Annoying Gnats of Our Natures (Active Fists in the Faces of Activists)
If I asked Cindy Sheehan to shut up and go home, I'm afraid she'd interpret my advice in entirely the wrong manner. But I really wish she would shut up and go home, along with all the other protestors and counterprotestors (counterprotestors! stop and think for a moment about the fact we actually have such people). Maybe these self-important folks on both sides can get together and start their own country called "Stridentia." In the DSS--Disunited State of Stridentia--marching in protest would not merely be a right granted by the Constitution, it would be a daily requirement. All people on one side of the protest would be "heroes" and "patriots" and everyone on the opposite side of the cause would be "traitors" and "ingrates."
Whoever won these power struggles would immediately deport the opposition back to the United States, but that's okay because the next day we'd deport them right back to Stridentia!
Am I the only one not convinced that taking off work, carrying a sign, and chanting some simplistic slogan makes one a superior citizen? This has nothing to do with rights. Certainly, all the people in Crawford, Texas have the right to assemble and protest, but I have the right to wear a platinum blonde wig, run backwards down the street and shout "The Kool-Aid Man was a communist!" (after all, he was red); that doesn't mean people won't say I'm a goof if I do it.
If you're looking for intelligent and thoughtful discourse on the war in Iraq, I have very little to offer. Part of this is due to the sheer scope and multifaceted nature of the issue itself, but mostly it's because I'm neither thoughtful nor intelligent. And since when are people interested in thought and intellect, anyway? I sure can't tell. For the sake of "taking a stand" and "making a difference" or any other cliche', however, an abbreviated version of my position is this: War is justified only when the cost ("cost" here can refer to the loss of liberty, body count, monetary loss, etc) of not going to war exceeds the cost of waging it.
No doubt there are many people on both sides who would not accept my rationale for war to start with, but even assuming they did, the pro-war faction would probably insist the war was worth the cost and add that the media coverage of Iraq highlighted only the most grisly and brutal activity, neglecting any positive developments. The anti-war faction would counter that the war is, if anything, proceeding worse than the media portrayal, that the justification for war was exaggerated, perhaps even fabricated. There will be no meeting of the minds between these two sides anytime soon.
Abraham Lincoln spoke of the "better angels of our nature" referring to the wisdom, the prudence and the kindness lurking somewhere within us all--well, most of us--and he insisted these qualities would ultimately see the folly of hatred and division and vanquish them. It was a pleasant thought and a truly eloquent and moving speech, but some division is inevitable, perhaps even desirable. Hatred we can probably do without, but don't tell that to our friends in Crawford; they're too busy calling President Bush a terrorist and a war criminal or expressing empty support of him and shouting "God Bless America" and dismissing anyone who would criticize the war effort as a traitor. The really galling thing is that many of these people have lost family members in the war and are willing to exploit such a sacrifice to advance a particular political agenda. No one has the market cornered on patriotism here. Losing a son or daughter, a brother or sister, a cousin, aunt or uncle in the war does not make you qualified to tell the rest of us how to think. My Uncle is in Mosul and I think he'd want me to have my own ideas about this affair, regardless of his opinions or what happens to him. These people are the annoying gnats of our nature! They buzz around our heads and insist we pay attention to their grandstanding and self-promotion.
We have no choice but to tolerate these gnats. They are as much a part of this country as the rest of us. But sometimes I think it would be just as well if they were all eaten by birds. Okay, not really. I was aiming for that "to the gut" closing line, but you see how badly I pulled it off.
Whoever won these power struggles would immediately deport the opposition back to the United States, but that's okay because the next day we'd deport them right back to Stridentia!
Am I the only one not convinced that taking off work, carrying a sign, and chanting some simplistic slogan makes one a superior citizen? This has nothing to do with rights. Certainly, all the people in Crawford, Texas have the right to assemble and protest, but I have the right to wear a platinum blonde wig, run backwards down the street and shout "The Kool-Aid Man was a communist!" (after all, he was red); that doesn't mean people won't say I'm a goof if I do it.
If you're looking for intelligent and thoughtful discourse on the war in Iraq, I have very little to offer. Part of this is due to the sheer scope and multifaceted nature of the issue itself, but mostly it's because I'm neither thoughtful nor intelligent. And since when are people interested in thought and intellect, anyway? I sure can't tell. For the sake of "taking a stand" and "making a difference" or any other cliche', however, an abbreviated version of my position is this: War is justified only when the cost ("cost" here can refer to the loss of liberty, body count, monetary loss, etc) of not going to war exceeds the cost of waging it.
No doubt there are many people on both sides who would not accept my rationale for war to start with, but even assuming they did, the pro-war faction would probably insist the war was worth the cost and add that the media coverage of Iraq highlighted only the most grisly and brutal activity, neglecting any positive developments. The anti-war faction would counter that the war is, if anything, proceeding worse than the media portrayal, that the justification for war was exaggerated, perhaps even fabricated. There will be no meeting of the minds between these two sides anytime soon.
Abraham Lincoln spoke of the "better angels of our nature" referring to the wisdom, the prudence and the kindness lurking somewhere within us all--well, most of us--and he insisted these qualities would ultimately see the folly of hatred and division and vanquish them. It was a pleasant thought and a truly eloquent and moving speech, but some division is inevitable, perhaps even desirable. Hatred we can probably do without, but don't tell that to our friends in Crawford; they're too busy calling President Bush a terrorist and a war criminal or expressing empty support of him and shouting "God Bless America" and dismissing anyone who would criticize the war effort as a traitor. The really galling thing is that many of these people have lost family members in the war and are willing to exploit such a sacrifice to advance a particular political agenda. No one has the market cornered on patriotism here. Losing a son or daughter, a brother or sister, a cousin, aunt or uncle in the war does not make you qualified to tell the rest of us how to think. My Uncle is in Mosul and I think he'd want me to have my own ideas about this affair, regardless of his opinions or what happens to him. These people are the annoying gnats of our nature! They buzz around our heads and insist we pay attention to their grandstanding and self-promotion.
We have no choice but to tolerate these gnats. They are as much a part of this country as the rest of us. But sometimes I think it would be just as well if they were all eaten by birds. Okay, not really. I was aiming for that "to the gut" closing line, but you see how badly I pulled it off.
posted by DM | 5:09 PM
|
0 comments
