imperialism and candy hearts
so, i'm almost halfway through The Folly of Empire now and let me tell you, it is blowing my freaking mind. for example: did you know that, in 1900, after fighting to "liberate" the phillipines from spain in the spanish-american war, the united states (with mckinley as president) engaged in a fourteen-year war with the phillipines, fighting against the same independence movement that we had encouraged when trying to oust spain? sound familiar? and why haven't i heard about this until now?
even more shocking, when dubya visited the phillipines in October 2003, he had the nerve to say the following: "america is proud of its part in the great story of the filipino people. together our soldiers liberated the phillipines from colonial rule. together we rescued the islands from invasion and occupation." does he know he's lying or is he delusional? we may never know.
i think that reading about what happened in the phillipines is reassuring to a certain extent. i mean, bush's imperialism isn't a new thing. maybe, if we were able to fight our way back from the moral terpitude of mckinley's actions in the phillipines, we can fight our way back from bush's actions in iraq (and now probably iran)? even though i'm totally horrified by the events detailed in this book, i guess it's giving me some bastardized form of hope.
also, i found this bad-ass candy-heart generator. check it out. you won't be disappointed. unless you have more than four letters in your name.
also, the gym is going well. i did 4 miles on the elliptical yesterday and i can feel my ass shrinking as we speak. i honestly believe that the thing that will really keep me motivated to go to the gym is that they have cable and i don't, and reno 911 comes on just as i'm stepping onto the elliptical. seems kind of lame but hey, whatever works, right? or, as my dear darling sage mother says, "it's not how your mind works. it's knowing how your mind works." and i know that my mind works on a steady diet of comedy central and the simpsons.
okay, enough for now.
oh, and listen to the new pornographers. they're awesome.
and this:
file this under "i thought this happened 10 years ago": george michael bids farewell to pop music.
posted by stefanie @ 4:44 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
good eye! i combined two posts into one because i was complaining to ruth about how i didn't get any comments, and she said "well, your post was really short" so i was afraid that people would see the short one, think it was the only new one, and miss the one before it, which was from the same day. so, yes, i consolidated them, because i wanted to believe that the reason i didn't get comments isn't that people don't love me or think i'm witty, but because they were simply confused.
oh, bogdan! you're such a doll.
i guess i would say that you should comment on the post you want to comment on, even if it's an old one. if you wanted to be really thorough (but annoying) you could post a comment on the new post saying "guys, i said something wicked funny in response to the january 5th post!"
or, you know, not.
I just wanted to say that I submitted an inconsequential comment a few days ago on this post but Blogger is pretending as though I didn't. Even though it was probably stupid and worthless, my words deserve to be read! Or not. Of course now that I'm dissing Blogger it will probably lose this comment too...
Post a Comment
<< Home