I went to LGF this morning and started reading over a bowl of cereal. At the fifth post down, I froze with the spoon halfway to my mouth and let out a nice loud godammit. They killed Kim Seon-Il. I'm not surprised, but now I'm mad as hell. Fuming mad. How many more heads do they have to hack off before the rest of the world gets mad too?

My "bring it on" yesterday was just the start. Every day, I get angrier and angrier, and it only steels my resolve.

MORE TO GROK:

I hope Amritas is wrong, but his words ring true in my ears:

I wish I could say I was surprised, but I know what barbarians can do. I also wish his death will not be in vain, but I know what the Left wants to do.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:09 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.

I am prejudiced.

Actually, I don't really think that's the right word, since the definition of prejudiced includes the phrases "formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge" and "an irrational attitude", neither of which do I think qualify in this instance. But there's no other word for having a negative opinion of an entire group of people based on two years of research.

So we're gonna go with prejudiced.

I don't know that many Muslims one-on-one. I am friends with one Muslim family from Iran who begs my husband to invade their country every time they see him. I know of a few Muslims in the Army, including one who is wonderful and one who scares the crap out of me. On an individual level, I'm sure I could like many Muslims. But on a larger scale, I have no love for Islam.

I personally don't care what someone believes in private, and I think everyone has a right to believe or not believe whatever he chooses. There is however a major difference in the way each religion presents itself to the world. What are the major current news stories dealing with Christianity? Whether the 10 Commandments should be in a courthouse or whether Christianity should be mentioned in the EU Constitution. What are the major news stories on Islam? Beheadings, suicide bombings, and honor killings. Those two things, to quote Jules, "ain't the same ballpark, ain't the same league, ain't even the same f*ckin' sport."

Den Beste just found a hazily-attributed speech on the Muslim world. One section addresses the fundamental differences in "common ground":

The civilized world believes in democracy, the rule of law, including international law, human rights, free speech and free press, among other liberties. There are naïve old-fashioned habits such as respecting religious sites and symbols, not using ambulances and hospitals for acts of war, avoiding the mutilation of dead bodies and not using children as human shields or human bombs. Never in history, not even in the Nazi period, was there such total disregard of all of the above as we observe now. Every student of political science debates how you prevent an anti-democratic force from winning a democratic election and abolishing democracy. Other aspects of a civilized society must also have limitations. Can a policeman open fire on someone trying to kill him? Can a government listen to phone conversations of terrorists and drug dealers? Does free speech protects you when you shout “fire” in a crowded theater? Should there be death penalty, for deliberate multiple murders? These are the old-fashioned dilemmas. But now we have an entire new set.

Do you raid a mosque, which serves as a terrorist ammunition storage? Do you return fire, if you are attacked from a hospital? Do you storm a church taken over by terrorists who took the priests hostages? Do you search every ambulance after a few suicide murderers use ambulances to reach their targets? Do you strip every woman because one pretended to be pregnant and carried a suicide bomb on her belly? Do you shoot back at someone trying to kill you, standing deliberately behind a group of children? Do you raid terrorist headquarters, hidden in a mental hospital? Do you shoot an arch-murderer who deliberately moves from one location to another, always surrounded by children? All of these happen daily in Iraq and in the Palestinian areas. What do you do? Well, you do not want to face the dilemma. But it cannot be avoided.

These are real dilemmas that we face because of the nature of radical Islam. Charles Johnson gets a lot of crap for Little Green Footballs, but most of what he does is just link to articles about what's really going on in the Middle East. Sure, he has his own opinions on the matter, but he's not fabricating these stories of bus bombings, crazy imams, or auctions of Jewish body parts. Those things are really happening in the world, despite what anyone thinks of Charles' weblog. And I do think that those things are disgusting and antediluvian; I won't apologize for saying so.

No, not all Muslims are terrorists; I have nothing but respect for Zeyad, Ali, Omar, Muhammad, and other Iraqi bloggers. But Muslims as a group have some serious problems, and when these problems cause them to fly planes into buildings and kill my countrymen, then they're walkin' on the fightin' side of me. And I will not apologize for enjoying Allah's t-shirt, especially when others in this world feel no shame at wearing a Burn Israel Burn shirt.

Yes, I have a real problem with Muslims, especially since very few of them are standing up and renouncing the horrible things LGF reports on. When the moderates start taking back their religion from the loonies, I will have more respect for Muslims, but until that day I will remain prejudiced.

(I'm sure that's not what Can't Win wants to hear when he asks, "Do you have deep-rooted hostilities towards Arabs and the Islamic faith?", but it's the truth. And I'm pretty sure a few of my regular readers agree with me.)

Posted by: Sarah at 06:57 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 859 words, total size 5 kb.

I went out to dinner last night and Oda Mae outted me: now everyone knows I'm a blogger. I had my own version of this conversation, and we all had an interesting discussion about current events and the news.

I came home after 2300 and hit the button on the answering machine: "Hi. I know you're at dinner, but I was just upset. Those son of a bitches just beheaded that Paul Johnson who was in Saudi Arabia." Even though I was tired enough to fall asleep in the hallway, I got on the computer. I looked at the pictures. And I started thinking before I went to bed.

Besides studying the French Revolution, I had never really given beheading much thought. And now in the past month I've learned of three beheadings. Nick Berg. Sieng Padkaew. Paul Johnson. I never in my life thought I'd see someone's head being held up for the camera, or someone's head sitting in the small of his back. That's footage for Kill Bill, not reality.

But that's really happening in the world. I think we do need to face the music. We need to be honest with ourselves about how our enemy plans to win this war, and we need to start telling it like it is.

Seppo wrote Thursday about war propaganda (Thanks, Bunker) and its role. By ignoring the growing threat that these Islamists pose, by turning a blind eye to the videos and photos they themselves take of their murders, I too fear we might ultimately lose the War on Terror. Or not have the fortitude to see it through. As Seppo said: "What is it that the networks believe we've lost in 60 years? What values and strengths held by my grandfather do I not have? And who in the hell gave them the right to make that judgement for me?"

I read Nick Schultz' article on Saddam's torture tapes this morning. I have a stomach of steel for these things, but I gasped out in fright as I read the descriptions of torture. I covered my eyes and cringed, and that was just reading the description. Then came the ending that made me take notice:

I must confess that in recent weeks I had begun to harbor some doubts about a war I had supported. And I was not the only war supporter to begin second-guessing recently. We doubting Thomases had been perhaps most perplexed at President Bush, steadfast in the wake of mounting Coalition deaths, the Abu Ghraib scandal, and other bad news. Did this man not see what we were seeing?

There is no doubt that he had. But President Bush — along with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has also remained resolute despite withering and unfair criticism at home — had also seen things that we had not. Seeing this footage helps one better understand the mindset of President Bush and of his stalwart British ally and explains their resolve in the face of tremendous difficulties and setbacks. Seeing these films and ones like them out there, will, I believe, make any fence sitter shed his doubts about the appropriateness of destroying Saddam's regime. If anything, they make one wonder, almost shamefully, how and why it took the civilized world — or at least part of that world — as long as it did to rise up against it.

The enemy makes videos of beheadings to rally terrorists and feed their bloodlust. I think we need to see these images -- face this reality -- so that we don't lose sight of how our enemies plan to win.

And then we need to make damn sure they don't succeed.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:45 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 617 words, total size 4 kb.

Amritas writes briefly about what's been going on in my comments section. He writes about how trolling is wrong, no matter if it's from the Left or Right. His last line hit me like a ton of bricks:

If we can't get along, let's just avoid each other.

I've worried in the past about the growing divide between Left and Right. I'm sure it's always been that way, but before the internet, the only people you could talk to about politics were people you actually knew. The internet has allowed us to meet scores of people who think like we do...but has also brought us in contact with scores of people on the opposite side. Before the internet, calling someone who disagreed with you a clueless fucktard was probably a bad idea, because you'd most likely have to keep working with that person or attending social events together. But on the internet, whoo boy. Fake email address, fake name, and the insults just flow. Why not, it's not like you ever have to see this person.

I keep coming back to February. And I can't get that graph of book purchases out of my head. We obviously can't get along anymore (as the wave of insults in my comments show), so we will only get better at avoiding each other.

We're a country with two political parties, but we may as well be from different planets.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:27 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 238 words, total size 2 kb.

I wrote several blog posts yesterday that aren't going to get posted. I wrote one about people with bad manners and a lack of common decency. I wrote another about my growing frustration with the divide between Right and Left and how I was starting to feel sympathetic towards the Left until they started calling me names. I also wrote one about how I do indeed understand basic statistics but that I hadn't planned on 2000 people descending on me like vultures so I perhaps didn't word my post in a way that everyone could understand. And I wrote about how chilling I think it is that every one of the commenters wrongly assumed that I bring my politics into the classroom and force it on my students.

In the end, none of these topics matter. Those who came over from Atrios will have forgotten about me by now, save the occasional one who will pat himself on the back for calling me "intellectually bankrupt" and "a gathering threat to democracy". All that really matters are my regular readers, the faithful who understand what I was trying to say even if I didn't phrase it as well as I could have.

I got lots of instruction on statistics in the comment section. No, I am not a statistician or a math teacher. I could learn more on the topic, and I would like to. However, I do have a decent understanding of p-values and sampling and the way that polls can be manipulated. Many people focused on my mention of the 615 people and completely ignored the other things I had to say. Yes, 615 is 50% of the poll size and a "statistically sound" sample size to make the claims that the LA Times makes. I am not arguing that the statistics are bad; I'm arguing that opinion polling is imprecise and not worth betting the farm on.

Gemini was one of the only commenters that I appreciated hearing from. I would like to address what he/she had to say.

I was trained as a statistician (bachelor's and master's degrees). You are making common mistakes that many people make about polls.

Polls are neither Godlike in their accuracy nor total b.s., like the person in your followup article tries to assert. They tend to be as good as the objectivity of the person or organization conducting them.

That's an interesting point, because I no longer trust the organizations who do the polling. None of them. If I have learned anything in the past two years, it's that all sources are biased, even the ones with the best intentions. I don't put much faith at all in the objectivity of any person or organization. In contrast, it seems that lots of people do blindly assume that these polls are conducted by robots who have no political agenda. That's why in my class we discuss how every single media source has bias of some sort, from Fox to the BBC. Every single one. We discuss how it's impossible to avoid but as long as we're aware of it we're ahead of the game. (I don't tell my students which sources I think are more biased than others; that's what bad teachers do.)

One should always read polls with a careful eye. Here are some things to look for:

Read the questions carefully. Are they worded objectively? People with agendas can word the questions in such a way as to get the results they want.

I stated already that I don't think that all the questions were worded objectively. Some of them were decent straight-forward questions, but some were not. I mentioned Q48, but I also think that we might have seen different results for several questions if the words George Bush had been substituted with United States (as in Q16: Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?). The mere mention of our President's name can send some people into a frenzy, regardless of what the question is asking. These questions with President Bush's name in them were split pretty hard down the party lines; I imagine that the answers might have been slightly different if his name had been left out. It's subtle things like that which will affect the outcome of the already-too-close-to-call results.

Was the sample a random sample? Deliberately not taking a random sample is one way to skew results. It's also why all self-selecting polls (like internet polls) are unreliable - the respondents have not been selected randomly.

What universe was the sample taken from? Likely voters? Registered voters? All citizens? Results are likely to vary for different universes and are generalizable only to the universe they came from. For example, you can't take a sample of "likely" voters and then say that all Americans have the opinions found in the sample - only "likely" voters do.

The sample was not purely random, since the LA Times states that "the entire sample of adults was weighted slightly to conform with census figures for sex, race, age and education." I'm no expert, and I've wasted enough time on this topic already, but I'd guess that voting patterns do not correlate perfectly with census data. My guess is that things like age and education are indicators of who votes, so making the poll fit census data instead of voter demographics is less realistic. But whatever, I can let that one slide.

What I cannot let slide is that, while the LA Times felt it necessary to weight the sample based on demographics, they did not feel it was important to weight it based on party affiliation. According to Mickey Kaus, "the party breakdown in the LAT poll was 38% Democratic, 25% Republican, 24% Independent." (Thanks, Tanker.) Don't you think that might have an effect on the poll results as well? The LA Times spent time and energy tweaking for race and sex; why couldn't they poll an equal number of people based on party affiliation? That seems to me to be a much bigger indicator of political opinion than race or sex, so the LA Times should have tried to minimize that effect.

[snip] Sampling is not a perfect science, but the results from reputable organizations are usually accurate, as long as one understands just what they represent.

That's just my point; for all the hatred I incited, few people actually discussed the poll itself. I'm not sure any of them understood what it represents. No one at all commented about the missing 55% in the original AP report. That's the type of bias I was pointing out in the first place. Why comment on what <20 + 25% of people think we should do, without mentioning the rest, unless you've got a point to make? Why not report that 73% said that there should be no specific date for withdrawal, unless that's not considered newsworthy? I don't think any of these results actually mean anything (the only thing that matters is the actual vote in November), but if they must report on it, they could do a better job.

What I was trying to originally point out is that many people are headline readers; they see the headline Poll: Voters Say Iraq Didn't Merit War, and they don't actually read the article or think about how the questions were worded or how the poll was conducted. They place great faith in the polling process because it's "up to statistical standards", without thinking much about the fact that opinions and feelings are not easy to scientifically measure. A sample size of 1230 for coin flips or jellybean colors or dice rolls is absolutely acceptable, but public opinion is a much trickier thing to measure.

All I tried to say is that polls don't really matter, especially close ones. If a poll of 1230 people showed that 80% of people thought Iraq didn't merit war, then perhaps there would be something substantial to worry about. But polls about presidential popularity and opinions on war where the percentages hover around 50% are worth a grain of salt, in my opinion. A slight change in wording could tip opinion the other way. I'm amazed that Atrios' readers spent their time calling me names rather than entertaining the possibility that I could have an honest point here.

Incidentally, one of the things I teach my students when doing research is an attention to detail. If you're writing a paper on marriage and you use Britney Spears as an example, then you'd better spell her name right. I repeatedly tell them that when they ignore the easily-checked details, it really weakens their argument; how can we trust that your argument is sound when we can't even trust you to check spelling and details? I found the same thing going on in the comments; why should I take advice on paying attention to details from people who didn't bother to notice that 1) I am a female 2) I don't teach at a DoD's school or 3) that I'm not a Christian evangelical?

Come to think of it, why should I take advice from people who call me "clueless fucktard dumb" or say that I write "incredible dumbfuckery", that I "have no business teaching anyone anything", that I am "a gathering threat to democracy", that I should "shut the fuck up", and that I probably "don't even have a high school diploma, let alone a college degree"?

UPDATE:

Darkwater wrote me a huge email and included a lengthy comment here. I have read both, and I'd like to point out something that I think is apples and oranges.

I *strongly* take exception to your point that "polls don't matter, especially close ones." In my years of dealing with statistics, some of the most illuminating results have been the ones where the p-value is on the hairy edge of the rejection regime. Some of the most interesting tests I've been involved in are the ones where there is no clear answer to the question of whether "system A" is better than "system B". Such tests force the decision-makers to readdress what information they wanted to get out of the test, and reassess their appetite for risk before going ahead with a test.

Darkwater does military testing for the Department of Defense. For him, I assume close calls are controlled experiments measuring, as he said, whether 'system A' is better than 'system B'." That's science. Opinion polling is not science. There are way too many variables that can't be controlled for. A large part of our population relies on caller ID and answering machines to screen their calls; those people will not be participating in the polls. Neither will people whose primary phone number is a cell phone, where they'd be paying for the call. But let's say the poller does get through to someone who agrees to do the poll, and three questions into the call that person realizes he's not informed enough to accurately answer the questions. He can either 1) stop the poller and excuse himself, 2) answer "no opinion" on everything, or 3) guess at what he thinks the "right" answer is. Based on what's been going on in the media, do you think someone will guess that President Bush is doing a good or bad job with Abu Ghraib? People who don't pay that close of attention might not know that the investigation into Abu Ghraib was nearly complete and court martials were already beginning before CBS ever got ahold of the story. But the way the story splashed across the front pages, someone who is not as informed might assume that it's being handled poorly and that "bad job" is the answer the poller is looking for (the poller works for the media, the media says it's a bad job...). That's just one example. There are many people out there who don't read blogs and don't stay up-to-date on politics, yet they might still give the poll a stab. And they might try to guess what the "educated" and "right" answer to each question would be. That's not scientific. Opinions are not hard facts. Using the scientific method to check System A against System B is science (the implementation of either system might then have to mingle with politics, as Darkwater implies, but the actual research is scientific.) Calling a bunch of people and asking them questions is deeply flawed. Though the statistical analysis of the data might be sound, any experiment where someone can try to guess the "right" answer is not hard science.

That's all; I'm done discussing this poll.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:06 AM | Comments (47) | Add Comment
Post contains 2019 words, total size 12 kb.

1 As always, you said it perfectly. If I were ever able to go to college, I'd feel extremely honored to take one of your classes.

Posted by: Shannon at June 14, 2004 04:42 AM (bqG6g)

2 I've read over the 'controversial' posts in question and find nothing objectionable in what you say, either in terms of methodology or plain candor. My experience with weblogs, and the state of public rhetoric in general, is in line with what you print: comments like clueless fucktard dumb are cute and clever and signify only someone's passion, not their intellectual acuity. Graduate school taught me that methodology is at best a set of rules and cautions that may guide the social scientist towards 'truth' but can't guarantee one's arrival at the goal. But in the webworld, truth isn't so relevant as agreement or disagreement, and we are too often stuck reading what is usually entertaining and only occasionally enlightening or informative. Your columns--at least the ones I've read so far--seem to be a serious attempt to discuss some aspects of public discourse and communication that get scant attention in the mainstream press as well as the web. But I've found that anybody caught actually trying to practice something akin to 'objectivity' will be pilloried and skewered by the web's resident wits without mercy. Your offense seems to have been to question the methodology of a poll conducted on behalf of John Kerry, the anti-Bush. (Disclosure: I dislike Bush intensely, but will vote for Kerry only because it seems the best way to end the stench of corruption and arrogance of power emanating from our capital.) My favorite rhetorical resources include Ockham's Razor and the Falsifiability Principle of Karl Popper (or whatever it's called these days). I have found that usually Popper and always Ockham are reliable companions when navigating the thicket of excited rhetoric found on the web. I like reading Atrios, and Billmon, and Talking Points, and Daily Howler, and the websites, materials, and resources they link to. I found your website via link from Atrios, and found your posts interesting and a welcome change from the usual team-oriented name-calling, although I wouldn't call any of the above bloggers careless or irresponsible writers. I'm am puzzled by the link from Atrios: I can't figure out if you are being slagged or not. Maybe that makes me a 'clueless fucktard' but I'm willing to live with that. Keep your head high and say what you believe. That's all anybody should be doing out here in the wild and wooly web, the only place where democracy is practiced with any passion and vigor in the poor old US of A.

Posted by: Jon Koppenhoefer at June 14, 2004 05:01 AM (A094q)

3 Lady, you're dumb as a hammer, for gods sake shut up or put this stuff in a private diary! Ever So Sincerely, Mike

Posted by: Mike Adams at June 14, 2004 06:16 AM (ZgqPR)

4 It is interesting to me that about twenty people reading comments on that post made it over to see what Bunker had to say. None left a comment there.

Posted by: Mike at June 14, 2004 07:53 AM (cFRpq)

5 I understood what you were saying in the first few lines of your original post. It was obvious that you were taking apart the newspaper article, and the way the poll was reported, not the poll itself. As I read through the comments, I just had to smile at the rank hypocrisy evident in so many of them, starting with the wrong assumptions about you, and ending up with the claims that you never read or consider anything outside of your preconceived opinions.

Posted by: NightHawk at June 14, 2004 09:17 AM (5GWma)

6 You're correct, those of us that read your postings regularly got it. Promise. I know I say this too often, but I don't get people that only read or listen to find something negative to say. We think you're wonderful!!!

Posted by: Tammi at June 14, 2004 10:14 AM (GqPls)

7 So, Sarah.... You were swinging towards the Left politically, but are now swinging towards the Right because some people whom you regard as being left-wing called you names? Forgive me, but that's got to be the most idiotic reason to change one's political colors I've ever encountered. To call you 'dumb as a post' would be an insult to the many fine timber posts I've seen over the years.

Posted by: Pastormaker at June 14, 2004 10:33 AM (SC/gu)

8 Perhaps, if you consider the fact that what you wrote yesterday was: "The U.S. population is estimated at close to 300 million right now, and we're supposed to get worked up over what 1,230 people who are registered voters have to say? Hell, I only just registered yesterday, so I would've been ineligible. And if the margin of error is plus or minus 3%, and 53% of these 1,230 people thought war was not necessary, then perhaps only 615 people in the whole USA said this. 615 people. How on earth is this supposed to be representative of the voice of America?" and it makes no sense at all, other than to assert an equation between rightwingnuttery and ignorance? This might explain why folks outside your immediate jolly little ex-pat circle were irritated by the presentation. Incidentally, it -still- makes no sense. Saying that you really truly do understand statistics doesn't help. Good luck in your studies.

Posted by: GWPDA at June 14, 2004 10:55 AM (kpVNh)

9 You talk too much. Try to shorten it, and have a point.

Posted by: dan at June 14, 2004 11:39 AM (ZSyWW)

10 "I wrote another about my growing frustration with the divide between Right and Left and how I was starting to feel sympathetic towards the Left until they started calling me names." Deep stuff! Just thank your lucky stars that Ben. Franklin, Thos. Jefferson, &c. were'nt quite so F-ing thin-skinned.

Posted by: Buck at June 14, 2004 11:42 AM (0K5pN)

11 NightHawk, It's difficult not to make unkind assumptions about someone's intellect when presented with something like this: "The U.S. population is estimated at close to 300 million right now, and we're supposed to get worked up over what 1,230 people who are registered voters have to say? Hell, I only just registered yesterday, so I would've been ineligible. And if the margin of error is plus or minus 3%, and 53% of these 1,230 people thought war was not necessary, then perhaps only 615 people in the whole USA said this. 615 people. How on earth is this supposed to be representative of the voice of America?" This is putting aside logical thinking to accommodate ideological blinkers to an extreme. Sarah was in blatant denial about the fact that people are capable, in large numbers, to see the world differently from the way she perceives it. In her updates and subsequent post, she is once more in denial, this time of the fact that she could have said something so completely undeserving of an intelligent person. The points she has retreated to - that the media have their biases and that polls can be manipulated by leading questions - are obvious and unremarkable. To a blogger, finding examples of them is usually easy fodder. What Sarah said in the post that sparked this, though, went way beyond that. Some of those that have commented on this may have been too rude in their responses, but they were fundamentally correct: unless meant as obvious satire, this is simply not worthy of an educator, and it deserves to be ridiculed. Sarah presented these offerings with not a hint of irony or sarcasm, but at least she has seen fit to acknowledge her misjudgement.

Posted by: MaitreDee at June 14, 2004 12:07 PM (AKgpm)

12 These comments have made me so sad . Most have come here only to toss out insults, not have an interesting discussion where we could possibly come away with anything other than new curse words. I understood Sarah's statement concerning the left. She did NOT say she was swinging toward the left. I find it to be extremely telling that those throwing the worst insults cannot even comprehend what they read. She stated she was "starting to feel sympathetic towards the Left." Reading comprehension - it must be a thing of the past. And now, something I've noticed over and over when the left is involved has happened here: Have no real discussion (just as we saw during the democrats' primary), just throw out rhetoric and insults. The anger and hate from the left for any and all who do not tow the party line is quite frightening. Middle America sees this and they are slowly migrating ever so slightly to the right of center. It's example after example of those on the left being so hateful that most Americans think Michael Moore is the idea of what the left is, not Joe Lieberman. When that special day in November arrives, I think America will unite and say we do not want this type of mentality running our country. And as an Army wife myself, the distasteful comments concerning her registering to vote just shows that you have never served your country or even had a family member who has. Military spouses are not like service members when they move. We do not have the ability to keep our home of residence. We must establish residency each and every move - which includes having to register to vote AGAIN. My husband has served this country for 21 years and I can promise you that when I have registered to vote at EACH NEW place we've called home, it was not the first time and was not indicative of my never having voted. Just another example of the hateful and downright mean things I've read here. Jon Koppenhoefer, thank you for your thoughts. I enjoyed reading something from someone who could share his thoughts without having the need to belittle someone to make themselves feel superior. It was a most welcomed change.

Posted by: Shannon at June 14, 2004 12:12 PM (O2yvW)

13 Your new post is much better than the previous post. I still disagree with some things, such as the suggestion that "George Bush" could be substituted with "United States" without changing the inherent meaning of the question. But overall the post comes off much better. You are correct that bias is something to consider in any presentation of fact or opinion. One thing I would add is that the reader should also consider his/her own biases in formulating responses to these presentations. I admit that my biases significantly colored my view of your previous post, though my biases also made me ashamed of many of the comments made against you. I still think your view of statistics is somewhat naive, but I acknowledge that that view could be colored by my biases.

Posted by: Scott Spiegelberg at June 14, 2004 12:34 PM (Z4IrA)

14 I'm sure you already realize this, but most of the people spewing this bullshit are intellectual flunkies that picked up on a single atom of your original post and extrapolated it to encompass the entire message. While your original essay was good, that part probably could have been written better, or at least less idiot-incendiary. Yes, we all understand that 1300 people is a statistically relevant sampling rate, but these 600-some people are now suddenly the VOICE OF AMERICA. We all read the paper and suddenly you say "Oh! The rest of my country believes we are caught in a quagmire which cannot be won". See that often enough and it becomes true. Remember kids, just because you think you have a firm grasp of statistics, doesn't make you an Internet supergenius-- it just means you're a average person who understands basic statistics.

Posted by: Matt at June 14, 2004 01:42 PM (x42+z)

15 You state that you don't bring your politics into the classroom. But you and your students "study media bias". Now, you are admitidly biased to the right of center yourself. You said everyone that conducts polls has a bias, because all of us have biases. Is is not safe to say, then, that everyone that "teaches media bias" brings their own biased politics into it. I think if you have such biased leanings, you should lay off the media bias studies in your classroom. I don't see how you can avoid bringing your own politics into the classroom.

Posted by: Far North at June 14, 2004 01:49 PM (CTbF3)

16 Matt: "Yes, we all understand that 1300 people is a statistically relevant sampling rate, but these 600-some people are now suddenly the VOICE OF AMERICA." Since it is a statistically relevant sample, those 600 people do happen to represent roughly half the American public. They also represent a majority, which is what the article called it. "We all read the paper and suddenly you say "Oh! The rest of my country believes we are caught in a quagmire which cannot be won"." Not the rest of the country (which would be about 99.9999%), but more than half. Why do some people bother even defending this ridiculous argument, just because she is on the same side as they are politically? She basically pretended that statistics is such a grossly misguided field that it has a margin of error of 99.9% - that a poll indicating that 53% of the people believe one thing with a margin of error of 3% can mean as little as only those people actually polled holding that opinion. Does anyone here, including Sarah, seriously want to defend that assertion? Those that you call the idiots who were incensed by this... do you think they're wrong in pointing out that what Sarah said was, well, less than an intelligent thing to say? Of course such a misguided quote is going to obscure what you perceive as her larger point - not that that was a particularly original point, because it is so obvious.

Posted by: MaitreDee at June 14, 2004 02:06 PM (AKgpm)

17 I would fight to the death defending your right to express your opinion. However, sadly, you're one of the people that make me question that stance rather than proud of it. May I suggest some critical thinking resources? You might find that critical examination of ideas tends to yield reliable facts, as opposed to unsupportable assertions or outright falsehoods (preferable though these may be). Good luck, R.

Posted by: Rob at June 14, 2004 02:31 PM (2Hrux)

18 i think i'm pretty, but my parents are so mean. what should i do? thanks, pjl

Posted by: philip at June 14, 2004 03:26 PM (h+561)

19 I'd like to see it acknowledged (so I guess I'll do so) that any time an essay with a political bias has the misfortune of being exposed on a high-profile venue on the internet, a significant degree of empty and hateful response will result. The direction of the original bias is insignificant. I have seen every puerile statement you cite said verbatim by people representing themselves as conservatives. My own opinion is that a relatively small number of individuals and organizations effectively wield a vastly inordinate degree of power in this nation by manioulating the political system and that one of the key aspects of this manipulation is the dominance of the two-party system. When we succumb to the artificial division of our opinions into two camps and have at each other like unruly children on a particularly nasty playground, we perpetuate this system we laughably call democracy.

Posted by: nanojath at June 14, 2004 04:49 PM (9Y3U3)

20 I would think it heartening that a student didn't know how to spell Britney Spears, as long as they still knew how to spell more worthy names relating to marriage like, oh I don't know, Massachusettes residences Stan Chagnon and Joe McCoy, or Tanya McCloskey and Marcia Kadish....

Posted by: J at June 14, 2004 04:57 PM (5gN2v)

21 I'm one of those Atrios readers that followed the link posted on his site. I'd like to add my voice to those few who have apologized for the insults directed your way. I'm proud to be a liberal, but disgusted with the way my peers have treated you. More and more, I'm beginning to worry about the future of our country. The partisansip that I continue to see from both sides of the aisle seems to only be intensifying. If something doesn't change, I'm worried that we'll come to blows (literally) within our own country. In my own family, we've stopped talking about politics because it has become so personal for all of us. I miss the discussions we had because I like respectful debate. I like being around people who see things differently than I do. I don't know how to change it but I just wanted to let you know that, even if we're not of the same political bent, you come across as a thoughtful and good person.

Posted by: Chad at June 14, 2004 05:57 PM (1OeHR)

22 Well, so here's a question. If you're convinced that all polls are biased, and that we shouldn't trust any single poll, then why not chalk this up to a simple outlier of a poll? Besides, if every poll has some bias inherent to it (which is a possibility), wouldn't it make much more sense to consider a single "ur-poll," which conflates the results of all of the polls? If you had the same question on enough polls, you could probably whittle away at both the accuracy and precision of the polls. [No, they're not the same thing.] Finally, if you insist that polls be corrected for party affiliation, how do you do so? I don't think you can use any specific criterion for establishing a true party affiliation, and I think that it's such a fluid label that it makes no sense to even attempt to correct a poll based on that characteristic. For example, in MA, in 2000, I registered as a Republican--only so I could vote for McCain in the primary. Does that make me a Republican? Hardly. It was a purely political move, that has no reflection on my actual voting preferences. But, according to your suggestions, affiliating as a Republican would effectively bias the poll. So, don't sweat a single poll. Sweat the fact that all the polls are starting to turn up results you don't seem to like too much.

Posted by: Can't win at June 14, 2004 06:07 PM (aQOKC)

23 One more point. Why should there be equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans? Are we, in fact, split 50-50? In some states, maybe, but in other states, the split is 60-40 one way or the other. And, nationwide, I don't think there's an equal split--in general, Democrats outnumber Republicans (but Republicans tend to outnumber Democrats at the voting booth). So, it doesn't seem to make sense to "correct" results based on an assumption that may not even be valid.

Posted by: Can't win at June 14, 2004 06:09 PM (aQOKC)

24 J: "I would think it heartening that a student didn't know how to spell Britney Spears, as long as they still knew how to spell more worthy names [...]" The fact that you then go on to misspell both 'Massachusetts' and 'residents' is pretty darn funny in and of itself...

Posted by: MaitreDee at June 14, 2004 06:17 PM (AKgpm)

25 I took an intro stats course in college, so that’s the extent of my formal stats education. But it seems to me that using a small random sample and extrapolating to a much larger population makes sense when you’re measuring objective facts—how many children are in the average American family, for example, or the average level of education of retirees, etc. But, opinion polling must be inherently inaccurate, because pretty much each adult has his own individual thoughts, which—because he has a separate brain--must differ at least slightly from the next person’s. Of course, two people could give exactly the same answers on the same poll, but that doesn’t mean that they have exactly the same opinions—especially if the poll contains leading questions, confusing answer possibilities, or limits a respondent’s ability to answer "don’t know" or "no opinion." The real problem with what happened in yesterday’s comments was not at all that people disagreed with Sarah, but that there was an obvious and intentional flood of obvious trolls: in a period of approx. 5 hours, a blog that previously had received a maximum of—what? 35 comments? —on any single post was deluged with 88 more, a great number of which only expressed their appraisal of Sarah’s intelligence, with no reference to what they thought she was mistaken about. Furthermore, I counted about 20 email addresses that were obviously false (there might have been more), implying that those posters knew that what they were doing was insulting and indefensible.

Posted by: Carla at June 14, 2004 06:59 PM (r5M6F)

26 In response to some of the comments in this thread— From "Mike Adams": "Lady, you're dumb as a hammer, for gods sake shut up or put this stuff in a private diary! Ever So Sincerely, Mike" Um, Mr. Adams? There are plenty of websites/blogs available where I’m sure you’ll find more of your own kind. When I don’t think a blog is worth anything, I—gasp!—just stop reading it! Try that strategy sometime—isn’t it nice how one is able to move freely about the Internet? From MaitreDee at June 14, 2004 07:06 PM: "Those that you call the idiots who were incensed by this... do you think they're wrong in pointing out that what Sarah said was, well, less than an intelligent thing to say?" It’s fine to point out that you disagree with someone or even that you think they are factually wrong. It’s another thing entirely to leave comment after comment with obscenities directed toward someone who did not insult you and whom you clearly did not take any time to understand. Almost every blog I’ve ever looked at required some background to understand who the blogger is and where she’s coming from; it’s obvious that the trolls from that spree did not do any of that kind of work before shooting off their mouths (e.g., referring to Sarah as "he," etc.).

Posted by: Carla at June 14, 2004 07:01 PM (r5M6F)

27 hmmm... let's see... 53% said blah. Now, ignoring the sample size for a moment, err.. ummm.... bear with me, I'm not a statistician. errr... 3% possibilitiy of error makes it.. ummm... Right. I think I got it. Somewhere around 50 percent of a polled sample, maybe a hair above, maybe a hair below, but somewhere damned close to that line responded a certain way. How the hell dare anyone consider something so inconclusive to be representative of the VOICE OF AMERICA!!?? Mind you, I ask myself this self-same question just about every day when I think about the 2000 presidential elections.

Posted by: foog at June 14, 2004 07:03 PM (5GN6y)

28 Foog: I fear you're making the same ignorant mistakes as Sarah. Yes, a 3% MOE might mean those polled are equally divided. It also might mean 56%, vice 53%, said "blah." You see, the MOE is distributed around the 53%. Again, if you believe this poll--and others like it--are "irrelevant" as Sarah believes--I can assure you the current occupants at 1600 Pennsylvania are digesting them with mega-doses of antacid.

Posted by: Jadegold at June 14, 2004 08:55 PM (M9P7+)

29 "My own opinion is that a relatively small number of individuals and organizations effectively wield a vastly inordinate degree of power in this nation by manioulating the political system and that one of the key aspects of this manipulation is the dominance of the two-party system. When we succumb to the artificial division of our opinions into two camps and have at each other like unruly children on a particularly nasty playground, we perpetuate this system we laughably call democracy." Here here! Buy this man a drink! Excellent comment.

Posted by: Bolo at June 14, 2004 09:09 PM (Tgr46)

30 Polls are always biased to some extent, even when the questions are made as neutral as possible and a large, hopefully representative sampling of people is used. However, that bias pales in comparison to what can be achieved if you're actually trying to manipulate the polls, as in the examples given by Sarah, and I found her article and the attached links quite interesting. How do you explain changes in wording from one poll to the next? How do you explain the leaving out of certain questions in the published results? The only possible answer is media bias, and if you guys would stop spewing flames and propaganda long enough to have your heads examined, you'd see it too. Sarah: I highly doubt the people posting here are a statistically valid sampling of the US population, so ignore them. They're all idiots.

Posted by: Theodore Pride at June 14, 2004 09:22 PM (fOVHf)

31 How different would this whole conversation be if the insults were replaced by constructive criticism? Can someone explain how the article was not biased, rather than your opinion on Sarah's intelligence?

Posted by: Amy at June 14, 2004 10:45 PM (aJ30v)

32 Wow. There is nothing but rank humour rolling off the walls when the majority of critics of a blog which extols the value of critical thinking can do nothing more than blab dogma and insults. I'm amazed that so many "smart" people can miss the whole point about bias.....maybe you need to dummy your writing down to the grade two level? Or better yet, have some fun with stats! Why not count the negative comments in this post and extrapolate how many assholes there are in America! Keep up the good work!!

Posted by: Jimmi Jazz at June 14, 2004 11:33 PM (fd5Gy)

33 I see that you've left the comments on for this post (thank you!) and I hope you've had time to read my previous e-mail to you. Your post today makes much more sense than your previous one; still, the proposition that you have a thorough understanding of statistics strikes me as dubious. If, indeed, you have an understanding of p-values, sampling, and the requirement that one's sample be IID before you perform inferential statistics, why didn't you approach the LA Times article in that manner? If you're tossing around the term "p-value", you're in the position to write a post that would educate your usual readership about some of these issues. Why not take the time to do so? The LA Times article and the AP wire it was based on do leave out the level of confidence (as do most print reports on polls) and that in itself is worth a post. (And you could just as easily roll in on TV -- this weekend I was watching Fox News and saw them flash up poll results between programming and commercials which, I think, paraphrased the question asked, didn't list the number of respondants, didn't list the margin of error, and didn't list the level of confidence, and didn't attempt to put the poll into context with other polls or other questions asked in the same poll.) And, the fact that you got the sample size wrong led many people to believe, regardless of their personal opinions of you, that you didn't closely read the article you commented on, let alone have a working knowledge of statistics. But, if, as you and some of your commenters have written, your post was more on the write up of the LA Times article and not the AP-commissioned poll, why not register for the LA Times and actually *read* the article you critique? (C'mon, Sarah, don't tell me that you needed Groucho's comment in the other thread to goad you into reading the actual article.... I can't seriously believe that you instruct your students that when examining the media for bias they need not read the articles they examine?) Still, I'll argue the merits of the argument you advance in this post. I *strongly* take exception to your point that "polls don't matter, especially close ones." In my years of dealing with statistics, some of the most illuminating results have been the ones where the p-value is on the hairy edge of the rejection regime. Some of the most interesting tests I've been involved in are the ones where there is no clear answer to the question of whether "system A" is better than "system B". Such tests force the decision-makers to readdress what information they wanted to get out of the test, and reassess their appetite for risk before going ahead with a test. As unfortunate as it is for me as a tester involved with the DoD (and as frightening as it may be for the spouse of a military member) often decision-makers don't think about these sorts of things until the data forces them to. Still, I've been generally impressed by their ability to come to a decision (particularly if it allows me to do more testing) based on the data, and not politics. And when we report test results, we typically report the point estimate and the lower/upper confidence bound. In the case of the question you write about with a 3% margin of error (roughly similar to confidence bounds), we would be quite justified to say that with 95%/90%/80% confidence, there is a difference between the numbers of people agreeing and disagreeing with the question, and that the point estimate is 53 yes/43 no. (This may not be exact - opinion polls are statistically messy because of the existence of those who answer don't know/no opinion/no response and the fact that you're tracking two reponse variables - yes and no - instead of the single one in traditional statistics, however, the point is that with the margin of error and the given spread between yes and no, we can solidly say that a majority agreed with the question.) Let me close with my comments on an argument you make both in this post and in your original one. I don't think that the Den Beste article you linked to makes the point that all polls are "irrelevant." Rather, the point at the end of his post is that those polls are eventually proved OBE - by actual election results. Now, that point by itself is too cute by half - what about the enormous resources that political campaigns put into polls and focus groups in order to determine what the campaign should do - but Den Beste also links it only to polls dealing with voters preferences on political canidates - not to the sorts of poll (and specifically the question) that you spend much of your post on - polls that deal with levels of agreement with specific talking points or policies. Since I'll never enter a polling booth (or, more acurately, write in an absentee ballot) that will ask me if I agree with Sen Kerry's assessment of Iraq, I don't believe this poll is addressed by Den Beste's argument.

Posted by: Darkwater at June 14, 2004 11:40 PM (fiEVU)

34 Well, with a few exceptions, the liberals have shown their colors here.

Posted by: Parkway Rest Stop at June 14, 2004 11:45 PM (BjDAE)

35 Well I see Carla has detected "fake" e-mail addresses, hey Carla ever think there are those of us that are smart enough to know how to wander around the "net" and not leave a "footprint". Being the centerist/libertarian I am I do not wish my e-mail posted all over the net. So I use a "fake" e-mail. A fake e-mail does not necessarily invalidate the opinion offered by the individual. Now moving on to Sarah herself I did not gather you were living in Germany until after I made what I thought was a calm and rational post(well at least compared to others). I think a good point for everyone to remember is something Chris Rock says in his latest HBO special, I paraphrase here: "No one is ALL one thing (liberal/conservative) we ALL have issues we are liberal on, and issues we are conservative on...Anyone that is not willing to look at the facts before forming an opinion is a fucking fool". Chris in that second clause is absolutely correct. Sarah as I mentioned in yesterdays post I did my service, and I sympathize with your situation. I was single for the entire time of my military days, so while I do not have first hand experience at the seperation problems the military forces on married couples, I did have many good friends that were married, and I saw how hard they had to work to maintain the relationship. I would ask that you note that while I questioned your teaching ability, I was one of very few to avoid resorting to the ad-hominem attacks . I came here today out of curiosity, and obviously of my own volition, since there was no link to your site today. Please remember that although I might disagree with our being in Iraq, I wish a safe return to all our warriors there. Sarah you hang in there, this situation in Iraq will not go on forever,and though I wish I could express the same sentiment about the conflict with terrorists, I am realist enough to know that the terror front will be a long and sometimes hard slog.

Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at June 15, 2004 01:22 AM (4pVZJ)

36 Sarah, You have my sympathies for your misfortune of attracting an Atrios link. You're still one of my daily blogs.

Posted by: John at June 15, 2004 03:19 AM (crTpS)

37 "I was starting to feel sympathetic towards the Left until they started calling me names." Wow! This is some great political commentary here. You really thought long and hard about your political leanings didn't you? As someone who holds an MA in Political Science, I would laugh like hell if one of my colleagues expressed the above quotation (and or expressed an utter confusion over simple statistics). And if a professor conveyed the idiocy that you have the past few days I most certainly would drop that professor's courses.

Posted by: Tom at June 15, 2004 04:03 AM (ZKWf0)

38 These comments disturb me. In dozens of replies, I found a handful of items that could be construed as constructive analysis of the content of the original post -- most of these criticisms targeted at the poster's mistaken assumption that 53% positive responses with a 1230 sample and a +/-3% moe could yield 615. Yes, indicative of room to learn, but by no means an invalidation of the meat of the post which conerned itself with poll construct, sampling methodology, and result presentation, and how these are used and abused to advance the agendas of the poll's funders. In my opinion, this community (in the interest of productive discourse rather than emotionally-based war -- this is our goal, right?) would be much better served if responses were limited to those that logically and specifically challenge the ideas put forth by the poster, rather than opinions regarding the poster him/herself.

Posted by: cerkit at June 15, 2004 07:51 AM (fQ5dB)

39 I wrote one about people with bad manners and a lack of common decency. Did you include yourself in this group, considering you called commenters to your blog "assholes?"

Posted by: YatPundit at June 15, 2004 09:25 AM (yv+zz)

40 I found your rants interesting and enjoyed them. That fact that a techer is even thinking about these things is even better! I hope you DO take them into the classroom!

Posted by: OffDWall at June 15, 2004 10:38 AM (rZk1W)

41 Bubba Bo Bob Brain: "Well I see Carla has detected "fake" e-mail addresses, hey Carla ever think there are those of us that are smart enough to know how to wander around the 'net' and not leave a 'footprint'. Being the centerist/libertarian I am I do not wish my e-mail posted all over the net. So I use a 'fake' e-mail. A fake e-mail does not necessarily invalidate the opinion offered by the individual." My point was simply that fake email addresses + obscenities + blatant disregard of readily available information (e.g., Sarah as "he") [multiplied by] many more comments than this blog usually gets = troll swarm. Trolling is pretty disgraceful in and of itself; ignorantly echoing 40 other trolls' comments (or one person using multiple names to troll the same thread) is even worse. (Note: I'm not saying this is what you were doing, I'm just commenting on the phenomenon of the troll swarm.) I use a hotmail account for posting to the 'net. It is not my primary address, but it does provide the blogger about whom I'm commenting the opportunity to get in touch with me if they wish. I think it's handy.

Posted by: Carla at June 15, 2004 11:04 AM (r5M6F)

42 Sarah, your comment: "It's no lie that everywhere in the world that there's conflict, Muslims are somehow involved." is demonstrably wrong and ill-informed. Nobody denies that the middle east is a basket case, but Muslims have no monopoly on conflict. (Northern Ireland, North Korea, Vietnam, Colombia, Angola, Tibet/China, etc). Remember WW2? I don't recall the Muslims starting it. Nope - it was a bunch of evil white guys, if memory serves. Never post when you're drunk or angry.

Posted by: yet another lefty at June 15, 2004 04:48 PM (sj6jn)

43 Sarah, thank you for responding to my comments. I'm afraid that I didn't make myself completely clear, though, as you state: I assume close calls are controlled experiments measuring, as he said, whether 'system A' is better than 'system B'." That's science. Opinion polling is not science. On the contrary, some of the instances I was thinking of when I wrote those sentences dealt with human factors questionnaires (system usability, quality of training) which are nothing more than opinion surveys. Quite often, there is no substitute for the qualitative information from surveys. Lots of human factors engineers have spent lots of time and money to quantitatively measure usability of GUIs (eye dwell time, eye refocus time), for instance, with very few practical results. But, when faced with loads of qualitative data, we can still analyze that data quantitatively, and come out with numeric results with levels of confidence and margins of error. Qualitative data is not inherently fuzzy. (Of course, it can be.) More importantly, qualitative data is not necessarily fuzzier than quantitative data. That's another issue lurking in the blog host's (I like that term!) assumption about my work; I'm afraid that she has fallen (granted, unintentionally) into one of the misconceptions of testing and hypothesis testing in particular that I hear all the time. Most of the tests I'm involved in aren't the highly controlled "experimental"-type breadboard/brassboard test setups that I think she is talking about. (Believe me, as an engineer, I'd kill to be in an environment where I had that level of control over... well, the environment.) I'm used to dealing with very gross measures of performance and getting that data from large, complex, messy environments. When you're relying on a test event involving tens, hundreds, even thousands of people, even limited data is still incredibly expensive to generate. Very often the only way to get human factors information is to ask the system operators their opinions after operations, in essence, calling people and asking them questions. Now, the amount of human factors data that can be reliably collected is limited; for instance, questionnaires lengthen the workday of the operator, usually right before they leave work, so a lengthy questionnaire can lead to a grumpy respondent. But it is possible to write questionnaires that aren't biased, give the respondent a wide and all-encompassing set of responses to choose from, and can generate data ripe for analysis. And when we finally get to analysis, the great thing about most statistical processes (particularly hypothesis testing) is that they take the variability and sample size of the data into account. Each time people like me report on whether missile miss distance meets specifications, what the mean time to repair a system is, or on user preference of GUI A or GUI B, (or user preference of Policy A or Policy B), we are performing a hypothesis test, whether the raw data was quantitative or qualitative. I would say that my experience has shown me that you don't need perfectly controlled conditions and 'perfect' data in order to do analysis, and calling a bunch of people and asking them questions need not be deeply flawed. You can certainly run into problems - but that's true of just about any procedure, or indeed, any thought process. I encourage everyone, whoever they may be, whatever education level they have, whatever they do, to approach how they live and how they think in a critical manner and be aware of those pitfalls - we can't just smugly pile them up on the doorsteps of the Gallups of the world.

Posted by: Darkwater at June 16, 2004 12:40 AM (XYkvR)

44 You still don't get statistics, or survey methods. Sorry.

Posted by: a statistician at June 16, 2004 11:56 PM (TTMxF)

45 Sarah, When you called the commenters "assholes" you lost any chance of the high ground. Easy to lose your temper, perhaps, but that's the result. The "only 615 people" comment is the striking one. You spell out above that you have the educational background to know what a fallacy this is, so maybe you could have addressed that more. At least you could balance the comment by saying that maybe only 492 people in the USA think that war was justified (by using the same reasoning). Then it wouldn't have seemed such a biased, agenda-driven comment. For a study of bias in the LAT, you could also look at the 20,000-person anti-war demonstration in LA that they didn't cover. The documentary film "We Interrupt This Empire" would be a suitable starting point for a class on it (Google for it). You say you don't care what other countries think. That was Saddam Hussein's attitude, wasn't it?

Posted by: Martin Poulter at June 17, 2004 08:41 AM (Qk9Ls)

46 "You still don't get statistics, or survey methods. Sorry. Posted by a statistician at June 17, 2004 04:56 AM" Only the Internet can facilitate these wonderful gems of prose. "Did you include yourself in this group, considering you called commenters to your blog "assholes?"" You can't teach! You're an idiot! You can't teach! You're an idiot! You can't teach! You're an idiot! You're an asshole. GHASP!

Posted by: hao2lian at June 18, 2004 11:38 AM (x0PqM)

47 Sarah, though I disagree with your politics, I salute you for making this blog and its comments available. My respect for conservatives has increased ten-fold. ruben

Posted by: ruben at June 20, 2004 02:28 AM (sTqLM)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

OK, just to clear something up, even though it's 0100 and I really shouldn't be tackling this subject at such an hour: it seems I pissed some people off when I wrote about Objective Truth. Believe you me when I say that I do think that there is truth out there. I think there's a right and wrong, and I just recently wrote a post about thinking in black and white. I haven't changed my mind in one week. I think there's real true-ness, as in facts that can be proven, but I don't think there's "Objective Truth", as in something that everyone accepts as truth.

Was Reagan a national hero who deserves to be on the $10 bill or is it that "the world will be a better place without that fascist f*cker's presence to soil it"? How can those two things be so polar? Isn't there Objective Truth out there? I don't think most people are capable of it. If we were capable of Objective Truth, then we wouldn't have such a shocking juxtaposition of opinions on Reagan.

So, to try to better explain what I meant, I do think that there are facts out there, but I don't think that most people are able to look past their bias to see them. So we end up with two truths.

For real, it's way too late to be writing this.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:11 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 1 kb.

One of the hardest parts of being informed about current events and politics is constantly being aware that there is no such thing as Objective Truth out there. Things that I consider Conspiracy Theory are someone else's Obvious Facts. Things I think are Indisputable are labeled Lies by others. One man's Hero is another man's Hitler. I guess I shouldn't have been shocked then to find that I could read numerous blog posts on all my daily reads praising and honoring President Reagan, but that there were still many posts out there that demonize and disrespect our former president. And that the lines are cleanly drawn between Left and Right. It's no big surprise that the names on that list of bloggers who bash Reagan include Ted Rall and Daily Kos. The demarcation zone is always right where I expected it to be. It's tedious, really, to know that you're always stuck preaching to the choir, that I'm posting the same thing now that I said back in February. Will we ever reach a point where we understand each other?

Posted by: Sarah at 03:55 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 182 words, total size 1 kb.

This is where I kinda want to do an I-told-you-so dance:

Although Iraq is a major petroleum producer, the country has little capacity to refine its own gasoline. So the U.S. government pays about $1.50 a gallon to buy fuel in neighboring countries and deliver it to Iraqi stations. A three-month supply costs American taxpayers more than $500 million, not including the cost of military escorts to fend off attacks by Iraqi insurgents.

It was never about oil for the USA. If I hear that again I'm gonna slug someone.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:40 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 92 words, total size 1 kb.

Normally I write my posts completely off the cuff, but I have put a lot of thought into this one. I even made an outline. It is something that has preoccupied me for a few days now.

I have been accused a couple of times recently of being too close-minded and of seeing things only in black and white. No one likes his flaws pointed out, and I am the first one to admit that I am especially bad at taking criticism. Though I may write with fire and brimstone, I'm entirely too sensitive for disagreement and unpleasant situations (in fact, my students' repeated criticism of me was that I was "too nice" and got too personally involved in their success and failure.) If someone suggests I am close-minded, I will agonize over that characterization for days, as I did this weekend.

I recently read Nighthawk's soul-searching and felt the same questions rising inside of me. Should I be more open to listening to those in opposition? Should I periodically re-examine my values to make sure they're still sound? Do I have an obligation to listen patiently to all sides of the argument and withhold judgement?

My poor mother, who is sick as a dog, has listened to me on the phone for the past three days as I've worked through my faults and beliefs. She has been infinitely selfless as I have prattled on about my own issues, and she was there for the eureka moment today when I realized what has been bothering me.

Should we legalize drugs? Maybe. How do I feel about euthanasia? Well, I can see both sides. What about cloning issues? Hmm, that's a tough one. In most of the social issues I can see valid arguments for the pro- and con-; I even contradictably agree with points on both sides. I don't have a black-and-white approach, and I like to hear what others have to say. Even on issues where I do have a stronger opinion -- like the marriage amendment or stem-cell research -- I can easily see the reasons why someone would argue for the other side. I'm up for debate on any of those topics.

However, when it comes to the War on Terrorism, I believe there is a concrete right and wrong. I don't see this war as a "social issue" that can be debated like abortion or captial punishment. I think this war is necessary, just, and beneficial, and I can find overwhelming evidence to support that belief. What I cannot find is a rational reason why we should not fight this war. I just can't find it. The reasons I have heard from the other side all seem to ignore the evidence I see as plain as my nose and instead focus on butstills.

The butstill. My friend and I were discussing that last night. Someone told her the war was a mistake and gave the example of a (heartbreaking) story he had heard about the death of an Iraqi child. In response, she told him stories of new prosthetic hands and grateful Iraqi bloggers. She asked if he thought those things were a mistake. His response: "No. But still..."

There's always a butstill. Rarely is it followed by anything else. Most of the opposition I've heard to this war is first a denunciation of President Bush and then a butstill. I've seen the anti-war arguments torn to shreds twice recently, first by the lead singer of Iced Earth and secondly today by Marek Edelman. To me, this war makes perfect sense; I am having a hard time seeing this as anything but a black-and-white issue.

I've done a lot of thinking about whether I'm close-minded. The conclusion I came to was that there are some times when being open-minded means being wishy-washy. There are some times when standing firmly for something you believe to be irrefutable is entirely appropriate. I think Den Beste was right when he said, "there are some kinds of situations where the answer is simple, and in such cases if someone still tries to find a more complex nuanced answer it shows that he has no backbone."

So I'll remain close-minded about the War, but if anyone wants to debate me on euthanasia, I'm all for it.

MORE TO GROK:

Tammi also writes about thinking in black and white.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:17 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 729 words, total size 5 kb.

1 I don't usually get called close minded, but I hear opinionated way too often! I can totally relate to being able to see both sides of things too easily. And yes, the war on terror is different. People just don't seem to really get just how much terrorist want all of us dead. And, really, how it would be rather easy in this day of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons to achieve that. Only by bringing more of the world into freedom and democracy can we hope to get all the help we need to stop those few terrorists. Honestly, I think it's just too complicated for some (maybe most) people to get the bigger picture. We're so spoiled in this country we really can't imagine life in places like Iran and Iraq. Anyway, I'm rambling too much in your comments. Don't ever worry about being close minded! It's closed to keep stupid stuff out :-)

Posted by: Beth at June 01, 2004 06:17 PM (ojDxg)

2 Sarah mentioned MY blog!!! Now I'm in the BIG Leagues. I am very libertarian in general, but conservative on social issues. So, I'm willing to debate some of those issues. But I agree with the war on terror in general. I believe that we are accomplishing good things in Iraq and Afghanistan. I certainly don't believe the conspiracy theories. I see the horrendous things happening in Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, and other countries where Islamist forces are imposing fascist regimes, oppressing their own people as well as any outsiders. Just before the invasion of Iraq, I read some excellent articles by an Assyrian Christian minister. He was initially strongly against the US doing anything about Iraq, until he went to Baghdad and visited some relatives. After he learned how much the Assyrian Christians had been praying for decades for the US to come and rescue them, after he saw the horrendous abuses, he came back and wrote how grateful he was that the US would even consider helping the people of that country. I don't think I am close-minded about the war, but I certainly do have very strong opinions about it.

Posted by: NightHawk at June 01, 2004 07:03 PM (O3INn)

3 I've been called stubborn, opinionated, closeminded and several other things. There are though, some things that are true, black and white and very important. The war on terror is one of those things. (Did you notice how I managed to not say but up there?) I'm afraid you are suffering from too much time to think, too much time alone. Don't doubt yourself, and now that you've had your eureka moment just luxuriate in your knowledge that on some things you are just RIGHT.

Posted by: Ruth H at June 01, 2004 10:52 PM (rQmkp)

4 That self-doubt is precisely what the anti-war crowd wants to engender. They know their minds can't be changed, but yours can. And they will do everything they can to make you doubt your own beliefs. In all things.

Posted by: Mike at June 01, 2004 11:02 PM (idjl+)

5 Well said.

Posted by: John at June 02, 2004 12:25 AM (crTpS)

6 Sarah, we don't disagree on the war on terror being necessary, but whether invading Iraq was a collosal wrong turn in the war on terror. Afghanistan festers, the Muslim world pushed further to radicalism, our Army stretched dangerously thin, and our national finances mortgaged to the hilt. But if Iraq becoms the Muslim Switzerland, and the rest of the Muslim world follows it to democracy, it will have been worth it. Time will tell.

Posted by: Don at June 02, 2004 10:34 AM (oTgvM)

7 As usual, very well said. Thanks.

Posted by: Parkway Rest Stop at June 03, 2004 03:30 AM (BjDAE)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Another beheading by the Religion of Peace. Mind you, this one has nothing to do with Abu Ghraib. Has everyone in this world lost their freaking minds? Where are the moderate Muslims to denounce this abhorrent practice? Where is the outrage from the people who are oh-so-worried about human rights? Amnesty International devotes the majority of their 339 pages to the US, and freaking China looks down their nose at us for Abu Ghraib? Are we all living on the same planet here?

To quote a commenter on LGF:

Overkill was passed one month ago, we are now in absolute terminal freefall.

Posted by: Sarah at 10:25 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

Tim pointed me in the direction of a letter to the editor in Eugene, Oregon and suggested I might want to fisk it. To be honest, I've been reading and re-reading it, and I have nothing to say to this woman. I have nothing to say to someone who suggests a "yellow ribbon should denote cowardice", to someone who said that going to war was "taking the easy way out", to someone who urges us to "tie a blood-red ribbon on your arm" in protest. What could I possibly say to counter such contempt?

However, I do find one line to be worth comment:

I would like to honor all the women and men who refuse to fight any battle that is not their own, whether it's for oil, power, money, government or greed.

We should never fight battles that are not our own. White men should not have fought to abolish slavery. Men should not have sided with women to get the vote. Americans should not have stopped the Nazis from taking all of Europe. If we all mind our own business and leave people alone, then peace will reign over our planet.

Maybe it looks that way in Eugene. I doubt the Kurdish parents who named their sons Dick Cheney and George Bush agree.

Posted by: Sarah at 11:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 1 kb.

While we're still on the subject of the comparative value of life, I would like to highlight some comments.

First from Carla:

The U.S. government, by the people, for the people, is authorized only to act on behalf of U.S. citizens--not on behalf of any other. As a servant of the people--not a *ruler*--the federal government should only act in Americans' interests. No matter what, even if florian (or anyone else) thinks that an American human life is equivalent to any other, the U.S. government *must* not--is not permitted to--and therefore must always value the lives of Americans more than the lives of any others.

That reminds me of the inane comment from the Beastie Boy who was mad that President Bush puts Americans ahead of people in other countries. That's his job as the American President! What would you rather he did, MCA?

And from Bunker:

People in this country share something with me that those in other countries don't. People who want to denigrate that opinion need only ask themselves (honestly) whom do they cheer for in Olympic events.

Shared values. Common ground. As I read this I was thinking about the love-it-or-leave-it idea. I guess I just can't understand Americans who value other countries over their own. If citizens of other countries are more valuable to you, and if you feel you have more common ground with them, then go live with them. For all the moaning about the "rich cultural heritage" and the lack of hegemony in other places, I don't see the mass emigration. (I imagine this is a matter of the ideal vs. the real: it's one thing to ideally value the 35-hour work week and six weeks of paid vacation that France has, but it's a whole different story to really move there, find a job, and pay their taxes.) I think it's perfectly natural to value your own compatriots more than anyone else in the world, and I find it puzzling when someone else doesn't.

If you don't prefer your compatriots, get new ones.

Posted by: Sarah at 09:47 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 344 words, total size 2 kb.

Florian responded to my question, and I managed to glean a couple more things about him (still don't know the sex though; I'm going with male for argument's sake). He's old enough to remember the Cold War, American enough to call them "our" soldiers, and his moral compass is skewed enough to compare me to Stalin.

I'd like to respond to a few things he said, and then be done with it. He's free to come and watch this "cheerleader" if he wants, but I won't continue to waste my time trying to grasp his point of view.

You say you care about the US military, but I donÂ’t think so.

Are we talking about the same Sarah here? Anyone who reads this blog knows that I care more for soldiers -- both the individuals themselves and the higher idea of "the soldier" -- than anyone else I know. I love them all, unconditionally. Florian lost me here, but I kept reading anyway.

You think you do, but there is something else underneath it. If you did, you wouldn’t trash our soldiers by calling them “turncoats” when they decide it is their duty to tell the truth about the war. You would listen to them, the Zinnis, the Ritters, the Tagubas, the Masseys. Instead you disgrace the service of generals, of men and women who put their safety and security at risk by listening to their conscience.

Florian lists four soldiers I should listen to who are doing their "duty to tell the truth about the war". Maybe Florian would do well to listen to some other soldiers doing their duty: Bowser, Miller, Walsh, and others. Or soldiers who are also trying to tell the truth, like Connable, Wiggles, or Sutton and Darby? Or the Iraqis who are trying to make their voices heard: Alaa, Ali, or Sam. Why do you not consider anything that these writers say as "truth", Florian?

You say you donÂ’t remember the Cold War, but I do, and there is a kind of a Stalinism in your ability to immediately cut down fellow soldiers and colleagues who stray from the party line.

Soldiers have a right to disagree with the politics of a war. There were a handful of soldiers in my class who disagreed with our presence in Iraq, and there are some in my husband's battalion who disagree as well. No one is going "Stalin" on them. However, they have agreed to abide by certain Army Values, and although the Loyalty Value does call for a soldier to reject an illegal order, it does not allow them to openly criticize their superiors and make their own decisions about how American foreign policy should be enacted. Whether or not you agree with the hierarchy system, Florian, those in charge pass the orders down for things to happen. The military would be useless if anyone at any level were allowed to let personal decisions and emotional responses dictate behavior. That's just the way it is. If you want to call me Stalin for thinking that the military as an organization is more important than your four individuals' opinions, then go ahead and call me Stalin.

You say you care about Israel, but I don’t think so. If you did, you would honor the “never again” spirit in the actions of these soldiers. They understand the lesson of the Holocaust -- that soldiers and civilians must never blindly follow immoral orders or support immoral policies. Staff Sgt. Massey told his CO he felt they were committing genocide --murdering civilians, desecrating bodies. His CO called him a wimp. You probably would too.

The lesson of the Holocaust. How about the lesson of those countries in the world who let Hitler build and build until he was powerful enough to kill all those people? How about the lesson Bill Whittle gave us this week, that 30 or 40 soldiers could have prevented WWII? If the French had stood up to Hitler's rumbling, the Holocaust could have been avoided. How's that lesson grab you? Don't boil WWII down to "soldiers and civilians must never blindly follow immoral orders or support immoral policies"; the lesson I take is that one pre-emptive effort can prevent millions of deaths.

Why do I read your site?

Partly fascination. At your site people call others “conspiracy theorists” and “nutcases” even though they themselves believed in the nutty “Saddam Behind 9-11, Ready To Use WMD” conspiracy theory. At your site I see the pathology of a woman who uses the word “vaginitis” to mean cowardice, who says the life of a child holding a US passport is worth more than one who doesn’t.

No one here has said that Saddam was behind 9/11. Many of us believe that Iraq provided money and backing for terrorism, but no one has said Saddam was involved in 9/11. You made that up, and I don't appreciate it.

Since I'm a woman, would you be more comfortable if I wrote about how the female soldiers at Abu Ghraib should have been above the males? Would that fit with your worldview better than how I really write, where I'm comfortable enough with my gender to use the appropriate slurs for a wuss?

And you twisted my words around with the child v. child thing: I said that an American life is worth more than any other nationality's life, no matter if it's a woman or child. I don't see that as pathology, just honesty.

Partly to monitor the war cheerleaders’ websites, the collapse of the war effort in the drop off of comments, the doublethink. To read the open diary of a war cheerleader and see the effect of, for instance, the torture policy revelation -- in your case, spontaneous crying and a recourse to Ben Gay and puppies. Then after a few days the return to the denial mode -- the “just a few idiots did it” argument.

I don't see any "collapse of the war effort", so I don't know what you mean by that. And I did react horribly to what these errant soldiers did at Abu Ghraib; no amount of puppies or Ben Gay will make me justify their actions. (Nice dig there though. Way to mock my personal life. My grandma died last fall too; wanna make fun of that?) Nobody is in denial mode here; the morons are being court martialed and dealt with, and everyone I know wants to see that happen.

Partly info: The great links you disagree with -- the vet turning old war posters into antiwar posters, the thoughtful antiwar writers. Strangely, you donÂ’t target extremists -- maybe because you donÂ’t see yourself as one -- but reasonable dissidence, and then I learn about them too. Thanks.

Um, see the problem is that there never was any vet making anti-war posters; there was a man pretending to be a vet to get attention. Micah Wright was never in the military, so for you to say that I provided you a link to a reasonable dissident is absurd.

No, I wouldn’t dream of making you “switch over to the other side” -- as your admitted black-and-white worldview sees it. I do check if any light can crack through it. (By the way, a black-and-white worldview is something you share with radical Islam. They say we become what we hate.)

Well, if we become what we hate, then I'm either 1) a carrot 2) a dirty George Foreman grill or 3) a troll who spends his time mocking bloggers instead of creating his own blog and taking what he dishes out.

MORE TO GROK:

More above about compatriots.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:31 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 1278 words, total size 9 kb.

1 still don't know the sex though Never heard of a woman called Florian, fwiw.

Posted by: Name at May 27, 2004 01:02 PM (+I2J4)

2 I think you handled that well. I read sites from both sides of the issues. I listen to NPR in the morning and Sean Hannity on the way home. I find clear thinking more prevalent on sites to the right of center. I don't always agree, but there is at least a logical thought process involved. We will not know all there is regarding Iraq for many years to come. Florian has an opinion, and will scratch to find substance to support that opinion. Unfortunately, all that he brings to the table is the opinion of others. That is the prime error in argument of those on the left. Opinion is not fact. They cannot abandon this misuse because all their arguments then fail. Instead, they will ask why you don't believe these opinions rather than explaining why these views are valid. Just the facts, ma'am.

Posted by: Mike at May 27, 2004 01:37 PM (cFRpq)

3 Nice job, Sarah. "I said that an American life is worth more than any other nationality's life..." Even more than that: The U.S. government, by the people, for the people, is authorized only to act on behalf of U.S. citizens--not on behalf of any other. As a servant of the people--not a *ruler*--the federal government should only act in Americans' interests. No matter what, even if florian (or anyone else) thinks that an American human life is equivalent to any other, the U.S. government *must* not--is not permitted to--and therefore must always value the lives of Americans more than the lives of any others.

Posted by: Carla at May 27, 2004 06:18 PM (r5M6F)

4 Carla, "the U.S. government ... must always value the lives of Americans more than the lives of any others." You just "proved" that the Bush regime* is "racist," "nationalist," and that ultimate of evils, SELFISH. Bring on the UN. Iraq doesn't need conquest, er, occupation - WE do. Perhaps Sudan** can teach the United Satans a lesson or two about human rights. We've got it all wrong. We always do. Forgive us, o world. *Let's not call it a government since Bush wasn't elected by 100% of the voters like Saddam was: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2331951.stm You gotta love the caption: "Voting day brought many public displays of patriotism." Can't beat the BBC. **http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=10919_UN-_Genocide_and_Slavery_Compatible_with_Human_Rights

Posted by: Amritas at May 28, 2004 01:05 AM (tJj3/)

5 I find it completely sad that florian continues to read your blog when he/she really has just latched on to someone with whom he/she totally disagrees with and chooses to tear your blog apart at every opportunity. I respect a person's opinion, whether I agree with that opinion or not. However, I believe florian is somewhat crossing the line when he "attacks" you the way he does. When I come across people like florian, I often wonder how they grew up, if they were nurtured enough, disregarded, dismissed or unloved. I bet he's a very lonely person who just takes the wrong approach to be noticed. Sarah, you've handled the situation well; now it's time to move on.

Posted by: Nancy at May 28, 2004 01:51 AM (boDJK)

6 NICE fisk Sarah. Now ignore the troll. By the way, there's nothing like 'puppy' love when you're sad and lonely! There's just something about unconditional love that gives the warm fuzzies, and we all can use some of that! Hang in there!

Posted by: MargeinMI at May 28, 2004 09:23 AM (itenU)

7 Amritas, I, like you (I believe--correct me if I'm wrong), hold selfishness as a virtue. Nancy, I think the important thing to remember is that florian is not "tearing [Sarah's] blog apart," s/he's just providing a little bit of an annoyance. Of course Sarah has the right to respond in whatever way she wishes--I think she did good--but, florian's arguments don't really stand up to scrutiny. So, even if they're a pain in the neck, they don't affect the integrity of Sarah's blog, which is as strong as ever.

Posted by: Carla at May 28, 2004 02:45 PM (r5M6F)

8 A bit late to the party. Florian is a boy's name (Romanian). If he remembers the Cold War--he either lived in Communist Ro, or knows people who did. As such, him mentioning Stalinism and you in the same sentence is highly suspect (unless, of course, you happen to be a ruthless dictator-ess, who killed a few million people).

Posted by: ema at May 29, 2004 02:17 AM (MRYUc)

9 Ok, I will respond and move on too. Sorry about its length in advance, but it won't happen (ever) again. I sometimes think this blog is secretly run by an antiwar person, aiming to discredit the war cheerleaders by portraying a seemingly benign war supporter who suddenly blurts inhuman things or obvious falsehoods, like the leading post today about moderate Muslims not denouncing the extremist Islamic violence (they are all over the place. Check CAIR). Generally: What is a “troll”? Apparently someone who disagrees too strongly. It is funny to watch bloggers huddle with their ideological mates, talking to themselves, then freak when strong dissent comes along. And call it an “attack“. You link to and slam people. But when someone responds he is an attacking “troll”? According to you, the rules of the game are that the dissenter must be -----“creating his own blog and taking what he dishes out” -which I don’t understand. I am taking it, with your and others’ responses. And I am not interested in having a blog. I see it as a product of the reality-TV generation: a self-obsessive, narcissistic urge to display your private life to a vicarious world. Yet founded on insecurity, so when someone makes an obvious observation (the US torture policy revelations>crying jags/puppy>denial continuum) on what you have revealed, you say -----“Nice dig there though. Way to mock my personal life. My grandma died last fall too; wanna make fun of that?” I never mocked or made fun; I showed you what you had written in your own blog. (You asked me why I read it. Maybe you should ask yourself why you write it.) More specifically, your responses are logically skewed and continue the, yes, denial. On the torture policy and “just a few idiots did it“: You say you are not in denial about the use of torture as US policy and to prove it you say-- “the morons are being court martialed and dealt with, and everyone I know wants to see that happen” --which is the “just a few idiots did it” argument all over again. Unless by the responsible to tried and jailed you mean Gen. Miller and those in the White House who “loosened” the restrictions on torture after 9/11? The use of torture has been overt US policy in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay since 9/11 and a covert US practice and export since long before. The photos have just made people face it. On your dishonoring soldiers and dissenters: Yes, there IS more inherent value in the words of a dissenter who puts his or her career and security on the line than in the words of those mouthing the convenient platitudes of the power structure. That is why we don‘t disgrace the service of the Gen. Butlers and Scott Ritters by dismissing their testimony as “personal decisions and emotional responses” and calling them “turncoats” (you should apologize. I really can‘t believe you would disgrace Gen.Taguba, who simply conducted an investigation as was his duty.) You say I cite only four soldiers as if their number affected the weight of the point, but I cited only four so I wouldn’t cram verbiage into your space (as I am surely doing now). There have been and are more every day, as every truth teller gives courage to the next one. Most recently, US military lawyers representing inmates at Gitmo are strongly and publicly denouncing the entire apparatus as a lie. On your authorities: You say I should listen to the ones you cite. But of course you can cite dozens of representatives of ruling power and its party line, that is what the party line is all about, and is what you call Truth. 20o-odd years ago, you would have been citing Tory authorities on the need to combat the terrorism of the Boston Tea Partiers and their radical leader Washington and I would have been citing King George’s tyranny. And if you had been born in Russia just a couple decades ago you would have been supporting the liberation of Czechoslovakia, and slamming the dissenters pointing out human rights violations and gulags. On Stalinism and the party line: You said I called you Stalin, when I said your thinking was reminiscent of Stalinism. Either you are ignorant of the Cold War (despite studying Rocky movies) or you intentionally twisted my words. Stalinism is a way of thought, involving conformity with a party line and a swift rejection of dissent even from loyal colleagues, in order to forward expansionistic regimes. Sound familiar? You say your mindset is based on -----------“thinking that the military as an organization is more important than your four individuals' opinions” But it is not a conflict between “four individual opinions” and the military as an organization, but a conflict between unpleasant facts from voices WITHIN the military versus the lies of an rogue superpower bent on taking over other countries. The Mai Lai Massacre started out as a few individual people exposing horrible facts (“opinions” in your world view). The Gulf of Tonkin was the massive lie used to start up the Vietnam war; there were whistleblowers then that we should have listened to, and there are some now. Fortunately modern technology is getting their story to us faster and easier. On Saddam and 9-11: So you don’t believe Saddam supported and 9/11, and never did? Which other of the White House’s lying excuses to invade don’t you believe in? Saddam’s WMD and support for Al Queda? Are you saying Saddam supported terrorism but not Al Queda? Or did support Al Queda but not 9/11? Or what? And yet with ------------“the lesson of those countries in the world who let Hitler build and build until he was powerful enough to kill all those people” you still compare Saddam to Hitler, and allege a military buildup, now that it has been proven that Saddam’s army was a shell (as the quick invasion proved) and the WMD were a lie (both of which Ritter‘s “opinion“ told us). Incredible. On Pathologies and passports: I did not twist your words, but I did offer an image that shows your inhumane views on human life: Two children, one has an American passport and one doesn‘t. You say the one on the left has more worth. How is it twisting when you plainly state it -----------“an American life is worth more than any other nationality's life, no matter if it's a woman or child” right after? I had hoped you would take the chance to rephrase this, with its obvious echoes of Ruwanda and Auschwitz. Pretty sick that you don’t. Speaking of obvious, you are a woman who uses femininity, “vaginitis”, to equal weakness, cowardice. Calling Dr. Freud. ---------------“I don't see that as pathology, just honesty.” That you are being honest doesn’t cancel out it being pathological. Speaking of being honest, I have often felt guilty in reading your blog, like rubbernecking at an car accident. So this is the last hurrah, sorry it is so long. BTW the crack about becoming a carrot was funny. Have a good war!

Posted by: florian at May 30, 2004 01:26 PM (JM3Wb)

10 Bye.

Posted by: Sarah at May 30, 2004 05:31 PM (96F2D)

11 Yawn, what a maroon.

Posted by: John at May 30, 2004 09:53 PM (crTpS)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Uh, wow.

I didn't think this article could get any weirder than Tim's introduction, but it sure does. Apparently there are women out there who think that a good way to get their politics across is to write it on their underpants and flash people.

Seriously.

The Eves are plotting a racy panty performance for Sept. 1 featuring 100 women dressed in white trench coats and their signature matching panties. "At 3 p.m.," the Axis Web site advertises, "Eves will perform a group flashing in order to create a media spectacle and send a political postcard: We will not tolerate lies and cover-ups!"

This cannot be for real. There cannot be people in this world who honestly think that political discourse written on your underwear is a form of activism. Surely they can't take themselves seriously. Right?

Tasha, who is 33, was presiding over a late-night panty powwow with Zazel and Elizabeth. As Elizabeth perched on Tasha's couch, Zazel sprawled on the floor in a cream-colored body suit and lavender "Lick Bush" thong. "I think sometimes verbal discourse is insufficient as a mode of expression," Tasha said, as if she were delivering a lecture for her fellowship at a prominent New York university. "There's something raw and wonderful and gratifying about the more gestural expression of the flash. By putting on these bold, outrageous displays, we want to inspire others to also be bold."

You are doing absolutely nothing for the state of world affairs by exposing anti-Bush underpants. Grow up, you weirdos.

Posted by: Sarah at 11:16 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 255 words, total size 2 kb.

I had some additional thoughts about our values documented in movies last night after I turned off the computer. It's hard not to project our American experience onto Iraqis.

I believe that the insurgents are a small percentage of the population and that the average Iraqi just stays inside with the door locked and avoids getting killed. One of the things I keep expecting to see is an uprising of regular fed-up Iraqis. À la Superman II, when the Krypton criminals pin Superman behind the bus and the people of Metropolis, thinking he's dead, grab whatever they can find and say, "Let's get 'em." Or like in The Three Amigos, where the regular townsfolk defend their city against the bullies. I don't think I should hold my breath.

We have a history of rising up; it's the foundation of our country. From the days of Don't Tread On Me to the modern-day anthem "We're Not Gonna Take It", we Americans don't sit by and let things happen to us. I keep projecting that value onto Iraqis. It's easy to forget that they've spent decades living in fear and that they may not be rising up any time soon.

I know there are plenty of Iraqis who are joining the coalition military and police force. I applaud them and know they're doing the right thing. But I still keep waiting in the back of my mind to see a group of average Iraqis take to the streets and say "Let's get 'em."

Posted by: Sarah at 02:02 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 1 kb.

I've almost made it through the full cycle, so tonight was Rocky IV.

I didn't really live through the Cold War. I mean, I did, but not in the way my parents did. I vaguely remember the Wall coming down, but it didn't really mean that much to me as a 12 year old. However, I do remember the era's movies. Superman IV. War Games. Rocky IV. I distinctly remember seeing these movies, and I remember feeling scared about the bad guys and cheering for the good guys.

We don't have movies like that anymore.

Lileks recently wrote that he'd like to see them make a movie about 9/11. I would too, but it'll never happen.

I think people would like these stories to be told, but we canÂ’t have war movies anymore unless itÂ’s an old war, or one that happened in some place with an oversupply of consonants. ItÂ’s not that Hollywood is unpatriotic or wishes America to lose; theyÂ’d bristle at the charge. But they want Bush to lose first and foremost, and after that weÂ’ll see what happens. To make a movie about The War admits that there is a war, and sometimes I think a third of the country rejects this notion out of hand. WeÂ’re only at war because Bush made us go to war! or weÂ’re only at war because we donÂ’t let Interpol handle it! or some such delusion. I swear: there are people who see the conflict in such narrow terms that if Bush on 9/11 had announced he was forcing Israel back to pre-67 borders, and the hijackers had heard the news in the cockpit, they would have hit the autopilot and let the planes resume their original course.

So what happens in Rocky IV? The Soviets challenge the Americans to a boxing match, and Apollo takes the bait. In the press conference, the reporters boo the Soviets for claiming they could beat Apollo Creed. Let me repeat that: the reporters boo the Soviets. Apollo dies, Rocky trains (and gets more muscle than humanly possible), and the arena is filled with Drago supporters for the big fight. Rocky holds his own, and suddenly the Soviets are cheering for Rocky. Rocky breaks Drago, and then he takes the mic and tells the Soviets they can change and the crowd goes wild.

Propaganda? Of course so. But it's a plot we all wanted to see at the time.

Our movies were optimistic. We thought we were the good guys and we wrote movies where the bad guys wanted to be us in the end. The Soviets cheer Rocky. He said he learned to like them and maybe they could learn to like him, and the crowd went wild. And when Rocky shook his American flag (which apparently is a no-no in 2004) the Soviets cheered and the Politboro stood up and clapped.

Look, I know it's just a movie, but movies influence our thinking. I strongly believe that those who fought back against the terrorists on Flight 93 would never have done so if they hadn't been raised on movies like Passenger 57 and Air Force One. What will our kids be raised on if they never see movies about the brave folks on 9/11 or the courageous soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan? We need a made-for-TV movie about Pat Tillman, not Jessica Lynch. Don't give us the victim-hero; give us the hero-hero. If our kids grow up on Fahrenheit 9/11 and the movie about Richard Clarke's book, we'll be in deep trouble in twenty years.

We made Cold War movies during the Cold War, but I don't think we'll see one War on Terrorism movie anytime soon. I think that's a travesty.

MORE TO GROK:

More above.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:14 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 630 words, total size 4 kb.

I really enjoyed reading Cathy Young's article today. She discusses the "my country, right or wrong" mentality and brings up some interesting points. She and I have common ground, so I was able to start thinking critically about what she said at the end of her article:

Ironically, the same conservatives who believe that no decent American can sympathize with the other side during a war also generally believe that our troops in Iraq deserve the support of the Iraqis because we liberated them from an evil regime. Yet, following their logic, patriotic Iraqis would have had to support a homegrown tyrant over foreign occupation.

That is true, and I need to keep that in mind whenever I can't understand why many Iraqis are not overjoyed that we're there. I also found the corresponding Instapundit post -- perhaps the longest string of words Reynolds has ever uttered -- to be equally interesting:

I'm not a "my country, right or wrong," guy. But I do think that if patriotism means anything it means giving one's own country the benefit of the doubt -- of which, in the case of this war, there's not really much need for -- and that the people I was discussing in that post are doing quite the opposite and adopting a "my country -- of course it's wrong" attitude. To root for your own country's defeat is to separate yourself from its polity, to declare it not worth saving or preserving, to declare the lives of its soldiers less important than your own principles. It's not always wrong, but it's a very a drastic step, as drastic as deciding to mount a revolution, really, and yet it's often taken by superficial people for superficial -- and, as in this case, tawdry and self-serving -- reasons. [emphasis mine]

I completely agree with the Instapundit here. Many people these days don't seem to ever give the US the benefit of the doubt, and I have little patience for people who root against the US. But the phrase in bold particularly struck me: Isn't that what we all do? On both sides? On the one, we have the loonies on the Left who don't care how many lives we have to waste as long as Bush is no longer president:

The only way to get rid of this slime bag WASP-Mafia, oil barron ridden cartel of a government, this assault on Americans and anything one could laughingly call "a democracy", relies heavily on what a shit hole Iraq turns into. They need to die so that we can be free. Soldiers usually did that directly--i.e., fight those invading and harming a country. This time they need to die in defense of a lie from a lying adminstration to show these ignorant, dumb Americans that Bush is incompetent. They need to die so that Americans get rid of this deadly scum.

On the other hand, you have people like me who think that no matter how many soldiers we lose and how many memorial services we have to have here on post, we need to persevere and set things right in the Middle East. So, in some sense, we both feel that our principles outweigh the soldiers' lives.

Trust me, I think there's a whopping difference between the two, but in a way the soldiers are being used by both sides. In a way. I'm not sure if I like that thought.

Posted by: Sarah at 11:34 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 572 words, total size 4 kb.

So it may or may not have been a wedding party, there may or may not have been sarin in those IEDs, there may or may not be an Oil-For-Food scandal, and I may or may not have just baked eighty cookies for my husband's platoon. We may never know.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:22 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

My husband has been working for 90 days without a single break in the flypaper country. His job includes luring terrorists to his turf so they avoid attacking us on our soil. Am I proud of his profession? Absolutely. Does the nature of his job sometimes make me disproportionately angry at the world? Certainly.

The purpose of this website was for me to find a way to try to understand the world we live in. I never said I was good at it. I don't think I really grok anything at all, but I know what I believe in and stand for. And, yes, it's pretty black-and-white, us-vs-them. I do think that there are certain situations where grey area is not acceptable, and I don't think I want to compromise on those areas.

I didn't start this blog to argue with people; in fact, one of the reasons I started it was so I could avoid arguing with real people in my life when I began to notice I disagreed with them on just about everything. I started it as a place for me to think out loud and work through my own confusion about the world. But this week it's gotten me in some arguments. Some of them I got myself into, and others I was dragged into unwillingly. I don't want to be in any of them, to be honest. I don't want to argue with people; it just distracts me from my own quest for grokking.

The majority of the time we're not going to change each others' minds. It's funny that we even try. I didn't have to read both Den Beste and Daily Kos back in 2002 to figure out which side I was on; I already knew from the first day I entered the blogosphere. However, within that common ground, I am open to exploring new things that I haven't considered before. I have been thinking a lot about Donald Sensing's post on crossing the line. I still don't know what I think about that, and I have been trying to grok it for two days. However, no one is ever going to make a dent in my beliefs that 1) the war was justified 2) Americans are not evil/stupid/imperialistic or 3) there are clear-cut good guys and bad guys in this world. I have some beliefs that no amount of discussion will ever change, and there are some people I will never be able to convince with my beliefs.

All of a sudden, I don't even feel like caring anymore. I need to look at the puppy for a while.

Posted by: Sarah at 07:07 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 439 words, total size 3 kb.

When I read these accounts of how mad Americans are getting, I started thinking about how Nick Berg might not have died in vain.

Perhaps Nick is our era's Pearl Harbor.

Nick's family is extremely distraught (understandable) but blaming his death on the Bush administration (doesn't compute). I started thinking about what I would say if it had been my husband, if my husband were Nick Berg.

I would urge every American to watch the video. If I had to watch someone rip my husband's head off, then everyone should. I would tell Americans that the people who did this commit these sorts of acts every day and that it is our way of life that they hate. That they will never stop until we're all dead or enslaved, as Amritas reminded me. I would tell the public that the only way this will end is if we kill them before they kill us. I would urge Americans to remain steadfast in their resolve and to support our military and administration as they bring not only those five masked men but all terrorists to justice.

Perhaps the legacy Nick Berg's death will leave is that it will be the straw that broke the American camel's back. September 11 was supposed to be that straw, but we all tucked our American flags away shortly thereafter and went back to regular life. Those burned bodies hanging from the bridge in Fallujah were also supposed to be a straw, but somehow they only elicited a "screw 'em". Perhaps now, in light of the attention the media has paid to Abu Ghraib, the sleeping giant will awake as Americans start to notice that, as an Instapundit reader quoted, "Why is it that the media can show over and over again pictures that could make Arabs hate Americans, but refuse to show pictures that could make Americans hate Arabs?"

Nick Berg will not have died in vain if his death strengthens our resolve to win this damn war on terror.

MORE TO GROK:

But after reading this post and all the comments at One Hand Clapping, I start to get nervous that there's a line that, once we cross it, we can never go back. I haven't get decided how I feel about that, but I'll write about it when I grok it.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:47 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 390 words, total size 2 kb.