Sterling's Soap Box

What if?

2010-04-28T21:57:00.000-07:00

There are times when I wonder just how intelligent I am. I regularly score in the top 1-2 percent of any aptitude test available. I routinely spot patterns and make connections that others miss completely. I've accomplished so much with my mind and body, sometimes it seems like I have innate talent for literally anything that I could want to do. I've been told constantly for years that I've got endless potential, that I have my pick of careers and opportunities, that if I have any limitations at all, they lay in not having time enough in the day to develop myself in all the various areas that I could choose to do so. At the end of the day, however, what really matters? I have a great reputation in several areas, and I think I've finally settled on a career, but there are times when I become intensely introspective, harshly critical of myself and my choices. The last several months have been such a period for myself. I don't mean to say that I'm depressed--au contraire I've been my normal cheerful, optimistic self. I enjoy my life and where I'm headed. I simply mean to say that I'm my own most demanding critic. Recently I cannot help but feel that I am deficient in certain areas of my life, and they remain the only areas of my life in which I feel inadequate. I often struggle with feeling that I have somehow been wronged; that I've gotten the raw deal. The problem is that I know intellectually that I'm the victim of my own poor choices, but I have difficulty fully internalizing it I suppose. It seems that the more culpable a man is, the more tempting it is to feel as if an injustice has been done, that in some arcane way he has been the innocent victim of an insidious plot designed to ruin his life and destroy his desirable opportunities. There are actions that I wish I could undo, things I wish I could un-say, and choices that I wish I could reverse, but I've learned first-hand the difficulty of attempting to correct those deficiencies and errors. The process is long, difficult, painful, and sometimes impossible.

The Duality of Moral Rule and the Existence of God

2009-04-10T00:37:00.000-07:00

Here's another one that I wrote for my philosophy class on the necessity of God in order to have moral rules. Basically the question is: Is God necessary in order to believe that there are universal moral rules which we must obey?

Are universal moral rules possible without God?

Before any discussion of the role of God in morality, morality must be defined--and “God”, for that matter. I will say before I begin that although I am Christian, I do not believe that this discussion is limited to a Judeo-Christian concept of God or simple guidelines by which we ought to behave. Rather, I would offer up the following clarifications: firstly that morality is defined as any system that mandates action beyond simple egoism. Note that I speak not of systems which espouse such behavior, or laud it, or even strongly encourage it. Such actions may be done regardless of morality solely to fulfill aesthetic preferences, or to curry favor, or for whatever reason the actor ascribes. For the purposes of this paper, I am only concerned with the absolute requirement that individuals act in accordance with the moral rule. If such action is not required, if it is somehow optional, then we have ceased to speak of moral rules and begun to speak of moral suggestions. Secondly, I will not define God as the Caucasian Father-Time-meets-Zeus grandfatherly figure that most Christians speak of. For my purposes, it is enough that this “God” stand as the enforcement of this morality, ready to visit punishment upon those individuals who do not obey the moral rule. A Muslim Allah, a Christian Lord of Hosts, or a mechanistic function as simple as karma would fulfill this loose definition of “God” as long as the moral code is enforced consistently.

The issue of the necessity of God for morality boils down to this: that morality must compel obedience. As I’ve already noted, nothing short of an absolute morally imperative system is of interest of us in this debate; if we accept any system that does not compel obedience, then we have ceased to speak of a world where the existence of such a moral system of a necessity requires the existence of God. If this hypothetical system is voluntary, then any variety of other motivations may impel individuals to obey it, as well as not to obey it. On the other hand, if this hypothetical system is not voluntary, then from whence comes the obligation to obey? We can speak of Utilitarian considerations, debate the pros and cons of Locke’s Social Contract, or explore the implications of Kant’s Universal Imperative all day long and still not find anything in them which compels obedience. Rather, each school of thought strives only to persuade without any tangible consequence for non-acceptance of the proffered ideas. All of these, then, are voluntary. One may choose to govern his life by Kant’s philosophies as easily as another chooses to live a Utilitarian life, and no earthly power can authoritatively differentiate between philosophies. The need for a higher moral authority is clear. Without any higher moral authority to arbitrate differences and mete out justice, moral rule is nothing but a toothless suggestion that nobody need obey. The addition of a governing force (i.e. God) is what distinguishes mere social norms from absolute moral law.

The strongest opposition to this view comes from the Social Contractualists. A Social Contractualist may argue with some effect that a good social contract compels it’s members to act in ways occasionally contrary to their own self-interest in the strictest sense of the term, and that this imperative is independent of any higher power or authority. And I agree that if the nature of men was not to be egoistic, members of a social contract would feel obligated to act at times in ways that appear altruistic. There are three holes in that position: first, that the “imperative” which would compel obedience to the social contract is not universal. The social contract is of no effect outside of the society. Second, that within that society there is nothing but pressure from other members of the society--even members duly appointed by the society--to obey the social contract. Third, because the enforcement of the social contract comes only from other members of the social contract, such enforcement is liable to be corrupted eventually. Furthermore, social contracts create a situation in which it becomes desirable for individual members of the society appear to obey the social contract when they are not in fact doing so. Appointed officials of the social contract will not be able to catch every offender. As a result, the moral code will not be equally enforced, nor will it adequately ensure the rights of all members of the society. In other words, the source of the imperative is both fallible and local.

The only logical conclusion is that moral codes and a higher authority for enforcement must both be present in order to provide an imperative which is both universal and compulsory. Having a moral law without God as an arbiter or enforcer is meaningless.

The Iraqi Washington

2009-04-09T22:55:00.000-07:00

The following is a paper I wrote for my English class that I really loved writing, so I've decided to post it for the enjoyment of all and the betterment of mankind (and any other bs, self-aggrandizing reasons I can find to justify exhibiting my forensic ability).

The Iraqi Washington

The atmosphere was relaxed, friendly, comfortable. I was lounging on the couch opposite my good friends Nate and Lindsey Anderson while I interviewed them about their opinions of various aspects of the US occupation of Iraq. At least that’s how it started. Almost immediately, they both became alternately defensive or passionate, reacting to one of the most polarizing issues of our generation: the US invasion and ongoing occupation of Iraq. Both Nate and Lindsey expressed a desire to return to the introverted international policy that the US had followed prior to--even between and during--the two world wars. Both get most of their information from TV media, and both agree very strongly with the currently popular view that the US should withdraw from Iraq. Lindsey acknowledged the altruistic motives for entering Iraq in the first place, but went on to explain that to her thinking, the cost versus the benefits simply didn’t justify the continued US presence. She said:

Well, as far as I knew the only reason [to invade] was to try to save their own people, and to try to create peace. . . . and some people were worried about them having WMD, and Bush was a loser, and to waste our money. Iraq, and Iran, and all those countries, they don’t want us there, they don’t like us. . . . You think Iraq’s gonna come save us if we need it? No. Did anybody come and help us when the towers were attacked? No.

Nate added that:

[The continued US presence in Iraq is] probably not [justified]. In my opinion we should have just gone in there and bombed the (expletive deleted) out of them and gotten out. None of this pussy-footing around over there. I don’t think its doing any good. I’ve heard a lot of interviews about how they’re making a lot of progress over there, and they have a new police force, but then the next day there’s a car bomb and five more people die.

While I can understand their concerns and desire to focus on our own citizenry to conserve our military strength, I cannot help but wonder where we as a nation would be without international intervention. After all, our history of lending other countries a hand has gotten us to the pinnacle of recorded history. I believe very strongly that--as is frequently said colloquially--Karma comes around. After all, we as a nation wouldn’t have ever gained our freedom without French assistance . . . and a century later we came to their rescue in both world wars. The international community has always been symbiotic, but that inconvenient fact is often forgotten in today’s politics. I should begin by explaining that I am proud to be a member of the military. I am an airborne combat engineer in the newest unit in the Utah National Guard, the 1457th Sapper Company. To translate that, I’m an Army paratrooper in an elite unit that specializes in demolitions, battlefield construction, and mine laying and clearing. I’ve spent a considerable amount of time on active duty, but only for training. While I have not yet been deployed to a combat zone, I will not shirk my duty when that day comes. I enlisted in the army of a nation actively engaged in a dirty, asymmetrical, two-front war, and I did not do so ignorantly. My position provides me with a unique perspective regarding the War on Terror--an amalgamation of my views, others’ views, and various opinions worked out in countless late-night bull sessions, impromptu forums that have included some of the brightest soldiers in the Army. There are two intimately related questions which must be addressed in this issue. Firstly, ought the United States to remain in occupation of Iraq? Secondly, if the United States were to continue its occupation of Iraq, what ought to be the objectives or strategy employed from this point on? While I strongly affirm that the United States ought to continue occupying Iraq for the present, I will not present my views on continued strategy until after a discussion of the first question.
The nation has continuously debated the Iraqi occupation since the invasion, with an increasing amount of the national dialogue devoted to a discussion of what exactly the military and political objectives ought to be and when the US military can or should withdraw from the country completely. Current public opinion seems to be stated best in an article by Joan Chittister:

The reasons for which we invaded Iraq never existed--no weapons of mass destruction, no alliance with al-Qaeda, no relationship to the toppling of the Twin Towers on Sept. 11, 2001. However, now that we are in Iraq, there is no definition of “victory,” they tell us, and no plan for getting out. Worse, the war has made Iraq a training ground for terrorists and the United States the prime target. Every day, that part of the world sees the United States as more enemy than friend. (Chittister)

I must admit that as a citizen I have a hard time justifying the expense of the war. A war on terror? Of course, we’ve got to defend ourselves. A long-term effort to prop up another country’s economy and political structure? No way.

Nevertheless, I am proud of our country for having the moral courage to stand up and be counted among those who will not stand for senseless terrorism. While I know that the various news media portray it as an unpopular or unrealistic objective, I cannot accept anything less than completion of the original mission: to replace the Iraqi government with a stable democracy.

To fully understand my view, I would like to review the world situation at the end of the eighteenth century. Britain was the undisputed world power; her navies ruled the seas and consequently the trade routes that were the lifeblood of every other country’s economy. Her armies had defeated the combined military forces of every other nation on the European continent under Napoleon, one of the most brilliant military minds of modern history. Wealth flowed into the country, and influence radiated from it. England was at its glorious zenith. . . until thirteen upstart, backwards colonies united only in their abhorrence of English rule, decided to form their own country. Our founding fathers--despite whatever other motives which could be ascribed to them--were dedicated to certain ideals; the Declaration of Independence is the most inspiring political text ever written, affirming that:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. . . . But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. (Italics added)
Such were the principles that guided the men who effectively created a nation that has ever since stood as a bulwark of peace, prosperity, and individual freedoms. Men like John Hancock led the way, signing their names to a document so damning that it surely would have been their death sentence if their bid for freedom failed. For a time after that formative explosion of altruism, the United States’ policy was one of introverted interest. The nation gestated and--after bitter conflict--united. Finally, as a fully-integrated society, we emerged on the world stage to take our place as an equal power. Not long after that, we met our first two tests as a world power--and literally saved the entire European continent from rule by tyrannical leaders not once, but twice in three short decades. For the next three-and-a-half decades, we rallied the world against the oppressive Communist movement, reaffirming time and again our commitment to oppose oppressive government systems around the world and giving hope to countless millions in indigent circumstances. Having defeated Communism, we continued to stand firmly opposed to destructive governments, leading the charge against genocide in Rwanda, Somalia, and Eastern Europe. In light of our humanitarian track record, is it any wonder that Jihadist Islam should view us as their natural enemy? Should we, after two full centuries of moral leadership, suddenly abandon our tenets simply because an extremist splinter faction of an otherwise peaceful religion has declared its misguided war against us? Has weakness or deferral to fanatical extremists ever before worked in the history of the world?
The cowardly terrorist attacks of 9/11 galvanized the nation as few events in history ever have. To my knowledge, the nation has not spoken with one voice so clearly since the equally cowardly Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. With one accord, the entire population demanded not retaliation or retribution, but Justice. That was “Justice” with a capital “J”; the American people responded with the same clear, courageous attitude as always, clamoring that people who would perpetrate such a senseless act upon innocent civilians must be dealt with in kind for the good of all humanity. It was our innate sense of Justice that impelled us to seek out al-Qaeda after 9/11, just as that same inborn code has always guided this nation.

How quickly we have forgotten that initial resolve! Our own legislators and national leaders now clamor just as loudly that we must abandon the fight, and they are joined daily by hundreds who actively support them and faceless thousands who, by their inaction, tacitly assent. In Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, we have successfully toppled two governments whose lists of crimes against their own constituencies far surpass the injuries cited in our own Declaration of Independence. President Saddam Hussein stated baldly his disregard for Kurds living in northern Iraq in a recorded meeting with high officials in his government. Transcripts were used in his trial and appeared in an article written by John F. Burns for the New York Times. Speaking with his Vice President Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, he responded to Mr. Douri’s concerns about the effectiveness of chemical weapons against the Kurds by saying “. . . they’re very effective if people don’t wear masks.” Mr. Douri then asked, “You mean they will kill thousands?” to which President Hussein responded, “Yes, they will kill thousands.” These transcripts also show very definitively that the Iraqi government both had and was willing to use the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) that many of our own citizens do not believe that Iraq ever had.

Unlike the general populace of the United States, I think that the military should be given the time and resources to finish the war properly. Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom are not popular now, but were originally supported extensively by the civilian population. Having received the popular mandate, I do not think that we should then question the mission or allow ourselves to lose our resolve. Theodore Roosevelt said it best:
It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who at the best knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least . . . fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who [know] neither victory nor defeat.

Where, then, ought we to continue our efforts? In what areas ought we to commit more effort and resources? Or ought we to re-commit ourselves to our current policies? Current political and military thought is that the insurgency ought to be thoroughly exterminated before any progress can be made toward a lasting peace and stable government in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Even this past month, one of the members of my platoon expressed the sentiment that we need to hunt down and root out the insurgents before we can leave either country. I must respectfully disagree. Even though conventional political and military thought is that priority must be given to military operations, I would put forth that military operations against an insurgency supported by the local population ought to be--at best--a secondary mission. Basic theory of political science suggests alternate courses of action, and postulates failure in the event that these alternate plans are ignored completely. Historical precedents bear out the theoretical arguments, and current events indicate that the Iraqi occupation is no different.

The common view of the US objective in Iraq and Afghanistan can be found in the opinion of a soldier in my unit named Rick Moore, a Private First-Class who is currently enrolled in an ROTC program to become an officer. When asked what the US objectives are in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said

Like a mission statement? I think we’re to try to liberate Iraq and Afghanistan from religious extremists who have, ah, I think, honestly, brain-washed people to believe that westerners in general are evil, that Christianity or western culture is evil. To try to contain that way of thinking, because its harmful to US relationships and world relationships in general. . . . [When asked if any other issue exists which ought to be given higher priority than military operations against insurgents] No, I can’t think of any others.

Hardly anybody would disagree when I say that the goal of the US occupation of Iraq is to establish a stable, friendly, national government to ensure the basic civil rights of the population. Political science theorizes, however, that a direct military-style operation may not be the best way to establish such a government. Such a government depends on three main concepts: firstly, that support of the people in the form of legitimacy is needed. Legitimacy is the concept that citizens of the country feel that the government has the right to govern. The age of a given government, or a recent track record of good social and economic leadership, can establish legitimacy. Since neither of those is the case with Iraq, the best way to establish a legitimate claim to government is through equal representation and the establishment of a strong national identity. When the people feel that their interests are fairly represented in government, and they identify themselves with their countrymen--even, or especially, those with whom they disagree--then there will not exist a significant backlash of public opinion in favor of the insurgency. Secondly, the autonomy of the government ought not to be questionable. The people ought to be confident that their leadership has the country’s best interests at heart and are not merely the puppets of another sovereignty. Sovereignty, then, is damaged the longer that another country controls the government either in fact or simply in public perception. The longer the US stays in Iraq, the more surely we give the kiss of death to the new administration. Thirdly and lastly, there must exist a leader with enough charisma and political skill to gain the trust of the people. Authority is the third principle of the triumvirate that enables the growth of good government. (Roskin, et. al. 1-7) When the people submit to the authority of one man--or woman--at the head of a government which they feel is legitimately the administrative instrument of a sovereign nation, then that government will not easily be overthrown, if ever. As a final note to this interesting subject, it should be noted that the practical implications of these concepts are nearly always the cause of insurgency or revolution. The two terms are simply two faces of the same coin, being differentiated only by the side to which the speaker is sympathetic. As Bernard Fall put it in Political Science: An Introduction, such warfare in combination with political action is an attempt “to establish a competitive system of control over the population,” and went on to say that, “when a country is being subverted it is not being outfought; is it being out administered. Subversion is literally administration with a minus sign in front” (quoted in Roskin, et. al. 368). It should be noted that several excellent examples of the misapplication of this principle exist in our own country. How many so-called cults or splinter groups exist in the United States? How often have news stories run about Neo-Nazis in the Idaho panhandle, or fundamentalist groups in the Rockies agitating for change or advocating revolution? Several have even staged or planned to carry out terrorist-type attacks, to no avail. Why have they not succeeded in igniting the spirit of revolution in the US? There are two good reasons. Firstly and most importantly, the population feels that the government, however flawed, is legitimate. They don’t feel that change is needed; the status quo works for them. Secondly, these groups all lack an effective political campaign. Their messages simply fail to reach enough people and don’t start the groundswell of public opinion which might enable their views to become popular.

Earlier I spoke of the overwhelming weight of the English Empire and the seeming folly of the American Revolution against the Crown. A Prima Facie examination of the logistical situation would make the American position seem hopelessly suicidal. However, in light of political theory, it becomes clear that the vast size of the British Empire necessitated the dilution of authority in the form of territorial governors who undermined the authority and legitimacy of the royalty through their heavy-handed rule. Further, the more that those governors--in some cases with the consent or at the instance of the central government--ignored or stretched the law to widen the gap of inequality between citizens of different governorships from Great Britain proper, the more they emphasized the delicacy of the Empire’s sovereignty. Revolution was inevitable, and eventually England was left only with its own little group of islands to rule. Saddam Hussein’s misunderstanding of the principle of authority is evidenced by a quote from another Hussein, Maaruf Hussein, that was recorded by Dexter Filkins in his book The Forever War. When asked about his looting of the royal palace, he said, “Nobody likes to steal . . . But he never made us feel like we were part of the country.”

More recently, the American experience in Vietnam was almost exactly the same as the British Empire’s two centuries earlier. To return to Bernard Fall’s brilliant insights, I would direct the reader’s attention to the research he conducted in Vietnam both during the French and American involvements in that country. He discovered that

The Communists were collecting taxes throughout most of the country under the very noses of the regimes they were overthrowing. The occupying power, whether French or American, deceived itself through its ability to drive through a village in an armored convoy; this does not indicate administrative control, which may be in the hands of the insurgents. The emphasis on military hardware is a big mistake . . . for it detracts from the human element. . . . While the insurgent is patiently building a network to supplant the regime, the occupier or government is impatiently trying to substitute firepower for legitimacy. . . . The government’s over reliance [sic] on firepower erodes its tenuous moral claims to leadership of the nation. (Italics added)

In the same vein, I’d like to relate a personal experience about the use of purely military force without accompanying political action. While walking through the Special Operations museum in Ft Bragg, North Carolina, with other Special Forces candidates, our tour guide pointed out to us that the US military hadn’t lost a single battle in the entire Vietnam conflict. Accordingly, a justifiably irritated US diplomat had pointed out that very fact to his North Vietnamese counterpart at negotiations in Paris. The Viet Cong’s gallingly true response was “That is true. It is also irrelevant.”

I know that my views are unorthodox or unpopular, but I believe them to be well-founded, and can only hope that I have managed to bring out into the open what I see as the fundamental issues of the US presence in Iraq. These are--I believe--the principles by which history will judge us, whether they are explicitly stated or not. The nature of our struggle is not military with political ramifications; it is political with military ramifications. We are viewing this conflict through the prism of military operations while the opposition is viewing it from the perspective of public opinion. While we worry about how best to find and kill high-profile insurgents, the insurgency as a whole is finding new ways to score political points by killing one or two service members and reveling in their ability to make the general populace duck and run at every loud noise. The inevitable association is that the Americans cannot achieve victory. And this is true. The Americans cannot achieve victory, but the Iraqis can.

My position differs greatly from the current public opinion about the occupation of both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the strategy of the military and government. I think that our efforts could best be spent building Iraqi sovereignty, authority, and legitimacy. Conversely, the source of this effort ought not to be perceived as American. Rather, the initiative in this new direction ought to at least be publicly perceived to be Iraqi, even if in fact it is not. As PFC Moore put it, “the non-supporters of Saddam Hussein are supportive of a republican-style of government instead of a military dictatorship.” I strongly agree. However, it is imperative that we realize that a US puppet-government is just as much a military dictatorship--in Iraqi eyes at least--as a Ba’ath Party one. What we need is a strong Iraqi leader who can step forward and rally his people behind him. He needs to give them something to believe in and needs results to which he can point. Iraq needs it’s George Washington. Even national sports and holidays or a stirring national anthem can be used to unify the country and help to smooth cultural differences. Student exchange programs between Kurdish northern Iraq and predominantly Shi’ite southern Iraq could conceivably help to unite the country. This Washington--whatever his background or upbringing--must focus on building the government, not on destroying the insurgency. At the same time, the national and local police forces must be strengthened to provide clean, safe streets to promote a feeling that the government is doing its job well. Nate observed, we want “none of this pussy-footing around over there. I don’t think its doing any good. I’ve heard a lot of interviews about how they’re making a lot of progress over there, and they have a new police force, but then the next day there’s a car bomb and five more people die.” As Nate so elegantly points out with his colorful invective, safe streets are a very quick indicator of the stability of an area and provide the populace with an instant feedback as to whether the government is doing its job or not. Ultimately, building an independent, unified, democratic government will destroy the insurgency more quickly through resolving the issues upon which it is founded than any number of strategic or tactical air-strikes, no matter how well-placed. In essence, I am saying that insurgents are the same as schoolyard bullies: if we treat the insurgency as irrelevant, it will become irrelevant.

Works Cited

Anderson, Lindsey Peery. Personal interview. 13 Sep. 2008.

Anderson, Nathan. Personal interview. 13 Sep. 2008.

Burns, John F. “The Reach of War: Hussein’s Voice Speaks Out in Court in Praise of Chemical Atrocities” New York Times, 9 Jan. 2007. 13 Sep 2008 <http://www.newyorktimes.com/>.

Chittister, Joan. “We Need Another Investigation” Catholic National Reporter, 23 Dec. 2005, pg 22. 14 Sep. 2008 <http://web.ebscohost.com/>.

Filkins, Dexter. The Forever War. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2008

Jefferson, Thomas. Declaration of Independence Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Jun. 1776 14 Sep. 2008 <http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration.html> .

Moore, Rick. Personal interview. 26 Jan. 2009.

Roosevelt, Theodore. "Citizenship in a Republic," Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, 23 Apr. 1910. 20 Sep. 2008 <http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/quotes.htm>.

Roskin, Michael, Robert L. Cord, James A. Medeiros, and Walter S. Jones. Political Science: An Introduction Sixth Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1997.

Interview
Name: Lindsey Peery Anderson
Occupation: Office Manager
Education: College

How much do you pay attention to the international news from Iraq?
Hmm, maybe fifty percent.

Do you consider yourself to be politically aware?
Yeah.

Why did the United States invade Iraq for the second time?
Well, as far as I knew the only reason was to try to save their own people, and to try to create peace… and some people were worried about them having WMD, and Bush was a loser, and to waste our money. Iraq, and Iran, and all those countries, they don’t want us there, they don’t like us.

Would you say that we’re winning or losing the war on terror, both globally and specifically in Iraq?
Losing. We’re wasting our resources, so when the big wars come, we’re gonna lose because we won’t have anything left to fight with.

Was the US justified in our invasion of Iraq?
No.

Is the continued US presence in Iraq still justified?
No. You think Iraq’s gonna come save us if we need it? No. Did anybody come and help us when the towers were attacked? No.

What should the US military/political objectives be in Iraq?
To leave. I think they just need to take everybody out [of the country].

Did Iraq have WMD?
Yeah. Its been on the TV… From the media.

Interview
Name: Nathan Durrant Anderson
Occupation: Paint Specialist
Education: Some College

How much do you pay attention to the international news from Iraq?
I try and avoid it most of the time. Its pretty bleak.

Do you consider yourself to be politically aware?
Hmmm, somewhat.

Why did the United States invade Iraq for the second time?
I personally believe that Bush had a hidden agenda to try and control oil sources.

Would you say that we’re winning or losing the war on terror, both globally and specifically in Iraq?
I don’t think there can be a winner. Basically this is an example of how you can be both a winner and a loser at the same time.

Was the US justified in our invasion of Iraq?
Sure. After 9/11, we had to kick somebody’s a$$, and it was just their turn.

Is the continued US presence in Iraq still justified?
Probably not. In my opinion we should have just gone in there and bombed the $hit out of them and gotten out. None of this pussy-footing around over there. I don’t think its doing any good. I’ve heard a lot of interviews about how they’re making a lot of progress over there, and they have a new police force, but then the next day there’s a car bomb and five more people die.

What should the US military/political objectives be in Iraq?
I think they should get out. I think they’re wasting their time and a #ell of a lot of time. I’ve never personally talked to any of these Iraqi people, but it certainly doesn’t seem like we’re getting through to them.

Did Iraq have WMD?
Yeah, we know now that they did. When we first went to war, they told us that the Iraqis had WMD.

Interview
Name: Rick Moore
Date: 26 Jan, 2009
Qualifications: ROTC member, PFC in UTNG

What do you view as the US approach to handling the insurgency in Iraq?
Like a mission statement? I think we’re to try to liberate Iraq and Afghanistan from religious extremists who have, ah, I think, honestly, brain-washed people to believe that westerners in general are evil, that Christianity or western culture is evil. To try to contain that way of thinking, because its harmful to US relationships and world relationships in general.

Do you feel that this approach is the correct way to deal with the insurgency? (skipped for irrelevancy to subject’s answer)

Is the insurgency in Iraq the most pressing issue?
No. I think that the insurgency in Afghanistan is, is where we should be focusing time, energy and money. Really, I feel that that’s where the majority of the threat is coming from.

Re-direct: Are there other issues in that country (Afghanistan) which are more pressing?
No, I can’t think of any others.

What are the conditions upon which withdrawal from Iraq is dependent?
I think, one, Al-Qaeda should sign some sort of treaty or disbandment, and I think that both Iraq and Afghani governments need to sign some sort of no-tolerance policy agreement.

Do you feel that the Iraqi people support US operations?
yes. I feel like Iraqi civilians largely support the US operations because of the casualties they’ve already taken themselves.

Re-direct: Do you feel that the Iraqi government is supported by the citizens of that nation?
I think the non-supporters of Saddam Hussein are supportive of a republican-style of government instead of a military dictatorship.

Thank you Will Smith

2009-01-21T17:08:00.000-08:00

I cannot express the amount of respect I gained for Will Smith today. On a day when he could be divisively gloating about the ascension of President Obama to the White House, he instead chose to speak of the unifying effect that having a minority president will have on both his own race and the country as a whole. He rebuffed racism from both sides of the black/white line as well as extended hope to every other race in an edifying, uplifting way. My favorite two paragraphs say it better than anything I could possibly craft, so I'll quote them here:
"I love that all of our excuses have been removed. African-American excuses have been removed. There's no white man trying to keep you down, because if he were really trying to keep you down, he would have done everything he could to kee Obama down. Yes, there are racist people who live here, absolutely. But they're not the majority anymore.
...I don't think we are African Americans, Irish Americans, or Japanese Americans anymore. I think Americans are a new race of people We are Americans of African descent. We are Americans of Irish descent.
Its a whole new world."

My goal is to dance in my RANGER PANTIES!

2008-09-12T08:20:00.000-07:00

I must interrupt your lives to bring you the following important news bulletin:

I AM NOW ON THE UVU BALLROOM DANCE TEAM.

Thank you, that will be all.

HA! Just kidding, of course I'll write more! Here's the whole story: I took a Latin Ballroom class last winter and had a blast! I'm not the best dancer in the world, but I'm ok, and lack of guys is a problem for every single dance class ever formed since the invention of wooden basketball courts to dance on. (I can only presume that basketball's more masculine allure has stolen many a guy away from dancing) We learned the Rumba, Samba, and a tiny bit of Cha Cha. We even had to compete in a Samba competition. Some of you may remember that my partner and I placed 2nd! Anyway, that was a great introduction for me, so this semester I enrolled in an intermediate Latin Ballroom class so that I could learn a little bit more. On the second day of class, one of the instructors of the same class at a different time came in to ask if any of the guys would like to come dance in his class too. Apparently he had something like 20 girls enrolled, but only four guys. WOW. Talk about good odds! So naturally I added his class to my schedule. What single guy wouldn't?! Then, a couple of days later, I was sitting in the hall when the TA from my first class (the one last year) came walking by. Out of the blue, she recognized me and asked if I wanted to join the UVU Bronze Ballroom Team (there are four: Bronze, Silver, Gold, and Tour). Once again, there were enough girls for the team, but only enough guys to barely fill out some of the teams, and they needed one more for the Bronze team. So here I am now. I started the semester with one dance class, and now suddenly I have three.

In which I get a free oil change

2008-09-08T11:56:00.000-07:00

This one goes under 'Consumer Economics'. Saturday I had a pretty busy schedule: I had to work for a couple of hours in the morning, then I went golfing with a buddy before we went to go work again for another couple of hours. At the same time, I needed to drop my car off to get a much-needed oil change, so I left it with Jiffy Lube in Provo, just north of the Provo Towne Center Mall. I explained to them that I wouldn't be back until 10 pm to pick it up, so they needed to lock my key in it and call me to take my credit card number to pay for it. I offered to pay up front, but they wanted to wait until after they'd changed the oil. You can imagine how irritated I was when I got back to my car, only to find that not only had they failed to ever call me for my card number, but they had also neglected to put my key in my car. I'll give them three points for remembering to lock the car, but they lose ten for locking the car with the window rolled down far enough to unlock the car without the key. I could open my car faster without the key than I could have with it. I know because I did it a couple of times just to satisfy my curiosity. To make a long story short, I spent the weekend without a car and had to impose on a buddy to come all the way up from Payson to pick me up at Jiffy Lube. This morning I took a bus and walked 11 blocks to tell the manager in person that I wasn't going to pay for such poor service. He didn't even try to argue the point, he agreed right off the bat and handed me the key right back. Good customer service after the incident, but it doesn't completely correct the problem. I might let them work on my car again, but only under close adult supervision.

Dressing the part won't give you any 'mana'

2008-09-05T09:12:00.000-07:00

I've got a new pet peeve. I've noticed a disturbing trend here at UVU that threatens to lower not only the collective IQ of our little microcosm but, if allowed to spread, the IQ and self esteem (both real and perceived) of the entire US! What single practice could threaten to tear our social fabric so easily? Asian kids dressing as if they just walked straight out of an anime cartoon of course! Every time I see some fruity little asian kid walking around with that shaggy mane of hair I want to shake him and tell him to wake up. I wish I could put his internal monologue on an external speaker so that the entire world could hear the stupidity:
"Oh, yes, I rook rike (insert random name. I'll go with 'Akira') Akira! You wana battle? I use sper of strenth to car my spirit guard, kick you butt!"
I've got another one: Emo. I'm not even sure why I capitalized that, the title doesn't merit such distinction. I have two problems with this one:

1. What's with the emo 'uniform'?! Sure, I'll buy the 'fashion statement' excuse, but not the 'individual expression' excuse. On the fashion statement, yeah, you're making a fashion statement. That statement is 'I am such a loser that I have to dress like the losers and pretend to be troubled just so that I can feel fulfilled'. As for individual expression, let's put that internal monologue on an external speaker too;
"sweeeeet. now i can show the world how much pain im going thru. theyll finally understand me. and i can finally fit in with my friends. i bet (insert lengthy list of friends here) will all luv these clothes. i wonder what theyre wearing today. prolly sumthin just like this. i luv standin out frum the crowd. now people will kno were difrent."
In my mind that voice just sounds uneducated, lacking punctuation and completely unconcerned with correct capitalization or anything else to show brain activity beyond the ability to maintain a heartbeat.

2. The entire premise of the emo movement (what little I understand about a trend that I cannot empathize with at all) is that it is an outward sign of inward pain. Basically, its a very public plea for attention, sympathy, even pity. I have a very simple answer for your problems: grow up. stand up straight, get a job, find some friends who haven't smoked themselves retarded, and take your place in society. I have very little sympathy for the middle class unmotivated kid that most emo kids are. You're in the middle class of the wealthiest nation on earth, whining about how tough life is and how misunderstood you are because NOBODY else on the ENTIRE planet could POSSIBLY understand your pain because NOBODY else has EVER been in your position before. You're right. Less than .001% of the population of the world knows what its like to be in your position. The other 99.999% of the world wishes they were in your position. Grow up. And just because I want to share it, I'll end with a joke. What happens when two emo kids fight? One slaps the other, and they both cry!

Response to Chelsea's question:
Its tough to describe... its a social movement full of whiny kids pretty much, no matter what their actual age is. The 'uniform' that I hate seeing is usually tight black pants, some sort of tight shirt, a black leather belt with silver studs on it, and hair that looks like it was cut with a pair of gardening shears. Usually its dyed black with one bleached strand, and allowed to hang straight down over one eye. The accompanying attitude is perhaps the most annoying part to me: that they are experiencing pain that nobody else could possibly understand, and that they dress like they do in order to show that pain to the rest of the world.

The Dakr Knight

2008-08-20T22:40:00.000-07:00

I'm going to be up-front with everybody right now and warn you that this is gonna be a pretty long posting. Partly because I have a lot to talk about, but mostly because its midnight and I'm really not sleepy at all. And partly because its been almost a month since my last posting. Forewarned is Forearmed, right? If you can figure out what this foreknowledge arms you for, then you're smarter than me.

I watched The Dark Knight tonight. It was GREAT. It started off on the right foot too. I'm not talking about the opening scene (which was good too). The best part came before we even got into the drive-in (why aren't there more of those around?!): the movie was listed on the marquee as The Dakr Knight, which is almost as good a title as other memorables such as Handcock and The Devil Wears Proda. Good wokr with the spellign. Anyway, since I don't want to drop any spoilers, I'll just say that the part where Harvey Dent, one of the most moral characters, becomes Two-Face and commits several crimes which Batman takes the fall for was very well done. Equally well-done was the 'death' of Lieutenant Gordan, who goes on to take the place of the deceased commissioner, right before Rachel Dawes dies. And who can forget the Joker asking "Do I look like a guy with a plan? I'm just a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do if I actually caught one!"

I pretty much spent all of my two-week Annual Training with the National Guard hearing about how good The Dark Knight was. Which is why watching it was one of the first things I did when I got back. Incidentally, I have a couple pictures for Adam of a proper military uniform along the lines of my Ranger Panties that he thinks are so comical. This is one of the lower enlisted members of my platoon. Ok, I'll drop the pretense. Appropriately enough, his rank is Private. Private First Class Glad, carrying his rifle and wearing nothing but his skivvies, boots, Kevlar helmet, gas mask, and a huge smile for our sergeant, who dropped him for pushups when Glad went to the position of At Ease for him. I don't think I've laughed so hard in a LONG time.

We did a lot of things at our AT, including launching three MCLCS rockets. Nobody cares what that stands for, we're just ecstatic that they explode. Really. These things fire off of a trailer pulling a chain of C4 military explosives on a line behind them to blow a path through a minefield. We fired them into a field full of so many sunflowers it looked like something straight out of a book about munchkins and unicorns or something. Being a good soldier, I improved my tactical camo to better blend into the environment and visit destruction upon the enemy. My platoon thought it was amusing, but they were nowhere near as entertained as our Brigade Commander (a Major, I think) and his Command Sergeant Major. We drove right past them before I realized that they were there, so I just left it.

I had another interesting experience in the back of a truck on the way back from taking our showers one night. Our sergeant had told us that it was fine if we wanted to come back from the showers in our PT clothes, so I took shorts, a tan t-shirt, and sandals to come back in. Those were pushing it a little bit, but since we'd already been dismissed for the day, I figured I would be ok. Unfortunately, my sergeant had a bit of a change of heart and decided that it would be safer for all of us if I looked like I was in full uniform. So I put my uniform blouse on, along with me Kevlar helmet. From the waist up, I looked perfectly normal, but fro the waist down, I was definitely out of uniform. Well on the way back, we happened to drive past a group of kids ranging from 14 up to 18. There are groups like that on Camp Williams all the time as a PR/community outreach gesture by the top brass, and they LOVE seeing real soldiers. They started whooping and cheering when we appeared on the road rolling toward them, so we all waved back. One notable Specialist who should have known better happened to stand up and inadvertantly let them all see that he was only wearing shorts with the rest of his uniform. I sat back down pretty fast!

Ok, a couple more pictures: I was role-playing for one of our excercises, making assaulting soldiers in a paintball excercise deal with COB's, Civilians On the Battlefield, and I got dressed up as a woman in a Burka. Burkas are hot. I was sweating within a couple of seconds. The actual excercise was a dissapointment because the soldiers completely ignored me (which they shouldn't have), but I have a couple pictures of myself dancing for the other soldiers. Which is not gay in the Army as long as nobody asks and you don't tell, right?

And finally, I went through a Combat Life-Saver class, which is like really advanced First-Aid, including how to perform needle chest decompressions (releiving a tension pneumothorax), advanced airway clearing techniques (inserting a nasal pharangeal), and how to set up IV's (starting the saline lock immediately, and knowing what fluids to give each type of casualty), along with some REALLY basic information on how and when to prescribe basic meds. I loved it! This is me getting my IV from my friend PVT Howald, right before I gave him one too. I got it on my first try!

Anyway, that's pretty much it. I'm sure there will be questions about this, and I have a couple more pictures, so I'll post more later. Good night to all!

I'm about to win a bet

2008-07-21T16:56:00.000-07:00

I have several newsworth items today. To start off, I ran a half marathon on Saturday! 13.1 miles of torture, followed by several days of rubbery legs. What's not to like? I've been running about every other day, anywhere from 3 miles to 7 miles. I love to run, so that's been a lot of fun, but I didn't really have any concrete goal other than to nebulously 'get in shape'. Until now. Saturday was a charity race called the Tin Cup Challenge, which will be an annual race whose proceeds go to various charities in Teton Valley Idaho. Originally I signed up for the 10 k race, since that works out to 6.2 miles. I figured that since 6 is less than 7, I'd be just fine. (I aced the public school system!) Unfortunately, my Male Ego stepped in to make me upgrade to the half marathon when I found out that 'Erin' was going to be running the half, not the 10 k. (more news on 'Erin' to follow. Meanwhile, back at the ranch...) So the morning of the race, I went down to the starting point early and upgraded to the half marathon without having trained for any distance longer than the halfway point of the race. I don't think that I've ever been passed more often in any other race than that one, and certainly not by people as embarrassing to be passed by. A guy in his 50's passed me! And then my Cross Country Coach, who's also in his 50's by now, and was running the FULL MARATHON that started an hour earlier! So he had run 23 miles when he passed me, and I was only working on my 10th. Sad. And then, in quick succession, several very cute girls (I didn't mind being passed by them so much), a few guys, and two middle-aged women chatting up a storm while they steadily passed me. All in all, I wasn't ready for that distance. However, for not having prepared for that distance at all, I finished with a respectable time: 2:05:45. I actually felt pretty happy with my race... oh, and I stomped 'Erin'. I finished almost a full half hour before she did! Its the little things in life you treasure. :-)

Speaking of 'Erin', in accordance with the epiphany I've been documenting in the last several postings, I've become friendly with her again. While I cannot condone the way she acted, I also can't bring myself to hate her for it, and I'm tired of expending energy to act like I do. Even though its remarkably gratifying. So when I say that she finished a full half hour behind me, I know because I ran back half a mile and paced her in.

I have no willpower apparently.

As for my bet, I bet Melissa all of the change in Larry's pockets that some unimportant sequence of events would happen. The problem was that Larry didn't have anything in his pockets, and neither did Sandy, so we ended up betting $10 or dinner. During the course of typing up my deep inner feelings here, Melissa won the bet, and our other fruity little sister Danielle wants dinner too. Don't ask me what logic entitles her to dinner, it makes sense to her alone.

Women definitely are vipers... and apparently I'm not a snake-charmer.

2008-07-14T16:45:00.000-07:00

First things first: I could buy Adam some Ranger Panties if he'd like, but the Special Forces thongs can only be issued to SF. Sorry Carrie. As for women, I'll have to beg to differ. I've gotten nothing but the same treatment ever since I got back from my mission. A girl asked me about that the other day; it was a depressing moment when I realized that I've gotten the shaft from every girl I've dated since I returned. I can't even echo Vince Vaughn (sp?) in saying that my mother is the only women I've ever trusted. I just got it again from another girl today: I'm a 'nice guy' but she's not interested. I went the other day to go see a girl that I've taken on several fun dates only to get the cold shoulder, the polite indifference of a casual acquaintance. Maybe it was a bad time, maybe she was tired, maybe this, maybe that. If she wants to keep dating, she'll have to let me know. I'll quote myself: being 'nice' is a dating death sentence.

In response to Carrie's comment...

2008-07-10T18:19:00.000-07:00

To read the original comment to which this is a response, read the blog entitled "Its not SF, but its a step up!"

You bet. They're the new digital camo print and everything. Unbelievably comfortable too, but admittedly a little chilly for airborne operations and downright embarrassing when you're the first guy up a ladder. On the bright side we all get nice, even tans.

She almost died!

2008-06-28T21:02:00.000-07:00

Yesterday afternoon, on my way back home from work, I got a text message to let me know that the Singles' Branch that I go to (for you non-mormons reading this, that's a congregation of my church specifically for single members) was going camping with another group from Rexburg. I think I'm bad luck, because as soon as I got there some girl cut her thumb pretty badly, so I ended up having to bandage up her thumb three times before it clotted enough not to completely soak the bandages that I had. I just thought I'd share that with everybody since my dad was laughing at me when I walked out the door with my Army rucksack and field gear. What good does it do to be issued equipment if you don't take it with you?!

Its not SF, but its a step up!

2008-06-26T18:42:00.000-07:00

I just found out that I'm being put into the new Sapper unit in Utah! For those of you who don't know, there are several tabs that soldiers can earn in the Army: Special Forces, Airborne, Ranger, and Sapper. I'm already Airborne, although since I'm not in an airborne unit I don't wear the tab, and now I should have a shot to go to Sapper school to earn my Sapper tab. Ranger school is a small unit tactics school for infantrymen, and its pretty coveted and respected. Sapper school is like the bastard younger brother of Ranger school: its not as long and not as respected, but still tough. Its for Combat Engineers, so it focuses a little more on demolitions. Special Forces is tougher and more desirable than either though, and I'm still hoping to go get that one too, but in the meantime, Sapper is gonna be great!

Erin. What else? I'm pathetic.

2008-06-25T21:02:00.002-07:00

I've been doing a lot of introspection lately, for obvious reasons. I've learned a lot of things about myself, some surprising, others simply deeper or more important to me than I had realized. The bottom line is that I really, sincerely wish that I could bring myself to hate 'Erin'. Conversely, perversely, I can't. For all the depth of feeling, the abhorrance that I feel for what she did to me, I can't stop thinking of her. To be honest, it pisses me off; I've never been this torn up after breaking up with anybody. Granted, this is the first time that any girl I've dated has been this much of a wench to me, and granted, this is the longest period of time that I've dated anybody for a LONG time, nevertheless, I really didn't think that I could become this attached to anybody. I really thought for several years that I would never do anything more than date casually. I really thought that I wouldn't ever find a girl that I could respect... Ha, on the cynical side, I guess I still haven't. But I started to, and that has made all the difference. That has made the last two months a living hell, an endless torment while I've waffled back and forth between absolutely loathing this girl and longing for the chance to wipe the slate clean and date her again. If it weren't so intensely personal and painful, I'd find the whole situation entertaining and vaguely amusing. I guess I should thank 'Erin' for teaching me so much about myself, even though I detest the way in which the lesson was administered, and even though she didn't really intend to teach me anything; I have learned even so. I probably would thank her if I could bring myself to speak civilly to her. I haven't even spoken to her since we talked about two months ago, when I found out just how much of a tool I was. The reason for that is that I don't think that I could possibly remain civil. However, if I could be civil, I'd probably thank her for the inadvertant lessons she taught me. I guess that'll go on my 'to do' list. At the absolute bottom.

Just when I thought you couldn’t get any DUMBER, you go and do something like this...

2008-06-25T21:02:00.001-07:00

Refreshingly enough, this isn't about 'Erin'. Oh no, this is about the girl before 'Erin', about a year ago. (That's right, I like to mix it up a bit and live life to the fullest. I live on the edge.) So I was minding my own business, living my life and hating girls--but not women, which is an important distinction to me even if it is only theoretical so far--when I got a facebook message from 'Helga' out of the blue. For the mental diminuatives among us I will emphasize that for reasons already outlined in previous postings, 'Helga' is not her real name. I made it up. I would have serious reservations about dating anybody named Helga. I chose the name Helga because it carries with it the sickening mental image of a big fat woman practically falling out of a theatrical Viking costume singing an overbearing and difficult aria, and that is the complete opposite of who the actual 'Helga' is. Anyway, I dated Helga briefly right before I left Fort Bragg. When I knew I was leaving, I told Helga- who lived in a different city- that I would stop by to say good-bye before I left. She kept me waiting around for almost a full 24 hours before I simply left. I never called her again, and she never called me. This message is actually the first communication I've had with her since I left Ft Bragg eight months ago. WOW. After eight months she decides to send me a cheerful message like nothing ever happened. I had honestly forgotten that she was even one of my friends on facebook. Yet again I am dumbfounded by the femnine thought process. It baffles me why girls act so callously and at the same time want to remain on everybody's good side. The duplicity that allows girls to simultaneously be the biggest wenches on the planet and still pay pathetic lip service to remaining friends and not wanting to hurt anybody is completely beyond my grasp. And I hope it will forever be that way. Eight months is eight months. Let it go.

I hate women. Again.

2008-06-25T21:01:00.001-07:00

Once again, 'Erin' has proven to me that even when I think that I'm on an even keel again, it only takes a little bit to throw me off. Erin and I go to the same church, and the congregation is less than forty people most Sundays. The room is small, so its painful enough just to see her across the room. Erin, however, is going one better than just being visible. Each of the last two times I've been to church at home (I've been on the road a lot lately) she's waited until I've picked a seat and sat down withing arm's length of me. I don't get it. Its as if she isn't content simply to have played me for a fool, she somehow feels the need to rub it in. What's up? Do I just have the dating equivalent of a 'kick me' sign on my back? What have I done to her--or any girl for that matter--to merit this? Have I not made it clear enough to her that I don't want any communication from her? Do I need to hand her a neon handbill outlining my position and inviting her to sit on one extreme end of the meetinghouse so that I can sit on the other?

We have clearance Clarance

2008-06-25T21:00:00.000-07:00

It's been confirmed. 'Erin' was with Jodie on all three of the occasions mentioned in my last blog. Not only that, she's says now that she didn't start dating him until a couple of days before I figured it out, and not over the three week period prior to that when she was too busy with him to do anything with me. Forget the fact that she originally told me she had been dating him for a week-and-a-half, and forget that the evidence suggests a much longer time, I guess we'll just have to accept that she really was only dating Jodie for a couple of days.... *snicker*

It just gets better and better.

2008-06-25T20:59:00.000-07:00

I find out daily just how badly I got taken for a fool. Today I saw Jodie (Erin's new boy of the hour) and realized that he looked familiar. It took me a couple of seconds, but I realized that he's the same guy from the picture in the newspaper (which isn't all that unexpected), but he's ALSO the same guy from the pictures of the trip that Erin took. He went in my place apparently, since I had to go train with the National Guard that weekend. So not only was I the tool who paid for his tickets (now I understand why Erin gave me back the money so quickly), but Erin lied to me once again about how long she'd been dating him. Remember that he was the one she was with nearly a month ago now when she was at that 'social function'? BUSTED. I cannot believe that I actually let myself get so attached to this snake of a girl. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; Feminine Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

After some introspection...

2008-06-25T20:58:00.002-07:00

I hate dating. I've said it before, and I'm saying it again because its true. The problem is that although I hate girls, I can't leave them alone. I guess I'm an eternal optimist: I always seem to have the worst experiences in dating, but I keep trying because I really hope that there's a girl out there that I want to marry. But since I've had so many bad experiences, I go into each new one with a chip on my shoulder. Each time I get excited about a girl, she turns out to be far less than I had hoped. And each time it feels worse. Take this last one (the last blog, for anybody who hasn't read it yet): can it get any crueler? I mean, do I just have a sign on my back or a target on my forehead or something? Am I just not attractive? Or not talented enough somehow? Do I perhaps treat women badly? Should I shower more often? What is it?! I really don't think that any of those things are the issue. Girls tell me all the time that I'm good-looking enough, and talented. I get comments fairly often now about my Army muscles, and how 'nice' I am (boy, that word's a dating death sentence), and nobody ever complains about my hygiene. So what is it? What would possibly possess girls to act in the ways that I've seen? Man, if I just sit and think for a second, I can come up with some good ones. Let's see, there was the girl who tried dating my best friend behind my back, then there was the girl who tried telling me she wanted to go watch a movie at her house when she really just wanted to be dropped off, after that was the girl who only wanted a physical relationship, and then of course the girl who actually got mad at me for asking her on a date, and then got mad again when I apologized, and now there's the girl who cheated on me instead of having the backbone to simply tell me that she didn't want to date anymore. Do I really need to voice my frustrations here? I've been told all sorts of things about stupid girls, from 'well maybe she just wasn't that into you' (ya think?! If she's not interested, fine, but at least be polite about it!), to 'its better this way' (yeah, try it this many times in a row, talk to me then), and then comes my favorite: 'don't let this get you down, I'm sure there's somebody out there for you!'. I cannot express how much I loathe that inane sentiment. I cannot count the number of times people have told me that I just need to 'hang in there' because 'the next one might be her', or because 'sometimes you just have to sort through the coal to find the diamond'. Yeah, or you just might be sorting through bituminous coal in Minnesota when you should have gone to a diamond mine in South Aftrica. What irritates me the most is when my female friends (which aren't many because I find myself hating the feminine thought process more and more every day) tell me about how 'nice' I am (whenever a girl says 'nice', it should be taken for 'safe friend that I would never date'), how smart, how talented, how handsome, how witty, how polite, etc... and then in the next breath tell me all about how they're looking for a guy who's 'nice', smart, talented, handsome, witty, and polite. But of course, they don't mean me. Because when I ask them on a date, I get the cold shoulder, the 'I'm just enduring this because Sterling is my friend' attitude. They act cold and stiff the entire night in order to give me their clear message that--although I fit their definition of the guy they're looking for--I'm not the guy they're looking for.
I'm going on a tangent for a second. Women lie. They never say what they actually want, and if a guy acts in accordance with EITHER what they say they want or what they really, truly want, he's wrong. Once again, I can only refer to my last blog. In the end, Erin said that she wanted me to be her friend. Now let's review; I spent a significant portion of my funds all winter driving up to Idaho (a ten hour round trip) once or twice a month just to see her. I took her to dinner, made her dinner, held her when she was sick, and didn't complain one bit when I came up and she didn't have time for me or needed to change plans. I even helped her with her work, and did a couple of minor repairs at her apartment for her. I'm going to say that that sounds pretty friendly to me, so Erin had a friend. She had what she said that she wanted. Instead of keeping that, she decided that she'd simply stop talking to her friend and ignore him for almost a month. And at the end of that month, when I found out the deception she'd been perpetuating on me, she has the audacity to say that she still me for a friend. In essence she's saying that she'd like the devotion, but her actions show that she won't value it. There's no right answer.
Getting back to the subject at hand, I also positively hate getting told that I'm bitter, and that girls are offended that I could possibly be bitter. For being touted as the emotionally sensitive, intuitive sex, girls can be pretty dumb. Yeah, I'm bitter. What tipped you off? The string of essays on bad experiences with girls? Or maybe my msn messenger status bar that says 'I hate girls.' Or perhaps you noticed that my facebook profile says the same thing. What gets me about this one, I think, is the chiding, resentful tone that most girls take when they tell me that they disaprove of my attitude. Its as if they think that since they disapprove, I therefore have no right to an opinion. I've seen it before on this same blog, when girls tell me all about how mean or vindictive I am for venting, and want me to take it all back and make out as if everything were flowers and rainbows. I'll answer all of that right now permanently: NO. I'm sorry, but my opinions are not dependent upon your approval. What good would it do to whitewash my opinions so that they're kosher and politically correct if I still feel the same way? I always have and always will refuse to change my opinions simply because somebody doesn't like them. When the occasion warrants it, I'm upset. When a girl acts in a way that is unacceptable, I will not tolerate it. If that means that some other girls get uptight that I won't turn a blind eye to their pathetic games and lies, then so be it. I think that the main reason that most girls dislike my opinions is because they're the cynical truth. Whether they want to admit it or not, I've seen signs of this same self-deception in every girl I've ever met. I have yet to see a girl who honestly says what she thinks and acts accordingly. Why should I then say something I don't think, or refrain from saying what I do think? I will not make myself a liar to please somebody who lies in such a fashion. I will not lower myself to that level in order to pander to the crowd.

That's it, I want my money back!

2008-06-25T20:58:00.001-07:00

Ok, I hope I've calmed down enough to write this entry. I regret to inform my eager public that I've got yet another episode to recount in my ongoing saga of 'Sterling should become the first Mormon Monk because girls treat him like crap and he hates them'. I will begin by saying that I'll not be naming the girl involved in this one because I'm not writing with the intent to get her attention or to harass her. I write these little blurbs because they're therapeutic for me. Its how I vent. I would ask anybody who responds to remain cordial and respectful, both of me and of any other commentators. Further, I will extend the offer that - in the event that anybody would like to make a comment anonymously - everybody is free to send their comments to me in the form of a message, and I'll post them. I welcome feedback of any kind, but I would like to point out that this is my blog, and as such, I write whatever I feel like writing. Therefore, if you aren't ready to be told in no uncertain terms that your ideas or opinions wouldn't hold enough water to put out a candle, don't post them. Allow me to recommend instead that you read my blog with a friend, shake your head about how ignorant Sterling is, and move on.
And now on to the main event. Over the course of the winter, I met and dated a girl from my hometown. For her sake, I'll call her Erin. Erin was a lot of fun to be around. She was smart and engaging, and seemed to balance me out. She was the perfect mixture of strength and weakness. There were times that she needed me, and times when she didn't. My family approved of her very highly, and I have to admit that I began to wonder if she was the right woman, the one that I finally might marry. Since I'm 26 and single with all the stigma that carries in a Mormon home, I thought about the prospect of marriage a good deal. The end of the semester was of course every bit as hectic as any ever was: I was busy moving out, taking finals, and in general running all over the place. In the middle of this, I came home the weekend before the semester ended to visit. I was planning on moving back home the following weekend anyway, but I wanted a break. How better to relax than by spending some time with a girl I like? I got in too late on Thursday night to spend any time with Erin, and Friday she and I were both working, but I was looking forward to Friday night until she sent me a text message to say that she needed to go down to Salt Lake City to watch her dad run a marathon. So Friday night and Saturday I spent with my family. On Sunday her sister was visiting, and they cleaned out her closet. I was disappointed, but she seemed normal and gave me a good-bye kiss in the five minutes that I got to see her on Sunday afternoon before I drove back down to Provo. During the next three weeks I think I got four or five text messages from her, and no phone calls at all. The next weekend I moved home, and both texted and called her on my way up, but didn't get any sort of response. After not hearing anything all day Saturday, she finally responded to one of my text messages to tell me in five words that she was out at a social function. Sunday I heard nothing, and on the following Tuesday, she texted me to tell me that she couldn't do anything because she 'had plans'. That next weekend I trained with my National Guard unit, and returned to see messages on my phone from just about everybody but her. Knowing that this was a busy time of year for her at work, I assumed that she was simply busy, although I was beginning to worry. I sent her a couple of text messages to the effect that I'd love to do something and to let me know. On Wednesday, my co-worker showed me a picture just published in the paper of her with some other guy at the social function they'd been at two Saturdays prior. Also on Wednesday after I tried to find out if she had any lunch plans, she texted me to say in a surprised tone "Oh, you're in town? I'm free for dinner, but I have plans at eight." To sum up the conversation, I responded that, yes, I was in town and had been for the last couple of weeks that she'd been ignoring me. It was no secret that I was moving up, and I'd told her when I was moving. She apologized and asked if we could still be friends. Being alert already to the situation, I asked her if that's all she wanted to be. Silence was my answer. I continued by saying that the picture in the paper, plans at eight, and silence were all the answer I needed. She reluctantly told me that she'd been dating another guy for the past week or so, but had wanted to tell me face-to-face. She asked me to come over to talk to her. After some persuading, I reluctantly agreed. What followed was one of the most pathetic conversations I've ever been privy to. She told me again that she hadn't had time to tell me that she had started dating somebody else and didn't want to date me anymore. And then came the kicker: "I hope this doesn't hurt our friendship." WOW. Woman, if this sounds like a healthy friendship to you, you ought to have your head examined. I told her very frankly that the conversation had followed pretty much the course I had expected it to, that I no longer considered her my friend at all, and that I didn't want anything more to do with her. I pointed out that while she'd had the time to start dating somebody else, she supposedly hadn't had time to tell me when I lived less than a mile away from her. After that, I left. I had nothing more to say, and neither did Erin. She tried looking appropriately sad, and maybe she actually was, but if there's one thing that Erin should learn from this episode its this: you've made your bed, now sleep in it.
Nobody forced Erin to do anything here. It would have been ok with me if she didn't want to date me anymore. Come on, that's the point of dating: you date until you either get married or realize that you don't want to date anymore, so you break up. 99% of relationships break up, that's just how it is. What I disapprove of was the general selfishness and unconcernedly apathetic obtuseness of Erin's actions. I mean really, how much energy does it take to make a phone call? Even the hackneyed "We need to talk" would have worked. Count up the weekends. I went three weeks being brushed off after six months of dating. Are you kidding me? Who in their right mind would actually try to say that they genuinely didn't have five minutes to hold a conversation in that time period? How many dates with Snake McGee did she have time for during those three weeks? And even then, the only reason that I found out was because I put the pieces together and confronted her. When was she planning on getting around to that? Friends don't do that to each other, even friends who aren't dating. There is absolutely no way that I would want to keep up a friendship with a girl like that. The warped, narcissistic girl who would presume to think that I would wish to remain her friend after treatment like that should go play on the freeway at rush hour. What's more, she tried to play off the whole thing as if it were sudden, almost accidental, and wholly out of her control. Give me a break. Relationships are one of the things that everybody thinks about frequently, especially if they're single. This is not the result of a mere whim, this is the result of forethought and consideration to one degree or another. I told her the only thing that I could. I said that she should call me when she was ready to be mature and responsible, and then I told her that as far as being friends, she'd blown it. I want the money back that I spent on her, including gas to drive five hours twice a month all winter. Women are great, its the girls that I hate.... and I'm seriously doubting that women exist.

Another Session on the Couch

2008-06-25T20:57:00.001-07:00

I've figured out another thing that irritates me about women. I hate getting stood up. Specifically, I hate being told that a girl will come by or show up to do something and waiting around in vain for her (them) to show up. Allow me to clarify; I'm not saying that I'm inflexible about changing plans. To the contrary, I can completely understand if unforeseen circumstances warrant a change in plans. What I'm complaining about is when girls make a commitment that they never intend to keep, but never bother conveying that lack of desire to me. Take, for example, the other night; my roommates and I decided that we wanted to play some games because none of us had any plans made for Saturday night. So we spent the better part of the afternoon planning and inviting girls to come play with us. I know I personally invited three apartments' worth of girls, and my roommates all invited girls too. So when the time came around that we had told all of the girls to show up, we had our apartment clean and everything arranged and ready to spend a fun evening. And true to my Utah experience, none of them showed up. As if to sprinkle salt on the wound, none of them called or sent a message or even acknowledged that we invited them at all, then or now. I cannot fathom at all the egocentric mindset that would think that this is acceptable social behavior. I mean, its rare but possible that something came up that commanded so much attention that none of them could come, but to think that something somehow prevented each of 20-something girls from coming AND from letting us know is so far out of the everyday as to be virtually impossible. Further, it is unsupportable from a social standpoint not to have mentioned anything since then. And none of them has mentioned anything about their conspicuous absence that night.
Have I illustrated my point? I think what infuriates me the most is the blindness that girls in general exhibit after pulling stunts like this (there are endless variations of this same indifference that I've seen). I can't count the number of girls who come to me whining about how unappreciated they feel, or how unnoticed. And yet the behavior continues. Am I the only one who notices the disparity here? The double standard that men must meet while women somehow exempt themselves? I, for one, refuse to play anymore. I don't mind making some sacrifices for friends, but I dead refuse to keep spending money on other men's future wives. Women are like cats; if you offer them the right things, then they're happy and life is good as long as you can afford to keep doing so (at an emotional, financial, and physical cost which rises steadily with time). However, if they're not satisfied, they do not hesitate to let you know. And the kicker is that either way, whether they're happy with you or not, there is no gratitude. When I get a 'thank you' from a girl at the end of a date, it is almost invariably after I first say something along the lines of 'hey, thanks for a great date!' So of course the obligatory, formulaic response is always 'yeah, I had a good time' in some non-committal tone that says the exact opposite. The sincerity kills me every time... All I can think is "Well, no second date for you."

For Veronica, for whom Hades is too nice a place.

2008-06-25T20:56:00.000-07:00

I have a hypothetical situation for consideration. Let us say that a young man named Sterling- who is 25, single, good-looking, talented, and recently home from a prolonged stint of training with the Army- asks a young woman out on a date. Now, for purely random reasons which most emphatically do not have anything to do with recent events in the author's own life, let's call this woman Veronica. Veronica is a pretty young woman of 24 with dark hair, dark eyes, and a cheerful presence. She's also talented; she dances and maintains a 4.0 GPA at their common university. Prior to asking her on a date, Sterling and Veronica have spoken while passing each other in the hall, eating with mutual friends, competing in dance competitions, and entering/exiting classes. They both smile and joke often, and seem to equally enjoy the limited time they spend conversing. One day, as part of a joke that they'd made several nights before, Sterling buys Veronica lunch; its nothing major, just pizza that they eat together with several other friends. In spite of being forewarned by other friends that Veronica doesn't really date, that night Sterling asks Veronica if she'd like to go on a date that weekend. To pause from my narrative for a moment, I'd like to ask the reader several hypothetical questions: Does this sound like anything other than a normal encounter between two mature adults? Does it sound like Sterling has moved too fast? Does it sound like Veronica is completely uninterested in Sterling? In spite of most guys' understanding that not every single girl they meet wants to date them, does it sound like Sterling's got no chance? Even knowing that Veronica doesn't date, has Sterling got anything to lose by asking? Is it rude of Sterling to ask in light of that information? To continue, Veronica flat-out says no. She makes it clear that she'd not like to go on a date and reiterates what their friends have said; that she doesn't date. Sterling, understandably, is a bit disappointed, but accepts her answer. By way of making conversation and getting to know Veronica a little better, Sterling asks casually why it is that she doesn't date. Did she perhaps have a bad experience or something? For the next two weeks, he hears absolutely nothing from Veronica, not even a reply to his question. He sees her in the hall once or twice, but doesn't have an opportunity to talk to her until he's invited to come eat lunch with another friend who happens to be sitting with Veronica. Veronica wastes no time in asking him to buy her pizza again, which he declines to do. Over the course of the ensuing conversation, she gives him to know in no uncertain terms that she was still very mad at him from their conversation two weeks prior. Like most guys, Sterling is a bit perplexed by her ire. What had he done to her? He'd always been polite and courteous, and had obeyed her wishes when she refused to go on a date with him. He'd even tried to be understanding and supportive of her decision, so what was the problem?
Let's drop the pretense. Veronica exists, and obviously I'M Sterling. I cannot express the feelings that I experienced when Veronica had the gall to tell me all about how mad she was that I had dared to ask why it is that she doesn't date. Leaving that conversation to one side for a moment, I will tell you that I was so indignant that it took me two full laps of our campus and 45 minutes of playing the piano to calm down again. I'll go into the reasons that it upset me so much later, but for now I return to the narrative. Apparently, in the twisted Book of Self-Evident Facts that Veronica keeps in her backpack, it was just plain rude of me to ask her anything about herself. Now please correct me if I'm wrong, but did it not appear to all third-party observers that Veronica and I were developing some sort of friendly relationship, if not an outright friendship? And do not friends speak to each other of their preferences and feelings?
I've spent my entire life becoming the type of guy that girls always say that they want. My native intelligence has allowed me to get good grades and educate myself extensively, both in traditional academic fields and in various other fields that have interested me personally. I play sports well, and stay in good shape physically. I've learned how to listen, so I've always been the guy that my female friends come to when they're upset or sad. Long after my buddies have broken up with them, their former girlfriends still come to me for a sympathetic ear and a shoulder to cry on. I attend church regularly, and served for two years as a missionary in Barcelona, Spain. People from all different churches speak to me about religion because they know somehow that I'm interested in my own and tolerant of other's. I'm a qualified Finish Carpenter with ten years' experience, a licensed Loan Officer, and a trained Combat Engineer in the Army. I speak easily, eloquently, and sincerely- in two languages. I speak Spanish so well that I was often mistaken for being Spanish in Barcelona. I sing Tenor, play the piano and the trumpet, fold origami, snowboard, ski, snorkel, camp, hike, water-ski, and run. I'm not shy. I'm confident and usually funny, and don't fret over having to speak in front of people, or to unknown people.
Why then the disparity between what girls say that they want (a guy who's smart, or witty, or talented, or nice, or whatever else they profess to want) and what they actually choose? From my earliest years, my female friends' mothers have mentioned on several occasions that they want their daughters to marry somebody like me. They can see the value in the qualities that I have acquired through my hard work while their offspring cannot. Girls pay lip service to the 'ideal guy', but date the opposite. And then when they whine and cry and ask why it is that the guy they're dating is treating them so badly, its to me that they sob. Its on my shoulder that they lean. We've come full circle. Veronica typifies the class of girl which I despise; the one that begs for understanding without being understanding. The type of girl who screams and hollers at the top of her voice that she wants somebody to listen to her without paying attention to the guys next to her who are patiently waiting for her to finish her diatribe. The type of girl who gets offended and upset when a guy actually does pay attention to her and sincerely tries to understand her.
I've made an honest effort to be nice to Veronica and understanding of her. Even though I don't believe that I was in the wrong for asking about her reasoning, I've worked hard to overcome my own irritation with her and today apologized that I hadn't been friendly toward her lately. Once again, what woman would say that she doesn't ever want a man to apologize to her? Somehow, my apology seemed to give new impetus to Veronica's righteous indignation. I guess she felt vindicated, or somehow freshly insulted by my apology. Freudian psychologists everywhere are probably beating each other over the head for a chance to study this girl.
The hell of it is that even in light of her boorish, selfish, irrational behavior, I can still see in her the attractive qualities that impelled me to ask her on a date in the first place. Even though she's bad-mouthed me to her friends and finds fault or takes offense at everything I say, if she were simply to say that she was sorry, I'd likely put everything behind me. Words cannot express the self-loathing that follows that realization.

Full Speed Ahead and Damn the Torpedoes!

2008-06-25T20:53:00.000-07:00

I had an interesting conversation with a friend of mine today. I'm pretty sure that it was exasperating in the extreme for her, but I also think that the ideas it brought out are worth posting as a new blog. I was complaining about an irritating situation that I'm working on, and she told me that what I really needed to do was look on the bright side and realize that this will be a valuable experience to me later on in life. Let me explain for a moment that this girl is one of the sweetest, most patient, understanding girls I've ever met. She accepts and loves just about everybody she meets, she's always polite and respectful... basically, she's a much better person than I am. (I hope she doesn't read this. She'll be insufferable and I'll never live it down) Anyway, the short version is that her advice wasn't what I wanted to hear. What fascinates me is how my reasons for why it annoyed me so completely seemed to solidify into one self-consistent theory when I tried explaining to her why I had suddenly become so annoyed. The following are fragments of my explanation, some spliced together where I've edited out her comments. (Which were incredibly cogent in and of themselves. However, my blog is completely unilateral without any apologies, a position which I have explained before. I just present my ideas here, although hers would make a fantastic blog in their own right.) Altogether, I've stayed true to the original conversation wherever possible:

No, I just don't like hearing the party line about how its all flowers and rainbows in reality. I hate that in fact. It feels like the ideal sunday school teacher that everybody aspires to be without realizing just how irritating and unrealistic that persona is. Its not a question of being pessimistic or optimistic, its the implications that I don't like. In that viewpoint there is a certain complacency both inherent and implied that I don't agree with. Rather than sit around saying "oh, I'm sure I'll look back at this rediculous situation years from now and appreciate having gone through it!", I'd rather look around, say "You know, this sucks. I'm going to change it.", and then be proactive. Its not the optimism that irritates me; its the implied complacency. I'm really a pretty optimistic guy; that's what drives me to be proactive about it. I would hardly do anything if I weren't optimistic enough to believe that I could change it, would I? Incidentally, the converse course of resigning myself to my fate instead of trying to resolve it would be the pessimistic view. I think the other thing that I hate about hearing that I should accept a given situation is the feeling that I'm 'wimping out'. I don't like to cede victory to any situation. It just feels too much like I've deprived myself of an opportunity to better my situation and instead copped out with the excuse that I'm just looking for the silver lining to the storm cloud. I'd rather notice the silver lining on my way through to the sunshine above the cloud by resolving the situation. Who in their right mind would stay in the rain cloud to look at the silver lining if they can get themselves back into the sunlight?!