May 20, 2004
BACK
I've figured out the absolute worst part about not having a husband around. I can handle the empty house, the loneliness, and the lack of hugs, but there is something I absolutely need him for: a back rub. My back has been hurting so bad for the past two days that I can barely breathe. I have no idea of the cause -- I imagine a combination of sitting at the computer and marathon knitting hasn't helped -- and I certainly can't find a solution. I am miserable, and all I want is a back rub to make the pain go away. I can't even put Flex-All on because 1) my husband took it all to Iraq and 2) I couldn't reach my back anyway. I don't think I'll be doing much blogging in the next few days, what with my back and the fact that I have to read and grade 25 final essays by Monday.
In the meantime, enjoy this via Den Beste. I love #7.
MORE:
My new best friend is a charming fellow who goes by the name of Ben Gay.
Posted by: Sarah at
02:34 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Surely the gym has a whirlpool and sauna. Go hit the treadmill for a few minutes then relax.
Posted by: Mike at May 20, 2004 09:42 AM (cFRpq)
2
Ben Gay is a "fellow"? How dare you impose your sexist Waste-rn assumptions on Genderless Cream-Non-Americans.
Don't force yourself to blog if it literally hurts. I can wait.
Posted by: Amritas at May 20, 2004 01:55 PM (EM8xL)
3
And, your husband need not feel jealous or worried, since Ben is Gay!
Posted by: annika at May 20, 2004 03:17 PM (zAOEU)
4
annika, that's what Ben *says*. Who knows what he does? Or maybe it's just his surname. I don't trust Cream Non-Americans. Saying that is a hate crime. Must delete it before the PC police catch me ...
Posted by: Amritas at May 20, 2004 05:20 PM (uTHHM)
5
Treat yourself to a massage. It will more than be worth the money not only for your back but they work wonders for stress and such as well.
Posted by: Beth at May 20, 2004 08:04 PM (M2PWW)
6
After listening to a friend describe what shiatsu (指壓 'finger-pressure') did for him, I'm inclined to agree with Beth. But I wonder how hard it is to find a massage therapist on base, or even off base. And do watch out:
http://www.skepdic.com/massage.html
Posted by: Amritas at May 21, 2004 01:59 PM (J+/JQ)
7
Not sure what your PX stock looks like, but I highly recommend one of these:
http://www.homedics.com/massage/subcategory.cfm?subcat=108
The 10-motor / 4 massage model lives in the chair in front of my computer.
Posted by: homebru at May 22, 2004 09:41 PM (JVe+X)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 19, 2004
PUPPY
I got to meet the puppy today. He was every bit as awesome in real life as he is in
this photo. And he's
so lazy! He would take three steps and then plop down on the floor and take a nap. I'm not kidding: this nine-week-old puppy took three naps while we were playing with him. He waddled and sprawled and yawned and snuggled.
I want one.
Posted by: Sarah at
05:38 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.
1
awww ...
But in the presence of a warblogger like you, it will begin to mutate into a vicious monster thirsting for Iraqi blood. PETA has already dispatched a squad of "liberators" to "free" the puppy. Perhaps a session of Kucinich Kanine Kare will be sufficient to rid it of your influence.
Posted by: Amritas at May 19, 2004 05:45 PM (bHNZM)
2
Those puppies remind me of slinkies, they just roll slowly from one hand to the other.
Posted by: Ruth H at May 19, 2004 06:22 PM (4/htt)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
SCROLLING
It was a red-letter day at Tim's: he's got loads of
feel-good stories. Heroes who fight back despite holes in their arms, soldiers from our post who capture the bad guy instead of shooting him, Iraqis who can tie their shoes, and so on. Go start scrolling...
Posted by: Sarah at
05:29 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.
WATCHERS
Belmont Club wrote something that really hit home for me in his post
News Coverage as a Weapon:
During the Civil War 15 percent of the total white population took the field, a staggering 75% of military age white males. During the Great War the major combatants put even higher proportions of their men on the line. Even after World War 2 it was still natural for children to ask, 'Daddy what did you do in the War?' and expect an answer. Reality affected everybody. But beginning with the Vietnam War and continuing into the current Iraqi campaign, the numbers of those actually engaged on the battlefield as a proportion of the population became increasingly small. Just how small is illustrated by comparing a major battle in the Civil War, Gettysburg, which inflicted over 50,000 casualties on a nation of 31.5 million to a "major" battle in Iraq, Fallujah, in which 10 Marines died in the fighting itself, on a population of 300 million. A war in which the watchers vastly outnumbered the fighters was bound to be different from when the reverse was true. A reality experienced by the few could be overridden by a fantasy sold to the many.
This war doesn't affect everybody and to say that the watchers outnumber the fighters implies that the watchers are actully watching. There are thousands out there who don't think the war on terror affects them at all, and they are quick to accept the "fantasy sold to the many" and then switch the channel to the last episode of Friends. In my parents' and grandparents' generations, everyone knew someone who went to war; these days the service flags are few and far between. We can't fathom the sacrifice previous generations endured because we rarely are affected by today's sacrifices.
Someday my children will ask "Daddy, what did you do in the war?" and he will have an answer that will make them proud. When they ask what Mommy did, I'll say I was proud to be a chickenhawk.
MORE TO GROK:
Strategy Page talks about how everyone is involved in a war.
Posted by: Sarah at
11:09 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 355 words, total size 2 kb.
1
The point is not well made. Just because the percentage of the population fighting in the war has gone down doesn't mean the effect is less -- it affects the whole family, the coworkers, etc. The violence continues and spirals outward.
A new military hero for the list with Ritter and Butler: Staff Sgt. Jimmy Massey, who has come home from Iraq to talk about all the innocent people the US is killing, and how that has caused the "revolt against the military occupation".
Posted by: florian at May 19, 2004 12:10 PM (v5x9Y)
2
Florian, why is your definition of "military hero" anyone who actively breaks away from the military and its goals?
Posted by: Sarah at May 19, 2004 01:16 PM (JLYZ7)
3
Sarah, why do you assume Florian is using a different definition of the the term instead of a broader one?
Posted by: Bogey Mulligan at May 19, 2004 04:19 PM (X/ggz)
4
I would guess, based on the response, Sarah has had previous dealings with florian.
Posted by: Mike at May 19, 2004 04:42 PM (3b89y)
5
"There are thousands out there who don't think the war on terror affects them at all"
Thousands? How about millions?
The number of apathetic Americans is a source of frustration for both pro- and anti-war people. Both sides wonder why the masses can't "get it."
Despite all the hype, names like Reynolds and Kos mean nothing to the vast majority of Americans. Ditto for Steyn, Hanson, Moore, and Chomsky.
It's the images and headlines from the mass media that stick in their minds. Abu Ghraib. Abu Ghraib. Abu Ghraib. Abu Ghraib.
The Right has lost the memetic war. The Left control the schools and the media. The White House is next. The Far Left will never get its way, but moderations leads to oompromise, and compromise leads to evil.
Meanwhile, warbloggers huddle in their echo chamber, reassuring each other in a world that hates them - or ignores them at best. They fool themselves with overblown rhetoric about "changing the world" while the average American chooses Kerry at the last minute.
Will any of us lie fifty years from now and pretend that we didn't support (in the real sense of the word) Bush, the "worst" president who ever lived?
I'd rather be an unreconstructed terror-hater.
Posted by: Amritas at May 19, 2004 06:01 PM (bHNZM)
6
"moderations leads to oompromise"
I meant "moderation leads to compromise." A little poison can't hurt, right? Don't be an extremist. That's soooo unilateral.
Posted by: Amritas at May 19, 2004 06:03 PM (bHNZM)
7
Sarah, wouldn't the goal of the military be to protect the United States? Gen. Smedley Butler, hero to the Marine Corps infantry, realized that he wasn't doing that. So he came out publicly about killing for a kind of corporate mafia, in wars based on lies, decades ago. We can see we are in the same situation now. The Ritters and Masseys have put their lives and careers on the line to tell hard truths. They haven't broken with anything, they are in fact being true to themselves, the American people, and the honor of the military. It is the warmakers who have broken away from these things.
Amritas, if the left controls the media, why was the year before the war a constant drumbeat of uncritical acceptance of the WMD canard? Why were the torture-as-policy reports from the Int'l Red Cross and Amnesty ignored until the photos made it impossible? Why was Clinton's lie about an intern drumbeated into an impeachment, whereas Bush & Co. can tell whoppers to lead the country into war that has cast the US into the image of torturing occupiers, and there is no media or radio talk show howling for impeachment? Truth is, the media generally supports the status quo, and the influential talk shows are overwhelmingly conservative/right.
Posted by: florian at May 20, 2004 05:07 AM (smSgA)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
FIGURES
The Congressional Budget Office has been
examining figures on how the military should be redistributed. They have figures for all different scenarios, but the one that struck me was the most drastic one:
PLAN 3B: Eliminate nearly all forces from Germany and South Korea
Upfront cost: $6.8 billion to $7.4 billion
Annual cost compared with status quo: -$1.2 billion
CBO analysis: Large cost savings. Cuts family separation time by 22 percent. Substantial increase in deployment time to South Korea. Removal of U.S. forces might increase likelihood of war.
Why are we spending $1.2 billion to maintain bases in countries that don't appreciate us?
I think about our military spending here all the time. We pay the German government to dispose of our refuse, so I recycle every little piece of trash that I can. Our neighbors leave their porchlight on day and night, and every time I look at it I think about how our government has to pay the Germans to leave that light on. Any time someone buys gas on the economy and pays with gas vouchers, the government picks up the remainder. I absolutely hate thinking about all of the revenue we generate for Germany, since they repay us with anti-war demonstrations and anti-American rhetoric. It makes me sick.
Posted by: Sarah at
02:49 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 1 kb.
1
"CBO analysis: Large cost savings ..."
What about improved morale? (Yeah, I know that can't be calculated into a budget.) You can't be the only one who's "sick" of the status quo.
Posted by: Amritas at May 19, 2004 04:27 AM (WRCgn)
2
When people talk about how little we actually spend on foreign aid, they are missing out on all the things you mention which are, in a hidden and indirect way, foreign aid.
Posted by: Mike at May 19, 2004 07:42 AM (cFRpq)
3
Mike,
All that spending Sarah mentioned doesn't count as "foreign aid" because it's giving something for something, whereas "foreign aid" should be selfless and altruistic - i.e., giving something for nothing. One could argue that if you pay an employee for his work but don't give him other money out of pity, you are not giving him "aid." As if his salary were "nothing."
Can you guess that I don't believe in something for nothing?
Posted by: Amritas at May 19, 2004 07:58 AM (WRCgn)
4
When I lived in Germany (near Kaiserslautern) in the 1980's, I also thought about it a lot. When I looked at the number of military and military support personnel who lived on the economy, along with the massive amount of money that we spent in the local economy, it just floored me when I would hear young people complain about the Americans being there.
Of course, at the time, we were prepared to stand in the way of the Russian and East German armies, knowing that our lives would be lost without doubt, but hoping that we could hold back the tide long enough for reinforcements to come in and take vengence.
Now that that particular threat 'appears' to be gone, I don't understand at all why we have anyone in Europe other than to keep maybe Ramstein and Landstuhl operating as waystations for the Middle East.
I would love to see all of our forces out of all of Europe.
Posted by: NightHawk at May 19, 2004 09:30 AM (5GWma)
5
Actually, much of what we do militarily in other countries could be counted as foreign aid. One example is a deployment I had to Jordan. We were there for a little more than a month. We bought a great deal of extra equipment before going, and left all of it there for the Jordanians. We also refueled all our vehicles and aircraft using Jordanian fuels at a much higher than normal price. And we paid a minimum fee for each refueling. I don't remember exactly, but we had to refill vehicles every two days at a minimum of 10 gallons. In two days on a small installation, the vehicles used about 3 gallons. And they kept close track of which vehicles were dues to refuel each day.
So, this was, as you say, something for something. But there was "foreign aid" built into the entire budget. In fact, the primary objective of the deployment was training for us, and the secondary objective was helping out the Jordanians without it looking like we were just giving them things. I would bet the same applies to any place where our forces are stationed.
Posted by: Mike at May 19, 2004 10:05 AM (cFRpq)
6
Grrrr... I'm glad I don't have to be over there paying them to dis us. It drives me nuts when I hear the pundits worry about whether they like us or not.
I think if we pull out of there they might realize what they had, but I doubt it. An old, old saying, "you never miss the water till the well runs dry",
I would hope they would understand it. I bet their politicians understand, and would shape up very quickly if they really thought all that money was going to stay home. Again Grrrr....
Posted by: Ruth H at May 19, 2004 12:47 PM (OVAsV)
7
I was in germany in the early 80's and it was exactly the same situation as it is today. Alot of people din't want us there, but they wanted the money that having us there brought them. I actually had one german girl who worked in my office tell me that she didn't like americans and wished we would leave, but that she wasn't a fool and we americans paid better than a job she could find on the "economy". That pretty much summed up the entire situation in one sentence. I don't know if it was true or just her personal opinion, but I know at that point, my thought was we should just go and they could deal with the east germans, russians or whatever, on their own. A totally emotional response on my part.
To be equally fair though I met alot of older germans who liked americans and who wanted us there. It seems however that the opinion of one person disliking us and making me feel used as an american out weighed the response of the other germans who did like us. Maybe it was the daily contact that was the major factor.
The question now has to be whether or not it is in our national interest at this point to retain a large military presence in Europe. I think a scale back is definitely in order.
Posted by: Shar at May 19, 2004 01:32 PM (LcqBT)
8
Mike,
I have no qualms whatsoever with the policy that you outlined. But this line of yours (emphasis mine) -
"
the primary objective of the deployment was training
for us"
- reveals why people will never consider this "foreign aid." It's (gasp) SELFISH! It puts America first! Hence it's not really altruistic.
In fact, if one can't take off one's anti-American glasses, even foreign aid for foreign aid's sake is not really "aid" since America can always be accused of "buying off" other countries, of having *secondary* objectives, etc., ad nauseam ...
I say America should do what it must and ignore the naysayers. They'll never stop whining no matter what the US does. Such is the pathetic nature of Amerikahass.
Posted by: Amritas at May 19, 2004 03:42 PM (bHNZM)
9
I understand those who don't like foreign troops on their soil; we Americans would have a fit if this was allowed here. The difference lies, however, in our insistence on protecting ourselves and our national interests and spending whatever is needed to do so. Self-reliance, it seems, is becoming a uniquely American quality.
I have heard, however, that the mayors of the German towns near where our bases are located panic at the mere mention of troop realignment. After the last few years of anti-Americanism, this just makes me laugh.
Posted by: Karen at May 19, 2004 05:50 PM (teN2c)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 18, 2004
DEAD HORSE
I was walking through the blogosphere and I came upon a dead horse. I thought I'd
beat it again, just to make sure the message got through. But this time it's really worth it...
Oh, and this was in the paper version of the Stars and Stripes yesterday: Something That Didn't Make The News
Posted by: Sarah at
08:42 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.
PACKAGES
Thinking of sending a package down range? A
Kim du Toit reader has some advice...
Posted by: Sarah at
04:18 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.
TRASH
The other day I said I was
tired of caring and planned to just stare at the puppy instead. But then I read
this trash, and I remembered why we do this.
Perspective is great.
MORE TO GROK:
Bunker found a good bit on the media.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:34 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.
CANTEEN
My mom likes to do genealogy research, and she just found something that blew me away:
her great-grandfather's Civil War canteen! I sure wish I had $4000 to buy it for her.
She also found info from her other side of the family:
In 1639 Apr 23, Jonathan Addington, a slave boy to one Edward Travis, was brought to Jamestown, VA from England.
My ancestors were slaves! I demand reparations!
Posted by: Sarah at
03:03 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 72 words, total size 1 kb.
1
And others of your ancestors no doubt owned slaves - so pay yourself your reparations. Of course, first take out 40% and send to the government for 'administrative fee'.
Posted by: Glenmore at May 19, 2004 12:13 AM (icU1Y)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
CANON
When I went to visit
Tim, we got started talking about literature. He said he's been trying to drag himself through the classics, but most of the time he doesn't really like the books.
I took a wonderful class in college: world literature from 1945-present. We read short stories from all over the world (that's where I found Yukio Mishima) and tried to put them in their historical context. In addition, everyone read one book and presented it to the class. On the last day, we had a frank discussion on the "canon", that list of books that we all instinctually know are classics. Our teacher asked us why none of the books we had read in our class would qualify; it was then that I realized that the canon was bogus. Sure, there are many classics out there that should be read, but sometimes they're just not relevant anymore. There are books that have affected me and my worldview far deeper than any classics I've ever read, but somehow they're not canon-worthy. Mark Twain was right: "A classic is something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read."
Farm Accident Digest has a post today about being "the boy who does not get it." If I may apply his story to my thoughts, that's the problem with the classics: most of the time I just don't grok. Why is The Stranger a book everyone should read? He goes to his mom's funeral and then kills some guy on the beach; what's that? Or Bartleby the Scrivener, the guy who doesn't want to do anything? What is it exactly that The Experts want us to take from these books? What is the life lesson? I'm the girl who does not get it when it comes to the classics.
Both Joanne Jacobs and Debbye have posted the list of 101 "books you should read". I've seen the list before: it's the same list my Advanced Placement English class was based on. Anything we read for that class had to be off that list, which is ironic because in my free time that year I was reading books by Pirsig and Feynman that touched my life in a much more meaningful way than The Crucible did.
I haven't made much of a dent in this list. I don't much care, to be frank. I read a lot, but I'd rather spend my time reading Victor Davis Hanson or Carl Sagan than Boris Pasternak. Proust is crap in French and English, Ceremony and Things Fall Apart are just on the list so it's not all dead white men, and most of these books I would never recommend to an 18 year old. The canon ticks me off.
more...
Posted by: Sarah at
02:56 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1318 words, total size 8 kb.
1
I agree with Tim. I've decided I need to read some of those "classics" I never got around to before. I find most of them boring. Unfortunately, this kind of list is developed by some PhD in English Literature who has an exagerrated opinion of old timers simply because they are old. A prof I had in college many years ago was completely enamored of Flannery O'Connor. Or, perhaps, because the book was the first in some category.
I managed 23 on the list. Dante was tedious because the translator had to provide footnotes to explain things, and
Don Quixote was fine for about 100 pages, then fizzled.
Uncle Tom's Cabin is actually quite good, and not what I expected.
Catch 22 is a favorite of mine, but I would never call it a classic.
And when it comes to Mark Twain, I have to say he wrote several books far better than
Huckleberry Finn. It was timely, though, so it's popularity carried along with the years.
Personally, I don't like to think of Shakespeare as literature to be read. Every list of this kind has old Will on it, but the plays are meant to be performed and watched.
Posted by: Mike at May 18, 2004 07:54 AM (cFRpq)
2
I agree that the "Canon" is a highly subjective list which suffers from political correctness and would suggest that you read selectively from it. I have read most of the books on the list and was awed by some and bored by many. The point is really why to read the books on the list. If, for example you want to read ancient Greek plays, why not Aristophanes, who had a low sense of humor but is still funny today, as a former Greek historian he is just as good as the tragedians but lots more fun.
My rule of thumb is if I can't become engaged in the book in 50 pages it is not worth my time to read. Chaucer is worth reading but the language is archaic at best and baffling at worst. The best of the Canon should speak to you in terms you immediately comprehend, if they don't, move on, there is more where they came from. YMMV
Posted by: James Fehr at May 18, 2004 11:30 PM (d66j2)
3
I've read some on the Canon and some on your list. Liked some on each. Hated some on each.
For instance - I would replace Ayn Rand's 'The Fountainhead' with her 'We the Living'.
The key is, lots of variety because everybody is different.
But then, "What Do You Care What Other People Think"?
Posted by: Glenmore at May 19, 2004 12:27 AM (icU1Y)
4
Here are some thoughts on why the canon is important.
1) It creates a shared intellectual environment; there are books that everyone is expected to have read. This informs the quotations we see sprinkled throughout our lives. Read the Bible, and Shakespeare ... you'll know where the things we say come from.
2) These are books that have withstood the test of time. Over the centuries, the cream will rise to the top, regardless of any one decade's notions of political (in-)correctness, and the canon is an acknowledgement of this.
3) There is world enough, and time. Read the canon, then you'll have plenty of time left over for other stuff. Er, unless you plunge into the Russians.
Then all bets are off.
Posted by: Terry at May 19, 2004 02:30 PM (zbCd3)
5
I wish I had your confidence on this list. I see each "not-getting" as a failure on my part (as obvious from my post), whereas others see it as just a matter of taste and interest. Being an idiot sucks.
Posted by: fad at May 21, 2004 02:17 AM (waceM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 17, 2004
KNEE-JERK
Beth found a great
article about a teacher's reaction to anti-Americanism abroad. I found myself nodding while reading most of it. I too was a teacher on September 12, and I endured my own share of knee-jerks in my ESL class that day.
Posted by: Sarah at
04:35 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I can't wait to hear what you think of Dark Star Safari. I love the way Mr. Theroux travels, his mind set. I just keep wondering if his travels would be possible for a single woman. Maybe. Maybe language skills make the difference.
Posted by: Beth at May 18, 2004 01:05 AM (1e9RN)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
GRRRRR
Grrrrr. Heart. Rate. Rising. Must look at the
puppy. Or read
Lileks; he makes me laugh out loud. "DonÂ’t eat the cup this time." -- HA!
MORE:
But then I went to Merde in France and started scrolling down through all the political cartoons. Clenched teeth. However, the last cartoon puts everything in perspective:
Posted by: Sarah at
03:01 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.
1
...which is why I keep WTC photos on my site.
Posted by: Mike at May 17, 2004 05:58 PM (sndyE)
2
Because an Iraq/Al Qaeda connection has been found by...
Oh, wait. There is no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
And the ICRC reports that up to 90% of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib are probably completely innocent.
So, what's the perspective again?
Posted by: Not Brainwashed by FOX at May 18, 2004 12:56 PM (rPNPr)
3
Because neither an Iraq/Al Qaeda connection nor a pair of spectacles have been found by the WMD inspection team ...
Oh, wait. The media never corrected their mistatements that there is no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
And the ICRC reports that up to 90% of the prisoners in every prison in the world claim they are probably completely innocent.
So, what's the perspective again?
Posted by: Shawn at May 18, 2004 03:22 PM (QghFP)
4
Let's not forget also that Iraq represented absolutely no threat to us at all, since they didn't have ICBMs. The only thing that could convince me otherwise would be if someone based overseas were to kill lots of Americans WITHOUT using missles, gas, etc. Nevermind.
Posted by: Dave Munger at May 20, 2004 11:49 PM (jLTpM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
CROSSFIRE
I think the world of Mark Steyn. His new
article was almost too good to pull out one quote, but I managed to pick one:
Back before 9/11, real crossfire was long ago and far away. Not anymore. And that's the problem: We still have a ''Crossfire'' culture in an age of real crossfire. We have the ersatz warriors, the ham actors of Washington -- Senators Kennedy, Levin, Leahy, Harkin and others too fond of seeing their names in print to mention -- ''calling for Rumsfeld's head'' at a time when America's enemies have already got Nick Berg's, and they're swinging it around on camera for the snuff video they'll be distributing as a recruiting tool.
Posted by: Sarah at
02:56 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.
SUPPORT
Den Beste received an email from a German friend who said
Your impression of Fischer is correct regarding his absolute position on the issue, but I believe you have no idea how much more dishonest and anti-American most German politicians (and the voters) are. Fischer and other right-wing Greens are among the most militant, pro-American, pro-Israel politicians we have.
Den Beste points out that though Fischer may in fact be the least anti-American apple in the bunch, he's still seems pretty darn anti-American. He then went on to stress the importance of one of our Amercan values: actions speak louder than words.
His post patterned what I've been trying to say for months about the we-support-the-troops platitude. Back in February I said
I'm often irritated by the but that follows that phrase (as in I support our troops, but...). I appreciate that people don't think my own husband as an individual is a baby killer or a monster, which is usually what they mean when they start that sentence, but I can't help but think they use it as a buffer just so they don't sound heartless. I'm against the war sounds much softer when you preface it with I support our troops, but.
I got some guff for coming down on the support-the-troops types. LT Smash got barrels of guff when he expressed the same sentiment. Smash said
Your definition would appear to be "wish them good health and hope they come home safe." My definition of "support" is a bit more robust than that. In my world, "supporting the troops" also means letting them know that you appreciate the sacrifices they are making, and believe in the cause they're fighting for.
I too see these two distinct definitions within the one phrase; I said:
I tend to think that the first definition should be an understood, that no human would wish that soldiers should be injured or die (though some of the posts on Democratic Underground might suggest otherwise). Therefore, it's not worth broadcasting, just as I support cancer patients or I support the disabled seem inane. I'd agree with Smash that the second definition is the one I see in that phrase, and I believe that definition is much more important and the one that makes a difference. Unfortunately, it's probably not the most common definition intended when people use the phrase I support our troops.
The British use the verb "support" to talk about sports teams. We don't use it here in the US, but if we did, my husband would say he supports the Cardinals. When the Brits use this word, they obviously are implying that they want their team to win, not that they're simply supporting their existance and hoping their players don't get broken legs during they game. "Supporting" a team means hoping they go all the way. When we talk about our troops, I often don't think people mean it that way. Often they mean they don't long for all of our troops to die, but they don't necessarily want them to win, nor do they think they should be there in the first place. To me, that does not follow the definition of "support".
The claim that Joschka Fischer is pro-American is meaningless because it's only in contrast to rabidly anti-American Europeans that Fischer looks remotely pro-. Ted Bundy didn't kill as many people as Pol Pot, but I'd hardly say that the comparison makes him an upstanding citizen. In the same way, there are Americans who aren't actively working against the troops, but you can't always claim that they support our military simply by comparison.
Posted by: Sarah at
02:44 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 607 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Sarah - I completely agree with you. I have tried to understand the logic of people who say I support the troops BUT not the war. This happens with some truly generous and dedicated people on the site Books for Soldiers which is pretty much apolitical. But every once in awhile someone will make this exact statement. I think I will start to use LT's statement in my signature line (with of course giving full disclosure of the author). Personally, I believe those who use this 'illogical phrase' are being disingenuous at a minimum.
:-))
Posted by: Toni at May 17, 2004 10:23 AM (SHqVu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 16, 2004
SELFLESS
Jeremy Duncan is the poster boy for
selfless service, not only to his country but also to his friends.
Jeremy Duncan returned from Iraq last June and will go back this August, but he will be giving new life here at home. He will be donating a kidney.
Posted by: Sarah at
05:20 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.
SEMANTICS
Our 1SG just returned to Germany from Iraq; he's on his way to Sergeant Major school. We went to dinner with him Friday night and got to ask lots of questions.
"Sometimes we get Iraqis hiding in palm groves around our camp," he began, when he was interrupted by Oda Mae. "Insurgents. They're insurgents, not Iraqis," she said. "Right," the 1SG said, smiling, "insurgents."
There's a big difference, and Oda Mae was right to argue semantics with him. Insurgents are the ones who come after our soldiers with RPGs; Iraqis are the optimistic citizens of a crippled country. Insurgents hang burnt bodies from bridges; Iraqis say things like “who did this crime is a stranger and he’s not of us for sure.”
If you think the American media is showing you who the Iraqis really are, you need to go read this post at Iraq the Model and check your assumption.
Posted by: Sarah at
04:40 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Great link, Sarah. The story about the Iraqi kids painting that wall should be on every newcast... but we'll never see it. That's just wrong.
Posted by: Jack Grey at May 16, 2004 05:33 AM (3nn57)
2
What a geat story. I was just about to post about, but you beat me!
Posted by: Mike at May 16, 2004 01:15 PM (sndyE)
3
Jack,
Sometimes I think it's best that the mud-ia *not* cover these stories because they could taint them with toxic spin: e.g.,
"COALITION FORCES IRAQI CHILDREN TO PAINT WALL"
"COALITION BRIBES IRAQI CHILDREN"
And because you can *always* find a spectrum of opinion, a reporter can have his interpreter ask 20 kids what they thought and put the thoughts of the one angry kid in the article.
Still, I'm glad that Sarah linked to it. Blogs are the countermedia now. Alas, even if they were read by more than a miniscule percentage of the population - the name Glenn Reynolds probably means nothing to 95%+ of Americans - I still fear that this country as a whole won't grok the war. After all, everyone knew about 9/11 and most forgot about it. How much easier it must be to forget the execution of Nick Berg, especially when his story might be hidden on page 4 of the paper rather than on the front page where it belongs.
Posted by: Amritas at May 16, 2004 05:17 PM (2SaxO)
4
Amritas-
Too true. The established media has it's own agenda, and it's not pro-american or pro-military. Sadly, I can't even say that it's neutral.
What good does it do us to win the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people when those tasked to report the story... Don't?
Posted by: Jack Grey at May 16, 2004 11:50 PM (3nn57)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
ABSENTEE
This better not affect my husband.
Posted by: Sarah at
04:26 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.
99kb generated in CPU 0.1203, elapsed 0.7934 seconds.
59 queries taking 0.7615 seconds, 276 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
