October 31, 2006
ELEPHANT
I started this blog as a way to talk about poltics and issues without having to talk to anyone from my Real Life. At that time in my life, I didn't have any friends who think like I do, and I wanted somewhere to vent. Because I would never dream of venting this stuff in public.
So today when I read The Elephant in the Room, I could completely relate.
Judith says that it's usually Democrats who shun Republican friendships, but I have found myself as the shunner before. I have a few friends with whom I can have rational and polite discussions about the war or politics, but I have more than enough experience with those people who Make Pronouncements:
Another thing [Democrats] do which Kornblat doesn't give an example of, but which we all have experienced: They always start political conversations. None of us do. We have learned that no one wants to argue issues on their merits, that the room gets very quiet and unfriendly, that people start screaming at you, or rant the most loopy beliefs and conspiracy theories. We just assume that is not a topic anyone can treat in a dispassionate manner.
But they always provoke political conversations. Well, not conversations, which would be enjoyable and enlightening. They make pronouncements. And look around the room to see if anyone not only doesn't agree, but doesn't agree enthusiastically. As a friend deep in the closet in the theater world put it, you can't just sit quietly and wait for the topic to change. No, you are suspect if you do not vocally endorse the official opinion of the group. You thought you were in a project meeting or a coffee klatch or a dinner party, and all of a sudden it has turned into the Communist Youth League Self-Criticism Session.
There are only so many times I can stomach pronouncements like "Whew, won't it be better when Kerry is president?" or "So can you believe this crap that Bush is pulling?" And it's not easy to be friends with someone who walks into work, slams a copy of Fahrenheit 911 on my desk and says, "You need to watch this so maybe you'll think twice about voting for Bush." And so I end up distancing myself from those people. It's fine to have a friend who's a Democrat, but it's a drag to have a friend who says you're no better than Mohammad Atta. Or a friend who can't even muster up any sympathy that your husband is at war because "well, you started it." Or someone who says your friend with the gaping hole in his torso from an RPG is has been brainwashed into fighting for lies. I don't have much use for people like that in my life.
What's funny is that now the scales have tipped in my life. I don't blog massive rants like I did three years ago because I have more people in my Real Life to talk to about this stuff. And this weekend was unlike anything I've ever experienced: being with a group of people who are even bigger rightwing nutjobs than I am! I spent most of the weekend with my jaw on the floor, and I came home squealing to my husband about all the stuff people had said. It was fun, it was fun to not have to tiptoe around to avoid offending someone. And the lone Democrat in the room got some gentle ribbing and jokes tossed his way, but we all got along marvelously. Common ground and all.
So I can't say I've never shunned, but I certainly am capable of being friends with Democrats. No seriously, I am. I just prefer people who join me in a pretend throw up when I say the name Christiane Amanpour.
Posted by: Sarah at
06:06 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 638 words, total size 4 kb.
October 30, 2006
BLESSED
The SpouseBUZZ conference was a success this weekend. I got to meet my fellow bloggers and we had a great connect with the wives at Fort Hood. If you're interested in our discussion, I liveblogged the panels
here and
here. But one of the most touching things of the weekend happened when I left Texas.
I sat down on my flight home next to a man on a cell phone, whom I initially assumed would be a quiet businessman. But when he hung up, he asked me what I was doing in Texas. And there's this feeling you get in the two seconds after you mention that you're a part of the military, a hold-your-breath feeling where you wait for the person's reaction. It was going to be a long flight, and I didn't want to deal with anything unpleasant. But this situation couldn't have been better.
I was sitting next to George Pearsons, the pastor at Eagle Mountain International Church. He was extremely interested in learning what military families go through. He asked me many questions about what military spouses experience and what we think about various political issues and current events. We talked nonstop for two and a half hours. He told me about a program they have at their church that supports families of military servicemembers called Troops 91, named after Psalm 91. I told him about SpouseBUZZ and encouraged him to let his parishoners know about our website if they're looking for a place to connect while their loved one is deployed.
Right before we landed, he said he wanted to do something special for my family. He gave me a donation on behalf of his church, saying that we should use this money to go to dinner or do something to cherish our precious time together. He said he wanted to give me this money "to bless my family." I couldn't believe how much money he wanted me to take! He wouldn't let me refuse, and we parted ways a little better for having met each other.
As I drove home from the airport, I thought about this money and I realized something: my family is already blessed enough. My husband said the exact same thing when I showed him the money and told him the story. So I hope Pastor Pearsons doesn't mind if I use his church's money to bless some people who probably need it more than we do.
I'm going to donate this money from Eagle Mountain International Church to two organizations that have a connection to SpouseBUZZ. I'll send half to Sew Much Comfort, an organization that makes adaptive clothing for wounded troops. And I'll send the other half to Project Valour-IT, an organization that provides voice-activated laptops to troops whose wounds prevent them from communicating via computer with their loved ones.
Pastor Pearsons blessed me with his money, but what he really blessed me with was his kindness. He was a wonderful listener, a concerned American, and a man who is genuinely interested in understanding how we spouses cope with life in the military. I was blessed to have been in Seat 19E yesterday.
(This post is cross-posted at SpouseBUZZ.)
Posted by: Sarah at
09:47 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 533 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Thanks, Sarah, for thinking of Sew Much Comfort! How incredibly like you to be thinking of others first! Thank you Pastor Pearsons!
I also shared about the conference on the way home, but it was mostly on the way to Dallas and with the lovely person sitting next to me - Joan of Arc! What a moving weekend! Andi said it was life changing for some of the participants. I'd say it was life changing for the panelists - well, for this panelist anyway!
Miss everybody already! Thanks again!
Posted by: Ginger at October 30, 2006 11:57 AM (E3Fpd)
2
Bless you, Sarah. America is a better place because of you. Thanks you.
Posted by: JACK ARMY at November 03, 2006 12:34 PM (aZPIF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 23, 2006
ABOVE MY PAY GRADE
Yesterday I posted
food for thought. Today I post the other side of the argument:
If we had known then...
If We Knew Then...
You wanna know what I think? I think I'm not smart enough to know.
I too thought of the idea of hindsight when I read Goldberg's article. Tactical mistakes were made during the Civil War and WWII, yet we look back on those two as wild successes. I just don't know how time will look back on Iraq. Someday when all of this is a short paragraph in a high school history textbook, what will that paragraph say?
I don't have all the answers to the War on Terror. I rely on my husband, who's been in two of the three Axis of Evil countries, to give me his informed opinion. I trust our government has far more information than I could ever have about the situation. And I go with my gut and hope that in the end my gut was right.
That doesn't mean I don't have doubts. I constantly refer to the Seven Signs of Non-Competitive States. I think that has a major bearing on whether democracy can work in the Middle East. Reading LGF does nothing to bolster my confidence. But despite my doubts, I still think that Saddam Hussein had to go.
I've just been feeling lately that I shouldn't talk above my pay grade. And isn't that mostly what blogging is? I don't have any delightful insight that you people need to read. Sure, I have an opinion on the CNN sniper video and Ted Kennedy offering to help the Soviets. But my opinion is nothing you can't read at Blackfive or Cold Fury, respectively. I think the New York Times is crap for their recent whoopsie, I think it's ridiculous to assume there's institutionalized racism at Cracker Barrel, and I think we need to have a serious investigation into Dirt-gate.
But what do I know anyway...
Posted by: Sarah at
03:32 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 335 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Maybe you aren't smart enough, maybe you are. Who is to tell? What makes you think that the people making policy decisions are any smarter than you are? They may have different information, they may have access to better information than you. They may have different experiences or skillsets or talents, but don't sell yourself short in this fashion. After all, our collective ignorance blunders on despite our individual shortcomings, and we tend to work things out regardless of the obstacles that seem to loom so large.
Posted by: Deskmerc at October 23, 2006 05:28 AM (Qlh7l)
2
Funny that you should refer to Peters' "Seven Signs of Non-Competitive States." Every one of the indicators he mentions now applies to the United States under the Bushista NeoCon regime. Perhaps you were operating at a several pay grades higher than you lay claim to when you wrote today's blog without even knowing it.
Posted by: PrahaPartizan at October 23, 2006 05:30 AM (hGxBy)
3
Where you come up with that assessment, PrahaPartizan, is beyond my comprehension.
Posted by: Sarah at October 23, 2006 05:59 AM (7Wklx)
4
I like that. "Bushista NeoCon regime". Where did this idea that you could label something and make it so by pointing to the label? Chomsky?
Posted by: Deskmerc at October 23, 2006 07:57 AM (Qlh7l)
5
Sarah,
It sounds like you're retiring from political discourse. Or maybe you're just in a funk today. But if you really want people to just read stuff at Blackfive or Cold Fury instead, don't use the excuse that you're not smart enough to know. Since when did a PhD impress Americans? Hopefully never. All you need is plain common sense here. Also, what's this pay-grade nonsense about? A lot of certified idiots make millions of dollars, and a lot of geniuses fade into obscurity, sometimes self-imposing it. So stop with the "talking at your pay grade" business. I think you should say whatever you want. I would defend your right to do so. Bush probably wouldn't, but I would.
Now, Jacoby on the other hand.. I find it interesting that in all of Jeff Jacoby's trumpeting of past American wars, he forgets one very important one - Vietnam. Or maybe he doesn't forget at all.. Maybe he'd just rather talk about the Ardennes offensive in 1944 because everybody likes World War 2! Right on! We riotously KICKED ASS! Yeah! Well of course we did. But, oh yeah, Vietnam... hmmm... better not talk about that one... it was one of those wars we fought AFTER are leaders became imperialists, and that has no relevance to the current war.. well, not as much as the Battle of the Bulge in 1944 does, right?
Even today, you guys still don't get why Iraq is a mistake. It's not a mistake because we're doing "badly" militarily. If we were fighting a riotous war, we could take 50000 deaths a day and we'd still fight on until the last able-bodied American was dead. Iraq is a mistake because it's not riotous. What we're doing there is for the personal gain of a few, not the many. This ain't 1812 or 1944 or 1991 even. We're on the wrong side of history guys, so let's stop fucking arguing about it and do something to improve ourselves.
Lastly, about the Seven Factors: You can easily find ways in which America, especially conservative America, fails at each of these factors. However, I don't feel that America is a non-competitive state. This leads me to believe that the 7 factors can be applied to any country you want to justify yourself.
Posted by: Will at October 23, 2006 11:23 AM (QRBGL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 10, 2006
ANTI-WAR
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.
1
War IS hell. And in my mind any balanced well thought out human being is ANTI-WAR. We don't want it to be the first course of action, we don't want the suffering for anyone.
But we also know, if that's what it takes at the end of the line, then hell it is.....
Posted by: Tammi at October 10, 2006 08:50 AM (Bitcf)
2
I agree completely with Tammi. Any decent, thinking human being is anti war.
But, as long as human kind has existed and as long as we do exist there will be evil. Sometimes we have to respond to that evil. The trick is, not to end up becoming what we are trying to stop.
Posted by: Pamela at October 10, 2006 10:14 AM (aZt2+)
3
you grok perfectly well, little nestling.
Posted by: MajMike at October 10, 2006 11:17 AM (NMK3S)
4
War is hell, and only the dead have seen the end of it. I think you have groked this to the nth degree. I think that all people that try to grok this, will truly wish for a world with out war. And we honestly thing that it would be better if force was not ever used. But if you truly grok the way the world is you understand that some times, the only way for freedom to live, and grow. Is by force, and if you foe is another mindset, such as it is now with Islam. War is the only answer, and Victory is the only choice.
Posted by: dagamore at October 10, 2006 10:18 PM (7IZfE)
5
Sarah,
My father was in Burma in WWII. He saw many things which the Japanese did which violated all the Geneva Conventions, all the rules of war. Their ruthlessness was matched only by their disregard for other human life.
He never saw Japanese POWs mistreated. During combat he and his men ruthlessly and determinedly killed them in any way which they could to save their own lives. After the shooting and bombing stopped, no Japanese POW was mistreated. No "ethnic cleansing" ever occurred. No atrocities were committed.
I am sure some did occur on the US side in that war. LCDR Dudley "Mush" Morton machine gunned Japanese survivors in the sea after sinking a troop transport. He was not prosecuted, nor should he have been. But it was killing defenseless Jap soliders who would likely have drowned anyway. He kept them from being rescued and sent to war against us again later in the war. There are many other cases of slaughter in the middle of combat. There are none documented of killing after surrender. That is the difference.
Those cases do not excuse the wholesale rape and murder by Japanese forces in China (Nanking, over 200,000 Chinese and foreigners alone were killed in Nanking in 1937), on the Bataan Death March, in the Philippines, Singapore, Korea, and numerous Island and Pacific Ocean inhabitants were killed without provocation by the Japanese. (And also by the Russians and German armies in WWII)
Today's filmmakers want our country to be seen as the same as everyone else. We are NOT. Our civilization is better than theirs because we care more about them than they do about themselves. Our civilization is better because we give more for their welfare than others do. And our civilization is better because we defend our ideals in the face of the greatest adversity, anywhere. No other country is so vilified. No other country will rise to defend itself when its freedoms are endangered. And no other country so exemplifies the difference between right and wrong as America today.
If Flyboys paints a picture of Americans as killers of defenseless women and children for no other reason than ethnic or racial hatred, then it is nothing beyond wrong. Dresden and Tokyo were firebombed because they made significant contributions to the war efforts of our enemies, were valid military targets, and the weapons of the day did not allow any more precise methods of bombing to be accomplished. Even the atomic bomb on Nagasaki was dropped off target in its day, leading to complaints that we didn't destroy the target we were trying to at the time. (It was Nagasaki, it was just dropped off the center of the bullseye.)
America is not anything like the Evil regimes we fought. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong or stupid.
And I'm not ashamed to say it.
Subsunk
Posted by: Subsunk at October 11, 2006 06:28 AM (PaSM8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 01, 2006
QUESTION
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.
1
Of course we can know the truth. All we have to do is live a couple of more centuries. Heh.
I think the truth probabaly lies somewhere in the middle and we have to keep studying both sides without doing anything drastic.
Posted by: Pamela at October 01, 2006 04:34 AM (GX0/3)
2
There is no way we can know. I personally believe we give humans way too much credit about global warming. I believe all the modelers have their own agendas, right now global warming is getting a lion's share of grant money, and the POWER to get publicity and more. I have been married to a marine scientist for 48 years and have been on the scene with many discussions of this and seen some with my own eyes. I am very cynical about it. It is now a huge political issue. Once politics enters in so it can be seen by all, science is really corrupted. It has been corrupted in secret for a long, long time. I have observed that my husband was very slow to admit that some of his beloved scientists might have a political agenda.
He now realizes it and it has really burst his bubble. (I sure hope he never sees this !)
Posted by: Ruth H at October 01, 2006 04:35 AM (YMjhl)
3
Sure, there is a way. It is science, after all, not dogma granted from on high, and therefore, trustworthy data is repeatable by anyone at all. You don't even need a college degree to do it. This is what seperates science from philisophical opinion and moral certainties...you don't have to take anyone's word for it yourself, you go see if it works our not.
The problem, of course, is that global warming covers so many different disciplines. You need to learn quite a bit before you yourself can go out and construct verifiable climate models. but you can learn enough to check the data. It takes quite a bit of work to produce valid data for consumption, but it doesn't always take as much knowledge to find flaws in methodology, point out ill concieved assumptions, and maybe do some of the work yourself to try and replicate the resultes from the existing data, even though you can't gather it yourself you can maybe get away with your own analysis and come to your own conclusions. It can even be done as a group, with everyone checking the work of everyone else to ensure quality.
Or you can trust others to tell you what it all means. Most people do exactly that, and allow themselves to be led in the direction they were already leaning anyway, and discard the conclusions of others as wrong. When you have multiple sources of authority telling you different things, its easy to choose one that feels good or otherwise satisfies some internal need, then you can declare the other authorities as insufficiently authoritative and just ignore them.
There's something to be said for both methods. With the first, you can arrive at a conclusion that is your own, unhampered by the opinions of others. You might even come up with the right answers. Of course, you'll have to spend some time on it, and the more complex the issue, the more time you must take to educate and perform the work. With the other method, you have plenty of time to do other things and feel secure in knowing you are doing something that is otherwise personally productive...but you may be settling for less and never knowing it.
Call it an intellectual law of scarcity.
Posted by: Jason at October 01, 2006 07:05 AM (L2RHD)
4
I stand firm on my opinion that we do not know and what's more we cannot know. We are not allowed enough time on earth to know the exact past, we surely do not know the future and modeling just doesn't cut it. We can forecast trends in weather, we cannot predict volcanic activity, meteors, and other phenomenon that cause changes in the atmosphere and climate. Even if we could, we could not do much about it. Stop a volcanic eruption? not in the next hundred years. And if we could, what about the unintended consequneces? Our lives are undpredictable and so is that of the earth, in the long run.
Posted by: Ruth H at October 01, 2006 01:48 PM (BVuZl)
5
I found this yesterday.
http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759
It makes some interesting reading about how the media has changed over the years. Global Warming is only today's cause celeb. The real problem the media has is being questioned about their objectivity. The term that George Orwell used in "1984" was doublethink. Wikipedia defines it as thus:
Doublethink
"The keyword here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink." (1984)
I guess that the more things change the more they remain the same.
Posted by: SciFiJim at October 01, 2006 02:34 PM (puKZ0)
6
I'm a big fan of global warming as long as the earth survives and only human civilization is destroyed. "Civilization" is becoming a real pain in the ass to me and my rabbit kind.
Posted by: Will at October 01, 2006 05:53 PM (H4u2c)
7
There are a few simple things to keep in mind when reading anything on global warming, no matter which side it promotes:
1. The earth's climate is NOT static. The temperature that we currently enjoy is not the normal temperature. The fact is, there is NO normal temperature.
2. The climate has been warmer in the past than it is now.
3. The climate has been colder in the past than it is now.
4. Extreme temperature shifts have caused mass extinctions in the past, and will do so again in the future.
5. The only way for humans as a species to survive any changes is to adapt. There is nothing that can be done to change the fact that the climate changes, sometimes drastically.
6. A warmer planet is not neccessarily a bad thing.
Keep those things in mind when reading anything on global warming.
Posted by: John at October 04, 2006 06:19 AM (5/yJm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
74kb generated in CPU 0.0145, elapsed 0.0763 seconds.
51 queries taking 0.0669 seconds, 195 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.