June 23, 2007
ECONOMICS
My husband came home from work with a small book called
A Student's Guide to Economics. He breezed through it, since he's taken more econ classes than one human should take, and handed it to me. It's a little 50-pager about the evolution of economic trends from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman. I thought it was fascinating and quite accessible, so I thought I'd mention it here in case someone else is interested in an afternoon of light economics reading!
My favorite passages came from the section "Ignorance and Self-Interest," in which Heyne writes about people who propose policy as if they were "Aristotelian gods":
They grossly underestimate the amount of detailed knowledge that has to be used to provide food and housing for the inhabitants of a city; to assure enough but not too many physicians, plumbers, poets, and airline pilots; to make electricity and telephone service available to everyone; to maintain processes of discovery that will provide new and valuable answers to old problems of discomfort, disease, and disaster.
The dramatic failure of socialism that could no longer be denied at the end of the twentieth century was not, as many seem to believe, a consequence of the fact that people are selfish and put their own interests ahead of the interests of society. It was a consequence of the fact that no one is omniscient. We put our own interests ahead of the interests of most of those with whom we interact because we know what our own interests are, but do not even know the identities of most of the people with whom we cooperate every day.
...
The basic principles of economics will not be readily understood or appreciated by people who believe that economic theory explains the operation of an essentially immoral society, one governed by selfishness or dominated by the desire of "material welfare" rather than "human welfare." ... People who talk this way literally do not know what they are talking about.
Mmmmm. And there's more deliciousness where that came from.
Posted by: Sarah at
04:57 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.
1
that sounds fascinating! thanks for sharing.
Posted by: Butterfly Wife at June 24, 2007 08:06 AM (Ol1EE)
2
An interesting example of "omniscience" thinking in Amity Schlaes' new book, "The Forgotten Man," which is about the Great Depression. She quotes Stuart Chase, an American intellectual who visited the Soviet Union in 1927:
"Sixteen men in Moscow today are attempting one of the most audacious economic experiments in history...they are laying down the industrial future of 146 million people and of one-sixth of the land area of the world for fifteen years....These sixteen men salt down the whole economic life of 146 million people for a year in advance a calmly as a Glouscester man salts down his fish."
Chase clearly thought that this was an excellent way to do things.
Posted by: david foster at June 25, 2007 07:06 AM (gguM0)
3
Good site. Thank you!!!
Posted by: british dragon steroid at July 12, 2007 10:32 AM (Wc3gy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
HMMMM
Found a very
old Grim's Hall post I missed the first time around:
"The secret of social harmony is simple: Old men must be dangerous."
Posted by: Sarah at
03:53 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.
June 22, 2007
BRIDGE ON THE RIVER WHY
Tonight we watched
The Bridge on the River Kwai. Never have I seen such
glowing reviews for a movie I disliked so much. None of the characters were even remotely honorable. Heck, none of the characters even
existed; for a movie that was supposedly based on historical events, it sure played loose with the facts. 16,000 Allied POWs
died building that stupid bridge, and the movie didn't show a single one. Oh, did I say POW camp? I meant Happy Camp, where Japanese and British got along swimmingly. What a load of crap. If I were one of those real-life POWs who surreptitiously tried to sabotage the construction and survived the war only to find a movie made ten years later in which I collaborated with the Japanese and built them a purty lil' bridge, I'd be pretty f-in' steamed. And to sit through a movie where the main message is that all soldiers are mad, war is pointless, and bad guys and good guys are all the same deep down? I'd be out of my mind.
You remember how Neil was looking into publishing a book based on his Armor Geddon blog? You know why he didn't publish it? Because no one was buying what he was selling. They wanted more "internal conflict." They wanted him to struggle with his role in the war and the world. They didn't want to hear that the only regret soldiers like Neil have is that they weren't able to kill more bad guys.
War does not make all men go mad and lose their sense of right and wrong. But apparently making a movie in which they do will get you a 95% approval rating.
Posted by: Sarah at
05:55 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 293 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Actually, I just got the same comment on an essay anthology I was shopping about your more non-traditional military wives. Unless it included all war-protesting, serious marital conflict spouses (and cheating! Can't forget lots of cheating!), it just wasn't "meaty" enough.
We own "Bridge on the River Kwai" along with every other military movie known to man. Whenever my husband decides we're putting one of those in, I feel it my civic duty to retaliate with "Clueless" or "Harold and Maude" the next night.
Posted by: Non-Essential Equipment at June 22, 2007 09:27 PM (OofZ4)
2
I have never liked that movie. There are actually few war movies I do like. But that one as you noticed has always been considered REALLY GOOD. Not by me and I am of the generation in which it came out. Maybe it's just not a girl thing, but your points are well made. I never liked that TV show that made POW's in Germany SO MUCH FUN either. I've even blocked it's name for the time being. No senior moments here.(G)
Posted by: Ruth H at June 23, 2007 12:58 PM (Okavv)
3
Well dayum - I was wondering about Neil and his book. That is truly a loss for many. No wonder Buzzell had such an easy time of getting his book published but then I never read his. He just seemed too conflicted for me and I'm not trying to diminish his experience. Neil's experience explains alot I guess.
Posted by: toni at June 23, 2007 06:15 PM (M5jIa)
4
"...war is pointless..."
Funny you should mention that. Just last night some cable network clowns reviewing "Rescue Dawn" made that exact same assertion, praising the movie for showing us that war is futile. Like so many spoiled kids, they have never had to fight for their freedom, much less their lives, and it's so much fun to condescend to their betters.
Posted by: pst314 at June 24, 2007 07:01 AM (lCxSZ)
5
What the hell!? Red Six was one of the most
interesting blogs that I had ever read. Need
we remind people that he was awarded the
Silver Star?
WRONG. Just wrong. Wait a few years Neil. Your
time will come. I said it to you before and I
will say it again,money for nothin'!
Posted by: MaryIndiana at June 24, 2007 08:09 PM (iAdwS)
6
The redeeming quality of Bridge on the River Kwai is the brit commander's love of his soldiers.
Posted by: Eric Chen at July 03, 2007 07:18 PM (pvOSb)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 21, 2007
HUH?
I'm always amazed at what people will name their children these days, but this one takes the cake:
Pair told not to name son '4real'. Apparently we're so advanced in weirdness that numerals seem like a possibility.
Posted by: Sarah at
05:40 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Well at least the U.S. isnÂ’t alone in this idiocy. Fur real, yaÂ’ know what IÂ’m sayinÂ’, yo, yo, yo...just keepinÂ’ realÂ…
Posted by: tim at June 21, 2007 06:49 AM (nno0f)
2
I really am the last person on earth who should point fingers at other's terrible naming practices. There are no numbers in the names of my progeny, but I did use the Welsh alphabet to name one of them. Yeah, no one can pronounce her name.
And my son, one (just ONE) of his middle names is "Vaciley". BASIL! I feel such guilt. Boys should not be named after herbs.
If we were to have another, I might have to name it "Clover" or "Thyme" just to spread the misery around.
Posted by: airforcewife at June 21, 2007 02:01 PM (0dU3f)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
WE CAN DANCE IF WE WANT TO
Via
Photon Courier, an article about the effect of
protecting children too much:
Children are so cocooned by their parents that they rarely venture far from home and have little concept of space, volume and how the world actually works, David Willetts, the shadow education secretary, said yesterday.
The area in which children were allowed to range freely by their parents was a ninth of what it was a generation ago, he said.
CaliValleyGirl and I have discussed this at length and how we hope to address it when we have our future children. And boy do I think it's tricky today.
Remember when Lileks wrote about the new Winnie the Pooh character?
This year the new Pooh series will introduce a six-year old girl in Christopher’s stead. I’m sure she’s spunky and adventurous and kind and empowered, and I’m just as sure my daughter will find her boring, because kids can smell pedantic condescending twaddle nine mile off. (It’s one of the reasons many girls love Arthur – his little sister is sixty-five pounds of smart, devious, narcissistic, naughty sass.) Here’s the part that makes me truly sad:
The little girl wears a bike helmet.
Because you could fall down in the 100 Acre Woods and hurt yourself.
I swear, theyÂ’re going to put airbags on BarbieÂ’s Pegasus next, and require thick corks on the point of all unicorn horns.
That's how ubiquitous safety has become: cartoon characters need helmets.
On my last day of fifth grade, my mom let me ride my bike to school. Some of my friends who lived closer to the school got to ride their bikes often, but we lived in a neighborhood that was further away and so I was a bus-riding kid. (Oh, and every day my brother and I walked down the street to the bus stop and waited alone.) But finally my mom said I was old enough to earn the right to ride my bike to school. I just google mapped it, and it seems I rode roughly two miles. And I felt SO COOL. I was one of the big kids now. I was independent. I had Done Something Awesome. And without a helmet.
My mom and I talked about that not too long ago. She says looking back she can't believe all the parents let their kids ride bikes to school. And she's not sure she'd let me do it today. Even she has a hard time remembering when cartoon characters didn't need helmets.
I needed to ride that bike to school. Heck, I still remember it. As a crowning achievement, as a milestone, as a step on the way to Growing Up. The thing that scares me is wondering if I will be able to let my kids take those steps too.
"A study by the Children's Society found 43 per cent of [British] adults thought children should not be allowed out with their friends until they were 14 or over." And apparently there's a debate in England over whether kids should be allowed to climb trees.
I fell out of a tree once. I also broke my front tooth playing tag once. I broke a kid's finger playing flag football in school. And once I fell in a ravine and couldn't get out, which was perhaps one of the scariest moments of my childhood. And I didn't tell my parents about it because I didn't want to lose my freedom to go play near the ravine.
I don't have kids yet. I nearly had a heart attack when brand new Charlie puppy ran out into the street in front of a car, so I know that I am going to battle overprotection. But it's a battle I'm going to have to have with myself if I want my kids to at least grow up with the independence I had, much less what my parents had.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:25 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 663 words, total size 4 kb.
1
It's such a hard, hard subject to figure out. I thank the good lord we live on base, because those times we have lived off base I did not allow my children to have the freedom they do now. My youngest daughter was allowed to go to the park alone starting at age 5. I would not let my second daughter go to the park alone off base, and she's 9.
And often people off base will look at me like they are considering calling Child Protective Services for the things we allow our children to do. The parenting peer pressure is enormous.
I think one big difference that I had growing up (and I'm 3 years older than you) is that everyone in the neighborhood where I lived was a part of our upbringing - I got yelled at by more than one friend's parent for doing stupid things, and they would report my transgressions to my parents despite every plea I made. Now, so many people just ignore what is going on around them. And no wonder, really, with so many parents being hypersensitive about their children's behavior and making excuses for their spoiled brattedness.
Just for the record and for anyone who lives near me - please do not hesitate to correct my kids if you see them doing something wrong. PLEASE. I'll send you a fruit basket in thanks.
Posted by: airforcewife at June 21, 2007 06:43 AM (0dU3f)
2
I don't know whether to laugh or cry over that bike helmet thing. I mean, it's like someone took a silly SNL sketch way too seriously.
My kid is 2 so a lot of this doesn't apply just yet. I'd like to think that he'd have the same freedom I did to take off on his bike and then come home when the street lights came on. But he probably won't, mostly because the other Moms' won't let their kids.
My question is, though, how much of this is really necessary? I mean, it's not like there weren't dangers out there before. Hell, there may have even been more danger between homemade bike ramps and those burning hot, dangerously slick slides that could shoot you a good 5 feet off the bottom. And yes, there have always been flashers and pervs around.
I also wonder, in the end, if we aren't doing more harm to our children by trying so hard to protect them.
Posted by: Non-Essential Equipment at June 21, 2007 06:50 AM (ouGp8)
3
I think there are two types of danger:
1) children harming themselves
2) other people harming children
There is a problem with the former, that some parents want to protect their children from every boo-boo, but then in the long run the children are more susceptible to big boo-boos, because they never learn how to avoid dangerous situations, because they can't recognize them as dangerous.
The latter is the thing that many parents nowadays really have to worry about. A car hitting their child, or their child being purposely harmed by someone else. My parents gave us a lot of freedom to harm ourselves, but raised us in an area where they didn't really have to worry about other people harming us.
But I would be very wary of allowing my children the same freedoms we had on a small island, in this big city.
Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at June 21, 2007 09:18 AM (deur4)
4
I guess it's not clear to me that there are more harms out there today than before.
I grew up around the time that Adam Walsh was kidnapped. And then after, there was a rash of other kidnappings -- one attempted fairly close to our house. Did my parents stop letting me go outside? No. They talked with me about how I was to never, ever accept a ride/candy/etc. from strangers.
I'm beginning to believe it's just a different mindset today more than anything else.
Posted by: Non-Essential Equipment at June 21, 2007 11:08 AM (MmG3L)
5
It's hard to allow your kids to do things that you know are so potentially dangerous. After you become a mom, hearing the freak accident stories really affects you. Well, it did me, at least, and the news is plastered with scariness. A kid drowns in two inches of water in a bucket while the mother is hanging laundry nearby, a child chokes on the venetian blind cord while the mother thinks the kid is sleeping in the crib, a kid gets run over by a family member because of the limited visibility of those satan-created SUVs, a kid is strangled on the slide by his hoodie while the mom sits in plain view.... All of these things happen to mothers like me (and someday, you)! Not the I-don't-know-or-care-where-my-kid-is-I'm-smoking-crack mom, but the ones that take precautions and ARE paying attention. That makes it even worse! The worry and the guilt are enough to kill you!
I don't know about letting kids do anything anymore.
My parents let me do *whatever* and I grew up in the 70's & 80's in a pretty major city. I rode my bike all over, without a helmet, all day and into the night. When I was 5 or 6, I was staying home alone at night if they wanted to go out, "Don't answer the phone and don't touch the stove. Watch TV and go to sleep. We'll kiss you when we get home." I didn't have brothers or sisters. There were no cell phones, and barely 911.... And I am still here.
Oh, but I will tell you another thing! My oldest fell off of a retaining wall and broke her arm. Her uncle was washing the car outside 100 feet from where she fell.... The looks you get from people when you have a four-year-old with a cast? Holy shit. You might as well wear a sign around your neck that declares you completely unfit for motherhood! Glares, stares, nasty looks. It's ridiculous.
I WANT to be the mom that isn't so over-protective....
And then you see and hear what KIDS are doing these days.... At ages that are shockingly young? Sex in school, drugs.... My 5 year old wants a cell phone and an i-pod. What the hell for? "PSHAAA, Mom! To, like, CALL my FRIENDS and, like, LISTEN to music!?!" To which I raise an eyebrow and say, "Uhm, EXCUSE ME?" Then the little girl comes back and sheepishly kicks her toe into the ground and mumbles, "I was just kidding." Sure you were. Little windows into what's really happening in the school yard.
If it were just playing hide-n-seek or climbing trees? Maybe!
Posted by: Wochenend mit bier at June 21, 2007 04:35 PM (7xqZi)
6
Having fallen off my bike and smacked my blessedly helmeted head on concrete in a situation that would otherwise have resulted in at best a concussion and at worst paralysis, I must say I am a strong advocate of bike helmets.
Much like seatbelt anecdotes. I think safety is more important than looking cool.
Posted by: Sabbrielle at June 21, 2007 10:22 PM (nMpWu)
7
OK...I tried to leave a HUGungeous comment here yesterday, and it was not allowed. I didn't even swear in it...
However, it did spur an entire post, in my head. Now if I can type it out, so it does not sound like the oooompa band in my head.
I do know, it will make people mad....
and I hate to do it....
I am expecting onc I get it up, I will get hate mail, like you get.
nice.
Posted by: armywifetoddlermom at June 22, 2007 11:22 AM (PpMPm)
8
Son's nearly four, so far I don't have to deal with letting him outside by himself because he's still too young not to wander into the street in front of a car.
It's going to be hard for me when he gets older.
Posted by: Anwyn at July 09, 2007 08:55 AM (dzxw9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 20, 2007
DEVIL'S ADVOCATE
Surprise, surprise, Michael Moore thinks 9/11 was an inside job. The only thing he said that shocked me was at the end of his
rant:
MOORE: See, IÂ’m not very good at the physics and all that. But believe me, the questions need to be asked.
I'm amazed that he even admitted that he has no idea what he's talking about. You think that might have something to do with why he still has questions? But apparently it doesn't matter what the answer is, only that the question gets asked. Repeatedly. Reminds me of something Bill Whittle recently said (er, recently in Bill Whittle Time):
"We're just asking questions" was the official, voice-over disclaimer. You hear that too from the 9/11 Truth crowd when confronted with the lunacy of their claims. We're just asking questions... Well, in that vein I'd like to ask some questions myself. Is Michael Moore a serial pedophile? I'm just asking, and I'm sure a lot of my readers would just like to have some questions answered. I heard that Rosie O'Donnell ate a baby at a Satanic Ritual once -- is that true? Can you please provide the evidence that this did not in fact happen? Thanks. Who has murdered more hookers: Bill Maher or Charlie Sheen? Come on, you can't tell me there's no smoke there. I just want a possible explanation...
I think it's a rare gift to know how not smart you are. I've met way more people who think they're smarter than they are than people who underestimate themselves. And a sure sign of thinking you're hot stuff is to argue these stupid devil's advocate ideas.
My husband has had the delightful fortune of running into several people like this lately. These people don't know anything about economics or business, yet they claim that the Chinese are gonna screw us on treasury bonds. It could happen, I'm just sayin'. Do you know how these bonds work? Well, not exactly. These people don't know a Sunni from shinola, but they claim to know all sorts of stuff about Iraq's civil war. They don't know thing one about how corporations operate, but they sure do seem to know a lot about how well Halliburton is doing. I'm just sayin', as I shrug my shoulders and grimace, it's probably a war for oil. Your evidence? Oh, you have none. And you don't care enough to go find any either.
My husband and I decided it would be more pleasant to discuss these issues with Markos Moulitsas than with any one of these devil's advocate people. At least you know where you stand with Kos and you know he will bring his A game. But how do you carry on an intelligent discussion with someone who thinks Manufacturing Consent might be how the world works but doesn't know anything about business, the media, or even Noam Chomsky himself? Noam who? And what's a blog? Yeah, you're a prime candidate in a debate on the media's stranglehold.
Devil's advocate arguments are the refuge of the intellectually weak. If your whole side of the debate consists of question marks and I'm-just-sayin's, then you need to work a little harder. And you need to stop holding strong opinions about things you don't understand.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:26 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 549 words, total size 4 kb.
1
"Devil's advocate arguments are the refuge of the intellectually weak."
It comes as no surprise to me that we seem to see this approach taken by an uncomfortably large number of people from the entertainment industry; those who are paid to pretend they are someone/something other than themselves. The palpable failure of the news outlets to push back in interviews with these people using pointed questions based on undeniable facts gives them a free pass. The damage is done because too many of our fellow citizens are too wrapped up in trivialities to absorb and retain an informed, adult perspective on issues of consequence. Instead, they parrot foolishness from their favorite celebrity.
There is a certain satisfaction in turning a committed leftist inside out with the facts. Beating someone's A-game has its own rewards. When the best someone has to offer is what Michael Moore or Rosie O'Donnell has to say, it is is simply depressing that anyone would offer "Well, so-and-so said that...." as a basis for taking a position.
Posted by: Bob at June 20, 2007 04:15 AM (m/kVw)
2
"Devil's advocate arguments are the refuge of the intellectually weak."
Certainly, you do have to do more than say, "I'm just saying, what if..." but I think there is a lot of value from examining issues from both sides. And from asking the questions -- provided you are willing to search out answers that don't only support your hypothesis.
Michael Moore is not a political scientist or an economist -- he's a filmmaker. At the end of the day, he's trying to sell tickets to films and that does, whether he wants to admit it or not, have some effect on what kind of work he does.
But by the same token, no issue is black and white. And is what he does a bad thing if people use it as a way to educate themselves more, as opposed to taking his opinion (or any other's, for that matter) hook, line and sinker?
I long for the good old days when debate was a mandatory subject in school. Arguing a point that you don't personally believe can be a remarkable learning experience. And the tools you learned in those exercises -- identifying rival hypotheses, understanding that there is a lot proof necessary for a direct cause/effect statement, keeping the argument valid and contained -- would certainly make for more worthwhile discussions today.
Posted by: Non-Essential Equipment at June 20, 2007 07:09 AM (ouGp8)
3
Excellent post, Sarah.
Non-Essential...I agree with you that it would be very worthwhile for more kids to be exposed to debate (although some of today's trends in college debate, and even high school debate, are a trifle strange). The study of rhetoric was once considered an essential part of a liberal arts education.
But when you say "no issue is black and white"...surely, there are factual issues that *are* black and white. Either Sam robbed the bank, or he did not. Either Atta and his crew crashed the plane into the building, or they did not. (Unless you are making a quantum-theory multiple-universes argument, which seems unlikely from the context)
Arthur Koestler wrote an interesting piece on the whole nuance/shades-of-gray thing.
Posted by: david foster at June 20, 2007 05:09 PM (gguM0)
4
You are right -- there are factual issues that *are* black and white. Did Sam rob the bank? Sure, at the end of the day, there's only one right answer. But which answer we lean towards, naturally, is going to depend on how the evidence is presented and our own interpretation of that evidence.
That's where, I believe, that devil's advocate can be useful.
I liked the Koestler piece. But sometimes I wonder if the reason that there is so much attention paid to some of these crazy theories is because of the way the evidence was presented in the first place. Especially when it was presented in a "this is black, the end" kind of format. You have to admit that our executive branch is quite fond of absolutes.
Posted by: Non-Essential Equipment at June 20, 2007 09:26 PM (ouGp8)
5
non-essential...actually I don't agree that our executive branch is particularly fond of absolutes. For example, the phrase "axis of evil", which is often portrayed as Bush absolutism, is no more black-and-white than were the things said by FDR and Churchill about the Axis powers of their time.
Posted by: david foster at June 23, 2007 06:54 PM (gguM0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 19, 2007
HOPE
The title of this one is all you need...
Iraqi Orphanage Nightmare: U.S. Troops Discover And Rescue Orphan Boys Left Starving, Chained To Beds
The photos made me weep. They're concentration camp liberation for my generation.
Posted by: Sarah at
02:47 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Sad, just pathetically sad.
If the scum who were supposed to be looking after those kids where to be held in confident under the same conditions, i.e. Abu Gahrab prison, the story would on the front page of the New York Times for 2 months.
Posted by: tim at June 19, 2007 07:43 AM (nno0f)
2
I have not yet been able to look at these pictures. A huge part of me wants to, but another part of me is not sure I can handle the truth of what some humans are capable of. My heart aches for these children.
Posted by: Josie at June 19, 2007 03:37 PM (a0ewf)
3
I'm confused by the concentration camp liberation comparison. The story at the end reveals that the children were moved to another orphanage, which seems to imply that it was just the criminal conduct of one manager that made this orphanage so horrible, not the government sanctioned actions of the concentration camps of WWII.
While the situation is horrible, it is more akin to those crazy foster parents who put their kids in cages or the horrible nursing homes that don't take care of their patients but do pocket the money. A horrible blip on the radar of human behavior, but in no way rising to the level of state sanctioned torture and murder of millions.
Posted by: Oda Mae at June 19, 2007 08:54 PM (Pj6Yb)
4
I hesitated to write that sentence because I knew it might not come out right. All I meant was the *feeling* was the same, the horror of finding these children and rescuing them, the photos of the orphanage...it all reminded me of liberating a concentration camp. I don't think anyone of my generation can ever live through something as powerful as concentration camp liberation, but this may be as close as it gets.
Unless we ever end up in North Korea...
Posted by: Sarah at June 20, 2007 02:39 AM (vrR+j)
5
I was afraid you would catch some flak from that comment. I almost did it myself, but you ARE much younger than I, and I did see the concentration camp pictures at age 9 or 10, a very vulnerable age. So we bring a very different experience to the table on this. I do know some (2) survivors of the Holocaust who lost most of their family. Also after Vietnam there were some really horrible exterminations. And there have been all those tribal wars in Africa. Oda Mae is right, this is more like the situations she describes and that doesn't make it any less horrible or the pictures any less terrible. I have only looked at one of the pictures. I do not need to see anymore human cruelty in my lifetime. Just say a prayer for the little ones in all of the war torn world. I wish I could do more, I cannot.
Posted by: Ruth H at June 20, 2007 06:28 AM (orGFk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 18, 2007
MILITARY READS
After the Milblogs Conference, CaliValleyGirl
wrote:
Since my boyfriend/fiancé has returned, I have distanced myself from the Milblogging community. Not really on purpose, but just because once my soldier returned I wanted to celebrate his being home, act like we were a “normal” couple, doing normal couple things
...
When he was deployed I knew everything that was going on, the names of operations, the areas of operations, how things were going in these areas. I would check the names of fallen soldiers and read about their lives. I read milblogs religiously. I sought out new connections, searching for degrees of separation. I lived and breathed the war on terror. And I was shocked, shocked I tell you, that other people didnÂ’t share my fervor in following all things combat related.
I often complain that war is too distant from the general public. Because of the deployments, soldiers clock-in and then clock-out of the war. They arenÂ’t in war mode the whole time. And consequently their families arenÂ’t in war mode. I complain about the general public lacking the passion to fight this war, but I realize that I am just as much part of that problem. As soon as my boyfriend came back, I clocked-out.
Over the weekend, I realized that if you aren’t a part of the solution, you are a part of the problem. I had subconsciously become one of those people who lives as if we aren’t at war. And part of me thought that in 2 ½ years things might be over in Iraq and Afghanistan, and my fiancé won’t be deploying again. That this war doesn’t really directly affect me anymore. Over the weekend I realized that I hope my fiancé deploys again in 2 ½ years. Because if he doesn’t deploy, it means that we have given up.
I can completely understand her feelings here. And I applaud her for expressing them so honestly; when I tried to bring this up once on SpouseBUZZ, it didn't work out so well.
I still spend roughly the same time online as I did when my husband was deployed, but the hunger for frontline stories isn't as deep as it was when he was gone. Back then I needed to feel connected to Iraq in a different way than I do now. And while I am just as emotionally invested in the outcome of the war, I know that I too am half-clocked out. Or at least enjoying the idea that I have the luxury of being half-clocked out until next year.
But I am trying to reconnect with what I've let go since March 2005. So I offer some military reads today.
Read this day in the life of Greyhawk.
Read this old Matt Sanchez story if you missed it.
And read this encounter with a suicide bomber from Tadpole.
Posted by: Sarah at
10:23 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 479 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Your contributions as a Blogger are as important as any marine's fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan. Please keep that in mind. The Milbloggers are the source of the _real_ information about the "War against Terror and Islamofaschism".
Posted by: Zeno Davatz at June 18, 2007 09:37 PM (FcYJW)
2
I'm not proud of it, but I've done my own share of clocking out since my sweetheart redeployed. I still pay attention, but I don't obsess anymore.
Not to make excuses, but do you think part of the reason we do this is to give ourselves a break from the constant worry and burden we lived with during deployment? Maybe we're just replenishing our sanity reserve for the next tour.
Posted by: Bette at June 20, 2007 07:47 AM (ICdbF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
HEH
Mark Steyn:
There are immigration laws on the books right now, aren't there? Why not try enforcing them? The same people who say that government is a mighty power for good that can extinguish every cigarette butt and detoxify every cheeseburger and even change the very climate of the planet back to some Edenic state so that the water that falleth from heaven will land as ice and snow, and polar bears on distant continents will frolic as they did in days of yore, the very same people say: Building a border fence? Enforcing deportation orders? Can't be done, old boy. Pie-in-the-sky.
Posted by: Sarah at
09:51 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.
June 17, 2007
LOVE AT FIRST LINK
Matt Sanchez asked the other day about the Deskmerc quote I keep up over on the sidebar: "While our troops go out to defend our country, it is incumbent upon us to make the country worth defending." I know that Deskmerc wrote it in my comments section a long time ago, but I can't find it and think it might have been back on blogspot, and all of those comments are long gone. But it so impacted me at the time that it became sidebar-worthy.
A google search comes up with quite a few hits for the quote, which means Deskmerc has made a name for himself!
I emailed him to joke that he was getting quite famous, and he emailed me back the following explanation behind the quote:
A physicist (Robert Parks, I believe, I may have him confused with someone else) was asked before a congressional committe in the 80's about the Superconducting Supercollider. Reagan had authorized federal funds be spent on the project ("Go deep", he said, and everyone assumed that meant "Build it.") The committee was asking the physicists all sorts of questions, such as "Will this cure cancer? Can this be used to defend the country? Are there any practical applications for this multibillion dollar device you want the taxpayers to fund?"
The physicist (I'm paraphrasing here) replied with "No, it will not cure cancer, and there are likely very few practical applications to the SSC. And it will not help defend the country. What it will do, is provide a tool to increase our knowledge of the universe around us, and in doing so, make our country worth defending."
So that kinda stuck on me for a long time, sitting in the background of my head waiting for some more context to pounce, I suppose. And along came a war in 2003 and many folks of many political stripes engaged in the "chickenhawk" accusation. If you aren't military, then you should have no opinion on the war, that sort of thing, and if you support the war, then you should go fight it!
But that's asinine, of course, and we all know that. Many people have no reason to join the military and fight, they can't or they just aren't up to it, and not everyone is. But there are different kinds of support that anyone can engage in, and probably the most important one is simply to be a good citizen, work hard at your job, whatever it may be, produce good products, turn out well rounded students, keep the gas flowing at market prices, mow lawns, sweep streets, babysit technical illiterates on the phone because they have purchase technology four times smarter than they are, was cars, fix cars, answer phones, WHATEVER, just do a good job. Do they BEST job you can, no matter how small, because in the end, it does matter to the guys on the pointy end of the stick.
I found, that after coming home in 92, that I could have cared less in many respects who won the recent election (Clinton? Who is he?) What mattered to me is that I came home safe, we did our job, my family was there when I stepped off the plane, and cheeseburgers hadn't been legislated out of existence. What sort of country will this current crop of military men come home to? Will it be a country where nobody did anything because we're too busy yelling at each other to accomplish anything, or will they come home at least to a place where everyone did their jobs?
There are guys out there who are getting blown up, stabbed, shot at, run over, dragged around. They put up with it because that's the job (anyone who joins the military not realizing this is an idiot) and the job is very satisfying, in the end, especially when we kick ass and win all the time. But what's more satisfying is that part when you come home and everything is still there (except when they build a new mall or something, and you wonder how the hell kids can grow up so fast these days) The only way that can happen, that coming home satisfaction, is if everyone does their part back home. Without that, what's the point in fighting in the first place?
So, while these guys go out and get shot at to make sure I can still have a job myself (I doubt certain Islamist factions would allow monster datacenters to be operated with impunity, especially if it has lots of porn, if they had their way) then I can damn well do my job the best I can. Like it or not, agree or disagree with the fundamental reasons for going to war or even fighting in general, these guys lay it on the line every day. Its not a rationalization, its an objective fact: without a military, none of us would be here. Its an uncomfortable fact for some who advocate for Departments of Peace, but that is the way of things. The least any of us can do to thank these people is to make the best of the jobs we can do, not litter, and keep the cheeseburgers coming.
We can all disagree on fundamental points of policy. We can even advocate withdrawing if that is the wish of the plurality. It is, however, a disgrace be a slacker, because for the professions that cocoon slackers from the rest of the world, slack is not an option.
It's rare when you can remember the exact first blog post you ever read from a blogger, but I know exactly how I found Deskmerc (it was his sadly defunct Cthulhu joke), and I've adored him ever since. His quote and the tank he made me are just two of the ways he's so awesome.
Spread his quote. And make our country worth defending.
Posted by: Sarah at
07:00 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 995 words, total size 6 kb.
1
I actually
trackbacked to this post on my blog, but somehow it didn't work. I love the quote and have put it up on my blog, too.
Thanks, Sarah!
Posted by: Dave at June 21, 2007 04:28 AM (6GFTi)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
WELL SAID
Found a
comment over at Buzz.mn that narrowly applies to seatbelt laws but broadly applies to almost everything we cover in the blogosphere:
Anecdotal Evidence Can Be Fun!
Submitted by jhugart on Thu, 06/14/2007 - 12:36am.
My dad used to wear seat belts only when he was driving on the interstate; he explained it by saying he could hold on to the steering wheel at lower speeds.
Then one day he was driving to the interstate, and had his belt on. Another driver ran a red light and smashed into his car, rolling it, and shaking him up a lot. He was uninjured, which all agreed would not have been the case had he been unbelted. From that point on, he always wore a seat belt.
For my part, I always put on the belt, and expect passengers to do so as well. I used to get the response, "Oh, I trust your driving!" My reply was, "It isn't my driving we're worried about." That always resulted in a thoughtful look and the click of the belt.
The entertaining part about anecdotal evidence is that it is great for supporting something you already believe in. If you believe seat belt use is a good idea, you can find stories to back it up. If you think seat belt use is dangerous, you can find stories to back that up.
Humans being human, I suspect that no scientific assessment of seat belt use, non-use, accidents, injuries, and fatalities would sway people from whatever positions they have already adopted. They are much more likely to be affected by a friend or relative who survived because of behavior X, whatever it happens to be.
The short answer is that there are all sorts of ways to die with a car involved. You can do your best to protect yourself, but sometimes you can get killed in spite of those efforts...and other times you can survive in spite of what may seem terminal stupidity. C'est la vie.
Jacob
(Thanks to this ColdFury post for leading me there.)
Actually, it reminds me a lot of something that's been bugging me immensely lately over at SpouseBUZZ: the idea that the new Lifetime series Army Wives is unrealistic because officer wives would never deign to hang out with enlisted wives. I say that my three best friends in Germany were all enlisted wives, and someone else says that in her entire Army life no officer wife has ever once spoken to her. And so our anecdotes cancel out. Ace says nicely today that "the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'", and I don't know if there's any data out there on this subject, but it sure does bother me to read over and over that I am too snobby and uppity to ever be friends with my three best friends.
Posted by: Sarah at
06:15 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 477 words, total size 3 kb.
1
I think it's funny how civilians perceive the Army life. I heard all sorts of things (mostly from prior Army folk) about the division between Officer and enlisted personnel before we moved to Germany. (duty station #1) I knew nothing about the Army and it seemed silly to me but I believed it, nonetheless. When I arrived, I found what I usually find...some of it was 100% true and some was 100% false. It's just another way of pigeon-holing people...I always had both enlisted and officer's wives as friends and never really thought a thing about it.
Posted by: Nicole at June 17, 2007 06:41 AM (vYQMs)
2
I've seen both. I've met wives that wore their husband's rank. I also recall meeting one woman that was very down-to-earth and insisted on being called by her first name, despite being married to the Corp Commander (LTG).
I think field grade officer wives were the worse. My wife always refused to play that game and has pointed out that she's not subject to the UCMJ.
R1
Posted by: R at June 17, 2007 07:08 AM (9JS9f)
3
I'm glad you brought up the officer/enlisted wives discussion (or rather, the anecdote bomb throwing). It's been driving me nuts. I have to say that I have met imperial officer's wives (as Marna would say)including one who demanded to be called "Mrs. Colonel So-and-So", but I also met one wife who's husband was lower ranking that would come to every function hubby's unit had, and when volunteers were asked for EVERY SINGLE TIME would say, "You don't command ME!" Sweet baby on a stick, woman! We were asking for someone to bring the chips!
I never ask what someone's husband's rank is. Never. It has no bearing on whether or not the wife and I get along well. As a result I've been blessed with friends who are Colonel's wives and friends whose husbands just got out of basic. I've mentored and been mentored (both of which are an ongoing process).
And for those of us whose husbands started out enlisted, I wonder what the "no mixing" rule means. Am I not allowed to talk to myself? That would totally ruin my week.
Posted by: airforcewife at June 17, 2007 08:43 AM (0dU3f)
4
My best friends at this duty station were also enlisted wives. Frankly, none of us thought a thing about it.
But at one point, when there were a lot of rumors and craziness going around, the battalion Commander's wife that maybe it wasn't in my best interest to be friends with them. That perhaps they were only friendly to glean information. I don't think she meant to be a doofus but was just trying to share that it can be lonely at the top if you have any leadership role.
It goes both ways. You have some imperial Officer's wives and you have some suck-ups that want to hang out with the wives of higher ranking folks to feel important. That will always be the case.
But hey, if in this crazy life, you can find someone, ANYONE, who gets you and can make your life that much less lonely, you make sure to hold on to both hands no matter the number of stripes or squiqqlies on his velcro patches.
Posted by: Non-Essential Equipment at June 17, 2007 10:41 AM (03gxG)
5
The O vs. E thing gets tiresome with me...
heck I do not even know what anyone over at SpouseBuzz DH or DW rank is oddly enough...
for that matter I do not care, never have.
doubt if I will.
Posted by: armywifetoddlermom at June 17, 2007 12:55 PM (PpMPm)
6
Dang. I just wrote a lot and had to erase it all. I can't even start on this subject without writing a novel.
Bottom line: If one defines herself by what rank her husband is, she is a loser.
Posted by: Erin at June 17, 2007 07:23 PM (XRza7)
7
Well, my best friend was an O wife, I was an E wife. what got US was that everyone in the Chain had a pink fit about it. the Col's wife (who wore those eagles with PRIDE, y'all) castigated me, the Sgt Major's wife told me it just wasn't DONE! her DH was not in my DH's direct chain, but in the same unit. But still... disapproval everywhere.
going back Active, as a WO wife (now, where do we fit???) and I sure hope things have changed in these many years!
LAW
Posted by: Liberal Army Wife at June 18, 2007 03:01 PM (h/YdH)
8
I never heard any grief over my friendships, but I do remember a couple of strange glares from one or two enlisted wives who looked at me like I had infiltrated their private group. I got more grief over being too friendly to a civilian boy I worked with; despite the fact he was five years younger than me, people warned me he'd be considered my jody if we were ever seen together. The things people get all up in...
Posted by: Sarah at June 18, 2007 05:06 PM (vrR+j)
9
I cringe when someone asks what my husband's rank is. I have been guilty of leaning down at that very moment and pretending my littlest needs her nose wiped, hoping the question will go away. Unless you are from protocol and currently working on a seating chart and need to know where he needs to place his booty, what does it really matter?
I have two very close friends here. One is an officer's wife, one is an NCO's wife. I know that I can count on either of these two women for absolutely anything. Am I living in some fantasy world friendship with the one who happens to be married to someone who wears his rank in a different place on his uniform than my husband does? Hardly.
I always wonder if those who insist that wives of Os and Es can't be friends immediately write someone off as a potential friend based on their husband's rank.
Posted by: Michelle at June 25, 2007 01:30 AM (gvZe1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 16, 2007
NOT A TEEN
Those of you who've met me in real life met me in situations where I was Trying To Look Grown-Up, like at conferences and stuff. Even then I generally feel like a kid at the big table, but at least I try. On normal days, I don't do much for myself. I usually have comfortable basic clothes on and spend most of my time in a ponytail. Sometimes I look with envy at really put-together women, but never enough to put effort into my own appearance for just going to the store or around town.
Today at the library I was looking with interest at a display for a teen crafts class. The girl librarian, who must've been around my age, saw me looking and told me I should sign up. I said I'd love to but that it says it's for teens. "Oh, well, how old are you?" she asked, in a way that suggested she'd fudge a little for me if I was 20. "Um, like 30," I said.
Think I need to update my look?
This story killed my husband. He mused that the target age group when the library organizes something for "teens" is like 13-16. He said, "You look young, but no offense, you clearly don't look half your age."
At least I don't look as young as my Swedish friend, who got offered a coloring book on an airplane when she was 20.
Posted by: Sarah at
10:47 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 245 words, total size 1 kb.
1
One of the new wives in hubby's unit told me at a party last weekend that I didn't look old enough to be my eldest daughter's mother.
If she were an Avon lady, I would be buying thousands of dollars of Anew right as we speak.
Posted by: airforcewife at June 16, 2007 11:20 AM (0dU3f)
2
You described me to a T in that first paragraph... weird.
Posted by: Green at June 16, 2007 11:28 AM (VqW06)
3
I can relate. I think I told you, but I'll say it again here: I was once barred from sitting next to the exit door on a plane until I told the flight attendant I was 21. The sign said, "Under 14 may not sit here."
No one has ever gotten within 7 years of guessing my correct age.
Posted by: FbL at June 17, 2007 10:11 AM (TXlt9)
4
Wanna know what's funny? I went into a store to get my hubby some of his tobacco today, and got carded! I couldn't believe it! It excites me enough when I get carded for alcohol...but tobacco? Hahahaha!! And I don't think I look nearly as young as you do!
Posted by: Robin at June 17, 2007 04:27 PM (XTKEz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
ANIMAL FARM
The dog's lived with us for two years now, and apparently he's made himself quite at home. I walked into our room just now, only to find that Charlie's really gotten in touch with his human side. There he was, sprawled out in the middle of our bed, sleeping
with his head on a pillow. If he opened his mouth and spoke tomorrow, I really wouldn't be that surprised.

Posted by: Sarah at
08:55 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.
1
My dog does the same thing with the pillow. It's normally very cute, but not so much when he goes to sleep before me and I have to push him out of the way. He's a bit bigger than Charlie (70 lb golden) and takes up most of the top of the bed when he decides to use a pillow.
Posted by: Peggy at June 16, 2007 11:11 AM (BIKt0)
2
Good doggie! One night I awoke to snoring and felt my husband up against me. So I nudged him a bit. He didn't move and the snoring continued. I nudged again. No change. I rolled over and saw that it was Moo (at that time about 105+ pounds) lying on her back, all four feet in the air, head on a pillow, snoring.
Posted by: Butterfly Wife at June 16, 2007 05:12 PM (Ol1EE)
3
Just wait til he tries to get under the covers! Then you'll know he's definitely gone human.
Posted by: toni at June 23, 2007 06:28 PM (M5jIa)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
THREE THINGS I LEARNED THIS WEEK
1. If you plant an apple tree, you'd better like Japanese beetles.
2. When you go in to scout out a new sewing machine, you will get wooed by the glamour of the really nice machines. Then in the car on the way home, you will suddenly break out of your hypnosis and wonder why you were considering spending an extra $600 so you could monogram something.
3. When you accidentally put double the flour in a batch of cookies, they don't necessarily get ruined...but you don't necessarily feel the need to eat the entire batch in one sitting either.
Posted by: Sarah at
08:46 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I'm also looking for a sewing machine, but I can't afford the most basic model with the features I want. I'm trying to toss hints my mother's way, since my birthday's next month... Think she'll get it?
Posted by: Green at June 16, 2007 11:30 AM (VqW06)
2
Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! wphfdmfpsof
Posted by: kwaugkfihq at June 24, 2007 07:15 AM (Hc5ku)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
RECOVERING
Just...
dang.
Posted by: Sarah at
04:28 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 3 words, total size 1 kb.
1
thank you for leading me to Josie. Her husband is in the same BCT as mine.
LAW
Posted by: liberal army wife at June 17, 2007 04:34 AM (A5s0y)
2
Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! djarhqlmwzdfis
Posted by: yznerpqmuw at June 24, 2007 07:16 AM (Hc5ku)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 15, 2007
TWO YEARS
Today is actually another anniversary for our little family. Two years ago we brought a little Tibetan terrier home with us.

Happy Pupversary, Charlie.
Posted by: Sarah at
08:11 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.
1
oh, that is a darling pup. absolutely gorgeous. happy pupster day.
Posted by: liberal army wife LAW at June 15, 2007 03:40 PM (A5s0y)
2
Ohhhh! That is so sweet! How nice to share your anniversary with such an important part of your family. I love it.
Posted by: Butterfly Wife at June 15, 2007 06:59 PM (Ol1EE)
3
Precious little pup! His grandma misses him! Cute picture; I love his haircut.
Your Mama
Posted by: Nancy at June 15, 2007 07:48 PM (//+y7)
4
Congratulations Charlie! Now,what did they
give you for a treat?
Posted by: MaryIndiana at June 17, 2007 07:25 PM (iAdwS)
5
Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! tnvtecnwjfekzw
Posted by: zlorvlhsnh at June 24, 2007 07:15 AM (Hc5ku)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
FIVE YEARS
Five years ago today, I was trying not to barf. I was so nervous that morning, for no good reason at all. People were a tad concerned that I was having cold feet, but I told my husband on the phone that no matter how sick and nervous I looked, it had nothing to do with doubts about marrying him. Once I headed down that aisle, I was fine, and I was even better when it was over.
Greatest thing I ever did.

We had such high hopes to return to D.C. today and relive our honeymoon. But as we waited to see how much homework he'd have this weekend, we ran into snags for a dogsitter. The trip back to D.C. will have to wait a little bit. I was quite disappointed at first, but then I finally came to my senses and told my husband that it doesn't matter where we are or what we're doing, we're just so lucky to be spending the day together.
And adding another photo to our collection.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:24 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Congratulations!!
A photo of you smooching...CUTE!!
Many more and enjoy the day....
fresh sheets, and the day in bed...*wink*
Posted by: armywifetoddlermom at June 15, 2007 03:43 AM (988LV)
2
Congrats! Wishing you many, many more happy years together.
BTW, I love your hair!
Posted by: Butterfly Wife at June 15, 2007 03:46 AM (/LiOe)
3
Congratulations!
The two of you look fantastic!
Enjoy your love!
Posted by: vet66 at June 15, 2007 03:58 AM (JQe3J)
Posted by: oddybobo at June 15, 2007 04:27 AM (mZfwW)
5
Congrats, you are a great looking couple.
Very nice pic. I've always liked it when women put there hair up, it's very classy.
Have a nice anniversary.
Posted by: tim at June 15, 2007 05:24 AM (nno0f)
6
Congrats. You two look great. Enjoy your day and weekend.
Posted by: Reasa at June 15, 2007 05:51 AM (JfF5d)
Posted by: R at June 15, 2007 05:54 AM (9JS9f)
8
That picture is so gorgeous!
Happy Anniversary!
Also, if you buy a white taper candle and paint some horizontal and vertical lines on it, it can be the Washington Monument. And a fat pillar candle with some vertical curved lines can be the Capitol Dome.
Then you can print out a picture of the President to hang on the wall, and voila! You have brought Washington, DC to you!
Make sure to also put some monopoly money in a briefcase with a random congressman's name on it and store it in the corner for authenticity.

You guys are so adorable, by the way...
Posted by: airforcewife at June 15, 2007 05:57 AM (0dU3f)
9
Congrats to the two of you!
I just love anniversaries......
Here's to many many more.....
Posted by: Tammi at June 15, 2007 06:59 AM (wbVY2)
10
Congratulations! As long as you're together - that makes it a wonderful anniversary. *grin*
Posted by: Teresa at June 15, 2007 09:08 AM (gsbs5)
11
(Found you from AWTM) Congratulations!!!
Posted by: Sgt. L's Wife at June 15, 2007 09:58 AM (3l9gY)
12
Yes, AWTM sent us! congratulations...and speaking on behalf of DC Metro, let me just say that we will be glad to have you any time!
Posted by: Aprille at June 15, 2007 03:44 PM (sf29K)
13
Congratualtions! It's a lovely pic, thanks for sharing.
Posted by: Maggie at June 15, 2007 06:58 PM (A5SFX)
14
Happy Anniversary! We love you both! You're a match made in heaven!
Your Mama
Posted by: Nancy at June 15, 2007 07:44 PM (//+y7)
15
Sorry I'm late, but Happy Anniversary! And may you have MANY more to come...preferably more together than apart!
Posted by: Robin at June 17, 2007 04:29 PM (XTKEz)
16
Congratulations, albeit late! I am so glad you were able to spend quality time together on your anniversary.
Posted by: Guard Wife at June 17, 2007 04:35 PM (mMRvT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 14, 2007
LOVE THAT PERSPECTIVE
Happy Birthday, Army!
Last night we watched the movie The Great Raid. As a wife, I find watching movies like that extremely sobering, for there's no way to feel sorry about 15 month OIF deployments once you've imagined your husband a Bataan Death March POW. There's nothin' like a healthy dose of Perspective.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:13 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.
1
May I suggest a GREAT book on the subject,it's called Ghost Soldiers.
Posted by: tim at June 14, 2007 03:37 AM (nno0f)
2
Absolutely about the perspective.
Posted by: airforcewife at June 14, 2007 03:40 AM (0dU3f)
3
Consider the perspective that it brings to those of us who *don't* have a husband (or wife) in uniform! That movie was hard to watch, but absolutely necessary ... and humbling.
Posted by: Barb at June 16, 2007 12:57 PM (QOeYI)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 12, 2007
BASIC ECONOMICS
The best thing
The Onion ever wrote was the Point/Counterpoint on Africa.
Point (college student): Nigeria is a land filled with culture.
Counterpoint (Nigerian): Get me out of this hellhole.
That sums up Africa and the West's relationship to Africa better than anything else I've ever seen. Except for maybe this new
interview with a Kenyan economics expert:
SPIEGEL: Mr. Shikwati, the G8 summit at Gleneagles is about to beef up the development aid for Africa...
Shikwati: ... for God's sake, please just stop.
SPIEGEL: Stop? The industrialized nations of the West want to eliminate hunger and poverty.
Shikwati: Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid.
Read the whole thing to get a real economics lesson instead of the feel-good economics that Westerners think runs the world. And if you have more time, read the book Dark Star Safari by Paul Theroux.
UPDATE:
Marc's right; the article is from 2005. Hardly new, though I just found it today. Oh well, the message still applies cuz we sure didn't take it to heart over the past two years.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:49 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 203 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Switch Africa with poor people & aid with welfare and itÂ’s the same result.
Teach a man to fishÂ…
Posted by: tim at June 12, 2007 04:41 AM (nno0f)
2
It is a great interview, but it's also representative of a funny thing about articles that stay on the internet for years and blog cycles. That interview is from July 2005. I remember when it was the big rage back then as well, then it dipped away only to be, for some reason, resurrected as new. Which is cool, because it deserves attention.
Posted by: marc at June 12, 2007 04:52 AM (2jDuy)
3
Yes, I remember reading that back then, but yesterday I read another Spiegel article on how the aid isn't helping Africa, and why do people think that more money would help. I was thinking again...man, wish I could send this to Sarah.
An article called: Why Africa doesn't need money from the West:
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,486464,00.html
And another one called: Why Africa is suffering thanks to foreign aid.
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,487746,00.html
Spiegel seems to have a pretty long standing stance towards the current foreign aid being a negative for Africa.
Maybe those articles will be soon translated into English.
Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at June 12, 2007 06:34 AM (deur4)
4
Basic premise is so, so true. I just returned from a trip to Rwanda. Millions of dollars in humanitarian aid have flowed into that country, primarily due to guilt from the world ignoring the genocide in 1994. The country has been & continues to be rebuilt in wonderful ways, great roads, etc., particularly compared to Kenya. Even so, the coolest thing are the billboards that encourage their citizens to pay their fair share of taxes so that the country can eliminate their dependence on outside aid. Very cool!
There is hope for Africa, but I agree, continuing to just "send money" without better FAIR trade agreements & accountability on the part of the individual country's gov'ts certainly can do far more harm than good.
Posted by: beckie at June 15, 2007 02:36 AM (2nDll)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
TRUE ROMANCE
This story (via
Matt Sanchez) tickled me. Apparently a retired policeman and a retired Marine subdued a crazy man on a plane. I love that
the old guys stepped to the plate. But I really, really loved what the policeman's wife said:
Hayden's wife of 42 years, Katie, who was also on the flight, was less impressed. Even as her husband struggled with the agitated passenger, she barely looked up from "The Richest Man in Babylon," the book she was reading.
"The woman sitting in front of us was very upset and asked me how I could just sit there reading," Katie Hayden said. "Bob's been shot at. He's been stabbed. He's taken knives away. He knows how to handle those situations. I figured he would go up there and step on somebody's neck, and that would be the end of it. I knew how that situation would end. I didn't know how the book would end."
I love that. "I knew how that situation would end." What utter confidence in her husband. I think that is so cool.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:30 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I know, I enjoyed that too.
I actually thought of you and AWTM when I read it. It's something I can hear both of you saying.....
Posted by: Tammi at June 12, 2007 07:25 AM (wbVY2)
2
I like the "it is imcumbent upon us to make the country worth defending." Who said that?
Posted by: Matt Sanchez at June 12, 2007 08:25 AM (f/Xd/)
3
Absolutely brilliant.
I'd like to say I'd do the same thing but I'd probably be nagging my husband to take the dude down a little more quietly so I could focus on the ending.
Posted by: Non-Essential Equipment at June 16, 2007 11:04 AM (hvCZ5)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
133kb generated in CPU 0.0661, elapsed 0.2437 seconds.
65 queries taking 0.207 seconds, 316 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.