselves as players of realpolitik guided exclusively by their sense of American interests, I don't think they have much credibility when they talk about the invasion as a moral imperative necessitated by their concern for the well-being of Iraqi citizens.

Posted by: Pericles at March 07, 2006 03:29 PM (eKf5G)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Why is it always the West's fault for not understanding Islam? Why is Islam itself never to blame? A Muslim college student wrote:

It does not come as a surprise to me that so many “unbiased” Western news sources carry extremely resentful outlooks regarding Islam.
There is a lack of distinction between orthodox Islamic values and the actions of a minority of Muslims. Western media outlets frequently present a correlation between these two classifications and often interpret Islam out of context. Unfortunately when it comes to reporting Islam, a lack of understanding, quoting sources out of context, and ethnocentric viewpoints seem to be trademarks.

And then in this debate, another Muslim suggested that in order to reform Islam,

we'll have to have a lot of help from rational Muslim minds around the world who buy into the argument that we--you, me, George Bush and Don Rumsfeld (i.e., all of us as Americans)--are not out to get them. ... We could enjoin Western scholars in that process and have them talk through external perception problems with what Islam proposes.
...
If we had an American Muslim FBI director, or the deputy Defense secretary was a Muslim by faith, or one day we had an American Muslim secretary of State, these officeholders would do a world of good by setting an example of how secularism, tolerance and belief can coexist, much the same way Condi Rice and Colin Powell did for black people everywhere in diffusing race as a factor in service to our country.

So the solution to the problem of Islam is that all we Western white folks have to coddle Muslims for decades and have some sort of new affirmative action that gets Muslims into positions of power so that they don't believe we all think they're evil? Give me a break. (It hasn't even worked that well for black people, since many of them hate Rice and Powell anyway.)

When the big news stories broke about Catholic priests molesting children, no Catholic said, "Well, it's not my priest who did that, it's some other priest who misinterpreted scripture." Catholics everywhere were outraged. Why aren't Muslims everywhere outraged? Why is it so easy for them to say "Well, I lead a good life, so it's not my fault if other Muslims misinterpret scripture."

The solution to Islam's problems is not a Muslim Condi Rice. Lord help us if we have to wait that long. The solution is for individual Muslims to be as outraged as individual Catholics were. Mansoor Ijaz says that he has never believed Allah wants him to kill Jews, but unfortunately many Muslims do believe just that. And they outnumber Ijaz. It's not my job as a white Westerner to make sure that Muslims don't feel offended; it's their job to make sure their religion doesn't offend. (And the solution is definitely not just to have Muslim editors making sure nothing in the newspaper offends Muslims. Good lord.)

The common complaint is that Islam is taken out of context. Please tell me what the correct context is then, because I don't know of any other way to interpret "We will wipe Israel off the map."

Posted by: Sarah at 04:52 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 531 words, total size 3 kb.