The "Honk for Peace" demonstration (and its counterpart) yesterday apparently had enough impact to make the top headline in the Springfield News-Leader
this morning. I'm mentioning this because the News-Leader
quoted one of the veteran war supporters thusly: "'We're glad they're here exercising their free speech rights, but they wouldn't have those rights if we didn't fight for them.'" Which prompts me to say that if every war we fought were a war of defense of all the freedoms we hold dear, then by all means let the peace demonstrators pack up and go home. I don't know anyone who seriously argues that we should let another country stomp all over the soil of our land and the rarer soil of our spirit. But the veteran's argument, noble as it sounds, seems to argue that every war we fight is a war against American Freedom (capital letters necessary). And to that I say, give me a break. The Revolutionary War, yeah, okay. World War II -- perhaps. Korea? Vietnam? Iraq? I mean, Saddam Hussein may be a Grade-A government-inspected S.O.B., but is he really the same threat that Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito had to combine to present to the United States 60 years ago? You can't persuade me that a war against Iraq would be a step in the right direction in the war against terrorism. You can't persuade me that deposing Saddam would bring us any closer to finding Osama bin Laden, who is clearly not
content to sit on his collapsible portable throne and denounce American foreign policy -- you know, sticks and stones and all that. Has anyone noticed that the beginning of the twentieth century was also fraught with protest against unnecessary war, and met with the same stolid criticism as I quoted above? Anyone noticed the troubling double standard of the Monroe Doctrine coupled with the Bush Initiative?
Yeah, I haven't even started
on Dubya yet. I cringe at the fatuity of "the U.S.'s" claim that Iraq's possession of WMD (you know what that stands for) is a crime, whereas our
possession of them isn't. Yeah, we are so
using our might for right, dontcha know. I'm tired of the implication that because we dare to criticize our own policy, we are therefore un
-criticizing the other guy's. It's not an either-or proposition, people: Saddam Hussein is evil, and
we shouldn't attack Iraq right now. The mind boggles. *shakes head to clear it*
And while I'm on the subject of mind-boggling ideas, here's a church marquee slogan I saw today:
Go Crazy For Christ!
Immediately I said: "Why not 'Go Rational for Christ'?"
Jessica added: "Yeah, Be Logical for the Lord." Hey, it sounds like a good slogan to me. I'm very tired of spiritual passion being likened to an absence of reason. Passion and reason are meant to be Siamese twins -- join either with Craziness instead and watch the world crumble.
And while I'm quoting my roommate, here's another gem from the Portable Jessica Omnibus. We were discussing her plans to write an academic article in answer to some that have been written on Buffy (yes, cultural criticism does stretch its anteater tongue everyplace), and she mentioned her surprise that no one has made the connection between Giles's alter ego "Ripper" and Jack the Ripper. She had thought it was obvious, and wondered if it was too obvious to discuss. But, she said, "there's nothing so damn obvious that academics can't talk about it for five pages." I had to get out my notebook and write that one down.
So it's been an interesting Martin Luther King, Jr. Day to say the least.