Political Thoughts

I've been keeping up a bit with the news, and I have been reading recently about the pro-war demonstraters who have gathered in opposition to Cindy Sheehan.

What kind of a person actually demonstrates for a war? These people must be the lowest forms of humanity imaginable.

I'm reminded of the documentaries I saw in school about the civil rights movement. I think we all remember seeing those scenes of the white southerners demonstrating against integration, and I think we were all filled with disgust when we saw it. It's one thing to be against civil rights, it is another thing to be so filled up with raw hate that you feel the need to demonstrate against it in your spare time.

No doubt today's pro-war demonstraters have inherited the mantle from yesterday's pro-segregation demonstraters. Imagine loving war so much that you must demonstrate for it in your free time.

Check out this quote from CNN: "The founder of Move America Forward, Howard Kaloogian, accused Cindy Sheehan, the sponsor of the anti-war protest, of encouraging the very insurgency in Iraq that killed her son. The terrorists that are watching Cindy Sheehan's protest believe that this is something that might topple the current administration." Kaloogian said. "And I have a question that I want the media to begin asking Cindy Sheehan: How many more American soldiers are going to die because you are giving hope and encouragement to our enemies?"

Is this what we've come to? Mothers are supposed to give up their sons and send them halfway around the world to invade another country, and, if they question why their sons die, they are accused of being responsible for the death of their sons.

One wonders about Howard Kooligan, and why he isn't fighting in Iraq if he feels so strongly about it. Perhaps he feels more comfortable sending 19 year old kids out to die while he leads protests for the war. I'm sure it is the same with a lot of these other pro-war demonstraters. They love to send other people off to die in their foreign wars. And God forbid the mothers of these soldiers have the audacity to ask why.

My blood is boiling as I write this, and I'm probably not writing this piece as well as I could be because I keep getting overwhelmed by anger every time I try to type. I remember once reading that Dylan felt the same way when he wrote his song "Masters of War." He had not intended the song to be so angry, but he just couldn't help himself once he started. Go and look at the lyrics to this song. It's as true today as it was 30 years ago, and Dylan was not too harsh at all. Like Dylan I find myself saying:

"How much do I know To talk out of turn You might say that I'm young You might say I'm unlearned But there's one thing I know Though I'm younger than you Even Jesus would never Forgive what you do....And I hope that you die And your death'll come soon I will follow your casket In the pale afternoon And I'll watch while you're lowered Down to your deathbed And I'll stand o'er your grave'Til I'm sure that you're dead"

Link of the Day
I know I've been linking to Chomsky a lot lately, but when he's on, he's really on. Check out this excerpt:

Question: Ordinary people often confuse anarchism with chaos and violence, and do not know that anarchism (an archos) doesn't mean life or state of things without rules, but rather a highly organized social order, life without a ruler, “principe”. Is pejorative usage of the word anarchism maybe a direct consequence of the fact that the idea that people could be free was and is extremely frightening to those in power?

Chomsky: There has been an element within the anarchist movement that has been concerned with “propaganda by the deed,” often with violence, and it is quite natural that power centers seize on it in an effort to undermine any attempt for independence and freedom, by identifying it with violence. But that is not true just for anarchism. Even democracy is feared. It is so deep-seated that people can’t even see it. If we take a look at the Boston Globe on July 4th - July 4 is of course Independence Day, praising independence, freedom and democracy – we find that they had an article on George Bush’s attempt to get some support in Europe, to mend fences after the conflict. They interviewed the foreign policy director of the “libertarian” Cato Institute, asking why Europeans are critical of the US. He said something like this: The problem is that Germany and France have weak governments, and if they go against the will of the population, they have to pay a political cost. This is the libertarian Cato Institute talking. The fear of democracy and hatred of it is so profound that nobody even notices it. In fact the whole fury about Old Europe and New Europe last year was very dramatic, particularly the fact that the criterion for membership in one or the other was somehow not noticed. The criterion was extremely sharp. If the government took the same position as the overwhelming majority of the population, it was bad: “Old Europe – bad guys.” If the government followed orders from Crawford, Texas and overruled an even larger majority of the population, then it was the hope of the future and democracy: Berlusconi, Aznar, and other noble figures. This was pretty uniform across the spectrum, just taken for granted. The lesson was: if you have a very strong government you don’t have to pay a political cost if you overrule the population. That’s admirable. That’s what governments are for – to overrule the population and work for the rich and powerful. It is so deep-seated that it wasn’t even seen.

The whole interview is on-line here