Den Beste has a post today on how we're engaged in a three-way war. Lord knows I don't have anything to add to his assessment, but there was one sentence that jumped out at me:

The Philadelphia Constitutional Convention included one of the most amazing concentrations of fine minds to ever collect in one place, names like Franklin and Jefferson and Hamilton and Madison. They changed history.

What on earth would we do if we needed to have a Constitutional Convention today?

I know you can't really make what-ifs like that, but seriously, who do we have? Is there any politician we trust the way we trust the Founding Fathers? Who would you want to write the document that will govern us for over 300 years? My vote is on Den Beste, CavX, and VDH...but honestly, who's heard of them? The general public would react to them the way the Clevlanders reacted in Major League ("who are these f-in' guys?")

If we had a Constitutional Convention today, it would have to be properly multicultural and include representatives from all walks of life. Nothing would get done. There would be no Constitution.

Grim.

MORE TO GROK:

To the newcomers, thanks for coming over and trying to grok. I dashed this crap off right before work, not knowing that a denbestelanche was around the corner. Oh well. If I'd known, I would've talked at greater length about the junk that would've gone into a convention today (e.g. an affirmative-action staffing of the delegates, a nanny attitude, and, as commenters have pointed out, a document the size of the EU Constitution). That's what I would've said; instead you got a reference to Major League. Sheesh.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:38 AM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Couldn't do it. In this case, our very modernity works against us. Anyone with a keyboard or a voice in front of a camera could make noise about such a convention...whereas the Constitution was "imposed", so to speak, only by those who could afford to travel to Philly. And yeah, our concepts of inclusiveness and diversity would no doubt be wedged in there somehow. Despite what is uttered by many, that the Constitution was written for the benefit of rich white landowner males, I defy anyone to show a portion of t he Constitution and the first 10 amendments any phrase which suggests that is so. (It's laws and culture which put said calss of men on top, not the Constitution). Because of that "flaw", where specific grievances are not addressed, would doom any moden convention to utter failure. The original convention produced a document and sent it to the states to ratify. This took weeks. Today, a draft proposal would appear minutes after discussion, and a thousand blogs would all have an opinion, a thousand newspapers would scream with political spin, and you could not change to any news channel without some talking head bleating about some passage that, in his opinion, slights some minority group or special interest. This is why I always thought the circumstances in the formation of this government were utterly unique...men, who could have just said to hell with everything, didn't do that. They fought and supported the revolution, then got together afterwards because nobody else was doing it, essentially seized unified control of a proto-government, wielded enormous power, and then gave it up to the people in an organized fashion, and viola, a democratic republic. I doubt very much you will find many people like that today. Control isn't given up easily. Then again, it never has been, so why can't we follow our historical examples to the contrary?

Posted by: Jason at May 05, 2004 02:55 AM (wfp+E)

2 Jason, You wrote: "This is why I always thought the circumstances in the formation of this government were utterly unique..." The thought of America being sui generis is chilling but quite possible. This is why I get skeptical about how Iraq is going to be turned into America Jr. Offhand, many countries are either institutionalized tribes or a bunch of tribes pasted together by the flimsy tape of laws. America, OTOH, was forged from ideas, not blood. Ideas that have survived almost two and a half centuries. It couldn't be based on ancestry because America rebelled against the "homeland." As for a modern Constitution, it would be put together by a bunch of aca-dumbics (they MUST be smart, right?) teamed with celebrities that the people want to see on TV. It would be a celiberal dream, which is to say not liberal in the good sense at all. Better yet, the UN could write the Constitution for us. Hopefully Sudan will be put in charge of the articles on humyn (sic) rights.

Posted by: Amritas at May 05, 2004 04:32 AM (Vbt+u)

3 "Ideas that have survived almost two and a half centuries." Of course, slavery and monarchy are ideas that have lasted for *millennia*. Another thing that scares me is the youth of freedom. 99.99% of human history consists of variations on domination. The chief/king/Fuehrer gives orders, and you OBEY!! Sometimes I worry that America is a blip in the big picture, and that a century from now our descendants will be mindless drones for a local version of Kim Jong Il. Oh wait, we're already mindless drones for Bush. Future historians may not even be able to conceive of this thing called "freedom." In their eyes, Bush would have had to be just another emperor, because no other form of leadership would be conceivable. That is why the Left equates Bush with Hitler. They cannot imagine leaders being anything other than dictators. The trouble with Bush is not that he's an alleged dictator; it's that he's not on their side. He won't give them the statist power they crave. With the media backing them up, the LLLunatics would be able to convince most Americans that they really did know best, and that all power should be held forever in their red gloves. Why not, if so many kewl actors on their side? When the cult of the state and the celebrity become one, we're doomed.

Posted by: Amritas at May 05, 2004 04:43 AM (Vbt+u)

4 Depressing.....

Posted by: John at May 05, 2004 07:17 AM (crTpS)

5 No mention by SDB or yourself of the man that made America possible- George Washinton- President of the constitutional convention.

Posted by: Bob Stermer at May 05, 2004 08:30 AM (R8J7n)

6 The Iraqis have one advantage that the Founding Fathers didn't have. They have an example of a country that has flourished under freedom. If I was on the Iraqi council, I'd translate the US Constitution to Arabic, throw in a few Allahs, and break for lunch.

Posted by: John Davies at May 05, 2004 09:04 AM (RSkcP)

7 "If I was on the Iraqi council, I'd translate the US Constitution to Arabic, throw in a few Allahs, and break for lunch." Who says we don't still have great minds?

Posted by: Cowboy is a compliment at May 05, 2004 09:47 AM (n9YZh)

8 Actually, I think SDB did mention President Washington as the number one reason why the Constitution has lasted for so long... not for anything he did while in office, but for the fact that he retired after his second term, when he could easily have gone on to become the President-for-life of the US. His was the greatest service to America, and I wonder if anyone today would have the strength to walk away from the power Washington could have had. (Of course, at the time America wasn't much of a power, more like an apparently doomed former colony beset by enemies on all sides... so Washington's refusal to run for a third term might not have been as noble as most people think. Still, it did set a hell of a fine precedent.)

Posted by: Tatterdemalian at May 05, 2004 10:10 AM (wJmJ6)

9 All that said, we *do* have other examples of America turning imperialist nations into democracies. One of those democracies seems to be backsliding, but neither of them are anything like they were under their imperialist leaders. Being a democracy doesn't mean you have to agree with everything the US does, it just means the government must be a servant of the people, rather than the people serving the government. That definition gives a lot of leeway, and some people might consider it too much freedom (heck, look what America did to natives and Africans as a democracy), but it puts nations on the right track, and produces much better results than demanding instant perfection only to be disappointed again and again.

Posted by: Tatterdemalian at May 05, 2004 10:20 AM (wJmJ6)

10 The greatest mark of genius of our Founding Fathers is the process for CHANGE that they incorporated into the Constitution. "... a more perfect union..." This is the goal always and each generation has redefined that goal.

Posted by: rabidfox at May 05, 2004 10:31 AM (CAVPy)

11 Two examples of a Constitutional Convention today: (1) Following up on John Davies' comment (2:04pm), check out the text of the CPA/IGC proposed interim constitution for Iraq. It's short, readable, and even elegant (er, in its English translation). It is a distillation of our 1787. Whether it will come to be seen as a founding document, or as a scrap of well-meant tissue is a question for another day. (2) For a sense of what a modern-day American Convention would probably produce, read some of the skeptical commentary on the currently-pending EU Constitution. Lengthy, with turgid, impenetrable prose, it does not follow the American experiment's focus on negative rights (e.g. the right to not have the government interfere with your freedom of speech). Instead, it enumerates positive rights (e.g. to education, healthcare, pension), and enshrines the bureaucratic apparatus that will regulate the conduct of individuals and instututions within Society. Depressing, that our European friends may see the announced destination, 'Serfdom,' but are getting on the bus anyway.

Posted by: AMac at May 05, 2004 11:34 AM (tH09J)

12 Amritas: "That is why the Left equates Bush with Hitler. They cannot imagine leaders being anything other than dictators. The trouble with Bush is not that he's an alleged dictator; it's that he's not on their side. He won't give them the statist power they crave." Close. But I think the closer truth is that they can't imagine how THEY would be the dictator. Everybody who I know who leans left always has How Things Should Be Done And People Should Be Made To Do Them This Way And It's How It Should Be Done that they're quite willing to tell me about, and how to make that effective policy, or make it such that people wouldn't game the system, since they won't buy into it, etc.. well, that's just Wrong To Discuss. (In other words "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!"). It's more that THEY want to be the dictator, and of course, everybody must think like them... Addison

Posted by: Addison at May 05, 2004 11:41 AM (8FAPm)

13 Addison, After reading your post, I see everything clearly now. All that's needed is one word: ENVY Bush has power. They don't. They want it. Case closed.

Posted by: Amritas at May 05, 2004 11:48 AM (GUIbU)

14 If you want to see what would come out of a modern Constitutional convention, look at the new EU "Constitution". http://european-convention.eu.int/bienvenue.asp?lang=EN It is an enormous document that includes every fad known to humankind, and is very arguably unworkable. It also looks like no one will accept it, because it doesn't have enough stuff to make enough people happy about it.

Posted by: Ralph at May 05, 2004 11:55 AM (to9Q0)

15 If there were a CC today, I think it would be dominated by Big Business, who would buy all of the representatives. (As mentioned, most of what was written was by - and favored - white land owners.) But I think the result of a CC today would be a country controlled by Big Business, kinda like what the RoboCop movie predicted for the future of Detroit.

Posted by: _Jon at May 05, 2004 11:59 AM (ewFgD)

16 As DenBeste would put it (or perhaps he already has) the difference between the EU Constitution and our own is the notion of where government is derived. In our system, the building blocks are indeed a series of statements that say "Congress shall make no law" and enumerates what the government can and cannot do, and provides a conduit to change things if it becomes necessary to do so. In the EU, there's no concept of limited government. What, you want to restrict the powers of government? To what purpose? Government may need to change itself in a hurry, without the considerations of the governed, should it become necessary to do so. That's the big difference. One system allows for change via the electorate, the other changes itself. The former is far slower, to be sure, but at least those that are governed will have a say in the process. The latter is much faster, surer, but there are no checks to ensure that the government doesn't change to suit itself. The result? Our Constitution can fit on two pages. It's a measure of trustworthiness. The EU constitution will have to be pressed on double sided DVD, as each and every article spells out what government must provide...because if they did not, the government may decide someday not to provide it, and nobody will have any say but those currently in office.

Posted by: Jason at May 05, 2004 12:09 PM (rfgVv)

17 You said "What on earth would we do if we needed to have a Constitutional Convention today?" If I remember rightly Den Beste had an article discussing this, and I took away the impression that the single largest driving force in their "getting it right", was the necessity of convincing a variety of different states to agree to one set of laws, with the knowledge that that states (with all of their lawyers, accountants etc) are not fooled by even the densest legal jargon or feel-good prose when they are considering their bottom line (survival and future viability as a member of the nation). In modern terms I would compare that lucidity with the sense of cohesion we experienced immediately after 9/11. It has faded considerably since and we are now back to the usual BS, but for a little while there I think America was jolted into a wakefulness that would have at least been in the same ballpark as what it took to form our constitution way back when. Beyond that I would say that the general in-your-face harshness of the world back then explained the rest of the gap. I do agree that the Founding Fathers were pretty amazing individuals but I think alot can be explained by the local circumstances.

Posted by: Scott at May 05, 2004 01:44 PM (f8958)

18 I think that a modern constitutional convention could achieve a lot. Not to write a new constitution, but called to pass, say, 5-10 amendments. An ammendment keeping the government off the internet, balanced budget, maybe line item veto or federal control of the environment. The debate would be a good thing, if it was organized right. Then we could get back to strict constitutionalism. Oh, a note on the insane EU constitution, it has more pages than ours has words.

Posted by: MIchael at May 05, 2004 01:45 PM (I7JMz)

19 I hate to be a schnitzelhead, but Jefferson was in Paris during the constitutional convention of 1787, otherwise, your analysis is on the mark.

Posted by: John Cheeseman at May 05, 2004 02:44 PM (Ae7Ou)

20 Washington stepped down. So did Adams. His was as significant because another party, under Jefferson, took control of the government. And it was done without bloodshed. When did something like that happen anywhere else in the world previously? I've tried to encourage Iraqis like Zeyad and Ali to get out governmental documents translated into Arabic and spread around their country. The Federalist has digital copies of all ours, and many other historical documents pertinent to the situation. If any Arabic translators are out there willing to do such a task, it would be invaluable to the Iraqis. And I doubt our government is doeing anything like this out of concern we would be seen as trying to force our system on Iraq.

Posted by: Mike at May 05, 2004 03:37 PM (rqnO7)

21 There are a few things in this world that give me chills every time that I think of them, that make me give thanks that I'm living in this good world, and not some other. One of them is that the United States of America is the most powerful country in the world today. What if it were China, or Russia, or even France or Germany, or even the UK? To me, it puts a different perspective on America's faults.

Posted by: David Boxenhorn at May 05, 2004 05:32 PM (ARTDu)

22 "What on earth would we do if we needed to have a Constitutional Convention today?" Although I certainly have no talent for being a member of such a convention, I would want to have trust in the people that I would choose to represent me. After reading his book, I believe Randy E. Barnett has gained my trust. I would also trust SDB because of the content of his character, which is not without flaws as are we all. Whomever was to represent my interests would have to know that I will fight to retain all liberties that do not infringe on the rights of others. Also, that some liberties (life, speech, not having to ask permission to blow my nose) are more important that others (wearing a hat indoors, riding a bicycle on the sidewalk.) But I still retain the right to ride my bicycle on the sidewalk as long as the rights of others is not infringed. Not endorsing the subject matter, here's an example of Randy E. Barnett's thinking.

Posted by: ken anthony at May 05, 2004 06:11 PM (6ZsyF)

23 One day a few years ago, I told my doctor the joke, "What do you call a med student who graduates last in his class? Answer: Doctor. My doctor laughed, and then seriously commented about the qualifications of doctors. He said any doctor who graduates med school must have a minimum understanding of the field of medicine. Beyond that, doctors do vary in their skill and in their knowledge. But from a patient's point of view, it was not so important what a doctor knew, but his willingness to admit ignorance when he doesn't know the answer. My doctor said no one can know it all, so it is important to be cognizant of your limitations and seek help when it was appropriate. He suggested that a patient was better served by a doctor who relied on various resources, rather than by a super smart doctor who refused to acknowledge his limitations. Taken into the context of a Constitutional Convention, the important thing the founders did was that they acknowledged their own limitations. They did not presume to see into the future, and therefore did not try to construct a document for the ages. Ironically, by eschewing the arrogant attempt a la the EU to create the perfect government, they did create a document for the ages - a document that allowed for and has incorporated change. Today's political climate in not conducive to acknowledging limitations. So I am glad that there has been no Constitutional Convention in our time.

Posted by: Scott Harris at May 06, 2004 01:50 AM (E1M88)

24 I would have to include Bill Whittle in the list of necessary people to a modern Consitutional Convention. Of course Den Beste, also. "What would the world do without engineers? Nothing, absolutely nothing."

Posted by: Ron - WI at May 06, 2004 07:37 AM (CwrQg)

25 Congratulations on the "denbestelanche!"

Posted by: annika at May 06, 2004 01:46 PM (zAOEU)

26 TO: Sarah RE: Funny, Isn't It... ...how God works. Regards, Chuck(le) [There are no coincidences. -- Ambassador Sinclair, Babylon 5]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at May 07, 2004 06:53 PM (UT6pn)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

the disgrace in Abu Ghraib prison = something that certainly deserves our attention
the murder of three Americans in Kosovo by a nutcase Palestinian on the UN Peacekeeping force = something largely ignored by the media

The Palestinian carried an M-16, from which he apparently discharged 400 rounds, leading NATO investigators to examine whether his four colleagues in a Jordanian detachment assigned to guard the prison had helped him by feeding his weapon as he fired.

Excuse me? 400 rounds? Four other Jordanians making sure he didn't run out of ammo before he pulverized these American soldiers on their first day on the job? This guy -- suspected of having ties to Hamas -- killed three Americans and wounded 11 others when he went on a shooting spree killing soldiers who were supposedly on the same side as he? Where is the media outrage? Where are the magazine covers? Why isn't the investigation blasted all over the tv?

Oh yeah, because no one cares.

No one cares when Americans die because they're usually getting what they deserve. Three measly Americans got killed in Kosovo; so what, have you seen what the Americans are doing to the helpless, defenseless women and children in Fallujah? "After all, you guys started it," as one of my European friends said when I explained my husband would go to Iraq for a year. And now it's your fault for ticking the Arab street off by training your "barbarian invader" soldiers to make naked pyramids. It was "only a matter of time" before the Americans were revealed as the oil-hungry, Muslim-hating, unilateral torturers they really are.

Sheesh, I'm getting as sarcastic as Amritas. Time for bed.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:54 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 282 words, total size 2 kb.

Snopes says that this email forward I just received is true.
No matter what Senator McCain's political views are, I completely respect his pride and dedication for his country.

Posted by: Sarah at 11:20 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

I found out today SGT Ryan Campbell, one of the 1AD soldiers killed last week, went to Truman with my husband and me. I didn't know him, and I haven't talked to my husband so I don't know if he knew him or not, but the ROTC cadre there at Truman remember him and are attending his memorial. While searching for information about him, I came across an article written less than a month ago in the Truman paper on SGT Campbell. The headline quote they attribute to him:

Every day is lived with the continuous strain of wondering whether you will make it to the next.

Posted by: Sarah at 11:16 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

I've been awake nine minutes and I'm already depressed.

I woke up when my alarm went off at 0615 and said forget it. Still tired, I went back to bed until 0730 and dreamt that I was blogging. Somehow I made my links into little jack-o-lanterns. Whatever.

I sat down here and within nine minutes read more about that Micah Wright moron, this rag from Ted Rall, and this pessimistic piece from Den Beste.

What a way to start off the morning. I'm afraid to head over to LGF.

MORE TO GROK:

My fears were confirmed. Sudan gets a seat on the UN Human Rights Commission.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:52 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

Heh. Sweet.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:02 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 4 words, total size 1 kb.

1 अतीव सुन्दरे तव पादत्रे atiiva sundare tava paadatre 'very beautiful (neuter dual) your socks (neuter dual) [are]' (OK, paadatra is a 'foot-covering' or a 'shoe', but it's the closest word I can find.) The socks are similar yet they have different color patterns. Did you decide the patterns in advance, or do you just make up the patterns as you go along?

Posted by: Amritas at May 03, 2004 07:21 AM (evS1f)

2 Oops, forgot to insert a | period. It's my first time typing देवनागरी Devanagari in a comments section, and it might be the first Sanskrit comment in Devanagari script ever in the Anglophone blogosphere. (There could be more such comments in Indian blogs.) Also, पादत्र paadatra is the singular of पादत्रे paadatre. The पाद paada part means 'foot' and is cognate to English foot - the Proto-Germanic ancestor of English shifted p to f and d to t, whereas Sanskrit kept the original p and d sounds just like Greek (-pod) and Latin (ped-). तव पदावप्यतीव सुन्दरौ | tava paadaav apy atiiva sundarau. 'your feet (masc. dual) also very beautiful (masc. dual) [are]' You're female, but your feet are masculine.

Posted by: Amritas at May 03, 2004 07:33 AM (evS1f)

3 Aaargh - पदावप्यतीव padaav apy atiiva should be पादावप्यतीव paadaav apy atiiva as in the romanization. The lack of spacing between words reflects the Sanskrit rule of not inserting spaces unless a word ends with a vowel (or H or M) and the next word begins with a consonant. So ifwe wroteEnglishlikeSanskrititwouldlooksomethinglikethis. (Every word after "we" in that sentence ends in a consonant, so no spaces can be inserted.)

Posted by: Amritas at May 03, 2004 07:38 AM (evS1f)

4 Okay, I am completely intimidated. What can one leave after those comments?

Posted by: Oda Mae at May 03, 2004 01:20 PM (sdWmc)

5 You're intimidated, Oda Mae? I actually felt dumb writing that stuff because I should have gotten it right the first time and restricted myself to one comment. But no. Sarah, can you share your knitting secrets with us, or are they another classified military secret?

Posted by: Amritas at May 03, 2004 01:33 PM (evS1f)

6 That image initially reminded me of watching Pippi Longstocking way back when I was young. That image quickly changed when Amritas pointed out that your feet are masculine. ;o)

Posted by: Larry at May 03, 2004 06:04 PM (6TcYT)

7 My feet are asexual, but seriously wide.

Posted by: Parkway Rest Stop at May 04, 2004 12:00 AM (Apafo)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I finished reading The Future and Its Enemies this morning. (If I were going to invent something, it would be an exercise bike combined with a laptop computer, so I could exercise and read blogs at the same time. But at least it gives me time to read books.) I'm a "book marker", a person who likes to mark passages to go back to later; my husband is not. Therefore, I was surprised to find that he had marked his book when he read it. It was nice to see what had struck him while he was reading; it was almost like having him here to discuss the book.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:49 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

1 The collector in me can't stand the idea of marking books. So I used to handwrite notes on slips of paper and leave them in the book as an index of key pages and passages. Nowadays I type up the best quotes in my diary if I happen to be reading the book near my laptop. But I do most of my reading as I walk to and from work, so I don't do that much anymore. What I would like is a tiny laptop that would enable me to read what's on my computer as I walk using part of one of my glasses lenses as a screen. Why not just take the next step and have the data downloaded directly into my brain? But I am scared of having a hole drilled into my skull. There was an episode of THE OUTER LIMITS (the modern remake version) in which all but a handful of people were physically plugged into a global computer network: http://www.theouterlimits.com/episodes/season3/321.htm With my luck, I'd be a "throwback"!

Posted by: Amritas at May 03, 2004 07:04 AM (evS1f)

2 My books are often laced with such gems as "Bull****!" and "Where in the world did that come from!?" I'm actually pretty calm...

Posted by: mike at May 03, 2004 07:54 AM (/0fwF)

3 Maybe it's because you take it out on your poor books. I save my rage for my keyboard. I've actually broken keys off while typing about some outrageous thing I've read.

Posted by: Amritas at May 03, 2004 10:42 AM (evS1f)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

You know, I really should read Davids Medienkritik every day. It's a great blog. But the truth is, I can't stand to read it. I can't stand reading the bias and sanctimony that comes out of the country I live in. The country where my country pays rent, hires their citizens, and buys their goods and services. It makes me sick to know that we're still here when I read this and this. We need to go home as soon as possible.

Posted by: Sarah at 11:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.

Nighthawk emailed me a link to an article about the Spirit of America fundraiser:

The column describing Spirit of America's effort to raise $100,000 for the TV stations appeared in this space 14 days ago. Since then, the following has happened:

Jim Hake, Spirit of America's entrepreneur founder, says they have received $1.52 million. Some 7,000 donations have come from every state, and one from . . . France.

Amazing stuff.

Posted by: Sarah at 10:50 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

Apparently Muslims in California are mad that Gov. Schwarzenegger is on a trip to Israel. Here's what one has to say:

“It’s his prerogative to visit, but he should be fair to all races and religions,” said Mohammed Abdullah, 46, a Palestinian-American who works as a butcher in Anaheim.

That's mighty funny, considering Islam is most certainly not fair in terms of race or religion. I'm filing this one under "Humor".

Posted by: Sarah at 03:23 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

Remember those parents of kids in your high school who were totally oblivious to what their kids were doing? My kid would never do drugs / binge drink / sleep around / do anything remotely bad. And we kids and the other parents who had a clue never knew how to point out to the parents that Susie was a slut or Bobby was a stoner. They were going to believe whatever they wanted to believe, despite any evidence to the contrary.

I don't want to be in denial like one of those parents.
But I also don't even want to think about this.

The soldiers in my Army, in the America I live in, would never do something like that. My soldiers don't think humiliation and torture is funny or a joke to take photos of and send home to your high school buddies. My soldiers know that our situation in Iraq is already precarious enough without fuel like this to add to the fire.

Not my solders. Oh god, why did they have to do this?

Deskmerc expressed enough anger for both of us, but what I'm left feeling is sadness. I just feel so utterly let down and betrayed by the handful of soldiers who have put an ugly, ugly dent in our nation's reputation.

Dear soldiers of Abu Ghraib prison,

I am an Army wife who values soldiers over just about anyone else. I jump to your defense against all complaints, emphasize your strengths over your weaknesses, and would defend your honor until the day I died.

And you repay me with this?

We have a job to do in Iraq, one that is hard and time-consuming and must be done center stage in front of the whole world. Do you understand that? The whole world is watching us, waiting for us to mess up so they can release the triumphant I told you so! they've been sitting on. No one is watching the insurgents, making sure they follow the rules and play nice; they're watching you. And you gave them exactly what they were hoping for.

You gave them a spectacle.

See, your stupid prank, your treating POWs like frat pledges, is going to have major repercussions. We're already feeling them here in Germany, when a German wife last night expressed her dismay at knowing she'll have to now work twice as hard to convince her family and neighbors that the Americans are working for good in Iraq. You see, the Germans love this story. I'm sure the French are thrilled as well. And the Arabs -- those backwards folks that we've insisted we're better than -- now have one up on us.

"This will increase the hatred of America, not just in Iraq but abroad. Even those who sympathized with the Americans before will stop. It is not just a picture of torture, it is degrading. It touches on morals and religion."

"Abu Ghraib prison was used for torture in Saddam's time. People will ask now what's the difference between Saddam and Bush. Nothing!," added Saudi commentator Dawoud al-Shiryan.

Do you see what you've done? I'm forced to agree with a Saudi that you are no better than Saddam. Do you understand how that makes me feel? Do you understand how badly you have let me down, let all Americans down?

In a just world you'd be made to make your own little naked pyramid, but instead you'll all go to jail to sit and think for a long time. In the meantime, the rest of our Army's soldiers -- those whose reputation you've sullied -- will have to work twice as hard to make up for the damage you've done. You betrayed your fellow soldiers and your country when you put fun and games ahead of your Army Values. And you betrayed this one Army wife, who might think twice next time before jumping to all solders' defense.

I hate you for that.

Sarah

Posted by: Sarah at 05:22 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 663 words, total size 4 kb.

I very firmly believe that our media can easily sway public opinion with photographs. A few of us were talking yesterday about how we didn't like the cover photo on Friday's Stars and Stripes, which showed an American soldier leaning over one of the children killed in the mortar attack on Thursday. We shouldn't turn a blind eye to the real deaths this war is causing, but showing the soldier with the dead child seemed to ignore the fact that it was the insurgents' mortar that killed the children and not the Americans. A simple photo like that speaks volumes, sometimes putting fuel on the anti-war fire.

Mrs. du Toit posted a comparison of Life Magazine covers during WWII and Vietnam. The covers accurately reflect society's views on those two wars...or perhaps society's views reflected what was seen on the covers. Which caused which, the cover or the national mood?

Posted by: Sarah at 03:52 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

James Hudnall's stepfather died recently, and James been going through bits and pieces of his stepfather's life.

I had a thought the other day about the letters I send to my husband. He's keeping all of them -- actually he said he already has too many to store under his cot and is mailing them all back to me -- and I figure we'll put them in a box or folder somewhere in our home. I started thinking about how my mother-in-law found a box of letters between her father and her grandfather, detailing her childhood, when her father passed away. I started to think that maybe someday my children will read the letters my husband and I wrote back and forth while he was in Iraq. And then I started to panic. Oh my goodness, I'd better watch my mouth in my letters! I better not send him anything I wouldn't want my grandchildren to read!

Would we be the same people we are if we knew our grandchildren were watching?

Posted by: Sarah at 03:37 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.