December 04, 2009
STOSSEL BEGINS
FYI: John Stossel's new show begins on the Fox Business Network next Thursday, Dec 10, at 8 PM. And the first show is on Ayn Rand. I can't wait!
Posted by: Sarah at
08:23 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.
HE IS NOT THERE TO "SERVE" THEM
I still don't know what I think is the right move in Afghanistan. I still see an enormous difference in potential between Iraq and Afghanistan, and moves I thought were a good idea in Iraq don't always seem so good in Afghanistan. I personally think that counter-terrorism seems to fit Afghanistan more than COIN does, but I don't know my hat from a hole in the ground, so my opinion doesn't really count for anything.
But I can't help but keep thinking about firebombing Dresden vs vaccinating goats. It's such a different tactic. And I fear that we're starting to mistake the hearts-and-minds missions as being the end, not the means.
I wrote earlier this year about my husband's career field:
But that’s not the military goal. We have to remember that that is a means to an end: a better educated and more economically sound populace should lead to less people joining al Qaeda out of desperation, or becoming a suicide bomber for the money. I want Iraqis and Afghans to flourish, but I have an ulterior motive for that desire. I am not just blindly altruistic in my support for these missions and programs. They have to advance the cause of the US military, otherwise they're missing the point.
So when I read this interview with author Greg Mortenson this morning, I got my feathers all ruffled:
And I see that right there as an epic FAIL.
My husband is not there to "serve" the people of Afghanistan. He is there to creatively find ways to do compassionate missions, with the end goal always tucked away in the back of his mind that it only makes sense to run the mission if it will somehow benefit the American military agenda. If he wanted to build schools for needy people, he could've just joined Habitat For Humanity.
The Mortenson advice is all well and good if you are an NGO or just an kindhearted fella who wants to open schools in Afghanistan. His goal is to help those people; he "serves" them. The military doesn't; the military serves the interests of the United States. The American military is not one big money tree that Afghans can keep coming to to get "served." Or at least it shouldn't be. But every soldier working in Iraq and Afghanistan has a horror story of following Mortenson's Rule #1 and asking the local people what they need...and then getting an earful of upgrades. "We need power restored to the entire remote village." Well, have you ever had power before? Did you have power back when Saddam ran the country? No? Then how, pray tell, do you expect us to "restore" it? My husband visited a school last year and asked them what they could use; they gave him plans for a state-of-the-art kitchen they wanted installed in the cafeteria. Scale it back a bit, folks; Uncle Sugar isn't going to turn your hot plate into Paula Deen's kitchen. Especially not if it's not going to get us anything in return. I want to be assured of quid pro quo before we vaccinate anybody's goats, or at least have a pretty good idea that we'll get something for our effort.
The US military is not one big charity organization trying to fix Afghanistan. Let the Gates Foundation do stuff like that. Our missions need to have purpose and need to be grounded in some sense of how this helps the overall goals of our fighting force: If I vaccinate this goat or build this school, will ol' Farzad in the village let us know is he hears rumors of the next planned attack? If not, then Farzad can find his own damn vaccination.
We are not there to "serve" him.
UPDATE:
Related thoughts from Ralph Peters on TV. Clip here. Relevant quote:
But I can't help but keep thinking about firebombing Dresden vs vaccinating goats. It's such a different tactic. And I fear that we're starting to mistake the hearts-and-minds missions as being the end, not the means.
I wrote earlier this year about my husband's career field:
There are people even within Civil Affairs who think that their tasks are the end-goal. There are people who think that how many goats they vaccinated and how many school supplies they dropped off are their accomplishments. My husband, however, always takes a long-term, big-picture view of the world. The goal is not vaccinated goats but whether helping that goatherd made Special Forces' job easier and thus helped advance the cause of defeating our enemies. The healthy goats are the means, not the end.
It's a fascinating way to look at his job, and sadly it takes a confident person to accept that role. Civil Affairs as a branch doesn't want to see itself as just a tool for Special Forces. Some in the branch look askance at my husband when his briefings show the Civil Affairs work as Phase 2 and what SF built out of their work as Phase 3. They want to feel like their role is important. It certainly is, but only if it helps get us closer to the bad guy.
Happy, healthy goats in Afghanistan shouldn't be our goal; winning should.
The reason we are in this war is to stop terrorists from killing Americans. The point is to prevent another 9/11, to cut off the funding for and state-sponsorship of terrorism, and to kill as many al Qaeda and terrorists as possible. We vaccinate the goats because hopefully that will help nice Afghans and Iraqis point out where the bad guys are, or take up arms and help us fight them. We don’t vaccinate the goats because we want to do charity work for them.
But that’s not the military goal. We have to remember that that is a means to an end: a better educated and more economically sound populace should lead to less people joining al Qaeda out of desperation, or becoming a suicide bomber for the money. I want Iraqis and Afghans to flourish, but I have an ulterior motive for that desire. I am not just blindly altruistic in my support for these missions and programs. They have to advance the cause of the US military, otherwise they're missing the point.
So when I read this interview with author Greg Mortenson this morning, I got my feathers all ruffled:
I guess Gen. Petraeus could sum it up better than me, but he sent me an e-mail last year and he had read "Three Cups of Tea," and he said there were three lessons from the book that he wanted to impart to his troops. No. 1, he said, we need to listen more; No. 2, we need to have respect, meaning we are there to serve the good people of Afghanistan; and No. 3, we need to build relationships. "Three Cups of Tea" now is mandatory reading for all senior U.S military commanders, and all special forces deploying to Afghanistan are required to read it. [emphasis mine]
And I see that right there as an epic FAIL.
My husband is not there to "serve" the people of Afghanistan. He is there to creatively find ways to do compassionate missions, with the end goal always tucked away in the back of his mind that it only makes sense to run the mission if it will somehow benefit the American military agenda. If he wanted to build schools for needy people, he could've just joined Habitat For Humanity.
The Mortenson advice is all well and good if you are an NGO or just an kindhearted fella who wants to open schools in Afghanistan. His goal is to help those people; he "serves" them. The military doesn't; the military serves the interests of the United States. The American military is not one big money tree that Afghans can keep coming to to get "served." Or at least it shouldn't be. But every soldier working in Iraq and Afghanistan has a horror story of following Mortenson's Rule #1 and asking the local people what they need...and then getting an earful of upgrades. "We need power restored to the entire remote village." Well, have you ever had power before? Did you have power back when Saddam ran the country? No? Then how, pray tell, do you expect us to "restore" it? My husband visited a school last year and asked them what they could use; they gave him plans for a state-of-the-art kitchen they wanted installed in the cafeteria. Scale it back a bit, folks; Uncle Sugar isn't going to turn your hot plate into Paula Deen's kitchen. Especially not if it's not going to get us anything in return. I want to be assured of quid pro quo before we vaccinate anybody's goats, or at least have a pretty good idea that we'll get something for our effort.
The US military is not one big charity organization trying to fix Afghanistan. Let the Gates Foundation do stuff like that. Our missions need to have purpose and need to be grounded in some sense of how this helps the overall goals of our fighting force: If I vaccinate this goat or build this school, will ol' Farzad in the village let us know is he hears rumors of the next planned attack? If not, then Farzad can find his own damn vaccination.
We are not there to "serve" him.
UPDATE:
Related thoughts from Ralph Peters on TV. Clip here. Relevant quote:
In 2001, we didn't go to Afghanistan to turn it into Disneyworld. We didn't go there to buy retirement homes. We went there to kill al Qaeda and punish the Taliban for harboring them. Mission accomplished by late spring of 2002. Imperfect? Hey, the world's an imperfect place. But...we stayed, because we convinced ourselves that -- although we still haven't rebuilt the Twin Towers -- that we were going to build a modern, wonderful Afghanistan. Ain't gonna happen, ain't worth the effort, even if it worked we get nothing out of it. Judge, the purpose in 2001 was right: kill al Qaeda wherever they are.
Posted by: Sarah at
01:16 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1202 words, total size 8 kb.
December 03, 2009
FLOORED BY COINCIDENCE
I am just absolutely reeling right now. Floored by coincidence.
I have a friend in my knitting group whose husband died as a contractor in Iraq. She has never been forthcoming with details, and I certainly have never wanted to pry. But last week she let me know that an episode of Battlefield Diaries would be on the Military Channel, and that it was the attack her husband was killed in.
I had no idea he was killed in the convoy where Matt Maupin was captured. Nor did I have any idea that I knew the lieutenant who led that convoy; Matt Brown and I were in youth group together in high school.
I am just stunned by the coincidence right now.
I have a friend in my knitting group whose husband died as a contractor in Iraq. She has never been forthcoming with details, and I certainly have never wanted to pry. But last week she let me know that an episode of Battlefield Diaries would be on the Military Channel, and that it was the attack her husband was killed in.
I had no idea he was killed in the convoy where Matt Maupin was captured. Nor did I have any idea that I knew the lieutenant who led that convoy; Matt Brown and I were in youth group together in high school.
I am just stunned by the coincidence right now.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:30 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.
WHAT IF?
Diana West asks an interesting question (via Amritas):
[W]hat if WWII had been fought as a "counterinsurgency"?
What if, instead of firebombing every important German city and killing tens of thousands of civilians from Hamburg to Dresden, and instead of firebombing Tokyo and nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki and tens of thousands of Japanese in the all-out effort to defeat the Axis powers and End All Fighting, the Allies had sought instead to win hearts and minds?
What if Gen. Eisenhower, like Gen. McChrystal today in Afghanistan, wandered through German towns, asking das volk, "What do you need?
Posted by: Sarah at
02:02 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.
December 02, 2009
TERRORISM THAT'S PERSONAL
When I was 21, a boy asked me to marry him. He wasn't the right person for me, and I had to politely decline the surprising offer. I'm sure it hurt his feelings, but that was the extent of it.
And that's what I thought of when I saw Terrorism That's Personal. (Warning: graphic content that will make you cry.) No one threw acid on me or tried to kill me.
I was allowed to not marry him.
Many women in this world are not allowed to make that choice. Or when they do make that choice, they must live with the consequences of wanting some control over their own lives. Blindness, disfigurement, even death.
My heart is sick for these women.
(via Cass)
And that's what I thought of when I saw Terrorism That's Personal. (Warning: graphic content that will make you cry.) No one threw acid on me or tried to kill me.
I was allowed to not marry him.
Many women in this world are not allowed to make that choice. Or when they do make that choice, they must live with the consequences of wanting some control over their own lives. Blindness, disfigurement, even death.
My heart is sick for these women.
(via Cass)
Posted by: Sarah at
07:50 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.
December 01, 2009
"LOOK AT YOUR MAP"
Last night I was interviewed for an article called "Families Await News From Afghanistan." I only played a small role in the article, probably because I wasn't sure exactly what was expected of me. Truthfully, I felt that giving my opinion before Pres Obama's speech was a waste of time, because the specifics of what he'd say is what really means something. Who cares what I think the night before I know what's going on? The reporter -- who was very nice and professional and quoted me accurately (except that I know for a fact I always called him "President Obama" and not just "Obama," as I was quoted as saying. Out of respect for the office of the presidency, I make a point of never calling him just by his last name.) -- asked me what I thought of the proposed additional 30,000 troops and what I thought about the inclusion of an exit strategy. And my answer, which is not conducive to news articles, is that it depends.
What I answered was that it depends on what the 30,000 will be used for. Will they be sent to urban or rural areas? Will they be doing counter-insurgency or counter-terrorism? And as far as an exit goes, I said it depends on whether Pres Obama announces what the end game is. Will he state concrete goals? Will he announce a victory strategy? It makes no sense to denote an arbitrary end to a war based on running out the clock; what does victory look like to the Obama administration?
And I obviously over-thought the substance of the article, because I was apparently over-expectant on the substance of the speech.
I wanted details. I can't form any opinions on whether we're making the right move if I don't know the specifics. And I feel like I didn't learn anything new from listening to Pres Obama's speech tonight than what I already knew from what got leaked ahead of time. (Except I learned there is something called a "tool of mass destruction." Which sounds more like a witty insult than something serious.)
What I wanted was Perot or Beck-style charts and graphs. I wanted another version of FDR's fireside chat On the Progess of the War.
Read that and imagine any recent president talking to us citizens this way. Imagine being treated like you have a brain in your head, and that you're a part of what's taking place. Imagine your president asking you to follow his complex speech on a map or with pen and paper.
Instead, we got "We will not target other people...because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours." And praise for teachers, community organizers, and "Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad."
That's all well and good, but I wanted details about Afghanistan.
I don't know why I expected I would get that.
MORE:
Vodkapundit drunkblogged.
What I answered was that it depends on what the 30,000 will be used for. Will they be sent to urban or rural areas? Will they be doing counter-insurgency or counter-terrorism? And as far as an exit goes, I said it depends on whether Pres Obama announces what the end game is. Will he state concrete goals? Will he announce a victory strategy? It makes no sense to denote an arbitrary end to a war based on running out the clock; what does victory look like to the Obama administration?
And I obviously over-thought the substance of the article, because I was apparently over-expectant on the substance of the speech.
I wanted details. I can't form any opinions on whether we're making the right move if I don't know the specifics. And I feel like I didn't learn anything new from listening to Pres Obama's speech tonight than what I already knew from what got leaked ahead of time. (Except I learned there is something called a "tool of mass destruction." Which sounds more like a witty insult than something serious.)
What I wanted was Perot or Beck-style charts and graphs. I wanted another version of FDR's fireside chat On the Progess of the War.
That is the reason why I have asked you to take out and spread before you (the) a map of the whole earth, and to follow with me in the references which I shall make to the world-encircling battle lines of this war.
[...]
Look at your map.
[...]
Heavy bombers can fly under their own power from here to the southwest Pacific, either way, but the smaller planes cannot. Therefore, these lighter planes have to be packed in crates and sent on board cargo ships. Look at your map again; and you will see that the route is long – and at many places perilous – either across the South Atlantic all the way (a)round South Africa and the Cape of Good Hope, or from California to the East Indies direct. A vessel can make a round trip by either route in about four months, or only three round trips in a whole year.
In spite of the length, (and) in spite of the difficulties of this transportation, I can tell you that in two and a half months we already have a large number of bombers and pursuit planes, manned by American pilots and crews, which are now in daily contact with the enemy in the Southwest Pacific. And thousands of American troops are today in that area engaged in operations not only in the air but on the ground as well.
In this battle area, Japan has had an obvious initial advantage. For she could fly even her short-range planes to the points of attack by using many stepping stones open to – her bases in a multitude of Pacific islands and also bases on the China coast, Indo-China coast, and in Thailand and Malaya (coasts). Japanese troop transports could go south from Japan and from China through the narrow China Sea, which can be protected by Japanese planes throughout its whole length.
I ask you to look at your maps again, particularly at that portion of the Pacific Ocean lying west of Hawaii. Before this war even started, the Philippine Islands were already surrounded on three sides by Japanese power. On the west, the China side, the Japanese were in possession of the coast of China and the coast of Indo-China which had been yielded to them by the Vichy French. On the North are the islands of Japan themselves, reaching down almost to northern Luzon. On the east, are the Mandated Islands – which Japan had occupied exclusively, and had fortified in absolute violation of her written word.
[...]
Look at your map.
[...]
Heavy bombers can fly under their own power from here to the southwest Pacific, either way, but the smaller planes cannot. Therefore, these lighter planes have to be packed in crates and sent on board cargo ships. Look at your map again; and you will see that the route is long – and at many places perilous – either across the South Atlantic all the way (a)round South Africa and the Cape of Good Hope, or from California to the East Indies direct. A vessel can make a round trip by either route in about four months, or only three round trips in a whole year.
In spite of the length, (and) in spite of the difficulties of this transportation, I can tell you that in two and a half months we already have a large number of bombers and pursuit planes, manned by American pilots and crews, which are now in daily contact with the enemy in the Southwest Pacific. And thousands of American troops are today in that area engaged in operations not only in the air but on the ground as well.
In this battle area, Japan has had an obvious initial advantage. For she could fly even her short-range planes to the points of attack by using many stepping stones open to – her bases in a multitude of Pacific islands and also bases on the China coast, Indo-China coast, and in Thailand and Malaya (coasts). Japanese troop transports could go south from Japan and from China through the narrow China Sea, which can be protected by Japanese planes throughout its whole length.
I ask you to look at your maps again, particularly at that portion of the Pacific Ocean lying west of Hawaii. Before this war even started, the Philippine Islands were already surrounded on three sides by Japanese power. On the west, the China side, the Japanese were in possession of the coast of China and the coast of Indo-China which had been yielded to them by the Vichy French. On the North are the islands of Japan themselves, reaching down almost to northern Luzon. On the east, are the Mandated Islands – which Japan had occupied exclusively, and had fortified in absolute violation of her written word.
Read that and imagine any recent president talking to us citizens this way. Imagine being treated like you have a brain in your head, and that you're a part of what's taking place. Imagine your president asking you to follow his complex speech on a map or with pen and paper.
Instead, we got "We will not target other people...because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours." And praise for teachers, community organizers, and "Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad."
That's all well and good, but I wanted details about Afghanistan.
I don't know why I expected I would get that.
MORE:
Vodkapundit drunkblogged.
he’s decided to send an additional 30,000 troops for 30 months. That’s not a strategic decision. That’s a new-car warranty.
Bad writing. Lame delivery. Tepid response — from cadets ORDERED to be nice. And a strategic vision equal parts High School Essay Content and low-rent public relations.
Bad writing. Lame delivery. Tepid response — from cadets ORDERED to be nice. And a strategic vision equal parts High School Essay Content and low-rent public relations.
Posted by: Sarah at
09:08 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 953 words, total size 6 kb.
GLOBAL WARMING FLOW CHARTS
There's a good post at The Devil's Kitchen (via The Corner) with flow charts explaining how we ought to make decisions on global warming vs how we do. I have debated this with real-world friends and have always tried to steer it towards the Ought flow chart, but it always ends up skipping right ahead to the "We're all going to die" box. Laymen, especially quasi-treehuggers, don't want to talk about cost-benefit analysis; I've been told that we need to err on the side of caution and try to prevent climate change from happening no matter the cost because it's For The Childrenâ„¢. And even when I try to play Bjorn Lomborg, as I've said I always try to do to concede some ground in the debate, and say that there are things we can do to save The Children right now instead of in 100 years, it never seems to have much effect.
If anything, Climategate can at least give me another talking point to get us off the bozo flow chart and back onto the Ought one. The science is most certainly not settled, so any decisions you make For The Children based on the "consensus" are flawed.
But what do I know, I don't even recycle.
UPDATE:
Slightly related, I enjoyed this comment on Althouse's post (via Boxenhorn).
We're even better at making their arguments for them!
And here's a great summary of Climategate itself. (I just discovered that the link doesn't go directly to the comment, so I am reposting it here.)
If anything, Climategate can at least give me another talking point to get us off the bozo flow chart and back onto the Ought one. The science is most certainly not settled, so any decisions you make For The Children based on the "consensus" are flawed.
But what do I know, I don't even recycle.
UPDATE:
Slightly related, I enjoyed this comment on Althouse's post (via Boxenhorn).
He easily could've made an argument that Republicans are sceptical of
anything which tries to paint Capitalism in as bad a light as possible,
or that we are not idealistic so much as pragmatic, and realise that
academia (who fired the first AGW volleys) are mostly left-wingers
intent on hounding corporations for their multiple "crimes".
But no, he goes for the "Republicans are dumb and don't like science [read, because they are religious and therefore are all creationists]".
But no, he goes for the "Republicans are dumb and don't like science [read, because they are religious and therefore are all creationists]".
We're even better at making their arguments for them!
And here's a great summary of Climategate itself. (I just discovered that the link doesn't go directly to the comment, so I am reposting it here.)
The reason why people say it has warmed at all in the last 100 years is
because the CRU told them so. How did CRU come to that conclusion?
Well, NASA gave the raw temperature readings for however many years
such things existed. CRU then proceeded to "adjust" those readings.
Clearly, some adjustment and almalgamation was needed to get the proper
global temperature measurements. But were CRU's adjustments done
correctly?
Understand, this is a really hard question. We don't know what the actual global temperature is. We are supposed to figure that out by looking at the temperature data and adjusting it accordingly. But if you don't know the final answer how do you know the adjustments are correct? That is a hard question.
But we will never know if the adjustments were done properly because the CRU destroyed the raw temperature readings. They only have their adjusted or "value added" readings. But there is no way to tell now if those readings are correct.
The whole proposition that the world warmed over the last 100 years is now in question. For all we know, the world could be cooler now than it was in 1900. We have only CRU's word and adjustments to go on. And CRU has been revealed to be a complete fraud. Basically, climate science has to start over from square one.
Understand, this is a really hard question. We don't know what the actual global temperature is. We are supposed to figure that out by looking at the temperature data and adjusting it accordingly. But if you don't know the final answer how do you know the adjustments are correct? That is a hard question.
But we will never know if the adjustments were done properly because the CRU destroyed the raw temperature readings. They only have their adjusted or "value added" readings. But there is no way to tell now if those readings are correct.
The whole proposition that the world warmed over the last 100 years is now in question. For all we know, the world could be cooler now than it was in 1900. We have only CRU's word and adjustments to go on. And CRU has been revealed to be a complete fraud. Basically, climate science has to start over from square one.
Posted by: Sarah at
08:08 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 555 words, total size 4 kb.
November 30, 2009
SLOW NEWS WEEK
All's well that ends well in Honduras. Good for them.
(Slow news week, eh? A short list of things I don't care about: Tiger Woods, White House party crashers, the recordings from Flight 188, Christmas shopping tips, and everything else that's been on the news since Thanksgiving.)
(Slow news week, eh? A short list of things I don't care about: Tiger Woods, White House party crashers, the recordings from Flight 188, Christmas shopping tips, and everything else that's been on the news since Thanksgiving.)
Posted by: Sarah at
03:13 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.
November 29, 2009
TABLES HAVE TURNED
My family is doing Thanksgiving today because my brother and dad had to work on the real holiday. And I got such a chuckle when my mom called to ask how I make my cranberry sauce. I'm just glad she didn't call me in the middle of the night!
Posted by: Sarah at
10:08 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.
PROFIT LOGIC
A good blog post via Amritas about how there's no logic to profit-based hatred:
Read the whole thing, and see if you can guess ahead of time how much profit medical insurance companies make.
while politicians routinely attack BIG oil for its high profits, the
same politicians are silent about the highER profit margins of Apple,
Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo. For every dollar Exxon keeps after paying
their bills, Google keeps $3. Exxon is attacked because they sell more
units than Google, but in reality, Google is keeping more of the
customer’s money. Politicians don’t concern themselves with this kind
of stuff, because Google is very popular with the electorate, and oil
companies are not.
Read the whole thing, and see if you can guess ahead of time how much profit medical insurance companies make.
Posted by: Sarah at
09:59 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.
November 27, 2009
LIKE NEO
Frank J has a Republican Purity Test. I like #3.
Posted by: Sarah at
09:30 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.
November 26, 2009
TODAY'S PLANS
My Thanksgiving SpouseBUZZ post: The Tradition of No Traditions
Posted by: Sarah at
08:59 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.
November 25, 2009
SELFLESS PARENTS
Two years ago, I wrote about something my father did that I found completely selfless and the true essence of parenting: he lent me his glasses. But I never wrote the post I could've written six years ago when my mother did the same.
My husband and I hosted our first Thanksgiving dinner when we lived in Germany. I had called my mother ahead of time and asked for all her recipes and how to cook a turkey, stuffing, gravy, and just about everything. I got started on Thanksgiving morning, thinking that I was squared away, but once I began cooking, I realized I still had several questions. Questions that couldn't wait several hours until Mom's time zone caught up to morning.
And so I gulped and picked up the phone. I called my mother in the middle of the night back in the US to have her walk me through some last minute snags. (Like what in the hell I was supposed to do with the neck. Turkey neck is about the grossest thing I can think of. I'd rather have a mouse in my kitchen than deal with a turkey neck. I am already freaking out that I have to touch one tomorrow.)
My mom wasn't upset that I interrupted her sleep, she never acted put out, she just answered my questions and helped me keep on cooking. And poor mom had to make her own dinner in a few hours, now on much less sleep.
I have been feeling cold feet lately, worried that I might not be a good mother, that I might not enjoy it, that I will be overwhelmed by the magnitude of what I am taking on. But when I think of these times that my parents still selflessly help me out, even when I'm an adult, I figure that they wouldn't do that if being a parent weren't rewarding.
Thanks, Mama. And if I need help tomorrow, at least we're only one time zone apart this year...
My husband and I hosted our first Thanksgiving dinner when we lived in Germany. I had called my mother ahead of time and asked for all her recipes and how to cook a turkey, stuffing, gravy, and just about everything. I got started on Thanksgiving morning, thinking that I was squared away, but once I began cooking, I realized I still had several questions. Questions that couldn't wait several hours until Mom's time zone caught up to morning.
And so I gulped and picked up the phone. I called my mother in the middle of the night back in the US to have her walk me through some last minute snags. (Like what in the hell I was supposed to do with the neck. Turkey neck is about the grossest thing I can think of. I'd rather have a mouse in my kitchen than deal with a turkey neck. I am already freaking out that I have to touch one tomorrow.)
My mom wasn't upset that I interrupted her sleep, she never acted put out, she just answered my questions and helped me keep on cooking. And poor mom had to make her own dinner in a few hours, now on much less sleep.
I have been feeling cold feet lately, worried that I might not be a good mother, that I might not enjoy it, that I will be overwhelmed by the magnitude of what I am taking on. But when I think of these times that my parents still selflessly help me out, even when I'm an adult, I figure that they wouldn't do that if being a parent weren't rewarding.
Thanks, Mama. And if I need help tomorrow, at least we're only one time zone apart this year...
Posted by: Sarah at
06:15 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 337 words, total size 2 kb.
November 24, 2009
WHO'S DELAYING JUSTICE?
Holder has some nerve. From Marc Thiessen:
Only after KSM had been exhausted as an intelligence source did President Bush transfer him and 13 other terrorists to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for trial by military commission. Once the legal obstacles had been cleared in 2008, the commissions finally got underway. And when they did, KSM and his co-conspirators all offered to plead guilty before a military commission and proceed straight to execution.
With his decision to send them to civilian court, Holder has
effectively rejected KSM's guilty plea and told him, "No, Mr. Mohammed,
first let us give you that stage you wanted in New York to rally
jihadists, spread propaganda, and incite new attacks." Indeed, a lawyer
for one of the detainees has said that all five intend to plead not guilty
"so they can have a trial and try to get their message out." Were it
not for Holder, they'd be on death row instead of preparing for a trial
that will take years and make the
Posted by: Sarah at
02:31 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 2 kb.
JONAH ON THANKSGIVING
There's just so much funny and right in this that you have to read the whole thing.
Posted by: Sarah at
02:30 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.
SARAH PALIN BOOK SIGNING
When the book tour stop was announced in my town, Lorie Byrd contacted me and asked if I planned to go see Sarah Palin. I really hadn't considered it at all: standing in line for hours didn't seem like a fun idea while six months pregnant. And I'm not really an "autograph person"; I'd rather hear someone's ideas than just shake her hand. They had said Palin would not give a speech, and I didn't see much point in just getting her to scribble in a book with a sharpie. (Sorry, that's how I see autographs.) But I thought it could be fun to see Lorie, and we were on the same page that if it was too much of a zoo, we wouldn't wait all day in line.
Lorie decided that maybe one of her friends in high places could get us a better deal. She contacted a big-time blogger who checked into it. I had no illusions whatsoever that we would get special treatment, and we just headed to the signing like everyone else. But on the drive there, we got a call from Andrew, one of the organizers for the event. Amazingly enough, he gave us the VIP treatment. We got special seats within the inner circle of velvet ropes to watch the preparations and festivities. The staff was working hard and really efficiently. And Andrew even brought fatty fat me donuts.
When Sarah Palin arrived, we were the first people she greeted: me, Lorie, and another blogger from Conservatives4Palin. Yay for the perks of new media!
They got the ball rolling right away and she started signing books. The staffers moved everyone through efficiently and briskly, yet Sarah Palin had this amazing way of making you feel like you weren't rushed. She shook everyone's hands, asked people their names, held babies, and really made each person feel like the most special person in line. All while the staff moved like clockwork around her to hustle as many people through the line as possible. It was impressive.
We sat for a bit from our VIP chairs, trying to catch a photo of Palin in between fans. It wasn't easy. Lorie and I laughed and showed each other all of our blurry and bad photos. I only had one that was even remotely OK.
The staff then put Lorie and me into the line. They told Palin we were bloggers and that my husband is in Afghanistan. She said to tell him that she loves him for what he does, and then she pointed at my belly and asked how I was doing. She was as charming as can be.
Lorie's motto is "it doesn't hurt to ask," so she had asked if there was someone else from Palin's entourage we could briefly interview for our blogs. After we got our books signed, the staff showed up with Sarah Palin's father for us to chat with. Lorie asked him how the tour was going so far, but he had just flown in to join the tour the night before. He was super nice. I asked how his grandson was doing after his deployment, and we chatted a bit about how hot it gets in Iraq and about my husband being in Afghanistan. It was so nice of Mr. Heath to spend a few minutes with us. He was delightful as well.
I still can't believe Lorie had the guts to get us access. I am an absolute nobody, but we got treated so well and like real VIPs. And Sarah Palin is an genius at making everyone around her feel special and appreciated. She really made it feel like she was the one who was lucky to meet all 4,000 of us, and not the other way around. Now that's charisma.
I had a good time, and I'm glad Lorie is the type of gal who's a go-getter, otherwise I never would've had the day I had. And a special thanks to Andrew for treating a couple of bloggers like VIPs.
Further reading: Lorie's post
When the book tour stop was announced in my town, Lorie Byrd contacted me and asked if I planned to go see Sarah Palin. I really hadn't considered it at all: standing in line for hours didn't seem like a fun idea while six months pregnant. And I'm not really an "autograph person"; I'd rather hear someone's ideas than just shake her hand. They had said Palin would not give a speech, and I didn't see much point in just getting her to scribble in a book with a sharpie. (Sorry, that's how I see autographs.) But I thought it could be fun to see Lorie, and we were on the same page that if it was too much of a zoo, we wouldn't wait all day in line.
Lorie decided that maybe one of her friends in high places could get us a better deal. She contacted a big-time blogger who checked into it. I had no illusions whatsoever that we would get special treatment, and we just headed to the signing like everyone else. But on the drive there, we got a call from Andrew, one of the organizers for the event. Amazingly enough, he gave us the VIP treatment. We got special seats within the inner circle of velvet ropes to watch the preparations and festivities. The staff was working hard and really efficiently. And Andrew even brought fatty fat me donuts.
When Sarah Palin arrived, we were the first people she greeted: me, Lorie, and another blogger from Conservatives4Palin. Yay for the perks of new media!
They got the ball rolling right away and she started signing books. The staffers moved everyone through efficiently and briskly, yet Sarah Palin had this amazing way of making you feel like you weren't rushed. She shook everyone's hands, asked people their names, held babies, and really made each person feel like the most special person in line. All while the staff moved like clockwork around her to hustle as many people through the line as possible. It was impressive.
We sat for a bit from our VIP chairs, trying to catch a photo of Palin in between fans. It wasn't easy. Lorie and I laughed and showed each other all of our blurry and bad photos. I only had one that was even remotely OK.
The staff then put Lorie and me into the line. They told Palin we were bloggers and that my husband is in Afghanistan. She said to tell him that she loves him for what he does, and then she pointed at my belly and asked how I was doing. She was as charming as can be.
Lorie's motto is "it doesn't hurt to ask," so she had asked if there was someone else from Palin's entourage we could briefly interview for our blogs. After we got our books signed, the staff showed up with Sarah Palin's father for us to chat with. Lorie asked him how the tour was going so far, but he had just flown in to join the tour the night before. He was super nice. I asked how his grandson was doing after his deployment, and we chatted a bit about how hot it gets in Iraq and about my husband being in Afghanistan. It was so nice of Mr. Heath to spend a few minutes with us. He was delightful as well.
I still can't believe Lorie had the guts to get us access. I am an absolute nobody, but we got treated so well and like real VIPs. And Sarah Palin is an genius at making everyone around her feel special and appreciated. She really made it feel like she was the one who was lucky to meet all 4,000 of us, and not the other way around. Now that's charisma.
I had a good time, and I'm glad Lorie is the type of gal who's a go-getter, otherwise I never would've had the day I had. And a special thanks to Andrew for treating a couple of bloggers like VIPs.
Further reading: Lorie's post
Posted by: Sarah at
11:45 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 681 words, total size 4 kb.
STATUS UPDATE
How I would write it on Facebook, if I posted such thoughts as these on Facebook:
Sarah is enjoying a bit of schadenfreude that the folks at Sadly, No are getting belittled.
Posted by: Sarah at
11:27 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.
November 23, 2009
FOR THEE BUT NOT FOR ME
Via Instapundit, who says, "A rule under which only politicians have guns strikes me as the worst of all possible worlds."
Chicago politicians are zealously
committed to gun control in law but fairly relaxed about it in
practice.
In 1994, State Sen. Rickey Hendon had an unregistered handgun stolen from his home in a burglary, and he didn't feign contrition about his disregard of the ordinance.
"I have a right to protect myself," he declared, noting that he had been burglarized before—and forgetting that the state legislature of which he is a member allows Illinois cities to deprive their citizens of that right. Asked if he would replace the lost piece, Hendon said, "No comment." The police were kind enough not to charge him.
U.S. Sen. Roland Burris, another Chicagoan, has endorsed a
nationwide ban on handguns and, in 1993, organized Chicago's
first Gun Turn-in Day. But the following year, while running
unsuccessfully for governor, he admitted he owned a handgun—"for
protection," he explained—and hadn't seen fit to turn it in along
with those other firearms. Lesser mortals apparently can protect
themselves with forks and spoons.
So they write gun laws for the peons and have no intention of following the laws themselves. Politicians are a real piece of work.
Posted by: Sarah at
08:41 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 2 kb.
November 22, 2009
LIKE A BIG FOAM FINGER
The ultrasound tech decided to start a caption contest this week. Anyone else want to join in?
I wonder if the tech would just play along if I asked her to type AREA OF CONCERN on one of the photos...
I wonder if the tech would just play along if I asked her to type AREA OF CONCERN on one of the photos...
Posted by: Sarah at
10:44 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.
ABOMINATION
More info comes out on Hasan:
Wow, Army. I didn't think it was possible for you to look worse in this fiasco, but you've gone and outdone yourself. I think that's the most appalling thing I've ever heard.
No wonder soldiers hesitate to get treated for PTSD, if that's the attitude of the commanding officer of psychiatry services for the military.
I'm dumbfounded.
(Via Amritas)
One of Hasan's commanding officers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center,
Lieutenant Colonel Melanie Guerrero, told investigators she had
considered failing him as an intern but "decided to allow him to pass
since he was going into psychiatry and would not be doing any real
patient care."
Wow, Army. I didn't think it was possible for you to look worse in this fiasco, but you've gone and outdone yourself. I think that's the most appalling thing I've ever heard.
No wonder soldiers hesitate to get treated for PTSD, if that's the attitude of the commanding officer of psychiatry services for the military.
I'm dumbfounded.
(Via Amritas)
Posted by: Sarah at
08:29 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 113 words, total size 1 kb.
158kb generated in CPU 0.0707, elapsed 0.2938 seconds.
66 queries taking 0.2432 seconds, 303 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
66 queries taking 0.2432 seconds, 303 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
