I'm thrilled to be back to watching South Park on TV. It's been three years, so we're behind on new episodes. We happened to catch the Paris Hilton episode the other night, and I loved the moral of the story: "Being spoiled and stupid and whorish is supposed to be a bad thing, remember? Parents, if you don't teach your children that people like Paris Hilton are supposed to be despised, where are they gonna learn it?" I couldn't help but think about this when I was flipping channels today and happened across The View. Apparently Paris Hilton is going to guest on the show tomorrow, and the women were all excited and defending her when some audience members tsk-tsked. Now, maybe they don't get any say in who is a guest, so maybe they have to pretend to be excited even if they hate Paris Hilton, but since when should someone like Barbara Walters ever say that Paris Hilton is a "cute and sweet girl"? What has the world come to when a 77-yr-old woman is defending the honor of a girl who answers her cell phone during sex on a porn video? I don't understand why she's even on The View, or why anyone even cares about her at all, but I guess that's the whole point of the opening scene in this South Park episode...

Bebe: Come on, Wendy, we're gonna miss it.
Wendy: We're gonna miss what?
Bebe: Paris Hilton is making an appearance at the mall.
Wendy: Who's Paris Hilton?
Red: "Who's Paris Hilton?"
Annie: You don't know?
Announcer: [someone takes a picture as he approaches the mic.] Hello, everyone! [drumroll] The Guess Clothing Company is pleased to have as its new spokesperson model, a woman all you young ones can look up to, Ms. Paris Hilton. [she appears and flashbulbs go off amid squeals from females in the crowd. She then lifts her bra and shows off her breasts]
Bebe: Wow, that's really her! Paris! Over here!
Wendy: I don't get it. What does she do?
Annie: She's super-rich!
Wendy: ...but what does she do?
Red: She's totally spoiled and savvy.
Wendy: [annoyed] What does she do?!
Man: [walks by and overhears] She's a whore. [takes his camera and snaps a few pictures]

Posted by: Sarah at 06:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 335 words, total size 2 kb.

Via CaliValleyGirl via Smink, I heard about this academic paper on milblogs. I haven't read the whole thing yet, only the part that Cali pointed out to me on pg 13.

Neil Prackish is an Army reserve officer and Silver Star awardee for valor; a dentist in civilian life, Prackish recently stopped blogging on his popular site, Armor Geddon, because of his own concerns for operational security.

Um, no, no, and no.

Neil Prakash is an active duty soldier. He is not a dentist, nor does he have any plans to be one (but his parents both are). I would even quibble about the reason he stopped blogging, but since I only know because we've sat in my living room and talked about it, I can hardly fault the authors that one. But otherwise, at least please spell his name right. Neil was hardly secretive or incognito on his blog, so these are things that should've been easy to fact check.

See, I typed "Neil Prakash" into google and immediately found better info on him than this academic paper provides. Of course, I spelled his name correctly, so maybe that's how I found it so fast. Hardy har.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:32 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 208 words, total size 1 kb.

I saw some show yesterday with some newswoman talking about the anniversary of OIF I (honestly, I can never be bothered to keep the shows or the people straight). At the very end of the segment, she said something in closing about the toll of the war blah blah and something like "in a war whose outcome is far from certain." What a defeatist way of ending the show. I'd like to think my country isn't interested in getting into wars we're not sure we're going to win. And I'd like to think that three years in we're still committed to winning instead of being "far from certain." I wish she had ended the program by saying that the road may be hard but the US is not ready to give up. How different everyone's view of this war would be if newspeople threw a dash of optimism into their reporting.

LGF got an email about casualty statistics that's really something to ponder. Anyone who has a loved one in the fight should read it. It also brings up the same thing that I said while my husband was gone: a soldier's job is to soldier. These are things we should all keep in mind as we settle into OIF IV.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:25 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 215 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Dang. Thanks for the link.

Posted by: Erin at March 22, 2006 06:38 AM (5IZsN)

2 BTW...Can't wait to hear how Will and Pericles argue this one.

Posted by: Erin at March 22, 2006 06:39 AM (5IZsN)

3 I too would like to think that my country isn't interested in getting into wars it isn't sure it can win. Sadly, the reality seems to be somewhat different.

Posted by: Pericles at March 22, 2006 08:31 AM (eKf5G)

4 By the way, I thought that the LGF statistics about casualty rates were silly. I'm not one to harp on the casualty rate too much, because we'd be justified in staying in a war with a much higher casualty rate if the reasons for going to war in the first place were stronger. Still, this is just playing with numbers. The implication is that you're safer fighting in Iraq than here. The problem is that the numbers for the U.S. death rate includes people dying of old age. To make it meaningful, let's see the death rate for people in the prime of their life, as the troops are. Also, let's throw in not just death numbers, but also numbers for serious injuries. How about a statistic for the number of amputations in the U.S. versus the number for troops in Iraq? One of my conservative friends was scoffing at the civil war talk after the mosque bombing, saying that the number of people killed in sectarian violence after the bombing was not much more than a bad month in Detroit. Maybe he was right, but this was a week after the bombing, i.e., a week versus a month. I'm not saying that no liberal has ever played with numbers the same way, but if they did, LGF would be all over it.

Posted by: Pericles at March 22, 2006 10:10 AM (eKf5G)

5 Well, hell must have frozen over because Pericles and I agree on the statistics. I think the better comparison would be to past conflicts. Yes, each life is precious and an unbelievable heartache to families who love them. But as military equipment improves, casualties and deaths decrease. Those statistics would be more meaningful than a comparison to the public at large.

Posted by: Oda Mae at March 22, 2006 03:06 PM (93sjs)

6 "But as military equipment improves, casualties and deaths decrease." Unfortunately, as the enemy's military equipment improves, casualties and deaths can also increase.

Posted by: Amritas at March 22, 2006 03:18 PM (+nV09)

7 Damn pericles, you hit the obvious before I even got a chance.

Posted by: Will Somerset at March 22, 2006 06:54 PM (eIQfa)

8 http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/3/20/21940/0381

Posted by: Oda Mae at March 23, 2006 02:18 AM (fRZNM)

9 What do numbers prove, exactly? If the war is just and good, then endless sacrifices are justified. If the war is illegal and immoral, than just one death is a crime.

Posted by: Will Somerset at March 23, 2006 04:37 AM (eIQfa)

10 Will, The numbers don't really prove anything, but you already knew that. But I'm confused. Who determines the legality of war? What makes the war immoral? I'm so sick of hearing people use these words to describe the conflict in Iraq! The immorality of this war isn't absolute just because people like you say it is. I'm sure I can pretty much predict what you might respond with, but seriously. I want to know how you can justify calling this war illegal and immoral (try to do it in 100 words or less...I have a low attention span).

Posted by: Erin at March 23, 2006 05:55 AM (EnpkF)

11 Prove a controversial legal and moral position in 100 words: good luck with that, Will! I think the trick is to say that any time you are talking about shooting people and blowing them up, the initial assumption should be that this is illegal and immoral. It is up to to those who think that law and morality permit war in this particular case to prove otherwise. War is guilty until proven inncocent. One can argue that Saddam's failure to comply with the cease fire agreement is a legal justification for the war. Morally, it would be harder to justify. Traditional just war theory allows for preemptive but not preventive war; you can shoot first when you're about to be attacked, but not just because you speculate that years down the road a country might attack you. My own moral criticisms would center on the President's obligation to the troops not to put their lives at risk when no important objective justifies it. I'd also say that it was a moral failure to ignore the generals' advice about the number of troops. The Bushies ignored our moral obligation to be rsponsible for order in the country after we overthrew its government.

Posted by: Pericles at March 23, 2006 08:17 AM (eKf5G)

12 Erin, The initial cause for war was the imminent danger posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. The American people and congress agreed to the war because we didn't want Saddam perpetuating his own 9/11 with a nuclear bomb. This threat didn't turn out to be try. Moreover, it seems as if intelligence was skewed by the administration to create a cause for war rather than detect one. Colin Powell, a man who survived two tours in Vietnam morally intact, calls it a 'blot' on his record. So what are we left with? Taking out Saddam was right just because he was a dictator? When this war started, human rights were only a very minor reason to enter Iraq. Human rights became more of an after-the-fact justification only when it turned out that there were no WMD or prewar links to international terrorism. The extreme measure of military invasion should be reserved for stopping ongoing or imminent mass slaughter, and that wasn't happening in Iraq in March 2003. Humanitarian intervention might have been justified to stop the Anfal genocide in 1988 against the Kurds, but there was nothing like that going on in 2003. Clearly, Saddam was an awful dictator, but there are many awful dictators in the world, and toppling an awful dictator, in my view, does not justify military intervention. And even if you did want to justify this war based on the human rights issue, the fact is that Saddam is charged with killing 148 Shiites, illegal imprisonment and torture in a crackdown launched after an assassination attempt against Hussein in the Shiite village of Dujail in 1982. Killing 148? Shit, the green river killer almost has that topped. And how many civilians have been killed as a direct result of Operation Iraqi Freedom? 20 000? 30 000? How ten of thousands are maimed for life? But let's remember that this is called Operation Iraqi FREEDOM! So then there's the freedom angle. Allright, fair enough. Let's see how it plays. I hope they are all free and democratic at the end of the day. But I'll say this: When Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, the Iraqi people better be the free-est people on the face of the planet. They better have so much freedom they can fucking fly. And so I will end with a quote from Richard Hass, former aide to President George H.W. Bush, and president of the Council on Foreign Relations: "The war has absorbed a tremendous amount of U.S. military capacity, the result being that the U.S. has far less spare or available capacity to use in the active sense or to exploit in the diplomatic sense. It has weakened our position against both North Korea and Iran. It has exacerbated U.S. fiscal problems. The war has also contributed to the world's alienation from the U.S. and made it more difficult to galvanize international support for U.S. policy toward other challenges. Iraq's legacy could also lead to renewed American public resistance to international involvement." I'm going to go outside now and do a cart-wheel. A cart-wheel for freedom.

Posted by: Will Somerset at March 23, 2006 02:57 PM (eIQfa)

13 Will: No.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at March 23, 2006 09:36 PM (RbYVY)

14 No cart-wheel?

Posted by: Will Somerset at March 24, 2006 03:44 PM (eIQfa)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I just talked to my Swedish friend, and somehow something came up about a unit leaving for Iraq. She asked if we were still sending soldiers to Iraq, you know, since the bombing started this week.

Oh lord.

When I flipped out about the media's misrepresentation of the air assault, I honestly didn't even think about the repercussions for the global media. I didn't stop to think that the German media might be telling Germans that the US started bombing. What a mess they've caused.

Posted by: Sarah at 10:24 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

Sweet merciful crap.

Right now on MSNBC on TV, they're announcing that the US has launched the biggest "air strike" in Iraq since 2003. This would be news if it were true, but what is really going on is an air assault, which is nothing like an air strike. An air strike is planes dropping bombs; an air assault is helicopters dropping troops onto the ground so they can kick down doors. Big whopping difference, news folks. Maybe you should get your damn terminology straight before you start blabbing your mouths.

As of right now, the MSNBC homepage has this graphic:

Which leads to this article: U.S. launches largest Iraq air assault in 3 years
Correct information in the article, which the military spoonfed them; incorrect information in their flashy photo.

Oh media, how I roll my eyes at you.

This is not just a nitpicky difference. The two words are completely not interchangable. Why didn't someone correct the anchorwoman, who repeated "air strike" several times? Oh, that's right, because no one at MSNBC has the first clue about the military.

Posted by: Sarah at 01:21 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

Hud found a list of ridiculous media quotes. I'm still reading them all, but my favorite so far is this one from MSNBC's Keith Olberman after Hurricane Katrina:

For many of this country’s citizens, the mantra has been, as we were taught in social studies it should always be, whether or not I voted for this President, he is still my President. I suspect anybody who had to give him that benefit of the doubt stopped doing so last week. I suspect, also, a lot of his supporters, looking ahead to ‘08, are wondering how they can distance themselves from the two words which will define his government, our government: New Orleans. For him, it is a shame, in all senses of the word. A few changes of pronouns in there and he might not have looked so much like a 21st century Marie Antoinette.

Bwahahahahaha.

Posted by: Sarah at 07:35 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.

I think most people on the left think that we right-wingers love Fox News. Fox is always trotted out as the one example of ultra-conservative views, and several times when I have repeated something I read online, people have said, "What, did you hear that on Fox?" when they don't believe me. For the record, I know many right-wingers who don't like Fox. My husband and I enjoy watching Forbes on Fox and Cavuto on Business, but that's about it.

I personally see very little difference in the way Fox reports the news. For example, on Iraqi election day last week, the Fox reporter said, "This is the day Bush has been waiting for...", which really burned me up. Why not the day the Iraqi people have been waiting for, or the day the world has been waiting to see, or the day the American public, or anything but always placing the emphasis on Bush? Fox is just as crappy, and it drives me nuts. In fact, the day after Iraqi election day, my husband sat down and checked all websites of the major networks. MSNBC, ABC, CNN, they all had that stupid freezing rain as their top story. My husband said, "I bet Fox got it right," as he typed in the URL. Nope, they also went with freezing rain, though at least the Iraqi election was the second story; the other news sources didn't even have it on their main pages.

Therefore, I wasn't that surprised to find that Brit Hume on Fox only ranks as slightly right of center on that new media study from UCLA. Fox isn't nearly as far right as people like to pretend.

Take a few minutes to read the results of that study. They seem to have done a good job trying to filter out bias in their study. Interesting stuff.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:17 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 311 words, total size 2 kb.

1 As you might have guessed, invoking Fox News is simply a way some people handwave away views they don't agree with. I hardly watch network or cable news and I keep getting told that all I watch is Fox News, or if they're really trying to get cute: "Faux" News. Ooo... isn't that so clever to spell it that way?

Posted by: Patrick Chester at December 19, 2005 09:35 AM (MKaa5)

2 Sarah, Agree with you wholeheartedly. Although Fox tries harder to be fair and balanced, they frequently allow total idiots to put out what any engineer, philosopher. or military historian could debunk as untruths of the Left and touchy feely liberals. For instance, how many times can a Dhimmicrat claim there is no plan, when there obviously is one. Maybe it isn't going perfectly, but what war ever has? Or how about the discussion about how oil companies are gouging folks deliberately. I lived in Texas during the oil bust of the 80s. My high school friends' fathers were losing their businesses, homes, jobs, and the shirts off their backs because they couldn't make enough drilling because the oil was too cheap. My old girlfriend's new husband was in the oil business, and got laid off with 2 kids to feed. He had to take a loan officer job at the bank -- foreclosing on the rigs and equipment of the folks he used to work with. He hated what he had to do so much he spent all his spare time training to be a sheriff and eventually join the FBI. He never wanted to go back to hurting his friends again. The oil companies laid off thousands of folks in Houston just because oil was so cheap they couldn't afford to pay their employees and still keep from bankruptcy. So because oil is now a commodity, we pay whatever Hugo Chavez wants to charge us, and that is somehow Exxon's fault when he jacks up the price to cheat his own people out of their revenue and line his cronies' pockets? Fox isn't perfect. It is still too far left for most common sense military folks who know what war is about and how to fight one. They try to distill an entire epic down to a 10 second sound bite. But they're better than most, so we watch them instead of SeeBS. Keep on keepin' on, gal. You are doin' fine. Subsunk

Posted by: Subsunk at December 19, 2005 11:30 PM (6RsXX)

3 We also lived in Houston during the 80's. It was a horrible time. People would pack up and leave their homes in the middle of the night. We went from a very comfortable way of life to barely making ends meet. We left in 1990, and I still miss the good people of Texas. Sarah's Mama

Posted by: Nancy at December 20, 2005 02:04 PM (Z+RCN)

4 Yeah, they're not right-wing, they're simply not virulently left wing. Then again, for many leftists that's the same thing as being a right-wing extremist. Probably the same for right-wing extremists, but they're marginalized, whereas the other side is aggrandized. Kalroy

Posted by: Kalroy at December 20, 2005 08:25 PM (AwOS7)

5 Kalroy stole what I was planning to say. Because FOX is not in total lockstep with the main alphabet soup folks, they get branded as ultra-conservative. Also because Brit dares to have people like Fred Barnes or Bill Kristol on panels (balanced by Mara Liasson and Juan Williams) - surely they must be neocons, right?

Posted by: Barb at December 21, 2005 01:55 AM (g9qHI)

6 To say Fox "is still far too left" of anything shows how far the scale has moved in this country. The people you decry as "far left fringe" are actually moderates in any other democracy. Some people need to pick up a book or two and realize that buzzwords and propaganda don't change the actual definition of political positions. They can be fluid but weren't meant to be splashed onto the wall and called whatever your talking points says they should be called.

Posted by: mmm...lemonheads at December 21, 2005 03:55 PM (uZuRD)

7 mmm...huh?

Posted by: Sarah at December 21, 2005 04:26 PM (EhEOa)

8 lemmonhead, Gee, I guess the GOP email address book forgot me. I haven't had my talking points today. Can't survive without them. Of course, I survived without them for 47 yrs, so maybe I can struggle on through without them. "The people you decry as "far left fringe" are actually moderates in any other democracy. Some people need to pick up a book or two and realize that buzzwords and propaganda don't change the actual definition of political positions. They can be fluid but weren't meant to be splashed onto the wall and called whatever your talking points says they should be called." A "moderate" in any other democracy would not insist on impeachment without crime, defeat without honor, retreat without failure, and whining and crying about their own defense by better people than said "moderates". Military folks don't get to pick and choose who in the country they will defend. If they did, you can bet there would not be much effort expended to save folks who think the country can't win wars, shouldn't protect its citizens because it violates the terrorists' civil rights, and who insists other Men and Women sacrifice their lives and efforts for the "moderates" safety and well being while denigrating their work. If other democracies believe Howard the Coward, Nancy the Nut Case, and John I'll Retreat Before Battle Is Joined because we just can't win anything, then I guess I don't think they are truly serious moderate democracies who will stand up against tyranny. Can't wait to see how they handle the coming Islamic Caliphate, when the Real "Moderate Islamists" begin stabbing them, beheading them, and beating the women who don't wear hijab. I won't be counting on their support to defend my family from harm. They've never come through before. You are free to hold to your opinion. It merely shows how uneducated and blissfully ignorant of true sacrifice and honor you are. Walk on, bud. Right off the cliff your heading for. Subsunk

Posted by: Subsunk at December 24, 2005 09:53 AM (6RsXX)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Tonight at the dinner table, the husband and I raced to finish each other's sentences as we both realized we'd read the same article and come to the same conclusion. The results of this ABC poll in Iraq are interesting all around, but the most striking thing was how they parallel the American experience. 70% of Iraqis say their own life is going well, but only 44% say that their country is doing well. That sounds almost exactly like something I heard Rush Limbaugh say on the radio a few weeks ago. He said he gets callers who, well, I'll let him say it in his own words:

"[Jack] Welch told Fox News Channel that President Bush has much to be proud of with regard to the economy, but he has to get out there and sell himself - and his accomplishments - to the American people to let them know about it. 'President Bush put a tax bill through that supported capital formation and risk taking,' Welch said. 'We’ve created 2 million jobs a year after the 9/11 attacks. That’s a remarkable accomplishment. Bush has to get out there and talk about it.' Despite the recent natural disasters, such as Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, the U.S. economy continues to grow, and the stock market seems to weather every storm.'" In fact, last week the stock market was -- well, not at a record high but, I mean, it was at ten seven, the Dow Jones industrial average at 10,700 something. "Welch certainly noticed" all this. "Most business people have noticed. Investors noticed. But, according to the recent polls – which show the president’s approval rating at its lowest level of his presidency – the majority of Americans have not been persuaded of the 'good news economy.'" Now, you know why this is. This is very simple. This is one of the most remarkable phenomena that I recall experiencing as host of this wildly successful program and it is this: We could be in the middle of an economic boom; I get phone calls from people, "Yeah, I'm doing okay, Rush. I am just doing fabulous. But I'm worried about my neighbors."

"Why are you worried about your neighbors? Is the Meals on Wheels showing up at their house every day? What are you worried about?"

"Well, I just see the news on TV and the economy's not doing all that well. People are this and that. I'm just worried about my neighbor."

"Well, do you know that they're doing badly or are you just worried about them?"

"No, I'm doing okay," and then there's some guilt associated with it. So most people's perception of their own economic circumstances are fine but all this negative news makes them think everybody else out there is, you know, eating dirt. They refuse to feel good about it because they think they're going to feel guilty.

I believe the same sort of phenomenon is happening in Iraq, that individual Iraqis feel they are doing well, but they keep hearing about bombs and insurgency, so they think the country is not doing well. I know it's not a perfect comparison, the US economy and the situation in Iraq, but my husband and I couldn't help but notice the parallel.

Anyway, the whole ABC poll is worth a read.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:58 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 557 words, total size 3 kb.

Does it get any better than Varifrank? I submit that it does not.

[The Western mainstream media] compares our actions at abu-ghirab with the saddam regime, as if being held in a compromising position by the ugliest woman from West Kentucky was anything like being killed, butchered and buried with a 1000 people from your hometown.

There's more, much more, on the virtues of propaganda.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:25 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

There's just something that irked me about this paragraph in this totally finger-pointing article Lieberman's pro-war views concern Dems. I absolutely hate when "journalists" throw stuff like this in (italics mine):

Lieberman, who seems to relish his role as a maverick, is veering far from the Democratic script. His vocal support for the war, a stark and frequent reminder of the deep divisions among Democrats on how to end the war, makes him something of a marked man.

As if Lieberman is purposely trying to tick off Democrats. Ever consider that maybe he really does disagree with his party? Ever consider that he's standing up for what he believes in? Nope, he's just relishing the beat of a different drum. That's not reporting, that's editorializing. I hate the media.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:30 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 141 words, total size 1 kb.

God bless the Stars and Stripes. For being a military newspaper, I'm often stunned at how many anti-war, anti-Bush opinion columns they print. I know I don't want to read that garbage, but maybe someone does, and they provide the service, even when it makes our president and our military look bad. Usually I just read the online version, so I don't bother with the AP junk, but occasionally I'll come across a hard copy of the paper and want to throw up, as I did when I read this piece, in which the author muses what his life would be like if he'd had to join the military...

What if, for instance, my parents hadn't gone into debt to provide me with a private-school education and the benefits it affords? What if, instead, I had taken the path followed by many in my hometown and pursued my American dream through the military? And what if I was writing these words not from the comfort of my office but from a forward operating base somewhere in the Sunni Triangle?

Perhaps this all can be written off as a neurotic intellectual exercise. But the persistent rumors of a draft (unlikely as one might be) do little to reassure.

Yes, many people join the military instead of having mommy and daddy foot their bills. They become adults at age 18 and deploy to the Middle East where their buddies' lives are in their hands as they sit on overnight guard duty at the Tigris River...instead of kickin' it at the frat house drinking Red Bull and vodka until they puke all over some girl and pass out in the bushes. Which life choice makes you more of a man?

Oh, the draft. It's comin' folks. Been comin' for three years. Except there's gonna be a drawdown of troops next year. So when are we all getting drafted?

Now, I'm sure a fair number of those in the military enlisted out of a lack of other options. I know full well that relatively few in my generation buy into the "for flag and country" bit, and that my sense of patriotic guilt would probably make for a good joke or two in the service. And the honest truth is that nothing less than a full-fledged draft could get me to say goodbye to my wife's puppy-dog brown eyes and put on a uniform.

Maybe I just lack the conviction of the soldiers deployed in Iraq. Or maybe they've just lacked my good fortune. Which of the two is the case, I'm not quite sure.

Actually, I know quite a few soldiers who joined "for flag and country", and I know many who joined just because they wanted a job but end up staying for their country. My husband called the Army a "labor of love" the other day; he could get out and see what other jobs he could find, but he stays out of a sense of purpose and duty.

And, yes, I bet many of them would think you're a tool.

You probably do indeed lack conviction. Not everyone considers it the Worst Possible Thing In The World to get deployed. Some people, my husband included, think it's the most important thing they've done with their lives, and though they don't necessarily cherish the thought of deploying for another year and missing out on their own wives' puppy-dog eyes, they are more than willing to do whatever it takes to see Iraq succeed.

At the very least, when I read about the next soldier killed in combat, I'll make sure to take five minutes out of my privileged day to wonder: There but for the grace of God go I, drunk and naked, screaming bloody suicide at the thought of going back to Iraq.

And that is precisely why we don't want a draft.

There's nothing wrong with not wanting to go to Iraq. It's a normal, natural feeling. But I'm sick and tired of these crap-ass op-eds looking down their noses at soldiers. A fancy-pants degree doesn't make you better than someone who joined the Army. Can you repair track on a tank? Can you accurately fire a 50-cal? Can you make a delicious sugar cookie out of the remnants of your MRE? Oh, you can write. Judging from MilBlogs, so can most soldiers who don't have the "good fortune" of a "private-school education and the benefits it affords". They're writing and selling books, in addition to being mechanics, marksmen, chemists, nurses, and diplomats.

And I'm not convinced many of them would want to trade places with you.

Posted by: Sarah at 07:54 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 772 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Interesting article and counter post where you take the guy apart piece by piece. To be brutally honest, I don't want to go to Iraq although my command's asked me if I want to volunteer a number of times. I'm 43, I fulfilled my military obligation in 1989...although I didn't get out until 1992. I spend the remaining 12 years of my 20 in the IRR never having been called up. Last year I was unceremoniously tossed out of the IRR for not having completed Command and General Staff College to make me competitive for promotion to LTC and continued service. And actually, I was fine with that. I have a new life, a new wife, and two wonderful daughters. My days of 'walking the line' are over and I'm damned glad there are young men and women willing to take my place....just as I took the place of the Vietnam era veterans in the early 80s. I agree with you that the author of this piece underestimates and doesn't understand the mindset that draw those of that serve into the military. Some of us do it for the benefits...can't argue that the military has a pretty sweet benefits package that you're never going to find on the "outside." Others do it for the education, experience and discipline that the military provides. There's nothing wrong with a kid out of high school making a decision to go out and see the world with one of the branches of the American military before buckling down and going to college, if that's where they're headed eventually. I have to admit, if I'm presented two candidates for a job position and they're exactly the same right down the line, the applicant with a military pedigree is going to get the job every time! In any case, I've gotten out of hand yet again...posting like this was my blog. I know, I know...just the comments, MajorDad! See you on the high ground...and thank you for your family's service! MajorDad1984

Posted by: MajorDad1984 at November 27, 2005 10:55 AM (tdEnf)

2 I have no patience for people who bad-mouth the military. Usually, and that is probably the case with this author, they have never personally met a soldier...just seen one on TV. I love it how he speculates about soldiers, speculates about their motivations, and you just know, that he has never really talked with one. Oh, the ignorance. I'll make sure to take five minutes out of my privileged day to wonder: There but for the grace of God go I, ignorant and haughty, screaming bloody suicide at the thought of being so cowardly and misled.

Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at November 27, 2005 11:00 AM (cxkhg)

3 Sarah, Pretty good job at slapping the idiot. I bet you are a Whack A Mole Queen with the keyboard. Good job, gal. You said it better than the rest of us can. Subsunk

Posted by: Subsunk at November 27, 2005 07:21 PM (SBriA)

4 Hey Sarah, Man, I've read your blog a while (lurked I guess?) and never commented, but now after reading this, I want to find you and hug you. This made my day!

Posted by: Christy at November 27, 2005 10:33 PM (FcWi1)

5 What if, for instance, my parents hadn't gone into debt to provide me with a private-school education and the benefits it affords? Well, he could have got a part-time job and worked his way through community college. He could have got a job that doesn't require a college degree. (They do exist. I don't have a degree, and I've never wanted for employment.) He could have... lots of things. But yeah, the killer line: There but for the grace of God go I, drunk and naked, screaming bloody suicide at the thought of going back to Iraq. He'd be peeling potatoes at boot camp for the duration with that attitude.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at November 28, 2005 12:57 AM (RbYVY)

6 I've seen this article before and yes that's EXACTLY why I don't want the draft. I would try to get there myself because I wouldn't want this man watching the six of my husband. So he can stay in his namby-pamby protected world while those that serve keep him and his private education a safe place to sleep at night. HH6

Posted by: Houshold6 at November 28, 2005 06:33 AM (T+Tkq)

7 Well said!

Posted by: Vonn at November 28, 2005 03:29 PM (dEgRi)

8 . . . most soldiers who don't have the "good fortune" of a "private-school education and the benefits it affords". Why not have the best of both worlds? I'm pre-9/11, but in our student group, we have a growing number of OIF and OEF vets. In 2002, our president was earning his Bronze Star with 1st Bat in Afghanistan at the Ambush of Takur Ghar. Eric Chen Vice President U.S. Military Veterans of Columbia University

Posted by: Eric at November 28, 2005 07:18 PM (8g/Ur)

9 There were times in Iraq that I got pretty disgusted with the editorial content of S&S. A lot of us said we'd stop reading it if it weren't the only daily paper available. We constantly questioned "whose side are they on?" I've turned down better paying jobs to return to the Army and stay Army. There is a sense of purpose that I can't find in the civilian world. Randy

Posted by: Raven1 at November 28, 2005 10:05 PM (N1rEE)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Today the US military is offically handing over FOB Danger to the Iraqis. That's a great step in getting Iraq on her own feet. I was struck by the last paragraph in the article:

It was a bittersweet year for the Big Red One, with more than 100 soldiers killed and 1,000 wounded but great advances in combined operations with new, better-led Iraqi army units and 2,000 reconstruction projects worth about $1 billion.

The emphasis is mine, because what struck me was how the Stars and Stripes gets the "but" right. Most journalists seem to flip the two clauses: some nice stuff is happening, but it's a quagmire and American deaths is the most important thing. Stars and Stripes gets the focus just right, as usual. 1ID had a rough year in Iraq, but they accomplished so much. It's the accomplishments we should be focused on -- what these soldiers and marines did with their lives -- not the death toll.

Good on you, Stars and Stripes.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:14 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

The article about Mary Mapes' new book was almost a waste of time. I followed the Rathergate hullabaloo closely last year: those documents are ridiculous fakes and Rather & Mapes were reckless in rushing them to press. The article was all about poor little Mary and how unfairly she was treated. And as the violins began to fade, the last line in the article made me sneer.

Despite her career implosion, Mapes hopes to stay in journalism. "It's what I'm good at," she said. "I like making a difference."

Newsflash: Journalists aren't supposed to make a difference. They're supposed to report the freaking news, just the way it is. They're supposed to find facts and report the Five W's and that's it: give us the facts and let us make the inferences. They don't make a difference, they don't speak truth to power, and they don't create the news.

Or at least they're not supposed to.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:48 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.

As I started reading Baldilocks' post In Search of a Survival Plan, I was thunderstruck. By a completely unoriginal idea.

The concept of the Vietnam War—rather than the actual war itself—was shaped by the media of that time and today’s overwhelming Democrat, leftists, "anti-war" media is attempting, with some success, to shape how the American public thinks about this war.

I've talked to my mom extensively about her generation. I guess it's not hard for me to understand that many people her age think all wars are Vietnam. They lost friends, they sat anxiously and waited to hear the lottery numbers, and they unfortunately participated in America's only half-assed war. I'm sorry they had to go through that. But Iraq is not Vietnam.

When the Guif War started, I was in 7th grade. I saw it on TV and ran to my room, scared out of my wits. I wrote in my diary OH GOD WE'RE AT WAR and went on to write that we would all die. It's hard not to laugh at myself now, since I know I was imagining trench warfare and blitzkrieg. I had no concept of war. Heck, I still have no concept of war, try as I might. I've talked extensively with my husband and his friends, trying to get a sense of what they did in Iraq. But I have managed to figure out one thing, the thing that hit me when I read Baldilocks' first paragraph.

If Iraq really is as bad as the media says it is, why don't I know any soldiers who concur?

Why does Red 6 say that it was "the best year of his life"? Why did my husband's unit softball team love to get together and rehash their "so there we were" stories? Why does my husband think that going to Iraq was the most important and meaningful thing he's ever done? And why does he feel so down in the dumps about being home? If Iraq really is a quagmire, shouldn't he feel relieved?

The soldiers I've talked to think that Iraq was meaningful. They think it was fun, boring, and scary all at once. They think they were helping both Iraq and the United States by being there, and they were proud to serve. Some have already gotten their fill and others are itching to get back, but they all believe a soldier should soldier.

So why don't I feel like the media or the general public groks this?

I think it's sad that my mom says she feels like she has to defend my husband because he wants to continue to contribute to the War on Terror. She says that her friends and extended family simply cannot comprehend that my husband and I are not horrified by the thought of Iraq. And we're just not. If he raised his hand today and volunteered to go back, I'd be extremely proud of him, because I think the only way to win this thing is to see it through to the end, and I'd rather have someone as smart and capable as my husband to lead the way.

My husband is strong enough to go back, and I think it's important enough to let him go. That's why it's so frustrating that the TV is filled with Cindy f-ing Sheehan all the time. That body count and gloom and doom reporting is demeaning to the soldiers who want to see this war through to the end.

Sometimes I get the feeling that the media is as uninformed as I was at 13. Their reports read like a page from my diary, where the sky is falling and we're all gonna die. But "if I got my news from the newspapers also I'd be pretty depressed as well." Thank goodness I have soldiers to give me the straight story.

Maybe some journalists should come have dinner with us and Red 6. Except I doubt he and my husband would let them in the front door...

Posted by: Sarah at 05:17 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 671 words, total size 4 kb.

This article (via Beth) about an Iraqi who trains suicide bombers is just too disturbing for words. I think it's disgusting that Time magazine sat down with this guy...

Al-Tamimi met with TIME in two interviews spanning five hours. He agreed to meet with us after members of the TIME staff approached Iraqi contacts who are close to the insurgency, in an effort to gain information on the ways in which suicide-bombing networks operate.

...but hopefully some good can come of it and someone in the military can learn to identify these dry runs and practice sessions. Still, it's a little too eerily like the North Kosanese issue for me.

Here's my favorite part of the article:

He is so proficient at facilitating suicide bombings that he says his own brother and sister have asked to be considered for "martyrdom operations." He gave them some basic training but advised them to find other, less drastic ways of serving the insurgency. "A suicide bombing should be the last resort," he says. "It should not be a shortcut to paradise."

Let that be a lesson to anyone who thinks being a suicide bomber is honorable. If it were that freaking honorable, al-Tamimi would be proud to help his family members to paradise. But apparently al-Tamimi scruples don't prevent him from making his son into a monster:

He has told his son that he is too young to become a martyr but says he recently taught the child how to make roadside bombs and how to fashion a rudimentary rocket launcher out of metal tubes.

May you burn in hell, al-Tamimi.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:19 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 274 words, total size 2 kb.

I should've said this a few days ago, but it didn't seem that important at the time. But now that everyone is carrying on about how the conference between President Bush and the soldiers was "staged", I just wanted to say that I thought the weirdest thing was the link from the MSN homepage (now gone, of course): Bush tries to boost morale. I clicked on it out of sheer curiosity, because I thought that it was such a strange headline. It made me imagine President Bush dressed up in Will Ferrell's cheerleader suit, trying to get soldiers to cheer up and stick with the mission. I don't think the actual interview had anything to do with cheerleading, so it was bizarre that they said he was trying to boost morale.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:20 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.

A sad day has come: my husband no longer wants to watch The Simpsons.

We hadn't seen any new episodes since spring 2003, so we were excited when they started showing them on AFN Korea. But after four weeks, my husband shut off the TV and said that he was through. A global warming joke every week is a bit too much.

I started getting skeptical when I heard Michael Moore was going to be a guest last year, but it honestly feels like every episode is peppered with Democratic Underground memes. The Simpsons used to be about timeless plots: starting a barbershop quartet, going off to summer camp, writing an Itchy & Scratchy episode. The last episode we watched was a glimpse ten years into the future, complete with global warming turning Alaska into a beach, a military draft for Gulf War Five, and the 51st state being Saudi Israelia (I still don't understand what they were getting at there.) And this garbage is from the same genius minds that made Futurama?

Bart and Lisa go on a field trip to Springfield Glacier...which is the size of an ice cube now. Hardy har har. Give me "I Love Lisa" over this crap any day.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:08 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Just wait 'til you get back to the states and watch the new series (any new series). The libs in H'wood are really ramming their philosophy/wisdom down the throats of the unwashed masses.

Posted by: Pamela at October 15, 2005 05:14 PM (oKtxg)

2 the simpsons have been a left-leaning politically c'mon sarah look at lisa simpson vegeterian,educated,kind to the enviroment,etc... and it is as funny back when it came out as it is now.i guess it's how people's views can change more than show itself.and global warming IS real.

Posted by: tommy at October 15, 2005 05:53 PM (NMK3S)

3 Nobody is saying that Global warming ISN'T real tommy boy. Catastrophic predictions from the environmentalist crowd predict a few degrees over the next fifty years. Not beaches in Alaska eight years from now. Swiftian satire, perhaps? If that's what they intended, they missed. That's my real objection with the simpsons the last few years. It's not the politics. It's the fact that it's not funny anymore. Matt Groening, Al Jean, Mike Reiss and Conan O'brien made the show great when they had creative control over the show. They hit their peak around '97-'98. Yes, there was no secret about their political affiliation. Side show Bob Roberts in season six shows Dracula as a Republican, Homer's adventures into the NRA, etc. The difference was that it was funny back then. Funny and it generally avoided the overtly political and topical humor that made Murphy Brown only watchable to those on the creator's side of the political spectrum. The only instance I can think of this happenning during the Simpsons' golden era was Birchibald T. Barlow's obvious spoof of Rush Limbaugh. Political yes but it was FUNNY. But in the episode Sarah mentions there are three references to global warming. The Saudi Israelia crack? Principal Skinner is forced to steal computers for the school because, "this is Dick Cheyney's America."? Give me a break. This is the Simpson's of Ian Maxtone Graham. The Harvard educated hack who only got the job from his Conan connections at Saturday Night live. The real Simpson's died when Groening left to create Futurama in 1997. You can watch seasons four, five or six over and over and still laugh. Topical humor, particularly when it's crammed with way off the scale lefty snickering isn't funny now and it won't be funny when they try and sell the DVDs in a few years. The Simpsons of the last few seasons are the Terry Schiavo of television. We should put it out of it's misery a long time ago.

Posted by: Sarah's Husband at October 16, 2005 07:10 AM (qZ3DI)

4 i see your point captain.and it's valid to a large extent.all i was trying to say was the simpsons were always satrical politically.and usually on the side of the left like me.BTW it was good to see the elections went off fairly smoothly.american military veterans like myself want to see you guys complete the mission succesfully.we just don't like and far more importantly trust the commander-in-chief.

Posted by: tommy at October 16, 2005 11:30 AM (NMK3S)

5 Simpsons out, Family Guy in.

Posted by: Tanker at October 16, 2005 11:58 AM (btzDE)

6 Gore's daughter was the force behind Futurama. Just like there is only one brain in the Kennedy family,and Teddy is still misusing it, there may only be one brain for all the Gores.

Posted by: Walter E. Wallis at October 16, 2005 05:21 PM (wDJE+)

7 Well, there's still South Park. Equal opportunity, and simply anti-idiot no matter what side the idiot is on. Kalroy

Posted by: Kalroy at October 16, 2005 07:22 PM (9RG5y)

8 American Dad is pretty funny too. It pokes fun at patriotism, etc., but it's so over-the-top that it's hilarious.

Posted by: FbL at October 16, 2005 08:35 PM (5I8b6)

9 The Simpsons were always left-leaning; look at Mr. Burns, for example, the prototypical robber-baron capitalist. My impression, though, is that the show's quality has declined over the last few years (although I only watch sporadically). Individual jokes may be just as good, but the stories don't have the same coherence. You don't get to the real plotline until you are 5 or 10 minutes in. The difference between Kennedy and Bush dynasties seems to be that the Kennedy brain gets passed down whereas Bush senior isn't giving theirs up until he no longer has a need for it himself.

Posted by: Pericles at October 17, 2005 08:19 AM (EpPuP)

10 OK, but left-leaning isn't the same thing as "look at me, I'm a leftie", which seems to be the case now. I mean, "Mr. Lisa Goes To Washington" was both patriotic and critical of government...whereas one recent episode had a Canadian say he'd love to go to the US and see the feeble-minded executed. What is that? That's just a dig at the US for the sake of having one. Or the end of the episode where Selma tries to adopt a Chinese baby and the music says that she'll go to the US and get fat and dumb. Remember the good old days when Homer used to shout USA! USA! when anything good happened to him? Those days are gone...

Posted by: Sarah at October 17, 2005 10:16 AM (VW35q)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

For God's sake, with a system like this, if the country came under enemy attack, the only people who'd know it would be bloggers!

My mom went to Oklahoma University, so she noticed when the crawl at the bottom of the TV said that someone had blown himself up there. But she searched and searched for additional information: nothing else that night on the TV nor in the local paper in the morning. She told me about it, and I found some info on blogs. But why did we have to turn to blogs for reporting of such an event?

Eric of Classical Values has a post with lots of details about what the media is and is not reporting. Funny how a Muslim convert who tries to enter a sports arena and blow himself up isn't news...

Posted by: Sarah at 03:45 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.

1 No, CNN is not a blog. And CNN did not mention anything about the guy's connections to radical Muslims. I'm pretty sure that was the point of Sarah's post, but thanks for giving us the link to MSM's watered down generic non-news.

Posted by: Oda Mae at October 07, 2005 08:00 AM (FmIVz)

2 Through Googling I saw some blogs which said he had been linked to an Islamic center. Looked like unconfirmed rumor at this point; I saw no hard evidence on the two or three sites I read, anyway. Maybe it will turn out to be true; I can't say it won't. Should the media report it before it is confirmed, though? If they did, and then it turned out to be false, then bloggers would be blasting them for that.

Posted by: Pericles at October 07, 2005 10:20 PM (EpPuP)

3 But journalists apparently got tons of things wrong about New Orleans, which they reported without confirmation. They ran with Flushing the Koran too. It just seems a bit selective to me.

Posted by: Sarah at October 08, 2005 05:30 AM (ncie4)

4 Fair enough. Although I think that the errors in the New Olreans reporting were actually errors in a conservative direction rather than a liberal one. The original reports depicted New Orleans's poor welfare recipients as vicious animals, more or less. I saw several conservative commentators jump on this point in various ways, for example to criticize welfare. You posted a link to the "Two Tribes" essay that was in this vein, and another was all over the Internet. I think that the media has a huge bias toward sensationalism, more than they have any political bias. It comes from the fct that most of the media is now in the nads of a few profit-hungry corporations, and the ethos of serving the public is breaking down. Also, I think that it is sometimes easy to pick on small mistakes in the details of reports to ignore the substance. Okay, so the Koran wasn't flushed... intstead, it got urine sprayed on it. Would that story coming out have been any better? The fact that CBS ran with faked National Guard memos about Bush was a big win for Republicans, because it distracted people from the other evidence. I remember a great quote from the secretary of the Texas ANG unit. She said she knew the memos were fake, because she would have been the one to type them and didn't and because the commander ould never have put such things on paper. But she went on to add that the memos did capture exactly the sentiments that the commander freely expressed verbally about Bush around the office.

Posted by: Pericles at October 08, 2005 09:27 AM (EpPuP)

5 Bombs at Georgia Tech and UCLA too. Once is a fluke. Twice a coincidence. Three times is enemy action.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 11, 2005 01:26 AM (kRxBU)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Longtime readers know I think that our popular entertainment is a result of our collective value system; it's the reason I blog so often about Rocky. The American Geek found an interesting article about this very phenomenon: How Hollywood needs to stop worrying and love the flag. It's a very interesting take on why Hollywood is in a slump.

Posted by: Sarah at 09:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

Sometimes I just get so frustrated that I don't know why I bother caring.

I was interested in reading this blog entry dubunking the recruiting slump, but as I dove deeper into the comments section, I found we're still arguing over whether Iraq had any ties to al Qaeda. My comments section recently went through a fight over whether Iraq had any WMDs. Everywhere I look, we're still arguing over the same fundamental differences in common ground that we've been arguing over for three years.

The straw that broke my back this morning was one quote from Kersten's article:

"The more play the press gives Cindy Sheehan," [Lt. Col. James] MacVarish concludes, "the better the terrorists' chances are of ultimately succeeding here."

We've heard this before, with CPT Powell being the most famous to point out the difference between the Iraq soldiers see and the Iraq the media sees. But this is nothing new; we've been having these fights with the press since the Tet Offensive. It's extremely infuriating to know that we learned nothing from the last time around. Negative press can lose wars, even if the military is winning. The thing is, I've heard this statement made in just about every letter to the editor and article written by people in the military, yet the media keeps ramming bad news down our throats. They completely ignore the men they're interviewing and continue doing whatever they want.

I'm just tired of seeing the same things played out on the internet over and over. Tired of every discussion turing into WMDs and Bush lied. Tired of reading scores of ignored soldier complaints that the media is being too pessimistic. Tired of nothing changing.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:37 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.

1 ...and gosh, and one of the guys spewing the same old talking points has appeared in other comments sections as well... spewing the same things. Surprise, surprise. Sarah: I suspect it's part of what counts as a strategy for them. Keep spewing the same points over and over, ignore any refutations, and when people just get tired of the whole thing and don't bother meeting any or all of the same darned points they keep spewing THEN they claim victory. It's a tactic older than Usenet. Though when DejaNews came out, that tactic became a bit less useful since one could simply run a search and gosh, find all the refutations the poster claimed never happened actually were made months or years before when the poster tried it the first few times. Then post the results and watch the person making the claims that no one had refuted them sputter and try to pretend they didn't exist.

Posted by: Patrick Chester at October 01, 2005 06:41 AM (74cXW)

2 Sarah... I understand your frustration with the way the media seemingly refuses to look at issues through any other lens than the one they choose. If you spend more than 5 minutes at some of the larger milblogger sites, you know as well as I do, that there are soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines doing things that would make Mother Theresa smile from ear to ear. On the flip side, there are a handful of bad apples that would make her reach for the metal-edged ruler and wield it like a Jedi Knight as well. Unfortunately, the bad apples get all the ink and air time. Keep the faith...and keep up the fire. While we might not be as highly trafficked blogs as the "big guys" we are definitely making a difference. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. You, me, and all the other like-minded bloggers are doing something! MajorDad1984

Posted by: MajorDad1984 at October 01, 2005 09:34 AM (tdEnf)

3 The soldiers' perspective is certainly part of the story. At the same time, though, I don't think that line soldiers are necessarily the best observers of how the war as a whole is going. The qualities that make for a good soldier woould probably get in the way of objective assessments. It is like asking the players on a football team what their chances of winning the game are. They could be down 28-0 at halftime, but many will probably still be optimistic about their ability to come back. They're competitors, and they've got to convince themselves that they have the potential to come back. If you couldn't get yourself psyched up this way, you wouldn't be a good football player. I always want my Steelers to think they are still in the game, no matter how bad it looks for them. Still, if I'm on the outside trying to decide who is going to win, then I'm not going to take a player's opinion as the final word on the subject. I'm not saying that we are beind 28-0 in Iraq; I am just saying that there is such a thing as being too close to and involved in a situation to be able to see it as it really is. Also, I think that there is an attitude that military/ex-military people tend to take about dissent during wartime that is understandable but dangerous. When you're in the military, there is little or no role for dissent from the leadership. If you are at the lower levels, maybe it is never appropriate. Maybe higher level offices get to dissent to a point, during planning, but when they are given a legal order they are supposed to obey it. It has to be that way, and it is admirable that people in the military are able to abide by this requirement. A military unit couldn't function if people were arguing and criticizing the leadership; they tried it in the Spanish Civil War and got crushed by the fascists. Even during wartime, though, the U.S. is not a military unit. We are a democracy, and dissent and criticism are always permitted. My impression is that people who have had the importance of getting everyone on the same page and doing what they're told instilled into them sometimes find democracy a little hard to cope with. They expect the country to function as a team united behind its leadership. That isn't democracy, though. We have to choose the leadership, and in order to make informed decisions we have to be able to criticize their performance.

Posted by: Pericles at October 01, 2005 10:13 AM (EpPuP)

4 Hmm. I'm pretty sure I'm a member of ex-military democracy and I'm pretty sure that I'm behind the war in Iraq and our president because I think it's the right thing - in SPITE of the media telliing me over and over that I'm wrong. And military leaders do listen to dissent, contrary to what Pericles would like to believe. But reasoned, rational dissent used to discuss various outcomes so that a good decision can be made - we don't listen to people without solutions, just more ways of describing problems. That's not dissent, that's just the jabbering of parrots, to paraphrase that great statesman, Winston Churchill. The problem with the media is that they do not present a balanced picture of the situation. To use Pericles' football analogy, at halftime the score could be Iraqi Insurgents 3 - American Soldiers 43 and the headline would be "American Soldiers Slip Up - Iraqis Score" and that would be IT, except for interviews with anyone around who agrees with the negative assessment. Soldiers on the ground might not be able to see the big picture, but they can certainly see it better than persons at home being spoonfed every negative aspect the press can dig up. The point is whether reporters are deliberately trying to help the anti-war movement by over-emphasizing certain stories - *cough, Sheehan, cough* - and ignoring any story that would cause stateside citizens to have pride in the military and the achievements in Iraq that have helped the population and begun to build bridges with the new government. In reality, the large part of the population of the U.S.that supports our efforts in Iraq has no voice. In today's age, dissent and criticism of the President, the war or anything related are golden cows, to be coddled and presented with dinner on the nightly news (if you still watch it.) And no DISSENT from any other citizen will be allowed in there to crowd the,uh, DISSENT from our Cindy or others like her.

Posted by: Oda Mae at October 01, 2005 02:10 PM (iA6ia)

5 Sorry, Pericles, I just re-read my post and I don't mean to take you on personally, just the generalizations. (And, of course, add generalizations of my own, as one does!) I guess we're not going to change each other's opinions, but it's fun to try, isn't it?

Posted by: Oda Mae at October 01, 2005 02:38 PM (iA6ia)

6 Oda Mae---No worries. We disagree, but your post didn't close to any lines of civilized discussion, let alone cross any.

Posted by: Pericles at October 01, 2005 03:39 PM (EpPuP)

7 I've been thinking a lot about the press over the last few months. But there are a few things new out. More conservatives are on the air with Rush and Fox News. And don't forget blogs. Newspaper articles now quote them and some are a source for articles because they are so well researched. Our kids are also becoming increasingly conservative. Our press is now selling sensationalism and emotion, not news. To believe our own press we are going to hell in a hand basket, we are a country of greedy, racist wimps, etc. We have problems, and we need to keep working on them, but we are at the top of the world heap in many respects. My real problem with the press is only whiners get on TV (Hurricane Katrina). Where are the heroes, the people responsible for themselves that will rebuild without help from the government? Whiners, not heroes. Hopelessness, not hope. On the brighter side, many see us like our press reports us, not as we are. Al Queda seriously underestimated us, as do many others; including ourselves. DonÂ’t forget the silent majority. Those productive folks in the middle that work day after day, deal with what life throws at them and continue to build this country. Our wimp ratio is much lower than reported.

Posted by: Xopherman at October 02, 2005 10:18 AM (0FvF9)

8 I don't watch that much TV news, but I just turned on CNN and there was a report the troops in Iraq. They showed a Marine being presented with a silver star, talked some about what he did to earn it, talked a little about an attack in which he was wounded. He did a lot of the talking, and at the end he said quite a bit about how the troops there believe the mission is sound, are glad to be doing it, etc. Nothing the reporter did could be considered as expressing scepticism. It was exactly the kind of report that some people here seem to insist doesn't exist, and it was on the---what do right-wingers call it?---the "Comminust News Network." Makes me wonder if press negativity about the war is somewhat exaggerated. I don't doubt that the people who talk about it really believe it, but maybe their perception is a little off.

Posted by: Pericles at October 02, 2005 08:02 PM (EpPuP)

9 On the recruiting slump, by the way, this comes close to lying with numbers. It may look like goals aren't being missed by much, but the thing is that they are reducing the goals. Just in February alone, new enlistments were over 1,900 below the goal. In May, the Army fell over 1,600 below its goal. PLUS, in May the Army actually dropped its goal to 6,070 from 8,050. It missed its original goal for that month alone by about 3,000.

Posted by: Pericles at October 04, 2005 07:55 AM (EpPuP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment