posted 12-21-2003 07:39 PM            

A smart-ass shtick for journalists these days is interviewing inarticulate placard-carrying protesters at big demonstrations. P. J. O'Rourke started the trend in the Atlantic Monthly with a piece about last April's anti-globalization Mobilization for Justice march in Washington, D.C. Writers have been pulling "O'Rourkes" at peace demonstrations ever since--with the media casting entire lefty causes as woefully ignorant, based on the testimony of a few doofuses. I could've pulled the same media trick at the February 15 Seattle Center antiwar rally by cornering a couple of imbeciles among the 20,000 protesters. There were plenty to choose from.

A woman named Regan held a sign: "Let the World Court Decide." I told her the world court--the UN, in this instance--had in November passed Resolution 1441, which said military force was an option against Saddam Hussein. Why was Regan, 21, blindly protesting war in Iraq before--according to her own sign's advice--letting the world court decide? "It's not my sign," she said. "I'm not really sure about this."

But this "journalistic" exercise--exposing ill-informed protesters--is intellectually dishonest. After all, there are smart arguments against war. I interviewed folks who capably laid out an antiwar POV--especially when they zoomed in on oil. Additionally, the antiwar crowd doesn't have the monopoly on fatuous arguments. Take the president's weak attempts to link Hussein and al Qaeda, and the pro-war boobs who think Iraqis commandeered the Boeing 767s into the twin towers.

So, here's what I decided to do on Saturday: Rather than pluck out a few morons, I'd listen to the rally's keynote speaker, writer Sherman Alexie--the person organizers themselves put forward as the march's headliner.

Sadly for antiwar folks like me, Alexie's speech was moronic. Voicing the kind of cute dissent--based on clichéd antiwar sound bites--that makes the antiwar movement look ridiculous, Alexie turned out to be the biggest boob there.

Alexie opened by saying that America has lurched toward racism post-9/11. "And then the second plane hit... and we were sure of what it was, but everybody was sure of what Oklahoma was, as well," he said. I am so tired of this supposedly instructive anecdote. Alexie, check out newspapers from April 20, 1995, the day after the Oklahoma City bombing. USA Today and the Washington Post floated two theories: It was the work of homegrown white-supremacist terrorists or radical Islamists. I don't deny that Muslims have had it rough in the U.S. post-9/11 (check my James Ujaama coverage), but George Bush and the press have gone out of their way to condemn anti-Muslim bigotry. And, hello, there was no irrational rush to judgment on al Qaeda. Islamic radicals were behind 9/11; even al-Jazeera flummoxed its audience by corroborating this point last year.

Alexie's second point was that America embraces diversity: "The amazing diversity in this place. Buddhist and Jewish. Christian, Catholic, Protestant. Somali, Native American, Irish, English, this amazing place that we have become.... This is now a country that celebrates our existence." Not only did this directly contradict Alexie's first point (that America is racist), but I couldn't help thinking Iraqi Kurds would be psyched about tolerant America arriving at Hussein's doorstep.

Before moving to his next point, Alexie tossed off a one-liner: "As a Native American, I think it's so ironic that this administration wants to go to war with Iraq, because it keeps breaking treaties with us." I get the joke--but, clever sound bites aside, if Alexie is sensitive about honoring agreements, he should be outraged at the way Iraq flouted UN resolutions for 10 years.

Alexie's next point: America should "ignore borders. We need to embrace all countries and all people." His starry-eyed NPR liberalism only reminded me that Hussein's repression was antithetical to all Alexie claimed to stand for. Alexie simply made me want to ignore Iraq's borders and arrest Hussein. Evidently, the slew of Iraqi men the February 16 New York Times found bribing Iraqi guards and crossing the border into Jordan with tales of repression, rape, torture, and murder also want the U.S. to remove Hussein quickly.

However, Alexie's next starry-eyed moment showed that he wasn't serious about standing up for human rights: "I'm not anti-soldier. I support soldiers... I want them to defend us and never have to pick up a weapon in doing so." How does that work? Should the U.S. have sent troops to Kosovo bearing valentine candies for Milosovic?

Alexie's final point about the coming war was absurd. "All of this is the result of illiteracy," he said. "We have a one-book president... wanting to go to war against a one-book dictator because of one-book terrorists.... We need to send bookmobiles to Baghdad, bookmobiles to the White House. So, everybody pick out your favorite book of poems and send it to George W. Bush. Peace!"

Let's take this statement from the top. I'm assuming Alexie is referring to the Bible and the Koran. Look, no matter how much President Bush panders to religious conservatives, he's not a "one-book president" in the sense that bin Laden is a "one-book terrorist." Bin Laden espouses sharia--governance dictated by the Koran--which, according to bin Laden, means marginalizing women, stoning homosexuals, and killing infidels. While Bush may push pro-life legislation and weird stuff like the "faith-based initiative," likening W. to bin Laden is an exaggeration that makes the peace movement look unreasonable and alarmist. Bush, the leader of perhaps the world's most secular nation, appointed openly gay Scott Evertz to head the White House Office of National AIDS Policy while upping AIDS-prevention funds nearly 10 percent in 2004; has women like Condoleezza Rice, Elaine Chao, and Christie Todd Whitman in top positions; tapped a pro-choice liberal Republican, Lewis Eisenberg, to be finance director of the Republican National Committee; and, in 2001, signed a bill allowing the city of D.C. to support domestic-partnership benefits. Meanwhile, Hamid Karzai (the leader Bush installed in Afghanistan) is a Muslim--hardly an acolyte of a crusading Christian. (And by the way, what "one book" does Alexie have in mind when referencing Hussein? Hussein doesn't rule by sharia; he's a secular neo-Stalinist.)

As for sending books and poems to the White House--gag. But if you must, how about the 1992 issue of Nuseri Kurd (The Kurdish Writer)? It contains poems like "Fear," by Iraqi poet Dilshad Abdullah, whose work scorns Hussein's despotism.

By putting people like Alexie--with his banal rhetoric, contradictory statements, and jokes--front and center, organizers fail to change the minds of pro-war Americans or rope in antiwar voters like myself.

I'm against the war--although not because America has broken treaties with the Indians, or because George Bush is "illiterate." It's because invading Iraq is irrelevant to short-circuiting al Qaeda ["Say 'No' to War on Iraq!", Josh Feit, Oct 17, 2002]. I urge the U.S. to use its clout (and withhold dollars) to demand democratic reform in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, aid reformists in Iran, and find a settlement between the Israelis and Palestinians. Attacking an isolated goon like Hussein (without clear-cut evidence that he's aligned with al Qaeda, or even armed and ready) to set up a puppet government under General Tommy Franks? Give me a break.

Those are the kind of points Alexie should be making--not tripe about bookmobiles and embracing diversity. Antiwar keynote speakers, now backed up by millions of marchers worldwide, have the public's ear. If activists keep offering up folks like Alexie, they're blowing a real opportunity.

posted 12-21-2003 10:45 PM            

waste there time on tabloid type stories such as "looking for the dumbest protestor".

7000 plus civilians, 1000's of completely innocent women and children, crushed underfoot of the advancing machine, would make a much better story. The stories of eyes blown out, limbs blown off , surgery on screaming badly burned children using no pain killers. Now there would be some good material for a story. Interview the survivors. Make it kinda like the Survivor made for T.V. mini-series. You could have ten completely innocent families and watch them all die needless painfully agonizing deaths, with one family left untouched. That family could be the winner, winning lots of cash, a nice new SUV, and a weeks stay in the Lincoln bedroom. Whadya think? Has it got potential?

posted 12-21-2003 11:26 PM            

But in your own words..

posted 12-21-2003 11:49 PM            

Immediately after 9/11 Bush had a once in a lifetime opportunity. He could have united the world in a show of cooperation. There were two paths laid out. He made his choice. As usual it will be The People that suffer, paying the price, for the arrogance and unyeilding ambition of yet another ruler bent on ruling the world. A new American Century. You bet. Whatever it takes to get there. Code Orange. Code red. No bid contracts. National security. Oil security. Stock market props. Crony paybacks. A quart of blood for a quart of oil?

posted 12-22-2003 12:26 AM            

fanatic-one who is exaggeratedly zealous for a belief or cause.

Well, I don't mean to exaggerate, but I feel certain we as Americans were lied to regarding the reasons for war. All of the fake evidence we were given couldn't conceal the need for the empire to try and "secure" desired oil and gas resources.

I personally am not glad we have a war mongering administration. I guess if being a Christian and following the path of the peacemakers is a fanatical one, then I will hope for more "fanatics" to make their voices heard.

"Every life is precious"- G.W.Bush

posted 12-22-2003 12:38 AM            

"But in your own words..

"Who cares"

posted 12-22-2003 12:58 AM            

Why bother? It doesn't matter what I post here it wont change your mind.I know what your REAL intentions are.

I am 150% positive that America has been taken over...thwarted...sold to the highest global elite bidder. It has been for years.Only a return to full constitutional law will save it.If that's fanatical...so be it.

You are simply out to attack ME personally..not debate. That is all you have show thus far.

AGAIN..take your THREATS and PERSONAL SLANDER elsewhere.

posted 12-22-2003 01:40 AM            

YOU are the single event... no dual event fanatic...

One day the anti-war, chemtrail activist, calling people who don't believe as you do "fascists", praising Mech for his work at MOD, then the next day, switching sides, and doing the opposite.

You are a phoney and have been outed.

when I say dual event, you are truly a sad individual, carrying War and Peace around in your brain at the same time. Must be tough being inside your head, simce War and Peace cannot exist in the same space/time continuum.

Oh, I have a sneaky suspicion, you won't be around Chemtrail Central much longer. Just a feeling.

posted 12-22-2003 04:07 AM            

Professor,
Please quote some of your posts from back then to back me up.

Just as I am sure the proffessor what posting "Love it or leave it" between 1993 and 2001.
Or left the country during those years and returned only after the appointment of our dear W.

After all, only hippocrites oppose criticicm
of the President and accuse all critics of being traitors, if they didn't say exactly the same words during the Clinton Administration.

The professor is reasonable and intelligent.
And would never have criticized a President
back then and be so hypocritical as to call criticism of the President wrong now.

Unless we all agree that

our founding fathers knew the path to tyranny is paved by an unquestioned government.
so they established a free press to keep democracy alive.
A free society means having the right to hear bad news so,
a real American can handle the truth and welcomes scruitiny of our leaders.

All of us patriots who love our country and support our constitution are on the same side.
We still will argue over the details.

posted 12-22-2003 04:31 AM            

truth is all bias removed, clintoinian policy did not bring about the fall of momar khadafi!

and it did allow the release upon the world of one meanspirited bin-laden

all being said foreign policy is one of two things appeasement or adhereance to specific supreme nation states guidelines,of which
the bush administration is and has followed a policy of specific guidelines for countries to continue along their current paths...

peace through strength

posted 12-22-2003 07:36 PM            

"All of us patriots who love our country and support our constitution are on the same side."

posted 12-22-2003 07:48 PM            

same as it ever was, nothing has changed under the sun regarding mans nature. And recently his perceived "survival" based on his access to oil, and especially "cheap" oil and the need to keep the stock market pumped up.

It's not JUST oil, but to deny IMO that oil is a Major factor in ALL decisions of importance in the Middle East, is to deny reality. OIL is U.S. and by extension possibly world Life Blood. Read The Project For The New American Century. Look at the National Security review documents that state clearly OIL = National Security. Cheney and Haliburton are not there by accident.Taking fair bids has now fallen victim to no bid contracts possibly worth billions. It really seems partisan to look the other way.

posted 12-22-2003 10:47 PM            

Especially when it comes to government corruption.

posted 12-24-2003 09:06 PM            

I noticed there was resounding silence from others here, to my post regarding the implementation of the Bush/Cheney "New American Century". It is quite simply a plan for U.S. domination of the world. Nothing less. I don't know why people have such a hard time accepting this.

For those that do however might I suggest reading "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century". It's there in black and white. I do have to hand it to these Neo-cons, they hide things right there in plain sight. To those that will only spend a little time, in an objective attempt to understand, the Bush Doctrine is clear. When G.W. says things would be easier if he was dictator, one would do best to believe him.

So for me I no longer find the question "is America increasingly becoming an Empire ruling through Force?" to be the relative one,but rather what are to be the effects upon my self and my country and the rest of the world. So many people seem to me to spend countless hours playing the "blame game" attempting to defend or justify their "side" and those they perhaps voted for, even when they realize they may end up 'defending' something they don't personally believe in. Many of my Conservative friends however are becoming increasing abhored at the seemingly insatiable attempt at power grabbing of this administration and my Liberal friends think Bush should have been impeached long ago.

I have said before though, I don't really set around waiting for a political saviour to come and help make my world any better. It's up to all of us, it has to come UP from The People. Every day, everyone we meet, talk to, every radio call in show, every letter to the editor, or to your congressperson, on every subway and bath house wall, on every internet chat board, to being out in the streets with signs, LET FREEDOM RING!

To The Masses:
Turn of FOX SNOOZE! Turn of ABC, NBC, CBS, Corporate News Network. Turn of Clear Channel (cleared of any intellectual content). Find a quiet place away from the noise of the crowd and give yourself over to the silence and the Still small voice of
reason. The Spirit will indeed come to those that seek it. No lie. You have my word on it.

SmT