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.

It's a drinking sort of night.

My head was already spinning, and now it's even worse. But I don't want to feel better. I don't want to forget; I want to revel in my anger and hatred. I'm drunk on rage and booze tonight.

I tried reading the Arabic text from the video tonight. I swear it would make no sense even if I were sober.

we tell you to know that the coffins will arrive to you one coffin after another, as your people are slaughtered in this way.........

Oh yeah? Bring it, asshole. My husband and his M1A1 disagree.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 103 words, total size 1 kb.

I watched the video this morning.

At first I couldn't decide if I wanted to see it. I had butterflies in my stomach and my heart was pounding throughout the whole seven minutes. It happened exactly as Charles described, and it was very difficult to watch.

Another wife asked me why on earth I had watched the video. I struggled to find the right words to explain to her why I wanted to -- needed to -- see it. The right word came to me later.

Laser beam.

I watched the video so I wouldn't forget what we're fighting for. I watched it so I wouldn't get distracted by Abu Ghraib or 9/11 hearings or anything else that is preventing the American public from seeing the simple dichotomy between good guys and bad guys. I watched it so I could put a face on my enemy, so I could watch his heinous deeds firsthand, and so I would not forget what my husband is risking his life to prevent.

I watched it so I could stoke my anger. It worked.

Posted by: Sarah at 10:47 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 182 words, total size 1 kb.

Den Beste has a post today on how we're engaged in a three-way war. Lord knows I don't have anything to add to his assessment, but there was one sentence that jumped out at me:

The Philadelphia Constitutional Convention included one of the most amazing concentrations of fine minds to ever collect in one place, names like Franklin and Jefferson and Hamilton and Madison. They changed history.

What on earth would we do if we needed to have a Constitutional Convention today?

I know you can't really make what-ifs like that, but seriously, who do we have? Is there any politician we trust the way we trust the Founding Fathers? Who would you want to write the document that will govern us for over 300 years? My vote is on Den Beste, CavX, and VDH...but honestly, who's heard of them? The general public would react to them the way the Clevlanders reacted in Major League ("who are these f-in' guys?")

If we had a Constitutional Convention today, it would have to be properly multicultural and include representatives from all walks of life. Nothing would get done. There would be no Constitution.

Grim.

MORE TO GROK:

To the newcomers, thanks for coming over and trying to grok. I dashed this crap off right before work, not knowing that a denbestelanche was around the corner. Oh well. If I'd known, I would've talked at greater length about the junk that would've gone into a convention today (e.g. an affirmative-action staffing of the delegates, a nanny attitude, and, as commenters have pointed out, a document the size of the EU Constitution). That's what I would've said; instead you got a reference to Major League. Sheesh.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:38 AM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Couldn't do it. In this case, our very modernity works against us. Anyone with a keyboard or a voice in front of a camera could make noise about such a convention...whereas the Constitution was "imposed", so to speak, only by those who could afford to travel to Philly. And yeah, our concepts of inclusiveness and diversity would no doubt be wedged in there somehow. Despite what is uttered by many, that the Constitution was written for the benefit of rich white landowner males, I defy anyone to show a portion of t he Constitution and the first 10 amendments any phrase which suggests that is so. (It's laws and culture which put said calss of men on top, not the Constitution). Because of that "flaw", where specific grievances are not addressed, would doom any moden convention to utter failure. The original convention produced a document and sent it to the states to ratify. This took weeks. Today, a draft proposal would appear minutes after discussion, and a thousand blogs would all have an opinion, a thousand newspapers would scream with political spin, and you could not change to any news channel without some talking head bleating about some passage that, in his opinion, slights some minority group or special interest. This is why I always thought the circumstances in the formation of this government were utterly unique...men, who could have just said to hell with everything, didn't do that. They fought and supported the revolution, then got together afterwards because nobody else was doing it, essentially seized unified control of a proto-government, wielded enormous power, and then gave it up to the people in an organized fashion, and viola, a democratic republic. I doubt very much you will find many people like that today. Control isn't given up easily. Then again, it never has been, so why can't we follow our historical examples to the contrary?

Posted by: Jason at May 05, 2004 02:55 AM (wfp+E)

2 Jason, You wrote: "This is why I always thought the circumstances in the formation of this government were utterly unique..." The thought of America being sui generis is chilling but quite possible. This is why I get skeptical about how Iraq is going to be turned into America Jr. Offhand, many countries are either institutionalized tribes or a bunch of tribes pasted together by the flimsy tape of laws. America, OTOH, was forged from ideas, not blood. Ideas that have survived almost two and a half centuries. It couldn't be based on ancestry because America rebelled against the "homeland." As for a modern Constitution, it would be put together by a bunch of aca-dumbics (they MUST be smart, right?) teamed with celebrities that the people want to see on TV. It would be a celiberal dream, which is to say not liberal in the good sense at all. Better yet, the UN could write the Constitution for us. Hopefully Sudan will be put in charge of the articles on humyn (sic) rights.

Posted by: Amritas at May 05, 2004 04:32 AM (Vbt+u)

3 "Ideas that have survived almost two and a half centuries." Of course, slavery and monarchy are ideas that have lasted for *millennia*. Another thing that scares me is the youth of freedom. 99.99% of human history consists of variations on domination. The chief/king/Fuehrer gives orders, and you OBEY!! Sometimes I worry that America is a blip in the big picture, and that a century from now our descendants will be mindless drones for a local version of Kim Jong Il. Oh wait, we're already mindless drones for Bush. Future historians may not even be able to conceive of this thing called "freedom." In their eyes, Bush would have had to be just another emperor, because no other form of leadership would be conceivable. That is why the Left equates Bush with Hitler. They cannot imagine leaders being anything other than dictators. The trouble with Bush is not that he's an alleged dictator; it's that he's not on their side. He won't give them the statist power they crave. With the media backing them up, the LLLunatics would be able to convince most Americans that they really did know best, and that all power should be held forever in their red gloves. Why not, if so many kewl actors on their side? When the cult of the state and the celebrity become one, we're doomed.

Posted by: Amritas at May 05, 2004 04:43 AM (Vbt+u)

4 Depressing.....

Posted by: John at May 05, 2004 07:17 AM (crTpS)

5 No mention by SDB or yourself of the man that made America possible- George Washinton- President of the constitutional convention.

Posted by: Bob Stermer at May 05, 2004 08:30 AM (R8J7n)

6 The Iraqis have one advantage that the Founding Fathers didn't have. They have an example of a country that has flourished under freedom. If I was on the Iraqi council, I'd translate the US Constitution to Arabic, throw in a few Allahs, and break for lunch.

Posted by: John Davies at May 05, 2004 09:04 AM (RSkcP)

7 "If I was on the Iraqi council, I'd translate the US Constitution to Arabic, throw in a few Allahs, and break for lunch." Who says we don't still have great minds?

Posted by: Cowboy is a compliment at May 05, 2004 09:47 AM (n9YZh)

8 Actually, I think SDB did mention President Washington as the number one reason why the Constitution has lasted for so long... not for anything he did while in office, but for the fact that he retired after his second term, when he could easily have gone on to become the President-for-life of the US. His was the greatest service to America, and I wonder if anyone today would have the strength to walk away from the power Washington could have had. (Of course, at the time America wasn't much of a power, more like an apparently doomed former colony beset by enemies on all sides... so Washington's refusal to run for a third term might not have been as noble as most people think. Still, it did set a hell of a fine precedent.)

Posted by: Tatterdemalian at May 05, 2004 10:10 AM (wJmJ6)

9 All that said, we *do* have other examples of America turning imperialist nations into democracies. One of those democracies seems to be backsliding, but neither of them are anything like they were under their imperialist leaders. Being a democracy doesn't mean you have to agree with everything the US does, it just means the government must be a servant of the people, rather than the people serving the government. That definition gives a lot of leeway, and some people might consider it too much freedom (heck, look what America did to natives and Africans as a democracy), but it puts nations on the right track, and produces much better results than demanding instant perfection only to be disappointed again and again.

Posted by: Tatterdemalian at May 05, 2004 10:20 AM (wJmJ6)

10 The greatest mark of genius of our Founding Fathers is the process for CHANGE that they incorporated into the Constitution. "... a more perfect union..." This is the goal always and each generation has redefined that goal.

Posted by: rabidfox at May 05, 2004 10:31 AM (CAVPy)

11 Two examples of a Constitutional Convention today: (1) Following up on John Davies' comment (2:04pm), check out the text of the CPA/IGC proposed interim constitution for Iraq. It's short, readable, and even elegant (er, in its English translation). It is a distillation of our 1787. Whether it will come to be seen as a founding document, or as a scrap of well-meant tissue is a question for another day. (2) For a sense of what a modern-day American Convention would probably produce, read some of the skeptical commentary on the currently-pending EU Constitution. Lengthy, with turgid, impenetrable prose, it does not follow the American experiment's focus on negative rights (e.g. the right to not have the government interfere with your freedom of speech). Instead, it enumerates positive rights (e.g. to education, healthcare, pension), and enshrines the bureaucratic apparatus that will regulate the conduct of individuals and instututions within Society. Depressing, that our European friends may see the announced destination, 'Serfdom,' but are getting on the bus anyway.

Posted by: AMac at May 05, 2004 11:34 AM (tH09J)

12 Amritas: "That is why the Left equates Bush with Hitler. They cannot imagine leaders being anything other than dictators. The trouble with Bush is not that he's an alleged dictator; it's that he's not on their side. He won't give them the statist power they crave." Close. But I think the closer truth is that they can't imagine how THEY would be the dictator. Everybody who I know who leans left always has How Things Should Be Done And People Should Be Made To Do Them This Way And It's How It Should Be Done that they're quite willing to tell me about, and how to make that effective policy, or make it such that people wouldn't game the system, since they won't buy into it, etc.. well, that's just Wrong To Discuss. (In other words "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!"). It's more that THEY want to be the dictator, and of course, everybody must think like them... Addison

Posted by: Addison at May 05, 2004 11:41 AM (8FAPm)

13 Addison, After reading your post, I see everything clearly now. All that's needed is one word: ENVY Bush has power. They don't. They want it. Case closed.

Posted by: Amritas at May 05, 2004 11:48 AM (GUIbU)

14 If you want to see what would come out of a modern Constitutional convention, look at the new EU "Constitution". http://european-convention.eu.int/bienvenue.asp?lang=EN It is an enormous document that includes every fad known to humankind, and is very arguably unworkable. It also looks like no one will accept it, because it doesn't have enough stuff to make enough people happy about it.

Posted by: Ralph at May 05, 2004 11:55 AM (to9Q0)

15 If there were a CC today, I think it would be dominated by Big Business, who would buy all of the representatives. (As mentioned, most of what was written was by - and favored - white land owners.) But I think the result of a CC today would be a country controlled by Big Business, kinda like what the RoboCop movie predicted for the future of Detroit.

Posted by: _Jon at May 05, 2004 11:59 AM (ewFgD)

16 As DenBeste would put it (or perhaps he already has) the difference between the EU Constitution and our own is the notion of where government is derived. In our system, the building blocks are indeed a series of statements that say "Congress shall make no law" and enumerates what the government can and cannot do, and provides a conduit to change things if it becomes necessary to do so. In the EU, there's no concept of limited government. What, you want to restrict the powers of government? To what purpose? Government may need to change itself in a hurry, without the considerations of the governed, should it become necessary to do so. That's the big difference. One system allows for change via the electorate, the other changes itself. The former is far slower, to be sure, but at least those that are governed will have a say in the process. The latter is much faster, surer, but there are no checks to ensure that the government doesn't change to suit itself. The result? Our Constitution can fit on two pages. It's a measure of trustworthiness. The EU constitution will have to be pressed on double sided DVD, as each and every article spells out what government must provide...because if they did not, the government may decide someday not to provide it, and nobody will have any say but those currently in office.

Posted by: Jason at May 05, 2004 12:09 PM (rfgVv)

17 You said "What on earth would we do if we needed to have a Constitutional Convention today?" If I remember rightly Den Beste had an article discussing this, and I took away the impression that the single largest driving force in their "getting it right", was the necessity of convincing a variety of different states to agree to one set of laws, with the knowledge that that states (with all of their lawyers, accountants etc) are not fooled by even the densest legal jargon or feel-good prose when they are considering their bottom line (survival and future viability as a member of the nation). In modern terms I would compare that lucidity with the sense of cohesion we experienced immediately after 9/11. It has faded considerably since and we are now back to the usual BS, but for a little while there I think America was jolted into a wakefulness that would have at least been in the same ballpark as what it took to form our constitution way back when. Beyond that I would say that the general in-your-face harshness of the world back then explained the rest of the gap. I do agree that the Founding Fathers were pretty amazing individuals but I think alot can be explained by the local circumstances.

Posted by: Scott at May 05, 2004 01:44 PM (f8958)

18 I think that a modern constitutional convention could achieve a lot. Not to write a new constitution, but called to pass, say, 5-10 amendments. An ammendment keeping the government off the internet, balanced budget, maybe line item veto or federal control of the environment. The debate would be a good thing, if it was organized right. Then we could get back to strict constitutionalism. Oh, a note on the insane EU constitution, it has more pages than ours has words.

Posted by: MIchael at May 05, 2004 01:45 PM (I7JMz)

19 I hate to be a schnitzelhead, but Jefferson was in Paris during the constitutional convention of 1787, otherwise, your analysis is on the mark.

Posted by: John Cheeseman at May 05, 2004 02:44 PM (Ae7Ou)

20 Washington stepped down. So did Adams. His was as significant because another party, under Jefferson, took control of the government. And it was done without bloodshed. When did something like that happen anywhere else in the world previously? I've tried to encourage Iraqis like Zeyad and Ali to get out governmental documents translated into Arabic and spread around their country. The Federalist has digital copies of all ours, and many other historical documents pertinent to the situation. If any Arabic translators are out there willing to do such a task, it would be invaluable to the Iraqis. And I doubt our government is doeing anything like this out of concern we would be seen as trying to force our system on Iraq.

Posted by: Mike at May 05, 2004 03:37 PM (rqnO7)

21 There are a few things in this world that give me chills every time that I think of them, that make me give thanks that I'm living in this good world, and not some other. One of them is that the United States of America is the most powerful country in the world today. What if it were China, or Russia, or even France or Germany, or even the UK? To me, it puts a different perspective on America's faults.

Posted by: David Boxenhorn at May 05, 2004 05:32 PM (ARTDu)

22 "What on earth would we do if we needed to have a Constitutional Convention today?" Although I certainly have no talent for being a member of such a convention, I would want to have trust in the people that I would choose to represent me. After reading his book, I believe Randy E. Barnett has gained my trust. I would also trust SDB because of the content of his character, which is not without flaws as are we all. Whomever was to represent my interests would have to know that I will fight to retain all liberties that do not infringe on the rights of others. Also, that some liberties (life, speech, not having to ask permission to blow my nose) are more important that others (wearing a hat indoors, riding a bicycle on the sidewalk.) But I still retain the right to ride my bicycle on the sidewalk as long as the rights of others is not infringed. Not endorsing the subject matter, here's an example of Randy E. Barnett's thinking.

Posted by: ken anthony at May 05, 2004 06:11 PM (6ZsyF)

23 One day a few years ago, I told my doctor the joke, "What do you call a med student who graduates last in his class? Answer: Doctor. My doctor laughed, and then seriously commented about the qualifications of doctors. He said any doctor who graduates med school must have a minimum understanding of the field of medicine. Beyond that, doctors do vary in their skill and in their knowledge. But from a patient's point of view, it was not so important what a doctor knew, but his willingness to admit ignorance when he doesn't know the answer. My doctor said no one can know it all, so it is important to be cognizant of your limitations and seek help when it was appropriate. He suggested that a patient was better served by a doctor who relied on various resources, rather than by a super smart doctor who refused to acknowledge his limitations. Taken into the context of a Constitutional Convention, the important thing the founders did was that they acknowledged their own limitations. They did not presume to see into the future, and therefore did not try to construct a document for the ages. Ironically, by eschewing the arrogant attempt a la the EU to create the perfect government, they did create a document for the ages - a document that allowed for and has incorporated change. Today's political climate in not conducive to acknowledging limitations. So I am glad that there has been no Constitutional Convention in our time.

Posted by: Scott Harris at May 06, 2004 01:50 AM (E1M88)

24 I would have to include Bill Whittle in the list of necessary people to a modern Consitutional Convention. Of course Den Beste, also. "What would the world do without engineers? Nothing, absolutely nothing."

Posted by: Ron - WI at May 06, 2004 07:37 AM (CwrQg)

25 Congratulations on the "denbestelanche!"

Posted by: annika at May 06, 2004 01:46 PM (zAOEU)

26 TO: Sarah RE: Funny, Isn't It... ...how God works. Regards, Chuck(le) [There are no coincidences. -- Ambassador Sinclair, Babylon 5]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at May 07, 2004 06:53 PM (UT6pn)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I've been awake nine minutes and I'm already depressed.

I woke up when my alarm went off at 0615 and said forget it. Still tired, I went back to bed until 0730 and dreamt that I was blogging. Somehow I made my links into little jack-o-lanterns. Whatever.

I sat down here and within nine minutes read more about that Micah Wright moron, this rag from Ted Rall, and this pessimistic piece from Den Beste.

What a way to start off the morning. I'm afraid to head over to LGF.

MORE TO GROK:

My fears were confirmed. Sudan gets a seat on the UN Human Rights Commission.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:52 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.