We watched the movie Crash last night. It was horrifying.

I went into this movie blind: the only thing I knew about it was that people thought it was good. I didn't realize that the entire thing was about race. And boy do I mean it was about race. Everything the characters say and do is racially motivated. Every scene is about race. The bottom line in this movie is that we're all racists.

Am I really too naive? I thought this movie was completely unrealistic. I'm sorry, but the DA's advisor is simply not going to mutter "f-ing black people" to a black detective. No way, no how. I'm not denying that we haven't all felt ourselves in these characters' shoes at one point or another, but the downright racist things they utter in every scene are over the top; people just don't talk openly like that. A white man might inwardly grumble about affirmative action, but he's not going to openly belittle the black woman working for the HMO.

I was disappointed with this movie because I had high hopes, and we don't rent movies that often. But I just can't enjoy a program where I hate all the characters, and the only guy I could stand in this movie was the locksmith.

I've never been to LA -- maybe LA is from Mars and the Midwest is from Venus -- but this can't be real life. People just don't think about race every waking second.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:04 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 1 kb.

I was too young to watch Dallas, but thanks to the magic of DVDs, I've been enjoying that bit of TV history. I mentioned to my husband that it's interesting how simple the plotlines are. To a generation raised on M. Night Shyamalan and CSI, the thought that you could base an hour of TV around "Jock has a heart attack" seems amazing. Dallas is not boring by any means, but it's sure not fast-paced TV like we're used to.

My husband told me about the pending movie plans for Dallas. I had no idea this was in the works, but now that I know the characters, I certainly can't see Brad Pitt as Ray Krebbs! My friend and I were talking the other day about how the idea of beauty shifts over time. We remarked that Charlene Tilton would never have been cast as Lucy today, because by today's standards she's fat. Even though she's not fat at all; she's voluptuous and womanly. I was grossed out to find that they're thinking of casting Lindsey Lohan as Lucy for the movie. Maybe Lohan circa 2004, but not now. There's just no way I'd choose this

when Lucy's supposed to look like this

Give me a curvy, thicky-thick Lucy any day. And a JR who looks like Travolta.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:35 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 2 kb.

Jack Army is a saint of a blogger. He often points to views that he thinks can enhance grokking, not just stuff he agrees with. And he takes a lot of flak for it, as the extensive comments on another post about females in the military indicate.

I just finished reading the book The Argument Culture. Tannen's premise is that we set everything up as a battle in our society. Shows like Crossfire and Pardon the Interruption are typical examples of how people are pitted against each other to fight on TV for our entertainment. We live in a culture that values debate and naturally frames our issues as two warring sides (e.g. the battle of the sexes).

The argument culture urges us to approach the world--and the people in it -- in an adversarial frame of mind. It rests on the assumption that opposition is the best way to get anything done:the best way to discuss an idea is to set up a debate; the best way to cover news is to find spokespeople who express the most extreme, polarized views and present them as "both sides"; the best way to settle disputes is litigation that pits one party against the other; the best way to begin an essay is to attack someone; and the best way to show you're really thinking is to criticize.

This book was published in 1998; I'd love to hear Tannen's take on blog comment sections. She talks about the technology that makes email impersonal and incognito, moreso than any other communication that our parents/grandparents had before us. The comment sections on blogs takes this to an all new extreme. Fake names and fake email addresses make it possible for people to hide behind a cloak of anonymity...and to say whatever they want in order to win the argument.

Tim left blogging because of the Death of Civility, a theme I return to often here when the argument culture of blogging gets to be too much for me. When you read the comments section over at Jack Army's blog, you see how women behave in a way they'd never behave if they were face to face. The safety of anonymous comments gives them the guts -- or nerve -- to lash out at fellow human beings. And these are 1) all women who are 2) in or married to the military. They have common ground, yet the insults start flying from the safety of their own keyboards.

And Tannen is sure right that the issue of women in the miltary immediately becomes an "us vs. them" dichotomy. The comments section quickly breaks into two camps fighting against each other; instead of finding ways they could agree about women's role in the military, they focus on ways they disagree. Sadly, it becomes an "I'm all right and you're all wrong" type of fight, when in fact there could be a lot of grey area if they really tried to find it.

Interestingly enough, Tannen would say -- and I agree -- that this fight would probably never happen face to face. In a social setting, these women would find conciliatory ways to discuss the issue without labeling every female soldier as a slut and every military wife as a jealous hag whose husband is probably cheating on her. These women likely wouldn't dream of making that generalization publicly in front of women who belong in the opposite group, but they have no qualms about making those statements in an anonymous comments section.

It's fascinating really, this death of civility. And quite scary as well.

(Important disclaimer: I too am a blogger, and blogging lends itself to disagreeing; I am not an impartial reader pointing fingers at the women at Jack Army's blog. These are things that I just finished reading and need to digest some more and apply to my own writing, though I think I'm already averse to namecalling and flaming. I'm just surprised that I found such a telling example of this argument culture phenomenon a mere two hours after I finished the book.)

Posted by: Sarah at 06:25 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 685 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I'm a big believer in debate, but for it to work everyone in the debate (which may have more than two sides) has to be sincerely interested in finding truth. You can't be in it just to "win"; you have to take seriously what the other people say and constantly ask yourself whether they might have a point.

Posted by: Pericles at September 20, 2005 08:04 AM (EpPuP)

2 Real debate is caring about getting answers to questions. It's about trying to understand. It is easier for some people to go on the offensive rather than argue ideas and facts. Anonimity is a great cloak for cowards and idiots. I take anonymous comments far less seriously than if someone ID's themselves. I don't know that it is so much about the death of civility as it is a failure of personal accountability. Whatever it is, we should never stoop to the level on lowest common demoninator ourselves.

Posted by: Mare at September 20, 2005 10:06 AM (KmNMw)

3 People need to realize that many POVs are right all at once, depending on the experiences of the person providing them. Most people are usually a little bit right and a little bit wrong all at once. Very few debates have an absolute good/wrong answer.

Posted by: Julie at September 20, 2005 02:51 PM (w7n+v)

4 I wonder how much of the rise of the "argument culture" is due to the vast increase in the incidence of litigation in our society.

Posted by: David Foster at September 20, 2005 11:02 PM (7TmYw)

5 Wow, very cool post. It is interesting that so quickly after you read the book you find something that seems to confirm the thesis of the book. I find all of this very fascinating. Good post! Oh, and thanks for linking it.

Posted by: JACK ARMY at September 21, 2005 11:42 AM (L20+G)

6 capitalism = competition = argument This is good in capitalism because history, results & measurements can resolve arguments (if it sales it works) --- However when non-capitalism is involved (social values- politics) arguments can never be won (shades of gray) --- When politics infect everything argument becomes toxic (as in newspapers and the greater MSM when they stopped reporting and begain making everything political (win or lose). By reporting the facts and getting politics out of the OPERATION of government it is possible to get back to a less argumentive culture

Posted by: mike at September 21, 2005 04:59 PM (y4Ivx)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

It rained non-stop over the weekend, which is a real pain when you have a dog. I dreaded the moments when he'd go to the door and ask to be let out, because it meant raincoats and shoes and muddy puppy feet.

But that's the worst thing I have to deal with in my life right now.

From The 3rd World View (via LaRochelle via Poretto):

Bangladesh faces this kinds of tragedy [i.e. hurricanes] every year and still it is a developing not a stagnant country. The media do not propagate the courage and efforts many Bangladeshis show each year to start their life all over. If the calamities would not only be the central idiom of the media, the world could have learnt many tips for tackling these kind of calamities.

Daniel Brett writes a striking post "What America can learn from Bangladesh":

"Last year Bangladesh faced a natural disaster which was an altogether larger disaster than Hurricane Katrina and the casualty figures were probably lower than the casualties sustained in the New Orleans disaster. But the disaster was contained due to the survival instincts of the Bangladeshi people, their ingenuity in the face of adversity and their culture of hard work. Rather than shoot and loot, Bangladesh immediately used its modest resources to limit the impact of the floods before international aid arrived.

The fact that the economy was able to recover from the floods so soon is a testament to the ability of Bangladeshis to pick themselves up and go about rebuilding.

The Americans have never really faced such adversity...Bangladeshis place great importance to social and family ties and these have brought them through a multitude of natural and man-made disasters. Bangladesh's experiences show us that, in the face of disaster, money does not make society more cohesive or better organised."

On the whole, Americans know very little about adversity. When the husband and I were talking about this last night, he said that whenever he starts to feel like his life sucks, he remembers the people of Iraq. These are people who faced death threats and drive-bys, people who could be the only surviver in a vehicle attack and still come in to work the next day. These are people who love nothing better than clean bottled water; even folks as high on the food chain as the mayors would gush over a bottle of water, my husband said. He remembers these things when he starts to feel his priorities slipping.

I'm glad we live in a country where death and destruction aren't rampant, where the worst I have to deal with is a smelly wet dog. But perhaps it makes us short on the gumption it takes to overcome real adversity, the gumption our forefathers had to leave everything and come to the New World. That's a bad thing to forget...

Posted by: Sarah at 11:38 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 476 words, total size 3 kb.

I'm not sure I think it's very fair that the New Orleans police worked their butts off for a week and now want paid vacation since the national guard showed up. The guardsmen were brought home early from Iraq, which means they've been working their butts off for a year. And the police get the all-expense paid vacations?

My husband worked every day around the clock for nine months before he was allowed two weeks of R&R, which were deducted from his vacation days. And the police can't work at this pace for one week before they need time off?

Apparently they need some days at home to sift through all the loot they stole from Wal-Mart.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:10 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

I once dated a boy with a confusing value system. His philosophy on stealing was that if you don't safeguard your belongings, you deserve to have them stolen. He absolved the thief of wrongdoing and placed the responsibility of ownership squarely on the owner. If a store didn't have security cameras, how could thieves be blamed for taking advantage of such a system? I quickly realized that he and I would never have common ground and that the relationship was doomed to fail. How can you possibly build when mommy says stealing is bad and daddy says it's OK? There was no future in that relationship.

I was reminded of him yesterday as I watched the footage of the looting in New Orleans. I cannot fathom what was going through those people's minds. What made them think that it was acceptable to steal merchandise just because the windows were broken? In whose worldview is it OK to steal during a national tragedy? In a time when all feared for their lives, individuals were cashing in on misery.

CNN currently has a poll up: "Can looting be defended by neccessity?" Right now, the vote is split 45/55% towards No. But the problem is that many people weren't stealing out of necessity. We're not talking Jean Valjean and his loaf of bread here; we're talking cash and jewelery.

Looting broke out in some New Orleans neighborhoods, prompting authorities to send more than 70 additional officers and an armed personnel carrier into the city. One police officer was shot in the head by a looter, but was expected to recover, said Sergeant Paul Accardo, a police spokesman.

On New Orleans' Canal Street, dozens of looters ripped open the steel gates on clothing and jewelry stores and grabbed merchandise. In Biloxi, Mississippi, people picked through casino slot machines for coins and ransacked other businesses.

Someone shot a policeman in the head over this. That is not necessity; that is greed. That is stealing, justified in someone's warped mind because The Man was too busy saving lives to guard the stores.

That's disgusting.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:37 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 350 words, total size 2 kb.

I honestly thought that nothing the PC crowd could do would shock me anymore.

I was wrong.

Millions of Lutherans will be able to sing a new song -- actually some 300 new songs -- to the Lord in an updated worship book that offers more options for contemporary worship and less emphasis on exclusively masculine images of God. [emphasis mine]

...

Denise Leslie, a delegate from Hope Lutheran Church in Cleveland Heights, said using language for God that includes women is important because "when you hear gender-neutral, things suddenly become more clear and comfortable."

Ho.Ly.Crap. Church has gone politically correct.

Posted by: Sarah at 10:20 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

Wow, I didn't know anyone had been following Mariam Sobh. I met her, as a friend of a friend, when I was at University of Illinois; we had a pleasant, if superficial, lunch one day. After I graduated, I continued to follow the Daily Illini newspaper and check on Mariam's columns from time to time. I know once she wrote that the hijab is an honored tradition dating back to the Koran. I emailed her and politely pointed out an article by Amir Taheri about how the hijab was actually introduced in the 70's in Iran. She wrote back and politely told me that Amir Taheri is a well-known liar and that I shouldn't believe what he says. I basically blew the whole thing off and forgot about it until now. Hmm, who's the well-known liar now?

Posted by: Sarah at 05:50 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

1 She has issued an apology for her error: "I wish to come forward and say that I did not do enough to clear up and apologize for a severe problem that I caused with a Dec. 11, 2003 column titled, “Stop Turning a Blind Eye.” I used a quote attributed to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that described in horrid and disturbing detail what he wanted to do to Palestinians. While I thought I had adequately researched the quote and had been reassured by trusted sources that it was accurate, I was wrong. I cannot blame anyone else for my error. The column is mine, the work is mine, the sources were mine and therefore, the mistake is my responsibility. I am thankful to the various writers and people who pointed me in the right direction, even those who did so with wrath and hate, because it drove me to find the truth. It reminded and motivated me to do a better job. It will continue to burn in my memory as I strive to be the high-minded, fair and principled journalist I work to become.?" Adequate? Maybe not. But I wish that Bush would accept the blame on WMDs with equal forthrightness.

Posted by: Pericles at September 05, 2005 12:19 AM (EpPuP)

2 By the way, Sarah, didn't you a couple of entries on how people who honestly believe what they are saying shouldn't be called lairs, even if they are dead wrong?

Posted by: Pericles at September 05, 2005 10:50 AM (EpPuP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I started thinking today about lies. Why is it that we seem to have an endless parade of adults charging liar-liar-pants-on-fire?

Just because you're ignorant doesn't mean the other person is a liar. That was the case when we played Scattergories: people had never heard of the German city we used, and so they called us liars. Moreover, just because you want something to be false doesn't mean the other person is a liar. That was the case with Grey Eagle, where she and her other commenters insisted that I am a liar, even when I gave proof (in the form of URLs to slutty websites that female soldiers were running). And just because someone turned out to be wrong, doesn't mean he's a liar. That's the charge that President Bush faces every day: googling Bush lies brings 7.5 million hits, even when the Clinton administration was also convinced there were WMDs.

What is the problem here? Why are grown-ups running around with less class and manners than the 7th graders I taught? Why is civility dead?

Maybe calling someone a liar makes these people feel better about themselves and their shaky hold on truth. As Pirsig said, people are typically only zealous about things that are uncertain. But I get so sick and tired of the liar charge. Can't we all try to behave like adults?

Posted by: Sarah at 02:52 AM | Comments (34) | Add Comment
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.

1 AFAICT, civility died well before any of us were born. If it ever existed. But. Bush is a flat out liar. Googling for 'Bush lies,' the first thing we run into is David Corn's book. Note that he has documented a litany of lies that our fearless leader has used to mislead the public - exaggerating and inventing new claims about WMDs is just one of may lies Bush has darkened his soul with: Brazenly misrepresented intelligence data and relied on dishonest arguments to whip up support for war with Iraq Made numerous false statements about the provisions and effects of his super-sized tax cuts Offered disingenuous and misleading explanations about the 9/11 attacks, the war on terrorism, and homeland security Lied about his connections—and those of his administration—to corporate crooks Presented deceptive claims to sell controversial policies on the environment, stem cell research, missile defense, abortion, energy, Social Security, health care, education, and other crucial issues Dishonestly claimed to be a positive campaigner while engaging in deceitful and down-and-dirty tactics during the 2000 presidential campaign and recount drama

Posted by: me at August 20, 2005 03:01 PM (UEAYx)

2 And before someone brings it up, yes Corn is a partisan. Partisanship doesn't discount an argument, nor does it cause evidence that one uses to back up arguments to disappear. Corn did a lot of research, and has a very complelling case for the particular accusations of lying that he lists. If you want to disprove his case in a credible way, you will have your work cut out for you. If it did, then one would not be able to believe any statement made by any member of our government, including Pres. Bush who has taken partisanship to new levels.

Posted by: me at August 20, 2005 03:07 PM (UEAYx)

3 Oops last sentence got hosed. Should be: "While it is a favorite tactic of the punditocracy, calling partisanship has never proved an argument false. If it did, then one would not be able to believe any statement made by any member of our government, especially Pres. Bush who has taken partisanship to new levels."

Posted by: me at August 20, 2005 03:12 PM (UEAYx)

4 Obviously... "Me" doesn't care about the truth. Just a hack for the left.

Posted by: Jamie at August 20, 2005 07:28 PM (yDBbJ)

5 Jamie, thank you for making me laugh out loud.

Posted by: me at August 20, 2005 08:25 PM (UEAYx)

6 The lies told by President Bush are greatly exagerated by your Google search. Please be advised that these are the same five hundred or so lies replicated over and over. Google makes it appear that the President has told millions of "lies" when he is actually guilty of just a few hundred "misrepresentations". Google: Librul commonist conspiritor... we can live without it.

Posted by: marli at August 20, 2005 09:23 PM (96hNg)

7 marli, I would go even further. No real Conservative can trust any search engine, as they often reveal facts that do not agree with the Conservative world view. Nor can one trust any neutral news reporting, scientific studies, encyclopedias, or any other information sources on topics by experts when those fields discuss anything that is related, even in a very loose way, to politics. Finally, to properly hold a Conservative view, even one's own experience and reason must be rejected, as often enough a thoughtful reflection on one's experience would arrive at the heretical view that one cannot reduce complex issues to simple black and white talking points. The Bush administration was quite right to criticize the Left for being "reality based," as only sources of truth that can really be trusted are Conservative politicians and pundits. Since their views generally diverge radically from reality, reality is clearly at fault, and should be avoided at all costs.

Posted by: me at August 20, 2005 10:28 PM (UEAYx)

8 ...ah, the "people who don't agree with me are incapable of thinking" ploy. Gosh, what a surprise. Of course, none of those icky conservatives could have possibly researched any of the claims of the President's "lies" and found inconvenient things that disprove the claim or anything. Nope, better ignore them and claim they aren't based in reality.

Posted by: Patrick Chester at August 21, 2005 01:40 AM (74cXW)

9 Instead of liar, would you settle for grossly incompetent? Or does it seem like a good idea to have relied on sources such as "Curveball" to support your case seem like a good idea?

Posted by: not me at August 21, 2005 03:10 AM (9aW+B)

10 Marli was being sarcastic

Posted by: Sarah at August 21, 2005 04:45 AM (BdYs/)

11 I thought the site would have a function to prevent that last remark from actually showing up. Sorry

Posted by: Notreallysarah at August 21, 2005 05:02 AM (BdYs/)

12 I'm willing to agree that Bush didn't lie about the WMDs, inasmuch as he believed they were there. That isn't enough to get him and his Administration off of the hook, though. It was reasonable to assume initially that Iraq had some WMDs. They had had them at one time, and they hadn't produced proof that they had been destroyed. However, the Bush administration had an obligation to do "due diligence" before undertaking a war, in order to verify its assumptions. Here is where the ball got dropped. The intelligence community was picking up evidence that the WMDs might be gone, but they were under pressure from the Administration to pay more attention to the sources that said the WMDs were there. Remember Chalabi? Cheney in particular really pushed hard for him to be regarded as a reliable source. He was supposed to be Iraq's George Washington. Now he is in jail for fraud, LOL. So technically Bush and the Administration probably didn't lie. At the same time, they basically just didn't care enough about whether what they wer saying was true to bother to check it out. That is different from lying, but I don't think it is any better. CNN has a program on tonight about where all of the intel went wrong, by the way. (It is okay for you folks to watch CNN sometimes. I actually watch a lot of Fox News, so the universe will remain in balance.) Can anyone explain to me how George Tenet got the Medal of Freedom? Even if they had WMDs, though, that hardly justifies the war. The explanation that they might give them to Al Queda was so weak. It ignores the hostile relationship between the two. It also ignores the fact that other Middle Eastern states have or are getting WMDs and have much closer ties to terrorists than Iraq: Syria and Iran, for example. By the way, Sarah, I notice that you don't give any examples of conservatives who lack civility. I know, they were just examples, but when they all go in one direction it pretty strongly implies that you only think that liberals (and Scattergories players) lack civility. As an example of someone wrongly being accused of lying, let's take the accusation that Kerry lied in the 1970s when he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee regarding war crimes in Viet Nam. This is a bum rap because: 1. Kerry was only passing on reports that others had made (at Winter Soldier) about their own actions; he wasn't accusing anyone of anything. 2. Some of the reports he passed on may have been false, but he couldn't know that---hence not possibly a lie. 3. Most of the reports were substantially true. Even Tommy Franks admited this when Hannity interviewed him on Fox. I think the bigger issue isn't people calling each other liars, though, but just the fact that political discourse has become so loud and nasty. I'm not going to say that tist is all the fault of conservatives, but they bear their share of the blame---everyone from Newt Gingrich to Ann Coulter.

Posted by: Pericles at August 21, 2005 07:27 AM (hHudX)

13 For the record, by the way, you are right that Bush lies brings up 7.5 million hits, but that counts all pages that have those two words anywhere on the page, not necessarily together. You are counting pages where people defend Bush against what they see as Democrats' lies. "Bush lies," with the quotes, only brings up 159,000 hits. That doesn't seem like so many, considering that some people will ALWAYS accuse the President of lying, and that some of those pages may be about his father or Jeb. (Or his brother Neil, of the savings and loan scandal.) On the civility topic, by the way, remember when the Clintons were accused of murdering Vince Foster? Might help to give some perspective...

Posted by: Pericles at August 21, 2005 11:48 AM (hHudX)

14 Pericles -- 1) We live overseas. We can't watch Fox or CNN by choice; we get "AFN News", which broadcasts news from different sources alternating every hour. I don't like TV news, so I get all of my news from online. I don't understand why everyone (not only you but some of my friends who email me to disagree) assumes that I, and all rightwingers, sit glued to Fox News all day long. I think ALL news channels suck bigtime. I know a lot of people much farther to the right of me who LOATHE Fox News. Just because we're right of center doesn't mean we bow down to Fox. 2) I never said anything about liberals in my post. I gave the Scattergories example (not political), the Grey Eagle example (not a left-right wing topic), and, yes, the President example, but only because BUSH LIED has become like a mantra. I did another experiment on google: Bush lies = 7.5 mil hits Clinton lies = 2.9 mil hits "Bush lied" = 239,000 hits "Clinton lied" = 41,700 hits So I think there is something to the idea that Bush gets hit harder than other presidents. You're right: Political discourse -- hell, all discourse, I think -- is loud and nasty. The word "liar" is thrown around way too often by everyone, which was my point.

Posted by: Sarah at August 21, 2005 12:23 PM (6dsp+)

15 I don't get it. When someone in an important role fragrantly lies in front of you about something important, why is it inappropriate to point that out? Bush certainly has fired off a ton of whopping lies, often in such a way as if he is trying to trigger a reaction from his critics. Hinting at a relationship between Bin Laden and Sadaam the day after a report is released sayig there is no relationship is a sure way to get called on it. Stating in the SOTU address that Sadaam tried to buy Uranium from Niger in an effeort to create nuclear weapons, when that claim had been publicly debunked many months before (I heard the the IANA report since it preempted my normal show) is just begging to get called out. And if he didn't know he was lying in the SOTU, he so uninformed as not to be fit to be president - the IANA report was a critical report about the state of Sadaam's nuclear capacity, which was being used by Bush as an excuse to invade Iraq. In a democracy it is our duty to examine our leaders and criticize them, whether they are members of our favorite political party or not. While we should be honest about it and careful, it is the right thing to do. 'Civility' is not about giving a free pass to those who abuse their office, just because we personally like them, or because they subscribe to the same ideology we do, or anything else. Finally, Google's results are not immediatly meaningful for a few reasons: 1) Both 'Bush' and 'lies' are terms that have multiple meainings. 'Bush' could indicate a shrub, it is a product brand, it is the Australian term for the wilderness, a relatively common family name etc., while 'lies' is a verb with many meanings as well. e.g. "A wonderful adventure waits those who wish to tour the bush, while excellent diving and snorkeling is available in the great barrier reef which lies off Australia's coast." "The bonsai garden lies to the north of the rose garden, with a lovely juniper bush border." 2) There have been two Bush presidencies, and both of those presidents have made bald faced lies to the American people. Remember Sr. doing the "read my lips" bit? 3) The (pubilcly available) Internet has been around much longer for the Bush regime, than for the Clinton regime. Most pages on politics tend towards discussions of current events. Thanks to blogs, which became popular during Bush II's reign, there are millions of posts about current events. You could normalize the numbers to reduce the relevance of these factiors if you had a lot of time to research, but for now it's best to just assume that they are Google is not a meaninful metric for your point. I would also note that when the Right was busily excoriating Clinton, the comment was often made that it was one's patriotic duty in a democracy to criticize the president. What's good for the goose...

Posted by: me at August 21, 2005 01:34 PM (UEAYx)

16 Sarah, Apologies for assuming that you preferred Fox to CNN, although that comment was addressed to your readership as much as to you, and I'm willing to gamble that on the whole Fox has more fans here. The Google numbers are interesting, but in this case I don't think they prove your point. Two reasons: (1) The number of Internet sites in existence goes up sharply every year. There are a lot more of both pro-Republican and pro-Democrat sites now than when Clinton was in office. "Bush told the truth" pulls up twice as many hits as "Clinton told the truth." "Bush is honest" pulls up many times more hits than "Clinton is honest" or "Clinton was honest." (2) Clinton has been out of office for nearly five years, and out of date web sites tend to go away. Five years after Bush leaves office, a lot of "Bush lies" sites will have vanished too. I know that some prominent Dems have called Bush a liar. On the other hand, Clinton was called a liar on the floor of Congress---he was impeached for it. So I am pretty confident that even in the "MSM" there were a lot more references to Clinton lying than Bush. I'm not saying there isn't a reason for that! But the Google numbers don't tell the story.

Posted by: Pericles89 at August 21, 2005 03:08 PM (hHudX)

17 Oops, I see that "me" beat me to the punch on Google.

Posted by: Pericles at August 21, 2005 04:27 PM (hHudX)

18 Googling "Bush untruths" brings only 51,300 results; "Bush fibs" just 36,200. Civility persists even in these troubled times. You just have to look for it.

Posted by: Marli at August 21, 2005 04:42 PM (cw17H)

19 Sarah, I'll actually answer your question. "Why is it that we seem to have an endless parade of adults charging liar-liar-pants-on-fire?" Its interesting to note that the first commenters responded with, not by answering the question, but by acknowledging "yes, this sort of thing happens, but" and then launch into a list of Bush "lies", each of which is debateable. However, the point is not about debate. Appealing to someone's intellect takes time. You have to have a reasoned argument, you must also accede to the concept that the other person's viewpoint may have merit. In other words, you have to be willing to accept that the other person may continue to think you are wrong even when the debate is over. All of this cannot happen in the brief span alloted for network TV news. So we shout. We condense. The position is taken that the other side has performed questionable acts. The message must be shaped in such a fashion as to put the other side on the defense, to be as reactive as possible, so that the dominant talk of the day is framed in a manner that supports your position. Of course, when both sides start doing this, it reinforces the other...both sides must immediately spin all new issues against the other. The more you can keep your opponent on the defensive, the longer you can keep your message in the public view. After all, when a politician denies something, we tend to not believe him. So spread the accusations as thick as possible. I'm not sure where I read it, but politics of this nature are a lot like trying to drive down a highway keeping it clean. People are constantly throwing garbage out the window, and you gotta stop and clean it up, making it that much harder to drive down the road. This applies to any political party or affiliated groups. Right now, we've got Republicans in charge, so they are out there doing this that and the other. THe Democrats would more than likely be doing similar things, but since it isn't them in charge, there needs to be a change in leadership so that the "proper" party can be in charge and get things done the "right way". The Republicans are the ones having to pick up a lot of the trash. The situation was reversed in he 90's. Basically, when you get right down to it, people are calling other people liars to get that concept to stick and to distract them from other tasks, so that they can't get anything done. If the only message that gets repeated is "Bush is a liar" and all other information to the contrary is overwhelmed by that singular meme, well, then you've won. You can always rewrite history later when you are in power, to make it fit with what you said.

Posted by: Jason at August 21, 2005 08:26 PM (e31/e)

20 Jason, With this question: "Why is it that we seem to have an endless parade of adults charging liar-liar-pants-on-fire?" Given the choice of answers between: 1) They are lying, there is proof. When politicians lie about important things, people care about it and discuss it. or 2) They are not lying - that's not really the point. People care about politicians lying, so what's really going on is that one side is attempting to create the appearance that they are lying to distract from nebulous 'other tasks?' Occam's razor readily slices #2 away leaving 'they are lying.' FWIW, if the list of lies I offered above were really just empty distractors, it should be easy to research and show that each of those particulars is wrong. Instead we get ad hominems, red herrings, or vague claims about proven facts being 'debatable'. At best we get a little focus on the one point that is a bit fuzzy (WMDs) and get weak arguments about how Clinton thought that there were WMD in Iraq, which is besides the point. Bush and co. lied by manipulating what data they had to make a better case than he had, and we have witnesses inside the White House who do not have a political axe to grid, who have stated that this is what they saw. Honsetly if you are sincerely unaware that Bush is lying to you, you really need to do some more research, or maybe get some counseling, as you are filtering evidence to fit your world view. Reality should come first, and world views should be adapted to it, not the other way.

Posted by: me at August 22, 2005 06:03 PM (y7lmo)

21 Occam's Razor works wonderfully when all you have are two choices, and is competently wielded. Thus, we can excuse your false dichotomy and add other possibilities to your short list: 3: They were wrong, and didn't know how wrong. Strange, how this possibility has not occured to you, while others have noted it and have moved on, but then, if we considered the possibility that perhaps someone other than Bush was lying (name starts with an S, can;t quite seem to remember his name) and the entire world fell for it...well. That certainly makes Bush look a lot less menacing, and blows your carefully crafted selection of "known lies" clear out of the water and into low orbit, where it can burn up safely. Now, we could take the time to debate these issues, but, as I said in my earlier comment, that would take time. Its easier for you to continue to bleat "BUT HE LIED!!!!!!" and provide a list that isn't even specific in any way, provide any source links or material, and expect us to take you at your word...you, a random anonymous commenter on the Whirled Wide Web, and you dare to lecture me on Occam's Razor and question my grip on reality? Absurd. No, that's not the word. Obtuse. Sarah asked a question about something very specific in nature, which I attempted to answer. You, on the other hand, saw fit to display a staggering lack of reading comprehension and instead rattle off the same tired list of paranoid tripe that has been dispensed since the day Bush took office, all buffed up and shiny with a new "Now with Iraqi Oil!" logo. Please, this is Sarah's blog, where she asked a simple question. She's entitled to an answer, not some diatribe. If you are too limited in cranial capacity to at least contribute to that and stay on topic, then kindly, gently, but firmly, consume excrement, and thus expire. Have a nice day.

Posted by: Jason at August 22, 2005 09:13 PM (FnW1q)

22 Jason, You're obviosly a very thoughful man but if the abstract were true and the concrete were false we wouldn't never o' been throwed into this mess. People believe Bush lied because the evidence tells them so. Take a look at what Colin Powell's chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson told CNN on Friday about the WMD case made before the U.N. (They KNEW it was booshit) Take a look at the Downing Street memos-facts and evidence "fixed around the policy" Look at the last IAEA report to be released before the invasion of Iraq (Nuclear case was known to be booshit before the war) Look at this stuff that's out there in plain sight an then take refuge in philosophy if you must.

Posted by: dave at August 22, 2005 09:36 PM (Hq5E2)

23 "That certainly makes Bush look a lot less menacing, and blows your carefully crafted selection of "known lies" clear out of the water and into low orbit, where it can burn up safely." No, no it doesn't. Pretty rhetoric doesn't make something true. Of course Saddam was lying. Having just criticized me for a false dichotomy, you go and invent your own - pretending that If Hussein was lying then W. wasn't. They were both political leaders, and, as such, are by their nature both prone to lies. And, once again, the WMD issue is not the only place where W has lied. There was a list presented above. So far you have shown that you can't actually address any of the claims above, save the question of WMDs, which you really only dance around. Once again your only argument is to fire off ad hominems, which are a fallacy. See if you can honestly and clearly answer any of these charges in such a way that you don't drop into rhetorical tricks or logical fallacies: If you seriously look at GWB's statements about his relationship with Ken Lay, and then look at the evidence to the contrary you will see that he was lying. The same can be said of Chalabi. If you seriously look at GWB's initial statements about the Tax cuts, you will have to assume that GWB was incredibly foolish and poorly informed if he was he was being sincere. If you seriously look at GWB's initial campaign statements about bipartisanship, you will see that they in no way map to any of his actions. If you look at GWB's campaign promise to Nevada to not send Nuclear waste there, you wil see that this was a lie. Bush has repeatedly implied connections between 9/11 and Saddam, despite the fact that there are none. This has all the appeareances of being done to deliberately mislead the American people, and polls have shown that many of the population were misled by these lies. et al. As for reading comprehension, the first post specifically mentioned the book and the author that I sourced that list from. As for answering the question, I did just that. Just because you didn't like the answer doesn't make it a non-answer. I think it's pretty clear that your emotional attachment to your image of your hero is keeping you from seeing that Bush (along with most politicians) says what is expedient to say, and doesn't appear to give a damn about the truth. This isn't unusual, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, and many (most?) of their predecessors did the same thing. It's really the nature of politics. It's just troubling for me to see people naievly believing the rhetoric of the liars, and so I call them out. I take it as a philosophical duty. Finally, this isn't personal, but your tone shows that you are taking it as such. The name of this blog is trying to grok. I am always trying to grok the world, and am just expressing my understanding, it's not a personal attack on you, it is a criticizm of public figures. Criticizing public figures is part of democracy, and a guaranteed right for Americans, trying to shut it down by pretending that it isn't 'civil' is really rather Orwellian.

Posted by: me at August 23, 2005 12:16 AM (lq5rN)

24 Jason, As an exampler for you to use, here is a refutation of one incorrect statement I slipped into my list above: "me" said: >If you look at GWB's campaign promise to Nevada to not send Nuclear waste there, you wil see that this was a lie. But, if you look at what Bush actually said, he did not actually make that promise. He actually promised that he would not use NV as a temporary storage facility until it was reviewed and then not unless it has been deemed scientifically safe. See: http://www.factcheck.org/article242.html As you can see, it's pretty easy to use facts to disprove positions. Note that I didn't even need to call "me" a name, or fire off any fancy rhetorical embellishments. See if you can do the same for the others. I do not think you will be able to, but will happily concede if you can do it.

Posted by: me at August 23, 2005 12:26 AM (lq5rN)

25 I had to chuckle at this paragraph on Screedblog today: It may surprise you, but I actually have heard that argument before. The one about WMDs. Also the one about “shifting rationales.” It’s come up from time to time. Consequently they do not leave me open-mouthed in stunned surprise, unable to craft a response. So it’s not the show-stopper you think it is, alas. Everyone always thinks they have some armor-piercing argument the other side has never considered, but that’s rarely the case.

Posted by: Sarah at August 23, 2005 03:09 AM (rRJTB)

26 Dave declared: People believe Bush lied because the evidence tells them so. ...and oddly enough, some people believe Bush didn't lie because they actually read the evidence carefully and, gosh, it doesn't match what people claim the evidence says. Shocking.

Posted by: Patrick Chester at August 24, 2005 03:54 PM (MKaa5)

27 Oh wait, was I supposed to make several multi-paragraphed posts of claims or something? Drat.

Posted by: Patrick Chester at August 24, 2005 03:56 PM (MKaa5)

28 Patrick, You're supposed to continue to refute specifics with generalities. That's your best strategy under the circumstances.

Posted by: Dave at August 24, 2005 06:15 PM (XIjIO)

29 Oh, you want specific point-by-point rebuttals to your oh-so-new claims of Bush's perfidity or all is lost and the vaunted neo-con cause is revealed as Evil Incarnate? Uh-huh... and if I do and all I get is a repeat of the same claims, what use is the debate? I guess that's the whole purpose of the spewing of the same claims over and over again: to drown out the opposition until they get tired of refuting you and give up, save for some icky "general" remarks that you're on crack. Oh well, if you want to play your game, then Cassandra at Villainous Company has a lot of nifty specifics for you, since my oh-so-terrible general disgruntled "oh not this bilge again" response has not satisfied your exacting demands that people tussle with you. Here's the URL: Happy now? Hm. While previewing this I looked at "me"'s first little missive and realized it boiled down to him saying: "civility is dead and I'm not going to bother!" Then proving it. Repeatedly.

Posted by: Patrick Chester at August 24, 2005 09:56 PM (MKaa5)

30 But Patrick, If the claims aren't new, If the claims are as old as the hills then what is their rebuttal exactly? Go ahead spit it out sir.

Posted by: dave at August 24, 2005 10:20 PM (XIjIO)

31 SPIT IT OUT

Posted by: dave at August 24, 2005 10:26 PM (XIjIO)

32 ...and dave proves my theory to be correct. I guess I will just have to hope people click on the little link I posted, read it, and maybe go looking on their own... and dave will have to pray they don't. Until then, perhaps dave should just hold his breath until someone bothers to adhere to his imperious demands.

Posted by: Patrick Chester at August 25, 2005 11:51 PM (74cXW)

33 Patrick, I apologize for my tone. There is something deeply pointless about this.

Posted by: Dave at August 26, 2005 11:25 PM (EXeyV)

34 All politicians lie i mean you could tell when bill clinton lied becuase him mouth was open

Posted by: spurwing plover at August 28, 2005 03:36 PM (S97cI)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Apparently the Left thinks that in order to properly gain support for their anti-war beliefs, they need to repeat the word "useless", specifically in reference to Cindy Sheehan's son's "useless sacrifice" in Iraq.

In my life, I have known many people who have died before their time. Car accidents, drugs, suicide, drowning, and murder have taken people I knew and cared about. So did the game Red Rover, when my brother's friend died when tightly linked arms made him fall and hit his head. There's nothing more senseless or "useless" than dying during a game at Vacation Bible School. Young people die from being impaled with a golf club or mauled by the family dog. Those deaths are useless indeed.

I submit that dying in Iraq is about one of the most noble deaths for a young man or woman. There's no honor in getting hit by a bus, but the sacrifice that these soldiers and marines are making is anything but useless. These 1853 Americans have died for the good of not only their own country but for the good of Iraq. They have died so that others can be free.

That's about the most useFUL sacrifice a man can make.

MORE TO GROK:

Our nation's sons have given their lives so that Iraq's mothers can find peace.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:33 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 2 kb.

I saw an AFN commercial today about Frank Capra's Why We Fight movies. Apparently Capra used clips of Hitler's speeches to explain what we were up against. I noticed the stark contrast between Why We Fight and a series of commercials that runs on AFN called Why We're Here. These commercials are all about the feel-good stuff that's going on in Iraq: school openings, meetings with Iraqi councilmen, playing with children. These commercials are interesting, but they sure have a different focus than Why We Fight.

Let's make a movie out of LGF. Someone get footage of imams around the world calling for the death of Americans. Let's add Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl, mixed with Saddam chopping off hands. How 'bout the folks who were cheering in the streets on 9/11? Or footage of those Hamas training camps? And let's show Why We Fight.

If we never demonize the enemy, we'll never truly mobilize.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:50 PM | Comments (32) | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Mobilize? But Bush said that the only thing Americans needed to do was to go to the mall. I'm all for reminding people just how much of an enemy Bin Laden is. Let's just not forget that those folks weren't in Iraq until after we invaded. Saddam was more afraid of them than of us, and he shut them down. And the next time we have a chance to do something about it, let's not forget what party's President took resources away from the hunt for this butcher of Americans to invade a country that posed no immediate threat to us at all---and wouldn't have even if they had had a WMD. What would Capra have done if FDR had responded to Hitler with a poorly planned invasion of Sweden?

Posted by: Pericles at August 08, 2005 09:51 PM (hHudX)

2 Outstanding idea. Kal

Posted by: Kalroy at August 09, 2005 12:17 AM (9RG5y)

3 You're wrong, Pericles: the invasion of Iraq was brilliantly planned and executed. Unfortunately, the post-major combat operations phase was not. When President Bush announced the end of 'major combat operations', he was in fact technically correct. The problem is that our technocratic language of warfighting was as flawed as our military's strategic approach to war and peace before Iraq. As context, our idea of peace-keeping and other 'operations other than war' could be summed up in post Gulf War I Iraq, Somalia, Rwanda, the Balkans. In other words, a rather sorry resume. (And no, I'm not blaming Clinton - note Gulf War I where Bush Sr failed to finish the job) To any informed observer, to include many of us who served in the 1990s military, it was obvious that we were as poor at OOTW as we were capable in 'major combat ops'. Our particular weaknesses were in the making DECADES before 9/11. By 9/11, we no longer owned the military, nor even the proper mentality, that built the peace in Asia and Europe in the 20th century. That's our weakness. Any half-savvy warfighter attacks weakness and circumvents his enemy's strength. We are faced against a savvy enemy who designs his strategy upon our weaknesses. The War on Terror is being fought in OOTW, not 'major combat operations'. An obvious source of our weakness is the fall-out of the Vietnam War. Another is the ascendancy of realist political philosophy. According to realists, the invasion of Iraq was fundamentally flawed in rationale, but in liberal political philosophy, the transformation of Iraq was essential to win the War on Terror. George Bush chose the liberal route. Is he wrong? Many realists say so (Pericles, you're obviously a realist). I will point out that our realist political policies contributed greatly to the rise of the 9/11 status quo in the 1st place, and Bush at least was smart enough to realize fundamental - even Roosevelt-ian - global change was needed. Remember, we weren't ready to fight WW2 either. Our failures and missteps were colossal in that war. (Which just goes to show that the principal morality in war is not how you fight or how well or how cheaply; it's whether you win and control the aftermath.) Thousands upon thousands of Americans paid the ultimate price for our nation's path-dependent weaknesses in the first years of that conflict. But we won 'by whatever means necessary', and that makes all the difference. In the War on Terror, we again are weighted down with path-dependent weaknesses, which actually don't near the weaknesses we had entering WW2. The question is whether our generation can muster the Greatest Generation's can-do mentality to win at all costs against an intolerable enemy. Whether we have the strength of will as a united people to change our nation's path, create and build the means to victory, and overcome our own weaknesses in order to achieve that victory against a determined enemy. Frank Capra and others of that generation understood the great challenge our nation faced BECAUSE of our path-dependent weaknesses. They knew we didn't enter that fight capable of winning it. They chose to help FDR (a Wilsonian liberal, whose tradition Bush is following) rally the will of the American people to endure, adapt and overcome our weaknesses as we built that capability. They - and we - succeeded, with great cost and suffering borne by the American people. Does our generation own the will to endure, adapt and overcome, despite great cost and suffering, to build the means to victory and defeat this enemy? We're finding out. If in the 21st century, our American generation's answer is 'no', we WILL lose this war.

Posted by: Eric Chen at August 09, 2005 12:40 AM (QJb38)

4 That would be an easy eough project to create on digital media just from what's out there on the 'net.

Posted by: Mare at August 09, 2005 01:01 AM (0CpxG)

5 Wow Chen. interesting read. Kalroy

Posted by: Kalroy at August 09, 2005 01:38 AM (9RG5y)

6 Does our generation own the will to endure, adapt and overcome, despite great cost and suffering, to build the means to victory and defeat this enemy? We're finding out. If in the 21st century, our American generation's answer is 'no', we WILL lose this war. The really disturbing thing is that among the general population, the "great cost and suffering" is basically zero. It's being borne by our volunteer military and their families. It's been suggested that part of the reason for the opposition to the war is that people are so insulated from its effects that they cannot judge it with any accuracy. We must remember that America is traditionally isolationist, largely keeping to its own affairs until someone becomes sufficiently annoying. It's not something easily changed. Also, Pericles, there's not a hell of a lot the regular army can do to find bin Laden, short of invading the whole of Central Asia (likely a bad idea). The idea that the liberation of Iraq took resources away from the hunt for bin Laden makes no sense from either an organisational or logistical viewpoint.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at August 09, 2005 03:38 AM (RbYVY)

7 "We must remember that America is traditionally isolationist, largely keeping to its own affairs until someone becomes sufficiently annoying. " I don't think that's quite the case. Or rather, I think that's the tradition we like to see ourselves as, but it hasn't been a reality for over a hundred years. I think we're smart enough to be an interventionist nation when our interests scream for it, but pretty grumpy about it. I do believe we'd prefer that the world be such a place that we never felt we had to go out there and fix something, or defend our interests; we're pretty isolationist in our desires, but not in actions. Kalroy

Posted by: Kalroy at August 09, 2005 10:00 AM (9RG5y)

8 Chen- You were more careful in your terminology than I was in distinguishing between the invasion of Iraq and the post-invasion phase. I'm happy to accept your correction, and say that the invasion was generally well-planned and that the real lapses in planning concerned the post-invasion phase. I'd add one more item to your list of failed peace-keeping ventures: Beirut. I think the collective memory of Americans is short enough that this one often gets left out of the discussion, but Bin laden hasn't forgotten it. It apparently did a great deal to convince him that Americans still didn't have the stomach to see body bags come home. In foreign policy, by the way, I think that I actually see myself as more of a liberal than a realist... but I want to be a realistic liberal. Let me start by expressing a bit of cynism about the notion of a Wilsonian Bush. Don't lose sight of the fact that one of his campaign pledges in 2000 was that we would not engage in any nation building. He expressly disavowed any "Wilsonian" ambitions. The immediate answer is sure to be that "9/11 changed everything." But what did 9/11 tell anyone that we didn't really already know? Al Queda had already attacked the WTC itself, and we barely foiled an attack on the Space Needle. We already knew that Saddam was a thug and a tyrant. If Bush is indeed a foreign policy liberal, why wasn't he campaigning on the need for military action against Iraq? The invasion might have been the same thing that a Wilsonian would have done, but to suggest that this is why Bush did it involves a bit of ex post facto rationalization. No WMDs? Oh wait, that isn't what this was about. It was all about cultural change in the ME! In any case, even if you accept the "liberal" tenet that we ought to be wlling to use our military power to spread democracy, you are still a long way from having made an adequate case for invading Iraq when we did. First, our military resources are obviously limited, and so you need to make a case for why invading Iraq was a higher priority than other tasks, like really securing Afghanistan and pursuing Bin Laden. Second, you've got to answer the question, "Why Iraq?" Even if you are convinced that our top priority in combatting Islamic fundamentalism is establishing a democratic country in the Middle East, why was Iraq the best place for that to happen? Other possibilities: Syria, another Baathist country, one with closer ties to terrorists than Iraq, and one that definitely has WMDs; Iran, a country with some level of democracy already, and again one with closer ties to terrorists than Iraq plus one with a known nuclear program; Lebanon, the only Arab country in the region with a history of stable democracy. (US and French pressure together has gotten Syria out of Lebanon, which is wonderful. Maybe that would have been enough.) Iraq is not the most promising cradle for Arab democracy, after all. You have the internal Sunni/Shiite/Kurd tensions to deal with. Also, you have the fact that an internal democratic revolution was much more feasible there (where private firearm ownership was apparently common) than in a country like North Korea. If the people there were not thirsting for democracy strongly enough to start their own revolution, then you have to wonder if they will be committed enough to sustain it. Finally, third, to make the case for invading Iraq you have to have a plausible story to tell about how we get from the invasion to cultural change in the region. So far, we only seem to get a lot of hand-waving. One step in the process seems to be "and then a miracle happens." Conservatives, and especially neo-cons, have long argued against social programs in the U.S. on the grounds that these programs always have undesirable "unintended consequences." AFDC, for example, only perpetuated black poverty. Social engineering never works the way you plan, they say. They have a point. But if we can't do it here, then how can they blithely assume that we can effect massive social change in a foreign culture that we barely understand? Especially in a region where we are so roundly hated that our association with anything will automatically count as a strike against it? We may need cultural change in the ME, I agree, but I'm inclined to think that our best hope of creating it would have involved much greater patience and subtlety. Meanwhile, our leders aren't mobilizing the citizens to do the things we can do. How much of the money we spend on oil goes right into the pockets of terrorists? And how many of our problems are caused by the fact that we have to have a major presence in the region to protect the flow of oil? We should have a major push for energy conservation right now, but instead we get told that the way to do our part is to go shopping.

Posted by: Pericles at August 09, 2005 10:10 AM (hHudX)

9 the real problem with the iraq conflict is we're (particurly the bush admin) not consintent in what we're trying to accomplish.first it's WMD's well we didn't find any.then it's fight the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here.well if that's the case then we'll never leave iraq because there will ALWAYS be islamic fundementists/terrorists in that part of the world.then it's "freedom for the iraqi people" well we had an election and shiite backed cleric parties won half the vote.if any rational person thinks they will run western styled democratic government think again.they won't.ever.it's not all gloom and doom though.saddam's in jail,the terrorists are total sadists that the majority of the iraqi people don't want those motherf*****rs running the country.it simply won't be easy or realistic to expect this conflict to end for at least another 5 to 10 years.which means more casulities....which sucks!

Posted by: tommy at August 09, 2005 12:12 PM (NMK3S)

10 Pericles, that't wonderful you are reminding us that the President told us all to shop. He also said this: "I would think the American people need to be - go about their business on Monday, but with a heightened sense of awareness that a group of barbarians have declared war on the American people." Of course, that sounds like a reasonable attitude, but the "H3y gUyZ! Sh0P f0r Am3riKa!" is a much better soundbite, and it turns out to be the one oft repeated for some strange reason, perhaps related to the concept that whatever the President says must be stupid and ignorant, and if you repeat it often enough maybe it will come true. Alas, Google exists, and you can read and see the contexts of people's speech rather than relaying on random commenters with poorly edged axes to grind. As for Afghanistan, ever read a map? I mean, seriously look at a map of Afghanistan, and tell me how we can get some Bradleys and M1s there. Look at those vast coastlines we can use to land container ships! The ports of Afghanistan were never rivalled for their modernity...oh, wait, Afghanistan is a landlocked country. Gosh, that might hamper logistical efforts somewhat, ya think? Perhaps people who plan and strategize these sorts of things know more about the subject of equipping and fielding a fighting force in broken terrain know more about it than you do, but hey, I could be wrong! But if I['m not wrong, that means units not detailed to Afghanistan because of logistical concerns can be deployed to...other places...like Iraq...and these units are those that couldn't go to Afghanistan anyway...I sense a pattern! Do you? The reasons for going into Iraq are indeed debatable, but when misdirection and ignorance are used as evidence we are doing the wrong thing, well, that's not really a debate, now is it? You can say "we didn't need to go into Iraq cos Saddam was a nice man", surely. But to say "we shouldn't have gone to Iraq because it used up forces we could have sent to Afghanistan" is different, because its wrong and ignorant. You may not know that, but perhaps this will be an enlightening experience for you, I hope. The "please shop America!" statement, as if its the only thing the President ever said, says more about you than it does Bush. And as for "Why Iraq"? Fucker needed to go, that's why.

Posted by: Jason at August 09, 2005 05:22 PM (565iX)

11 Jason- Thanks for your replies. A couple of quick thoughts in haste. 1. I never suggested that all Bush said to Americans was that we should go shopping. But my point was that he has never asked us to make any sacrifices at all, except of our civil liberties, even though there are sacrifices we could be making that would be a contribution to the eoffrt. So if the question is "why aren't we mobilizing?," maybe the answer is even more obvious than "We haven't demonized the enemy enough." Maybe it is as simple as "No one asked us to." 2. About the resource issue re Iraq/Afghanistan. I can dig up documentation later, and you're entitled not to believe me until I do, but it simply is false to suggest that the Iraqi war hasn't meant fewer resources for Afghanistan. Maybe armor isn't the primary need there, although by now we would have had plenty of time to get it there by land even if they are landlocked. Think about other assets though. Think about Predators and Global Hawks, for example, along with other intel assets. Just what you would need in looking for Bin Laden, it seems. Did we not use any of these in Iraq that could have been in Afghanistan instead? What about light infantry? I'm on the 10th Mountain Division homepage now, reading about their service in Iraq. Other people here know much more about the Army than I do, so I fully admit that I may be wrong about this. My impression, though, is that troops like those in the 10th MD would be perfectly well suited for Afghanistan, and indeed they were there before they went to Iraq. What about special forces units? Etc. I don't claim this is the best source, but because it is what I can find quickly and doesn't come from anyone with a big ax to grind, check out this USA Today article: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-03-28-troop-shifts_x.htm

Posted by: Pericles at August 09, 2005 06:02 PM (AndZ3)

12 I recall several times President Bush asking the American people to support our Troops and their families in a number of ways. Just because you choose to ignore his requests and ignore the need to support our Troops (in a tangible way) is your problem. Nobody told me to write or send packages to soldiers or support organizations that help injured soldiers, I did it on my own. Maybe that's because I'm an adult whose very grateful to those who volunteer to serve our country.

Posted by: toni at August 09, 2005 08:41 PM (RMq7w)

13 Invading Iraq? That would be almost as dumb as concentrating on defeating Germany even though it was the Japanese who attacked us.

Posted by: Walter E. Wallis at August 10, 2005 03:59 PM (K6i9N)

14 Walter, Please recall that a formal alliance existed between the Axis Powers of the second World War. No such alliance existed between Iraq and Islamic terrorism. The difference is crucial. Your analogy is false.

Posted by: Dave at August 10, 2005 05:04 PM (1idyk)

15 Dave, Please tell me which country does have a formal alliance between Islamic terrorism and said country. ..(crickets chirping)... Do you see the point I'm making?

Posted by: gibby at August 11, 2005 02:52 AM (OCIqu)

16 Gibby, I guess the point you'er making is that we ought to be pretty careful about who we attack. In any case Afghanistan perfectly fit the bill as an ally and protector of bin Laden. It made no sense at all to attack one of the few secular regimes in the region. Attack the people who attack you and those who support them. The reasoning is not that complicated.

Posted by: Dave at August 11, 2005 08:44 AM (ke6dw)

17 Dave is right. After we closed the terrorist camps in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda would never never have gone to iraq. And Saddam would never welcome terrorists inside his own country, even if they shared the same hated enemy as he did. After all Hitler never really liked the Russians either.

Posted by: annika at August 11, 2005 11:05 AM (a2Zmp)

18 Well no Dave - that wasn't the point I was making. I was trying to make the point that there is no country that has a FORMAL alliance with Islamic terrorists. Not even Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq. So by your reasoning, what would we have done after 9/11? My point therefore is that by your reasoning, since there was no FORMAL alliance between Taliban run Afghanistan and Islamic terrorists...we should not have attacked them. Which is, of course, absurd. We know how closely allied the Taliban was with Al-Qaeda...but it was not a formal alliance. Ditto for Iran. And, Annika - we did not invade Iraq to hunt terrorists initially. We invaded because of WMD...which had been there - but somehow disappeared. However, once there, we could not just pick up and leave.

Posted by: gibby at August 11, 2005 06:33 PM (OCIqu)

19 "We invaded because of WMD...which had been there-but somehow disappeared." Just keep telling yourself that. I saw an elephant disappear once in Las Vegas and it was very entertaining-somehow.

Posted by: Dave at August 11, 2005 07:00 PM (FP5pf)

20 Gibby, Sorry to be so glib. I agree that we have an obligation to finish the job in Iraq, but what is the job? When our president says (and I'm not kidding),"The better things get in Iraq the worse they're gonna be",what exactly do we make of that? Does anyone in the White House know what success in Iraq would even look like? If so why don't they say so in a no bull shit sort of way that everyone can understand?

Posted by: Dave at August 11, 2005 07:14 PM (FP5pf)

21 Dave - it's OK. This war is stressing me out. We all know that there were WMD in Iraq. That's a fact and nobody disputes it. It's the timeline that's in dispute. I don't know how or when they disappeared...but clearly the intelligence or lack thereof going both ways helped the WMD get hidden/moved while at the same time our piss-poor intelligence gave Bush bad info. Once there though, we had to soldier on. Our troops are awesome, but I am starting to get concerned about Bush and the pencil-pushers. They need to get it together. It is true that Bush keeps coming up with new reasons, after the fact, for being in Iraq. I have no problem though with us having gone in there based on bad info...and admitting it, but realizing once there we have to finish it. But please, let's finish it right. Actually, I think success in Iraq is happening. The ISF, IP, ING are all being trained, the constitution is being drafted (fingers crossed), elections are a few months away. Here is where I get worried and Bush starts to piss me off. Iran and Syria. Come on. They are funneling bombers and explosives into Iraq. Now *that* is what Bush better start to deal with. ASAP.

Posted by: gibby at August 11, 2005 09:37 PM (OCIqu)

22 P.S. Annika was being sarcastic.

Posted by: Sarah at August 12, 2005 02:14 AM (w1HmX)

23 ooops - my bad! Sorry Annika! I swear, once upon a time I wouldn't have made that mistake...but these days it's become commonplace to hear the most outrageous statements...and people mean them! Here's a quiz...can you name the person who said them? ;-) 1)"Hitler had a lot of Jews high up in the hierarchy of the Third Reich. Color does not necessarily denote quality, content or value," 2)We’re not freer here, thanks to your PATRIOT Act. Iraq is not free. You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you’ll stop the terrorism,” she exclaimed. 3) In reference to Islamic terrorists - "All great changes have come from people or events that were initially misunderstood, and seemed frightening, like madmen. Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Gates...." 4) "This started out as a wish to terrorize the world with American power, or as Sharon would say: "Terrrrrrorize" the world with American power."

Posted by: gibby at August 12, 2005 12:02 PM (OCIqu)

24 well bush& co better get their message out clearly that this going take a very,very,very long time.keep talking about how the terrorists are on their last legs is going to get you more cathy sheehans in the u.s.a.

Posted by: tommy at August 12, 2005 12:43 PM (NMK3S)

25 Could not have said it better myself Tommy.

Posted by: gibby at August 12, 2005 04:42 PM (OCIqu)

26 Great piece and we need to show the truth right next to the "feel good" fluff. I still have the Bridge pictures on file!! AND - I say we've been behind for some time now - this should have started when Somalia happened! Tired of bending to the anti-war people who will loose our freedom for us!

Posted by: chrys at August 14, 2005 12:31 AM (EeT7G)

27 Isn't it amazing the lenghts the left will go to try and convince you about how wrong you are with your opinion. I get nailed on my site for not having 'references' to make my point. Morons. You fight the good fight with a great blog. Semper!

Posted by: patd95 at August 17, 2005 05:24 PM (ogWpI)

28 "Isn't it amazing the lenghts the left will go to try and convince you about how wrong you are with your opinion." Yes, sometimes we even stoop to facts and evidence, LOL.

Posted by: Pericles at August 18, 2005 01:41 PM (hHudX)

29 Pericles..."What would Capra have done if FDR had responded to Hitler with a poorly planned invasion of Sweden?" Actually, FDR *did* respond to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor by adapting a "Germany First" strategy...much to the dismay of those who didn't think we needed to focus on Germany because it was, after all, Japan that had attacked us. And there were plenty of poorly-planned operations during WWII.

Posted by: David Foster at August 19, 2005 05:56 PM (7TmYw)

30 Meant to include this link on the "Japan Firsters" http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-08-16-bush-strategy-edit_x.htm

Posted by: David Foster at August 19, 2005 06:00 PM (7TmYw)

31 David- Thanks for your comment. What you say is true enough, I suppose, although the cases really aren't that similar. Remember that Germany declared war on us right after Pearl Harbor and that Germany and Japan were allies---not, as in the case of Iraq and Al Queda, enemies themselves. Remember also that Germany was not contained, prevented from flying aircraft even over its own territory, etc. Instead it was raging across Western Europe, taking out our Allies. So there are reasons that "Germany First" might have made good sense to FDR that don't apply to Iraq.

Posted by: Pericles at August 19, 2005 11:38 PM (hHudX)

32 Isn't saying that Iraq and Al Qaeda were "enemies" a bit of a stretch?

Posted by: Sarah at August 20, 2005 01:59 AM (BtseE)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I sat down to write about how North American Muslims are issuing a fatwa against terrorism. It's about time, I say. The article states

Imam Yahya Hendi, the Muslim chaplain at Georgetown University in Washington and a member of the Fiqh council, said: "We hear from our fellow Americans very often that Muslims have not spoken aggressively about terrorism, that Muslims have not made their voices very clear. I disagree. Muslims have made their voices very clear from day one. So maybe we needed to do more. The more you do, the more you realize you need to do."

Anyone who's ever read LGF knows that these Muslim voices have never been clear. Hmm, what does LGF have to say about this anyway? Oh: The American Islamic Leaders' "Fatwa" is Bogus. Great.

In fact, the fatwa is bogus. Nowhere does it condemn the Islamic extremism ideology that has spawned Islamic terrorism. It does not renounce nor even acknowledge the existence of an Islamic jihadist culture that has permeated mosques and young Muslims around the world. It does not renounce Jihad let alone admit that it has been used to justify Islamic terrorist acts. It does not condemn by name any Islamic group or leader. In short, it is a fake fatwa designed merely to deceive the American public into believing that these groups are moderate. In fact, officials of both organizations have been directly linked to and associated with Islamic terrorist groups and Islamic extremist organizations. One of them is an unindicted co-conspirator in a current terrorist case; another previous member was a financier to Al-Qaeda.

Where are the moderate Muslim groups? I keep hearing how Muslims are afraid of being branded as extremists, how not all Muslims are terrorists, how Muslims fear for their lives because of the actions of a few...but where are the moderate Muslim voices to stand up and say enough is enough? Kalroy found some of these voices, but like him I too am waiting for the Million Muslim March. We need more of this and we need it to be more publicized. I'm waiting for someone to stand up and say that we won't tolerate this:

That's an x-ray of one of the bombs from London. Whoever devised this bomb -- loaded with nails to inflict maximum damage on innocent Londoners -- is a monster. Remember the other day when I talked about umbrellas? Moderate Muslims are under an ugly umbrella with terrorists, and I for one would like to see them issue a real fatwa against these atrocities.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:06 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 427 words, total size 3 kb.

Last night my husband and I had a meeting with a financial advisor, and the longer I sat through the meeting, the madder I got. You have a ROTH IRA, you get taxed in the end. You have a regular IRA, you get taxed now. You die with money and you have all these death taxes to pay.

Why, oh why, are people punished for saving their money wisely?

Forget "what would Jesus do"; I find myself often wondering What Would Our Founding Fathers Think? How would they react to knowing that, because my husband and I saved all his deployment money instead of spending it on big screen TVs and cars, we now have to fork over taxes to the government if we want to invest it?

It's our money, dang it.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:51 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.

Dear Tour de France,

Riders in the Tour should not be allowed to wear yellow. Sponsors with yellow jerseys make it extremely difficult to find the Maillot Jaune. Because other teams wear yellow, some people drive four and a half hours to see the peloton and can't even find Lance when it comes whizzing by. And that makes some people really irritated and sad.

Sincerely,
Sarah

We drove to Mulhouse yesterday for the finish line, and I was quite disappointed with my Tour experience. We waited for two hours at our spot at about 750 meters from the finish line, and then when Rasmussen finally arrived, this is the photo I got, thanks to the jackass standing next to me.

That's the winner of the stage, right behind the stupid balloon some guy waved in my face. I managed to get a good photo of Voigt and Moreau as they took second and third, but then the peloton came screaming by and I couldn't even find Lance, but I got to listen to my husband rave about how cool it was to see him. And then it was all over; only the people in the VIP section could see the end ceremonies, so we walked back to the car and that was that.

We discussed how the Americans would run a Tour de France: lots of big screens and food vendors and selling souvenirs and crap; a big stadium area for the end ceremony so everyone could enjoy it. As it was, we felt like no one really cared if spectators came or not. It was kinda weird, and rather disappointing.

I'm glad we went because it was something neat to say we've done, but I'm not sure it was worth nine hours in the car yesterday. I'd rather watch it on OLN.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:46 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

I got an email from Mrs. Sims today. She belongs to a support group for OEF and OIF widows. Apparently most of their correspondence deals with anti-war messages they see and hear, things that would have made their husbands cringe. Mrs. Sims was especially appalled by a t-shirt she saw and the accompanying message from its creator:

The background of this image is created by the names of about 1,700 U.S. soldiers who died in Iraq between March 21, 2003 and June 13, 2005. The names are in alphabetical order, with half the names on the front, and the other half on the back. The names are small, but easily read without magnification.

I think of this product as both a scathing indictment of George W. Bush and a memorial to the brave young soldiers who gave their lives in Iraq on behalf of their country. Perhaps someday they will get the memorial they deserve in Washington. Until then, this will have to suffice.

This t-shirt is not a monument to soldiers; if it were, the Bush slur would have been left off. You made this t-shirt for selfish reasons, as you admit later. Don't even try to sugarcoat it.

Bush is most famous for lying about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It was this lie that arguably was most responsible for the deaths of hundreds of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, not to mention thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.

But Bush has lied in many other areas as well, from denying global warming to boasting about an improving economy that is actually on the skids. His lies are legion, and have spawned a cottage industry of books including The Lies of George W. Bush by David Corn and Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them by Al Franken.

Blah blah blah. If you want to make an anti-Bush shirt, do it. Just leave the fallen soldiers and their families out of it. Putting their names on your shirt implies that they support the message you're peddling for twenty bucks a pop...

I want to acknowledge that a number of relatives of fallen soldiers have contacted me to express their displeasure (or disgust) with the products I sell that bear the names of their loved ones.

Uh, gee, ya think? I know a few of those names, and I'm disgusted; can you guess how disgusted their wives and mothers and brothers are?

I admit that I did not contact the families of soldiers to get their permission. This would have been a monumental exercise, and would no doubt have proved impractical given the differing opinions among various family members.

It would've been too hard and most of them would've said no, so I just went ahead and did what I want regardless.

Of course, this product is not meant to be a statement on behalf of the families or the fallen soldiers. It is a statement on behalf of those who believe that this war was a tragic and terrible mistake -- and not an innocent mistake.

Ah, there's the selfish reason. You didn't make this t-shirt as a monument to the fallen, as you claimed in the beginning of your justification. You made it to prove your own point, using the names of people who don't agree with you and probably would like to punch you in the face if they ever met you. Hope you feel good about that.

I should also like to point out that many of the soldiers who died in Iraq believed that they were fighting for democracy. Democracy is built in large part on freedom of speech. The First Amendment to the Constitution protects these products, and all such similar examples of free speech.

Why does this remind me of the South Park commercial against Harbucks Coffee? ("It's time to stop large corporations. Prop Ten is about children. Vote yes on Prop Ten or else you hate children. You don't hate children, do you?") If you don't like this shirt, well then you must not believe in democracy and free speech and stuff. Oh, and you're disrespecting your husbands because, naturally, they would've fought to the death for my right to make this t-shirt. Isn't that how the saying goes?

Finally, I would like to express my sincere condolences to all of those who have lost loved ones in this war. No matter what they believed, or which side they were on, those who died will be missed.

Dan R. Frazier

In the end, as disgusted as I feel that Mrs. Sims knows her husband's name is on a shirt that makes her sick, I'm sure that the owners of these shirts will someday be ashamed. When Iraq is on her feet, as Germany and Japan are today, these shirts will have been burned or hidden. I'm confident that history will justify CPT Sims, not Dan Frazier.

Nonetheless, I send my condolences to all of the spouses, parents, and siblings of those whose names appear on this nauseating t-shirt. I know this shirt is not in our name.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:52 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 849 words, total size 5 kb.

Look at all the abuse going on at Gitmo! Abuse against the soldiers, that is. And look at the punishments solders get for fighting back against the prisoners: demotion, garnished wages, extra duty, etc. What a gulag...

Posted by: Sarah at 01:33 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.

Here's a Reuters article that really chaps my hide, via LGF:

WorldÂ’s oldest person celebrates 115th birthday

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - A Dutch woman who swears by a daily helping of herring for a healthy life celebrated her 115th birthday on Wednesday as the oldest living person on record.

Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper, a former needlework teacher, was born in 1890, the year Sioux Indians were massacred by the U.S. military at the Battle of Wounded Knee.

WHAT??? I supposed they're trying to give us some sort of frame of reference for just how old she is, but let's look at what else happened in 1890, events Reuters skipped in order to use Wounded Knee:

Oscar Wilde publishes The Picture of Dorian Gray
Otto von Bismarck dismissed
Idaho is admitted as the 43rd state
Sequoia National Park and Yosemite National Park established
US stops minting $1 & $3 gold coin & 3¢ piece
Daughters of the American Revolution founded
Ellis Island opens as a US immigration depot

And the list goes on. Heck, Reuters could've said that this woman was born the year before basketball was invented! All of these give us a frame of reference as well; why Wounded Knee?

Posted by: Sarah at 04:47 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 201 words, total size 1 kb.

It's not really possible to count how many words there are in the English language, but it's a lot. And many people agree that English has more words than most other world languages. Anecdotally, I remember noticing the problem when I was learning French and I wanted to distinguish between jump, hop, and leap; French only has the one jumping verb. There's no distinction in Swedish between winking and blinking, though I'm sure flirters would disagree.

English has plenty of words to describe everything quite accurately, which is why I get so angry when people start conflating the definitions of words. I'm mad that what happened at Abu Ghraib gets labeled as "torture" when we have the word "humiliation" to differentiate the two concepts. The word torture loses its specific meaning when it covers the spectrum, just as jump shouldn't cover both leaps and hops.

I've been especially mad this week over the misuse of the word "gulag" by Amnesty International. "Gulag" is a very specific word used to describe a very specific type of penal system. It is entirely not appropriate for discussing Guantanamo Bay.

The Jawa Report has a well-researched post about what exactly a gulag is. We have plenty of words in the English language to accurately define the differences between the gulag and Gitmo; let's use them.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:21 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 1 kb.

Amritas points to an article about "a Los Angeles school board proposal to require all high school students to take college prep courses." One paragraph caught my eye:

Campbell pointed out that some of the students excel in the school's culinary and performing arts classes. But because most of those classes don't qualify as college prep courses, she worries that students will miss out on those subjects.

I missed out on several things in my high school because I was taking college prep. I sure would have benefitted more from typing and computer classes than chemistry! We didn't have culinary classes, but I would've liked to take one.

Know what I do now that I'm an Army wife with two degrees? Cook and type.

I have a friend here on post who quit college when she decided to get married. While her husband was in Basic and AIT, she went to cosmetology school. She makes way more money cutting hair in her home than I did teaching college English. She has a skill that's marketable no matter where she moves, while I'm stuck because apparently I need a PhD to do what I want to do. It wouldn't even have to be in anything related to teaching college English; I just have to have the piece of paper that says I studied something.

So I'm a housewife who cooks and types instead.

I guess it suits me just fine though. If I had it to do all over again, I would've studied mechanical engineering like my dad. I always loved physics. But at least the way things are now, I'm not too bummed to be locked out of a job that only paid me $800 per month in a system that was extremely frustrating. Moreover, I don't necessarily think that Army wifeing and careers go hand in hand. My first loyalty is to the military and my second is to my own job prospects. Not surprisingly, being an out-of-work professor fits easily with our PCS rotation

Posted by: Sarah at 05:46 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I can't help but smile at this entry I tease the husband, frequently, that I should just fly back home long enough to learn how to cut hair, and then move back here. You are right, it is much more marketable than the degrees and experience that either of us possess. I still love hearing back from potential employers that my "education and experience are impressive," but that there is "nothing available at this time." Ahh, well. One day, perhaps.

Posted by: Susan R at June 02, 2005 09:29 AM (wtjWR)

2 While I was at DLI learning Russian for the Nat'l Guard, my wife took the Army Family Team Building I course... and then the rest of the courses. And then the instructor course. And then the master instructor course. She's probably more employable than I am now, and it didn't cost her a dime (or require an 8 year commitment).

Posted by: Sig at June 02, 2005 07:07 PM (6CDne)

3 There's nothing stopping you from going back to school *grin* just couldn't resist! I originally went to school and became a nurse... the hours suck pond water and (I don't care what anyone says...) the pay ain't that great either. So, when I was 29 and my youngest entered kindergarten, I went back to school - it took me 5 years to do about 3 years worth of work, but I got my degree in Computer Science. It was well worth it. Now I'm considering going back for a Masters... although I need breaks, and it's been about 11 years since I got my CS degree, I really enjoy school and learning new stuff. So, think about it - might be worth your time and effort. And you'll have all the humanities stuff out of the way!

Posted by: Teresa at June 03, 2005 03:51 PM (nAfYo)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

One of the most depressing blogs out there is Babalu Blog. I swear every time I go there, I feel like crying, and today is no exception. Val Prieto got to talk with a Cuban who's visiting the US. Commenter Kathleen summed up how I too felt after reading this story: "All this time we've been saying how fidel has ruined Cuba, turned it to shit. The truth of it makes me weep. I can't think of a word in English, or Espanol that expresses how much I'd like to see castro gone. What can we say to this visitor? Yes, we know what has happened to your country, how much your people have suffered. Sorry, the world just doesn't care. Sometimes I'm truly ashamed to be human."

Posted by: Sarah at 03:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.