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

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.

Katherine Kersten in the Sierra Maestra

Katherine Kersten doesn't like the way the mainstream media are nice to Obama. In her September 13th column, she complains that the "mainstream media" like Obama too much. She mentions the "mainstream media" three times: "The mainstream media seem dumbfounded that any thinking person could object to President Obama's speech to schoolchildren on Sept. 8...why are the mainstream media so clueless about the anger and disillusionment growing among independents and conservatives...today, average Americans are beginning to see something in Obama the mainstream media can't." Apparently, Kersten thinks she writes for Citypages. Well, I have a little message for her:

Hey, Lady, you write for the Minneapolis Star Tribune--that's a newspaper that serves a major metropolitan area, and it's not one of those alternative media papers that they give away for free in gas stations and gay bars. You, Katherine Kersten, are a part of the mainstream media.

This reminds me of my second year in college, when, in my International Law lecture, a student was making derisive remarks about "elites" when the professor broke in and said, "Excuse me, but you're at the most expensive college in the country. You're all elites."

Kersten conviniently forgets that there are plenty of people who are "disillusioned" with Obama who also are major players within the mainstream media. Fox News averages 3.3 million viewers daily--it's not some piddly little station that only comes in when you constantly tweak the antannae while standing on tin foil. Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, even Tom Bernard--these are all people who don't have a lot of good things to say about Obama, and they are all part of the mainstream media.

Kersten writes as if she, Bernard, O'Reilly and Limbaugh were a band of rebels in the mountains, like Che and Fidel in the Sierra Maestra. They aren't, though, and Fox News isn't Radio Venceremos (that's a reference to El Salvador, not Cuba, just FYI). Frankly, if Katherine Kersten hates the mainstream media so much, she really ought to stop writing for them.

Instead, she should buy a ham radio and a turtle.

The Time for Silly Mistakes is Past

Listen up, kids: today we get a lesson in grammar and it's right there on the front page! In the far left column on page A1, the headline reads, "The Time for Games is Passed". This phrase, which is repeated in the body of the article, comes from the speech President Obama made at Target Center yesterday. What's the problem, you ask? The problem is that "the time for games is passed" is incorrect. The correct sentence should read "the time for games is past."

Let's break it down, shall we?

P-a-s-t is a noun, adjective or adverb. In the above example, "past" describes "the time for games". "Past" is synonymous with "over", meaning that the sentence could read "the time for games is over" and still make sense.

P-a-s-s-e-d, on the other hand, is the past (see? adjective!) tense of the verb "to pass". "The time for games is passed" has a tense problem, since "is" is present tense of the verb "to be", and "passed" is past tense. This is a sentence that can't make up its mind. It should be written, "The time for games has passed".

Since "passed" and "past" are phonetically identical, it's possible that someone transcribed the speech incorrectly, but this error shouldn't have made its way onto the front page of the newspaper. Sure, it's possible that this mistake originated somewhere in the Obama camp, but if that's the case, the Star Tribune editors should have made it clear that this wasn't the paper's mistake by including the [sic] bracket. The fact that [sic] appears nowhere on the page indicates one of three things: a) this was the Star Tribune's mistake and the editors ran out of espresso, or b) this mistake originated elsewhere and the editors didn't catch it, or c) the editors didn't know that they could use a [sic] bracket to exonerate them from this foul-up. Whether the answer is a, b or c, the end verdict is stil the same: this mistake smacks of unprofessionalism.

Alliteration Station

There's a lot of alliterating in today's paper, most notably, Jim Foti's A section warning that Obama's visit will complete a "triad of traffic trouble". Try saying that ten times fast. I know, I'll make up a little Star Tribune tongue twister. Ready?

The troglodytic triplets traveled on Metro Transit to transcend the triad of traffic trouble.

Translation: take the bus, because with Obama's visit on top of the Gopher and Twins games, traffic is going to be a mess. That's all they had to say, really. Moving on...

Generally speaking, I'm a fan of alliteration, and I find James Lileks' alliteration to be quite artful. In today's edition of his column, he writes about the SweeTango, a hybrid of Honeycrisp and Zestra apples which Lileks describes as the "apex of apple art". He goes on to say that an appled called Horace "brought up images of equine effluvia". I find these examples of alliteration to be much nicer than "triad of traffic trouble" but I guess it's just a matter of taste.

James Lilieks' column is a definite bright spot in the Strib for me, and I think it's a shame that his column is routinely buried in the Metro section when it really deserves to be more cartoon-adjacent. In fact, I wish James Lileks could write the entire paper--I prefer his purposeful zaniness to the accidental variety that pervades the pages of the paper. (Hey, look at that...I can alliterate too, bitches!)