My husband deploys in about a month and I haven't given it any thought at all. In fact, it just now kind of hit me. We've been so wrapped up in trying to have a baby that we haven't had time to think about any other emotions. We haven't even talked about his leaving.

And all of a sudden, I am sad. I am really going to miss him while he's gone.

I went and read the things I missed about him last time he was gone. Ha, they're all still true. Mostly this time, I will miss his company. Last time, I had many good friends whose husbands were deployed with mine, but now...well, I don't have any friends here in town. All of my friends are internet-based, and when the husband won't be coming home at the end of the day, I fear time is going to drag.

But anyway, enough about that. My husband is signing out on block leave today, so tomorrow we're headed across the country to visit his parents before he deploys. And while everything is up to date in most of the city, they haven't gone as fer as they can go at his parents' house. My in-laws don't have internet access, so I will be taking a week off of blogging. Don't have too much fun without me...

Posted by: Sarah at 09:32 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Have fun! We'll all miss you

Posted by: Ann M. at April 05, 2008 07:08 AM (HFUBt)

2 I am thinking that I may need to come see you once your husband deploys so you can teach me to knit, I can take Charlie for walks, and we can work our way through some of your awesome cookbook collection. We could make some meals to put in your freezer for later, if nothing else. But, I SERIOUSLY need to learn to knit. Or, you could come here & teach me AND GBear to knit as we live so close. LOL Have fun @ the in-laws!!

Posted by: Guard Wife at April 05, 2008 09:24 AM (BslEQ)

3 Have a great time and a safe trip!

Posted by: Butterfly Wife at April 05, 2008 09:43 AM (K0acE)

4 Hey! I'm here in town too! We just have to drag our friendship off the internet for lunch or something when you get back. You can teach me how to knit

Posted by: Green at April 05, 2008 11:44 AM (6Co0L)

5 It's funny how our love and desire grows so strong for our spouses with each deployment. Civilians will never understand the strength and committment that develops. Look forward to his return and making your bond that much stronger.

Posted by: Vonn at April 15, 2008 07:00 AM (5ZDPj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I considered writing about Obama and his "I donÂ’t want them punished with a baby" comment. Then I considered not writing about it because I am weary of thinking about other people having unwanted babies. But I will just say a couple of things.

As much as I want a baby now, that's how much I did not want a baby previously. I can't say that I would've used the word "punished," but I would not have been happy if I had gotten pregnant before I was ready. Not happy.

Right before my husband left for Iraq the last time, he was out on a training exercise for a month. During that time, my grandmother died. I was stressed with his upcoming deployment and being half a world away while my mother was losing her only living parent. And I was ten days late for my period. Even though my husband was in the field and there was no possible way I could've been pregnant, I was freaked out. I did not want a baby. I had been married for a year and a half, we had the same good relationship that we have now, and yet I did not want to have a baby yet. Not at all. I know we would've gone on to be OK with it and been a great family, but still I'm glad I wasn't pregnant back then. Even knowing what I know now -- how hard it's been to start a family -- I still can't honestly say I would've wanted it to happen four years ago.

Much less before I was married. No freaking way.

So that's my thoughts on that. I don't think "punished" was the right word to use, but I completely understand Obama's idea that a baby isn't always a blessed miracle. And while today it is really hard for me to think about all the unwanted babies in the world when we want one so badly, I still can't say I think it's appropriate to saddle young girls with a baby they don't want. Having to have a baby you don't want is the flip side of the coin to not being able to have a baby you desperately want. I wish no one ever had to live through either scenario.

Rachel Lucas has more thoughts on the matter: Reality always trumps idealism.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:39 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 397 words, total size 2 kb.

The husband is busy finishing up his MBA before he deploys, so that's why I'm writing about so many TV shows. Anyway, today I watched that National Geographic show Aftermath: Population Zero. I wanted to watch it after Lileks wrote about it, but I guess I remembered him writing more favorably about it. I checked his post again during the show and realized that it wasn't exactly a glowing report. What he said was this: "If the Aftermath show has any message, itÂ’s how useless the world would be without people." I thought he meant that's what the program showed. Nope, that's just what Lileks himself took away from the story.

I can't get past the absurdity of the claim that all humans disappeared from the face of the earth in the blink of an eye, leaving their cars and microwaves running, but no animals were touched. I can't think of any scenario that would make that happen, so some of the animal scenes seemed pretty dumb. Though I did thoroughly enjoy watching a skunk eat Frankenberry cereal.

I did enjoy watching the physics of crumbling buildings. But overall I spent most of the time rolling my eyes at how evil and awful human beings have been for the poor earth. Yep, we ruined everything.

Lileks again:

IÂ’d love to read an interview with Gaia in which she says that her goal all along was to come up with a species that could produce Beethoven and make rockets to send the music deep into space.

Now there's something to mull over...

Posted by: Sarah at 11:13 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 263 words, total size 2 kb.

I just watched a show on the Discovery Channel called "Ocean of Fear" about the sinking of the USS Indianapolis. I had never heard this story before: the cruiser was sunk by the Japanese, and the survivors floated in the Phillipine Sea for four days, suffering dehydration, injuries, and shark attacks. Shark attacks. Can you imagine surviving a torpedo in war only to float among sharks for days? And then imagine having your hand bit off by a shark and being shoved off the raft to fend for yourself because your crewmates think you'll attract more sharks.

The wikipedia entry contains this sentence:

While the Indianapolis sent distress calls before sinking, the Navy long claimed that they were never received because the ship was operating under a policy of radio silence; declassified records show that three SOS messages were received separately, but none were acted upon because one commander was drunk, another had ordered his men not to disturb him and a third thought it was a Japanese prank.

Imagine if this happened today. I have never heard of this WWII disaster at all -- and perhaps that's just my ignorance -- but it would be a major scandal if anything remotely like this happened today. People like to blame Bush and Rumsfeld for everything under the sun, but it's not like mistakes haven't been made in previous wars.

And a commander getting too drunk to answer an SOS and letting 500 men die floating in the water, well, the word "mistake" doesn't even begin to describe it.

(And shows like this, this is why I usually watch reruns of cop dramas. At least they're fiction. This just makes my heart shudder. It's excruciating. I will probably fret about this story for the rest of the day.)

Posted by: Sarah at 09:57 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 303 words, total size 2 kb.

I came across a link on MSN to an article called We Can't Get Pregnant and It's Driving Us Apart. I read it with fascination because I can relate to many parts of it. And while our troubles aren't necessarily driving us apart, I can absolutely see how they might for some people. It is stressful, it is all-consuming, and it is heartwrenching. And if you deal with your emotions differently, it can be an awful process. My husband was strong and optimistic all last year, but lately he's been the one who's getting hit the hardest every month. We're trying to be a comfort to each other, but we're both stressed and disheartened. It's really rough.

And this paragraph, this just resonates.

Throughout this three-year ordeal I've felt perpetually sad. I've become a hermit because I don't want to hear friends who got pregnant easily say, 'Just adopt.' I want to watch my belly grow, feel my baby kick and give birth. Normally, my mom would be my support, but she keeps telling me supposedly inspiring stories about women who went through multiple IVF tries before conceiving naturally.

Everyone has a story to tell you. Everyone knows someone who had that Miracle Baby™, and they think that will make you feel more optimistic. It doesn't. And everyone says "just relax and it will happen." Everyone thinks they're being helpful, when really they sometimes cause more pain.

Two weeks ago I was at work when a young mother apologized for her two year old's behavior. I said it was no big deal, and I laughed and said that I like watching parenting styles in action. This girl asked if I have kids, and then followed with, "Well, why not? You have a wedding ring on; why don't you have a kid?"

Ick.

And even the people who are a lot less boorish than this chick, even they can punch me in the gut. My husband and I have finally taken the steps needed to start getting fertility testing done, to see if we can figure out what's going on. We don't mind telling people that we are taking this step, though we have decided that we are not going to discuss the details or results of the tests with anyone. But when I gingerly told a friend the other day that we have an appointment to get tested, she said, "Oh, I bet there is nothing wrong with you." Funny, I didn't realize you have a medical degree. Thank heavens you have determined that there's nothing wrong with us.

Other people have said that we just need to get drunk and have fun. To which I replied that if all we needed to get pregnant was booze, we'd be the fricking Von Trapp family by now. Also not helpful.

There's really nothing you can say to a couple who is disheartened and discouraged. But for starters, don't say things like, "You're lucky; I get pregnant every time my husband and I are in the same room!" For couples trying desperately to have a baby, being told they're lucky is a slap in the face. They don't want to hear about your husband's super-sperm and how fertile you are, because even though you don't intend it this way, it comes off sounding like you think you're a better human specimen than they are. For already fragile egos, hearing you talk about your hardy genetic material is painful. And they sure don't want to hear you refer to your fertility as a curse.

My two-cents is to never speak in declarative sentences. Don't tell them what you did as if it's the surefire way to get pregnant (got drunk, stood on your head, waited for the full moon, went to Hawaii). If it's worth a darn, they've already tried it by now. Don't say that you're sure it will happen for them soon, because you are not at all sure of that. There's nothing worse than having someone tell you they are sure you will have a baby; there are no guarantees in this process. And don't ever ever ever tell them to "just relax." I am ready to kick the next person who says that to me in the crotch.

Instead, play Obama and tell them you "hope" everything works out for them. Tell them you hope the testing brings them more understanding, that you hope that they don't obsess about it too much, and that you hope that they know that you care about them and are wishing them the best.

And then just be a friend. The couples going through this, they are miserable. They think about it constantly, and it is right in their face every two weeks. Their entire outlook on life -- what it means to be a parent, what one's role is on this earth, etc -- has changed because of this process, and it's a very vulnerable time. Please don't make it worse by telling them your best friend's sister's neighbor got pregnant unexpectedly and so of course they will too.

But these are just my thoughts; your mileage may vary. I am ultra-sensitive to anything that smacks of criticism or ignorance these days, and hearing that I should try to time the baby for winter because I'm a knitter just makes me want to slap someone.

Though I did get a big laugh when one friend said that we have too much money and education to get pregnant, and that our best bet is to start doing heroin and attending local high school proms.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:37 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 947 words, total size 5 kb.

1 I never know what to say. I have two real life friends who have gone through this. One friend eventually had a baby, one didn't and got a boob job instead. I feel strange talking with either of them... my perspective has changed but I still don't have a damn clue what to say. My friend who eventually had a baby was absolutely amazed that I didn't do a pregnancy test the day after my period was due. She said in her circle of friends, everyone had to try so hard and had been through so much, that they knew to the moment when they could test. I felt like an ungrateful heel at that point, even though I didn't mean anything bad and neither did she. I still believe that in whatever capacity you one day become a mother, you are going to be an extraordinary one. (I hope that's ok to say and I don't get a swift kick to the crotch when I finally meet you.) Oh, and I am TOTALLY with the heroin/prom idea. If that's not a surefire road to getting knocked up, I don't know what is.

Posted by: Sis B at March 22, 2008 06:26 AM (0ZS+T)

2 I was getting the same kind of crap from the fertility doctors as we were being tested. A lot of, "these tests will all probably come up normal." Which always makes the process feel worthwhile. I even had one doctor, during the same appointment, tell me that I should consider myself lucky after three miscarriages because at least we know I can get pregnant and they had people who couldn't even do that, AND that because all my miscarriages were so early, that 'some doctors' wouldn't even count them as pregnancies. Unfortunately, people say stupid crap--sometimes they're trying to be helpful (at least, that's what I HOPE they're doing) or just out of ignorance. Just know that you have every right to tell them to mind their own business or to drop the subject.

Posted by: Ann M. at March 22, 2008 09:10 AM (HFUBt)

3 Count me in the "don't know what to say" column, but "wants desperately to help in any way possible". I remember when I was having miscarriage after miscarriage, no one could really say anything that would make me feel better, either - even if they had been through the same thing already themselves. And doctors - they generally suck at the nice. I particularly like hearing, "Your body thinks that your male fetuses are intruders and attacks and expels them much as it would a cold virus." Great. I'm giving myself abortions? Thanks so much for the info doc. Could work on that bedside manner a bit, maybe. We joke about AFG's surgery, that we "finally figured out what was causing all those kids", but the truth is we wanted more, and were told that my body just couldn't do it anymore, there was too much damage from the number of miscarriages (I check the 9+ box when I go to the doctor, but that's just because they don't have my number actually present on the form). For my part, I truly am sorry if I inadvertantly say something that is hurtful, it is certainly not meant that way. It just comes out that way because I do so want to help, and do not know what to do.

Posted by: airforcewife at March 22, 2008 11:04 AM (mIbWn)

4 I LOL at the heroin and proms joke. I'm glad that you can laugh about something in this process because you are right, it's quite an ordeal monthly! I knew I could have had it much worse. The first specialist we saw told me at our initial visit, "don't worry, you are a known commodity, you already had one." that always bugged me! I hope I never say anything stupid to you, because I also hate stupid platitudes--like i never say things when someone has died that that person is in a better place or other dumb stuff like that. i try to only say things that are more like this: "i'm sorry for your loss." So I leave it at that.

Posted by: Kate at March 22, 2008 12:24 PM (576n8)

5 Well, you've finally run me out of supportive things to say--they don't really apply. Just know I wish I could fix whatever is making this so hard for you. Hang in there and don't let this do you in. *hugs*

Posted by: FbL at March 22, 2008 12:28 PM (rW1/8)

6 I hate to know that I am probably in the "said the wrong shit, and the wrong time club"... I am guessing I am one of those folks, but I do hope the Drs. find out something. Anything... And I want you to to have a baby and name him Fred... or Frederica whatever... No go find the herion

Posted by: awtm at March 22, 2008 02:55 PM (i0YYY)

7 What I hated hearing after my miscarriage was, "Well, at least you know you can get pregnant!" As if that was the only step to having a baby. :\ We now have our baby, but if you don't count the two months he was home after a four month training (during which we decided we would try to start a family), just before the fifteen months he was deployed (the first month in which I miscarried), it took six months to finally conceive, and I didn't lose the fear of miscarriage until after I could feel Baby moving regularly. Now that Baby's out in the open, there's a whole new world of stress and terror – but I won't go into that, because I don't want to join the "Scaring Sarah" club (if I haven't already). I don't have advice. It just happens when it does. Don't lose heart . . .

Posted by: deltasierra at March 22, 2008 03:43 PM (7uphd)

8 I'm sorry.

Posted by: Allison at March 22, 2008 07:28 PM (2PnS2)

9 I'm SURE I have said the wrong thing at the wrong time countless times even though I should know better since I could have written this post myself a few years ago. I've been trying hard to just listen rather than talk, but I haven't quite perfected that either yet. I appreciate you not chucking me in the back of the head, though, and giving me a chance to prove I can be a decent friend. P.S. If you need help finding a Prom dress, let me know...I bet we can find you something phat...or def...or sick or whatever it is these kids say nowadays.

Posted by: Guard Wife at March 24, 2008 07:01 AM (BslEQ)

10 Hearing 'Just relax.', 'You need to relax.', 'If you would just relax . . .', etc. was my absolute worst nightmare. It is a great concept. It might be true. But my mind has a mind of its own. And it is a better woman than I to not be un-relaxed dealing with wanting and trying to have something everyone else seems to know just how to get. All the best.

Posted by: wifeunit at March 24, 2008 07:59 AM (iUJSf)

11 Forgive me but I am very curious about a point relating to all this - and that is how people get so caught up in the "having children" thing. I am a very black/white thinker. Not a lot of grey which may also = less emotion. I knew the odds were against me (age) and when the unexpected yanking out of the innards came, I surrendered to it. Wasn't going to happen. Ever. So for those people who cannot/have not/may never conceive - isn't there a point at which you just have to surrender to it and live your lives together even if it is childless? I mean no harm in the question. For me it simply wasn't something to dwell on. Even when it was possible I didn't watch the calendar or fret. Perhaps that need to parent isn't in me...but do you ever just let it go/surrender to that possible reality? Mind you, that doesn't stop us from spoiling our friends' kids terribly. With the best wishes and hopes for you both...

Posted by: LauraB at March 24, 2008 11:41 AM (edQ4y)

12 Wow! Cool news!Sounds a little weird, but interesting anyway. what do you guys think about it?

Posted by: ryanstiles1 at April 06, 2008 11:37 AM (htmWW)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

This is so tangential to her post that I almost feel bad leaping off from it, but after Dr. Melissa Clouthier gives dating rules for women, she ends with this

This is a lot of rules, but what it comes down to, to me, is treating someone else the way you'd like to be treated. Men might be from Mars, but they're still humans. All the male-bashing that goes on is offensive. One of my least favorite commercials features a guy ordering a pizza which will come in 30 minutes. He asks his wife for sex and she bats her eyes and asks, "What are we going to do for the other 28 minutes?" It's meant to be funny, but it just seems like more of the same disparaging of men.

I too hate that commercial. I have also been meaning to say for a long time how much I hate that tax commercial where the husband is trying to use Turbo Tax or whatever and he's frustrated. And the wife comes up and says, "Maybe you could ask for help? Oh, that's right, you used a box." It is so condescending it makes my teeth grit just to write about it. Maybe you could sit down and figure out an insanely complicated tax code, you nagging cow. How dare you condescend your husband as he tries to save money for your family.

Nowadays I look at these commercials and wonder What Would Kim Do? ever since I read his masterpiece blog post on the issue. His least favorite commercial?

The scene opens at the morning breakfast table, where the two kids are sitting with Dad at the table, while Mom prepares stuff on the kitchen counter. The dialogue goes something like this:

Little girl (note, not little boy): Daddy, why do we eat Cheerios?
Dad: Because they contain fiber, and all sorts of stuff thatÂ’s good for the heart. I eat it now, because of that.
LG: Did you always eat stuff that was bad for your heart, Daddy?
Dad (humorously): I did, until I met your mother.
Mother (not humorously): Daddy did a lot of stupid things before he met your mother.

Now, every time I see that TV ad, I have to be restrained from shooting the TV with a .45 Colt. If you want a microcosm of how men have become less than men, this is the perfect example.

What Dad should have replied to MommyÂ’s little dig: Yes, Sally, thatÂ’s true: I did do a lot of stupid things before I met your mother. I even slept with your Aunt Ruth a few times, before I met your mother.

ThatÂ’s what I would have said, anyway, if my wife had ever attempted to castrate me in front of the kids like that.

Commercials where the husband sucks abound, but one year Budweiser tried to turn the tables and made this as a Superbowl commercial:

Hmmm, apparently it wasn't too popular with the ladies. You mean you don't like being made to look a fool on TV commercials? That's funny, men take the abuse every day.

I will say that there is one husband/wife commercial that I do love: the Sonic ice cream mustache one. It makes me die laughing every time I see it. (Maybe you can only appreciate it if you have a lady mustache...)

Posted by: Sarah at 02:48 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 567 words, total size 4 kb.

Ever since Bubba said that I'd be lying if I thought I wasn't self-absorbed when I was 19, I have been trying to remember my life at 19. I managed to come up with a few things that I did that year as a freshman in college taking 34 credit hours. I belonged to a Big Sisters program and mentored a little girl. I took high schoolers on a mission trip to rebuild houses. I volunteered for a gay rights group. I ate lunch once a month with the Kiwanis Club. I raised money for the Crop Walk. I loaned a boy in my dorm $600 when he needed to get his car repaired. And I began knitting, starting with a baby blanket for a nice couple who'd struggled to have their first baby.

Was I less mature then than I am now? Of course. But would I have had the sense and common decency to know how to behave and grieve if someone got shot? Get real.

There are 19 year olds out there who have far more responsibility and maturity than I did at that age. Many of them are serving in the military. Some of them are even parents. Those young men and women don't deserve condescension.

Gunnar Becker gave his life for his country at 19. Self-absorbed? Not even close.

Posted by: Sarah at 11:53 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 1 kb.

I just watched a National Geographic special about the shooting of Ronald Reagan, and I got curious and started reading about Hinckley and Jodie Foster. I guess she doesn't like to talk about Hinckley, but she wrote a piece in 1982 called Why Me? about the event and its effect on her life.

Funny how she barely even mentions the people who got shot.

I mean, it's her story and she has every right to tell it in her way, but...how freaking self-absorbed. No, she shouldn't feel any real guilt that what happened to Reagan was her fault, because it certainly wasn't, but in a 5000-word article, she never once mentions how she feels that these men got shot? That's just freaking weird to me. It was all about her and how the media took away her privacy and how having her picture taken feels like being shot. Um, you know what feels like being shot? Being shot. Ask Reagan, Hinckley, Delahanty, and McCarthy.

Look, what happened to Foster is really scary. Some nut thought he was in love with her and decided to reenact Taxi Driver. That's spooky, and I can see how she'd be freaked out. But if some nut who loved me shot the president, I would be wringing my hands about the president, not about myself. Or I would at least mention him in the huge article I wrote about myself.

Posted by: Sarah at 12:07 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 1 kb.

1 My first thought after reading this was that you'd probably made a bad celebrity I think it's weird, too, that she could compare having her picture taken with being shot...and then not acknowledge the people who were ACTUALLY shot during the whole thing. Sure the whole thing must have been scary for her but she wasn't even in any danger during the incident.

Posted by: Ann M. at March 14, 2008 03:19 PM (HFUBt)

2 Hmmmmm lets see in 1982 Jodie Foster turned 20 on Nov 19, so she was either 19 or 20 when she wrote it, please tell me if you look back on the ages of 19 & 20 and tell you were not a self-absorbed asshole. If you do I'll call you a liar, we are all self-absorbed when we are 19 & 20, it is HUMAN NATURE.

Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at March 14, 2008 05:07 PM (AKSWt)

3 And we'll all float on, all right.

Posted by: Will at March 14, 2008 08:23 PM (0Yps+)

4 Gee, Bubba doesn't even know me and yet he's ready to call me a liar. I wonder what kind of self absorbed little world you lived in Bubba... me, I was working in nursing homes taking care of people old enough to be my great grandparents. I loved talking with them about what they'd done in their lives. I worried about them if they got sick. (yeah - I was working for the money so I guess that should've been a tip off to me that I'm completely selfish). Sarah, you're right. There are 2 types of people in the world. Those who think about things only in terms of themselves and everyone else can rot for all they care. And those with consideration for others. Never the twain shall meet. As for Jodie Foster - it is possible she wrote some paragraphs about the men who were shot and the editor felt obliged to delete them. We don't know for sure. Another thing to consider... she's been in that rare atmosphere of being a "star" from an early age, I'd have to wonder how she would learn to think of others. It is a business that inspires a person to think only of themselves.

Posted by: Teresa at March 15, 2008 07:22 AM (rVIv9)

5 Well gee so sorry teresa, when I was 19 I was in the USAF, yet I still managed to be be quite a bit more self absorbed than I am now as a 50, (yeah you read that correctly) a FIFTY year old father of two teenagers. Like I said it is human nature to be self absorbed when you're 19 & 20. So BFD you weren't as bad as the rest of your compatriot 19 & 20 years olds, if you look back and assess it honestly, you were more self absorbed then than you are now at what ever age you might be.

Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at March 15, 2008 05:51 PM (AKSWt)

6 Being "more" self absorbed at 19 and 20 is one thing. Completely ignoring two men who were SHOT because someone had a crush on you is entirely another. My son just turned 5, but he says please and thank you without prompting. And he does it because for the last 5 years of his life he WAS prompted constantly until it became second nature for him. My 5 year old, my 7 year old, and my 10 year old also hold doors for people as they enter or leave establishments. Once again, because they were TOLD to often enough that it stuck. Oh, and two days ago my 10 year old ran out into a parking lot when she saw someone's shopping bag break to help them pick up the cans that were rolling all over the parking row. Again - she has been raised to think of others, so she does without much prompting. My kids also say "excuse me" when they cough or sneeze and "I'm sorry" when they bump into someone. People getting shot is a bit bigger deal than any of those incidences, so self absorbed or not I don't think it is too much to ask for Jodie Foster to have at least spared a thought for them Perhaps some of the "self absorbed" behavior you're seeing is because of increasingly lower expectations many people have for their children, which then leads to what is being termed by sociologists as a "prolonged adolescence" in western adults. I can't speak for anyone else, but I really wasn't happy as a teenager. I was glad to leave it behind. Real life is a lot more fulfilling.

Posted by: airforcewife at March 16, 2008 04:44 AM (mIbWn)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I was just watching an old rerun of Law & Order, and the detective said that a suspect had an "arsenal registered in his name." Turns out he had five guns. An arsenal! Shoot, they should meet some of the people we know. One of my husband's buddies used his entire PCS weight allowance for ammunition. No joke. Five firearms is nothing.

Posted by: Sarah at 07:18 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.

The Girl sent me a depressing study called Still At Risk: What Students Don't Know, Even Now. Seventeen year olds were asked basic questions about history and literature; guess how they fared.

What I thought was quite interesting was that the questions the students did best on were the "I Have a Dream" speech and Uncle Tom's Cabin. So Black History Month is achieving its goals. But I think we need a White History Month to even things out, since only 74% of kids knew which century Columbus sailed to the New World and only 52% knew what the book 1984 was about (apparently 18% thought it was about time travel, backwards!) Kids don't know what JFK said in his speeches, but they know what MLK said.

My kids are going to have to read, at gunpoint if necessary.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:14 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.

1 My kids (except the 5 year old, who can identify Lincoln, Washington, Roosevelt (both), and the current President Bush know this stuff. Sonlight. Seriously. Even if you don't homeschool, the reading list is PRICELESS. All the books kids should read excepting Little House on the Prairie and Anne of Green Gables. And my girls and my boy love the list. Best thing we ever bought.

Posted by: airforcewife at February 29, 2008 07:00 AM (mIbWn)

2 Have you seen this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juOQhTuzDQ0 My 7 AND 5 year olds knew the answer to that question. How sad. What makes me the most upset is that she thinks it's cute...shouldn't she be embarrassed?

Posted by: Angie at February 29, 2008 11:06 AM (BJEkk)

3 I was watching something about this on the news the other night. And while I think it's sad that kids today don't know a lot of the stuff that I still remember from school, one guy pointed out that kids today don't need to know this stuff - they can just google it if need be. Today, education is aimed more at analyzing reading material rather than memorizing dates and names. He had a point, I think. But then again, kids should have at least a vague idea about when the Civil War occured.

Posted by: Erin at March 01, 2008 01:43 PM (y67l2)

4 Ronin loves learning about history and the presidents (especially the ones who have been assasinated--it's his obsession with death). Have you ever watched the cartoon Time Warp Trio? It's kind of fun

Posted by: Kate at March 03, 2008 01:10 PM (JIGe1)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

My husband and I both want a boy. We want a boy really badly. We always have imagined ourselves with a son. And so we laugh that when we finally, finally get pregnant again someday, we will probably definitely have a girl. Such has been our humbling experience with conception woes.

But no matter how much I'd like to have a boy, now that we've worked so hard to have a baby, any baby, this article -- "Sexual Satisfaction: Abortion and your right to accurate sex selection" -- makes me sick. There are so many people out there who would give anything to have a baby, boy or girl, and others are aborting because some stick they peed on gave them pink instead of blue? Some dubiously accurate stick at that? And then they're suing the company because they had a girl instead of a boy.

People never cease to horrify me.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:34 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.

I just finished reading the book Assassination Vacation. I have never encountered a book that I so thoroughly loved and hated simultaneously.

Some of the negative reviews on Amazon say that Sarah Vowell's writing is self-absorbed. As a blogger, heh, I live self-absorbed. I assume that people are going to want to listen to my talk of knitted monkey toes and reproductive health. So that didn't bother me at all; I found her voice charming and her style to be engaging. I also loved learning about the Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley assassinations. There were so many great tidbits in this book, and I came away knowing a lot more about the life and death of those three presidents. I also learned touching info like the fact that Ida McKinley sewed a picture of her dead husband into her knitting bag, a bag which is on display in the McKinley museum in Canton, Ohio. Now that I can relate to, that brought Ida McKinley to life for me.

I loved this book, save for the fact that Sarah Vowell has the worst case of Bush Derangement Syndrome I've seen in a long time. She can't talk about any of these assassinations without mentioning Guantanamo Bay, Rumsfeld, Abu Ghraib, etc. These tangential rants were a huge distraction in an otherwise charming book. And I mean a huge distraction. She starts out the book by sympathizing with the assassins themselves because she hates Bush so much, but quickly says that she doesn't want Bush assassinated because that would turn him into a saint. My lord. She also manages to claim that these three assassinated presidents pretty much got what was coming to them because they were Republicans. No word on JFK though.

I mean, seriously, what are you supposed to do when you come across the idea that the author feels sorry for Bill Brady but not for Ronald Reagan? Ouch.

The book could've been the perfect story of one woman's obsession with following in the footsteps of slain presidents, visiting the historical sites and marveling at the relics. Instead she turns a perfectly good book into a dated rant about the Iraq war. She made her own book irrelevant by forever linking it to 2004. It's her right to ruin her book like that, but dang. Does anyone really want to hear her liken Teddy Roosevelt to Paul Wolfowitz? Or compare Dr. Mudd's prison sentence to Gitmo? Sheesh, give it a rest.

So I don't know what I think of this book. I loved the pages where she managed to restrict her thoughts to the 19th century. But when she wandered, boy howdy did she wander. Blech.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 451 words, total size 3 kb.

I had a black roommate in college who would not walk across campus alone for fear of being lynched. One time I invited her and her boyfriend to a party, and afterwards she raved about how nice and accepting my friends were. She said she was surprised she felt so welcomed among the white kids, as if she expected the record to skip and the whole room to stop and stare when she walked in. I said that it really wasn't that big of a deal to the people I know. And that's when she revealed that the converse was not true: "There's no way I could take you to one of my parties because the black students simply would not accept you." Nice.

I knew an Eastern European foreign exchange student who thought he identified with black American culture more than white American culture, so he wanted to hang out with the black students. The first time he tried to go to a black party, they rudely asked him to leave. You have to admire his persistence though; he continued to attend their parties for weeks, being ostracized each time. Finally, a girl who was in one of his classes came up to him at his fifth or sixth party and asked him why in the heck he kept coming back when it was obvious he didn't belong. After many weeks of "proving himself," he finally made some headway, and the black students would say hello on campus and talk to him as if he were a friend.

I know these are just anecdotes, but my experience on a very predominantly white campus was that the black students self-segregated and imagined that they were being oppressed. No one even noticed when my roommate showed up at our "white" party. It was no big deal for me to include her, but she'd be going out on a major limb to bring me into her world. That's not the white students' fault; that's the black students' fault for closing themselves off.

I was reminded of these experiences when I read about Michelle Obama's thesis on race relations (via LGF).

"My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my 'blackness' than ever before," the future Mrs. Obama wrote in her thesis introduction. "I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong. Regardless of the circumstances underwhich I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second."

I can't speak for Princeton in the 80s, but this was certainly not the case at my school in 1999. And I wonder if my old roommate ever learned to relax around people, all people of all colors, and just be herself. I hope to goodness she doesn't still think she's going to get lynched.

This part of Peggy Noonan's editorial stuck with me too:

Michelle Obama seems keenly aware of her struggles, of what it took to rise so high as a black woman in a white country. Fair enough. But I have wondered if it is hard for young African-Americans of her generation, having been drilled in America's sad racial history, having been told about it every day of their lives, to fully apprehend the struggles of others. I wonder if she knows that some people look at her and think "Man, she got it all." Intelligent, strong, tall, beautiful, Princeton, Harvard, black at a time when America was trying to make up for its sins and be helpful, and from a working-class family with two functioning parents who made sure she got to school.

If Michelle Obama doesn't realize that she made it, that her life is not one "on the periphery," well, that's a damn shame. But it's not white people's fault.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:51 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 671 words, total size 4 kb.

From the comments section of a Dr. Helen post:

I think the problem is that young men come to the realization that they are not really needed. Boys grow up instinctively wanting to be heroes, but the irony is that successive generations of male heroics have made the world safe enough that women no longer need heroes in their lives; they want "partners." It comes out sounding more like a business proposition, and a rather bland one at that.

My husband is the man of the house. He lifts the heavy things, handles the money, deals with car maintenance, watches baseball, and drinks beer. He also goes to war. He doesn't cry and he doesn't complain about having to work so hard. He is my hero, and I chose him because he is a man's man. I most certainly do need heroes like him in my life.

Sorry, but reading Dr. Helen's columns and comments is a depressing activity. I felt the need to defend my husband after all that reading.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:35 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Hmm.... they must not meet many people in the military, huh? I consider my husband to be my hero, too.

Posted by: Ann M. at February 23, 2008 07:17 AM (HFUBt)

2 As you may or may not remember, I married my husband after I was convinced that, if a nuclear bomb went off and we had to live in an abandoned house or cave with our food, that he could kill anyone trying to kill me or take the food without a qualm. Hmm, no partner here, either, baby! I will survive! (He's also pretty good with the tool set and managing mutual funds, so he's the total package. And military! We're lucky women, ladies.)

Posted by: Oda Mae at February 23, 2008 08:04 AM (zqqb6)

3 Well, I handle the finances. and I have moved myself, so I'm darn sure that I know I can heavy lift if I NEED to. Like, if the world is ending or something and all that will save us is airforcewife moving that refrigerator ten feet on a dolly. But the point is that AFG does the heavy lifting here, too. And not because I'm some incapable, sheltered woman unable to care for myself, but because I like to watch him get all sweaty and have his muscles sticking out. And it makes my life a LOT easier that way. I LIKE cooking. I don't like diagnosing whatever's wrong with my minivan. I don't even like having a minivan. So the husband does that. He also puts my software on the computer, doctored my hurt toe this morning with his medic kit (very cool, that), and is teaching me krav maga. I know, I'm preaching to the choir here. But there is a reason that men evolved to do "manly" things. And I'm so darn glad that I have a manly husband! And with such a pushy, bossy wife, my husband has to be extra manly. Rowwrrrr!

Posted by: airforcewife at February 23, 2008 09:28 AM (mIbWn)

4 You know, I have to add that I really can't stand the people who hear how we've chosen to divide labor in my house and make comments about how I must be "held back" or something. Have these people never met me? Right. Spend an evening with AFG and AFW and then tell me I'm being kept down and marginalized. Psshw.

Posted by: airforcewife at February 23, 2008 09:31 AM (mIbWn)

5 Yes, when the shize hits the fan, I want Hubs there to perform all his heroics. I will say, however, that when the man runs the Dyson, empties the dishwasher, does some laundry or handles a child's needs...well, I find that pretty heroic too b/c it means that is one thing off my plate. Very sexy.

Posted by: Guard Wife at February 23, 2008 12:25 PM (BslEQ)

6 My dad often complains about the emasculation of men on most popular TV shows these days – they're portrayed as idiots living in the shadow of these powerful, all-knowing, longsuffering women, and it drives him crazy! He speculated one day as to whether that kind of mindset in society drives more young men to the military, so they can do more "manly" things (he spent 23 years in the Navy before the politics drove him out). It makes sense – my husband got tired of the rat race after being laid off for the third time in as many years and enlisted – and has never been happier with his job, even though he spends more time at a desk now than he used to as a computer tech. Unfortunately, he won't kill spiders for me anymore. It has something to do with me having my own shotgun and an orange belt in Shaolin Kempo, and his belief that any of his targets should be at 300 meters (feet?) or more . . . But he always opens my door for me and will do the dishes and vacuuming if I ask him to, so I guess I can let that slide. He's a manly-man to me, and I would NEVER do anything to let him forget it.

Posted by: deltasierra at February 24, 2008 07:11 PM (7uphd)

7 My name is Sig, and I fully endorse the preceding message. Sig

Posted by: Sig at February 25, 2008 06:24 AM (815Xj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Along with registering my gripes with travel, I hereby register my gripes with Doing Stuff. Apparently a completely fulfilling life of staying in your cozy home watching movies that have been deposited in your mailbox is "uncool." We have to Go Somewhere and Do Stuff in order to be having A Good Time.

Lileks, of course:

But in the great middle expanse of your life, you not only want to spread out, you want to be left alone, and this is taking on the characteristic of an anti-social sentiment. You should be walking around the dense neighborhood window-shopping and eating at small fusion restaurants. You should be engaged. If you want to watch a quality foreign film, good, but you should not watch it home; you should walk down to the corner theater and see it in a room full of other people, and nevermind that the start time is inconvenient and you canÂ’t pause it to go pee and the fellow in the row behind you is aerating the atmosphere with tubercular sputum. This is how they do things in New York.

Apparently there's a movie theater in town where you can see a movie over dinner and drinks; you sit at tables and they serve you food while the movie is playing. Or something like that, I've never been. But another hip young couple here is always telling us that we should be Doing Things like going to this innovative movie theater, or schlepping to the big city to go out to dinner, or heading to the beach to surf, or doing yoga, or whatever else they do with all their free time. People look at us like we're freaks when we say we've never been to the big city that's an hour away, that we've never been to the beach, that we don't eat out in restaurants. Apparently we'd have "so much fun, and it'd be romantic too" spending fifty bucks for a dinner I can make at home. And what knitter wants to watch a movie whilst eating food? Movies were invented to help knitters feel less idle; I've gotten good enough that I can watch a movie with subtitles while knitting from a chart, but I still can't do much in the darkness of a movie theater. And certainly not with a plate of food in front of me.

Nevermind that we own French, Swedish, Korean, and Serbian movies and have animated discussions about Obama and deficit spending over our homecooked meals; life is not fulfilling unless you leave the house. The looks I get from people my age indicated that we're simply not cool if we don't Go Do Things.

Call me uncool then.

Posted by: Sarah at 09:53 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 456 words, total size 3 kb.

My husband saw Castro's face on Drudge this morning, adorned with the phrase "The End," and got super-excited for cake. Sadly, there is no baking yet for Castro. But just you wait.

Past delicious cakes include:
Saddam's broken neck
Zarqawi in smithereens
Milosevic burns in hell
Bush wins and Arafat croaks
Saddam being dragged from that nasty hole
Uday and Qsay get what's coming to 'em (before I blogged)

Posted by: Sarah at 06:24 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

From an interview with Tyler Cowen:

My colleague and co-blogger Alex Tabarrok makes an interesting point. If you knew your life were much shorter you would travel to those places you always wanted to see. If you knew your life were to be much longer you would have more time to travel; again you would travel more. So, are you trying to tell me that your expected lifespan is just at that length where you shouldn't travel more? I don't buy it.

In case I haven't solidified my weirdo credentials enough on this blog, I will add more fuel to the fire: I don't really like to travel, and I'm not convinced I'd do more of it if my life were shorter or longer.

Maybe I'm just traveled out; I have been a lot of places. Or maybe I don't like the opportunity costs; I seemed just fine with travel when my parents or my college scholarship were footing the bill. I traveled the world on someone else's dime with nary a peep. But now that it's my money where my mouth is, it's suddenly not so important. I am sure that if we ever have kids, it will become more important to us, to help them see the world. It might be worth the cost then. But for now, we are oh-so-content to spend free moments in our own house.

There's no place like home, right?

I've also never been able to let go of something Paul Theroux said, that "travel is an expensive kind of laziness." You take pictures of stuff you know nothing about, just so you can show other people that you've been somewhere cool. And then speak with authority about the place. God, I hate the authority in travelers' voices. Spending the weekend in Venice does not mean you understand Italians or their way of life. I lived with a Swedish family for two and a half months, and all I can really say is that I understand that particular Swedish family. I don't delude myself that I now grok what it is to be Swedish.

I also know that one bad experience (or conversely, one good one) can change the way you feel about an entire country. I hated every aspect about living in France, but I'm self-aware enough to know that I lived a series of unfortunate events that molded my opinion. If I'd lived somewhere else with different people, like my distant relatives, I might view the entire country differently, and I probably would've continued my French career path. My bad experiences in France contributed enormously to who I am today: I discovered anti-Americanism and spent months defending my country to prejudiced Europeans. The irony is that I wouldn't be as American as I am today if I hadn't spent time in other countries, arguing why the United States is not the Great Satan.

The thing about this "expensive kind of laziness" is that travel is emotional while educating yourself is dry. My feelings about France are gut not brain, and quite separate from any knowledge I gained in my ten years of French study. My husband has never been to Iran, but I'd wager he knows more about Iranian history than many Iranians do. Because he reads books and learns facts. Sure, he doesn't have the glossy tourist photos to prove he knows Iran, but ask him about the Iranian Revolution and he starts a hundred years ago with names and dates. That's more valuable than a picture of us smiling in Tehran ever could be.

All in all, I think travel is overrated as a means of learning about the world. If you want to go see some place that you've studied and explored intellectually, I think that's fabulous. The most rewarding trips I took in Europe were to see things I'd studied: my visit to see the Iceman and my quest through the streets of Paris to find where Jean-Paul Marat was killed. But a picture of me in front of the Sphinx is no substitute for reading a book.

And I guess I'd rather read the books in the comfort of my own home than travel somewhere to get the photo taken.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:28 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 706 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I travel for a different reason: I want to get first hand knowledge of a place. I don't delude myself that I "know" the place after being there. However I think after being on the ground, and walking the streets of a place, you have a far better idea of how well the average person is doing in a certain country than expert economists could glean from statistics. You also can feel the effects of history on the current situation. So, yes, reading a history book may give you a better idea of what happened to a place before you get there, but there is nothing like going there to actual witness first-hand what the results of this was. Traveling to a place is more than taking the tourist pictures (I know many backpackers who never take a camera with them.) It's about experiencing the culture, talking to locals, trying local foods, reading a local newspaper, watching local news, going to a local sports event. I agree with you that there are many people who travel with the "been there, done that, got the t-shirt and picture" mentality. But I think you are comparing apples and oranges when you say a picture of you in front of the Sphinx is no substitute for a book. I would say that a picture of me in front of the Eiffel Tower is no substitute for reading about the French resistance, but reading about the French resistance pales in comparison to hearing about it first hand from a former resistance fighter. I think a soldier who was deployed to Iraq for a year might not know all the history, but he probably has a better feel for the local culture and customs than someone reading a book on Iraqi culture, and he probably has learned some local history that wouldn't be so easily found in history books.

Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at February 18, 2008 06:52 AM (U2RJu)

2 CVG -- I think we disagree on this...but I also think we are discussing two different types of travel. Yes, there are people who go to a place alone, learn the language, eat the food, live the life. I would never talk smack about someone like Rory Stewart. But I think Rory Stewarts are few and far between. Most people travel with their family or in groups, and when they do, it's not the same thing as Rory Stewart's walk across Afghanistan. For example, I went to Spain with a Canadian and a Mexican. We went to museums and "saw Spain," but all the while we were chatting with each other in English about crap that had nothing to do with Spain. We didn't hang out with and talk to locals or anything "enlightened" like that -- we even ate at McDonalds once -- and mostly we just walked around and took lots of pictures. OK, so I "saw" Spain, but a picture of me on a Spanish beach is the same as a picture of me on a Florida beach. And if I go there with friends or with my husband, then my memories of vacation are of conversations with people that I could've been talking to at home. Rarely are people actually out in the culture, talking to "resistance fighters." And it's not just about other countries. When we went to D.C., we raced to find the lunar module. I wanted to see the thing I had read about and learned about. But other people think it's worthwhile to go places like Chicago or Myrtle Beach, just to be in places worth talking about. "We walked around shopping and like went to bars and experienced Chicago nightlife, man"...that concept has zero appeal for me whatsoever. As for Iraq...perhaps. But there are plenty of soldiers who go to Iraq, drive their HETs during the day, play Nintendo and watch DVDs in their cormexes at night, and don't really take the time (or don't really care) to learn about Iraqi people or customs. I would say that there are book-learned people out there who do know more about Iraq than some soldiers do. Also I disagree that walking around and seeing how people live is more valuable than an economist's perspective. I have in mind a recent website I saw about what people around the globe eat in a week. I might think Ecuador's offerings seem paltry, but only someone with an economist's perspective can know for sure how lifestyle matches earnings, etc. And remember that "poor" Americans live at the standard of living of average Europeans, but I doubt many Europeans would agree that they'd be better off as poor Americans. But anyway, I'm opinionated about this topic

Posted by: Sarah at February 18, 2008 07:46 AM (TWet1)

3 Also, I need to point out to CVG that you does not have the attitude about travel that I dislike. You lived in both France and Germany for extended periods of time, and you try to approach as close to Rory Stewart-hood in your travels as you can. Your family is super-cosmopolitan, so you're not exactly the Tourist Bumpkin that grates on my nerves. That said, I still insist that travel to is not a substitute for knowledge of. Rory Stewart (to beat a dead horse) went to Afghanistan to enhance his already-deep knowledge of the country, to grok it in fullness. I think that's what travel should be about. Instead I think many people see it as a checklist, to tick off countries as they visit them so they can feel cultured and intelligent.

Posted by: Sarah at February 18, 2008 08:09 AM (TWet1)

4 I think I might be coming at this from a different place, too. I love to travel, but my travel is not a week or ten days here or there - it is going to live somewhere else for a year or more. And part of the reason that I love it is because I no longer feel like anywhere is "home" to me. I don't want to stay anywhere, I don't feel comfortable with the thought that I might live somewhere and never move again. I don't like anywhere enough for that. I think I'm really jaded in that respect. So, I do lots of reading and researching before and during the time we move somewhere, and then I back that up with actually going to the places we've read about. It brings me so much closer to the things I've read about. I love meeting all sorts of different people who do and believe and live different sorts of ways. I'm lucky that I meet new people very easily. I love the memories in each and every thing that decorates our house - not just things that I've bought at Sears or far more likely with my taste) World Market. Everything on our walls or on our mantel reminds us of something we've done, or some special time we had somewhere. And I love the fact that every time I take my kids somewhere, the realize how lucky they are to have what they have, eat what they eat, know what they know, and see what they see. Some people collect stamps, some people collect guitars, we collect memories. And our moving around and traveling is a big part of creating those memories.

Posted by: airforcewife at February 18, 2008 08:12 AM (mIbWn)

5 I just realized that I almost come off as a jacka$$ in my comment...I need to write nicer... Anyhoo...when I was writing the thing about the soldiers in Iraq, I was like: man there are some who come back not knowing anything more than hot weather and dust. BUUUUUT, it irks me when some people read articles in the newspaper and think they know more about certain situations in Iraq than someone who has been there and seen things firsthand.

Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at February 18, 2008 09:50 AM (U2RJu)

6 CVG: Crappy AP articles in a paper, forgetaboutit. But Bernard Lewis books, then we might talk. I mean, my husband checks out the most dense, awful books on Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran out of the library -- stuff I wouldn't even want to read if you paid me -- and synthesizes all of it. He and his other buddy in his class were gently correcting an Iranian teacher on his Persian history. Shoot, I also bet Joern knows more about the Civil War than I do...

Posted by: Sarah at February 18, 2008 10:12 AM (TWet1)

7 I don't really agree with you in regards to myself, but I can see your point. We spent 12 days in Hawaii last November and only for about two hours were we at the beach when we found Turtle Beach, checked out the turtles and then watched the sunset. We hiked, kayaked, ate, hiked some more, and visited the memorials. We also attended a Veteran's Day ceremony at Punchbowl. Not exactly a tourist attraction, but a ceremony I wouldn't have missed for the world. I am fascinated with WWII history and have recetly started researching Vietnam. The Veterans at Hale Koa were a wealth of information and loved sharing their stories. My husband and I were in heaven. We do have children, and we try to expose them to so many cultural things as well as travel. Granted my kids chose Washington DC over Disneyworld so they might not be "typical" kids. They might not remember that we went up in the Washington Monument other than for the pictures, but they were amazed that Washington wasn't buried there and then wanted to find out and visit where he was. Hopefully it will all have some effect on them down the road. I'm glad you know what you enjoy though, as there is no sense in partaking in something just because it is considered the "norm".

Posted by: Army Blogger Wife at February 18, 2008 03:28 PM (Y3JJK)

8 I don't like to travel much either. I find it to be a big headache and I always feel out of place anyway. All this moving around with the Army is bad enough, haha, who needs travel on top of that?

Posted by: Kasey at February 18, 2008 05:19 PM (tttDj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I thought this concept was wild:

The notion of “ecoanxiety” has crept into the culture here. It was the subject of a recent cover story in San Francisco magazine that quotes a Berkeley mother so stressed out about the extravagance of her nightly baths that she started to reuse her daughter’s bath water.

My husband and I have ecoanxiety, but our eco- is for economics. I get so excited when I find balls of yarn on sale for a dollar, but I stress too because it's an extravagance I don't need. We could be saving that dollar. I wrestle with myself in stores all over town because even though we save plenty, there's no such thing as saving too much for the future. So I guess I understand the feeling, even if I don't understand tying oneself in knots over the environment.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:16 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 144 words, total size 1 kb.

The husband and I have been watching the show Sleeper Cell lately. I remember reading reviews when this show came out that it seemed too PC because the members of the terrorist cell were all white. But AirForceWife recommended the show, and I know she wouldn't give it her stamp of approval if it were too hokey or actually-America-is-the-bad-guy feeling.

We have watched several episodes so far, and I really like how nuanced the show is. It shows all the different types of Muslims: the "jihad means inner struggle, Islam is a religion of peace" type, the "jihad means killing every single American" type, the "we should kill soldiers in Iraq, not plot terror attacks on innocent Americans" type, the conflicted "others are hijacking my religion" type, and even the goofy white kid who becomes a Muslim to tick his mother off. Plus it shows white people who mean well but who just don't get how hard it is to be a non-psycho Muslim today. I think it's really well done; it lures you into feeling sorry for some of the characters, and then you have to shake yourself and remind yourself that they're murdering a-holes. It's complex, and I like that.

I give it my stamp of approval too.

Posted by: Sarah at 10:31 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 1 kb.

My husband found a link: Homeless: Can you build a life from $25?: "In a test of the American Dream, Adam Shepard started life from scratch with the clothes on his back and twenty-five dollars. Ten months later, he had an apartment, a car, and a small savings."

I just love this. I thought Spurlock was full of baloney. Actually he was full of baloney, as he had his employer intentionally lower his wage to make his point.

Good for you, Adam Shepard.

Posted by: Sarah at 10:17 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.