Yesterday, as I sat Twittering at my desk (yes, it's a work related Twitter), I noticed a tweet that said there was a hostage situation in Roseville. Since I work in Roseville (well, St. Paul technically, but it's really Roseville...sort of like Sarah Lawrence is really in Yonkers) I clicked on the link and saw a news story that said there was a hostage situation at the Rosewood office building and that the nearby school was on lockdown.
Funny, I thought, isn't this the Rosewood office building? The one I am currently sitting in? If there's a hostage situation here, why didn't anyone bother to tell us? When I left work at 2:00 pm, I saw police cars and the Ramsey County Sheriff, but the cars just sat there, with their lights quietly flashing.
Well, I discovered that reason this morning. In today's Strib, the article says that the hostage situation happened in the Rosedale East building, which is next door to our building. Funny, the things you'd never know about, but for Twitter...
Friday, December 11, 2009
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Why the Anti War Movement is Mum on Afghanistan
I wanted to respond to a letter that ran in the Strib about a week ago now, about Obama's decision to send troops to Afghanistan. The letter writer wondered why there aren't 50,000 people protesting this decision and stated that, if McCain were president and had made this decision, there would be 50,000 people protesting. The writer went on to say that his daughter, who was involved in the anti-war movement, now thinks that the movement was really an anti-Bush movement.
I don't think this is true. While Bush made great kindling for the anti-war fire (in the metaphorical effigy sense) the movement wasn't all about him. The unfortunate thing about movements is that, in the end, they're actually all about their leaders. Generally speaking, leaders of movements are people who love to hear themselves talk, and movements sustain their momentum as long as there is an audience willing to listen. Too often, these leaders talk a lot but say little, and lose their audience.
I was involved in the anti-war movement in the beginning, too. I went to the first protest in New York City on February 15, 2003 (my 19th birthday) and voiced my disapproval with the other 100,000 people. It was fun; the thing about protests is that they give you a natural high, an unique euphoria that comes only from standing next to thousands of people who agree with you.
But I didn't go to any more protests after that. As great as that day felt, I knew that the protests weren't going to stop the war machine. Protests didn't stop the Vietnam war--why would they have stopped Iraq? And secondly, it quickly became clear that the movement was providing a platform for self-indulgent narcissists.* My then boyfriend recounted all the other protests he attended after that first one in February, told me about how he drummed on a plastic bucket until it shattered, how strangers hugged him, and complained that the police called the protesters "babies". He mentioned nothing about the message they were trying to send, or what was said at the protest. It was all about him. Additionally, I read a newspaper article several years later that quoted him saying, "If there were a draft there'd be 100,000 more people here" (or something to that effect; I'm paraphrasing). That almost sounds like he was whining, doesn't it? As in, "gee, I wish there were a draft--that way there would be so many more people here to listen to me." I sensed that there were people who were happy there was a war on, because the war gave them a sense of purpose, a reason to unite and make noise. I was reminded of Jeremy Sisto's character in that movie The Sixties: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl58QbpVLHw
He's the one who leads the protesters to charge the armed guards, endangering all of them including his girlfriend, proving that he cares more about a flashy protest than the people around him; sorry I couldn't find a better clip.
In the 2004-2005 school year, I was abroad, but I read about changes that were happening within the movement. Military families who joined the movement after losing sons and daughters joined the movement only to discover that it had little to do with Iraq--the movement leaders held up placards that said "US out of the Philippines NOW!" They were confused and dismayed--the Philippines had nothing to do with Iraq. The anti-war movement had morphed into an anti-Imperalism movement. Meanwhile, the families of Iraq vets were frustrated, because they wanted the movement to be about Iraq. The disconnect between the leaders of the movement and the Iraq war is a clear one--for the leaders, Iraq was a concept, an idea, just as "imperialism" and "colonialism" are concepts. For the military families, Iraq was a painful reality. The movement killed itself by shifting away from the war and into the murky conceptual territory of imperialism, because by doing so it lost the support of military families and vets.
Another reason why there aren't protests against Afghanistan (actually, I've seen some footage of people protesting...and they're still chanting the anti-imperialist mantra) is that the people who were at the forefront of the movement in 2003 most likely don't have time for the movement now. They were in college then. Now they're working or looking for work. Their main concern is the economy, like everyone else. When I was a senior in 2005-2006, the underclassmen didn't seem interested in continuing the movement.
Lastly, Obama's decision isn't the same as those made by the Bush administration. Why? Because he spent months conferring with advisors before he made this decision. Because he has a brain and isn't a cowboy gone wild. And because, as many have said, Afghanistan is where the focus should have been all along. That, and: these wars have been going on for ages. The movement petered out five years ago. Who has the engery any more? Ask the kids who are currently in college.
*Read The True Believer, by Eric Hoffer
I don't think this is true. While Bush made great kindling for the anti-war fire (in the metaphorical effigy sense) the movement wasn't all about him. The unfortunate thing about movements is that, in the end, they're actually all about their leaders. Generally speaking, leaders of movements are people who love to hear themselves talk, and movements sustain their momentum as long as there is an audience willing to listen. Too often, these leaders talk a lot but say little, and lose their audience.
I was involved in the anti-war movement in the beginning, too. I went to the first protest in New York City on February 15, 2003 (my 19th birthday) and voiced my disapproval with the other 100,000 people. It was fun; the thing about protests is that they give you a natural high, an unique euphoria that comes only from standing next to thousands of people who agree with you.
But I didn't go to any more protests after that. As great as that day felt, I knew that the protests weren't going to stop the war machine. Protests didn't stop the Vietnam war--why would they have stopped Iraq? And secondly, it quickly became clear that the movement was providing a platform for self-indulgent narcissists.* My then boyfriend recounted all the other protests he attended after that first one in February, told me about how he drummed on a plastic bucket until it shattered, how strangers hugged him, and complained that the police called the protesters "babies". He mentioned nothing about the message they were trying to send, or what was said at the protest. It was all about him. Additionally, I read a newspaper article several years later that quoted him saying, "If there were a draft there'd be 100,000 more people here" (or something to that effect; I'm paraphrasing). That almost sounds like he was whining, doesn't it? As in, "gee, I wish there were a draft--that way there would be so many more people here to listen to me." I sensed that there were people who were happy there was a war on, because the war gave them a sense of purpose, a reason to unite and make noise. I was reminded of Jeremy Sisto's character in that movie The Sixties: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl58QbpVLHw
He's the one who leads the protesters to charge the armed guards, endangering all of them including his girlfriend, proving that he cares more about a flashy protest than the people around him; sorry I couldn't find a better clip.
In the 2004-2005 school year, I was abroad, but I read about changes that were happening within the movement. Military families who joined the movement after losing sons and daughters joined the movement only to discover that it had little to do with Iraq--the movement leaders held up placards that said "US out of the Philippines NOW!" They were confused and dismayed--the Philippines had nothing to do with Iraq. The anti-war movement had morphed into an anti-Imperalism movement. Meanwhile, the families of Iraq vets were frustrated, because they wanted the movement to be about Iraq. The disconnect between the leaders of the movement and the Iraq war is a clear one--for the leaders, Iraq was a concept, an idea, just as "imperialism" and "colonialism" are concepts. For the military families, Iraq was a painful reality. The movement killed itself by shifting away from the war and into the murky conceptual territory of imperialism, because by doing so it lost the support of military families and vets.
Another reason why there aren't protests against Afghanistan (actually, I've seen some footage of people protesting...and they're still chanting the anti-imperialist mantra) is that the people who were at the forefront of the movement in 2003 most likely don't have time for the movement now. They were in college then. Now they're working or looking for work. Their main concern is the economy, like everyone else. When I was a senior in 2005-2006, the underclassmen didn't seem interested in continuing the movement.
Lastly, Obama's decision isn't the same as those made by the Bush administration. Why? Because he spent months conferring with advisors before he made this decision. Because he has a brain and isn't a cowboy gone wild. And because, as many have said, Afghanistan is where the focus should have been all along. That, and: these wars have been going on for ages. The movement petered out five years ago. Who has the engery any more? Ask the kids who are currently in college.
*Read The True Believer, by Eric Hoffer
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
If my posts make no sense...
...it's because I write them in the morning in between force feeding myself oat bran and dashing off to the bus stop. And I'm too lazy to reorganize my thoughts after I've written them.
I also don't post often enough, again because I'm lazy. Most of the time I don't really have enough time to scour the pages of the paper for errors or follies, and when I do, I forget to write about it, and a day passes, and it's too late.
There was a letter in the paper the other day that I liked though. (I'm channeling my grandma right now...she always says "the other day" and it could mean two days ago or some Saturday afternoon sometime in the summer of 1954). The writer called out someone in the paper for their misuse of the word "peddle". I kicked myself for missing that mistake originally.
There was also a letter about the anti-war protests and the absence of such protests against Obama's decision to send troops to Afghanistan. I composed a response to that in my head the morning it ran, but didn't write it. That'll be my next post.
Enough of this rambling.
I also don't post often enough, again because I'm lazy. Most of the time I don't really have enough time to scour the pages of the paper for errors or follies, and when I do, I forget to write about it, and a day passes, and it's too late.
There was a letter in the paper the other day that I liked though. (I'm channeling my grandma right now...she always says "the other day" and it could mean two days ago or some Saturday afternoon sometime in the summer of 1954). The writer called out someone in the paper for their misuse of the word "peddle". I kicked myself for missing that mistake originally.
There was also a letter about the anti-war protests and the absence of such protests against Obama's decision to send troops to Afghanistan. I composed a response to that in my head the morning it ran, but didn't write it. That'll be my next post.
Enough of this rambling.
Obama is to Jesus as Britney Spears is to Virgin
I'm really getting tired of people comparing Obama to Jesus and saying things like "The Messiah has lost his halo". It's ironic, since Bush was the biggest theocrat west of the Saudi oil fields. It's also unoriginal.
Charismatic people have always drawn comparisons to Christ--just look at the Beatles. They were known not only for their music but for the witty answers they gave to journalists; when one journalist asked whether it was true that the song "Drive My Car" was about a prostitute and "Norwegian Wood" was about a lesbian, Paul answered, "We were just trying to write about prostitutes and lesbians, that's all."
The Beatles were adored all over the world (does that ring any bells?) and fans brought people in wheelchairs--people with serious disabilities--so that the Beatles could touch and cure them.
But they weren't messiahs or faith healers. They were men with star power.
I guess that's what the whole issue boils down to. The other side is jealous of Obama's star power, and now that Obama's numbers are sinking, they're trotting out the Christ comparisons so they can gloat. But in late 1966, after the Beatles stopped touring, the press began to speculate that the Beatles had dried up.
And in 1967, the released Sergeant Pepper.
I wish the pundits and members of the media who insist on using terms like "anointed", "chosen one", "messiah", "halo" and "savior" would a) stop it, and b) admit that they are the ones who used and continue to use those words to describe Obama--no one in the Obama camp has ever used them. So their view of Obama as a self proclaimed instrument of God is really a projection of their own envy--Obama is charismatic and bright and they don't have anyone on their side who has that kind of stage presence. They did, however, have their own self proclaimed instrument of God, but no one on the opposite side ever made snide comments about Bush losing his halo.
Charismatic people have always drawn comparisons to Christ--just look at the Beatles. They were known not only for their music but for the witty answers they gave to journalists; when one journalist asked whether it was true that the song "Drive My Car" was about a prostitute and "Norwegian Wood" was about a lesbian, Paul answered, "We were just trying to write about prostitutes and lesbians, that's all."
The Beatles were adored all over the world (does that ring any bells?) and fans brought people in wheelchairs--people with serious disabilities--so that the Beatles could touch and cure them.
But they weren't messiahs or faith healers. They were men with star power.
I guess that's what the whole issue boils down to. The other side is jealous of Obama's star power, and now that Obama's numbers are sinking, they're trotting out the Christ comparisons so they can gloat. But in late 1966, after the Beatles stopped touring, the press began to speculate that the Beatles had dried up.
And in 1967, the released Sergeant Pepper.
I wish the pundits and members of the media who insist on using terms like "anointed", "chosen one", "messiah", "halo" and "savior" would a) stop it, and b) admit that they are the ones who used and continue to use those words to describe Obama--no one in the Obama camp has ever used them. So their view of Obama as a self proclaimed instrument of God is really a projection of their own envy--Obama is charismatic and bright and they don't have anyone on their side who has that kind of stage presence. They did, however, have their own self proclaimed instrument of God, but no one on the opposite side ever made snide comments about Bush losing his halo.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)