I just finished reading the book Assassination Vacation. I have never encountered a book that I so thoroughly loved and hated simultaneously.

Some of the negative reviews on Amazon say that Sarah Vowell's writing is self-absorbed. As a blogger, heh, I live self-absorbed. I assume that people are going to want to listen to my talk of knitted monkey toes and reproductive health. So that didn't bother me at all; I found her voice charming and her style to be engaging. I also loved learning about the Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley assassinations. There were so many great tidbits in this book, and I came away knowing a lot more about the life and death of those three presidents. I also learned touching info like the fact that Ida McKinley sewed a picture of her dead husband into her knitting bag, a bag which is on display in the McKinley museum in Canton, Ohio. Now that I can relate to, that brought Ida McKinley to life for me.

I loved this book, save for the fact that Sarah Vowell has the worst case of Bush Derangement Syndrome I've seen in a long time. She can't talk about any of these assassinations without mentioning Guantanamo Bay, Rumsfeld, Abu Ghraib, etc. These tangential rants were a huge distraction in an otherwise charming book. And I mean a huge distraction. She starts out the book by sympathizing with the assassins themselves because she hates Bush so much, but quickly says that she doesn't want Bush assassinated because that would turn him into a saint. My lord. She also manages to claim that these three assassinated presidents pretty much got what was coming to them because they were Republicans. No word on JFK though.

I mean, seriously, what are you supposed to do when you come across the idea that the author feels sorry for Bill Brady but not for Ronald Reagan? Ouch.

The book could've been the perfect story of one woman's obsession with following in the footsteps of slain presidents, visiting the historical sites and marveling at the relics. Instead she turns a perfectly good book into a dated rant about the Iraq war. She made her own book irrelevant by forever linking it to 2004. It's her right to ruin her book like that, but dang. Does anyone really want to hear her liken Teddy Roosevelt to Paul Wolfowitz? Or compare Dr. Mudd's prison sentence to Gitmo? Sheesh, give it a rest.

So I don't know what I think of this book. I loved the pages where she managed to restrict her thoughts to the 19th century. But when she wandered, boy howdy did she wander. Blech.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 451 words, total size 3 kb.

I had a black roommate in college who would not walk across campus alone for fear of being lynched. One time I invited her and her boyfriend to a party, and afterwards she raved about how nice and accepting my friends were. She said she was surprised she felt so welcomed among the white kids, as if she expected the record to skip and the whole room to stop and stare when she walked in. I said that it really wasn't that big of a deal to the people I know. And that's when she revealed that the converse was not true: "There's no way I could take you to one of my parties because the black students simply would not accept you." Nice.

I knew an Eastern European foreign exchange student who thought he identified with black American culture more than white American culture, so he wanted to hang out with the black students. The first time he tried to go to a black party, they rudely asked him to leave. You have to admire his persistence though; he continued to attend their parties for weeks, being ostracized each time. Finally, a girl who was in one of his classes came up to him at his fifth or sixth party and asked him why in the heck he kept coming back when it was obvious he didn't belong. After many weeks of "proving himself," he finally made some headway, and the black students would say hello on campus and talk to him as if he were a friend.

I know these are just anecdotes, but my experience on a very predominantly white campus was that the black students self-segregated and imagined that they were being oppressed. No one even noticed when my roommate showed up at our "white" party. It was no big deal for me to include her, but she'd be going out on a major limb to bring me into her world. That's not the white students' fault; that's the black students' fault for closing themselves off.

I was reminded of these experiences when I read about Michelle Obama's thesis on race relations (via LGF).

"My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my 'blackness' than ever before," the future Mrs. Obama wrote in her thesis introduction. "I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong. Regardless of the circumstances underwhich I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second."

I can't speak for Princeton in the 80s, but this was certainly not the case at my school in 1999. And I wonder if my old roommate ever learned to relax around people, all people of all colors, and just be herself. I hope to goodness she doesn't still think she's going to get lynched.

This part of Peggy Noonan's editorial stuck with me too:

Michelle Obama seems keenly aware of her struggles, of what it took to rise so high as a black woman in a white country. Fair enough. But I have wondered if it is hard for young African-Americans of her generation, having been drilled in America's sad racial history, having been told about it every day of their lives, to fully apprehend the struggles of others. I wonder if she knows that some people look at her and think "Man, she got it all." Intelligent, strong, tall, beautiful, Princeton, Harvard, black at a time when America was trying to make up for its sins and be helpful, and from a working-class family with two functioning parents who made sure she got to school.

If Michelle Obama doesn't realize that she made it, that her life is not one "on the periphery," well, that's a damn shame. But it's not white people's fault.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:51 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 671 words, total size 4 kb.

The new swear word around our house is "monkey toes."

I'm still working on the spider monkey I started back in November, a project which has been sitting in pieces on my coffee table, mocking me for months. The hitch? Individually knitted toes. Twenty of 'em. Individually sewn on to individual feet. A nightmare of sewing and weaving in ends.

But now the twenty toes are made, and it's time to buckle down and stuff them (eek) and start sewing them to the feet. And sewing the feet to the legs.

Time to get this monkey off my back. Hardy har.

(And yes, I know that the toes look like, ahem, swimmers all lined up like that. Or feminine products. That wasn't the look I was going for when I took the picture.)

Posted by: Sarah at 11:51 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.

I got Fredstruck this year and forgot my love for ol' George W. This video of his whiteboy dancing reminded me of how charming I think he is. He deserves to party like a rock star for a day.

Posted by: Sarah at 10:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

From the comments section of a Dr. Helen post:

I think the problem is that young men come to the realization that they are not really needed. Boys grow up instinctively wanting to be heroes, but the irony is that successive generations of male heroics have made the world safe enough that women no longer need heroes in their lives; they want "partners." It comes out sounding more like a business proposition, and a rather bland one at that.

My husband is the man of the house. He lifts the heavy things, handles the money, deals with car maintenance, watches baseball, and drinks beer. He also goes to war. He doesn't cry and he doesn't complain about having to work so hard. He is my hero, and I chose him because he is a man's man. I most certainly do need heroes like him in my life.

Sorry, but reading Dr. Helen's columns and comments is a depressing activity. I felt the need to defend my husband after all that reading.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:35 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Hmm.... they must not meet many people in the military, huh? I consider my husband to be my hero, too.

Posted by: Ann M. at February 23, 2008 07:17 AM (HFUBt)

2 As you may or may not remember, I married my husband after I was convinced that, if a nuclear bomb went off and we had to live in an abandoned house or cave with our food, that he could kill anyone trying to kill me or take the food without a qualm. Hmm, no partner here, either, baby! I will survive! (He's also pretty good with the tool set and managing mutual funds, so he's the total package. And military! We're lucky women, ladies.)

Posted by: Oda Mae at February 23, 2008 08:04 AM (zqqb6)

3 Well, I handle the finances. and I have moved myself, so I'm darn sure that I know I can heavy lift if I NEED to. Like, if the world is ending or something and all that will save us is airforcewife moving that refrigerator ten feet on a dolly. But the point is that AFG does the heavy lifting here, too. And not because I'm some incapable, sheltered woman unable to care for myself, but because I like to watch him get all sweaty and have his muscles sticking out. And it makes my life a LOT easier that way. I LIKE cooking. I don't like diagnosing whatever's wrong with my minivan. I don't even like having a minivan. So the husband does that. He also puts my software on the computer, doctored my hurt toe this morning with his medic kit (very cool, that), and is teaching me krav maga. I know, I'm preaching to the choir here. But there is a reason that men evolved to do "manly" things. And I'm so darn glad that I have a manly husband! And with such a pushy, bossy wife, my husband has to be extra manly. Rowwrrrr!

Posted by: airforcewife at February 23, 2008 09:28 AM (mIbWn)

4 You know, I have to add that I really can't stand the people who hear how we've chosen to divide labor in my house and make comments about how I must be "held back" or something. Have these people never met me? Right. Spend an evening with AFG and AFW and then tell me I'm being kept down and marginalized. Psshw.

Posted by: airforcewife at February 23, 2008 09:31 AM (mIbWn)

5 Yes, when the shize hits the fan, I want Hubs there to perform all his heroics. I will say, however, that when the man runs the Dyson, empties the dishwasher, does some laundry or handles a child's needs...well, I find that pretty heroic too b/c it means that is one thing off my plate. Very sexy.

Posted by: Guard Wife at February 23, 2008 12:25 PM (BslEQ)

6 My dad often complains about the emasculation of men on most popular TV shows these days – they're portrayed as idiots living in the shadow of these powerful, all-knowing, longsuffering women, and it drives him crazy! He speculated one day as to whether that kind of mindset in society drives more young men to the military, so they can do more "manly" things (he spent 23 years in the Navy before the politics drove him out). It makes sense – my husband got tired of the rat race after being laid off for the third time in as many years and enlisted – and has never been happier with his job, even though he spends more time at a desk now than he used to as a computer tech. Unfortunately, he won't kill spiders for me anymore. It has something to do with me having my own shotgun and an orange belt in Shaolin Kempo, and his belief that any of his targets should be at 300 meters (feet?) or more . . . But he always opens my door for me and will do the dishes and vacuuming if I ask him to, so I guess I can let that slide. He's a manly-man to me, and I would NEVER do anything to let him forget it.

Posted by: deltasierra at February 24, 2008 07:11 PM (7uphd)

7 My name is Sig, and I fully endorse the preceding message. Sig

Posted by: Sig at February 25, 2008 06:24 AM (815Xj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Along with registering my gripes with travel, I hereby register my gripes with Doing Stuff. Apparently a completely fulfilling life of staying in your cozy home watching movies that have been deposited in your mailbox is "uncool." We have to Go Somewhere and Do Stuff in order to be having A Good Time.

Lileks, of course:

But in the great middle expanse of your life, you not only want to spread out, you want to be left alone, and this is taking on the characteristic of an anti-social sentiment. You should be walking around the dense neighborhood window-shopping and eating at small fusion restaurants. You should be engaged. If you want to watch a quality foreign film, good, but you should not watch it home; you should walk down to the corner theater and see it in a room full of other people, and nevermind that the start time is inconvenient and you canÂ’t pause it to go pee and the fellow in the row behind you is aerating the atmosphere with tubercular sputum. This is how they do things in New York.

Apparently there's a movie theater in town where you can see a movie over dinner and drinks; you sit at tables and they serve you food while the movie is playing. Or something like that, I've never been. But another hip young couple here is always telling us that we should be Doing Things like going to this innovative movie theater, or schlepping to the big city to go out to dinner, or heading to the beach to surf, or doing yoga, or whatever else they do with all their free time. People look at us like we're freaks when we say we've never been to the big city that's an hour away, that we've never been to the beach, that we don't eat out in restaurants. Apparently we'd have "so much fun, and it'd be romantic too" spending fifty bucks for a dinner I can make at home. And what knitter wants to watch a movie whilst eating food? Movies were invented to help knitters feel less idle; I've gotten good enough that I can watch a movie with subtitles while knitting from a chart, but I still can't do much in the darkness of a movie theater. And certainly not with a plate of food in front of me.

Nevermind that we own French, Swedish, Korean, and Serbian movies and have animated discussions about Obama and deficit spending over our homecooked meals; life is not fulfilling unless you leave the house. The looks I get from people my age indicated that we're simply not cool if we don't Go Do Things.

Call me uncool then.

Posted by: Sarah at 09:53 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 456 words, total size 3 kb.

John Hawkins has a good post up today called Conservatism: Principles and Power. One section that caught my eye was this:

We've also gotten way off the tracks on the "purity" issue. There's this sense that if conservatism gets more pure, if we can just get rid of the RINOS, we can dominate again -- but that's not true. When a political party is losing, they need to find ways to draw more people into the tent, not throw people out.

I've been reading many comments sections these days, so I'm sorry that I can't remember where I read this. But someone was complaining that the Religious Right gets all the focus as the base of the Republican Party. He said (paraphrase), "As a fiscal conservative, when will I finally be accepted as part of 'the base'?" I completely relate to this. I want to know when my worries about spending will matter as much as others' worries about the sanctity of marriage. Pres. Bush (pbuh) has been running around like a teen with his dad's credit card, but all the questions at the YouTube debate were about which parts of the Bible the candidates take literally. I just don't freaking care.

In another comment thread the other day (sorry, don't remember where I saw this either), Democrats kept saying that the reason they need to defeat John McCain is so he won't overturn Roe v Wade. Honestly, that is so far from my mind right now that it made me snicker. I would prefer that abortion be left up to the states, but this issue is not at all a priority for me in voting. I am worried about the war and about spending. Period.

Hawkins is right when he goes on to say:

We should always be asking ourselves, "How can we reach out to more Americans?" How can we apply our principles in different areas to reach larger blocks of voters? What new solutions can we come up with to the problems that the American people are concerned about? In some of these areas, we've done a good job. In others, we haven't.

Solutions. We need real ideas, and realistic ideas, especially on spending. I remember how thrilled I was when Pres. Bush was talking about reforming social security back in 2004. I was beside myself with excitement at the time, but it went nowhere. And I think the Democrats are deluding themselves over health care the same way we did over social security four years ago; it's just not going to happen. Or at least it's not going to happen the way they want it to.

I remember hearing John McCain in one of the first debates getting hammered for the immigration bill, and he got an exasperated look on his face and tried to explain that it wasn't a perfect bill, it wasn't even something that he personally was all that thrilled about, but that you have to make concessions and compromises in order to get anything done in Congress. And I felt for him in that moment. It's so easy for those of us on the outside to point fingers at Congress about what they should and shouldn't be doing, but we don't have to sit in the same room as Nancy Pelosi and try to hammer out solutions. Can we even have any idea how hard that must be?

Most people don't like McCain because he is too willing to work with the other side, but that's how you get more people in the tent. And I quoted Lileks yesterday on compromise; I do believe that it's folly to compromise on your major principles. But if Congress is at a roughly 50/50 split, there's no way a MoveOn.org idea nor a Pon Raul idea is going to pass the vote. The solutions will have to be somewhere in the middle.

Which is why I think that the most important thing is for Republicans to get seriously better at explaining how their positions help people. Read a Thomas Sowell book and you have all the info you need, in layman's terms, to show people how economic ideas that are typically labeled "Republican" are the better choice. So why don't our Republican politicians do this? Steal from Sowell if you must; I bet he wouldn't mind! But make people realize that all these feel-good ideas the Dems come up with -- everything for everyone, free! -- are nonsense. Help people think beyond stage one. Show them that a clean environment is good but Kyoto will cripple us, that more affordable health care is within our reach if we let the free market take its course, or that a higher minimum wage means we get our hours cut. Arm the voters with knowledge and the tides will shift, and when Congress tips in our favor, we have to make less concessions and compromises.

We need to stop letting Democrats get away with "stage one thinking" and start pulling more people into our tent. Why are the same people thrilled that Lieberman moved slightly right of center but appalled over John McCain? There should be plenty of room on our side for both of them, for everyone.

Micklethwait and Wooldridge said that our country is steadily getting more conservative. I'd really like to believe that. But I think we could give it a little push if we got better at explaining our solutions.

Posted by: Sarah at 11:33 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 910 words, total size 6 kb.

I don't know...CaliValleyGirl's new puppy is awful cute, but my loyalties lie with ol' Charles here.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

Not enough stress in your life? Watch this video by Dave Walker from the Government Accountability Office.

Then, if you're not freaked enough, watch Ha Ha America. It's like a train wreck; I can't look away.

(via Kim du Toit)

Posted by: Sarah at 04:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

Lots of people agree that Obama is low on substance. But no one can phrase it like Lileks:

On the radio today Medved and Hewitt both asked Obama supporters to call and say why they were supporting their man. Specifics, please. The replies were rather indistinct. He would end the division and bring us together by encouraging us all to talk about common problems, after which we would compromise. He will give us hope by giving us hope: for many, the appeal has the magical perfect logic of a tautology. It's a nice dream. But compromise is impossible when you have a fundamental differences about the proper way to solve a problem. I believe we can achieve a fair society by taking away your house and giving it to someone else. I disagree. It is my house. Then let us agree to give away half of your house. Compromise! But that is not a compromise. You have taken half my house. We have compromised on your behalf with those who would have taken it all. Let us not return to the politics of division. There are strangers living in my spare bedroom. Then we have truly come together. Look, this isnÂ’t a matter on which we can compromise, because we have conflicting premises. YouÂ’re pretending matter and anti-matter have the same relationship as Coke and Pepsi. They donÂ’t.

He goes on with more awesomeness. My pal Amritas once said that Lileks is the Mark Twain of our time. I love that. I just love how Lileks writes.

(You did say that, right, Amritas? Did I mix you up with Bunker?)

Posted by: Sarah at 08:36 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Sorry, I can't remmeber if I wrote that or not. It sounds familiar, but I might have read it on Bunker's site. Unfortunately, his site has been ... taken over: http://www.bunkermulligan.net/ It still lives on at archive dot org, though. I am sure of one thing, though: it's an honor to have my name and Bunker's on the same line!

Posted by: Amritas at February 20, 2008 11:48 AM (+nV09)

2 I like him for his policy. I rarely listen to what candidates say, it's all going to be smarmy feel good crap anyway. I went to their websites and read about their stances on major issues. His plans seem thorough and deep. Unfortunately, the majority of the American voting public seems to like the feel-good taglines rather than caring about substance. One of his positions is that we must confront the growing threat in Pakistan, which is where the Al Qaeda training camps are and is one of the main reasons we have not yet succeeded in Afghanistan. He also plans to expand the military (including the National Guard) in an effort to meet the growing demands of keeping the region and our nation safe. He has a list of things to do for veterans to make sure they are taken care of during transition and thereafter. For more about Pakistan, you can look here: http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php. It'll auto-play a speech, so you might want to stop it so you can read what he's saying. The Pakistan info is about halfway down. If you want to see how he stands on other subjects, you can go to www.barackobama.com and click on issues. That will pull up a list of major issues from which you can choose. Once you click on an issue, if you don't see enough substance in the summary, scroll down and click on "read the plan" for an adobe file of more information. You might disagree with where he stands on a lot of issues (and knowing you I'm sure you will ), but I think it's unfair hype to say he's short on substance. And just as he's not responsible for a random idiot displaying a Che Guevara flag, he's not responsible for the ignorance of some of his supporters, either. From reading all of his positions and plans, I don't get the feeling that "compromise" is a major part of his policy plan. Moreso than the right wing, but not as much as it's made out to be here.

Posted by: Sis B at February 20, 2008 01:29 PM (qPf1j)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Heidi asked for a Charlie update, but there's not much to say. Here's a funny picture (please disregard the utter pigsty that is our TV room) of Charlie watching the Tibetan terrier take fourth place in group at Westminster.

We got the camera out while Charlie was standing right in front of the TV, staring at the dogs. He circled and laid down on the floor right when we got the camera ready, so the picture sucks. But it was hilarious to see Charlie watching his own kind on a dog show.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:50 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Liked it a lot.

Posted by: Nicole at February 20, 2008 08:01 AM (YHVU/)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Links found via CG today:

a hilarious Hitler cartoon
Mark Steyn's So what would it take to alarm you?

Also, Rachel Lucas goes off, and it is good.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:17 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

I heard this morning on the radio that John McCain wanted to use the song "Take a Chance On Me" for his campaign, but ABBA put the kibosh on it. I just told my husband that, and he said, "I wouldn't use a song written by Swedes. What he needs is some AC/DC, maybe 'Highway to Hell.' No, wait, 'Hells Bells" and John McCain can say 'I'll come and choke you if you don't vote for me.'" Hahaha.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:53 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.

My husband saw Castro's face on Drudge this morning, adorned with the phrase "The End," and got super-excited for cake. Sadly, there is no baking yet for Castro. But just you wait.

Past delicious cakes include:
Saddam's broken neck
Zarqawi in smithereens
Milosevic burns in hell
Bush wins and Arafat croaks
Saddam being dragged from that nasty hole
Uday and Qsay get what's coming to 'em (before I blogged)

Posted by: Sarah at 06:24 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

I made a list of things to say
But all I really want to say
All I really want to say is
Hold her and keep her strong
While I'm away from here
    --R.E.M. Green Album

The other day, my husband asked me how I think I'll feel when the next deployment rolls around. And I wondered why he'd asked; he said softly, "Well, you know, nothing's been the same since Sean Sims." And he's right.

I've given up with the pretending too. When I'm quiet for too long and he asks me what I'm thinking, I've given up lying. "I'm thinking about what happens if you die," I now answer. And it's awful how often the thoughts creep in. It is so sick, this anticipatory grief. He's right here beside me, and it's weird that sometimes I can't even enjoy him because I'm planning for some imaginary future that I hope never comes.

And I wasn't like this before. He's right; nothing's been the same.
Sacrifice is no longer theoretical when you've watched someone live with it for years.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:34 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 188 words, total size 1 kb.

Lileks is right; let's not talk about the NIU killer. Let's not look for root causes and make excuses and find a way for this to make sense. Instead, click on Lileks' link to the victim's story.

Posted by: Sarah at 09:10 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.

It absolutely cracks me up when my husband uses my blog against me. He asked a little while ago if I'd like to take the dog for a walk, and I balked and complained until he said, "Don't cry to me because you're uncultured and hate travel." It cracked me up. He also calls me flippant a lot, and he used to call me clueless f*cktard dumb. Somehow it's endearing when he turns the tables on me.

Also, this is the man who likes to joke that he only wants to travel when he gets to go armed. Uncultured, indeed.

Posted by: Sarah at 09:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

From an interview with Tyler Cowen:

My colleague and co-blogger Alex Tabarrok makes an interesting point. If you knew your life were much shorter you would travel to those places you always wanted to see. If you knew your life were to be much longer you would have more time to travel; again you would travel more. So, are you trying to tell me that your expected lifespan is just at that length where you shouldn't travel more? I don't buy it.

In case I haven't solidified my weirdo credentials enough on this blog, I will add more fuel to the fire: I don't really like to travel, and I'm not convinced I'd do more of it if my life were shorter or longer.

Maybe I'm just traveled out; I have been a lot of places. Or maybe I don't like the opportunity costs; I seemed just fine with travel when my parents or my college scholarship were footing the bill. I traveled the world on someone else's dime with nary a peep. But now that it's my money where my mouth is, it's suddenly not so important. I am sure that if we ever have kids, it will become more important to us, to help them see the world. It might be worth the cost then. But for now, we are oh-so-content to spend free moments in our own house.

There's no place like home, right?

I've also never been able to let go of something Paul Theroux said, that "travel is an expensive kind of laziness." You take pictures of stuff you know nothing about, just so you can show other people that you've been somewhere cool. And then speak with authority about the place. God, I hate the authority in travelers' voices. Spending the weekend in Venice does not mean you understand Italians or their way of life. I lived with a Swedish family for two and a half months, and all I can really say is that I understand that particular Swedish family. I don't delude myself that I now grok what it is to be Swedish.

I also know that one bad experience (or conversely, one good one) can change the way you feel about an entire country. I hated every aspect about living in France, but I'm self-aware enough to know that I lived a series of unfortunate events that molded my opinion. If I'd lived somewhere else with different people, like my distant relatives, I might view the entire country differently, and I probably would've continued my French career path. My bad experiences in France contributed enormously to who I am today: I discovered anti-Americanism and spent months defending my country to prejudiced Europeans. The irony is that I wouldn't be as American as I am today if I hadn't spent time in other countries, arguing why the United States is not the Great Satan.

The thing about this "expensive kind of laziness" is that travel is emotional while educating yourself is dry. My feelings about France are gut not brain, and quite separate from any knowledge I gained in my ten years of French study. My husband has never been to Iran, but I'd wager he knows more about Iranian history than many Iranians do. Because he reads books and learns facts. Sure, he doesn't have the glossy tourist photos to prove he knows Iran, but ask him about the Iranian Revolution and he starts a hundred years ago with names and dates. That's more valuable than a picture of us smiling in Tehran ever could be.

All in all, I think travel is overrated as a means of learning about the world. If you want to go see some place that you've studied and explored intellectually, I think that's fabulous. The most rewarding trips I took in Europe were to see things I'd studied: my visit to see the Iceman and my quest through the streets of Paris to find where Jean-Paul Marat was killed. But a picture of me in front of the Sphinx is no substitute for reading a book.

And I guess I'd rather read the books in the comfort of my own home than travel somewhere to get the photo taken.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:28 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 706 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I travel for a different reason: I want to get first hand knowledge of a place. I don't delude myself that I "know" the place after being there. However I think after being on the ground, and walking the streets of a place, you have a far better idea of how well the average person is doing in a certain country than expert economists could glean from statistics. You also can feel the effects of history on the current situation. So, yes, reading a history book may give you a better idea of what happened to a place before you get there, but there is nothing like going there to actual witness first-hand what the results of this was. Traveling to a place is more than taking the tourist pictures (I know many backpackers who never take a camera with them.) It's about experiencing the culture, talking to locals, trying local foods, reading a local newspaper, watching local news, going to a local sports event. I agree with you that there are many people who travel with the "been there, done that, got the t-shirt and picture" mentality. But I think you are comparing apples and oranges when you say a picture of you in front of the Sphinx is no substitute for a book. I would say that a picture of me in front of the Eiffel Tower is no substitute for reading about the French resistance, but reading about the French resistance pales in comparison to hearing about it first hand from a former resistance fighter. I think a soldier who was deployed to Iraq for a year might not know all the history, but he probably has a better feel for the local culture and customs than someone reading a book on Iraqi culture, and he probably has learned some local history that wouldn't be so easily found in history books.

Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at February 18, 2008 06:52 AM (U2RJu)

2 CVG -- I think we disagree on this...but I also think we are discussing two different types of travel. Yes, there are people who go to a place alone, learn the language, eat the food, live the life. I would never talk smack about someone like Rory Stewart. But I think Rory Stewarts are few and far between. Most people travel with their family or in groups, and when they do, it's not the same thing as Rory Stewart's walk across Afghanistan. For example, I went to Spain with a Canadian and a Mexican. We went to museums and "saw Spain," but all the while we were chatting with each other in English about crap that had nothing to do with Spain. We didn't hang out with and talk to locals or anything "enlightened" like that -- we even ate at McDonalds once -- and mostly we just walked around and took lots of pictures. OK, so I "saw" Spain, but a picture of me on a Spanish beach is the same as a picture of me on a Florida beach. And if I go there with friends or with my husband, then my memories of vacation are of conversations with people that I could've been talking to at home. Rarely are people actually out in the culture, talking to "resistance fighters." And it's not just about other countries. When we went to D.C., we raced to find the lunar module. I wanted to see the thing I had read about and learned about. But other people think it's worthwhile to go places like Chicago or Myrtle Beach, just to be in places worth talking about. "We walked around shopping and like went to bars and experienced Chicago nightlife, man"...that concept has zero appeal for me whatsoever. As for Iraq...perhaps. But there are plenty of soldiers who go to Iraq, drive their HETs during the day, play Nintendo and watch DVDs in their cormexes at night, and don't really take the time (or don't really care) to learn about Iraqi people or customs. I would say that there are book-learned people out there who do know more about Iraq than some soldiers do. Also I disagree that walking around and seeing how people live is more valuable than an economist's perspective. I have in mind a recent website I saw about what people around the globe eat in a week. I might think Ecuador's offerings seem paltry, but only someone with an economist's perspective can know for sure how lifestyle matches earnings, etc. And remember that "poor" Americans live at the standard of living of average Europeans, but I doubt many Europeans would agree that they'd be better off as poor Americans. But anyway, I'm opinionated about this topic

Posted by: Sarah at February 18, 2008 07:46 AM (TWet1)

3 Also, I need to point out to CVG that you does not have the attitude about travel that I dislike. You lived in both France and Germany for extended periods of time, and you try to approach as close to Rory Stewart-hood in your travels as you can. Your family is super-cosmopolitan, so you're not exactly the Tourist Bumpkin that grates on my nerves. That said, I still insist that travel to is not a substitute for knowledge of. Rory Stewart (to beat a dead horse) went to Afghanistan to enhance his already-deep knowledge of the country, to grok it in fullness. I think that's what travel should be about. Instead I think many people see it as a checklist, to tick off countries as they visit them so they can feel cultured and intelligent.

Posted by: Sarah at February 18, 2008 08:09 AM (TWet1)

4 I think I might be coming at this from a different place, too. I love to travel, but my travel is not a week or ten days here or there - it is going to live somewhere else for a year or more. And part of the reason that I love it is because I no longer feel like anywhere is "home" to me. I don't want to stay anywhere, I don't feel comfortable with the thought that I might live somewhere and never move again. I don't like anywhere enough for that. I think I'm really jaded in that respect. So, I do lots of reading and researching before and during the time we move somewhere, and then I back that up with actually going to the places we've read about. It brings me so much closer to the things I've read about. I love meeting all sorts of different people who do and believe and live different sorts of ways. I'm lucky that I meet new people very easily. I love the memories in each and every thing that decorates our house - not just things that I've bought at Sears or far more likely with my taste) World Market. Everything on our walls or on our mantel reminds us of something we've done, or some special time we had somewhere. And I love the fact that every time I take my kids somewhere, the realize how lucky they are to have what they have, eat what they eat, know what they know, and see what they see. Some people collect stamps, some people collect guitars, we collect memories. And our moving around and traveling is a big part of creating those memories.

Posted by: airforcewife at February 18, 2008 08:12 AM (mIbWn)

5 I just realized that I almost come off as a jacka$$ in my comment...I need to write nicer... Anyhoo...when I was writing the thing about the soldiers in Iraq, I was like: man there are some who come back not knowing anything more than hot weather and dust. BUUUUUT, it irks me when some people read articles in the newspaper and think they know more about certain situations in Iraq than someone who has been there and seen things firsthand.

Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at February 18, 2008 09:50 AM (U2RJu)

6 CVG: Crappy AP articles in a paper, forgetaboutit. But Bernard Lewis books, then we might talk. I mean, my husband checks out the most dense, awful books on Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran out of the library -- stuff I wouldn't even want to read if you paid me -- and synthesizes all of it. He and his other buddy in his class were gently correcting an Iranian teacher on his Persian history. Shoot, I also bet Joern knows more about the Civil War than I do...

Posted by: Sarah at February 18, 2008 10:12 AM (TWet1)

7 I don't really agree with you in regards to myself, but I can see your point. We spent 12 days in Hawaii last November and only for about two hours were we at the beach when we found Turtle Beach, checked out the turtles and then watched the sunset. We hiked, kayaked, ate, hiked some more, and visited the memorials. We also attended a Veteran's Day ceremony at Punchbowl. Not exactly a tourist attraction, but a ceremony I wouldn't have missed for the world. I am fascinated with WWII history and have recetly started researching Vietnam. The Veterans at Hale Koa were a wealth of information and loved sharing their stories. My husband and I were in heaven. We do have children, and we try to expose them to so many cultural things as well as travel. Granted my kids chose Washington DC over Disneyworld so they might not be "typical" kids. They might not remember that we went up in the Washington Monument other than for the pictures, but they were amazed that Washington wasn't buried there and then wanted to find out and visit where he was. Hopefully it will all have some effect on them down the road. I'm glad you know what you enjoy though, as there is no sense in partaking in something just because it is considered the "norm".

Posted by: Army Blogger Wife at February 18, 2008 03:28 PM (Y3JJK)

8 I don't like to travel much either. I find it to be a big headache and I always feel out of place anyway. All this moving around with the Army is bad enough, haha, who needs travel on top of that?

Posted by: Kasey at February 18, 2008 05:19 PM (tttDj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I thought this concept was wild:

The notion of “ecoanxiety” has crept into the culture here. It was the subject of a recent cover story in San Francisco magazine that quotes a Berkeley mother so stressed out about the extravagance of her nightly baths that she started to reuse her daughter’s bath water.

My husband and I have ecoanxiety, but our eco- is for economics. I get so excited when I find balls of yarn on sale for a dollar, but I stress too because it's an extravagance I don't need. We could be saving that dollar. I wrestle with myself in stores all over town because even though we save plenty, there's no such thing as saving too much for the future. So I guess I understand the feeling, even if I don't understand tying oneself in knots over the environment.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:16 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 144 words, total size 1 kb.

I was reading about Obamamania today and came across this tangential comment by "a thirty-something, African-American female":

And finally, after Iowa something changed. I am what you might now call an Obamamaniac and am 'emotionally involved' as you say. But it's not because I think he is some Messiah. I haven't fallen in love with him. His campaign has made me fall in love with this country. His campaign has made me rethink assumptions I had made about huge swaths of this country. My only thought of North Dakota was a place not to go because of the color of my skin. Now, after Iowa, I realize my own small-mindedness and my own cynicism. Sure, some people out there will not want me around but I'll wait until they make that clear to me.

And that is just really, really cool.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:00 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.