|
|
||||||
|
Almost everything about a human creature is ridiculous, except it’s ability to suffer bravely, and die gallantly, for whatever it loves and believes in. The validity of that belief, the appropriateness of that love, is irrelevant; it is the bravery and the gallantry that count. These are uniquely human qualities… -stone I’m beautiful in my way, ’cause god makes no mistakes, I’m on the right track, baby I was born this way… -stone i’m bored, entertain me -stone well, okay, how about — end of line — sometimes other people can say it sooo much better than i: It’s happened again. Not for the first time, I was subjected the other day to a heartfelt diatribe on how Ikea has singlehandedly leached all the vitality and vigor out of the world, shoehorned human creativity into an infinity of barcode-anonymous MDF wall units, and spawned endless cyborg armies of khaki-clad, essentially fungible consumervolk. You read that right: Ikea. Unlike many nonsensical prejudices, it’s roughly possible to trace the root source of all this hostility, identify a locus classicus of Ikeaphobia: in this case, the vastly-overrated Fight Club. Ever since the film hit American screens, some years ago now, it’s been hip among would-be cynics of a certain cohort to reserve a stream of vituperation for the giant Swedish furnishings chain. (For those of you who didn’t see the movie, it contained a very nicely-produced CG sequence that essentially laid the blame for all that is fake, mediocre and generic in contemporary life at the company’s blue-and-yellow feet: the minute-long rant that launched ten thousand sneers.) I must hear some version of this spiel once a month, generally from some self-consciously leftie male between the ages of sixteen and twenty-two desperate to prove his authenticity, present his down-with-the-people, fuck-the-Man bona fides. This despite the fact that Ikea was explicitly founded on the premise of providing well-designed furniture to the masses at affordable prices – a premise that the company still largely delivers on. (If I have a quibble, it’s with quality, not price.) You know what? I’m done with it. If your life is mediocre, I promise you, Ingvar Kamprad didn’t make it that way. You did. And if you’re so desperate for your own soixante-huit moment that you can sit there with a straight face and tell me that you’re being oppressed by flat-packable pine furniture with goofy pseudo-Scandinavian names, I’d advise you to spend a few days working with child slaves in the Sudan, or something. There’s an equally wrongheaded sibling rant, which is the eternal current of complaint lodged against Starbucks Coffee. Although there’s probably more truth in the notion that Starbucks has made it difficult for independent local alternatives to survive – mmmmmmmaybe – most critiques directed at the chain strike me as being built on the same shaky armature of self-righteousness, spoiledness, and ahistoricity. Like the blistering Ikea-hatred, there’s something wildly out of scale in the tone and tenor of the criticism directed at Starbucks. To reiterate, in the wake of a perhaps representative rant of this type: I drink Starbucks coffee on a fairly regular basis and am generally quite satisfied. The chain provides a highly reliable, reasonably high-quality beverage – high-octane drip coffee, in my case – at a not-absurd price point. I am rarely more than a block or two away from one. I get much less attitude from the people behind the counter than I do at the one indie coffeehouse I frequent – I mean, they’ll actually say hi, remember me and my drink from yesterday, refrain from chatting with each other while I’m standing there waiting to order. And their bathrooms tend to the clean. More importantly, I am also old enough to remember the swill that Americans drank and were pleased to call “coffee” before Howard Schultz swept down out of his damp PNW redoubt and clusterbombed us with franchises. It tasted like soggy cardboard, it was served in chipped diner porcelain that itself generally tasted of soap, and most importantly, with a very few exceptions, it was all you could get anywhere. There simply was no alternative, let alone an entire alternative venue that also provided comfortable seating. At sixty or seventy-five cents, too, this “coffee” was no bargain – far better to my mind to pay twice that and get something consistently worth drinking. Finally, for those of you who seem to be so incensed with the musical selections on offer at Starbucks: god forbid we should enjoy some Ella Fitzgerald or Frank Sinatra from time to time. You don’t like it, bring an iPod. Can you see that I’m really, really tired of people whining and complaining about the horrible, evil, monocultural, hegemonizing, bland, MOR grafted devil that is Starbucks? I mean, you try and find another place in Beijing, or on I-40 in the ass-end of nowhere, that rocks coffee this good. (What’s that? You can’t? Or if you can, it is solely because Starbucks tutored the mass audience in what to demand of coffee? Yeah, I thought so.) The dynamic at work in both cases is one many of us might recognize from bad relationships: when a deeply wounded person suffering from low self-esteem finally fights back against the various agents of their distress, very often it’s the closest, most sympathetic soft target they lash out at first, in defiance of all logic (or justice). Not the absent father, but the present lover. It feels like the same neurosis at work with young activists of the No Logo stripe: never ADM, General Dynamics, Monsanto, but Nike and Ikea and Starbucks. And never mind that each of these latter firms is, to a greater or lesser degree, founded on what used to be known as progressive principles, or is to a greater or lesser degree responsive to the demands of a politically and socially conscious audience. What I would sorely like to do is channel all the resentment currently directed at what are, after all, relatively benign inhabitants of the corporate sphere where it belongs, to drop all of that change energy on the institutions that actually are responsible for far greater deformations of the world. Is a little sense of scale too much to ask for? — end of line — September 11, 2004 “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” -George Orwell The Marine Corps is tired. I guess I should not say that, as I have no authority or responsibility to speak for the Marine Corps as a whole, and my opinions are mine alone. I will rephrase: this Marine is tired. I write this piece from the sands of Iraq, west of Baghdad, at three a.m., but I am not tired of the sand. I am neither tired of long days, nor of flying and fighting. I am not tired of the food, though it does not taste quite right. I am not tired of the heat; I am not tired of the mortars that occasionally fall on my base. I am not tired of Marines dying, though all Marines, past and present, mourn the loss of every brother and sister that is killed; death is a part of combat and every warrior knows that going into battle. One dead Marine is too many, but we give more than we take, and unlike our enemies, we fight with honor. I am not tired of the missions or the people; I have only been here a month, after all. I am, however, tired of the hypocrisy and short-sightedness that seems to have gripped so many of my countrymen and the media. I am tired of political rhetoric that misses the point, and mostly I am tired of people “not getting it.” Three years ago I was sitting in a classroom at Quantico, Virginia, while attending the Marine Corps Basic Officer Course, learning about the finer points of land navigation. Our Commanding Officer interrupted the class to inform us that some planes had crashed in New York and Washington D.C., and that he would return when he knew more. Tears welled in the eyes of the Lieutenant on my right while class continued, albeit with an audience that was not very focused; his sister lived in New York and worked at the World Trade Center. We broke for lunch, though instead of going to the chow hall proceeded to a small pizza and sub joint which had a television. Slices of pizza sat cold in front of us as we watched the same vivid images that you watched on September 11, 2001. I look back on that moment now and realize even then I grasped, at some level, that the events of that day would alter both my military career and my country forever. Though I did not know that three years later, to the day, I would be flying combat missions in Iraq as an AH-1W Super Cobra pilot, I did understand that a war had just begun, on television for the world to see, and that my classmates and I would fight that war. After lunch we were told to go to our rooms, clean our weapons and pack our gear for possible deployment to the Pentagon to augment perimeter security. The parting words of the order were to make sure we packed gloves, in case we had to handle bodies. The first Marine killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom was in my company at The Basic School, and was sitting in that land navigation class on September 11. He fought bravely, led from the front, and was killed seizing an oil refinery on the opening day of the war. His heroism made my emergency procedure memorization for the T-34 primary flight school trainer seem quite insignificant. This feeling of frustration was shared by all of the student pilots, but we continued to press on. As one instructor pointed out to us, “You will fight this war, not me. Make sure that you are prepared when you get there.” He was right; my classmates from Pensacola are here beside me, flying every day in support of the Marines on the ground. That instructor has since retired, but I believe he has retired knowing that he made a contribution to the greatest country in the history of the world, the United States of America. Many of you will read that statement and balk at its apparently presumptuous and arrogant nature, and perhaps be tempted to stop reading right here. I would ask that you keep going, for I did not say that Americans are better than anyone else, for I do not believe that to be the case. I did not say that our country, its leaders, military or intelligence services are perfect or have never made mistakes, because throughout history they have, and will continue to do so, despite their best efforts. The Nation is more than the sum of its citizens and leaders, more than its history, present, or future; a nation has contemporary values which change as its leaders change, but it also has timeless character, ideals forged with the blood and courage of patriots. To quote the Pledge of Allegiance, our nation was founded “under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” As Americans, we have more freedom than we can handle sometimes. If you are an atheist you might have a problem with that whole “under God” part; if you are against liberating the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Asia, all of Europe (twice), and the former Soviet bloc, then perhaps the “liberty and justice for all” section might leave you fuming. Our Nation, throughout its history, has watered the seeds of democracy on many continents, with blood, even when the country was in disagreement about those decisions. Disagreement is a wonderful thing. To disagree with your neighbors and your government is at the very heart of freedom. Citizens have disagreed about every important and controversial decision made by their leaders throughout history. Truman had the courage to drop two nuclear weapons in order to end the largest war in history, and then, by his actions, prevented the Soviets from extinguishing the light of democracy in Eastern Europe, Berlin. Lincoln preserved our country through civil war; Reagan knew in his heart that freedom is a more powerful weapon than oppression. Leaders are paid to make difficult, sometimes controversial decisions. History will judge the success of their actions and the purity of their intent in a way that is impossible at the present moment. In your disagreement and debate about the current conflict, however, be very careful that you do not jeopardize your nation or those who serve. The best time to use your freedom of speech to debate difficult decisions is before they are made, not when the lives of your countrymen are on the line. Cherish your civil rights; I know that after having been in Iraq for only one month I have a new appreciation for mine. You have the right to say that you “support the troops” but oppose the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. You have the right to vote for Senator John Kerry because you believe that he has an exit strategy for Iraq, or because you just cannot stand President Bush. You have the right to vote for President George W. Bush if you believe that he has done a good job over the last four years. You might even decide that you do not want to vote at all and would rather avoid the issues as much as possible. That is certainly your option, and doing nothing is the only option for many people in this world. It is not my place nor am I allowed by the Uniformed Code of Military Justice to tell you how to vote. But I can explain to you the truth about what is going on around you. We know, and have known from the beginning, that the ultimate success or failure of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the future of those countries, rests solely on the shoulders of the Iraqi and Afghani people. If someone complains that we should not have gone to war with Saddam Hussein, that our intelligence was bad, that President Bush’s motives were impure, then take the appropriate action. Exercise your right to vote for Senator Kerry, but please stop complaining about something that happened over a year ago. The decision to deploy our military in Iraq and Afghanistan is in the past, and while I believe that it is important to the democratic process for our nation to analyze the decisions of our leadership in order to avoid repeating mistakes, it is far more important to focus on the future. The question of which candidate will “get us out of Iraq sooner” should not be a consideration in your mind. YOU SHOULD NOT WANT US OUT OF IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN SOONER. There is only one coherent exit strategy that will make our time here worthwhile and validate the sacrifice of so many of our countrymen. There is only one strategy that has a chance of promoting peace and stabilizing the Middle East. It is the exit strategy of both candidates, though voiced with varying volumes and differing degrees of clarity. I will speak of Iraq because that is where I am, though I feel the underlying principle applies to both Iraq and Afghanistan. The American military must continue to help train and support the Iraqi Police, National Guard, and Armed Forces. We must continue to give them both responsibility and the authority with which to carry out those responsibilities, so that they eventually can kill or capture the former regime elements and foreign terrorists that are trying to create a radical, oppressive state. We must continue to repair the infrastructure that we damaged during the conflict, and improve the infrastructure that was insufficient when Saddam was in power. We should welcome and encourage partners in the coalition but recognize that many will choose the path of least resistance and opt out; many of our traditional allies have been doing this for years and it should not surprise us. We must respect the citizens of Iraq and help them to understand the meaning of basic human rights, for those are something the average Iraqi has never experienced. We must be respectful of our cultural and religious differences. We must help the Iraqis develop national pride, and most importantly, we must leave this country better than we found it, at the right time, with a chance of success so that its people will have an opportunity to forge their own destiny. We must do all of these things as quickly and efficiently as possible so that we are not seen as occupiers, but rather liberators and helpers. We must communicate this to the world as clearly and frequently as possible, both with words and actions. If we leave before these things are done, then Iraq will fall into anarchy and possibly plunge the Middle East into another war. The ability of the United States to conduct foreign policy will be severely, and perhaps permanently, degraded. Terrorism will increase, both in America and around the world, as America will have demonstrated that it is not interested in building and helping, only destroying. If we run or exit early, we prove to our enemies that terror is more powerful and potent than freedom. Many nations, like Spain, have already affirmed this in the minds of the terrorists. Our failure, and its consequences, will be squarely on our shoulders as a nation. It will be our fault. If we stay the course and Iraq or Afghanistan falls into civil war on its own, then our hands are clean. As a citizen of the United States and a U.S. Marine, I will be able to sleep at night with nothing on my conscience, for I know that I, and my country, have done as much as we could for these people. If we leave early, I will not be able to live with myself, and neither should you. The blood will be on our hands, the failure on our watch. The bottom line is this: Republican or Democrat, approve or disapprove of the decision to go to war, you need to support our efforts here. You cannot both support the troops and protest their mission. Every time the parent of a fallen Marine gets on CNN with a photo, accusing President Bush of murdering his son, the enemy wins a strategic victory. I cannot begin to comprehend the grief he feels at the death of his son, but he dishonors the memory of my brave brother who paid the ultimate price. That Marine volunteered to serve, just like the rest of us. No one here was drafted. I am proud of my service and that of my peers. I am ashamed of that parent’s actions, and I pray to God that if I am killed my parents will stand with pride before the cameras and reaffirm their belief that my life and sacrifice mattered; they loved me dearly and they firmly support the military and its mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. With that statement, they communicate very clearly to our enemies around the world that America is united, that we cannot be intimidated by kidnappings, decapitations and torture, and that we care enough about the Afghani and Iraqi people to give them a chance at democracy and basic human rights. Do not support those that seek failure for us, or seek to trivialize the sacrifices made here. Do not make the deaths of your countrymen be in vain. Communicate to your media and elected officials that you are behind us and our mission. Send letters and encouragement to those who are deployed. When you meet a person that serves you, whether in the armed forces, police, or fire department, show them respect. Thank the spouses around you every day, raising children alone, whose loved ones are deployed. Remember not only those that have paid the ultimate price, but the veterans that bear the physical and emotional scars of defending your freedom. At the very least, follow your mother’s advice. “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.” Do not give the enemy a foothold in our Nation’s public opinion. He rejoices at Fahrenheit 9/11 and applauds every time an American slams our efforts. The military can succeed here so long as American citizens support us wholeheartedly. Sleep well on this third anniversary of 9/11, America. Rough men are standing ready to do violence on your behalf. Many of your sons and daughters volunteered to stand watch for you. Not just rough men – the infantry, the Marine grunts, the Special Operations Forces- but lots of eighteen and nineteen year old kids, teenagers, who are far away from home, serving as drivers, supply clerks, analysts, and mechanics. They all have stories, families, and dreams. They miss you, love you, and are putting their lives on the line for you. Do not make their time here, their sacrifice, a waste. Support them, and their mission. — end of line — Stupid people who can’t spell or speak with any kind of intelligence whatsoever irritate the shit out of me… I mean really, how hard is it people, Take a few minutes and LEARN SOMETHING. Grammar and Usage TipsContentsCapitalization CapitalizationThis section contains the following topics: Rules for Title Case Rules for Title CaseIn titles (such as section headings for which design guidelines specify title case), always capitalize the first and last words, and apply the following rules to the other words:
Notes: Do not capitalize case-sensitive computer terms or product names that start with a lowercase letter (“The fdisk Command”). In table column headings, capitalize only the first word of the heading (as in the preceding table).
Keyboard IdentifiersIn accordance with Microsoft’s style guidelines, use all-uppercase for the names of keys. In addition, apply the following rules when indicating keyboard-related actions:
“web” vs. “Web”There is no consensus at all on web vs. Web or on Web site (or Website) vs. web site (or website). For consistency, use lowercase except when explicitly referring to the World Wide Web:
For web site vs. website, see Compound Words. (Hint: Use web site).
“e-mail” vs. “E-mail”Regard the “e” in e-mail as shorthand for “electronic” rather than as an initial:
Notes: Always include the hyphen in e-mail. Do not refer to a single message as “an e-mail”; say “an e-mail message” instead (just as you would say “a glass of water” rather than “a water”).
Random Acts of CapitalizationAvoid capitalizing a term or phrase just because it sounds or feels important or proper noun–ish; either it’s a proper noun (or an actual title) or it isn’t. (The saying “When in doubt, leave it out” applies to such acts of capitalization—and in some cases, to telling jokes at parties.)
TerminologyThis section contains the following topics: Preferred Terms for Various Characters Preferred Terms for Various CharactersHere are two examples of correct terminology for special characters or punctuation marks (for more examples, see the Microsoft Manual of Style for Technical Publications):
“Click” vs. “Click On”Use click rather than click on.
Note: Double-click is always hyphenated.
“Comprises” vs. “Comprised Of”Comprises means “consists of” or “is made up of”; therefore, it is incorrect to say “comprised of”, which is like saying “consists of of”.
“License” vs. “Licence”For consistency, use license rather than licence.
Hyphenation and “One Word or Two?” IssuesThis section contains the following topics: Verb, Noun, or Modifier? Verb, Noun, or Modifier?Sometimes a pair of words should be separate, hyphenated, or combined into a single word depending on whether the pair functions as a verb (“Check out the file”), a noun (“The checkout was successful”, or a modifier (“The check-out procedure involves three steps”). Note that some word pairs do not have all three forms. For example, checkin is not a word; use the hyphenated version as a noun or modifier, and use check in (two separate words) as a verb. Sometimes, if there is no ambiguity, a two-word modifier doesn’t need a hyphen:
At other times, however, the hyphen is required:
You want to be sure that you’re not dealing with a short postal worker with a gun. Note that a two-word verb used as a modifier always takes a hyphen:
PrefixesInclude a hyphen after a prefix (a nonword appendage such as pre or un) only when there is a particular need for it. The following do not require a hyphen:
A hyphen is necessary in special cases as in the following examples:
Compound WordsSome compound words are free from dispute (for example, weekend is one word); however, there is sometimes no consensus regarding relatively modern terms. One example is web site vs. website. For consistency, use web site (or not!)
Two-Word VerbsThe second word in a two-word verb (such as log in, log on, or check in) is part of the verb; do not replace it with into or onto.
Em DashesAn em dash (—) often indicates an interruption in a thought. In technical writing, however, use em dashes mainly to delimit parenthetical statements that deserve more attention than parentheses would indicate, or (sometimes) instead of a colon or semicolon to link clauses. Do not put spaces around an em dash.
In HTML, use — (rather than the Windows character) for an em dash.
En DashesIn addition to the usual uses for an en dash (number ranges, date ranges, and minus signs), use an en dash instead of a hyphen if one part of the hyphenate is a two-word term:
Normally, you don’t put spaces around an en dash; however, as a special case, you can use an en dash surrounded by spaces instead of a colon in lists (if, for example, the list is introduced with a colon):
If you introduce a range with a preposition, do not use an en dash in the range; use a word like to or and:
In HTML, use – (rather than the Windows character) for an en dash.
GrammarThis section contains the following topics: “Only” As an Adverb – Correct Placement “Only” As an Adverb – Correct PlacementPlace the adverb only next to whatever it modifies in the sentence.
Note: “They only bought three books” is slightly ambiguous, because it could mean that instead of actually reading the books, they merely bought them. Even though the meaning is usually discernible from the context in such cases, the muddying of the word order can have an unprofessional ring to it.
“Display” As a Verb – Correct UsageUsed as a verb, display always takes an object:
“Then” As a Conjunction (Avoid!)From the Microsoft Manual of Style for Technical Publications:
Note that the semicolon option (“On the File menu, click Save As; then type the name of the file“) is not to everyone’s taste (though it is grammatically correct), because the semicolon can give the impression of hitting the brakes a bit hard. Consider using the form of Microsoft’s example above (“On the File menu, click Save As, and then type the name of the file“).
“Install” As a Noun (Avoid!)Install is a verb only. Unlike some verbs (like run), install should not appear as a noun. (You can say you had a nice run, but you can’t say you had a successful install. Instead, say that installation was successful.)
“Different From” vs. “Different Than”Use different from, not different than. Also, be sure to contrast apples with apples:
“So” vs. “So That”From Dictionary.com:
However, a problem arises if leaving out that makes the meaning slightly ambiguous. Consider the following three sentences:
The meaning of example 1 is perfectly clear: “I’m taking out the garbage in order to prevent the kitchen from stinking in the morning.” Assuming that number 1 expresses the meaning intended by the speaker, example 3 is incorrect. The comma changes the likely meaning as follows: “Because I’m taking out the garbage, the kitchen won’t stink in the morning.” This is incorrect—after all, the kitchen might stink due to something completely unrelated to the garbage (a dead rat, for instance). What about example 2? Is it example 3 with a missing comma, or is it example 1 without the optional that? Choose so that when it alleviates ambiguity; otherwise, you can choose so (to avoid undue formality or wordiness). Note that the example from Dictionary.com conveys basically the same information no matter which way you interpret so:
That vs. WhichWe all know that which vs. that is a matter of unrestricted vs. restricted clauses, but here is a handy rule of thumb that saves a few brain cycles: If you’ve written which without a comma (or a left parenthesis or an em dash) before it, you’ve probably done something wrong. Note: This doesn’t count uses of which like “Which finger is the ring on?” or “Speaking of which…” Here are some examples of the rule in action:
“Who” vs. “That” or “Which”Use who rather than that or which when referring to a person.
Active Voice vs. Passive VoiceAvoid passive voice except when it is necessary (or preferable) to avoid explicitly naming the performer of the real action. (To avoid making it obvious that you don’t know who did it, you might say “The information was leaked to the press” rather than “Someone leaked the information to the press”; however, if you know who did it, say “The White House leaked the information to the press.”) In the incorrect form of the example below, passive voice is not only less effective, it leads to broken grammar (see Sentence Integrity: What Is the Subject?).
Collective NounsThe consensus of experts regarding whether the verb should take the singular or plural form to agree with a collective noun is that it depends on whether the emphasis is on the group acting as a unit or on the individuals acting somewhat independently. This view suggests that “The company is creating jobs” and “A bunch of children are tracking mud through my house” would both be reasonable sentences.
Sentence Integrity: What Is the Subject?Answering the question, “What is the subject?” explains what is wrong with the following sentences:
Note: In certain cases (such as commands), the subject “you” is implied when (and only when) no subject appears at all (“When taking out the trash, [you] be sure to put the lid back on the can”). There comes a time in every man’s life when he has to choose sides. I have chosen my side. I am comfortable with my decision. I do not think everyone on my side is a saint, but I know that those on the other side are much, much worse. Sometimes a man with too broad a perspective reveals himself as having no real perspective at all. A man who tries too hard to see every side may be a man who is trying to avoid choosing any side. A man who tries too hard to seek a deeper truth may actually be a man trying to hide from the truth he already knows. That is not a sign of intellectual sophistication and “great thinking”. It is a demonstration of moral degeneracy and cowardice. it’s always interesting to hear about your past on the far end of a game of telephone. well, i didn’t really meet him, since i still have no idea who he is, but hey, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. interesting dialouge about one of my favorite women in the entire world. doing a lot of soul searching now. interesting trip that. sometimes i wish my reputation would take me along for the ride… hrishi has been found. |
 |
|||||
|
Copyright © 2012 Sylverstone - All Rights Reserved Powered by  |
||||||
Recent Comments