June 25, 2004
HELL
War may be hell, but we here in the rear live our own sort of personal hell.
For every soldier and Marine in Iraq, there are days of fierce battle, but there are also long stretches of calm and nothing. For every firefight they're in, they spend many more days standing around on guard or sandbagging. When that firefight comes, it's pivotal, but not every day is a raging battle.
For us in the rear, every day the news brings us another conflict. Monday it's Fallujah, Tuesday it's Najaf, Wednesday it's Baghdad, Thursday it's Baqubah, and by Friday we're back to Fallujah. For us in the rear, there are no calms in Iraq's storm. There's no time to catch your breath, no respite from the chain of casualties, no days of just standing on guard.
I try not to hang on the news out of Iraq, but yesterday was rough on me. Even my students noticed I was a quieter than usual. If I were self-absorbed, I would have been content with the email from my husband saying that he had made it to his destination and was shocked at how calm things were there. But once he was accounted for, my attention shifted back to all the other soldiers from his battalion who were waging war yesterday. Best Friend was still back there, and I was in knots all day thinking about him. Blue 6 was safe, but Red 6 was in the thick of it, and over the past year and a half I've grown to love Red 6 almost as much as I love my own husband. I'm just as invested in him as I am in my own family.
He responded to my frantic email this morning, breathless from his ordeal but in one piece. He said the insurgents are getting better at aiming...
If you've got one family member in Iraq, you can concentrate your anguish on one city. When you have friends all over the country -- one in Mosul, two in Tikrit, one in Baghdad, one at Anaconda, several god-knows-where, a whole battalion in Baqubah, and the most important platoon out on a mission -- you're never insulated from the danger.
You've always got one eye at the top of the casualty list, praying that "name not released yet" doesn't turn into someone you know.
MORE TO GROK:
Yesterday I had a bad feeling. I don't believe in premonitions, but it was the first time I really felt sick to my stomach thinking about my boys down there. I'll thank my lucky stars that I don't have THE POWER that Tim has!
Posted by: Sarah at
03:36 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 441 words, total size 3 kb.
1
I cannot imagine Sarah. It's hard enough "knowing" many bloggers who are over there as well as their family members and worrying about them. If I could put a face with the name I might be insane by now.
Hopefully it helps to know that there are those of us out here that are supporting you, our troops and their families any way we can. Especially in thoughts and prayers.
Posted by: Tammi at June 25, 2004 11:58 AM (8r0pr)
2
Yeah, what Tammi said...
I'm not even going to Iraq, but still to the Middle East to study in a few months, and I'm sure my parents will feel the same way about me, and for that I feel bad, b/c I know they'll be constantly glued to the news and computer.
Posted by: athena at June 25, 2004 09:14 PM (P2pz0)
3
All I can say is *sigh*...and *nod.*
Posted by: Carla at June 26, 2004 11:56 AM (r5M6F)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 24, 2004
NATURE OR NURTURE?
In my attempts to understand the way people think, I started wondering about the nature/nurture split. It started with thoughts about another topic entirely, for much has been said about the biological vs. envioronmental influences in relation to homosexuality. I then started to wonder about how nature/nurture applies to politics.
We've all met siblings who have vastly different political leanings, despite being raised in the same household and having relatively similar life experiences. Even siblings who are still young -- those who haven't gone off on their own to encounter the world -- can have wildly different worldviews. One sibling works for the military and the other writes a dissertation on the virtues of Mandela and Khadaffi. How can this be?
Bunker's post was food for thought, which led me to The Motivations of Political Leftists and then to Why Are People Leftists?; these took me two days to read and digest. I then found a paragraph that echoed my questions: Leftists Are Born That Way, which is filled with interesting links that lead only to abstracts. I ended up with more questions than I have answers.
I know of people who were Leftists but abandoned their worldview; many of them were prompted by 9-11 to reevaluate their beliefs. But for many of us on both sides of the spectrum, 9-11 only confirmed what we already thought we knew, though it taught us monumentally different lessons. I personally have leaned Right for as long as I can remember, and I simply hid my more right-of-center views from my college friends. My worldview started to really solidify even before I cared at all about politics; it was fueled by the anti-Americanism I experienced in France and at the riots in Goteborg, and by an epiphany at a lecture by Dinesh D'Souza, among other things. Only later did I get into blogging and current events...and the military.
But where did it originate? Other people endured the hate and garbage in France, yet it didn't have the effect on them that it did on me. I must've already had the seeds of right-leaning ideas before I hit this point. But where did they come from?
I'd say both of my parents are fairly conservative, though we never talked about politics when I was growing up. I can't remember ever having a conversation about voting or foreign policy or anything of the sort. Did they somehow influence me in a subconscious way? Or was I born right of center and just viewed everything through that lens?
We talk about knee-jerk reactions, but isn't that just following your gut? The first blog I ever saw was U.S.S. Clueless and I immediately felt at home. Even before I had studied anything concrete about how the world works, I simply nodded my head in agreement and felt deep in my instincts that what Den Beste writes is true. No one had to teach me that; in fact, much of what we encounter in higher education these days should have persuaded me just the opposite. How was I not convinced?
I sure don't have the answers to these questions. I have always leaned a bit right of center; what about you? Do you think you were nurtured into your views or have you always felt this way? Did you have an epiphany or a gradually developing worldview?
Posted by: Sarah at
08:10 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 565 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Hi Sarah,
Nice post! Here is my story -
Personally, I was raised a Democrat, and always voted straight Democratic ticket (except once or twice I voted for Scott Klug). Then came the world view blender commonly referred to as 9/11. I can't say that my world view changed instantly, because it didn't. However, it did cause me to start looking for information on the war, and the Internet was available. I mostly stayed with the major media (didn't know of blogs, - they were still pretty much unknown at the time). For a long time I was aware that the media doesn't portray the world clearly, but was able to get enough perspective from enough different sources to be able to develop at least some sense of what was really happening (preceding the battle of Afghanistan). Then I started noticing (around the end of the battle of Afghanistan) that I would see the same exact article posted at all the major media, and noticed that they were just reprints of AP articles, and finally found out about blogs (I think maybe from Austin Bay and/or Strategy Page). Which led me to Instapundit and from there was led to Eject! Eject! Eject!, (Courage) and U.S.S. Clueless. and like you felt like I had hit the mother lode of wisdom. These peoples ideas just resonated within me and made an extreme amount of sense to me. I'm not sure now if I will ever vote straight Democratic again.
Posted by: Ron - WI at June 24, 2004 09:52 AM (CwrQg)
2
Ahh... the classic nature vs. nurture, a mainstay of psychological debate. I'll speak for myself: up until a few months ago, I avoided politics. "There are so many different sides, each with their own slant," I would think to myself, "that how can I possibly learn actual facts?" I finally took to heart the thought that politics will affect what I do in my career. From there, it was a slippery slope right down to the realization that politics affects
darn near everything. So here I am at your blog and various other places, trying to gain some sort of insight. The rest of my family was never very politically inclined, for reasons I actually haven't asked about yet (I should). The war in Iraq, however, has recently caused my father to gain an interest in politics.
From Bunker:
If any of you are leftists (not to be confused with sincere liberals) . . .
It's this sorta thing that makes me go...
wha-huh? I will come out and give words similar to what rfidtag expressed on Bunker's post: this business of Left/Right/Liberal/Conservative/etc. pidgeonholing ultimately counteracts rational discussion. When people organize themselves and band together under these labels and then attempt to talk about issues, it seems that the natural tendency is for folks to defend their groups. "After all," someone might hypothetically say, "you're Left and I'm Right, so we don't agree by default, or else we'd be in the same group!" This is simplistic and undermines the truth that opinions are malleable just like the world is malleable; we are not discrete little blocks in stacks. No, I don't expect these labels to go away; we are human, and humans naturally want to have information compartmentalized in their brains for convenient storage and retrieval. From this viewpoint, however, political labels are like stereotypes. They may derive from some form of truth, but they are incomplete. Even worse, those who feel loyalty to their label are more likely to dismiss opinions that don't fit their own "party line."
If one were to ask me whether I'm Left, Right or Center, I wouldn't be able to answer. I'm new to this, and I'm going about the process of determining what those labels mean. At the very least, I should learn about the labels to figure out what is implied when they are used as insults... and they
are used as convenient one-word insults by many people very often. Yet, even after I familiarize myself with the terms, I don't think I would use such words to describe my thoughts as a "package." At the least, I'd strive to avoid it. The only road to really figuring someone out is the long road: discussing a wide variety of issues in a non-threatening way. I feel that I would fall in unexpected places on a number of issues that come up in today's political world. After a long talk with me, some person might try to say that I'm (for entirely
random garbage example) "two smidgens to the left of mid-Right" or perhaps a "slightly conservative Anarcho-Neo-Libertarian." But geez, why bother with such nonsense? And then they'd expect me to act the part, and their eyebrows would raise up the next time I gave an "unexpected" opinion. Sometimes,
simplify does not mean what it seems.
Posted by: cjstevens at June 24, 2004 10:26 AM (fDuiT)
3
cj, as far as labels go, I'm right there with you on that. In fact, the classic term "liberal" better fits those we now call "conservative", and vice versa.
Most of us don't fit either one well, which is why I use Left/Right to describe those on the edges. The rest of us are tweeners, trying to sort through the blather and make rational judgements. My world view is built from experiences in many different places, and interactions with many different people. I can't say whether I'm left or right, but people tell me I'm **RIGHT** and then are amazed when I say something that doesn't fit their perspective of how I should think on a given topic.
Groups require you to think as they do, or you are somehow less than you should be. An example is the pro-life/pro-choice battle. The options they offer is all or nothing on both sides. A radical can be of any stripe. I want to be a radical in the view of both left and right.
Posted by: Mike at June 24, 2004 01:45 PM (MqNKC)
4
I was always interested in politics. I grew up during the Reagan years and was upset that my dad voted for him. Sadly, minorities, such as Hispanics are taught in the community that it is the democrats that are on your side. In my twenties, I vowed never to vote republican. I considered them white men. I was upset that our Founding Fathers were white men. Though I believed that the government should solve all our problems, I could never fully support the notion of pro-choice. I considered myself a feminist, but I couldn't cross that line. Perhaps, it was my Catholic faith that prevented that acceptance.
Anyway, I didn't vote for President Bush. I have never voted Republican. What changed it for me was that I started to pay attention, especially after September 11. What shocked me was the moral equivalency liberals began to spew, that America deseved it. As a writer, I started to blatantly see the manipulation of words and meanings by leftist liberals who now control the democratic party. Their misinformation about facts puts this country and puts the future of my family at risk. And that I will not stand for. It was because of them that I left the democratic party. As my family could attest, only I could become a republican, because I was to stauchly against them as a party. So for all those liberals out there, young and idealistic to believe if America was gone all would be well, I say, there is still hope for you to wake up and join the fight to preserve the only way of life you've ever known.
Posted by: Moor at June 24, 2004 05:09 PM (xvwyL)
5
Where to begin? Well to start I am a registered INDEPENDENT in the state of NJ. Unlike Bill O'Rielley, (I should call him "O'Lielley", like Franken does, but that would be "shrill"), anyway My world view is not and never has been static. I try to gather as much information there is, then read a little of what both the liberals and conservatives have to say. After reading some opinions I begin to form my own, some times I agree with a liberal opinion. I sometimes agree with a conservative opinion. There are even times when on a particular topic (property taxes for instance) I have agreements with both liberals and conservatives. I think that to maintain a static world view is suffocating. As I learn new things my view will change sometimes subtly, occasionaly radicly. For the longest time after I became a civilian again, I was rather an isolationist, Reagan's paling around with assorted central american thugs, and Pinochet helped me reach that conclusion. Somalia, and Mogadishu convinced me I was right, but then we went ahead into Kosovo, and Bosnia and we actually managed to do something good. 9-11 returned me to the view that we need to be "leaders" in this world. I never have been a pacifist, and I think that radical wahabbism needs to be confronted, I just do not agree with the current method, but that is what makes this nation so great we can disagree, but in the end we usually do reach some middle ground and do what needs to be done.
Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at June 24, 2004 10:30 PM (4pVZJ)
6
What changed it for me was that I started to pay attention, especially after September 11. What shocked me was the moral equivalency liberals began to spew, that America deseved it.
Well, it's interesting to hear Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell described as 'liberals'....didn't they also 'spew moral equivalency', as you so eloquently put it? Or is it only moral equivalency if democrats do it? How about Rush Limbaugh's comparison of Abu Ghraib to 'a praternity prank', 'a Britney Spears concert', 'blowing of steam'? Has that prompted you to leave the Republican party? Or do you agree with their moral relativism in this case?
Posted by: Coriolanus at June 25, 2004 12:28 PM (SbtTU)
7
I got a little long winded, so my comments are here...
Paraducks
The short answer is I think there's a little of left and right in all of us.
Posted by: ken anthony at June 25, 2004 08:59 PM (qRqqp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
KAL!
Kalroy is back! Hmm...I guess I should say "Kalroy is here" instead, since it's funnier. Whatever. Anyway, he's back from his Ultra-Secret Mission that started in January, and he's already
calling bullshit on Noam Chomsky.
I missed you, Kal. Welcome back.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:43 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.
1
He has Chomsky pretty well pegged. In fact, What I've read on Chomsky's blog isn't all that coherent. Perhaps he's an acquired taste--the more you read, the more you want to believe.
Posted by: Mike at June 24, 2004 07:40 AM (MqNKC)
2
Ya mean like sahsimi and poi?
I can understand that. Love 'em both.
Kal
Posted by: Kalroy at June 24, 2004 10:41 PM (VU2TV)
3
Calling bullshit on Chomsky for not knowing the ins and outs of soldering? Wow, what a substantive critique. Surely Kalroy can do better.
Posted by: MasterJohnson at June 25, 2004 01:20 AM (AKgpm)
4
Is he calling bs on Chomsky or on the Atlas fellow?!?
Reading the comments I got kinda pissed at Atlas who said
Posted by: Donna at June 25, 2004 07:39 AM (+lSH7)
5
I was calling BS on Atlas for his attitude. Never been an admirer of elitism, not even the working class hero stuff.
As to Chomsky soldering, read it again. I had hoped that I had made my point clear using it as an illustration on how everyone is ignorant about a lot of things. Obviously I should have spent more effort making that clear.
Truth is the more you specialize the more topics you'll be ignorant of/on. I know this quite well having only recently learned what a flexitalic gasket is and that viton smells like cinnamon.
Kal
Posted by: Kalroy at June 26, 2004 05:09 AM (VU2TV)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
GAMES?
I wrote a long time ago about how strange I thought it was to see my cousins playing
Catch Osama in the summer of 2002. But that was nothing compared to seeing these Swedish kids play
Behead Nick Berg.
I just can't think of anything else to say.
MORE TO GROK:
This video, Seeds of Hatred, found in the comments at LGF is worth watching too.
Posted by: Sarah at
02:39 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.
1
These kids would probably play Halshugg Svennen (Behead The Swede) if they had only known that's what happened to the cook in al-Khubar.
Posted by: Anders at June 24, 2004 07:43 AM (RWjHO)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 23, 2004
NOTES
I decided to do my favorite thing before I go to bed: read
Notes From the Olive Garden. Again.
Still laughed my fool head off, even after all this time.
Posted by: Sarah at
05:28 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Just out of my curiosity... you've probably addressed this before, but what time zone are you in? The time of this post is 10:28pm, but it was not here when I checked two hours ago, at 2:24pm central time.
Posted by: cjstevens at June 23, 2004 06:24 PM (fDuiT)
2
Central European time zone
Posted by: Sarah at June 24, 2004 02:18 AM (1F4Wn)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
BADGE
Dennis Prager (via
Amritas) divides Americans into two groups:
Those who are ashamed of America for being hated and those who wear this hatred as a badge of honor.
For weeks now I've been trying to understand those who disagree with me, and for weeks Amritas has been trying to get me to see that which Den Beste has said before: "It is more important what you stand for than who you stand with." I know this deep down, but my recent feelings of sadness and pessimism have been hard to shake. But tonight I finally understand what it means to be hated.
Sometimes being hated is the right thing. Sometimes being hated is not so much a reflection of you as it is a reflection of those who hate you. And sometimes being hated is something you should wear as a badge of honor.
I grok that now. Thanks for not giving up on me, Marc.
Posted by: Sarah at
05:06 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I'm glad you grok it now. I know it is harder when you have friends and probably family who are so against your views and feelings. I have a son who is so very liberal that it bewilders me. He is extremely intelligent and successful and soooooo liberal. The good news is that we just have to agree to disagree and love each other anyway. No hate is involved so I don't have that problem. But in local politics within a little organization I am in, and I'm talking about a group that is totally inconsequential to the way the world turns, things have gotten so out of hand that I do feel hated by some of them and am almost ready to return the favor. Not a happy situation. But they are people I do not love, some of them I do not even like, so it doesn't matter to me what they think. If they don't matter they can hate me if they want, as the old saying goes, its no skin off my back. But at your age it would have mattered, my age tells me just don't sweat it. Enough said.
Posted by: Ruth H at June 23, 2004 07:56 PM (KWhLf)
2
Grokking means seeing all sides. Not just one and it's imagined opposite.
Where does anger come from?
Posted by: Warbaby at June 24, 2004 02:13 AM (3YyqC)
3
Hey Sarah,
"A few days went by with no sign of a verdict from the principal. Actually, it was a nice break from the chaos and it gave me time to reflect over all that was happening. I have to admit being called a racist, a bastard, and being threatened hurt. I had seen first-hand just how angry and blind the left could be."
Here's a kid who knows exactly how you feel. What you were feeling is pretty normal. Anger and hatred directed at you, for any reason, hurts. Whether it's because of the color of your skin or your politics.
Just consider what you stand for and whether, as den Beste said, what you stand for. It doesn't remove the hurt, but it helps.
Kal
Posted by: Kalroy at June 24, 2004 02:14 AM (VU2TV)
4
"Sometimes being hated is the right thing. Sometimes being hated is not so much a reflection of you as it is a reflection of those who hate you. And sometimes being hated is something you should wear as a badge of honor."
Looks like someone agrees with you . . .
"I didn't quit, I never thought of resigning and I stood up to it and beat it back . . . The whole battle was a badge of honor. I don't see it as a stain, because [the impeachment process] was illegitimate."
—Bill Clinton
Posted by: Doug Gillett at June 24, 2004 02:29 PM (jd34Q)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
VICTORY
My husband went to Najaf a few months ago to keep an eye on things until 1AD got repositioned. At the time, I couldn't understand why they didn't just go in and kill al-Sadr and get it over with. But that's why I don't make the tough decisions.
Army unit claims victory over sheik (via Andrew Sullivan)
To quote Xrlq, "ItÂ’s a good thing IÂ’m not the President because if I were, weÂ’d be carpet bombing the area until the survivors begged for mercy and admitted out loud that their allahu isnÂ’t so damned akbar after all."
Yessir, that's why he and I are not in charge.
Posted by: Sarah at
04:45 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Good thing I'm not either. I would have sealed the borders after 9/11 and let the rest of the world fend for itself. Let's hope this more patient long term plan really works in the long term.
Posted by: Beth at June 23, 2004 07:15 PM (Ae23i)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
CONVICTION
I started watching
Band of Brothers this week. I watched Parts I and II, and the thing that stuck with me most was the interview with the veterans at the beginning of each episode, especially the veteran who said that four young men from his hometown committed suicide when they were declared 4-F. They committed
suicide because they
weren't allowed to serve their country. Would that I had an ounce of their conviction...
Posted by: Sarah at
06:50 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Suicide takes conviction? Finally Dr. Kevorkian has a right-winger who will support his work.
Posted by: Crake at June 23, 2004 07:33 AM (5gN2v)
2
I have that box set.
It is one of the best series ever made by far.
The veterans speaking at the beginning really chokes me up sometimes.
I really like the episode that focuses on the medic. Very touching.
Posted by: athena at June 23, 2004 08:03 AM (P2pz0)
3
I did a Band of Brothers marathon this Sunday, about 6 episodes I think. The medic one was great, I agree.
Another excellent series that I wish would be shown over and over is the one PBS did years ago, "I'll Fly Away" with Sam Waterston (sp?) and Regina Taylor. Every episode made me cry (with emotion, not necessarily sadness).
Posted by: MargeinMI at June 23, 2004 09:07 AM (/F3+H)
4
Isn't this a false dichotomy? WWII America wasn't ancient Sparta: surely they had other options other than combat or suicide? Just because the army decided they could not fight for the country because of whatever physical or mental limitations they had, wouldn't there have been other options available to them?
I suppose taking one's own life requires conviction, but I don't think I can come to quite the same conclusion that you do. Heroics don't only occur on the battlefield. Wouldn't it have been better for them to find a way to help those at war or the families they left behind? At least then they'd have some purpose.
Posted by: Can't win at June 23, 2004 10:04 AM (aQOKC)
5
Wouldn't it have been better for them to find a way to help those at war or the families they left behind? At least then they'd have some purpose.
Isn't that the tragedy of it Sarah is citing? Despair does different things to different people. Apparently some felt their lives meant nothing if they couldn't go fight the war. That doesn't make it right, but it certainly evokes a sense of commitment common in the country at the time.
Posted by: Mike at June 23, 2004 10:37 AM (MqNKC)
6
Sarah - be sure to watch the bonus disc for the Actors Video Diary. It's great and I guarantee you will enjoy it.
Posted by: Toni at June 23, 2004 10:55 AM (SHqVu)
7
First I read the book then watched as a marathon one saturday, all 10+ hours of it. Now I have seen it twice since on the History Channel, the last time I got my wife to watch it. Well done series. Unfortunately they do not cover one of the funniest things that these guys did when they found Hitler's limo at "Eagles Nest", they would ride around on it as if it was taxi. IF you get choked up now -- wait til Parts 9 and 10. David Schwimmer plays Captain Sobel exactly as I had portrayed in my head when reading the book. THe actor who plays Dick Winters is a British actor with a very thick english accent. As I said earlier a Great series.
Posted by: Tim Carroll at June 23, 2004 11:07 AM (Q2c0O)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
FUMING
I went to LGF this morning and started reading over a bowl of cereal. At the fifth post down, I froze with the spoon halfway to my mouth and let out a nice loud godammit.
They killed Kim Seon-Il. I'm not surprised, but now I'm mad as hell. Fuming mad. How many more heads do they have to hack off before the rest of the world gets mad too?
My "bring it on" yesterday was just the start. Every day, I get angrier and angrier, and it only steels my resolve.
MORE TO GROK:
I hope Amritas is wrong, but his words ring true in my ears:
I wish I could say I was surprised, but I know what barbarians can do. I also wish his death will not be in vain, but I know what the Left wants to do.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:09 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.
1
How many more heads do they have to hack off before the rest of the world gets mad too?
It's anger in general that concerns me. Consider this thought experiment: Say that we get rid of all of the world's terrorists tomorrow by making them disappear. That's is... just make them vanish. Terrorists are humans; they have relatives and friends. Some even have children. Would these left-behinds feel anger at us? Would that anger be enough to turn them into terrorists as well? I use the word "vanish" because it's the cleanest way to get rid of someone; no blood, violence, or death seen. Yet even in this wholly unrealistic scenario, it doesn't take a genius to know that it was us who did it. There will be directed anger; that anger is a force for terrorism to continue.
Like you and others, I know that getting rid of terrorism means more than just physically stopping terrorists. Complex problems require multifaceted solutions. For example, part of our being in Iraq is to rebuild the place. Some will say that if we show we are there to help, we can quell anger against us. Can we do enough constructive things in the terrorists' world to decrease the number of terrorists?
What lies before us is a sophisticated, evolving force balance equation for which we are unsure of the inputs, the coefficients, or even the terms. Worse still, efforts to discover the values
change the values. It's Heisenberg's uncertainty principle at its worst. No, I'm not saying the thing is too hard for us to solve. In fact, the length of time we may take to solve it is all the more reason to start now. I just wonder where these efforts will lead us... if things will get much worse before they improve.
Fine fine fine: I state the obvious, I speculate, I use obscure analogies, and I propose no solutions. I don't deny it, and I expect no acknowledgement from you or anyone else. All I say is this: you're angry, and anger is a motivator that can be harnessed to whatever end you choose; it (at least partially) caused you to post this entry. What else will you do with your anger? And when the world is angry, what should the world do with this powerful force?
Posted by: cjstevens at June 23, 2004 06:08 AM (fDuiT)
2
I don't think you'll ever hear Mrs. Grok extolling the virtues of strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing up a disco because she is angry.
Yet, that is what the opposition is doing. It isn't really relevent whether or not Sarah posts while angry, or because she is angry. What is relevent are the posts. This is a discussion, and an honest one. That is the difference, and it should be our goal. This is how the feelings of anger, humiliation, helplessness, or whatever is used to justify murdering innocents should be dealt with. By open admission of the feelings, the cause for the feelings, and attempting to fix the problems that are the cause. Not in justifying a murderous doctrine of conquest.
The main elements that allow this? Open education, open press, and all freedoms in general. That is what is needed, and thats how you fix the problems. The world needs to promote this in all reaches. Everywhere that freedom does not exist, it needs to be aggressively pursued by those that have the power to pursue freedom. Vacillating and standing back and letting dictators control regions of the world that would be messy to clean up can no longer stand. The forces of hate and murder have to be defeated, they have chosen their course, we have to accept that and give them the end they deserve, before they give you the end they have decided for you, and I.
Posted by: John at June 23, 2004 06:47 AM (crTpS)
3
Absolutely right, John. We cannot continue on the path that brought us 9/11. Something must change. We have no control over the environment people like this live in, yet reap the bitterness. **Crown Prince Abdullah blamed Israel for the execution. Speaking to Saudi television, he said, "Zionism is behind it. It has become clear now. It has become clear to us. I don't say, I mean... It is not 100 percent, but 95 percent that the Zionist hands are behind what happened."**
How do you reconcile anger driven by something like this when there are people here who feel the same as Abdullah?
Posted by: Mike at June 23, 2004 07:44 AM (MqNKC)
4
For what it's worth, Hussain al-Shahristani (a member of the newly-formed Iraq
Pugwash group)
gave his thoughts on the upcoming elections back at the end of April. Some may say that his words are ironic given that he was held by Saddam for 10 years, but I say it's just further illustration that it can be a gray world out there.
Also, a
spot (note: Windows Media Audio) on the seedlings of Linux in Iraq warms my tech-geek heart.
Posted by: cjstevens at June 23, 2004 08:43 AM (fDuiT)
5
Just out of curiosity, what is it that you think "the Left wants to do"?
Posted by: Doug Gillett at June 23, 2004 10:53 AM (jd34Q)
6
CJ-
I bet if Nick Berg, Paul Johnson, or Kim Sun-Il were one of your relatives, you'd be damn angry. My question is, how can you detach yourself emotionally and not become angry at the unjustifiable actions that have been committed against us?
"Some will say that if we show we are there to help, we can quell anger against us. Can we do enough constructive things in the terrorists' world to decrease the number of terrorists?"
I learned a long time ago that you cannot rationalize an irrational person (or group of people).
Posted by: bushlover at June 24, 2004 03:00 PM (2RAa2)
7
My question is, how can you detach yourself emotionally and not become angry at the unjustifiable actions that have been committed against us?
Of course I'd be
damn angry if someone close to me was taken from me
in general, and especially in such a manner as this. The point I'm trying to make is, what are we going to do with that anger?
I learned a long time ago that you cannot rationalize an irrational person (or group of people).
That's why the situation is so dangerous and unpredictable. Again, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to solve things. I just point out is that if these people are truly irrational, we have
no idea what's going to happen next.
Posted by: cjstevens at June 24, 2004 03:49 PM (fDuiT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 22, 2004
OURS
(Via
Blackfive)
Troops kill 13 in fierce 12-hour firefight near Baqubah
Sources in the governorÂ’s office claim that rebels who fought in Najaf and Fallujah during the insurgency uprising there in April and May are paid to travel to Baqubah to kill Americans and to undermine efforts by coalition forces to establish a new Iraqi government.
In my loudest roar: BRING IT ON!
Posted by: Sarah at
08:30 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.
1
10 US Servicemen Die in Iraq, 11 Iraqis
Monday's toll (still incomplete but more complete than any one article I saw in any one language)
http://www.juancole.com/
I'm afraid it was "brought on". I can find no pleasure in this.
This is the good news that you have been wanting the press to report? That our tactics have devolved to seizing houses and leaving our troops in them as bait? That "the fledgling enforcers of law and order are still finding their way and barely even have enough equipment or the clout among the population to be totally effective"?
Posted by: jpenny at June 22, 2004 10:45 AM (FdJ2i)
2
No, jpenny, this is not "good news". But it's news that concerns my husband, and if I want to cheer him on, then that's my own damn business.
I'd better shut up before I say something I'll regret...
Posted by: Sarah at June 22, 2004 11:41 AM (RrHid)
3
Sarah:
You have loved ones in this situation. You deserve
considerable latitude. You have a lot of emotional
investment. But...
Asking for American troops to be attacked seems, at
best, an odd way to cheer your husband on, whether
roared or whispered. Please, don't tempt the fates.
Posted by: jpenny at June 22, 2004 12:21 PM (sq5S8)
4
Sarah, you are right! To effeminate Bring it on! to Please, don't shoot me, does us no good. We are at war with Islamists. I recently heard a story about the hostages taken in Riyadh in Saudi. Not only men were taken hostage by these Islamists, but women and you know what they did? They lined up the women and slit their throats. So by hell, I say Bring it on! By saying it you are standing up for what is right. Our soldiers understand this better than most. We cannot sing kumbajah and all will be well. Our soldiers are not asking to be shot, but it is a way to find our enemies and to shoot them. So I thank God for them and for you. Because you are not speaking out of emotion, but out of the instinct to survive and to win.
Don't let anyone minimize that.
Posted by: Moor at June 22, 2004 04:49 PM (xvwyL)
5
No man gets away from his reckoning, but with luck he may learn how to face it.
Neil Gunn (1891–1973), Scottish writer.
Blood Hunt (1952).
We may become the makers of our fate when we have ceased to pose as its prophets.
Karl Popper (1902–1994), Austrian-born British philosopher, 1975.
The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945).
A bad penny always turns up.
Anonymous.
Proverb.
A great fortune depends upon luck, a small one on diligence.
Anonymous.
Chinese proverb.
Blessings never come in pairs; misfortunes never come singly.
Anonymous.
Chinese proverb.
Bullets are shot by men and God deals them out.
Anonymous.
Mexican proverb.
God is always on the side of the big battalions.
Anonymous.
Proverb.
One man's fate is another man's lesson.
Anonymous.
African (Swahili) proverb.
Two bullets never go in one place.
Anonymous.
U.S. proverb.
Fates are hard to determine in the face of war.
Moor.
Posted by: Moor at June 22, 2004 05:03 PM (xvwyL)
6
If you would be reveng'd on your enemy, govern yourself.
-Benjamin Franklin, *Poor Richard's Almanac*
Posted by: False Prophet at June 24, 2004 12:08 AM (6e5SO)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
WATER
Wow.
Posted by: Sarah at
05:18 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 3 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Moor at June 22, 2004 05:05 PM (xvwyL)
Posted by: cjstevens at June 22, 2004 05:39 PM (fDuiT)
3
Science is amazing. Very nifty.
Posted by: LeeAnn at June 22, 2004 05:56 PM (HxCeX)
4
Nice toy, camping gear has featured several different type of filters similar to this for YEARS now. I often wonder why it takes so damned long for an idea like this to wend its way through the procurement process, yet the truely boneheaded crap (think the 600 dollar hammer, and 1000 dollar coffee maker, 1970's dollars at that) is given nearly a free pass???
Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at June 22, 2004 10:44 PM (4pVZJ)
5
Hmm... Bubba, I don't disagree with you, though I do ask which products you have in mind when you talk about filters similar to this. The science is pretty basic indeed, and a Google search does turn up a myriad of water filtration systems.
Posted by: cjstevens at June 23, 2004 02:08 AM (fDuiT)
6
Final fantasy hentai anime cartoons, free hentai movies yuna hentai. Dragonball hentai girl anime, tentacle hentai free hentai manga. Hentai galleries anime babes, pokemon hentai dragon ball hentai. Pokemon hentai anime bondage, free hentai videos anime lesbians. Sexy anime free hentai manga, love hina hentai free hentai gallery. Free hentai galleries hentai doujinshi, tenchi muyo hentai free hentai clips. Simpsons hentai resident evil hentai, hentai pics hentai lesbians.
hot anime girls.
Posted by: anime women at January 08, 2005 12:16 AM (riWWO)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
CREED
Robert Alt offers a funny yet frightening look at the
inconsistency of the Left.
(Thanks, Bunker. Bubba will be mad that I posted it too, but I think all those tidbits juxtaposed summarize the chaos the Democrats currently represent.)
Oh, and Drill Sergeant Rob's post is mighty good too.
Posted by: Sarah at
04:49 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Yes, contradictions are fun.
"Hussein has been absolutely devoted to trying to aquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons"
-Dick Cheney on 'Meet the Press,' March 16th, 2003.
Three days later war was declared. Maybe you can start to understand why some people might feel deceived when nothing but 1 (yes 1) shell with sarin was found. (Incidently, this is stuff that could only hurt people who would bother to enter the country in the first place - not really a threat to US security)
But Colin Powell told the UN, "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agents. That is enough agent to fill 16 000 battlefield rockets."
Hmm... conservative estimate... So who's really making the contradictions?
Posted by: Crake at June 22, 2004 05:25 AM (5gN2v)
2
Consistent with intelligence from every country, including the previous administration. The question really is not one of existence, but location. He had them. Where are they now? That was what Saddam was supposed to reveal. He didn't. We now need to be concerned about who has them if they still exist.
I know that answer won't satisfy you because I'm sure you've heard it before.
Posted by: Mike at June 22, 2004 07:42 AM (P6Jlg)
3
Hey, have your guys ever heard of
logical fallacy? How about
cognitive dissonance?
I am not going to make some blanket statement about how
all right wingers suffer from both these afflictions, but I think your assertion that
only the left wing is contradictory reminds me of these problems.
In other words, contrary to your beliefs, you guys do not really have reasonable discussions here. Have fun talking to your echo chamber.
P.S. If you are coming to the RNC in NYC this September, you might see me since I live here. We are
really looking forward to having you guys visit.
Posted by: rfidtag at June 22, 2004 10:02 AM (XxIKf)
4
Wow. Logical fallacy and cognitive dissonance...someone just took a philosophy course!
Please explain because I don't see where my comment had any logical fallacy in it. I simply stated fact and asked a question.
Alt's article simply points out how voiced opinions have changed to suit a situation. I saw nothing there that wasn't true. Perhaps you can enlighten us. Perhaps you're saying the left suffers from cognitive dissonance?
Posted by: Mike at June 22, 2004 06:10 PM (ohpgq)
5
Mike,
first, 'cognitive dissonance' is a psychological term, not a philosophical one.
second, logical fallacy:
x (present once) -> x (present now)
third... ugh, why bother? You have no intention of believing anyone who doesn't already agree with you. Straw man arguments and generalizations are a-ok to you if it concerns the left.
Posted by: Sander at June 22, 2004 08:12 PM (9v8mw)
6
OK I am going to copy my comments from Bunker to here, but first a bit of levity from a good friend, and fellow history buff. Oh yeah he is a bit more to the left than I but I sure wouldn't want to cross him by calling him a traitor just because he had a difference of opinion with me ;-) and now the humor;
After his death, Osama bin Laden went to the gates of heaven. There he was greeted by George Washington, who proceeded to slap him across his face and yell at him, "How dare you try to destroy the nation I helped conceive!"
Patrick Henry appoached and punched Osama in the nose and shouted, "You wanted to end our liberties but you failed."
James Madison entered, kicked Osama in the groin and said, "This is why I allowed our government to provide for the common defense!"
Thomas Jefferson came in and proceeded to beat Osama many times with a long cane and said, "it was evil men like you that provided me the inspiration to pen the Declaration of Independence!"
These beatings and thrashings continued as John Rudolph, James Monroe and 66 other early Americans came in and unleashed their anger on the Muslim terrorist leader.
As Osama lay bleeding and writhing in unbearable pain, an Angel appeared. Bin Laden wept and said to the Angel, "This is not what you promised me!"
The Angel replied, "I told you there would be 72 Virginians waiting for you in heaven. What did you think I said?"
OK here is what I had to say over @ Bunker, and yeah I think "chicken-hawk" when I read vile spew like his:
Geez has Alt ever bothered to serve his nation in the military? I have mentioned that I lie a bit to the left of dead center. I suppose that makes me a (cover your eyes all you impressionable young wingers) LIBERAL!! I disagree with just about his whole screed and most people I know do also, EVEN THOSE THAT ARE A BIT TO THE RIGHT OF CENTER. What a crock that screed is. For you to think that everyone that thinks differently from you thinks exactly like what this buffoon wrote is why we can not communicate any more. Give me a frigging break.
And now for some additional points, why is it ok for Coulter/Limbaugh/Hannity/Savage to engage in ad hominem attacks for 10 damned years, but as soon as anyone left of dead center says "Enough!!!" and returns serve it is suddenly "bad form" and "shrill"??
As I am sure many of you have figured out by now I am 46 years old. In addition to that info I offer the following: I am married and I have two children one differently-abled(the PC term, for the rest of us can you say Autism?) and the other is juvenile diabetic. I was fortunate enough to serve in the USAF entirely during "peace" time, but knew if called apon to go into a combat zone I would have to go. During my service the Iranian hostage fiasco took place and I lost some fellow airmen in that damned desert, I lost a friend near Dugway proving ground during "practice" for a second rescue attempt. I won't go into why he lost his life.......aw hell it was basicly a failure of leadership, because the Air Force didn't insist on all flight crew members being issued nomex flight suits, he was "crew-chief" (and in those days the crew chief flew with the bird) of an HH-53C and they lost tail rotor control, and the resulting "hard landing" cost the copter commander two shattered legs, and the flight engineer a broken back. Those were the only injuries, the crew-chief was soaked in JP-4 and was near the tail of the craft when a stray current caused a spark and......... well those who work on copters know how quickly they will burn. I was on the second bird in.... it was not a pretty sight. Well enough of that, a not so nice trip down my memory lane, all I ask is that we try to communicate with out resorting to the use of words like "traitor" and "liar" .
Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at June 22, 2004 11:30 PM (4pVZJ)
7
I just re-read that and I need to clarify, the vile spew I referred to was that of Alt, and not Mike @ BunkerMulligan. I can see where one could think I meant Bunker
Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at June 22, 2004 11:37 PM (4pVZJ)
8
Bubba, why on earth does Bunker make you think of a chickenhawk? He served mumble years (can't remember exact figure) in the military, so his opinion has every bit of the weight that yours does. And no one said that every single Lefty thinks all of these things Alt wrote, but you have to be able to admit that you've heard all of these arguments before! Lined up in a row is what makes them absurd.
Posted by: Sarah at June 23, 2004 02:44 AM (b1ECz)
9
Great site, I love it!
Take at look at
http://bingoplaying.com
Posted by: bingo at August 18, 2005 08:34 AM (lr625)
10
Just what I was looking for. Great joy!
Here is another nice site
http://slots-guide.com
Posted by: slots at August 18, 2005 08:34 AM (lr625)
11
Thanks so much for this great site!
Read more about me
http://roulettefinder.com
Posted by: roulette at August 18, 2005 08:34 AM (lr625)
12
I found this wonderful site that helped me a lot!
I have started this website
http://www.sportsbookworld.com
Posted by: sportsbooks at August 18, 2005 08:34 AM (lr625)
13
I like getting emails from people I know, makes me feel better every morning.
Please visit my homepage
http://crapsadvice.com
Posted by: craps at August 18, 2005 08:34 AM (lr625)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 21, 2004
OBVIOUS
(via
Tim)
Iraq's deputy prime minister implored the American press to provide more balanced coverage of operations in Iraq.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:29 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.
1
How "sovereign" is Iyad Allawi if the White House acts as his personal PR firm?
-----Original Message-----
From: Pamela Stevens
Sent:
To:
Subject: FW: Iyad Allawi for tomorrow
Any interest in having Iyad Allawi on tomorrow -- as you know, he is the new interim prime minister of Iraq.
Pamela Stevens
Assistant Press Secretary
The White House
202 456 6311
-----End Original Message-----
Seriously, does the White House run the press operations of other countries? Any other country? It might be a small thing, but it's just another bit of evidence that Iraq's "sovereignty" is nothing of the sort.
Posted by: rfidtag at June 21, 2004 10:46 PM (XxIKf)
2
I heard a similar arguement by a former egotistical Ambassador. It's nice to see that the kool-aid drinkers all drink the same flavor.
How can Iraq really be sovereign if the United States is there? Oh my God, how can the Iraqi government compromise itself by accepting help from America, the strongest country in the world? The sky is falling, the sky is falling. Iraq isn't sovereign so lets just hand it over to Islamists who would kill kool-aid drinkers and non-drinkers alike.
I have an answer to the absurd question that Iraq isn't sovereign. Do I say, Japan? Germany? South Korea? Europe?
After all these years we remain in Japan, Germany, South Korean and parts of Europe and does that mock their sovereignty? Does that minimize their governments?
Cut Iraq some slack here. We need to help. What happened to that liberal cry for helping the oppressed? Where are your empathies, your conscience? To challenge this one small detail is akin to saying Zarquawi you are right, take over, kill the infidels. But you know what his answer will be? I'll be visiting you back in America. If you don't think this a possibility then you should cut back on your kool-aid.
I once was a liberal and freed myself just by simply listening closely and paying attention.
It's amazing what you can learn when you can open your mind to think for yourself.
Funny, I didn't vote for President Bush. I never voted Republican. Times have changed.
Posted by: Moor at June 22, 2004 05:22 PM (xvwyL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
PURPOSE
I'm still struggling with my place in this world. (Boy, is that an understatement.) I've been stuck thinking about a quote from page four in
my book for over a week now:
Seen in either geological or biological terms, we don't warrant attention as individuals.
I thought about that concept a lot when I was reading Cosmos too. I don't matter much. In the grand scheme of things, on the universe level, I'm laughable. But even on smaller levels I'm having a hard time figuring out my purpose in life, figuring out how I matter as an individual.
My husband is fighting an insurgency to try to create a stable democracy on the other side of the world. I teach people how to write. The absurdity of those two jobs juxtaposed makes me sick sometimes.
I'm the best military wife I know how to be. I write him a letter every day. Deskmerc said I have to make the country worth defending; I try to do that. I try to stay optimistic and positive, despite the fact that I haven't seen our post flag at anything but half-mast for months now. I can even be Edith Roosevelt if I have to, and I would if it came down to it. But there are many days when I'm simply not satisfied being a just a military wife.
I want to warrant more as an individual.
Posted by: Sarah at
06:24 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.
1
If we were all destined to do great works, great works would be commonplace, and no longer considered great. I wouldn't sell yourself short in teaching people to write. Education is one of the main (if not THE) backbones of our society, without it our society wouldn't be possible.
Posted by: John at June 21, 2004 07:31 AM (crTpS)
2
Great works
are commonplace - if we are working on great things.
Posted by: David Boxenhorn at June 21, 2004 09:18 AM (viCKh)
3
Sarah, I do not know how many people read your blog regularly, but I do. I consider you a fine writer, a fine thinker, and one who clearly goes over every aspect of the issues. That is one thing you are, a writer. The other "thing" you are is a teacher, never discount your influence in all things to those you teach. And the most important thing you are doing now is being Sarah. There is only one of you in this world, you are the most important person in the world to your husband, one of the most important to your mother, and to the rest of your family. For the rest of your life, in whatever role you are in, the most important thing you will do is be SARAH. An old Shakspeare quote, "to thine ownself be true" (however he actually said it) doesn't mean answer only to yourself, it means if you are not being you, you are not are not being true to yourself or anyone else. It's true we are not all destined for greatness in a whole world way, but we are all destined for greatness to our spouses, our children, our families and all those we serve in what we do whether it be blogging, teaching, cooking, knitting, or just standing by. I've told you before you are one of my heroes, don't discount that either!
Posted by: Ruth H at June 21, 2004 01:49 PM (g/OJa)
4
Sarah...you have much more to offer those around you than you will ever know. I know that because I'm one of those around you...and I remembered how to spell 'grok'. I've been reading your blog, and I don't think it's boring at all. I was a blog virgin until that fateful night at dinner. Thanks to you and Oda Mae, my world is a little bigger and more enlightened...and to ME, that is a great work.
Posted by: Petal at June 21, 2004 03:53 PM (KTBrf)
5
Teaching people to write
is a great thing. Being a teacher
in general is noble, in my opinion. When it comes to living, however, everyone desires a change every now and again. I'm of the mindset that one makes one's own purpose in life. From this standpoint, it's perfectly natural to feel the desire to try different things, and to go ahead and make those life changes. I'd dare to say that there are so many noble and constructive things to do in this world that one individual couldn't do many of them even given a thousand years.
Posted by: cjstevens at June 22, 2004 12:39 AM (fDuiT)
6
It is that desire to warrant more as an individual that makes you so great. Always striving to make a difference, to make things better.
Without you there would be less. Less knowledge, less laughter, less thoughts.
Posted by: Tammi at June 22, 2004 10:17 AM (B6upY)
7
One of the Founding Fathers wrote (and this is an approximate quoted from memory):
"I must study politics and war so that *my* sons may study commerce and industry, so that *their* sons may study literature and art."
Posted by: David Foster at June 22, 2004 05:30 PM (XUtCY)
8
If you believe that your husband is doing something beneficial to this world, and you know that he loves you and you love him, then you also know that he would not be complete and would not be able to do his job without your love and support. This is not to say that you are only important because of the support you provide to him because you are much more than that, hopefully we all are. Everyday you impact peoples lives in small ways that you may not even realize, and they may not either right away, but dont forget that our grand and wonderful flag is made out of many small individual threads, and without every one the flag would not be complete or as beautiful. This question is one of the big ones that every human being must one day contemplate and I certainly dont want to take up all your comments space philosophizing, just know that you are wonderful and important whether you can see it right now or not.
Posted by: mt in big D at June 23, 2004 01:46 AM (Kd0Zb)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
POLLS
The LA Times poll: splashed across the front pages
The Harris poll from last week: nonexistant
(I still don't think the results matter, but I do think it matters that the papers ignore the one where Bush is shown winning.)
Posted by: Sarah at
04:45 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.
1
There's a reason why people aren't touching that poll with a 10-foot-pole: the margin of error is 13 points. That means there's a 95 percent chance the real number could be anything from 61-29 Bush to 55-35 Kerry, right?
A poll with that much error is practically meaningless--which is exactly why the media is ignoring it.
Posted by: Can't win at June 21, 2004 11:33 AM (aQOKC)
2
A 13 point margin of error, why bother publishing a poll with that error prone? No pollster worth their salt would submit that poll for publication, unless you have an ulterior motive
Posted by: Anon A Moose at June 21, 2004 11:24 PM (4pVZJ)
3
Anon A Moose:
They'd bother to publish such a poll because they can still sway opinions with it, regardless of accuracy. Consider this response to the poll:
(I still don't think the results matter, but I do think it matters that the papers ignore the one where Bush is shown winning.)
Posted by: cjstevens at June 22, 2004 12:43 AM (fDuiT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
WORRY
Lileks echoed my current worry!
Sometimes the disconnect between the editorial page and the real world is so vast I wonder whether we can ever agree about anything any more.
Read the whole Bleat. He writes better than I do.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:16 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.
June 20, 2004
PREJUDICE
I am prejudiced.
Actually, I don't really think that's the right word, since the definition of prejudiced includes the phrases "formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge" and "an irrational attitude", neither of which do I think qualify in this instance. But there's no other word for having a negative opinion of an entire group of people based on two years of research.
So we're gonna go with prejudiced.
I don't know that many Muslims one-on-one. I am friends with one Muslim family from Iran who begs my husband to invade their country every time they see him. I know of a few Muslims in the Army, including one who is wonderful and one who scares the crap out of me. On an individual level, I'm sure I could like many Muslims. But on a larger scale, I have no love for Islam.
I personally don't care what someone believes in private, and I think everyone has a right to believe or not believe whatever he chooses. There is however a major difference in the way each religion presents itself to the world. What are the major current news stories dealing with Christianity? Whether the 10 Commandments should be in a courthouse or whether Christianity should be mentioned in the EU Constitution. What are the major news stories on Islam? Beheadings, suicide bombings, and honor killings. Those two things, to quote Jules, "ain't the same ballpark, ain't the same league, ain't even the same f*ckin' sport."
Den Beste just found a hazily-attributed speech on the Muslim world. One section addresses the fundamental differences in "common ground":
The civilized world believes in democracy, the rule of law, including international law, human rights, free speech and free press, among other liberties. There are naïve old-fashioned habits such as respecting religious sites and symbols, not using ambulances and hospitals for acts of war, avoiding the mutilation of dead bodies and not using children as human shields or human bombs. Never in history, not even in the Nazi period, was there such total disregard of all of the above as we observe now. Every student of political science debates how you prevent an anti-democratic force from winning a democratic election and abolishing democracy. Other aspects of a civilized society must also have limitations. Can a policeman open fire on someone trying to kill him? Can a government listen to phone conversations of terrorists and drug dealers? Does free speech protects you when you shout “fire” in a crowded theater? Should there be death penalty, for deliberate multiple murders? These are the old-fashioned dilemmas. But now we have an entire new set.
Do you raid a mosque, which serves as a terrorist ammunition storage? Do you return fire, if you are attacked from a hospital? Do you storm a church taken over by terrorists who took the priests hostages? Do you search every ambulance after a few suicide murderers use ambulances to reach their targets? Do you strip every woman because one pretended to be pregnant and carried a suicide bomb on her belly? Do you shoot back at someone trying to kill you, standing deliberately behind a group of children? Do you raid terrorist headquarters, hidden in a mental hospital? Do you shoot an arch-murderer who deliberately moves from one location to another, always surrounded by children? All of these happen daily in Iraq and in the Palestinian areas. What do you do? Well, you do not want to face the dilemma. But it cannot be avoided.
These are real dilemmas that we face because of the nature of radical Islam. Charles Johnson gets a lot of crap for Little Green Footballs, but most of what he does is just link to articles about what's really going on in the Middle East. Sure, he has his own opinions on the matter, but he's not fabricating these stories of bus bombings, crazy imams, or auctions of Jewish body parts. Those things are really happening in the world, despite what anyone thinks of Charles' weblog. And I do think that those things are disgusting and antediluvian; I won't apologize for saying so.
No, not all Muslims are terrorists; I have nothing but respect for Zeyad, Ali, Omar, Muhammad, and other Iraqi bloggers. But Muslims as a group have some serious problems, and when these problems cause them to fly planes into buildings and kill my countrymen, then they're walkin' on the fightin' side of me. And I will not apologize for enjoying Allah's t-shirt, especially when others in this world feel no shame at wearing a Burn Israel Burn shirt.
Yes, I have a real problem with Muslims, especially since very few of them are standing up and renouncing the horrible things LGF reports on. When the moderates start taking back their religion from the loonies, I will have more respect for Muslims, but until that day I will remain prejudiced.
(I'm sure that's not what Can't Win wants to hear when he asks, "Do you have deep-rooted hostilities towards Arabs and the Islamic faith?", but it's the truth. And I'm pretty sure a few of my regular readers agree with me.)
Posted by: Sarah at
06:57 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 859 words, total size 5 kb.
1
Huh. Do you think that possibly you prejudice is contributing to the cycle of violence? I mean do you really not see that all those t-shirts foster is *hate*? I haven't really been over to LGF much, but when I did, it wasn't the links that upset me, it was the seething hatred pulsing from the site in the form of comments. Is this really the face of the "good guys"?
Posted by: rfidtag at June 20, 2004 10:52 AM (XxIKf)
2
I saw a professor at Cal-Irvine on TV the other night debating whether graduating seniors could wear Hamas armbands. He said that if Jews had problems with that, they should look at themselves first. I wanted to ask if he felt the same about people wearing a sign at graduation that said "Jesus is Lord." Would he feel Muslims who might be offended should first look at themselves? From his comportment, I doubt it.
The hate came from Islam first. Our response has been dialog for years, to no avail. At some point you have to act.
By the way, might I suggest you read the Quran and hadiths before supporting Islam as a religion of peace.
Posted by: m at June 20, 2004 11:30 AM (+K53a)
3
I do so loathe ALL religion, tis but a crutch for those unable to deal with reality. I have my reasons for this attitude chief amongst them is the fact that my sister died when I was almost 4 years old, she was all of 9 years, one month and 15 days old. The thing I remember most from her death is all of the "kind" people saying shit like : "she is in gods hands now", or the ever popular: "it was her time to go", and my favorite: "God called her home"
Now as an adult all I can say us WTF!? What does god want a nine year old girl for?? Is god a prdophile? I know this last will offend many christians, but hey they weren't too worried about offending my parents when it happened.
Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at June 20, 2004 11:59 AM (4pVZJ)
4
Ok....Regarding your first point, I really have no idea what this has to do with my cdomment. I am more libertarian on the idea of freedom of speech, so I say wear whatever you want. It is none of my business.
Second, I said nothing about how hated who first...I indicated a cycle of violence and hatred. However, I would like to see some citations supporting your theory. You mention dialog for years...I am not certain what dialog your are talking about. Israel? I think this bears some filling out.
............................................What? Now you have completely lost me. Please cite where I have ever said Islam is a religion of peace or are you referring to someone else?
Posted by: rfidtag at June 20, 2004 01:16 PM (mjBu+)
5
You're right, it's not what I wanted to hear--but, sadly, it is what I expected to hear. However, I think prejudiced is the correct word for selective use of evidence.
Unfortunately, what I am hearing from you is a reflection of a common media bias. Actions committed by "Muslims" are used to tar the faith as well; similar actions by Christians and Jews are not.
Remember the spate of anti-abortion murders a few years back? Why wasn't there widespread condemnation from Christian leaders of these actions?
The ethnic cleansing in Bosnia a few years ago--where were the condemnations for the attempted genocide of the Bosnian people?
When hundreds of Muslims were wounded and killed in their mosque by a fanatic Jew, why didn't the media demand that Jewish religious leaders renounce the violence?
It's because, when it comes to other faiths, they assume that a few wacko sectarians don't speak for the religion. Unfortunately, because we don't understand enough about Islam, we take the loonies at their word that they are fighting "for the faith," and forget that 99.9% of the followers of that faith have no such violent tendencies.
These idiots have as much right to be taken seriously as spokesmen of an entire faith as the bombers in Northern Ireland or David Koresh and his "Branch Davidians."
You claim that you want moderate Muslims to "take back the faith." I greatly doubt that it was ever ceded to the loonies--no more than Christianity was ceded to the Crusaders or the Mormons. The main problem is one of coexistence--these groups still exist, and there's honestly no real way to root them out. [Think about all the fringe lunatic Christian groups that are still out there--and don't tell me they don't exist. Tell me how you can root
them out--and perhaps you'll see how unreasonable a demand this is.]
By the way, moderates
have spoken out against these barbaric acts--frequently. Unfortunately, because of the decentralization of the Islamic faith (which, from your "two years of research," I'm sure you must be aware of), there is no position of "international Islamic spokesperson" (like a Vatican spokesperson, etc.) who can speak on behalf of the billion or more Muslims who have no connection to this violence, and would like nothing more than to be left alone to live their lives in peace. So, since nobody speaks for a large enough group, the major national media sources don't show people speaking out against the war, and therefore people assume that moderate Muslims aren't speaking out.
[Also, if we're talking about problems with Christianity--the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church? The schisms over abortion and marriage rights? The right-wing nuts who want to hasten the "End Days?" The problems are there; you just seem more willing to grant dispensations for them.]
The three Abrahamic faiths all strive for peace--but have had their dark chapters as well (just have a critical look at the Bible, the Torah, and the Qur'an--and the history of the Middle Ages--if you doubt this).
One last comment--
"These are real dilemmas that we face because of the nature of radical Islam."
Not true. You are conflating "radical Islam" with nationalist sentiments. Iraq is not aflame because of radical Islam. We are being attacked in Iraq because we are viewed as an occupying army whose principal aim is to plunder the nation's oil reserves.
======
However, in the end, I suppose I'm just writing in vain here. You seem pretty well set in your views, and I doubt one response in a blog is seriously going to change your world view.
You say that you have nothing but respect for "Zeyad, Ali, ... and other Iraqi bloggers," but "you have a real problem with Muslims," because they "kill my countrymen." Christians, Jews, Muslims, you name it--they're killing your countrymen every single day. But, we only bring up faith as a factor when it's Muslims involved. It's an excuse, not rational behavior.
So, I suppose what I'm trying to say with all of this is please use a more critical eye before making pronouncements on an entire religion. The wider brush, the cruder the statement, the shriller the argument, and the greater the tendency towards hostilities.
Posted by: Can't win at June 20, 2004 04:29 PM (gUA7O)
6
"And I will not apologize for enjoying Allah's t-shirt, especially when others in this world feel no shame at wearing a Burn Israel Burn shirt."
One more obvious point--a "Burn Israel Burn" shirt is just as reprehensible as the "Six Days" shirt you mention. No one wearing either shirt has any right to claim a moral high ground.
Posted by: Can't win at June 20, 2004 04:44 PM (gUA7O)
7
I don't remember anyone decrying the Christian faith during the Abu Ghraib scandel, but a similar thing happens on the other side and now it's a problem with Islam itself. Here's an idea: Religion has nothing to do with it. Jesus didn't want people killing in his name and Mohammed didn't either. I mean, after all, they're both prophets in the SAME religion. How different can they be?
Maybe we should put religion aside for awhile and figure out this situation like rational human beings. Okay. Al Queda wants all Americans and their western influence to leave the Middle East. The West can't leave the Middle East due to its economic concerns and its alliance with Israel. Okay, that's the dilemma. Get some smart people in a room together to work on it and come up with some solutions. And every time someone in the room brings up religion, they get kicked out. Maybe then this mess will finally get cleared up.
Posted by: J at June 20, 2004 10:14 PM (5gN2v)
8
Keep on Trucking Sarah. You're not going to impact some people, especially when it becomes obvious that their are either lacking in logic or ignorant, or simply deceitful.
To that I say, Can't Win, I remember the short spate of Abortion Clinic bombings and you are wrong about them not being condemned.
I remember the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia very recently, do you remember that we went to war to stop the masacre of muslims at the hands of christians? Have you notice that very little attention has been paid to that trend reversing or to the genocidal practices by Arabs in the Sudan?
The Catholic sex abuse scandal has been loudly and roundly condemned by Catholics, whereas the same scandal in Islam has been almost entirely ignored.
There is no schism over abortion, there is a schism over a woman's right to choose. I can't think of a single Christian denomination that supports abortion, though some support a woman's right to choose.
" But, we only bring up faith as a factor when it's Muslims involved. It's an excuse, not rational behavior."
Here is where you're either ignorant or tyring to deceive. "We" don't bring up faith as a factor when Muslims are involved, Muslims bring it up as a factor. When was the last time you recall a statement by an Islamist that was entirely secular?
As to your "moderate" muslim voices, by their number and their deviation from the majority of Imams, Ayatollahs, Muftis, etc, I'd say that they are the real extremists in a violent religion where the average/moderate supports killing jews and non-arabs.
Kal
Posted by: Kalroy at June 21, 2004 12:42 AM (VU2TV)
9
J, I think you're just flat out wrong.
This has everything to do with religion and we can't just say that's a "no-no topic" because it might "insult" someone.
This new form of terrorism has everything to do with religion. They've taken a religion and turned it into ideology.
The basis for their terrorism is the fanatical religious goal of creating one large Ummah (Islamic state) headed by a Caliph (like the Pope) and ruled though Sharia (Islamic law).
This is terrorist doctrine. There's no denying that. Check out the works of Ibn Taymiyyah, Mawdudi, Qutb and the latest Jihad Encyclopedias. I have them listed on my blog under "Download central."
It doesn't end with wanting us out of the Middle East. That's not the point. It ends with everyone in the world being subjugated to their form of Islam. That point is often lost on many people.
Posted by: athena at June 21, 2004 12:59 PM (pggOq)
10
You really are clueless, fucktard dumb. It's pointless to try to reason with you.
Posted by: Marei at June 21, 2004 07:53 PM (l/XWd)
11
I enjoyed greatly reading all of everyones comments. I can say it made me deffinetly think different about certain things that I've never really ever thought about before. One of you was speaking of the war that's going on in Iraq. I think it's stupid we're over there in the first place. I mean it was fine at first but after a few years you'd have to agree it's getting rediculous. Also, everyone thinks they're country is a pile of terrorists that hate us but when you look at it, we've gone over to there country and have done some pretty afful things to their people too. Just because they harmed us it doesnt give us the right to go and abuse their people. All we need to do is get the ppl that we need out of there and leave the rest of the ppl alone. What have they done to us? They've done nothing its just not right. Also, religion ,i think, has gotten way out of hand. Everyone is worrying about these terrorists but look around us look how strong religion has come it's taking over many ppl at a time. Some religions tell us not to do certain things. As i recall arent we supposed to be free? People are letting religion take over them and giving in to it imencly. I truly think that religon is not the best thing for our world. Look at what it's making ppl do. It makes ppl hate other ppl because of their beliefs, it's making ppl do suicidal and crazy things, making ppl get crazy ideas in there heads that they would have never thought of if it hadnt been for religion. Personally, I don't like religon one bit.
Posted by: Miranda at May 01, 2005 04:30 PM (g1ILF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 19, 2004
LOVE
10 Things I Love About Others' Weblogs
1. the rotating photos of the universe at U.S.S. Clueless
2. The Dissident Frogman's movies
3. the disclaimer that pops up when you comment over at Bunker Mulligan
4. Kim du Toit's skin pics
5. Allah's t-shirt
6. the picture of the ever-cheerful CPT Patti
7. The Gobbler Motel
8. South Park Pixy
9. Amritas' blogroll
10. The propaganda posters on The Mudville Gazette
Posted by: Sarah at
04:38 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Wow, then I'm liked by proxy (through #9).
Posted by: David at June 19, 2004 05:32 PM (HaakM)
2
You've mentioned before that both your mother and your first-grade teacher read this blog.
I presume that you'd like this to be a respectable forum for discussion of events you find worth mentioning.
How in the world do you expect reasonable discourse to happen when you include links to T-shirts that read "Six days, b****"? Or is this merely an attempt to offend anyone who might disagree with your views into disappearing into the black hole of the internet?
Do you have deep-rooted hostilities towards Arabs and the Islamic faith? Given your recurring predilection toward tarring one-fifth of the world's people with the same "terrorist"-"troublemaker" brush, I wonder how I am supposed to take the rest of your judgments and pronouncements seriously.
I think there is about one thing I agree with the current occupier of the White House about--the war on terror must not be a war on faith--or a war of faith, for that matter. You would seem to want to conflate the two. I'd love to be proven wrong about this--and if so, please feel free to correct me.
Posted by: Can't win at June 19, 2004 05:43 PM (aQOKC)
3
Given that the six days war was Israel defending itself against invaders, I don't see how it should offend the Arabs and those of Islamic faith, as "Can't Win" says, unless he/she is saying that all Arabs and all those of Islamic faith believe it's right to eradicate the Jews. Now *that* would be a truly offensive attitude.
Posted by: chris at June 19, 2004 07:16 PM (pDL6x)
4
"I don't see how it should offend the Arabs and those of Islamic faith, as "Can't Win" says, unless he/she is saying that all Arabs and all those of Islamic faith believe it's right to eradicate the Jews. Now *that* would be a truly offensive attitude."
Two (long) points:
[1] I don't see how you could possibly come up with that interpretation based on what I said.
As for how Arabs can find it offensive, I know people who have fought in or lived through the Six Days' War--on
both. Not one of them looks back on those days fondly. It doesn't matter whether you were an Arab or an Israeli; the only sentiment common to both sides that I've heard was relief that the war was over, and that casualties weren't worse than they were. [Unfortunately, because of propaganda spread on both sides, I don't know many people of that generation on either side who can comfortably deal with the other. The resulting enmity has been passed down to the succeeding generations, which has been the greatest crime of all.]
Now, there are appropriate ways and inappropriate ways of commemorating wars. Note the (relative) decorum shown on Memorial Day and Veterans' Day in the U.S. We remember the sacrifices made--we neither glorify the war, nor make light of our opponents.
This T-shirt does both. And, given the unlikelihood that whoever designed it actually served in the war, this individual is trying to turn a major conflict into a punchline, and a rude one at that. Such behavior is reprehensible; promoting such behavior through a website--and this is what our host has done here--is similarly irresponsible.
If you feel comfortable that you could wear that shirt in front of a roomful of veterans and survivors of that war, great. But I think you'd probably rile most of the room--which is why this is so offensive.
[2] The reason that I asked about any sentiment against Arabs and/or Muslims is the cumulative weight of statements such as "It's no lie that everywhere in the world that there's conflict, Muslims are somehow involved," and her support for sentiments like this.
Posted by: Can't win at June 19, 2004 10:24 PM (aQOKC)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
GOTCHA
I did some major catching up with Iraq Now this morning. Jason has a good post on journalists and the
gotcha question. I agree with him; the majority of questions that reporters ask in news conferences do nothing to educate the general public. He also links to
Iraqis who were decorated for saving a Marine, more bunk from the media who misreport the
IRR and
simple military rank, and a journalist who doesn't believe newsrooms lean left and says he'll be "
calling Peoria". I hope he does, and I hope my mom answers and gives him an earful!
Posted by: Sarah at
08:05 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.
149kb generated in CPU 0.0284, elapsed 0.1076 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.0879 seconds, 323 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
