June 29, 2007
1,2,3 WHAT ARE WE FIGHTING FOR?
In keeping with yesterday's theme, what do Rosie O'Donnell and jihadists have in common? They both dress their kids up like insurgents.
Quiz: Which one is Rosie's kid and which one is the Palestinian?
Would you be able to tell if the skin tones were the same?
The Palestinians mean it when they dress their kids up like this. I have no idea what Rosie was thinking. Supposedly she's anti-war, but the fact she dressed her kid up with bullets suggests that maybe there is something she'd be willing to let her kids fight for. Obviously it's not the United States, though.
(found via One-Sided Exposition)
Posted by: Sarah at
03:34 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Several years ago, I saw a picture of some Spanish female protestors wearing almost no clothes except for (presumably) fake suicide belts and carrying signs that said "No War!" And I was reminded of Leonard Cohen's lines:
**
I know that you have suffered, lad
But suffer this awhile:
Whatever makes a soldier sad
Will make a killer smile
**
I don't know precisely what Cohen had in mind when he wrote these lines, which are not recent. But there are a large number of people who object to the rational and measured use of force by legitimate states ("soldiers") while approving or at least justifying the use of violence by terrorists ("killers").
Posted by: david foster at June 29, 2007 04:29 AM (gguM0)
2
I swear everytime I see the picture of Rosi's kid, I keep thinking its a live version of one of the puppets from the TEAM AMERICA movie!
Posted by: TIM C at June 29, 2007 05:16 AM (SAiJg)
3
This is from a woman who is supposedly anti-gun. I recall a few years ago she went off on her show on Tom Selleck about guns and the NRA which he was, I believe, an honoree Pres. at the time.
~
Tim C.,
Yes, yes! LOL
Posted by: tim at June 29, 2007 07:40 AM (nno0f)
4
Her bodyguards carry guns too...
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15370
I'm anti-gun, except when it comes to protecting ME!!!!
Posted by: Sarah at June 29, 2007 08:58 AM (vrR+j)
5
If I were her kid, I'd be a little worried... "mommy wants me to blow myself up to show the world we're anti-war"... Heh.
Posted by: Teresa at June 29, 2007 02:10 PM (gsbs5)
6
Isn't that an ACU digital pattern she's wearing?
Not a big deal to me. My mom is anti-war but she didn't stop me from playing war with toy guns, sticks brandished as bows, clubs and swords, toy soldiers, drawing battles, etc..
Posted by: Eric Chen at June 30, 2007 08:25 PM (pvOSb)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 28, 2007
THE BEATLES
What do
Lileks,
Annika, and I have in common? We don't really get The Beatles.
I discovered The White Album when I was 12, and then heard everything else. That's doing it quite backwards, to say the very least. And I was a fan back then, from age 12 to about 15, buying cassette tapes and hanging out in freaking head shops downtown looking for memorabilia. But somehow a weird resurgence of Beatlemania hit my high school in 1995 and the Fab Four completely jumped the shark when the annoyingly popular girls from my school were camping out on the sidewalk outside Best Buy all night to buy the Anthology album. And got interviewed for the newspaper for it. I kinda dusted my hands off and thought, "Well, OK, that was fun while it lasted." I stopped listening to the most popular band of all time because they got popular. Heh.
But now, even though I'm old enough to not pick my music based on what's cool, I still can't listen to The Beatles anymore. I just don't feel the music. When I was 13, songs like "Mean Mr. Mustard" were cool because they were weird for the sake of being weird. Now they just feel weird.
I still very much enjoy the song "I Will." That's about it. I've come to think Quentin is right: I'm an Elvis fan, and you can't be both.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:06 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 1 kb.
1
i just admitted to a friend that i really don't care for either the beatles OR elvis. there are a few individual songs i like, but that's about it.
and no, i'm not a knitter, unfortunately. i have knitted in the past, but i really don't have time for it now. i enjoy it and will probably take it up again at some point. seems like it would be really fun to knit in a group, but i'm, at best, an amateur.
so... yeah. i guess i do just hang out in yarn shops for fun...
Posted by: Sis B at June 28, 2007 03:29 AM (6qNPu)
2
I hear ya' but if you said Led Zep, oh it would be game on.
Please don't post dates of your high school years, it make some of feel old.
Posted by: tim at June 28, 2007 03:43 AM (nno0f)
Posted by: Sabbrielle at June 28, 2007 05:58 PM (nMpWu)
4
The Ramones gets you props but "proud" of listening to America and Moody Blues? I think you can be "happy" choosing them over MC Hammer but "proud" I can't quite grok.
Posted by: laurence haughton at June 29, 2007 12:02 PM (6ICu7)
5
I grew up listening to the Beach Boys because my dad was a hardcore fan. It's funny because I still like to pop in the "Best of Summer" every now and then I genuinely enjoy the music. I have to have upbeat music...The Beatles are legendary but a little depressing for me.
Posted by: Nicole at June 30, 2007 05:12 PM (vYQMs)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 27, 2007
HOORAY
Today I joined a group.
I went into a craft store to look for something for my mom, and naturally I cannot go in a craft store without sneaking into the yarn section. There I found a table with five older ladies knitting and crocheting. I immediately joined their club.
They call themselves the Fairy Godmothers, and they meet twice a month to knit and crochet little caps and sweaters for the preemies in the local hospital. I got patterns from them to get started on, and I can't wait until the next meeting.
I made five friends today. They're all my mother's age, but who's counting?
Posted by: Sarah at
08:08 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I make a lot of friends who are older than I am. I think it is because I'm old inside.
I plan to put a portrait in my attic to suck up all the "old" on my outside, however.
Posted by: airforcewife at June 27, 2007 08:19 AM (0dU3f)
2
Hey Sarah
I'm not much for knitting, but I'm all about making friends...and I think it's pretty cool how you bonded with these women...age is pretty much just a number.
On an unrelated note, I remember at the conference you mentioned how much you like USAA. Apparently, you arenÂ’t the only one. Because of people like you, Forrester Research just ranked USAA #1 in customer advocacy. Here's a link to the story, in case you are interested. http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070625005774&newsLang=en
Thanks so much for being a member, and making your company #1.
Best
Mike Nachshen
Posted by: Mike Nachshen at June 27, 2007 11:38 AM (EXOhI)
3
All of my friends, except for my sisters, of course, are younger than me, by at least 15 years. But we share an interest, plants and gardening. And that means my friends are probably your mother's age too.;D At some time in life age doesn't matter anymore just common interests and sometimes common values. Or not, a couple of my friends are raving liberals, I'm conservative, but that is something we choose to discuss beyond agreeing to disagree.
Posted by: Ruth H at June 27, 2007 01:50 PM (qK1Mu)
4
OOPS!! should have previewed that, WE CHOOSE NOT TO DISCUSS POLITICS.
Posted by: Ruth H at June 27, 2007 01:52 PM (qK1Mu)
Posted by: ERin at June 27, 2007 07:01 PM (XRza7)
6
If you're ever up in Raleigh, there's the Coolest. Yarn Store. Ever.
Ok, it's at least the coolest one I've ever seen. It's one where, if you're having trouble with a pattern, you can walk in and they'll sit down with you and help you figure it out. It's pretty far from you, but definitely worth stopping if you're ever up in the area. It's in the Whole Foods shopping center on Wade Ave. Some of their stuff is expensive but just walking in is just so dang exciting with the smell of yarn and all the potential...
There are young knitters all over the area, I'm just not sure how to find them. I like the older ladies anyway, though. I'm so glad you found a group!
Posted by: Sis B at June 27, 2007 07:36 PM (6qNPu)
7
I usually get along with older people better than people my own age. I just joined the Red Hat Society myself, and I'm the youngest there by far.
Posted by: Green at July 02, 2007 11:22 AM (VqW06)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
ONE-SIDED BRIDGE BUILDING
Here's a
fascinating blog post about a church that invited someone from the local mosque to speak to the congregation.
The stated purpose of the visit, from my church’s perspective, was printed in the newsletter: “In an increasingly fragmented world in which followers of other religions are often viewed with fear – how wonderful it would be to build bridges.” But when we’re told flatly, “Touch Mohammed and there will be riots,” it’s obvious that it’s less about bridge building and more about schooling us as to how we are and are not to behave to avoid what Muslims who think like our speaker believe are the reasonable consequences of offending Islam–or even the more “aberrant” consequences. Ironically, this pattern reminds me of radical feminists, whose aim is to curtail the behavior and speech of people, particularly men, whom they deem offensive. In both cases, this reveals an absolutely infantile grasp of human relations that insists you tightly align your behavior with their proscriptions because they simply cannot handle, or respond appropriately to, what you might say or do. Our speaker, in answering my questions about the Mohammed cartoons, asked vehemently and self-pityingly why we could not leave Mohammed alone, why Islam cannot have even one thing that is sacred from the opinions of others (my words). I remember pathetically wondering this myself when my sister wanted to play with my toys–when I was about eight. But this begs for control of the behavior of others rather than planning for measured responses of one’s own.
Read the whole thing.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:41 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 265 words, total size 2 kb.
1
The implications of the principle of Al-Takeyya:
Unfortunately, when dealing with Muslims, one must keep in mind that Muslims can communicate something with apparent sincerity, when in reality they may have just the opposite agenda in their hearts. Bluntly stated, Islam permits Muslims to lie anytime that they perceive that their own well-being, or that of Islam, is threatened.
Posted by: tim at June 27, 2007 10:38 AM (nno0f)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 25, 2007
NOT HAPPY
So far I have been a fan of the
Army Wives TV show. I think they do a decent job of portraying what our lives are like. But last night's episode didn't sit well with me at all.
In a nutshell, there was a situation where a sergeant took the lieutenant colonel's husband hostage because he was mad about events that happened in Afghanistan. It wasn't the hostage situation that I thought was bad; it was the events in Afghanistan.
According to this story, a "patrol" (no idea how many soldiers) was ambushed and was heavily outnumbered. This guy, the hostage taker, was wounded by shrapnel, so they left him in the Afghan village to be taken care of by the locals and went back to the FOB for reenforcements. But "because of the heat", they couldn't get back to rescue him for days, so the Afghan family took care of him. Once he was rescued, he vowed to come back and help the family. So this sergeant, his lieutenant colonel, and three other soldiers went back to the village to take medical supplies and food, only to find that 12 "heavily-armed" insurgents were burning down the house and raping the 10-year-old daughter in the middle of the street. Because they were outnumbered 12 to 5, and because "the Rules of Engagement are clear: do not interfere with civilian affairs", the lieutenant colonel told them to maintain their positions and stay hidden while they watched a child get raped and murdered.
OK, where to begin. I know I am not a soldier, and I know neither I nor my husband can possibly know all of the strange circumstances that arise in battle. But I cannot imagine any situation of any kind where a unit would leave a wounded soldier behind in an Afghan household. Period. And not for days on end because of the heat! It also seems ridiculous that a lieutenant colonel would roll around Kandahar with a four-man team. My husband's LTC had an entire platoon of entourage at all times, at least 20 men. It seems a bit of a stretch to me that anyone besides Special Forces types are going anywhere in our war zones with only five people! I just don't think that's realistic. So they would've never been outnumbered if they'd taken a proper number of soldiers on this mission.
Finally, the Rules of Engagement thing is not exactly the way my husband describes it. He quoted me a common rule of thumb: a unit might be authorized to use deadly force in circumstances where there is loss of "life, limb, or eyesight." He thinks the rape of a 10 year old in broad daylight would be grounds for a fight, especially if this child belongs to a family who is a known supporter of the American military operation. Again we go back to them being outnumbered 12 to 5, which I don't see ever happening, but my husband did say that in times when you might be extremely outnumbered, there might be cause to not intervene. But this whole "do not interfere with civilian affairs" thing was junk to him because, as he quipped, all al Qaeda types are civilians, so not intervening in civilian matters would apply to everything!
Yeah, yeah, Sarah, all this is just details. But this is the stuff that matters, in my opinion. Most of the people who don't like Army Wives are saying they don't like it because officers don't hang out with enlisted, because you wouldn't get a citation for not mowing on your first day in housing, because a female officer wouldn't be dancing drunk in a jody bar. They think all that stuff gives us a bad impression to civilian viewers.
What about the civilian viewers who now think that American soldiers will sit back and watch a 10 year old get raped and murdered? That our Rules of Engagement won't let us step in and prevent insurgents from killing an innocent family and burning their home? That we are married to men who sit by and do nothing while vile insurgents ruin people's lives? That's a far more dangerous picture to paint for civilians than whether we have all-rank tea parties.
Posted by: Sarah at
08:53 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 712 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Don't worry, you weren't the only one who got irked on this. But I was NOT happy with the hostage situation, either. How many of those have you seen? Me neither. But they show it like it's some event that is within the normal scope of events.
Not to mention my hubby having conniptions about the Delta Force sniper shooting the soldier, even though he has no law enforcement authority.
Finally, I read an interview Catherine Bell gave to Star Magazine (yes, I know, it was Star) and she just does. not. get. it. That bothers me very much. Perhaps they'll get enough screams over this episode that they'll hone the future ones much better.
Posted by: airforcewife at June 25, 2007 09:29 AM (0dU3f)
2
Don't they have anyone working for the show that was (or is) actually affiliated with the Army? If they don't, they need to. Luckily, I haven't watched the show, but I think it would tick me off.
Posted by: Erin at June 26, 2007 05:13 AM (XRza7)
3
Since they are almost done or done with filming, my guess is that we will see this sort of thing AGAIN.
I was a little upset, they keep villianizing people with PTSD, this is certainly not going to help in the battle for awareness and money to fix the problem.
Posted by: armywifetoddlermom at June 26, 2007 07:15 AM (PpMPm)
4
I don't think they "get" PTSD, period. The LTC seems to have more issues with reintegration than with PTSD, but they keep calling it PTSD. The semantics of disorder names may not seem like a big deal to some people, but it is a HUGE deal for me. Like telling someone with chicken pox they have the measles.
Yeah, yeah - spots and bumps. But they are NOT the same thing - even if they often go together.
Posted by: airforcewife at June 26, 2007 09:56 AM (0dU3f)
5
That entire episode just irked the ^^#%&%$ out of me. I cannot understand why they didn't think the drama of the chopper down was enough drama for one episode! and can anyone tell me why they didn't show the rest of the spouses (there WERE more people on that chopper weren't there?)gathering around?
the PTSD crap is making me nuts. and I'm just worried that the civilians are getting the wrong idea about veterans and the families as well. We don't need to have this kind of dis information out there.
LAW
Posted by: LAW at June 26, 2007 03:50 PM (2nDll)
6
These shows rarely get it right. "The Unit" is no better. Each week is the same theme. The unit guys doing cool stuff (but never getting close to the actual war) while Big Army each week is trying to hose the average soldier. Bring back JAG. At least they got the uniforms right.
Posted by: MAJHAM at June 28, 2007 08:29 AM (Scezw)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
USEFUL IDIOT
Dear Cameron Diaz,
The next time you're in a country to "participate in a television show that celebrates Peru's culture," make sure you learn a little about the culture before you show up. Like learning that your Chairman Mao purse might tick the locals off, you know, since the Shining Path spent a decade killing Peruvians. And when you apologize with "The bag was a purchase I made as a tourist in China and I did not realize the potentially hurtful nature of the slogan printed on it," you reveal just what a dumbass you are. If you can't understand the hurtful nature of Mao Zedong, you really need to get a clue.
Sincerely,
Sarah
Posted by: Sarah at
08:46 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Gee do you know written Chinese, I know damned well I don't and I also know if told the characters were say an expression of good luck, I would tend to take the seller of the goods @ face value, but then again you are so frigging superior to the rest of us.
Posted by: BubbaBoBobBrain at June 25, 2007 07:22 PM (BR9zA)
2
I don't imagine Cameron Diaz was walking around China alone, without some sort of interpreter, but let's assume for a moment she was. Let's assume she saw the pretty red star and just thought the bag was cute. If that's the case, her statement to the media should've been "I had no idea when I bought this bag that it was related to Mao Zedong. I am horrified that I made such a mistake and will be throwing the bag away." That's the only acceptable response when you find out you accidentally bought a bag that honors a guy whose policies cost millions of lives. Instead her message was this: "Sorry I offended you, Peru. I'll put the bag away until I get back to L.A., where it's considered cool." That's heinous.
Yes, I am indeed superior to a person who knowingly owns a Mao Zedong bag.
Posted by: Sarah at June 26, 2007 02:32 AM (vrR+j)
3
She is an idiot on all fronts. Let us not forget her frequent reminders to be conservative with energy, only to be driven in limos, and flown all over the place for premiers in jets.
I am glad I do not live in LA, if that is considered cool.
Let us all remember that her stylist probably dressed her. My guess is the stylist has been fired.
Because brilliant film actresses who are best known for having used bodily substance as her gel, cannot be bothered to dress themselves.
Posted by: armywifetoddlermom at June 26, 2007 09:58 AM (PpMPm)
4
maybe next time she visits Israel, she will sport a nazi emblazoned bag?
Posted by: armywifetoddlermom at June 26, 2007 10:11 AM (PpMPm)
5
Sometimes I wish I had armywifetoddlermom's gift of sharp retort.
She totally nailed that one.
Posted by: airforcewife at June 27, 2007 11:27 AM (0dU3f)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
WORKER BEES
When I have a knitting class scheduled, I have to call in to the store in the morning to find out if anyone has signed up. I am always amazed at how put-out the cashiers seem when I call. I am always cheerful and it only takes them a second to look it up. But I always get gruff, one-word grunts from these sullen people. Is there anyone in my class today? "Hang on. Nope. Click." Do they not know how rude they sound?
I work for Michaels. I make about $50 per month, which is so low it makes me laugh. I can spend that in supplies for the class. But I love teaching people to knit, and Michaels gives me that opportunity. So I do everything I can to make people happy in the store. I take people's email and phone numbers and go home to find information for them. I type up patterns for them. Currently I am helping an elderly lady change her lace pattern to a larger size. Not easy. And she already knows how to knit, so I get nothing out of it. I don't get paid to do it, and she'll never take a class from me. But I want her to have a good experience in the store. That's part of my job, right? They didn't hire me to be stingy and grumpy.
I taught my mother-in-law to knit when she visited, but she was having trouble with a stitch once she got back home. We were unable to figure out the problem over the phone, so she decided to drive up to her local Hobby Lobby to ask for a little help. She brought her needles and yarn and just wanted someone to watch her to see what she was doing wrong. They refused to help, saying it was against store policy to spend time helping customers on individual projects. Have you ever heard anything so ridiculous? My mother-in-law put the yarn back on the shelf that she was intending to buy and left. They could've taken ten seconds to help her purl and then would've made $15 in sales. Instead they got nothing.
I don't understand most workers. Yeah, it may just be your crappy minimum wage job to answer the phone, but your grunts and gripes aren't even worth eight dollars. Take some stinkin' pride in what you do instead of doing the bare minimum, and think about something larger than yourself for five minutes. You represent a company, and they don't owe you a paycheck for mediocrity.
Posted by: Sarah at
04:32 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 433 words, total size 2 kb.
1
When there is a pattern of obnoxiousness in a business, the fault usually lies largely with management. It is management's responsibility to hire the right people, set the right climate, and get rid of those who don't measure up.
There are many employees who will do their best whatever the circumstances, and others who will do a lousy job in pretty much any situation. But there are also a large number whose behavior and attitudes are strongly influenced by the leadership--or lack of same--that they get.
I believe it was Hal Rosenbluth (founder & CEO of Rosenbluth Travel) who observed that the attitudes displayed by employees to customers often reflect the way that they themselves are treated by management.
Specifically in retail, there are far too many store managers who busy themselves with paperwork and don't spend enought time out on the floor helping and observing. There seem to be real industry patterns in this. Grocery stores, for example, seem to generally have hands-on management and pretty good customer service. Chain book stores are generally pretty bad, as are drug stores.
Posted by: david foster at June 25, 2007 06:40 AM (gguM0)
2
Bad management or not, it is self-destructive to carry & display a bad attitude in even the most menial of jobs. For instance, a young woman takes a generic counter job at a generic fast food joint. She does that job cheerfully and efficiently for about two weeks, and then she's not there anymore. Fired? No; a customer was a manager who happened to have a substantially nicer job opening at his establishment, and was favorably impressed and .... well, she was gone.
Every day in a customer service job is potentially a job interview for a better job. Not to mention, your whole day goes better if you at least pretend to be enjoying it - your 'act' bounces off your customers back onto you, and isn't an act anymore, and it WILL infect you.
Posted by: Glenmore at June 25, 2007 08:40 AM (TYZsn)
3
Glenmore...I completely agree with you about the indidual responsibility of the employee. But where there are whole packs of people with bad attitudes at a place, something is wrong at a higher level.
One factor that I think is involved in attitude problems is the insane focus on "self-esteem" on the part of schools and many parents. The constant inculcation of the message "you are wonderful" seems to often lead to the conclusion "nobody else matters." Another (related) problem is the emphasis on credentials and "skills" to the exclusion of metaskills and attitudes. The case you mention is an excellent example of the importance of attitude.
Posted by: david foster at June 25, 2007 09:02 AM (gguM0)
4
David, I couldn't have said it better.
Unfortunately, my manager is a douche. In a recent promotion of mine, I was lifting heavy items with some of the people in my department, and my manager pulled me aside. He said, "Forget all this 'lead by example' crap. Why should the home run hitter be doing the bat boy's job?"
He went on to tell me that I should be standing around making project lists for others - not actually participating in the projects myself.
Anyway, long story short: bad employees are ultimately the result of a bad manager. My guess, Sarah, is that Michaels doesn't have very strong managers.
Posted by: Erin at June 26, 2007 05:07 AM (XRza7)
Posted by: david foster at June 26, 2007 05:55 AM (gguM0)
6
Thank you, David. Loved it.
Posted by: Erin at June 26, 2007 12:31 PM (XRza7)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
THEY HATE US
At the risk of repeating myself for a third day and using again the phrase Aristotelian gods, here is a
prime example of lefties looking down their noses at us country bumpkin Republicans and saying that they know so much better than we do what's good for us:
Even with the low poll numbers, liberals still feel stymied in conveying just how bad this administration is. It's been the ultimate frustration to consider the people who don't see Bush's malevolence: In 2004, rural America cited national security as their number one reason for voting for Bush. But people in the major cities, where there's actually a chance of being victimized by terrorism, people voted against Bush. Frustrating. In the cities, where most people are utterly at two with nature, people cited Bush's raping of the environment as a major reason to vote against him. In rural America, where people fish and hunt and generally do things outside, they voted for Bush. Sooooo frustrating. On Sutton Place and in Harvard-Westlake, where kids go to college after high school, they vote against Bush. In rural America, from where the majority of tragically killed kids in Iraq soldiers come, they vote for Bush.
And if that's not enough, let's throw a big heaping tablespoon of malice in with the condescention. Malice and condescention pie, yummy.
You could argue that even the world's worst fascist dictators at least meant well. They honestly thought were doing good things for their countries by suppressing blacks/eliminating Jews/eradicating free enterprise/repressing individual thought/killing off rivals/invading neighbors, etc. Only the Saudi royal family is driven by the same motives as Bush, but they were already entrenched. Bush set a new precedent. He came into office with the attitude of "I'm so tired of the public good. What about my good? What about my rich friends' good?"
This is how they see conservative values, folks. We're worse than fascist dictators. We really don't believe in things like supply-side economics; we just make policy like that up because we want to screw as many people as we can. We want to help rich white guys and blow up the levees around black guys. Bwahahaha.
The comments section would be funny if I didn't know it was true. They really think we don't care about the troops, hate Mexicans, look to our "pastors" for voting advice, seek to destroy the Constitution, and that AM radio is the same thing as Hitler's Beer Halls.
I really don't understand how human beings' brains can be hardwired so differently.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:56 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 429 words, total size 3 kb.
1
It's almost funny, isn't it?
But honestly, it's on both sides. You got folks on the right openly calling people who are pro-choice baby killers and "godless." Those who don't have an issue with legal civil unions are against the sanctity of marriage. And don't forget that those who are unsure whether the mission in Iraq is worth it are unpatriotic or against the Troops!
Going to extremes is just one way of appealing to the lowest common denominator, a way of trying to polarize issues even more than they already are. And the tactic is as old as time.
But still, it's really sad, isn't it? You'd hope that we could, as Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals, whatever, talk about things on a higher level.
Posted by: Non-Essential Equipment at June 25, 2007 07:47 AM (GkEyJ)
2
At first I thought the Mehlman article was written in an ironic tone. Unbelievable...
Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at June 25, 2007 07:57 AM (deur4)
3
Tell you what Sarah, it isn't that I think I am smarter than you, just more experienced, you did not live through Watergate, so you are really sort of blind to the criminal cabal our government has become. Someday you might see it the way those of us older than you do, or maybe not, either way you need to lose the innocence and develope some cynicism, towards ALL GOVERNMENT, not just the parts you disagree with.
Posted by: BubbaBoBobBrain at June 25, 2007 07:19 PM (BR9zA)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 24, 2007
THE VILLAGE
If you haven't seen the movie
The Village and you still plan to see it, don't read this post.
I don't do scary movies. I hate them. But when I saw the preview for The Village years ago, I always wanted to be brave enough to watch it. I finally did yesterday, and I'm really glad I did. It wasn't really that scary...at least not in the way a horror movie is supposed to be. On the contrary, the ending reveals something far scarier than monsters.
The Shyamalan ending isn't nearly as gut-socking as the revelation of opening the Box of Secrets: Utopias only work at gunpoint. A select few act as "Aristotelian gods" (what a delightful new phrase I've learned) and decide how the masses should live, but the only way they can enforce their society is through manipulation and fear. And though they think their society more moral and just than the outside world, it is a society based on lies. These things play out in the real world; I just didn't expect such a lovely allegory in this movie.
And naturally I found the exact opposite of the River Kwai experience when I looked up reviews of the movie: people hated it. Obviously I don't have the same opinion on what makes a compelling story as the majority of movie reviewers! But I personally think if they hated it, they missed the forest for the trees.
Or maybe, if I may be so snarky, they're the type of people who really think we could live in peace and harmony if we halted all progress, with some college professor to lead the way.
Posted by: Sarah at
04:57 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I didn't like The Village (although I really did love Shyamalan's earlier stuff), but it was because I saw the ending a mile off.
That, however, might be due to the fact that I live in Jersey Devil territory, in the New Jersey Pinelands. So, there was something a wee bit familiar in the monsters.
Posted by: airforcewife at June 24, 2007 07:24 AM (0dU3f)
2
I liked The Villiage, but DH and I had figured it out....in like the first 15 minutes...
which I am unsure, if we were supposed to or not.
I will say, I could have stood the suspense for a while longer.
Although I must say this sort of fits in with the child rearing post you worte the other day.
Posted by: armywifetoddlermom at June 24, 2007 11:08 AM (PpMPm)
3
Heh, maybe I'm just dumb, but I still felt a mild "aw nuts" when the guy drives up in the car. I guess I didn't see the ending coming exactly like that. But I'm normally the type who lets a movie wash over me...while my husband sits there guessing out loud what will happen in the end the entire time. I don't normally try to guess at movies.
I suppose maybe the utopia lesson wouldn't have worked so well if I knew all along that they were being kept there by trickery. But I thought it was an amazing admission for Hollywood: planned societies don't work!
Posted by: Sarah at June 24, 2007 11:16 AM (vrR+j)
4
Have you seen Unbreakable? It is not the story you think. Check it out!
Posted by: 2Hotel9 at July 03, 2007 02:03 PM (98a/W)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 23, 2007
ECONOMICS
My husband came home from work with a small book called
A Student's Guide to Economics. He breezed through it, since he's taken more econ classes than one human should take, and handed it to me. It's a little 50-pager about the evolution of economic trends from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman. I thought it was fascinating and quite accessible, so I thought I'd mention it here in case someone else is interested in an afternoon of light economics reading!
My favorite passages came from the section "Ignorance and Self-Interest," in which Heyne writes about people who propose policy as if they were "Aristotelian gods":
They grossly underestimate the amount of detailed knowledge that has to be used to provide food and housing for the inhabitants of a city; to assure enough but not too many physicians, plumbers, poets, and airline pilots; to make electricity and telephone service available to everyone; to maintain processes of discovery that will provide new and valuable answers to old problems of discomfort, disease, and disaster.
The dramatic failure of socialism that could no longer be denied at the end of the twentieth century was not, as many seem to believe, a consequence of the fact that people are selfish and put their own interests ahead of the interests of society. It was a consequence of the fact that no one is omniscient. We put our own interests ahead of the interests of most of those with whom we interact because we know what our own interests are, but do not even know the identities of most of the people with whom we cooperate every day.
...
The basic principles of economics will not be readily understood or appreciated by people who believe that economic theory explains the operation of an essentially immoral society, one governed by selfishness or dominated by the desire of "material welfare" rather than "human welfare." ... People who talk this way literally do not know what they are talking about.
Mmmmm. And there's more deliciousness where that came from.
Posted by: Sarah at
04:57 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.
1
that sounds fascinating! thanks for sharing.
Posted by: Butterfly Wife at June 24, 2007 08:06 AM (Ol1EE)
2
An interesting example of "omniscience" thinking in Amity Schlaes' new book, "The Forgotten Man," which is about the Great Depression. She quotes Stuart Chase, an American intellectual who visited the Soviet Union in 1927:
"Sixteen men in Moscow today are attempting one of the most audacious economic experiments in history...they are laying down the industrial future of 146 million people and of one-sixth of the land area of the world for fifteen years....These sixteen men salt down the whole economic life of 146 million people for a year in advance a calmly as a Glouscester man salts down his fish."
Chase clearly thought that this was an excellent way to do things.
Posted by: david foster at June 25, 2007 07:06 AM (gguM0)
3
Good site. Thank you!!!
Posted by: british dragon steroid at July 12, 2007 10:32 AM (Wc3gy)
Posted by: buy anabolic steroid at July 12, 2007 12:47 PM (eaDeC)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
HMMMM
Found a very
old Grim's Hall post I missed the first time around:
"The secret of social harmony is simple: Old men must be dangerous."
Posted by: Sarah at
03:53 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.
June 22, 2007
BRIDGE ON THE RIVER WHY
Tonight we watched
The Bridge on the River Kwai. Never have I seen such
glowing reviews for a movie I disliked so much. None of the characters were even remotely honorable. Heck, none of the characters even
existed; for a movie that was supposedly based on historical events, it sure played loose with the facts. 16,000 Allied POWs
died building that stupid bridge, and the movie didn't show a single one. Oh, did I say POW camp? I meant Happy Camp, where Japanese and British got along swimmingly. What a load of crap. If I were one of those real-life POWs who surreptitiously tried to sabotage the construction and survived the war only to find a movie made ten years later in which I collaborated with the Japanese and built them a purty lil' bridge, I'd be pretty f-in' steamed. And to sit through a movie where the main message is that all soldiers are mad, war is pointless, and bad guys and good guys are all the same deep down? I'd be out of my mind.
You remember how Neil was looking into publishing a book based on his Armor Geddon blog? You know why he didn't publish it? Because no one was buying what he was selling. They wanted more "internal conflict." They wanted him to struggle with his role in the war and the world. They didn't want to hear that the only regret soldiers like Neil have is that they weren't able to kill more bad guys.
War does not make all men go mad and lose their sense of right and wrong. But apparently making a movie in which they do will get you a 95% approval rating.
Posted by: Sarah at
05:55 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 293 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Actually, I just got the same comment on an essay anthology I was shopping about your more non-traditional military wives. Unless it included all war-protesting, serious marital conflict spouses (and cheating! Can't forget lots of cheating!), it just wasn't "meaty" enough.
We own "Bridge on the River Kwai" along with every other military movie known to man. Whenever my husband decides we're putting one of those in, I feel it my civic duty to retaliate with "Clueless" or "Harold and Maude" the next night.
Posted by: Non-Essential Equipment at June 22, 2007 09:27 PM (OofZ4)
2
I have never liked that movie. There are actually few war movies I do like. But that one as you noticed has always been considered REALLY GOOD. Not by me and I am of the generation in which it came out. Maybe it's just not a girl thing, but your points are well made. I never liked that TV show that made POW's in Germany SO MUCH FUN either. I've even blocked it's name for the time being. No senior moments here.(G)
Posted by: Ruth H at June 23, 2007 12:58 PM (Okavv)
3
Well dayum - I was wondering about Neil and his book. That is truly a loss for many. No wonder Buzzell had such an easy time of getting his book published but then I never read his. He just seemed too conflicted for me and I'm not trying to diminish his experience. Neil's experience explains alot I guess.
Posted by: toni at June 23, 2007 06:15 PM (M5jIa)
4
"...war is pointless..."
Funny you should mention that. Just last night some cable network clowns reviewing "Rescue Dawn" made that exact same assertion, praising the movie for showing us that war is futile. Like so many spoiled kids, they have never had to fight for their freedom, much less their lives, and it's so much fun to condescend to their betters.
Posted by: pst314 at June 24, 2007 07:01 AM (lCxSZ)
5
What the hell!? Red Six was one of the most
interesting blogs that I had ever read. Need
we remind people that he was awarded the
Silver Star?
WRONG. Just wrong. Wait a few years Neil. Your
time will come. I said it to you before and I
will say it again,money for nothin'!
Posted by: MaryIndiana at June 24, 2007 08:09 PM (iAdwS)
6
The redeeming quality of Bridge on the River Kwai is the brit commander's love of his soldiers.
Posted by: Eric Chen at July 03, 2007 07:18 PM (pvOSb)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 21, 2007
HUH?
I'm always amazed at what people will name their children these days, but this one takes the cake:
Pair told not to name son '4real'. Apparently we're so advanced in weirdness that numerals seem like a possibility.
Posted by: Sarah at
05:40 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Well at least the U.S. isnÂ’t alone in this idiocy. Fur real, yaÂ’ know what IÂ’m sayinÂ’, yo, yo, yo...just keepinÂ’ realÂ…
Posted by: tim at June 21, 2007 06:49 AM (nno0f)
2
I really am the last person on earth who should point fingers at other's terrible naming practices. There are no numbers in the names of my progeny, but I did use the Welsh alphabet to name one of them. Yeah, no one can pronounce her name.
And my son, one (just ONE) of his middle names is "Vaciley". BASIL! I feel such guilt. Boys should not be named after herbs.
If we were to have another, I might have to name it "Clover" or "Thyme" just to spread the misery around.
Posted by: airforcewife at June 21, 2007 02:01 PM (0dU3f)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
WE CAN DANCE IF WE WANT TO
Via
Photon Courier, an article about the effect of
protecting children too much:
Children are so cocooned by their parents that they rarely venture far from home and have little concept of space, volume and how the world actually works, David Willetts, the shadow education secretary, said yesterday.
The area in which children were allowed to range freely by their parents was a ninth of what it was a generation ago, he said.
CaliValleyGirl and I have discussed this at length and how we hope to address it when we have our future children. And boy do I think it's tricky today.
Remember when Lileks wrote about the new Winnie the Pooh character?
This year the new Pooh series will introduce a six-year old girl in Christopher’s stead. I’m sure she’s spunky and adventurous and kind and empowered, and I’m just as sure my daughter will find her boring, because kids can smell pedantic condescending twaddle nine mile off. (It’s one of the reasons many girls love Arthur – his little sister is sixty-five pounds of smart, devious, narcissistic, naughty sass.) Here’s the part that makes me truly sad:
The little girl wears a bike helmet.
Because you could fall down in the 100 Acre Woods and hurt yourself.
I swear, theyÂ’re going to put airbags on BarbieÂ’s Pegasus next, and require thick corks on the point of all unicorn horns.
That's how ubiquitous safety has become: cartoon characters need helmets.
On my last day of fifth grade, my mom let me ride my bike to school. Some of my friends who lived closer to the school got to ride their bikes often, but we lived in a neighborhood that was further away and so I was a bus-riding kid. (Oh, and every day my brother and I walked down the street to the bus stop and waited alone.) But finally my mom said I was old enough to earn the right to ride my bike to school. I just google mapped it, and it seems I rode roughly two miles. And I felt SO COOL. I was one of the big kids now. I was independent. I had Done Something Awesome. And without a helmet.
My mom and I talked about that not too long ago. She says looking back she can't believe all the parents let their kids ride bikes to school. And she's not sure she'd let me do it today. Even she has a hard time remembering when cartoon characters didn't need helmets.
I needed to ride that bike to school. Heck, I still remember it. As a crowning achievement, as a milestone, as a step on the way to Growing Up. The thing that scares me is wondering if I will be able to let my kids take those steps too.
"A study by the Children's Society found 43 per cent of [British] adults thought children should not be allowed out with their friends until they were 14 or over." And apparently there's a debate in England over whether kids should be allowed to climb trees.
I fell out of a tree once. I also broke my front tooth playing tag once. I broke a kid's finger playing flag football in school. And once I fell in a ravine and couldn't get out, which was perhaps one of the scariest moments of my childhood. And I didn't tell my parents about it because I didn't want to lose my freedom to go play near the ravine.
I don't have kids yet. I nearly had a heart attack when brand new Charlie puppy ran out into the street in front of a car, so I know that I am going to battle overprotection. But it's a battle I'm going to have to have with myself if I want my kids to at least grow up with the independence I had, much less what my parents had.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:25 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 663 words, total size 4 kb.
1
It's such a hard, hard subject to figure out. I thank the good lord we live on base, because those times we have lived off base I did not allow my children to have the freedom they do now. My youngest daughter was allowed to go to the park alone starting at age 5. I would not let my second daughter go to the park alone off base, and she's 9.
And often people off base will look at me like they are considering calling Child Protective Services for the things we allow our children to do. The parenting peer pressure is enormous.
I think one big difference that I had growing up (and I'm 3 years older than you) is that everyone in the neighborhood where I lived was a part of our upbringing - I got yelled at by more than one friend's parent for doing stupid things, and they would report my transgressions to my parents despite every plea I made. Now, so many people just ignore what is going on around them. And no wonder, really, with so many parents being hypersensitive about their children's behavior and making excuses for their spoiled brattedness.
Just for the record and for anyone who lives near me - please do not hesitate to correct my kids if you see them doing something wrong. PLEASE. I'll send you a fruit basket in thanks.
Posted by: airforcewife at June 21, 2007 06:43 AM (0dU3f)
2
I don't know whether to laugh or cry over that bike helmet thing. I mean, it's like someone took a silly SNL sketch way too seriously.
My kid is 2 so a lot of this doesn't apply just yet. I'd like to think that he'd have the same freedom I did to take off on his bike and then come home when the street lights came on. But he probably won't, mostly because the other Moms' won't let their kids.
My question is, though, how much of this is really necessary? I mean, it's not like there weren't dangers out there before. Hell, there may have even been more danger between homemade bike ramps and those burning hot, dangerously slick slides that could shoot you a good 5 feet off the bottom. And yes, there have always been flashers and pervs around.
I also wonder, in the end, if we aren't doing more harm to our children by trying so hard to protect them.
Posted by: Non-Essential Equipment at June 21, 2007 06:50 AM (ouGp8)
3
I think there are two types of danger:
1) children harming themselves
2) other people harming children
There is a problem with the former, that some parents want to protect their children from every boo-boo, but then in the long run the children are more susceptible to big boo-boos, because they never learn how to avoid dangerous situations, because they can't recognize them as dangerous.
The latter is the thing that many parents nowadays really have to worry about. A car hitting their child, or their child being purposely harmed by someone else. My parents gave us a lot of freedom to harm ourselves, but raised us in an area where they didn't really have to worry about other people harming us.
But I would be very wary of allowing my children the same freedoms we had on a small island, in this big city.
Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at June 21, 2007 09:18 AM (deur4)
4
I guess it's not clear to me that there are more harms out there today than before.
I grew up around the time that Adam Walsh was kidnapped. And then after, there was a rash of other kidnappings -- one attempted fairly close to our house. Did my parents stop letting me go outside? No. They talked with me about how I was to never, ever accept a ride/candy/etc. from strangers.
I'm beginning to believe it's just a different mindset today more than anything else.
Posted by: Non-Essential Equipment at June 21, 2007 11:08 AM (MmG3L)
5
It's hard to allow your kids to do things that you know are so potentially dangerous. After you become a mom, hearing the freak accident stories really affects you. Well, it did me, at least, and the news is plastered with scariness. A kid drowns in two inches of water in a bucket while the mother is hanging laundry nearby, a child chokes on the venetian blind cord while the mother thinks the kid is sleeping in the crib, a kid gets run over by a family member because of the limited visibility of those satan-created SUVs, a kid is strangled on the slide by his hoodie while the mom sits in plain view.... All of these things happen to mothers like me (and someday, you)! Not the I-don't-know-or-care-where-my-kid-is-I'm-smoking-crack mom, but the ones that take precautions and ARE paying attention. That makes it even worse! The worry and the guilt are enough to kill you!
I don't know about letting kids do anything anymore.
My parents let me do *whatever* and I grew up in the 70's & 80's in a pretty major city. I rode my bike all over, without a helmet, all day and into the night. When I was 5 or 6, I was staying home alone at night if they wanted to go out, "Don't answer the phone and don't touch the stove. Watch TV and go to sleep. We'll kiss you when we get home." I didn't have brothers or sisters. There were no cell phones, and barely 911.... And I am still here.
Oh, but I will tell you another thing! My oldest fell off of a retaining wall and broke her arm. Her uncle was washing the car outside 100 feet from where she fell.... The looks you get from people when you have a four-year-old with a cast? Holy shit. You might as well wear a sign around your neck that declares you completely unfit for motherhood! Glares, stares, nasty looks. It's ridiculous.
I WANT to be the mom that isn't so over-protective....
And then you see and hear what KIDS are doing these days.... At ages that are shockingly young? Sex in school, drugs.... My 5 year old wants a cell phone and an i-pod. What the hell for? "PSHAAA, Mom! To, like, CALL my FRIENDS and, like, LISTEN to music!?!" To which I raise an eyebrow and say, "Uhm, EXCUSE ME?" Then the little girl comes back and sheepishly kicks her toe into the ground and mumbles, "I was just kidding." Sure you were. Little windows into what's really happening in the school yard.
If it were just playing hide-n-seek or climbing trees? Maybe!
Posted by: Wochenend mit bier at June 21, 2007 04:35 PM (7xqZi)
6
Having fallen off my bike and smacked my blessedly helmeted head on concrete in a situation that would otherwise have resulted in at best a concussion and at worst paralysis, I must say I am a strong advocate of bike helmets.
Much like seatbelt anecdotes. I think safety is more important than looking cool.
Posted by: Sabbrielle at June 21, 2007 10:22 PM (nMpWu)
7
OK...I tried to leave a HUGungeous comment here yesterday, and it was not allowed. I didn't even swear in it...
However, it did spur an entire post, in my head. Now if I can type it out, so it does not sound like the oooompa band in my head.
I do know, it will make people mad....
and I hate to do it....
I am expecting onc I get it up, I will get hate mail, like you get.
nice.
Posted by: armywifetoddlermom at June 22, 2007 11:22 AM (PpMPm)
8
Son's nearly four, so far I don't have to deal with letting him outside by himself because he's still too young not to wander into the street in front of a car.
It's going to be hard for me when he gets older.
Posted by: Anwyn at July 09, 2007 08:55 AM (dzxw9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 20, 2007
DEVIL'S ADVOCATE
Surprise, surprise, Michael Moore thinks 9/11 was an inside job. The only thing he said that shocked me was at the end of his
rant:
MOORE: See, IÂ’m not very good at the physics and all that. But believe me, the questions need to be asked.
I'm amazed that he even admitted that he has no idea what he's talking about. You think that might have something to do with why he still has questions? But apparently it doesn't matter what the answer is, only that the question gets asked. Repeatedly. Reminds me of something Bill Whittle recently said (er, recently in Bill Whittle Time):
"We're just asking questions" was the official, voice-over disclaimer. You hear that too from the 9/11 Truth crowd when confronted with the lunacy of their claims. We're just asking questions... Well, in that vein I'd like to ask some questions myself. Is Michael Moore a serial pedophile? I'm just asking, and I'm sure a lot of my readers would just like to have some questions answered. I heard that Rosie O'Donnell ate a baby at a Satanic Ritual once -- is that true? Can you please provide the evidence that this did not in fact happen? Thanks. Who has murdered more hookers: Bill Maher or Charlie Sheen? Come on, you can't tell me there's no smoke there. I just want a possible explanation...
I think it's a rare gift to know how not smart you are. I've met way more people who think they're smarter than they are than people who underestimate themselves. And a sure sign of thinking you're hot stuff is to argue these stupid devil's advocate ideas.
My husband has had the delightful fortune of running into several people like this lately. These people don't know anything about economics or business, yet they claim that the Chinese are gonna screw us on treasury bonds. It could happen, I'm just sayin'. Do you know how these bonds work? Well, not exactly. These people don't know a Sunni from shinola, but they claim to know all sorts of stuff about Iraq's civil war. They don't know thing one about how corporations operate, but they sure do seem to know a lot about how well Halliburton is doing. I'm just sayin', as I shrug my shoulders and grimace, it's probably a war for oil. Your evidence? Oh, you have none. And you don't care enough to go find any either.
My husband and I decided it would be more pleasant to discuss these issues with Markos Moulitsas than with any one of these devil's advocate people. At least you know where you stand with Kos and you know he will bring his A game. But how do you carry on an intelligent discussion with someone who thinks Manufacturing Consent might be how the world works but doesn't know anything about business, the media, or even Noam Chomsky himself? Noam who? And what's a blog? Yeah, you're a prime candidate in a debate on the media's stranglehold.
Devil's advocate arguments are the refuge of the intellectually weak. If your whole side of the debate consists of question marks and I'm-just-sayin's, then you need to work a little harder. And you need to stop holding strong opinions about things you don't understand.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:26 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 549 words, total size 4 kb.
1
"Devil's advocate arguments are the refuge of the intellectually weak."
It comes as no surprise to me that we seem to see this approach taken by an uncomfortably large number of people from the entertainment industry; those who are paid to pretend they are someone/something other than themselves. The palpable failure of the news outlets to push back in interviews with these people using pointed questions based on undeniable facts gives them a free pass. The damage is done because too many of our fellow citizens are too wrapped up in trivialities to absorb and retain an informed, adult perspective on issues of consequence. Instead, they parrot foolishness from their favorite celebrity.
There is a certain satisfaction in turning a committed leftist inside out with the facts. Beating someone's A-game has its own rewards. When the best someone has to offer is what Michael Moore or Rosie O'Donnell has to say, it is is simply depressing that anyone would offer "Well, so-and-so said that...." as a basis for taking a position.
Posted by: Bob at June 20, 2007 04:15 AM (m/kVw)
2
"Devil's advocate arguments are the refuge of the intellectually weak."
Certainly, you do have to do more than say, "I'm just saying, what if..." but I think there is a lot of value from examining issues from both sides. And from asking the questions -- provided you are willing to search out answers that don't only support your hypothesis.
Michael Moore is not a political scientist or an economist -- he's a filmmaker. At the end of the day, he's trying to sell tickets to films and that does, whether he wants to admit it or not, have some effect on what kind of work he does.
But by the same token, no issue is black and white. And is what he does a bad thing if people use it as a way to educate themselves more, as opposed to taking his opinion (or any other's, for that matter) hook, line and sinker?
I long for the good old days when debate was a mandatory subject in school. Arguing a point that you don't personally believe can be a remarkable learning experience. And the tools you learned in those exercises -- identifying rival hypotheses, understanding that there is a lot proof necessary for a direct cause/effect statement, keeping the argument valid and contained -- would certainly make for more worthwhile discussions today.
Posted by: Non-Essential Equipment at June 20, 2007 07:09 AM (ouGp8)
3
Excellent post, Sarah.
Non-Essential...I agree with you that it would be very worthwhile for more kids to be exposed to debate (although some of today's trends in college debate, and even high school debate, are a trifle strange). The study of rhetoric was once considered an essential part of a liberal arts education.
But when you say "no issue is black and white"...surely, there are factual issues that *are* black and white. Either Sam robbed the bank, or he did not. Either Atta and his crew crashed the plane into the building, or they did not. (Unless you are making a quantum-theory multiple-universes argument, which seems unlikely from the context)
Arthur Koestler wrote an interesting piece on the whole nuance/shades-of-gray thing.
Posted by: david foster at June 20, 2007 05:09 PM (gguM0)
4
You are right -- there are factual issues that *are* black and white. Did Sam rob the bank? Sure, at the end of the day, there's only one right answer. But which answer we lean towards, naturally, is going to depend on how the evidence is presented and our own interpretation of that evidence.
That's where, I believe, that devil's advocate can be useful.
I liked the Koestler piece. But sometimes I wonder if the reason that there is so much attention paid to some of these crazy theories is because of the way the evidence was presented in the first place. Especially when it was presented in a "this is black, the end" kind of format. You have to admit that our executive branch is quite fond of absolutes.
Posted by: Non-Essential Equipment at June 20, 2007 09:26 PM (ouGp8)
5
non-essential...actually I don't agree that our executive branch is particularly fond of absolutes. For example, the phrase "axis of evil", which is often portrayed as Bush absolutism, is no more black-and-white than were the things said by FDR and Churchill about the Axis powers of their time.
Posted by: david foster at June 23, 2007 06:54 PM (gguM0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 19, 2007
HOPE
The title of this one is all you need...
Iraqi Orphanage Nightmare: U.S. Troops Discover And Rescue Orphan Boys Left Starving, Chained To Beds
The photos made me weep. They're concentration camp liberation for my generation.
Posted by: Sarah at
02:47 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Sad, just pathetically sad.
If the scum who were supposed to be looking after those kids where to be held in confident under the same conditions, i.e. Abu Gahrab prison, the story would on the front page of the New York Times for 2 months.
Posted by: tim at June 19, 2007 07:43 AM (nno0f)
2
I have not yet been able to look at these pictures. A huge part of me wants to, but another part of me is not sure I can handle the truth of what some humans are capable of. My heart aches for these children.
Posted by: Josie at June 19, 2007 03:37 PM (a0ewf)
3
I'm confused by the concentration camp liberation comparison. The story at the end reveals that the children were moved to another orphanage, which seems to imply that it was just the criminal conduct of one manager that made this orphanage so horrible, not the government sanctioned actions of the concentration camps of WWII.
While the situation is horrible, it is more akin to those crazy foster parents who put their kids in cages or the horrible nursing homes that don't take care of their patients but do pocket the money. A horrible blip on the radar of human behavior, but in no way rising to the level of state sanctioned torture and murder of millions.
Posted by: Oda Mae at June 19, 2007 08:54 PM (Pj6Yb)
4
I hesitated to write that sentence because I knew it might not come out right. All I meant was the *feeling* was the same, the horror of finding these children and rescuing them, the photos of the orphanage...it all reminded me of liberating a concentration camp. I don't think anyone of my generation can ever live through something as powerful as concentration camp liberation, but this may be as close as it gets.
Unless we ever end up in North Korea...
Posted by: Sarah at June 20, 2007 02:39 AM (vrR+j)
5
I was afraid you would catch some flak from that comment. I almost did it myself, but you ARE much younger than I, and I did see the concentration camp pictures at age 9 or 10, a very vulnerable age. So we bring a very different experience to the table on this. I do know some (2) survivors of the Holocaust who lost most of their family. Also after Vietnam there were some really horrible exterminations. And there have been all those tribal wars in Africa. Oda Mae is right, this is more like the situations she describes and that doesn't make it any less horrible or the pictures any less terrible. I have only looked at one of the pictures. I do not need to see anymore human cruelty in my lifetime. Just say a prayer for the little ones in all of the war torn world. I wish I could do more, I cannot.
Posted by: Ruth H at June 20, 2007 06:28 AM (orGFk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 18, 2007
MILITARY READS
After the Milblogs Conference, CaliValleyGirl
wrote:
Since my boyfriend/fiancé has returned, I have distanced myself from the Milblogging community. Not really on purpose, but just because once my soldier returned I wanted to celebrate his being home, act like we were a “normal” couple, doing normal couple things
...
When he was deployed I knew everything that was going on, the names of operations, the areas of operations, how things were going in these areas. I would check the names of fallen soldiers and read about their lives. I read milblogs religiously. I sought out new connections, searching for degrees of separation. I lived and breathed the war on terror. And I was shocked, shocked I tell you, that other people didnÂ’t share my fervor in following all things combat related.
I often complain that war is too distant from the general public. Because of the deployments, soldiers clock-in and then clock-out of the war. They arenÂ’t in war mode the whole time. And consequently their families arenÂ’t in war mode. I complain about the general public lacking the passion to fight this war, but I realize that I am just as much part of that problem. As soon as my boyfriend came back, I clocked-out.
Over the weekend, I realized that if you aren’t a part of the solution, you are a part of the problem. I had subconsciously become one of those people who lives as if we aren’t at war. And part of me thought that in 2 ½ years things might be over in Iraq and Afghanistan, and my fiancé won’t be deploying again. That this war doesn’t really directly affect me anymore. Over the weekend I realized that I hope my fiancé deploys again in 2 ½ years. Because if he doesn’t deploy, it means that we have given up.
I can completely understand her feelings here. And I applaud her for expressing them so honestly; when I tried to bring this up once on SpouseBUZZ, it didn't work out so well.
I still spend roughly the same time online as I did when my husband was deployed, but the hunger for frontline stories isn't as deep as it was when he was gone. Back then I needed to feel connected to Iraq in a different way than I do now. And while I am just as emotionally invested in the outcome of the war, I know that I too am half-clocked out. Or at least enjoying the idea that I have the luxury of being half-clocked out until next year.
But I am trying to reconnect with what I've let go since March 2005. So I offer some military reads today.
Read this day in the life of Greyhawk.
Read this old Matt Sanchez story if you missed it.
And read this encounter with a suicide bomber from Tadpole.
Posted by: Sarah at
10:23 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 479 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Your contributions as a Blogger are as important as any marine's fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan. Please keep that in mind. The Milbloggers are the source of the _real_ information about the "War against Terror and Islamofaschism".
Posted by: Zeno Davatz at June 18, 2007 09:37 PM (FcYJW)
2
I'm not proud of it, but I've done my own share of clocking out since my sweetheart redeployed. I still pay attention, but I don't obsess anymore.
Not to make excuses, but do you think part of the reason we do this is to give ourselves a break from the constant worry and burden we lived with during deployment? Maybe we're just replenishing our sanity reserve for the next tour.
Posted by: Bette at June 20, 2007 07:47 AM (ICdbF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
HEH
Mark Steyn:
There are immigration laws on the books right now, aren't there? Why not try enforcing them? The same people who say that government is a mighty power for good that can extinguish every cigarette butt and detoxify every cheeseburger and even change the very climate of the planet back to some Edenic state so that the water that falleth from heaven will land as ice and snow, and polar bears on distant continents will frolic as they did in days of yore, the very same people say: Building a border fence? Enforcing deportation orders? Can't be done, old boy. Pie-in-the-sky.
Posted by: Sarah at
09:51 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.
June 17, 2007
LOVE AT FIRST LINK
Matt Sanchez asked the other day about the Deskmerc quote I keep up over on the sidebar: "While our troops go out to defend our country, it is incumbent upon us to make the country worth defending." I know that Deskmerc wrote it in my comments section a long time ago, but I can't find it and think it might have been back on blogspot, and all of those comments are long gone. But it so impacted me at the time that it became sidebar-worthy.
A google search comes up with quite a few hits for the quote, which means Deskmerc has made a name for himself!
I emailed him to joke that he was getting quite famous, and he emailed me back the following explanation behind the quote:
A physicist (Robert Parks, I believe, I may have him confused with someone else) was asked before a congressional committe in the 80's about the Superconducting Supercollider. Reagan had authorized federal funds be spent on the project ("Go deep", he said, and everyone assumed that meant "Build it.") The committee was asking the physicists all sorts of questions, such as "Will this cure cancer? Can this be used to defend the country? Are there any practical applications for this multibillion dollar device you want the taxpayers to fund?"
The physicist (I'm paraphrasing here) replied with "No, it will not cure cancer, and there are likely very few practical applications to the SSC. And it will not help defend the country. What it will do, is provide a tool to increase our knowledge of the universe around us, and in doing so, make our country worth defending."
So that kinda stuck on me for a long time, sitting in the background of my head waiting for some more context to pounce, I suppose. And along came a war in 2003 and many folks of many political stripes engaged in the "chickenhawk" accusation. If you aren't military, then you should have no opinion on the war, that sort of thing, and if you support the war, then you should go fight it!
But that's asinine, of course, and we all know that. Many people have no reason to join the military and fight, they can't or they just aren't up to it, and not everyone is. But there are different kinds of support that anyone can engage in, and probably the most important one is simply to be a good citizen, work hard at your job, whatever it may be, produce good products, turn out well rounded students, keep the gas flowing at market prices, mow lawns, sweep streets, babysit technical illiterates on the phone because they have purchase technology four times smarter than they are, was cars, fix cars, answer phones, WHATEVER, just do a good job. Do they BEST job you can, no matter how small, because in the end, it does matter to the guys on the pointy end of the stick.
I found, that after coming home in 92, that I could have cared less in many respects who won the recent election (Clinton? Who is he?) What mattered to me is that I came home safe, we did our job, my family was there when I stepped off the plane, and cheeseburgers hadn't been legislated out of existence. What sort of country will this current crop of military men come home to? Will it be a country where nobody did anything because we're too busy yelling at each other to accomplish anything, or will they come home at least to a place where everyone did their jobs?
There are guys out there who are getting blown up, stabbed, shot at, run over, dragged around. They put up with it because that's the job (anyone who joins the military not realizing this is an idiot) and the job is very satisfying, in the end, especially when we kick ass and win all the time. But what's more satisfying is that part when you come home and everything is still there (except when they build a new mall or something, and you wonder how the hell kids can grow up so fast these days) The only way that can happen, that coming home satisfaction, is if everyone does their part back home. Without that, what's the point in fighting in the first place?
So, while these guys go out and get shot at to make sure I can still have a job myself (I doubt certain Islamist factions would allow monster datacenters to be operated with impunity, especially if it has lots of porn, if they had their way) then I can damn well do my job the best I can. Like it or not, agree or disagree with the fundamental reasons for going to war or even fighting in general, these guys lay it on the line every day. Its not a rationalization, its an objective fact: without a military, none of us would be here. Its an uncomfortable fact for some who advocate for Departments of Peace, but that is the way of things. The least any of us can do to thank these people is to make the best of the jobs we can do, not litter, and keep the cheeseburgers coming.
We can all disagree on fundamental points of policy. We can even advocate withdrawing if that is the wish of the plurality. It is, however, a disgrace be a slacker, because for the professions that cocoon slackers from the rest of the world, slack is not an option.
It's rare when you can remember the exact first blog post you ever read from a blogger, but I know exactly how I found Deskmerc (it was his sadly defunct Cthulhu joke), and I've adored him ever since. His quote and the tank he made me are just two of the ways he's so awesome.
Spread his quote. And make our country worth defending.
Posted by: Sarah at
07:00 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 995 words, total size 6 kb.
1
I actually
trackbacked to this post on my blog, but somehow it didn't work. I love the quote and have put it up on my blog, too.
Thanks, Sarah!
Posted by: Dave at June 21, 2007 04:28 AM (6GFTi)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
WELL SAID
Found a
comment over at Buzz.mn that narrowly applies to seatbelt laws but broadly applies to almost everything we cover in the blogosphere:
Anecdotal Evidence Can Be Fun!
Submitted by jhugart on Thu, 06/14/2007 - 12:36am.
My dad used to wear seat belts only when he was driving on the interstate; he explained it by saying he could hold on to the steering wheel at lower speeds.
Then one day he was driving to the interstate, and had his belt on. Another driver ran a red light and smashed into his car, rolling it, and shaking him up a lot. He was uninjured, which all agreed would not have been the case had he been unbelted. From that point on, he always wore a seat belt.
For my part, I always put on the belt, and expect passengers to do so as well. I used to get the response, "Oh, I trust your driving!" My reply was, "It isn't my driving we're worried about." That always resulted in a thoughtful look and the click of the belt.
The entertaining part about anecdotal evidence is that it is great for supporting something you already believe in. If you believe seat belt use is a good idea, you can find stories to back it up. If you think seat belt use is dangerous, you can find stories to back that up.
Humans being human, I suspect that no scientific assessment of seat belt use, non-use, accidents, injuries, and fatalities would sway people from whatever positions they have already adopted. They are much more likely to be affected by a friend or relative who survived because of behavior X, whatever it happens to be.
The short answer is that there are all sorts of ways to die with a car involved. You can do your best to protect yourself, but sometimes you can get killed in spite of those efforts...and other times you can survive in spite of what may seem terminal stupidity. C'est la vie.
Jacob
(Thanks to this ColdFury post for leading me there.)
Actually, it reminds me a lot of something that's been bugging me immensely lately over at SpouseBUZZ: the idea that the new Lifetime series Army Wives is unrealistic because officer wives would never deign to hang out with enlisted wives. I say that my three best friends in Germany were all enlisted wives, and someone else says that in her entire Army life no officer wife has ever once spoken to her. And so our anecdotes cancel out. Ace says nicely today that "the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'", and I don't know if there's any data out there on this subject, but it sure does bother me to read over and over that I am too snobby and uppity to ever be friends with my three best friends.
Posted by: Sarah at
06:15 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 477 words, total size 3 kb.
1
I think it's funny how civilians perceive the Army life. I heard all sorts of things (mostly from prior Army folk) about the division between Officer and enlisted personnel before we moved to Germany. (duty station #1) I knew nothing about the Army and it seemed silly to me but I believed it, nonetheless. When I arrived, I found what I usually find...some of it was 100% true and some was 100% false. It's just another way of pigeon-holing people...I always had both enlisted and officer's wives as friends and never really thought a thing about it.
Posted by: Nicole at June 17, 2007 06:41 AM (vYQMs)
2
I've seen both. I've met wives that wore their husband's rank. I also recall meeting one woman that was very down-to-earth and insisted on being called by her first name, despite being married to the Corp Commander (LTG).
I think field grade officer wives were the worse. My wife always refused to play that game and has pointed out that she's not subject to the UCMJ.
R1
Posted by: R at June 17, 2007 07:08 AM (9JS9f)
3
I'm glad you brought up the officer/enlisted wives discussion (or rather, the anecdote bomb throwing). It's been driving me nuts. I have to say that I have met imperial officer's wives (as Marna would say)including one who demanded to be called "Mrs. Colonel So-and-So", but I also met one wife who's husband was lower ranking that would come to every function hubby's unit had, and when volunteers were asked for EVERY SINGLE TIME would say, "You don't command ME!" Sweet baby on a stick, woman! We were asking for someone to bring the chips!
I never ask what someone's husband's rank is. Never. It has no bearing on whether or not the wife and I get along well. As a result I've been blessed with friends who are Colonel's wives and friends whose husbands just got out of basic. I've mentored and been mentored (both of which are an ongoing process).
And for those of us whose husbands started out enlisted, I wonder what the "no mixing" rule means. Am I not allowed to talk to myself? That would totally ruin my week.
Posted by: airforcewife at June 17, 2007 08:43 AM (0dU3f)
4
My best friends at this duty station were also enlisted wives. Frankly, none of us thought a thing about it.
But at one point, when there were a lot of rumors and craziness going around, the battalion Commander's wife that maybe it wasn't in my best interest to be friends with them. That perhaps they were only friendly to glean information. I don't think she meant to be a doofus but was just trying to share that it can be lonely at the top if you have any leadership role.
It goes both ways. You have some imperial Officer's wives and you have some suck-ups that want to hang out with the wives of higher ranking folks to feel important. That will always be the case.
But hey, if in this crazy life, you can find someone, ANYONE, who gets you and can make your life that much less lonely, you make sure to hold on to both hands no matter the number of stripes or squiqqlies on his velcro patches.
Posted by: Non-Essential Equipment at June 17, 2007 10:41 AM (03gxG)
5
The O vs. E thing gets tiresome with me...
heck I do not even know what anyone over at SpouseBuzz DH or DW rank is oddly enough...
for that matter I do not care, never have.
doubt if I will.
Posted by: armywifetoddlermom at June 17, 2007 12:55 PM (PpMPm)
6
Dang. I just wrote a lot and had to erase it all. I can't even start on this subject without writing a novel.
Bottom line: If one defines herself by what rank her husband is, she is a loser.
Posted by: Erin at June 17, 2007 07:23 PM (XRza7)
7
Well, my best friend was an O wife, I was an E wife. what got US was that everyone in the Chain had a pink fit about it. the Col's wife (who wore those eagles with PRIDE, y'all) castigated me, the Sgt Major's wife told me it just wasn't DONE! her DH was not in my DH's direct chain, but in the same unit. But still... disapproval everywhere.
going back Active, as a WO wife (now, where do we fit???) and I sure hope things have changed in these many years!
LAW
Posted by: Liberal Army Wife at June 18, 2007 03:01 PM (h/YdH)
8
I never heard any grief over my friendships, but I do remember a couple of strange glares from one or two enlisted wives who looked at me like I had infiltrated their private group. I got more grief over being too friendly to a civilian boy I worked with; despite the fact he was five years younger than me, people warned me he'd be considered my jody if we were ever seen together. The things people get all up in...
Posted by: Sarah at June 18, 2007 05:06 PM (vrR+j)
9
I cringe when someone asks what my husband's rank is. I have been guilty of leaning down at that very moment and pretending my littlest needs her nose wiped, hoping the question will go away. Unless you are from protocol and currently working on a seating chart and need to know where he needs to place his booty, what does it really matter?
I have two very close friends here. One is an officer's wife, one is an NCO's wife. I know that I can count on either of these two women for absolutely anything. Am I living in some fantasy world friendship with the one who happens to be married to someone who wears his rank in a different place on his uniform than my husband does? Hardly.
I always wonder if those who insist that wives of Os and Es can't be friends immediately write someone off as a potential friend based on their husband's rank.
Posted by: Michelle at June 25, 2007 01:30 AM (gvZe1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
151kb generated in CPU 0.0323, elapsed 0.1136 seconds.
65 queries taking 0.0922 seconds, 318 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.