Bunker used to wake up at the crack of dawn, so he was almost always the first person to read my posts and comment on them. He was always very encouraging in my quest to grok, and I wish he were here today to help me grapple with this post.

For you see, I just finished reading Flyboys.

I agree with nearly every review I've read that Bradley was a bit clumsy in trying to make the US and Japan equals in barbarity. At least I know I'm not the only one who ruffled at the fact that the first chapter of the book lays out America's "government policy of ethnic cleansing." But in his attempt to be fair and balanced with the war in the Pacific, Bradley did manage to do one thing: make me feel utterly and completely anti-war.

I cried myself to sleep every night I was reading this book. Bradley managed to bring the horrors of war to life in a way I've never quite experienced. Maybe it was the cannibalism that put me over the top. Maybe it was Jimmy Dye's white scarf. Maybe it was the fact that I personally think we're currently fighting an enemy that's more ruthless than the Japanese. But something in this book hit me in the gut, and I can't stop thinking about it.

My husband warned me about writing a post wherein I call myself anti-war. But I said that, if a blog named Trying to Grok isn't a place where I can be honest about my thoughts, then what's the point of writing on it? And so I confess that I see myself as anti-war. Except that anti-war doesn't really mean what the plain-faced words would seem.

I don't mean anti-war in the Sheryl Crow's Sequined T-Shirt way that most people mean when they call themselves anti-war. Most of those people actually mean anti-Bush. And I certainly haven't lost all my brain cells and begun to think that there actually ever could be a world without war either. I know there's no such thing as NO WAR, regardless of how many bumper stickers are printed.

But when you read about POWs having their heads chopped off and then being eaten by the enemy, when you read about the napalm that fell on Tokyo, when you read about the absolutely ghastly things that went on in the Pacific, you all of a sudden can grok a sentence you've heard over and over but never really gave much thought.

War is hell.

Posted by: Sarah at 07:56 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 425 words, total size 3 kb.

Go read this post by Hud, because I have a question about it...

If the global warming crowd is denounced as anti-capitalists who want to retard American hegemony, and the non-global warming crowd is denounced as selfish jerks who are ruining the planet, and any and all research being done is funded by someone who has an agenda either way, how on earth can we actually figure out what's going on? How can science be divorced from agenda? Isn't that the whole point of science in the first place? If both sides of the debate are accusing the other of being biased and bought, how can we ever know the truth?

Or can we ever know the truth about what the earth will be like centuries from now?

Posted by: Sarah at 03:24 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.

I've been thinking more about my post from yesterday, and I can't help but think that this simple act of buying a greeting card has encapsulated my view of race relations.

My college roommate (whom I've written about before) was afraid to walk across campus alone because she thought she'd be lynched. I am not making that up. I invited her to a party one night with some of my friends, and she kept asking me if it would be OK and if my friends would think it was weird. The next day, she said how much fun she had had and how accepted she felt. Well, duh. But she said that there was no way on earth that she would've taken me to one of her friends' parties, because none of them would've accepted me. But we white people are supposed to be the racist ones.

I always end up depressed when I watch Dave Chapelle, Chris Rock, or other black comedians. I hope it's just schtick, but they seem to roll with the idea that all white people have an inner klansman. That we all secretly hate black people and can't stand to be around them. Well, if we've given any vibes that we don't want to be around them, I believe it's usually because we're scared to death that we'll offend them. In my reality, most white people bend over backwards to never ever ever do anything that could mildly be construed as offensive or racist when there's a Person Of Color in the room. We walk on eggshells to make sure we don't say anything rude. That is what's happening today between the races: white people are scared to death of hurting black people's feelings. That's how two French kids ended up as African-Americans.

You know what the conclusion to my card buying experience was? After I walked away from the rack, I thought that I might like to get another copy of the same card. Good cards are hard to come by, and I always like to have nice ones on hand. I went back to the rack and found a black lady perusing the cards. And I walked away. I was too nervous to walk my sour cream ass up to the Mahogany section and stand side by side with her to pick out cards. I was afraid of what she'd think of me. I was afraid that, rather than having her think "Cool, this white girl thinks it's OK to send a card with a black face on the front", she would wonder why in the hell some white girl has to come into her card section when there's two whole aisles of cards for white people. I think that's what a lot of white people fear these days. I wanted her to think I was cool and hip, but I was afraid that it would backfire and make her dislike white people even more. That's why white people switch off the rap music when they stop at a red light next to a black person. That's why we don't put the collard greens back. We're afraid that the things that could possibly bring us together -- the fact that this woman and I both liked the same greeting cards -- might be used to make us look bad. And so we don't bother to reach out in the first place.

I don't have any idea what it's like to be black, but I know that being white isn't always a piece of cake. We've got a lot of crap floating through our heads every time we encounter a black person, crap that I hope someday we won't have to waste time worrying about.

Posted by: Sarah at 07:43 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 625 words, total size 3 kb.

I love stationery and cards, so I always spend time looking for just the right thing to send. As I was looking at cards today, I came across one that was really nice. The photo was classy, the words were not schmaltzy, and it was the card I wanted to buy. But I hesitated...and then shrugged it off...and then hesitated again...and then finally bought it. I decided my hesitation would make an interesting question to pose on my blog: Would you think it was weird if your white friend sent you a Mahogany card? Or would you even notice? If you're white, would you buy a Mahogany card? And if you're black, would you send a Mahogany card to a white friend? If I send it, will I look like I'm "trying too hard to not be racist"? And if I don't send it, will I look racist?

So much social commentary surrounding one little card!

Posted by: Sarah at 10:31 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I went through the same hesitation several months ago. It took me forever to find a card that exactly expressed what I wanted to say, and then when I found it, it was a Mahogany card. I hesitated as well, but ended up buying it anyway, because it had the perfect sentiment - but I always wondered if the recepient noticed - or thought it was weird.

Posted by: Jen D at September 14, 2006 10:37 AM (D4EDG)

2 I think we've all been conditioned to worry about this stuff way too much. My 21 year old daughter went to the grocery store recently to buy some fresh spinach. When she was checking out and they rang it up, it came up as collard greens and she realized she had grabbed the wrong thing. She was worried it would look racist if she put it back, so she bought it, cooked it and ate it. She said it was good! But I still think the story shows how oversensitive we are. I say send the card if it spoke to you and don't give it a 2nd thought.

Posted by: Amy at September 14, 2006 02:26 PM (I9LMv)

3 You're racist if you are and you're not it you're not.

Posted by: Will at September 14, 2006 02:54 PM (H4u2c)

4 If your friend is really a friend they won't even notice, but rather appreciate the message inside. Racism is what you or anyone else makes it. And for the record....I don't know any racist, they are just people who don't know better. Questions like this are why I love reading your page! ...by the way, I'm half black and I would have put the collard greens back, because I prefer spinach!

Posted by: Vonn at September 14, 2006 03:23 PM (/VoEr)

5 Flowers, kittens, ducks, puppies and stuff like that work better as they provide a path through the stupid-ass P.C. minefield.

Posted by: Jim - PRS at September 14, 2006 09:49 PM (ANg2D)

6 This is what is wrong with the massively over PC crowd. Now sending something as simple as a Card has turned in to, will this person think I am a racist because of the color of my card. WTF over as long as the card itself is not blatantly racist, i.e. has a burning cross or something like that on it. I would not worry about it. Remember a friend will get you out of jail, but a true friend will be in jail with you going, She did not look like a cop.

Posted by: dagamore at September 14, 2006 10:28 PM (7IZfE)

7 Found you through Sensless drive by thoughts! I would have to say, from one stationary lover to another, that to me, it would not matter. If it says what I want it to say, I would not have given it a second thought. I probably would not have even noticed to be truthful.

Posted by: Aunt Murry at September 15, 2006 04:21 AM (/n9kT)

8 I'd like to know if a black person is even writing these sentiments for these cards? We are all too sensitive. I've bought these cards. I love 'em

Posted by: Kelly's mom at September 15, 2006 04:44 AM (U+Azr)

9 I know exactly what you mean; we have gone from insensitivity to racism to hyper-sensitivity to even the mere possibility that a racist thought might accidently pass through our mind. I hope we will soon reach the point at which true racists can be alienated by everybody for the jerks they are; and the rest of us can have a conversation (or buy a card) without worrying that someone is going to THINK we are racist. On the other hand; when some telemarketer calls and makes a comment about my Southern accent the first thing I ask is "What are you some kind of racist?" they usually end up apologizing and promising to take me off their calling list. I have a friend who says I'm a hypocrit for using the same PC crap that I hate just to get rid of someone I don't want to talk to. (OK, they don't have to comment on my accent, I just look for a reason to accuse them of incipient racism. They usually don't even stop to figure out that I'm not black and it has gotten me off more calling lists than the so-called do not call register.) Sigh....I am not a nice person.

Posted by: Pamela at September 15, 2006 06:08 AM (HRfF5)

10 yes

Posted by: tim at September 15, 2006 07:38 AM (nno0f)

11 Hmmm...I'd never even heard of Mahogany cards. But you can send ME one anytime. I promise I won't think you're weird.

Posted by: Erin at September 15, 2006 10:41 AM (023Of)

12 "And for the record....I don't know any racist, they are just people who don't know better." Exactly. Funny, I am black and I was going to write that the photo (not nec. cartoon) on the card should reflect the race of the recipient (i.e. I wouldn't buy a black person a card with a white person on it)... but then even I hestitated because this made sense to me in the world of black and white... but, I stopped to ask myself if I would be racist if I gave an asian person a card with an asian person on it. So the answer is... i don't know.

Posted by: Terri at September 15, 2006 11:04 AM (cgjLF)

13 I believe if you like the card, then nothing else shouldn't matter. Go with your first instincts. When people are buying cards they normally look for the card that suits that person, not whether the card is offensive to a race of people. If someone is offended, then their probaly a bit narrow minded, and you can't change that. There The Great One has spoken

Posted by: chris crawley at September 16, 2006 10:51 PM (cC0N+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

LGF found a MEMRI production narrated by Ron Silver called "The Arab & Iranian Reaction to 9/11" that Johnson calls "eye-opening." If you don't have time to sit through 42 depressing minutes of Jew bashing and America hating, let me summarize the first 37 minutes for you: They hate us. But please go over there and at least fast forward to the end of the film. At 36:47, there's a final segment called Reformists. These are the people we want to hear about; these are the Muslim people condemning the conspiracy theories and lamenting that their people were involved in 9/11. Go watch them, and hope there are more of them out there and that they continue to get a voice on Arab television. Be sad that there are 37 minutes of hate-filled voices and only five minutes of sanity, but go listen to those five minutes. They're our only hope.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:49 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 167 words, total size 1 kb.

My husband suggested that we commemorate 9/11 by "doing things that would piss bin Laden off." So we had bourbon glazed pork chops for dinner and watched Team America. I drew the line at "wearing a really slutty outfit all day" though.

The internet and television were sad places yesterday. A week ago when I heard some networks were going to rerun their 9/11 coverage, I thought the idea seemed a bit weird. But I must admit that I was glued to MSNBC for hours yesterday morning. First of all, I never saw the real-time coverage five years ago (getting to class on time and all...) Watching the coverage with hindsight was extremely interesting; it was strange to know the exact minute a tower would fall and then wait for Lauer and Couric to notice it. When the second plane hit, all CNN could think was that there must have been a major problem with navigational equipment; no one could even fathom that someone had done this intentionally. So an idea I originally thought was silly turned out to be the best way to mark the anniversary, in my opinion.

I couldn't even begin to read all 2996 tributes; the ones I did read made me too sad to go on. The best part of a tribute I read yesterday? From Uncle Sam Ate My Baby, the blog where I learned about the 2996 project in the first place:

While Mercery Molina hopes that her fatherÂ’s body will some day be found on the ground, I prefer to think that Manuel didnÂ’t fall to the ground with the World Trade Center but rather that he just stepped up to Heaven from the 110th floor since he was so close anyway and just reached out and took hold of the hand of God.

What a comforting image that is. Also Angie's statement that the color of the sky in New York is "red, white and blue."

But the best 9/11 article ever written still continues to be the one James Lileks wrote in 2002.

And thus as it turns to September 12th, we can forget about 9/11 for another year. Last night my husband remarked how sad it is that people are only patriotic on the 4th of July, in love on Valentine's Day, and mad at terrorists on September 11th. He's right: we should be all of those things every day of the year.

Let's piss Osama off every day.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:07 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 412 words, total size 3 kb.

My high school English teacher burned the first sentence of the Stephen Crane story "The Open Boat" into our brains: "None of them knew the color of the sky." I always think of this story whenever I think of 9/11 because everyone knows the color of the sky on September 11, 2001. It's usually one of the first things a New Yorker will mention.

For many Americans, 9/11 was immediate. But for some of us, busy with grad school 825 miles west of the World Trade Center, 9/11 took a while to sink in. The lessons were slow in coming for someone who had never been to NYC. I'm ashamed now of how self-centered my life seemed back then, when nothing mattered except getting to class on time.

For most Americans, 9/11 is still not over. For some families, the loss of a loved one will never stop hurting. For those who walk around NYC, the empty sky where the WTC stood will always be obvious. For some, the consequences of 9/11 are subtle but very real: the volunteers who are slowly dying from the death they inhaled that day, the children who are growing up without a parent, and the people who survived the WTC, only to be filled with guilt and anguish over living. My cousin survived the fall of the Towers, waking up in a coma weeks later. She's only now starting to put the pieces of her life back together. The effects are subtle indeed.

And for those of us who only knew about 9/11 from the TV or papers, those of us who woke up to The Way The World Is after those attacks, life will never again be about just getting to class on time.

Today, five years later, I wonder what the color of the sky is over New York City.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:00 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 318 words, total size 2 kb.

The hole left in the earth at the foot of Manhattan is nothing compared to the hole left in our hearts by Frank Palombo's departure from this earth.
--Steve Kennedy

When you sign up for the 2996 Project, you get an out-of-a-hat name and a photo. I stared at that photo a long time before I started my research, trying to get a feel for Frank Palombo.

All I could think about was how old-timey he looked, how he looked like a man from another era. And when I started reading about him, I realized he was a man from another era.

Frank Palombo met his wife when she was nine and he was 14 [1]. Nine years later they went on a date, and there went Frank's plans of joining the priesthood [2]. Their marriage brought ten children.

Ten children.

My heart dropped when I realized how "famous" Frank Palombo is among 9/11 victims. Major Giuliani himself attended Palombo's funeral and told his children, "Nobody can take your daddy away from you, you know that you are the son and daughter of a great man, a hero, a fallen warrior" [3]. New York Giants coach Jim Fassel has given both his money and his time to help raise the ten Palombo children, inviting them to games and eating dinner at their home [4]. But Frank's wife, Jean, doesn't want to be the famous 9/11 family; she turned down an invitation to be on Oprah [5].

I've been so impressed reading about Jean Palombo. She woke up on 9/11 thinking she was pregnant again. But God didn't bring her another baby that day; instead He took her husband. Through it all, she seems to have remained an incredibly strong woman. I want to weep when she describes her family's new life: "The children are happy because of the father they have, but they miss not being able to play with him, not being able to pray with him, not being able to learn with him, and not being able to be with him" [6].

Oh, and I haven't even mentioned yet that he was a firefighter. He was set to retire in January 2002 but instead was one of six firefighters lost from his Ladder.

Look at his photo again. Frank Palombo was a devoted Catholic and public servent. He organized youth group trips to see the Pope [7]. He loved being a father and even wanted more children. He seems more like a Greatest Generation than a Baby Boomer, doesn't he? He was like a man from a simpler time, an older generation that took pride in a strong family and a life of service to others. It's not common to find men like this these days, and I think the world is worse off for losing a man like Frank Palombo.

Remember Frank Palombo today for the simple but full life he led, a life devoted to his faith, family, and fellow men. And remember Jean Palombo and Anthony, Frank Jr., Joseph, Maria, Thomas, John, Patrick, Daniel, Steven, and Margaret Mary.

OTHERS TO REMEMBER TODAY:
Manuel Molina
Vincent Morello
Ramzi Doany
Father Mychal Judge
Mark McGinly
Scott Johnson
Robert Frank Tipaldi
Battalion 1 Chief Matthew Ryan
Chow Kwan Lam
Brian McDonnell
Zhanetta Tsoy
Chip Chan

(If I haven't found your tribute today, please leave me a comment so I can add it.)

Posted by: Sarah at 01:15 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 568 words, total size 5 kb.

Yes, Jack Bauer is a fictional character. But what is the purpose of our modern day tales and legends if not moral instruction? Don't we invent heroes because we wish to emulate them in some way, because their exaggerated traits are our ideal? We don't watch 24 because we want Jack to wimp out and take the easy way to appease the enemy; we watch it because we want our inner heroes to strive to measure up to our fictional heroes.

I wrote this a year and a half ago, and I still firmly believe it:

I'm also convinced that Flight 93 would've crashed into the White House or whatever its destination if the passengers on board hadn't been raised on good old fashioned Hollywood movies. If these men and women had never seen Passenger 57 or Air Force One, they might never have thought that they could've overpower the hijackers. One of the men on board even had a Superman tatoo; they were steeped in American culture and taught from day one that they can do anything they put their minds to. I honestly believe this is what brought Flight 93 down in a field instead of in D.C., and I'm ever grateful for the bravery those passengers showed.

But would they have had the guts to do it if they hadn't seen Wesley Snipes do it first?

I'm well aware that life isn't a movie and we don't always get a happy ending. But Fabrizio Quattrocchi had a fiancee and family too, and he still had the courage to defy the enemy. I'm saying I hope I'd do the same. You don't have to agree with me, but don't insult my intelligence by reducing my very serious and heartfelt post into pretending I don't understand the difference between TV death and real death.

Posted by: Sarah at 12:49 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 311 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Look up from your comic book and realize that reality must be granted at least a little creadence.

Posted by: Jimdennis at September 04, 2006 12:57 PM (+TF9w)

2 Youcan keep thinking that, but in my heart I know the government would have authorized the shooting down of this airliner. There were already F-15's and F-16's scrambled and armed. This plane would not have made it another 100 miles, and since they crashed about 150 miles from DC I think you are to put it mildly delusional.

Posted by: BubbaBoBobBrain, at September 04, 2006 01:00 PM (8ruhu)

3 I wonder about the motivations of people who post comments like the two above. Isn't the purpose of political dialogue to try and change people's minds? Could anyone think that a comment like "look up from your comic book" would contribute to changing Sarah's thinking, or the thinking of any of those who visit here? So what's the point.

Posted by: david foster at September 04, 2006 01:35 PM (/Z304)

4 David Foster, You have me exactly sir. All appologies. Nobody changes anybody's mind.

Posted by: jimdennis at September 04, 2006 01:41 PM (wn3bo)

5 Well, "nobody" is too broad-brushed, but folks with winning personalities like yours and the lab mouse's aren't too convincing, jimdennis.

Posted by: Patrick Chester at September 04, 2006 01:55 PM (MKaa5)

6 Almost nobody then. Almost nobody changes almost anybody's mind.

Posted by: jimdennis at September 04, 2006 02:02 PM (wn3bo)

7 Silence... glad to see that I've prevailed in this struggle of the Titans... now,I'm going hooome!

Posted by: jimdennis at September 04, 2006 02:25 PM (Dix1f)

8 Oh look, a comment leech! Usually you can just burn those off with a match, they let go right off and fall to the ground. No need to worry about infection, this species simply has a head up the cloaca of the previous leech, creating a charming circle of regurgitated excrement that goes round and round, each one feeding themselves the same shit reflexively without hope of any new input. Pay it no mind.

Posted by: Deskmerc at September 04, 2006 03:04 PM (7efBj)

9 Screw you guyths.

Posted by: jimdennis at September 05, 2006 01:43 PM (vEWGl)

10 Sarah, you're right in one way, television and movies are todays fables. In earlier times these were the stories told round the fire. The brothers Grimm told tales (the real original hair raising tales - not the Disney pap) to make children stop and think about the consequences of their actions. What might happen if you do "this"? What might happen if someone you know does "that"? But I also think the American way of life has much to do with how Americans react and jump in to "do" instead of sitting back and accepting. On thinking about this, I wonder if you had a plane load of "welfare raised" people, would they have done anything at all or would they have been shouting into their cell phones that the government better get up there and save them... (and while it would be a stretch to imagine a plane full of welfare people - I do know most of them have cell phones) I hope I would be able to stand up for what I believe in if I was confronted by these people. I will never know unless I am confronted though - but I do think about it.

Posted by: Teresa at September 05, 2006 05:33 PM (o4pJS)

11 Wellfare-raised people have no spines. Only the wealthy have heart enough to lead this country to victory. If a hijacked plane reaches its target, it's the fault of the poor and their enablers - the liberals.

Posted by: Will at September 05, 2006 08:41 PM (H4u2c)

12 I find it funny that so many complain that there are no role models in current society and that children have so few to look up to. When Sarah chooses two people with admirable behavior (one real and one fictional) sheÂ’s slammed and told that her opinion that these models of human nature are just some sort of delusion she's created with her head stuck in the sand. Fictional or otherwise, behaviors as well as people can be looked upon as a source of encouragement and ones you would like to adopt for your own. Is there really something wrong with hoping that you would be as strong as Superman when standing up for the safety of your family? Or maybe as smart as another superhero in resolving something with your government? If it makes you act better, or hell take action at all then thereÂ’s nothing wrong with really wrong with a comic book character or TV or whatever.

Posted by: Household6 at September 06, 2006 07:14 AM (40zEu)

13 Yes, it's all good and whatever to look up to heroic archetypes. But just remember that facists tend to create mythological heroes and villains (scapegoats) in order to rally the people and realize their skewed visions. Mythology is an important for the fabric of any society. WIthout myth we are lost in a world without direction. But the danger lies in fusing the fantasy with reality - in creating 1 to 1 comparisons like Sarah has done with Baur and Snipes and the people who fell from the burning towers. Allegory is on a higher plane of philosophy. You can't shape it into current affairs because it is bigger than that. And that's important, or else petty liberals and conservatives would start claiming it for themselves, and that ultimately leads to genocide. I think that's what gets me so angry when politicians invoke religion. It's inappropriate of them to do so because they don't speak for everyone - not nearly everyone. So what gives them the right to speak on behalf of myth or speak on behalf of God.

Posted by: Will at September 06, 2006 01:47 PM (H4u2c)

14 Wow, Sarah. Congrats on attracting such wonderful people! OVER and OVER! I am amazed that the simple themes of your posts are drown by exhausting rhetoric! I, too, wonder if I would maintain myself and my beliefs!? It's a scary thing....

Posted by: Allicadem at September 06, 2006 03:36 PM (hozcp)

15 It's scary because no person of great character can have their beliefs swayed, and those who aren't great are afraid to admit that they could be better.

Posted by: Will at September 06, 2006 10:52 PM (H4u2c)

16 Hmm, so either Will was born a "great character" or he is afraid. Interesting. I'm going with "afraid" for Will, since he demonstrates repeatedly that he is not of great character. The reason the persons on the plane were heroes was because the terrorists shut off the locater once they entered the cockpit. Thus, the plane showed as any other plane on the screens of the air traffic controllers. If you look at the technology at the time that day, the planes could not be identified until all other planes had been grounded. "Let's roll." How can anyone be so jaded and small in spirit that they can't appreciate the actions of persons on that plane in the face of insurmountable odds? Your posters - Billybob, Will and others - are the types that skulk off the battlefield and return later to rob the corpses. And BRAG about how much brighter they are than those poor fools who fought for something other than their immediate family and cretinous existence. A pox on them.

Posted by: Oda Mae at September 08, 2006 03:03 AM (A+GMh)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

From Mark Steyn's newest on Centanni and Wiig:

[F]or the Fox journalists and the Western media who reported their release, what's the big deal? Wear robes, change your name to Khaled, go on camera and drop Allah's name hither and yon: If that's your ticket out, seize it. Everyone'll know it's just a sham.

But that's not how the al-Jazeera audience sees it. If you're a Muslim, the video is anything but meaningless. Not even the dumbest jihadist believes these infidels are suddenly true believers. Rather, it confirms the central truth Osama and the mullahs have been peddling -- that the West is weak, that there's nothing -- no core, no bedrock -- nothing it's not willing to trade.

We saw Jill Carroll on TV yesterday talking about how like totally weird it was to play along with terrorists for three months. How she was introduced to a woman whose goal was to be a suicide bomber, how she constantly reminded her captors that they were such good, wholesome people that they would never hurt her, and how she played their game until she was released.

As we watched, I grew frustrated. I told my husband that I really don't know what the survival instinct is like. Maybe the will to live can make you do things that you swear you wouldn't do when you're sitting comfortably on your sofa. But my husband and I share a thought that comes up every time someone is abducted by jihadists: "I love you more than anything in the world, but we don't negotiate with terrorists." I don't know how Carroll kept a straight face when a pregnant mother of three said she can't wait to give birth so she can become a suicide bomber. Could I play along with that, or would the look of disgust rise on my face and give me away? And is that something I would ever want to play along with even if I could suppress the disgust?

I have never forgotten Fabrizio Quattrocchi, and I keep him as an example of how I hope I would react if I ever found myself in this situation. I hope I'd stand up for what I believe in and show the enemy how an American dies. I'm saddened that Quattrocchi's family wishes he would've played along instead of giving his life for what he believed in. I know it would be far easier for me to give my own life than my husband's; I wept when Ken Bigley's family pleaded for his life because I knew I would not do the same. I wouldn't be invited on TV because they couldn't air the foul things I would have to say to my husband's captors.

I've really gotten into watching the show 24. I can't get enough of Jack Bauer, and I think I've recently come to understand why. Jack Bauer sees the big picture. He is willing to sacrifice anything -- his life or the lives of those he loves -- to do what he thinks is right to protect the US. He does what it takes to stop the enemy because he constantly keeps his eye on that 24th hour. His country matters more to him than anything else, and he's a character I have really grown fond of.

We in the West can't understand how a Muslim woman can hide explosives in her baby's bottle, but I'm starting to understand. They value their religion and way of life over any individual person, the same way Jack Bauer values his country. I hope we have many Jack Bauer Americans out there, because we in the West have to decide if there's anything worth dying for. We need to ask ourselves what we value, and how much. What is our way of life worth to us? Because I don't think we're going to get anywhere in this War on Terror if we can't find a good answer to that question.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:12 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 663 words, total size 4 kb.

Many people have commented about the episode of Bill Maher's show where Christopher Hitchens gave the audience the finger. But no one has said anything about the other brilliant things Hitchens brought up. Really, I just couldn't get over how danged witty his jabs were; it always took the audience a second to realize they were being ridiculed. You should watch his performance here at The Malcontent.

Maher made joke after joke after joke about how dumb and religious Bush is. Seriously, he beat that horse. And I personally think Hitchens' best bit was getting fed up with it. At about ten minutes into the segment, he said:

I've been on the Jon Stewart show, I've been on your show, I've seen you make about five George Bush IQ jokes per night, there's no one I know who can't do it. You know what I think? This is now the joke that stupid people laugh at. It's a joke that any dumb person can laugh at because they think they're smarter, they can prove they're smarter than the President. Like the people who make booing and mooing noises in your audience.

My husband and I both agree that we will be relieved when Bush leaves office for the simple reason that hopefully we can put an end to the idiot jokes. No matter how many times someone points out that Bush's IQ is in the 90th percentile, probably slightly higher than Kerry's, no matter that Bush has degrees from Harvard and Yale, every yahoo with a computer likes to pretend he's oh so much smarter than Bush. I think Hitchens is right: people like to think Bush is stupid because it makes them feel better about themselves.

But it truly takes a simple man to think himself grand because he can make chimp jokes.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:29 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.

Charlie threw up at 0315, and I couldn't go back to sleep after we cleaned it up. I thought some internet would help, but clicking on this Amritas post in the middle of the night just made my head reel even more.

He says, among many other things:

Instead of focusing on over there, we should remember what we can do here. Specifically, tighten the borders. Minimize Muslim immigration.

But noooo. We want more 'security'. More war in East Ameraq. No attention paid to the Muslims that continue to stream into the West. We whine about the jihadists among them when it's too late - when they're already here - often with citizenship. What does that say about us? We want to be warriors, bravely defending our fortress - while we leave the back door wide open. Why? Because we also want to pat ourselves on the back for being free of bigotry. Aren't we wonderful?

I can't find anything there I don't agree with. Amritas has gradually come to see the war in Iraq as the wrong move, which I can respect because I've followed his thought process, and nowhere did it involve ideas like "no blood for oil" or "Bush is Hitler". Common ground goes a long way. And when I read things like the segment of Diana West's article he quoted, I find myself agreeing:

I wanted to make the world - that part of the world from which terrorism mainly springs - democratic, and therefore, safe.

Over the past few years, then, the United States has supported fledgling democracies in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Palestinian Authority ... But the fact is, when these peoples have spoken, what we have heard, or should have been hearing, in the expression of their collective will is that the mechanics of democracy alone (one citizen, one vote) do not automatically manufacture democrats - if by democrats we mean citizens who believe first and foremost in the kind of liberty that guarantees freedom of conscience and equality before the law.

On the contrary, each of these new democracies has produced constitutions that enshrine Islamic law.

This, as I understand it, is a big part of why Amritas feels we made the wrong move by going into Iraq. I can appreciate this argument, since I have fretted about the same thing in recent times. My husband and I worry constantly about the seven signs of non-competitive states, which I think wholly applies to the Middle East problem.

That said, I still see good in our presence in Iraq. Varifrank reminds us this week that Iran could've easily armed Hizbollah if Old Iraq had been in the middle to cooperate.

Even though there's a whole website dedicated to me being the world's biggest war cheerleader (yep, it's still up and running), I have never said that I have all the answers. I, like Amritas, simply fear and even hate Islam. But I don't know the best course of action for defending ourselves from it; I just know I'll support whatever it takes to get them to leave us alone.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 532 words, total size 4 kb.

Last night we watched Mr. and Mrs. Smith. Meh. It wasn't that great, but it's easy to finish a so-so movie; it's only two hours of my life. However, I am struggling with applying the same concept to the book I'm reading. I've already sunk countless hours into Gravity's Rainbow, and I can't decide if I want to keep going or throw in the towel.

I've never not finished a book (well, except once, but I felt guilty for 15 years). I always think that there's got to be something of value in most books, so I hate to quit them. Maybe the good part is at the end, and I'll never know. But it's bad news when you're on page 140 of a 760 page book and every page feels like a chore.

Has anyone else read this book? Is it worth it? There are whole companion books dedicated to this monster; doesn't it seem like any book that you need two other books and several websites to understand is a bit ridiculous? When the Wikipedia entry starts "The main narrative thread (insofar as there is one)", that's not a good sign. Nor is the fact that the book was suggested for a Pulitzer and rejected by the board because it was "unreadable."

And I thought I'd type out a passage for you to mull over when I googled it and found that Photon Courier has written about the same passage. Because it's his favorite. The one that was practically my breaking point. Sigh. I know he's read my blog once before; maybe he can urge me to keep going in the book.

I will point out that he cut the passage way down though. Perhaps even he was daunted by a 16 line sentence.

At what point do you cut your losses with a book and move on? Or do you keep trudging through and hope that the end of the book brings enlightenment or at least satisfaction in knowing you didn't give up?

I don't like to quit books. But I also don't like dreading picking it up.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:23 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 355 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Your wish is my command...here I am. I do think it's a great book (and the reason I cut the passage down was mainly because I was too lazy to type the whole thing.) But I don't see any need to finish this, or any other book, if you're not enjoying it. 140 pages is probably a fair test as to whether you're going to like it or not.

Posted by: David Foster at August 20, 2006 08:58 AM (/Z304)

2 Sarah-- I agree with David. I vividly remember when I turned 25 and I suddenly realized that life is short--and there is no way I'll be able to read all the books I want to! Don't waste your time on a book you don't love or that doesn't challenge you.

Posted by: Lara--the English Teacher at August 20, 2006 10:14 AM (wLffD)

3 Here's another GR excerpt, and one which I think is highly relevant to some of our current issues, as I explain in the post: Journalism's Nuremberg

Posted by: david foster at August 20, 2006 11:05 AM (/Z304)

4 Sarah, I have to agree with Lara. Books are for either education and reference (in which case a certain amount of trudging through sludge is acceptable) or for enjoyment (in which case "life is short".) If a reading for fun book isn't, trade it at a used book store for something better. Maybe someone else will enjoy it more than you. Keep looking for things what you will enjoy. One of life's reading pleasures is finding a previously unknown to you book by an author that you enjoy. As you can tell from my name, my favorite genre if obvious.

Posted by: ScifiJim at August 20, 2006 12:59 PM (SYh5A)

5 Sarah, Try reading _The Crying Of Lot 49_ or the stories collected under the title _Slow Learner_. The BIG BOOK is a poor introduction to Pynchon.

Posted by: Herb at August 20, 2006 01:35 PM (yl7FB)

6 Reading things that do not interest or entertain you should have stopped being an option once you got that degree. Stop the madness and toss it aside. Sorry,140 pages is more than a fair try. If the author can't reel you in and make you want to know what's next,they aren't very good. I'm not terribly hard to please,either. I love to read and will happily dive into any genre. The last book I tossed aside was "Infinite Jest" back in 1996,by the way. I just didn't care enough to finish the thing. Some people love it and more power to them. JUST don't feel guilty. Please.

Posted by: MaryIndiana at August 20, 2006 06:47 PM (YwdKL)

7 Yeah, I do a similar thing. I read about books on Amazon, then ask the local library to order them for me. When I get them, I read a few pages and think "Hey, they really gave this piece of junk five stars? Why!?! Maybe it becomes clear later." So I have stopped reading FIVE diffent books this week. One for each night. And yes, I do feel guilty, because I brought them down from Belgium and the Netherlands. Live and learn. I need to read the first few pages myself before taking some unknown reviewer's comments to heart.

Posted by: Oda Mae at August 20, 2006 08:38 PM (YgLuj)

8 I almost took a class at university here, until I read the course description very well: "In 1997, exactly 25 years after the publication of Thomas Pynchon's 'masterpiece' Gravity's Rainbow, Mason & Dixon, a historical rewrite of the life of James Mason and Jeremiah Dixon, hit the bookstores. This course will be devoted to a very close reading (in the best of academic worlds, I would assume that the book has been read 'at least once' before the start of the semester) of this long-awaited novel by one of the most enigmatic, notorious and fascinating authors writing in America today. In the course, we will follow the slow, traumatic drawing of the Mason & Dixon line across the body of the American continent. The work on this 'line' brings together a bunch of illustrious people (Benjamin Franklin, a psychedelic musician sporting blue sunglasses; George Washington, inhaling; Vaucasson's duck, alive and in love with a French chef; Capt. Zhang, a Feng Shui master running from a Jesuit monk) and a number of curious concepts (a secret Jesuit telegraph system making extended use of balloons and satellites, a 'hollow earth,' 'eleven lost days,' a werebeaver and smoke-rings in the form of möbius-strips). Topics dealt with in the course range from questions about narrative structure, narrative voice (the narrator, Wicks Cherrycoke is a minor character from Gravity's Rainbow who seems to have made it into this new novel by virtue of some sort of 'transpagination'), historiographic metafiction, cultural studies and traumatology to questions about coffee, hemp, ghosts, and lost loves." As a history major this would have really really tested me. And I decided to pass...(Also, I love how the book should be read "at least once" before starting the class.) A few years ago I started the whole "not finishing a book thing". The first time it's hard, but afterwards it gets easier. If the literary world is a smorgasbord, I don't want to get stuffed up on the "100 year old eggs" just 'cos they are character building...take me to the prime rib and the eclairs!

Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at August 20, 2006 11:41 PM (8nHbe)

9 Postmodernist dog feces. "it is a book not set aside lightly, it should be hurled with great force". May as well read Slaughterhouse 5, which will at least have places that you have been.

Posted by: Jason at August 21, 2006 06:08 AM (Lrs90)

10 Assuage your guilt by donating those unfinished books to your public library. Not only will others get the benefit, and the lilbrary get a book it may not have been able to afford but you can always go check it out if you really MUST finish it. )

Posted by: wiser_now at August 25, 2006 03:00 PM (M0aqG)

11 P.S....and if you donate it to the library; it's tax deductible (get a receipt). I, too, hated to give up on a book. But I've found over the years that some books aren't worth the time. So, give it up and don't feel guilty. The time you save can be used reading something really worthwhile!!!

Posted by: Pamela at August 28, 2006 03:20 PM (b28Se)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I clicked on a link to Uncle Sam Ate My Baby blog because of the hilarious name. What I found was a wonderful thing called 2996. It is a project to honor those who died on 9/11; participants research a victim and post their tribute on the fifth anniversary. I signed up for a person immediately. They still need about 1200 people to participate, so if you have any interest in this project, please go to 2996 and sign up.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:18 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.

I heard a lot on the news yesterday about how Americans have forgotten about 9/11, and how this recently foiled terror plot should help us all focus. But apparently some people seem to have forgotten on purpose, because they don't believe we're fighting a war.

Hawkins is right that if this plot had been successful, if hundreds more people had been killed in planes this year, these would've been the first people to blame Bush and Blair. You can't win.

So everyone's mad. The Democratic Underground is mad that Bush is elevating the terror level for political gain. And the Council on American Islamic Relations is mad that Bush blamed the terror plot on, um, Muslims:

U.S. Muslim groups criticized President George W. Bush on Thursday for calling a foiled plot to blow up airplanes part of a “war with Islamic fascists,” saying the term could inflame anti-Muslim tensions.

U.S. officials have said the plot, thwarted by Britain, to blow up several aircraft over the Atlantic bore many of the hallmarks of al Qaeda.

“We believe this is an ill-advised term and we believe that it is counter-productive to associate Islam or Muslims with fascism,” said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations advocacy group.

“We ought to take advantage of these incidents to make sure that we do not start a religious war against Islam and Muslims,” he told a news conference in Washington.

“We urge him (Bush) and we urge other public officials to restrain themselves.”

Yes, because you know that after 9/11, 7/7, Madrid, etc, white people went bonkers and started rioting in the street and sawing off Muslims' heads with dull knives. We really need to prevent this from happening again. I mean, it's just be a coincidence that all these terror attacks over the past five years have been perpetrated by Muslims. We can't really blame Islam for any of this. It's obviously "counter productive" to say that there's causation here; I guess it's just correlation. So we owe you guys a big apology, Hasan Akbar, John Walker Lindh, Richard Reid, Muhammad and Malvo, Mohammed Reza Taheriazar, and Naveed Haq. The fact that you are all Muslims is just a big ol' coincidence, and any attempt to associate you with Islamic facism would be a grave injustice. We beg your forgiveness that while you were killing people, we might've offended you with a label.

Sorry, my sarcasm-meter just hit amaravatian levels.

Maybe Malkin is right: it doesn't even do any good to call them "Islamic fascists", because that assumes that it's an outlying fringe. Check out her scary graphs.

Laser beam. Laser beam. Laser beam.
Deep breath.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 449 words, total size 4 kb.

My husband read this article in Forbes, and we immediately became 50 Cent fans. We listened to his album in the car this weekend, which is a completely different experience when you know more about him. He wasn't just whistlin' dixie with that "Get Rich or Die Tryin'" slogan. It's extremely amusing to listen to the song "High All the Time" and know that 50 Cent doesn't even smoke weed; he's just a shrewd businessman who knows what sells. He made $50 million dollars in 2004 without even making an album. We can't help but be a tad impressed.

Posted by: Sarah at 01:30 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 105 words, total size 1 kb.

I just finished reading Mario Pei's The Story of Language. Because I've taken so many linguistics and ESL courses, the basic ideas of the book were not new to me, though it was fun to read a book written in 1948 and see how things have already changed. French was still considered a much bigger player than Russian, Chinese, or Spanish, and 60 years ago, "corny" and "gimmick" were apparently too slangy to be accepted. The most fascinating part of the book by far was the last chapter. After a discussion in the preceding chapter of constructed languages like Esperanto, Pei sets the stage for an international tongue. He argues that "people now alive will be completely replaced, within less than a century, by other people whose habits, linguistic and otherwise, are not yet formed because the people are not yet born, and who can be given, with proper planning, any set of linguistic or other habits that it pleases their enlightened elders to impart to them." And so he goes on to say

What is needed for the solution of the world's language problem is simply a language, any one of the world's 2796 natural languages or of the five hundred or so constructed ones that have at various times been proposed; with, however, two qualifications: the langauge selected must have absolute correspondence of written symbols for spoken sounds, and it must be adopted, by international agreement, in all countries at the same time, not in the high schools or colleges or universities, but in the lowest grade of the elementary schools, side by side with the national tongue, so that it may be learned easily, naturally, and painlessly by the oncoming generations.

Thus within a century, we'd all speak a common native language.

Anyone who's studied a foreign language beyond school requirements knows that the longer you study, the more you realize how tricky communication is. The more familiar you are with the lexicon, the more you see it doesn't match up one-to-one with your native tongue. And true and exact comprehension between two cultures seems hopelessly naive.

Language buffs like me will get excited by Pei's concept. Economists like my husband will say, "That's stupid. The free market already decided on a language and it's English, baby. Lucky for us." But set aside the diplomatic nightmare of implementing a universal language -- and I'm certain that's the reason that it's never been done in the 60 years since Pei suggested it -- and imagine for a moment what such a world would be like. A world where virtually everyone is bilingual and they all have one language in common.

The thought makes my heart skip a beat.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 454 words, total size 3 kb.

There's no question that I support Israel in her current war. However, I do feel a sense of profound sadness for ordinary Lebanese people who don't support Hezbollah but are caught in a terrible battle in their own country. Via Amritas via Benjamin I found a blog called Lebanese Political Journal that is mesmerizing.

A week ago, I might have told you that my heart broke because my favorite World Cup team lostÂ… I almost cried.
Now
I would do anything to watch my team lose - and bring down my sense of disappointment to that level again.

Follow these four Lebanese citizens as they try to grok.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

Whew, Varifrank gives us both barrels in his discussion of proportional response!

And Varifrank also pimpslaps whiny people who want everything their way. He and others almost got on an airplane that quite certainly would've crashed, and all the passengers did was complain. I can't help but draw the parallel between these airline passengers and the sniveling jerks who are being rushed out of Lebanon. As one news commenter said this morning, there's been a travel advisory to the region for 20 years and yet people who chose to go there anyway won't stop complaining that the government took a few hours longer than Sweden to ferry them out for free. I think all passengers on that stupid cruise ship should be forced to sit through a reading of Whittle's Responsibility. And they should have to pay that 150 bucks too. Is there some way we can transport all those unused trailers from Katrina to Larnaca?

Posted by: Sarah at 07:39 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

Though I'm many days late and several dollars short, I wanted to weigh in on the "Cartoon Wars" episode of South Park, which I finally got to see in reruns this week. I read all about it in April when we were in Germany, but I realized I didn't fully understand the episode until I saw it for myself. Sorry if this is really old news for people.

Apparently at the height of insanity over the Danish Mohammad cartoons, Comedy Central told Parker and Stone that they couldn't show Mohammad no matter what. So they built an entire episode around Comedy Central's lack of backbone. They included this brilliant speech:

Freedom of speech is at stake here, don't you all see? If anything, we should all make cartoons of Mohammed and show the terrorists and the extremists that we are all united in the belief that every person has a right to say what they want. Look people, it's been really easy for us to stand up for free speech lately. For the past few decades, we haven't had to risk anything to defend it. One of those times is right now. And if we aren't willing to risk what we have now, then we just believe in free speech, but won't defend it.

At which point the people of South Park all bury their heads in the sand. Literally. Parker and Stone are not allowed to show Mohammad just standing there, but Comedy Central has no problem with Jesus pooping on the American flag.

Nothing I read about the episode back in April really did it justice until I had seen it for myself. I'm quite surprised that Comedy Central let themselves look like such tools. And I'm sad that once again Parker and Stone show the world for what it truly is.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:59 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.