February 26, 2006
ROLE MODEL
My friend Angie is a little
bummed that maybe her life hasn't turned out exactly as she wanted, and she thinks maybe she's past the point where she can fix it. I've actually had a blog post rolling around in my head for a while, and now seems like a good time to let it out.
When I was in middle school, every kid used to say that Michael Jordan was his role model. It was always Michael Jordan. For some reason I was thinking about that a few weeks back and how silly it seems now to me to have a celebrity as a role model when we've got plenty of real people in our life to emulate. One of our biggest role models as a couple was the Major at my husband's ROTC. He was extremely hooah and completely unassuming. He and his wife had been married for nearly ten years; they had just built their own house (literally, the Major built it with some Amish help) and were all set to welcome their first baby into the home. My husband and I thought that was a great way to be ready for a child, and we want to be as emotionally and financially ready as they were. We still talk about what a good influence they were on our life.
We moved here, and as I slowly got to know Angie, she became a new role model for me. (And my mom will vouch that this is true, because I rave about Angie all the time!) Angie has always felt somewhat inadequate that she didn't finish college, but the reason she didn't finish is because she and her husband decided when they got married that Angie's job was to raise their children. My parents made the same decision when they got married, but it's a decision that doesn't happen much in 2006. Angie and her husband knew that the most important thing Angie could do with her life is to raise these three little boys to be gentlemen, and she's doing a wonderful job.
I know during the deployment that Angie sometimes wanted to tear her hair out. I witnessed firsthand some of the trials of being with her boys, like when a temper tantrum broke out because the older brother ate the little one's imaginary strawberries! It's not easy to be a stay-at-home mom; how much quieter and nicer it would've been for Angie to drop the boys off at daycare and go to a job. But she stays home with them because it's her job to mold their character, teach them manners, and be their mommy. Angie deserves all the praise in the world for the no-so-obvious task of bringing up her own children.
I'm glad that I had a role model like Angie. If/when my husband and I have children, we too will make the same decision Angie and her husband did. And I will be the one to stay at home and break up fights over imaginary fruit. I'm happy that I met someone like Angie who also believes that raising a child is the most important job a woman has.
Angie, you may sometimes feel sheepish that you never finished that degree, but you display qualities far more important than a diploma, and people notice. I noticed, and I hope someday to be half as talented at motherhood as you are.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:13 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 573 words, total size 3 kb.
1
I believe you have hit the nail on the head (so to speak). All of the women, children or no, who have endored time away from there loved ones due to the war, should be role models for all. The sacrifices our families have made and then also having the courage to maintain some sort of sanity, is worth commending.
Posted by: Jennifer at February 26, 2006 09:27 AM (GSSS6)
2
I must comment again! What a NICE post and tribute! I completely agree...I wrote not long ago about the women I saw raising their children during the deployment (including a great college friend of mine) and I was constantly in awe of them. The only person I had to be worried about was ME...I could focus 100% of my attention on worrying about my spouse but when you have kids, it must be so much different and so much more difficult. It's always HATS OFF to the women who do so much everyday! I admire all of them!
Posted by: Nicole at February 26, 2006 09:40 AM (1ECnr)
3
You're right again Sarah. The most important job a Mom has is to raise her children. As a divorced Mom, I have to work everyday outside the home, but my best friend has three children and has only now begun to start working. I understand Angie's frustration for some "ME" time and feeling like she hasn't used her potential. But she has. Rather than punching a clock like the rest of us - she is molding three boys into three beautiful men. How wonderful the world will be once she releases them into the rest of their lives. My friend learned in the past year that she doesn't have to BE everything ALL the time to her family. SHE CAN have "ME" time. And have a life too (outside of pb&j sandwich making). In fact, it's healthier for a Mom to have a hobby, friends or even school at night - for sanity's sake. She's more relaxed now and a much happier Mom.
Posted by: Kathleen A at February 26, 2006 10:57 AM (7qm8p)
4
Thank you so much for your kind words. I am humbled
Miss you!
Love,
Ang
Posted by: Angie at February 26, 2006 03:04 PM (SA3c9)
5
One of the reasons I am most looking forward to seperating from the army and Jason either getting doing with a PhD or taking a job is so that one of us can stay home. I wish I didn't have to work but when you are getting out of the army, with no foreseeable paycheck in site, you have to save as much as you can! If we were staying in for the long haul, I wouldn't have gone back to work either, although I wonder if I would still have my sanity. I don't know how they do it! I was in awe of Angie, Angie, Jen, and Patti all the time. My mom stayed home with all of us 3 girls and only went back to work at the Elementary school I went to when I was in 4th grade. I didn't appreciate what she did until I became a mom myself. Now, I wonder, how did she do it...3 girls, a fireman for a dad so he was gone for 24 hours at a time 2-3 days a week and worked other jobs when he was off from the station...amazing!
For now, I have to be thankful that I work at a school and have pretty decent hours and summers off.
ANGIE: Don't feel that you haven't made "enough" of your life. You are a wonderful mother and wife and that is something to be VERY proud of.
Posted by: StephanieBerndt at February 27, 2006 03:16 AM (Y1m/K)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
PROUD
Every time I walk by the computer, I check to see if CaliValleyGirl has any update on when her boyfriend returns from Arghanistan. I'm a bundle of nerves just
watching her wait! Watching OIF III and OEF Who Knows come to an end has made me nostalgic for this time last year. I keep reading my blog entries from the end of February and the beginning of March, remembering the feeling of knowing that everyone -- including the company commander, battalion commander, and brigade commander -- was home while my husband sat in Iraq waiting to go to Kuwait so he could start the process of coming home. It was
excruciating. But as I told CaliValleyGirl, as painful as the waiting game is, you completely forget about it the minute they walk into that gym.
I'm really proud of her, which is not meant to sound condescending. Dealing with deployment was made easier by 1) the community around me and 2) that gold ring on my left hand. Cali has neither of those. She dealt with her boyfriend's absence on her own at a German university, which I can't believe was easy. And she handled it with grace: the other day she told me how much she's grown and how much she learned this year, about herself and her boyfriend. I'm glad that she was able to see deployment as a learning experience and not a burden.
And I can't wait to meet up with her at the Taco Bell in a few weeks!
Posted by: Sarah at
02:41 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I agree. It does make me nostalgic...remembering last year at this time...the end to a very LONG year. It's funny too because here I am, six months after leaving Germany, and I'm making "online" friends that I may never get to meet! Why didn't I know all of you when I was there?? Life is funny...
Posted by: Nicole at February 26, 2006 09:35 AM (1ECnr)
2
Thank you so much. And in reference to your next post, you have been a great role model for me.
Crunch Wraps for all (Würzburg has them!)
Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at February 26, 2006 11:57 AM (2MMsI)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 19, 2006
ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER LESSON
We gave Charlie a bath this morning, and I decided to cut some of the knots out of his fur while he was drying. One clip of the scissors made him yelp and run away; once I nabbed him and brought him back to the living room, I realized I had cut more than I bargained for.
After his initial yelp, Charlie didn't seem to notice his wound so much. He was up and romping around with his toys; I was the inconsolable one weeping on the floor. And this, my friends, is Reason Umpteen why I can never have kids: I hurt Charlie. My carelessness caused him pain. Every time I look at him, I burst into tears again, even though he seems to have accepted the 8 shiny new staples hiding under his right ear.
I learned and emotionally (ugh -- and financially) costly lesson today, one that I won't soon forget. I have the power to hurt Charlie. Or my husband, or my child someday. I really don't like the thought of that.
Posted by: Sarah at
10:12 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Don't be so hard on yourself. The mark of being a good person/wife/mother isn't whether or not you ever do anything that hurts someone else, it's how you deal with things when they happen.
I also have a dog who sometimes needs knots/mats cut out of his fur (especially behind the ears) and I used to always worry I was going to cut off half his ear. What I do now is use a flea comb (long handled with straight metal spikes). I get it inbetween the knot/mat and his skin and cut on the side of the comb that is away from him after pulling it out as far as the knot will allow. That way I know I'll never get his skin. Whatever hair is left usually combs out nicely once the knot/mat is gone.
Posted by: Peggy at February 19, 2006 03:11 PM (a4vU5)
2
exactly what I was going to suggest. Those knots get matted down to the skin, but you don't realize that until you make that first mistake. Now you know. I panic about clipping my babies (my cats) claws because of stories that you could hit the vein and they'll bleed all over the place. As a result, their claws start to turn under and cause them pain. Sometimes you just have to bite the bullet! (Or pay to take them to the vet, where he always looks at me like I'm crazy - "You want to pay me to clip their claws? You know you can buy scissors - " "Yes, yes, I know and I'll STILL pay you." I'm sure Charlie has forgiven you.
Posted by: Oda Mae at February 19, 2006 04:35 PM (Ag/cV)
3
You obviously don't remember when we bought a clipper set, and your dad decided he'd start cutting your brothers' hair to save money. That's when "buzzes" were popular. Never mind that he's a mechanical engineer! What he didn't realize was that you were supposed to put that little plastic thing on the end of the clippers to decide the length of the hair. Poor Michael looked like he'd been run over by a lawnmower! Not only was the haircut awful, he had cuts all over his head that had to heal! I wouldn't let Dad near Brian after seeing how Michael's turned out! And of course, Michael didn't want to sit still long enough to have Dad cut his hair anyway! After that, I decided it was worth every penny to take them to a barber!!! Same with Toby now! He goes regularly to PetsMart to get groomed. I tried a few times to get rid of the knots myself, but I decided I'll let someone else do it. Same with the toes, Oda Mae. I don't do teeth either!
Love,
Your mama
Posted by: Nancy at February 19, 2006 06:30 PM (6s7Zq)
4
Part of the 'learning' every parent or pet parent does is by trial and error. I've cut my son's ear...not my DOG son's ear...my HUMAN son's ear when trimming his hair. And he survived (and doesn't even remember). It's perfectly natural to fear hurting the ones you love. And it's perfectly normal to slip up every once in a while. They (the kids, husbands and pets) know you love them. They just might get a little jittery around you and something sharp.
Posted by: Kathleen A at February 20, 2006 10:28 AM (7qm8p)
5
I agree with Kathleen and everyone else. I have also slipped with the scissors and cut my son's ear a bit once when I was cutting his hair. He knows it was accidental, and believe me, he sits VERY still now when I cut his hair! =) Believe me, you make plenty of mistakes as a parent, mistakes that hurt your children physically and emotionally, but they are like a dog. They forgive and forget and move on and you are still crying over it, but they don't care. They know you love them. Unfortunately, parenting doesn't come with a manual, so it's a constant learning game, and sometimes you have to apologize to your kids. But they will respect you more when you can admit to a mistake and move on.
Posted by: Adrienne at February 20, 2006 04:25 PM (yAWf0)
6
All of us have the power to hurt each other. Understanding that, and dealing with it appropriately is part of being an adult. Emotionally, physically, accidentally (as in this case), intentionally, for good reason, for no reason.
Thinking how bad you felt about accidentally causing a small injury to your pet should allow you to reflect about what sort of monsters can cut someone's throat while they chant praises to their god.
Semper Fideis,
ASM826
Posted by: asm826 at March 05, 2006 12:56 AM (nHUDe)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 10, 2006
CELEBS
My husband summarized an
article about George Clooney for me, which was enough to make me not want to read the article. However, I did seek it out just to check one quote:
Clooney is as vain and materialistic as the next guy in Hollywood - "[F] it, I love my house in Italy. It's big and audacious and ridiculous, and nicer than any human being has the right to have" - but he is also one of the few really grown-up movie stars. "I have Irish Catholic guilt," he says, smiling, "and want to make up for [my successes]."
The way Clooney atones is by making, alongside the romantic comedies and heist numbers, a range of films that bring him a different kind of attention altogether.
My husband was absolutely mortified by the phrase "nicer than any human being has the right to have," as if some Equality Police could come and knock down half of your house because you're not allowed to live extravagantly. For him, the fact that George Clooney thinks that people shouldn't have the right to a big house is just beyond words. I, however, find something differently but equally reprehensible in this paragraph. Clooney's attitude reminds me of something I heard Ben Affleck say on TV right before the last presidential election. He was upset that he had gotten a tax cut because he said he didn't need the money and he would've rather the government kept it.
Do these celebrities want us to think that they don't have any will of their own? You know, the world is just the way it is and I wish it weren't but that's life so I gotta stay ridiculous rich. That's what we're supposed to believe?
Ben Affleck, if you want to take your $1.5 million tax cut and donate it to charity, guess what, you can! Hell, you can even opt to pay more taxes in Massachusetts, as O'Reilly trapped Affleck into admitting he didn't even know. Here he is, complaining that he couldn't give more in taxes, and all he had to do was, you know, give more. You could donate it to cancer research or stem cells or veterans benefits or all the other stuff you say you care about. You don't have to wait for the government to do it for you. Your hands aren't tied because they gave you your $1.5 million back; it means you have MORE OPTIONS.
Same for you, Clooney. No one is forcing you to live in a big house. If your wealth makes you feel guilty, then buy some land, build a modest-sized house on it, and start donating some of your money. But don't you dare say that the way you compensate for your Catholic guilt is that you make more movies. Even if it is Syriana and you think you're doing some good by educating people to the Ways Of The World, you're still raking in the dough doing it. That's supposed to make us feel better about you? Poor Clooney, he's so big and famous, he can't help but be a bazillionaire, but at least he makes Films That Matter. Are you serious?
Last night we got the Grammys here. I swear I nearly spat on the TV when Alicia Keys said "this is the most important night in the world." Get over yourselves, people. You know, I can accept it if you're filthy rich and lovin' it. I read once that Christopher Walkin will do any movie that's put before him because it's a job and he's in it to make money. I can respect that; my husband and I are out to make as much money as we can too. But to hear celebs ask for millions of dollars for each movie they do and then complain about being rich, that's too much for me to accept.
No one put a gun to Clooney's head and made him buy that stupid house. Get over it.
Posted by: Sarah at
05:51 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 665 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Do these celebrities want us to think that they don't have any will of their own?
No. They're mere automatons whose main purpose in life is to make people respond to their imageby opening their wallets. Their freedom to choose was limited to and terminated by their decision to choose acting over say rational thought.
Posted by: John at February 10, 2006 09:33 AM (enIP4)
2
I don't get it. Clooney isn't asking for yourpity, and he doesn't say that he was forced to do anything. He seems to be admitting that he has a choice about whether to be rich or not. That is when we feel guilty: when we could have done something other than what we did.
Posted by: Pericles at February 10, 2006 12:39 PM (ra2qX)
3
Let us help poor dear Mr Affleck out:
Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the United States Government may send contributions to a specific account called "Gifts to the United States."
This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the Federal Government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the Government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to:
Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 6D37
Hyattsville, MD 20782
We have also received numerous inquiries from individuals who wish to donate their tax relief checks back to the Government. In those cases, individuals should endorse the check and write "Pay to the Order of the United States Treasury" on the back of the check, and then mail it to the address shown above.
Posted by: MaryIndiana at February 10, 2006 02:33 PM (YwdKL)
4
He seems to be admitting that he has a choice about whether to be rich or not. That is when we feel guilty: when we could have done something other than what we did.
No. You don't feel guilty when you save a drowning person just because there was an option of not having to save the drowning person. Or you don't feel guilty for having saved money when you know you could have spent it on dumb things. Gult is dependent on one's idea of rightness and/or wrongness, not possibilities. I think the point trying to be made is: what makes these people think that being rich is morally lesser than being poor? You could only be gulty if your wealth is from crime, or if you have this romanticized view of the virginal poor who can never be morally reprehensible or made responsible of their poverty, which is a very condescending notion of poverty.
Posted by: John at February 10, 2006 02:51 PM (enIP4)
5
John:
You are being unfair. Of course I wasn't saying that we feel guilty whenever we do one thing and realize that we could have done something else instead. I don't feel guilty because I chose the shirt that I'm wearing today instead of a different one. I was giving a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. My point was that we do, or we should, let ourselves off of the hook for doing something that would normally be wrong if you really couldn't help it. Clooney wouldn't feel guilty if he didn't think that he had a choice about being rich.
Posted by: Pericles at February 10, 2006 06:37 PM (eKf5G)
6
Being comfortably self-sufficient isn't anything to feel guilty about, but being overly rich is, I think, a worthy thing to feel guilt over. Without those kind of feelings, the human race would be nothing but Enron CEOs, and look what happened there. Avarice is a sin, and sometimes you just have to admit that you don't need all that money. It's not about a poor person being morally better. It's that a rich person has the option of making the world a better place, so its incumbent upon him or her to be the most moral person out there.
Posted by: Will Somerset at February 10, 2006 09:08 PM (eIQfa)
7
Will -- but Clooney appeases his guilt by making
Syriana? I suppose that's one option, but I think if he really felt guilty about having so much money, then *giving the money to a good cause* would be a better option. But I guess I can't tell someone what would make them feel less guilty...that's his issue.
Posted by: Sarah at February 11, 2006 04:30 AM (40u7M)
8
Surely everyone passionate about a set of ideas believes that difussing those ideas is a good cause.
Posted by: Pericles at February 11, 2006 02:18 PM (eKf5G)
9
Sarah,
Not to detract from the celeb talk, but I agree with you about the Pampered Chef cookbooks--question: do you have the spiral bound PC book with the healthier recipes...I wasn't sure if that's what you were referring to as "Cooking light?" The one I have is called "It's Good For You" and I also have "All The Best." I may have to consult you for some additional light recipes. What is your "light" book called??
By the way...I do know your friend Kelly. I have been trying to place her for a long time, esp after I saw the pic on your site. I remember her from when I worked at the bank. Funny.
Thanks!
Posted by: Nicole at February 12, 2006 11:56 AM (KJBDI)
10
I guess you've forgotten George bought that house from John Kerry, just before Kerry announced he would run for President....'cause candidates for President can't own foreign property. After Kerry lost, I figured the house would be bought back. Maybe George thought he would feel real guilty making a profit off such a loser that he chose to keep it. Oh the sacrifices the Liberal rich make for each other...sigh
Posted by: Chevy Rose at February 14, 2006 12:28 AM (BJxCR)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
KUDOS
When I attended the University of Illinois, I used to get so mad reading
The Daily Illini newspaper. I would seethe for days over some of their editorials, and I'm sure I could maintain this website by just blogging about some of the stuff they print (I don't visit their website anymore out of respect for my blood pressure). However, I was proud today to hear that they
printed the "offensive" Mohammed cartoons. Good for them for actually reporting the news instead of censoring it to make sure no one's feelings get hurt...or embassies get burned down, as the case may be.
Posted by: Sarah at
05:14 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.
1
If anything, journalists all over this country should be letting the public decide for themselves what to think of these cartoons.
It's kind of understandable for mainstream media to not publish the cartoons, especially when "decide for themselves" could take the form of a nuke' in Manhattan. Free speech is good and all, but the responsibility for the death of a number of people due to a few social retards responding the only way they can is a very hard thing to force upon anyone, even "the brave media". In this case, mainstream media is actually displaying a very clear-sighted recognition of the strings attached to the right to speech, mainly the responsibility that comes with owning up to the things that result from what you say. Yes, they did choose to not say anything at all instead of actually owning up to anything, but that's better than someone claiming freedom so they can dodge accusations of the very fact that what they did was just stupid and offensive. Yes freedom is good, but it makes the world a lot harder to live in if even the callous and the stupid are allowed unbridled speech, and we are all forced to listen to them.
(My empathy may be partly as a result of the fact that I'm an avid reader of The New York Press, one of the "bad" publications who chose not to run the cartoons, and my indifference to the editors who resigned because they were bad editors anyway.)
Posted by: John at February 10, 2006 10:11 AM (enIP4)
2
To John, I am curious about this line:
"Yes freedom is good, but it makes the world a lot harder to live in if even the callous and the stupid are allowed unbridled speech, and we are all forced to listen to them."
So, are you suggesting that we not have freedom of speech? If that is the case, how do we decide collectively who is not allowed unbridled free speech?
Posted by: Eric Cole at February 10, 2006 07:27 PM (ORKPm)
3
Hmmm ... I think this is another example of: "I believe of freedom of speech, but it should be regulated."
Posted by: Acton at February 11, 2006 01:07 AM (TGk0l)
4
Apparently the decision to publish the cartoons was made by 2 members of the editorial staff, and the rest of the staff is very angry with them.
http://tinyurl.com/7fqng
Posted by: Maggie45 at February 14, 2006 11:30 PM (Uq8Np)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 09, 2006
DOUBT
For the past few years, I've been a steadfast warmonger. I have believed that all people on this planet, given the chance, would choose freedom over chains. I have believed that everyone is worthy of democracy, that my country was doing something Good by opening up Iraq to democracy. I have continued to believe in the fundamental value of democracy, even as my husband began to scratch his head. I've been an idealist, but he's actually been to Iraq. The
seven signs of non-competitive states have troubled his mind and made him wonder if Iraq really will be able to pull itself out of the Dark Ages. I have insisted that it
must be so, that all people
must want to be free. But my heart sank when I saw
this today:
This photo from Pakistan feels like a punch in the gut. It makes me want to cry, just as the al-Sadr photo did two years ago. Why doesn't my ideal chair ever match up to the real chair?
I don't want my husband to be right.
Posted by: Sarah at
04:49 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.
1
It's by no means a foregone conclusion that democratization and modernization will work..but we have to do our best, because all the alternatives are pretty hideous.
Posted by: David Foster at February 09, 2006 12:14 PM (/Z304)
2
1. Is there widespread popular demand there for Western-style democracy?
2. Do they still have the WMDs they used to have?
3. Are we sending enough ground troops to keep order and seal the borders?
4. Will their oil revenues realy be large enough to cover the price of the operation?
Someone write this stuff down, so that next time we'll remember to ask these questions BEFORE we invade.
Posted by: Pericles at February 09, 2006 03:17 PM (eKf5G)
3
Well I broke my promise and I'll post again. Reading your last post and this one you may begin to understand why I have real serious doubts about freedom and democracy for people in that region of the world. I would like to thank your husband for his brave service and you for supporting other military families because while I strongly disagree with many of your viewpoints you are a classly individual. Later Tommy Mullin BT3 USN (1990-1993)
Posted by: tommy in nyc at February 09, 2006 04:58 PM (NMK3S)
4
Nothing important is ever easy. Remember, many aspects of "freedom and democracy" that we now take for granted in the U.S. (and elsewhere in the world) were very difficult to achieve. Who, in 1830, would have ever expected an African-American female to be Secretary of State? What odds would anyone have put on even the continued *existence* of the U.S. in 1862? Who, in 1943, would have projected functioning democracies in Germany and Japan, where the popular demand appeared to be for Fuehrer and God-Emperor?
Posted by: David Foster at February 09, 2006 06:11 PM (/Z304)
5
I think it's disingenuous (or maybe just misguided) to link the "war for democracy" in Iraq to Muslim outrage at the recent blasphemy against their religion.
But on to the picture itself: I don't think "our religion does not allow unconditional freedom of speech" means the exact same thing to us as it does to them. For us, freedom of speech superceeds what we would call 'hurting other people's feelings.' We have hate speech laws, but those are only for very particular cases.
For Muslims, however, speech is not something that's seperate from their relgion. I don't think that the banner is supposed to mean that their religion is "banning" free speech. What it means is that their speech and their religion are one entity. Their identity is not divided in the same way that Western identity can be segmented - where we have a "personal" life and a "work" life and a "religious" life and a "bowling night" life, etc. etc. etc.
I can only guess that they're using the term "freedom of speech" in that banner with the same kind of ironic tone that one might use to make fun of an "unconditional freedom of being stupid" or an "unconditional freedom of going to Hell."
Remember, "freedom of speech" is a loaded term for Americans - the words are a cultural icon because they're part of the birth of America and part of its origins and myths. But the phrase doesn't mean that much outside of the country.
Abstract "S.A.T." thought moment: Attacking the term "freedom of speech" is to an American what attacking Mohammed is to a Muslim.
Basically, the world just full of different cultures with different values, and until some people accept this simple fact, wars will continue.
I'd also like to add that if some Kansas newspaper ran a cartoon where God was portrayed as a big, drunk guy who was date-raping a virginal Mary one night, people would be less inclined to equate blasphemy with "freedom."
Posted by: Will Somerset at February 09, 2006 07:26 PM (eIQfa)
6
I can't add much to what is above except to say don't worry. He's a husband. I know from experience that husbands are NEVER RIGHT!!!
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at February 09, 2006 08:06 PM (DdRjH)
7
Your post got to me, enough so I went and read the link to Peters' 7 Sign of a Non-competetive State. While what Peters says is true, all he has really done is state the problem. He doesn't in that article, like most opponents to the war, state what he would do about the problem of evil states + terrorists + WMD * (sanctions eroding / everything else) = trouble.
Also, part of the plan was to go over to the Arab world and personally slap them upside the head -- with fists and rifles, not bombs from 50,000 feet. We had to, after all our retreats from Lebanon to Somalia, show those SOB's we were willing to fight. Otherwise, they would just keep on coming with more 9-11's and more Coles until things got really bad.
So, there we are. Maybe Peters is right and it will be 7 times harder to fix Iraq that it was to fix Germany 60 years ago. So what? Does that mean the job doesn't need to be done? No, it only means it will be damn hard, damn expensive, and take a long damn time.
Kinda like renovating my home, come to think of it...
Thank your husband from us for his service and you for your sacrifice.
Posted by: pedro at February 18, 2006 08:37 AM (cf25u)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 07, 2006
A TRUE FRIEND
On Thanksgiving I wrote about how happy I am that I've found my two best friends because part of the reason I started this blog was because none of my old friends agreed with me politically. It wasn't until we got into the Army that I started to make friends who valued the same things I do. In the comments section, Pericles
said, "So we can safely assume that you've never distanced yourself from friends because of THEIR politics?" He says he was joking, and I don't think he meant to be rude, but I have thought about that comment for a long time.
It's true that once I started to meet people who agreed with me, it was easier to prefer their company to the company of others. I'd much rather nod in agreement than argue! But before that, back in college, more often than not I'd find myself talking down a road less traveled and then backing off when I realized the other person wasn't following me. I usually changed the subject or tried to find ways to agree. I began to feel more isolated, especially after my Dinesh D'Souza experience. But the war really tipped the scales; I have very little contact with anyone I was friends with before OIF. Heck, my maid of honor hasn't spoken to me in about two years. I have no problem with people growing apart, but it's sad to me that we could be friends when I knew others' political views but not when they knew mine.
However, there's one friend who has shown me that two people can be respectful of each other and put aside their differences. I met my friend from Sweden back in 1998, and we're still as close today as we were then. She's a Swede through and through; I don't think we agree on a single thing politically! However, we always manage to talk civilly and explain our positions in peace. Maybe it's easier because we come from two different worlds: we can easily shrug and say, "What else would she think, she's Swedish/American?" But we manage to make the friendship work even when we have fundamental differences in thinking: she about had a heart attack when I whooped after Timothy McVeigh was executed, and I nearly keeled over when she told me that Swedish parents receive School Supply Money from the government! She's been nothing but supportive about my husband's deployment, even though I know she's not such a fan of the military in general.
She visited over the weekend, and we had a wonderful time. She was interested in my husband's photos from Iraq and learning about the new functional area he's applying for. She even met my two best friends here; I wonder what it's like for her to listen to my right wing friends' conversations about re-enlistment and school bullies! Erin even thought later she should apologize for sounding so American, but I think it's good for my Swedish friend to hear us as we really are. She's tolerant enough to hear the truth!
So in response to Pericles' joke, I have indeed distanced myself from many people in my life who have expressed hostility towards my husband's career or towards my views. But it doesn't have to be that way. I am completely capable of accepting my Swedish friend just the way she is because she's willing to do the same. We have a wonderful friendship, despite the fact that we're ridiculously different. She's a true friend.
Plus she uses me for my commissary privileges to stay stocked in Starbursts. I can live with that...
Posted by: Sarah at
02:36 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 611 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Sarah,
I have friends and children who do not share my political views, but we agree to disagree on those.
We do have discussions, but nothing is taken personally and politics is just a part of life, there is much more to be friends about than there are differences. I hope you will find yourself with some of your old friends again when you get a chance. Maybe a little maturity in them will help. In your case I know maturity was escalated with the time you have spent with your husband and his service overseas and in Iraq.
As for me, I've had 69 years to mature and if I haven't by now........
Posted by: Ruth H at February 07, 2006 03:24 PM (MDRy9)
2
Hey, look at me starting trouble.
Not like I'm entitled to any answers about your personal life, Sarah, but I'm curious about whether you'd consider a person with my views to be beyond the pale as a potential friend. I don't think I'm hostile to the military; far from it. Heck, I had a very pleasant dinner the other night where I was sitting next to a retired Army general. On the other side of him was a former Sec. Def. I agreed with nearly everything they said. On the other hand, I think that the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea in the abstract that became a disaster due to bad planning. The military itself seems to have done as good of a job of executing this lousy plan as anyone could hope, but with some notable exceptions, e.g., Abu Ghraib. I'm curious whether those negative points make me hostile to the military in your book, if not mine.
Posted by: Pericles at February 07, 2006 06:48 PM (eKf5G)
3
I recall the Gipper once said that he didn't leave the Democratic Party; the Party left him. Perhaps that may be a more accurate assessment of your relationship to, for example, your maid of honor?
But what is a true friend, but one who stands beside you in times of trouble?
Posted by: Jim Shawley at February 08, 2006 10:43 PM (dk0bl)
4
You use your taxpayer-supported commissary privileges to buy goods for a nonmilitary foreign national?
Posted by: Question at February 20, 2006 01:30 PM (n17hK)
5
(sigh) you're wrong. The quote that angers you refers to the tireless efforts of countless Islamic groups that are mainstream and moderate and try to tell the world this, over and over. But that doesn't make the news, and suckers just take the most extreme behaviour that is on the news and spoonfed to them daily and say "that represents all of Islam". The suckers say "spoonfeed me more!" and they are not disappointed.
Try to grok all the Islamic organizations decry terrorism every chance they get.
Posted by: question at February 23, 2006 12:52 PM (n17hK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
88kb generated in CPU 0.0242, elapsed 0.1016 seconds.
53 queries taking 0.0882 seconds, 218 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.