You know, I don't think you could pay me to go back to a college campus these days. I found some events on campus baffling enough back then, and I never paid attention to international news or current events. I just simply don't think I could stomach it these days.

Josie is at college, afraid of how she'll be treated when people learn about her husband and his OIF injuries. What a great post.

I feel for you, Josie, I really do. I wouldn't want to be in your shoes.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:00 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.

Wow. I had no idea I was in such a minority:

A Gallup poll found that only 7 percent of Americans do not believe in telepathy, déjà vu, ghosts, past lives or other supernatural phenomena, which may have more than a little to do with the soaring popularity of Halloween.

A few years ago, my husband and I were visiting his parents and sleeping in the guest room. I woke up in the middle of the night to a bone-chilling noise, a wailing, moaning, ghostly noise. The hair on the back of my neck stood up straight and my heart began to race. I still have no explanation whatsoever for what the noise was: the wind? the dog? my father-in-law groaning in his sleep?

I realized the next day that, if I believed in ghosts, I would forever tell that story as an encounter with one. I would swear that I had heard a ghost at my in-laws' house. But I don't believe in them. Instead I see that story as proof of how people say they've encountered ghosts.

But the truly interesting part was how I could not stop my body and mind from being frightened. Even though I absolutely don't think there was anything out there, my body went into panic mode.

Interesting stuff. But only 7%? Wow.

Posted by: Sarah at 12:37 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 222 words, total size 1 kb.

My husband told me about this Harry Potter article linked on Instapundit and Althouse, and I found it hysterical:

Here is what I imagine the seven Harry Potter novels are about: I imagine that Harry is an orphan who had a bad relationship with his father (kind of like Tom Cruise in Top Gun or Days of Thunder or A Few Good Men or any of his movies that didn't involve Ireland). He escapes some sort of abstract slavery and decides to become a wizard, so he attends Wizard College and meets a bunch of anachronistic magic-using weirdos and perhaps a love interest that he never has sex with. There is probably a good teacher and a bad teacher at this school and (I'm sure) they eventually fight each other, and then some previously theoretical villain tries to destroy the world, and all the wizard kids have to unite and protect the universe by boiling black cats in a cauldron and throwing lightning bolts at pterodactyls. Harry learns about life and loss and leadership, and then he doesn't die. The end.

Now, I realize I don't have to guess at these details. I'm sure I could read the entire four-thousand-page plot summarized in four hundred words on Wikipedia, or I could simply walk into any high school and ask a few questions of the first kid I find who isn't smoking crystal meth.

No, you can't read the Wikipedia entry. Because if you don't know anything about the books, like I don't, then all you'll read is sentences like "Harry and Frimbleframp travel to the smigglefloop in a wimbdywhop to battle the canterstamp with a shimmelflap." It's utter nonsense if you don't already know what you're reading.

Anyway, the article is an interesting take on how pop culture brings us shared knowledge. And why you can't understand Kevin Smith if you've never seen Star Wars.

Incidentally, I saw the "Trapper Keeper" episode of South Park before Neil made me watch the Terminator movies. And I didn't get the cultural references. Once I saw the movies, I thought the episode was a lot funnier, plus I finally got the line in Family Guy where Adam West asks Meg if she's Sarah Connor.

But I still don't have any plans to read Harry Potter yet.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:21 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 387 words, total size 3 kb.

My Swedish friend was so excited that my husband had organized a birthday surprise. So when I talked to her again last night, I asked what she thought of the surprise trip to the firing range.

She was horrified.

I expected her to think it was weird, or not romantic, but I didn't expect her to react so vehemently. She thought the whole thing was plain awful, and incomprehensible, and that all the commenters were horrifying as well. She even called her sister's American husband to ask him if he knows what the 2nd Amendment is (too cute) and whether he owns a firearm. She was really rattled by this and even started talking about Virginia Tech.

Then she reminded me of something that I hadn't thought of in a long time. When I lived in France, I was walking home late at night one night when a man on a moped drove up onto the sidewalk, pinned me between a van and a wall, and tried to grope me. Needless to say, it was a frightening experience, and for weeks after that, I walked around the city with my Swiss Army knife in my hand. I have no idea what I actually would've done with it if someone else had tried to attack me, but it made me feel a sliver of control over the situation and it helped me get over my fear. What I had forgotten was how crazy my Swedish friend thought I was for walking with a knife. Or at least, I didn't realize just how crazy she thought I was until she brought it up again last night, that thinking about me with a gun brought back memories of me walking the streets with a one and a half inch blade. Apparently something that barely registered in my brain today was seared, seared in hers.

I told my husband about this last night, and he said, "Wait, let me get this straight, she thought you were dangerous and crazy because you wanted to protect yourself from being raped?"

I explained to my friend that while we disagree on lots of issues -- death penalty, health care, etc -- the Gun Issue is so cultural that we typical Americans and Europeans will never begin to understand each other. We can't even talk about the issue because we're coming at it with completely different cultural baggage. She says that guns create violence; I say they deter it. No common ground.

After we got off the phone, I thought for a long time about our conversation. She can't read my blog; it makes her sick to her stomach. She's against everything I stand for, and vice versa. I'm not mad about that: if she had a blog, I wouldn't want to read it either! But I started to think about the fact that we are friends with each other despite our value systems. That we set aside everything we think about the world and everything we believe to be right in order to remain friends.

She thinks blogging is weird, that it's odd I would bare my soul to strangers on the internet. I kinda think it's weird that I've been friends for nine years with someone I have no common ground with.

UPDATE:

Oda Mae is right: This is a friend who would drop everything to take me to a hospital. She even said that she would fly to the US to meet my future baby. She is a good friend. Maybe that's equally important to the equation as our values.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:22 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 601 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Sarah, That is strange to me as well. It seems as though the older I get, I am increasingly intolerable of others "with different values". The great thing the internet has afforded me, is the ability to be friends with like minded people. I know longer have to be friends with the lady across the street, because she is available.... I can be a little choosier. I call you friend, and would love to spend the day out shooting with you. BTW, have you introduced your Swedish friend the the world of gun-bloggers? Boy, she might just go crazy if she read Mr. Kim

Posted by: armywifetoddlermom at October 16, 2007 04:43 AM (bpXtT)

2 I've got some liberal friends. We just don't talk about politics...most of the time.

Posted by: tim at October 16, 2007 04:54 AM (nno0f)

3 One of my best friends is extremely liberal. And not only that, but she is also extremely opinionated. It is hard, but I guess I value other parts of our friendship more than her politics. So we just don't talk about it... because I just might strangle her, haha. Not really, but it can be hard to disagree with someone so much that you talk to so much.

Posted by: Kasey at October 16, 2007 05:06 AM (tttDj)

4 Tim, but isn't politics a reflection of your values, and therefore your self? I have spent nine years easily talking to my friend about her boyfriend woes or the big events in life (moving, vacations, etc), but we can't really get deeper than that without clashing. And while we always do it in a respectful and intellectual way -- we don't fight about issues, we discuss -- but it still sometimes seems odd to me. We have completely different definitions of words like responsibility, honor, courage, duty. Doesn't that make for a superficial friendship? I'm just musing here, I don't have the answer. And I am not wanting to cut her out of my life either. I just am struck by how odd this seems to me.

Posted by: Sarah at October 16, 2007 05:09 AM (TWet1)

5 I have superficial friendships in one respect - we can't talk about things that are important to us and agree, like politics. But even though that is the case, I know that if I had to get to the Hospital, or some other crisis where I needed them, they would come. Maybe it's like that for you and this friend - you don't agree on core issues, but her loyalty to you as a friend makes the friendship meaningful, no matter the differences.

Posted by: Oda Mae at October 16, 2007 05:48 AM (6zvrq)

6 I have a couple of friends that sit on the total other side of the road that I do, on most all issues and thoughts. We are friends for reasons other than the things we do not agree on and that is ok. Maybe strange, but still ok in my book. They also think I am totally weird for loving to shoot (that is just one topic where they think I am weird) and the fact that I actually 'allow' guns in my home with children living here. Yes, they are locked in a safe, I am no dummy. But, I.Like.Guns. I was raised with them in my house, they are a hobby in one regard. I learned to use them at an early age for protection and hunting. As will my children. I guess that makes me a redneck, but I will be a redneck forever if that means I can feel safe and keep my guns!! I'll go back to my crazy woman cave now

Posted by: LMT at October 16, 2007 06:58 AM (4VnXA)

7 My Pop had a farm, and there were always guns everywhere when I was growing up. No gun safe, either. Leaning against the wall by the back door, something I would NEVER do. However, with four grandchildren and 8000 other kids tramping through the house constantly, there was never so much as an accidental nicking of someone's carotid artery. Despite that, I spent from my high school graduation in 1992 until 9/11 being vehemently anti-gun, my reasoning was that a gun has no other reason but to kill something, and I wanted no part of that. It's funny how feeling attacked will make you suddenly glad Pop taught you how to handle firearms. I decided that I would NOT be a victim, and I would NEVER be victimized by my own acquiescence. I even have a scary looking dog (who spoons people in his spare time)! I use a great book for teaching my kids American history - it's called The Landmark History of the American People. What I love about it is that it is the perfect supplement to "regular" history books that give the dates and times of major events. It describes the American people and spirit - with insight like describing the fact that the Puritans were certainly pessimists, but they were enthusiastic pessimists. I have to say, I read the book on my own. Anyway, it devotes a considerable amount of time to describing the differences between the American Spirit and the European spirit and why those differences evolved. **sorry for the thesis...

Posted by: airforcewife at October 16, 2007 09:36 AM (emgKQ)

8 Sarah, “Doesn't that make for a superficial friendship?” I suppose your right but is that a bad thing in general? Also, this could easily digress into a debate about semantics and what constitutes a true friend versus someone you just know and how those two things are so individualistically subjective. (For example, I’ve always felt so uncomfortable when someone introduces me as their friend when I’m thinking “Ah, no we're not”). Thinking about it further maybe these friends are not friends in the classic sense, maybe more like acquaintances. The true friends I discuss serious issues and have many of those things you mentioned in common I’ve known for thirty years or more. These friends know me well and know how I feel about things and vice-versa, while being on the same page the majority of the time. Also related and something that fascinates me immensely is how total opposites like James Carville & Mary Matlin can not only be good friends but a loving husband and wife.

Posted by: tim at October 16, 2007 11:04 AM (nno0f)

9 It fascinates me immensely that ANYONE could find James Carville attractive and loveable.

Posted by: airforcewife at October 16, 2007 12:58 PM (emgKQ)

10 "It fascinates me immensely that ANYONE could find James Carville attractive and loveable." LOL

Posted by: tim at October 17, 2007 05:11 AM (nno0f)

11 I think it's cool that you guys can be so open about the fact that you have no common ground, yet find enough reasons to remain friends (beside the fact that she's just so damn adorable).

Posted by: Erin at October 18, 2007 01:31 PM (XRza7)

12 Loyalty, especially when coupled with reliability, can go a long way towards building a friendship. As a born-and-raised New Yorker, joining the Army exposed me to a greater variety of people on intimate terms than any other experience in my life. One of the people I met - in AIT - was someone who, as a stereotype (I'll let you guess which one), I never would have imagined buddying up with. He was incredibly loyal and, despite our differences, I valued his friendship on that basis. I just hope I gave him as much as he gave me. Unfortunately, we lost touch after AIT, as happens often to Army friendships with PCS, but it was a lesson learned about relationships.

Posted by: Eric Chen at October 20, 2007 05:03 PM (7X1rW)

13 A man is trying a very unusual way to propose to his girlfriend. He wants people to forward an email to as many people as possible and he hopes that it will eventually get to his girlfriend. Details here: http://www.proposal-to-mary.com Here is what he wants people to send by email: You could help me a lot to spread my proposal to Mary – it is important that it is distributed as widely as possible so that it eventually reaches Mary. If you would like to support my proposal to Mary, please send the following text by email to a lot of people :-) ------------- SNIP (email text end) --------------- WHEN YOU RECEIVE THIS, PLEASE HELP TO DISTRIBUTE IT TO OTHER PEOPLE! For a long time I have tried to find a special way to propose marriage to my girlfriend Mary, whom I know for five years now. I wanted it very special, romantic and memorable, something our grandchildren would still remember. And here is my idea: I will send out the proposal to Mary to 50 complete strangers, people I don't know - hoping, that they will forward my proposal to as many people as possible, which in turn forward it etc. And some day, I hope, it will reach Mary, after it has travelled a very long way. I know, it will take a long time and I am quite nervous… From the poem MY Mary will know immediately that the proposal is for her. I have created a homepage ( http://www.proposal-to-mary.com ) where you can find the current status of my quest. You can use the homepage to check if the proposal has already reached Mary (in that case it is not necessary anymore to forward the mail). Once the proposal has reached Mary, I will put a note on these pages. Also I will publish there how many people have read the proposal so that everybody can see how far it has spread and that it is getting closer to Mary. And of course you will find there what I am waiting for most: Mary's answer! I can't tell you, how nervous I am… Will she accept my proposal? Will she like the unusual way how she got it, through the hands of thousands of messengers all over the world? Please cross your fingers for me! And please - help me by sending the mail to as many people as possible, to help it spread, so that it eventually reaches Mary. And here is my proposal: Mary, please forgive me, as you know English is not my native language. And I am not a poet. But I mean it from my heart. My angel, Five years ago, I will always remember the day When fate made us meet, blissful Alaskan moments in May Earth spun around us and a journey began Love, warmth, happiness, enough the years to span. The longer it lasts the more grows our bond And with 80 still - of you I will be fond Whatever happens, I will stay at your side Through good and bad, together let us stride No second with you was ever wasted You are the sweetest I have ever tasted We have spent so many years - why not a life? Mary, will you marry me - and become my wife? Mary, if you have received that and have recognized me, then give me a sign so that I can continue with the romantic part of my proposal… ------------- SNIP (email text end) ---------------

Posted by: Vodeicosoge at October 23, 2007 12:45 PM (JKa0R)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

There's too much going on in this Winds of Change post to even excerpt. Suffice it to say that I've kept it open on my desktop all day and followed all of his links. It's chock full of stuff to grok.

Patriotism Rears Its Head Yet Again

Posted by: Sarah at 01:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

A very good explanation of why "dissent is the highest form of patriotism" doesn't really work.

Oh yeah, and Thomas Jefferson never said that. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Posted by: Sarah at 11:11 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

Jay Tea wins quote of the day:

People who rejoice in their tax refunds are fools for thinking that "the government gave me money" instead of "the government borrowed all this money from me, then returned it with no interest."

Read the whole post.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

Rachel Lucas rips Sally Field a new one.
Breathtaking.
Via Oda Mae, who always finds the good stuff.

Posted by: Sarah at 10:16 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

Something wonderful happened today. Someone who barely knows me did something very kind for me. And tonight, I feel like this.

To Sarah, the richest woman on the internet...
It really is a wonderful life.

Posted by: Sarah at 12:38 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

German co-worker was always leery of the US. She thought it was such a dangerous place. Of course, she was born and raised in rural Bavaria, and her only experience in the US was in her in-laws' run-down neighborhood in Detroit. I, on the other hand, know several families in the Midwest that don't even lock their front doors. Danger is in the eye of the beholder.

So which is the real US? Someone from rural Wisconsin will have a completely different idea than someone from the barrio in L.A. Neither one of these places is less real, but you might not even recognize them as the same country if you saw descriptions of them side by side.

So which is the real Iraq? Is it Erbil?

Or is it Baghdad?

It would be hard for an Iraqi living in either one of these places to give a good bird's eye view on what the country as a whole is like. Just like someone from Wisconsin would be lousy at describing the barrio. It's just really hard to do. And even harder to do when you're an outsider.

My husband had a pretty good understanding of what his sector was like in 2004-2005. But he's the first one to admit that that means nothing today. His experiences are outdated, and the same neighborhoods are quite different two years on. And even while he was boots on the ground, he had no experience whatsoever with what was going on in Basra or Tikrit. His view was microscopic.

I have been thinking about this a lot tonight, ever since I read Thomas Sowell's latest article, which begins with the brilliant line, "Sometimes I feel as if I must be one of the few people left in America who is not a military expert."

For example, all sorts of politicians have been talking about all sorts of ways we ought to “redeploy” our troops. The closest I ever came to deploying troops was marching a company of Marines to the mess hall for chow.

But people who have never even put on a uniform are confident that they know how our troops should be redeployed. Maybe this is one of the fruits of the “self-esteem” that is taught in our schools instead of education.

If my husband's information on Iraq is microscopic and outdated, I can't begin to describe Congress'. An overnight trip to the Green Zone doesn't teach you a lot about what Iraq is like. You'd be better off reading a book on Iraq than sitting in a Baghdad hotel.

But these days, everyone is a military expert. Nothing has made that more painfully obvious than this New York Times article on General Petraeus' speech.

Under the timetable embraced Monday by Gen. David H. Petraeus, the number of American combat brigades would decline by one-fourth by next summer, to 15 in July from 20 now, with the prospect of deeper, if as yet unscheduled, reductions to come.

But such a move would raise the question of how the United States can avert an increase in violence in Iraq while carrying out a gradual drawdown. One approach embraced by many lawmakers would be to modify the American mission to emphasize the training and advising of Iraqi security forces so that Iraqis would be pushed into the lead and a vast majority of American combat troops could be quickly withdrawn.

This proposal, which was offered last year by the Iraq Study Group, the bipartisan panel led by Lee H. Hamilton, a former congressman, and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, has appealed to many Democrats and some Republicans who want to achieve a measure of stability in Iraq while shrinking the role of the American military.

But in his testimony on Monday, General Petraeus offered a very different vision. He proposed an American presence that would not only be longer and larger than many Democrats have advocated but would also provide for a greater American combat role in protecting the Iraqi population.

They may as well have started the article with "Most Americans we polled want to bring the troops home, but unfortunately some jerkwad named Petraeus is in charge and he doesn't want to listen to all of us." I mean, really. This is how they set up this article? "One approach embraced by many lawmakers"? As if they really have any clue what they're talking about. Didn't only one of the Iraq Study Group guys ever leave the Green Zone? They seriously set up this article about General Petraeus' speech as "Here's what we think is best but Petraeus disagrees." That is not only extremely poor journalism, it's oh so sanctimonious.

General Petraeus' grasp on Iraq is likely not perfect either, but it's probably as macroscopic as it gets. And they hired him to do a job -- assess what we need to do to win in Iraq -- and now no one wants to hear the results.

General Petraeus acknowledged that some military officers in Washington favored faster change in the American mission, but he said that his approach reflected his best judgment on how to cope with the violence in Iraq.

General Petraeus promised a more detailed discussion of the “post-surge” phase in March. But one point was made abundantly clear: if he has his way, in the next phase the United States will not rely largely on a program to advise and train the Iraqi Army while removing its own forces from the battlefield.

Translation: He says he's giving us his "best judgement," but it's not what we wanted to hear. Now, let's go write some more articles to try to sway public opinon so he doesn't have his way.

No one is going to have a perfect picture of what will bring absolute success in Iraq. Most Americans couldn't even tell you how to stop crime in their own neighborhoods, but all of us are military experts these days. And apparently all of us know better than Petraeus.

Nevermind that we've never even heard of Erbil.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:00 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1013 words, total size 6 kb.

I have been thinking about something for a long time now, but I never blogged it because the moment had passed and I didn't think it made sense to revisit it. But now that the moment has resurfaced, I may as well.

I had a friend who was a fellow French major in college. She started a blog several years ago and mostly talked about personal stuff in her life. But right before the invasion into Iraq, she wrote a post about how the US is a big bully in the world and how we should listen to France. And I Went Off. I wrote a huge diatribe about why we should tell France to feck off, etc. The blog is long gone, so I no longer know her words or mine, but I know I probably came off too harsh. I think it took her completely by surprise, and definitely not in a good way. But I was right, by golly, and she needed to know why she was wrong. And I maintained that I was in the right for a very long time.

But what my tiff with Allicadem taught me, a full four years later, is that I was a bonehead. I might've been absolutely 100% right that we rule and France drools, but I should've handled the situation far better. Either I should've kept my mouth shut, or I should've treaded far more lightly.

In relationships, there are more important things than being right.

I screwed up, and it's too late to fix that mess. But being on the receiving end of Allicadem's mess brought me a whole new level of perspective. And I came away thinking a lot about my old friend and how, when someone is speaking from the gut, it's not always the best time to tell her she's wrong. Maybe I will make a terrible mother and I don't know being pregnant from a hole in the ground, but it probably wasn't a good idea to say so. She had the right to say it, but exercising that right may be followed by an entire comments section gang-up. I had the right to tell my friend that France is worthless, but exercising that right put a serious unmendable dent in that friendship.

So I personally learned a lot from an ouch situation, and I've managed to take that grokking and apply it to a new situation. I wrote at SpouseBuzz that a friend of ours is getting out of the Army, and the wife is starting to wear me down with her vitriol. I got a lot of advice to speak openly with the friend and to tell her how I feel, but I do not think I will take that approach here. I don't need to be right anymore, and I don't need her to know that the Army isn't evil. She is the one who needs to talk, whether or not I think she's right.

I feel embiggened that I learned from a mistake I made four years ago, that I was smart enough to finally realize it was a mistake and to break the cycle before I did it again.

It feels good not to be right.

Posted by: Sarah at 07:18 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 540 words, total size 3 kb.

Erin just recounted an interesting story: a girl she went to high school with contacted her via MySpace...and this girl is now a boy. Hmmm.

Leaving completely aside the issue of transgenderism, I started to think how bold it was of this person to contact Erin. Seems to me it might be awful hard to reach out to people you went to high school with and tell them you've changed genders. Not bumping into them in the grocery store and having to explain yourself, but actively reaching out and seeing if people accept you. Wow. Made me feel pretty silly to be scared of letting people in on my blog.

So thanks to Erin's friend for bashing me over the head with perspective. And best of luck to him as he tries to mesh his old life with his new one.

Posted by: Sarah at 12:38 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

Leela: "Fry, this isn't TV. It's real life. Can't you tell the difference?"
Fry: "Sure. I just like TV better.

I'm always fascinated by our modern-day tales and legends, by the fictional characters we hold up as our inspiration for greatness. Sadly when I write about this, I often get insulted by people who think that I can't tell the difference between a TV character and a real person. But apparently a Serbian village is looking for inspiration in our modern-day heroes as well:

A Serbian village is hoping to channel some of Rocky BalboaÂ’s fighting spirit with a 10-foot-tall statue of the fictional boxer portrayed by actor Sylvester Stallone.
...
Zitiste has repeatedly suffered flooding and landslides, gaining a disaster-prone reputation. Fed up, the locals contemplated how to change that image and revive the village — one of the poorest in northern Serbia — and came up with the idea of a statue of the tenacious fictional fighter.

I think that's pretty cool. If we have to be a cultural hegemon, at least we're exporting Rocky.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:42 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm going to do something completely insane here and link to something at Daily Kos. Because I liked it. I suppose I liked it because I thought the telling made the Marine look classy and the lefty look like a drunk pseudo-intellectual, but that's neither here nor there. I too sing daily praises that I was born in Oklahoma instead of...anywhere else in the world. Fat and Happy and No One Trying to Blow Us Up

Posted by: Sarah at 01:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.

Folks, something I feel passionate about has come up, and a major fisking is in order. And someone named Monica needs a pimp slap.

In the swampy soup of hopefuls for the 2008 presidential election, there is a man with a funny name. (No, not that one.)

We're thinking of the one named Fred (Thompson).

Say it out loud. Do it. Fred. Fred. In the South, Fray-ud.

Fur-red-duh.

It has the tonal quality of something being dropped on the floor, something heavy and damp-ish.

Waterlogged paper towel.

Fred.

Ahem. Some of you may remember that I have a megacrush on every man on the planet named Fred. Yes, including this one. And the idea that we could have a Fred for president has indeed happily crossed my mind. So this Monica hooch better realize that she's walkin' on the flightin' side of me with this crappy-ass article.

London's Sunday Times last month interviewed a bevy of his ex-girlfriends, all of whom have drunk the Fred-Aid: "He's majestic," said country singer/Fredophile Lorrie Morgan. "Women love a soft place to lay and a strong pair of hands to hold us."

Fred?

Why? Is there something about the craggy actor we're not getting? Maybe he's ugly-sexy, like Mick Jagger?

Or maybe the name Fred is etymologically close to obviously sexy names like Dirk, Clint, James?

Grant Smith is an onomastician at Eastern Washington University in Cheney, who studies the branch of linguistics dedicated to proper names. He specializes in dissecting the monikers of political candidates and says he has a 65 percent success rate of predicting elections, based solely on name analysis. Not entirely convincing, but those odds would play in Vegas. "The name Fred is basic and homey," says Smith. "It should give people a reassuring image."

But is it, Dr. Smith, a sexy name?

Silence.

"I would not say that. The name Fred does not suggest blatant sexuality at all."

Speak for yourself, dude.

At the Fredquarters of the Fred Society in Palm Springs, Calif., "Head Fred" Fred Daniel has been defending his good name against charges of boringness and dolt-itude for 23 years. Daniel, 52, founded the society in 1984 by combing the Los Angeles phone book for Freds and sending out a 500-person mailing. There are 5,000 Freds in the organization now, but Daniel must fight for every member. "Unfortunately, Fred has fast fallen out of favor," he laments. From 1885 to 1896, it was the 15th-most-popular boy's baby name. But the last time Fred appeared in the top 1,000 was 2002.

Be still, my heart, there's a Fredquarters.

Fred.

We are trying to understand.

We are willing to admit that that some people find Fred Thompson, yes, sexy.

But we still cannot understand what that means.

What does it signify that we, as a country, are choosing to deem yummy a guy named Fred?

It signifies that you are a huge bitch for writing a 1000-word article making fun of a man for his name. His delicious, perfect name.

Seriously, this is journalism? This sounds like something my brother's basketball team would've come up with to rip on someone while playing X-box. How on earth did this ever get published? Maybe Monica's next article can be about how Giuliani will never be taken seriously because he has the same name as the little football player who could. Or how Mitt is something you use to take cakes out of the oven.

Good lord, journalists are lame. Lamer than any Fred I've ever met.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:02 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 591 words, total size 4 kb.

Last night I asked my husband what the "key to marriage" was. He guessed people's first two responses but didn't guess that dishwashing was so important. We tried to put into words what we'd answer if someone asked us this question. The most concise wording I could come up with was "Treating your spouse better than you yourself would like to be treated." My husband summarized that as Respect, which is a pretty good answer.

We talked about the #1 answer too and why "fidelity" ranks so high. My husband joked that looking for Fidelity in a mate is like looking for Not Being a Child Molester in a babysitter: it should just be a given. Fidelity isn't the key to a good marriage; if you have a good marriage, you don't even have to think about fidelity. Never once in the entire seven years have I ever thought about my husband cheating on me.

This tied in nicely with this week's Army Wives, where the episode was cheating cheating cheating. One spouse did and one spouse resisted. Last week a SpouseBUZZ commenter said that in her circle of military couples, 9 out of 10 of them have had infidelity issues. I say she needs to find some new friends! My husband and I struggled to come up with instances of cheating we heard of at all during his deployment, from anyone we could think of on post. We barely came up with five, and one of them was from a gross "swinger" couple, so that hardly even counts. I know it happens, but 9 out of 10? Ouch.

So what would you say is really the "key to marriage"? And would fidelity poll that high for you?

Posted by: Sarah at 06:12 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 296 words, total size 2 kb.

1 #1 for us (26 years and counting): Putting the wants and needs of the other before your own. It's key, but if it's not mutual then you're setting yourself up to be a doormat. #2-#8: Communication. #9: Understanding that sometimes during an argument things get said to hurt, not because they're true. Once understood, try not to do it. #10: Never go to bed mad at each other. As for fidelity, it's not high on *my* list, but my wife and I have an agreement: I'll try my best to remain faithful, and if I'm not she'll try her best to castrate me with a rusty butter knife. Like I said, 26 years so far, and I'm not singing soprano!

Posted by: Ted at July 23, 2007 06:31 AM (blNMI)

2 You know, I was thinking the exact same thing when I read your last post about marriage, and saw that "fidelity" even made the lists of "things that will probably make your marriage better". Um, DUH. I wonder if those surveys were multiple choice, or open-ended so people could give the answers they really believed. If they were multiple choice, there's no wonder people picked what they did and that the stats were so high for certain ones (especially the dishes -- I'd rather my husband cleaned the catbox!). I wouldn't hinge my marriage on any of the survey answers in that one article. Fidelity is a given -- I made a vow, after all. Honestly, I'd have to echo Ted's sentiments above, but I'd probably add one thing: Divorce is NEVER an option. It is not joked about, it is never brought up. We do not view that as a viable option to our differences -- ever. Period. I wish more people could take their marriages as seriously. It's good to see that there are others who do! (Hm, your URL option in the comment center doesn't care for my LiveJournal URL. I'll have to leave it blank for now.)

Posted by: deltasierra at July 23, 2007 07:07 AM (l0MIM)

3 I'm not married, so my opinions come with a "FWIW" tag. I agree with Sarah that if the marriage is good, fidelity is an afterthought. But I think the reason people put fidelity as key is because if hard times in the marriage lead to infidelity it's probably way more likely to crumble. Therefore "fidelity when you might not feel like it" is probably closer to what's on people's minds when they list fidelity as key. As for Ted's #9, it's been my experience in fights of all kinds that the most hurtful things possible, the ones that *are* said deliberately to wound, are also usually true. "Truth hurts" goes double in a relationship as tight as a marriage, I think. So I'd amend Ted's #9 to say that if you must speak a harsh truth for the sake of improving the relationship, speak it as kindly as you can and in a situation such that the other person clearly understands your motive is not merely to wound but to ask for something you may well need to be more content in the relationship.

Posted by: Anwyn at July 23, 2007 07:47 AM (aytNf)

4 While fidelity is important, it is not an issue in our marriage. I suppose it has just been a given for us both that we didn't have to worry about that issue. From the time we met we agreed that we would never get into a situation we shouldn't be in if we always remembered one thing: If I would not do or say this in front of my spouse, then it is the wrong choice to make. In our house communication is top priority. When it goes, everything else goes to hell, it is a horrible cycle to get into. So, we make sure that we share our feelings with each other, about everything. We are also selective about the couples we befriend. It may sound horrible to be so selective, but we can't deal with drama or fidelity issues and so we stay away from couples that seem to always have such things going on. Those are just not things that we need in our lives and such drama only brings negative things for all exposed to it. If it is a negative situation that we don't have to be involved in, we steer clear as best we can!!

Posted by: LMT at July 23, 2007 10:14 AM (ASoq0)

5 1)Verbal kindness. Avoid saying deliberately hurtful things. Doesn't mean you can't get mad, but keep it within bounds. When a person raised in a family where people speak decently to each other marries a person from a family where verbal aggression is a matter of course, then he/she probably isn't going to be able to defend himself very well, and the resultant hurt will come out in other ways. 2)Avoiding public putdowns. It's pretty common to see people speak to their spouses with barely concealed contempt. These days, women seem to do this more than men. 3)Respect for each other's dreams. This includes not grabbing all the money to spend on oneself, and also not assuming that your spouse's career decisions should be made entirely based on one's financial demands.

Posted by: anon anon at July 24, 2007 08:03 AM (SpkYG)

6 I didn't bother to dig into the survey, but I'd say that the only people who would be qualified to answer that question are people who have been married over 20 years and still consider themselves to be happy. But it's always funny when they try to quantify something like marriage because everyone is different. What my husband and I can tolerate in each other is far different than what other couples can tolerate. If dishes are an issue... my husband and I would've been divorced 28 years ago. Dishes are a chore. If you are worried about who does what chores in the house - you have far more problems than who does them as it's generally a mask for larger problems. As for fidelity - I'm with you and your husband - that should be such a standard it isn't even a consideration.

Posted by: Teresa at July 24, 2007 11:04 AM (gsbs5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I really go back and forth on what I think "education" should be. Sometimes I think it should lean more towards teaching people a trade. Other times, like when I read The Closing of the American Mind, I think it should lean more towards teaching people to think. Unfortunately I think it leans towards neither right now: we seem to produce grads who can neither balance a checkbook nor recognize a syllogism. I don't know what the answer is.

But I sure know it's not this:

British secondary schools will drop Winston Churchill from a list of figures to be mentioned in history teaching. Also dropped: Hitler, Gandhi, Stalin and Martin Luther King. The schools will now be emphasizing "lessons on debt management, the environment and healthy eating."

The article's accompanying graph is chock full of frightening tidbits like "Less on electricity and magnetism, more on IVF, stem cells, vivisection and nuclear energy." Look, I hated figuring out resistance of circuits as much as the next person, but you have to work on hard things in school. It's not all debates on stem cell research. That's what your blog is for.

UPDATE:

The more I think about this, the stupider I think it is. It's like they're replacing tried-and-true schooling with whatever's in vogue. Science knows a heck of a lot more how electricity and magnetism work than how stem cells do. How are they going to pin down what to teach about stem cells when we're not positive how they work? The same goes for teaching how to make "healthy meals"; aren't we always hearing new studies that something that was once good/bad for us is now the opposite? Butter, margarine, eggs, chocolate, wine, how many times have we scratched our heads over new evidence on what we should eat?

Why are they abandoning the basics of education for stuff that's so subjective?

Posted by: Sarah at 04:34 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.

One thing I've noticed since I've started trying to have a baby is how absolutely unfair the process seems at times. There are couples out there who have tried for years to have babies and would give anything for a child. And then there's these monsters:

A couple authorities say were so obsessed with the Internet and video games that they left their babies starving and suffering other health problems have pleaded guilty to child neglect.
...
Viloria said the Reno couple were too distracted by online video games, mainly the fantasy role-playing “Dungeons & Dragons” series, to give their children proper care.

“They had food; they just chose not to give it to their kids because they were too busy playing video games,” Viloria told the Reno Gazette-Journal.

Police said hospital staff had to shave the head of the girl because her hair was matted with cat urine. The 10-pound girl also had a mouth infection, dry skin and severe dehydration.

Her brother had to be treated for starvation and a genital infection. His lack of muscle development caused him difficulty in walking, investigators said.

I'm so mad I can't even think of anything else to say.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:44 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.

1 The whole process does seem totally unfair. I cannot begin to imagine how upsetting this is for you. But I hope you are able to let some of that anger go. Best wishes with baby making process.

Posted by: Butterfly Wife at July 15, 2007 07:22 AM (gI6/R)

2 I know what you mean. And it's not just baby MAKING that's unfair. It's baby-keeping, too. Whenever I read about parents like these - or those stupid teenage girls who give birth at the prom and then throw their kid away, all I can think is, "I would have taken your baby! There are people all over who would have taken that baby! How is giving that child up worse than the treatment the parents give it themselves?"

Posted by: airforcewife at July 15, 2007 08:56 AM (0dU3f)

3 Lock 'em up, throw away the key, never let them near a computer again, and give their babies to somebody who will treasure them for the rest of their lives.

Posted by: Anwyn at July 15, 2007 09:48 AM (dzxw9)

4 Can I tell you, this is why I could not work in pediatrics... I could not take the stuff I saw... seriously. God Blass those who work in childcare and child advocacy full time

Posted by: armywifetoddlermom at July 15, 2007 12:35 PM (PjrBf)

5 I hear ya loud and clear. After miscarriages, a long deployment, and several months of trying -- and hearing about all these other unplanned pregnancies of people we know -- we've finally succeeded in conceiving our first child. My fear is that, for some reason, we won't get to keep it. I've been feeling the same as you over these kinds of stories, and stories of hundreds of teenagers and single women becoming mothers after a one-night-stand. HOW? Why is it so hard for a stable, responsible family to conceive (and carry to term) a child that they will love, cherish, and bring up to be a contributing member of society? I don't get it! Hugs in your direction! And God bless your efforts! You will make excellent parents. I don't know you at all in person, but I can just tell.

Posted by: deltasierra at July 16, 2007 12:17 PM (l0MIM)

6 Sarah, I think of this every time I hear a story about Britney Spears. This to me is the epitome of useless. I was just thinking of you this morning. I would like to think that the relationship that we have is not beyond repair, because I hope that you would feel that you could have a sympathetic ear should you ever want to reach out to me. It's been two years now, so I can relate to your frustration.

Posted by: Kate at July 17, 2007 07:21 AM (tB/4l)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

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.

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 (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.