What Is It Good For

The other weekend, I found myself amidst an anti-war protest. Living in a major metropolitan area, I have seen a few of these, mostly of the variety of people gathering on street corners with signs and placards and encouraging oncoming motorists to honk for peace. But this one was different on several accounts. First, they were marching through a large pedestrian area. Second, there were many more than I had seen at one protest before, at least several hundred, perhaps more. I was not able to get an accurate count. Third, they were very well organized, both in signage, message and leadership. And fourth, I was also a pedestrian, and had a ringside view of the group marching. I had never, to this point in my life, been so close to a group of people driven by their beliefs for peace to take to the streets. Sure, we had all seen such protests, both here and abroad, on television, but being in person at the scene gives the events a completely different perspective. After viewing the march, it left me with many questions and points to ponder, the most notable of which were, why were they so angry and what are they actually doing?

To start, they were not violent, nor did they get into anyone’s face, but they were angry. There was a palpable anger that came from the group as a whole and from specific members in particular. One woman, who may have been one of the organizers, was leading the group in chants and energy. At one point, they stopped to allow others to catch up with them. During this pause, she produced a bull horn and began leading them in a chant. The chant is as follows:

Woman: What do we want?

Group: Peace!

Woman: When do we want it?

Group: Now!

Nothing derogatory toward the current administration, they saved that for a few of the signs and placards, nor anything vile or profane. But they were screaming the chant, many with a vitriol reserved for pure loathing. I found it odd that a group of people would gather together in an effort to show many others how much they want peace, and how important it was to them, and then to be angrily demanding said peace. Part of me wanted to purchase some poster board, write a message stating a wish for 4 more years of war, and sit calmly with it to see what happened. Not that I would ever want such a thing, but I was curious as to what would be the reaction of the protesters. I am fairly certain that many of the group would react negatively to the message, and perhaps even violently. I wanted to point out to them the irony of how they are demanding for peace in an angry and aggressive way, but I got the distinct impression that it would have probably been lost on a good portion of the group.

As they began their march again, I watched with rapt interest as the group continued on its way and on its mission. I wondered about the people partaking in the march, their stories and what drove them to become part of this task. What were their motivations and desires? What makes them want peace so much that they will take to such dramatic action in an effort to bring attention to their cause and mission? But these questions begat other questions, ones that really made me wonder.

I began to wonder how many actually had some sort of personal stake in the war itself. Have any of them ever been in a combat zone, or know the realities of war? Have any of them ever seen the devastation caused by war, or the events that lead up to war first hand? Have any of them ever seen people who have lived their entire lives in abject terror, knowing only fear and death and their only hope is for someone, anyone, to come along and save them? How many of them were related to a soldier in combat, or even personally knew one? Honestly, I would be surprised if that number were over 10%. And if they did have a friend or family member serving in harm’s way, what would that person think of them marching, angrily, for peace? Would they be proud, relieved, or hopeful something would come of it? Would the soldier feel disappointed, cheated or betrayed by them?

Protesters today are careful not to make the same mistakes of those in the 60’s protesting Vietnam, where they protested the war and shunned the troops. Many soldiers then have stories of coming home after the hellish time they spent in combat, only to be treated as pariahs and baby killers upon returning to America. Some were derided, spit on and ostracized by those who were vehement for peace. During the current war, protesters have been very careful to make sure to say that they hate the war and want to end the fighting but are in full support of our troops. They want to bring them home before any more of them perish in what many see as a fruitless and pointless conflict that has no real basis for even existing. That is a debate for another day, but what the protesters fail to realize is that by marginalizing and deriding the war, they are marginalizing what the troops themselves are doing, and thereby, inadvertently, marginalizing and deriding them.

Soldiers want to feel that what they are doing means something, that it is making a difference in the world. They do not want to feel as though their sacrifices are for nothing. And many times, when they see their countrymen protesting and marching against the war, they feel as though they are marching against them. These men and women put their lives at risk each day, no matter the conflict, so the rest of us do not have to ever. It is a tireless, thankless and dangerous job that they never get enough credit for or recognition of their accomplishments or bravery. They face dangers and horrors each day that most us, luckily, will never know and could only imagine in our worst nightmares. They need to feel that what they are doing means something, that it is part of a greater good, that it is for the betterment of us all and ultimately for peace. They need to feel that if they make it out, they can look back and see that what they have done made a positive difference and changed the world for a better place. They need to hold onto this feeling just to make it through each day living and working in a place where their next breath could be their last. Sure, that sounds overly dramatic, but is it? How many times have we heard about suicide bombers, IED devices and sniper attacks? We have heard of them far too many times to take all the drama out of the previous statement and lend it a chilling reality. Now, perhaps when the soldiers come back with their own perspective toward the conflicts, having been in combat zones, they may have a different opinion. Perhaps with their perspective they could give us all a different insight on things, but that is also another debate. What I wonder is whether or not the protesters know how they affect the morale of these men and women, and how it will affect the war itself?

Another thing I wondered when I was watching the protesters was how many of them really were there for peace, and how many were just following the crowd? Watching a few of them, they had the look of just wanting to belong, to be part of something. They had a look that spoke of being an outsider, and just happy to be on the inside for once. I can relate to this, as I am sure many others can as well. When we feel small and outside of the world, we want to attach ourselves to something bigger, something that seems far greater than we are as individuals. The disenfranchised amongst us want to belong, to create change, to leave a mark and be a part of something greater. An opportunity such as a protest gives people that chance, with minimal effort to boot. But do they actually believe what they are saying, or just following the crowd. Mind you, I fully believe many there were very committed to their cause, but a few in the crowd just gave me the distinct impression of salmon heading upstream because that it was something to do.

Which brings me to my second notable question, what were they actually doing. By marching around and yelling about their frustrations, anger and desires for peace, the main impression that I took from them were not that they were an organized group of action, but a bunch of people complaining. This disease seems to be getting worse and worse in our society, affecting all levels of people at an epidemic rate. Almost everyone prefers to complain rather than affect a change in their life. Be it the person in a miserable relationship that just keeps sticking around to the person in a dead end job who goes to work each morning in a funk instead of getting out and grabbing what they want to do in life, everyone is complaining about something. Granted, some of the complaints have merit, but they are still just complaining. And complaining does nothing but temporarily get a problem off your chest, as opposed to solving the problem. I do believe there are those amongst us that are happier when they are unhappy, and complaining is the only thing that makes them happy. If things were going well, or they made a change for the better, they would be miserable. But for the rest of us, it does not have to be like that. We can do something about it.

The protesters did not, or perhaps do not still, seem to realize that making signs and screaming for peace is nothing more than bitching about how things are in the world. Sure, it will get you on the news and a little attention, but if you do not do anything with that, then the only story is, group of people complain about war. And what kind of story is that? If they really believe in what they are saying, then they should do something about it. There are a million things one could do to affect real change and turn those complaints into action. How about run for office and change the laws and the direction of things yourself. If that is too much, perhaps write your congressperson or senator. If they will not do anything, then back others who believe the same things you do and put them into office. Perhaps get a job in government or start a grass roots campaign. Get out there and find others like you band together and form a think tank or organization that can make real strides. Do something that will affect real change as opposed to pompous grandstanding.

Like most people, I do not have any real answers to the tough questions of life. I am trying to figure out things just like everybody else. But one thing I have figured out, and many others still need to, is that nothing in this world is black and white. All we really have are gradient shades of gray. There is no black and white when it comes to war and peace either. Look at any war, and you will find many points of ambiguity where you can question the right and wrong of each decision. Was Truman right to drop the bombs that ended World War II? Sure, countless lives were saved by ending the conflict, but many were killed in the process. See, more shades of gray. We could sit and debate this, and many other decisions made by those in power, and everything else under the sun and moon, until the wee hours of the morning. But there are two things everyone should keep in mind as you go forth and work on finding those elusive answers to life. If you feel strongly about something, get informed about it. Find out as much as you can, base your opinions, beliefs and thoughts on as much information that you can find. Become educated about your opinion, learn the shades of gray and spread that knowledge. What you learn and what you find out could help guide others in their own search for answers in a question filled world. And if you feel so strongly about an issue, problem or something about your world, do something about it. Get out and make a change instead of complaining about it. Make the world a better place, not a more annoying one.

Random Political Observations

With a new Democratically-led Congress, and the onset of another presidential campaign season, already the stupidity is pouring out of Washington. While watching the opening salvos from each side, aimed not only at each other but themselves, a few observations regarding the electoral process and politics in general have stuck out.

To start, the Democrats are proving themselves to be clueless regarding the constituents they represent. After rigorous campaigning, politicking and barn burning, they managed to finally gain control of Congress for the first time in 12 years. This is quite the accomplishment, owed in no large part by a combination of significant effort on their part and inept leadership on the part of the sitting Republicans. So, with this new found power and clout in Washington, what are the most significant things they have done thus far? They tackled the most pressing problems facing the nation today and banned smoking outside the House chambers and passing a non binding resolution to pull troops from Iraq and end the conflict.

First, let us take a look at the smoking ban. Yes, we all know smoking is bad for you, and despite the mountains of evidence showing the ill effects, many people still partake in the habit. Even those in power find the need to take a puff from the dragon from time to time. Up until now, those in the House who felt this need had only to slip outside the chambers to burn one down. Now, the incoming leadership feels this is wrong and has put an end to the long standing practice. I have no problem with stopping this practice, per se. Smoking in public buildings has been banned in many places for years, and having the seat of government follow suit is long overdue. They should have been leading by example years ago, instead of giving themselves a preferable exemption. The problem I have is two fold. One, the new leadership has trumpeted this as though they have done something significant. Have they really? No, all they have really done is come into compliance with laws regarding smoking in public buildings that they previously passed for everyone else. And two, they are using the forum of the House chambers to once again push forward their own agenda of telling people how to live their lives. Look, we all know smoking is bad. It is one of the worst things you can do to yourself. But if people wish to spend their days sucking in carcinogenic fumes, that is their business. That is a choice they are allowed to make for themselves in a free society such as ours. I know cigarettes are addictive and after a time, it becomes less of a choice and more of a need. But it is always a choice, albeit a rather stupid one. Those who do not smoke, never have smoked, or are reformed smokers and hate the habit feel this overwhelming need to push their own stance and opinions upon those who still smoke. Whenever I see behavior such as this, I tend to always ask the same question; why do you care so much what other people do with their lives? Yes, to those who do not smoke, second hand smoke can be disgusting, nauseating and irritating. But with all the laws we have now, we are almost to the point where you need a permit to light up. Unless you are going to areas where smokers congregate, you can easily go through an entire day and avoid smokers and their vile habit. But the new congressional leadership decided they wanted to make a statement about how they felt not only about smoking, but those who partake in this particular unsavory habit. If this was really about health concerns for non smokers working in the capitol building, they could have easily just made the change and have been done with it. No, they brought it up for the world to see, made a large deal about it, pushed it in front of the media and showed everyone that they were doing something they deemed important. But is it really? I have trouble believing those STILL displaced by Hurricane Katrina would feel this is something important and worthy of time and debate on the floors of the House and Senate. I also have trouble believing those on active duty in foreign lands would also feel it to be an important piece of legislature and usage of legislative time.

Secondly, and speaking of service men and women, let us just take a look at this troop resolution. Basically because it is a non binding resolution, it means nothing, does not require anything or even acknowledgment from the administration, does nothing for any of the service men and women deployed around the world and is barely worth the paper it is written on. So what is the point of it? Symbolism, plain and simple. The new leadership used their forum to voice yet another opinion, this one on the ongoing war on terrorism. More specifically, they used it to voice their opinions also on the administration and the president, and did it in public and put it on paper and on the record. Ok, good. Good for you. But here is a question, if this resolution means nothing, and does not really require any action, or even acknowledgement, from the administration, why did Congress waste over a week of time debating, arguing and pushing for the passage of this document? What really was gained by wasting all this time and increasing the vitriol between the two parties? Sure, it looks good to those who cast their votes for them, showed their supporters that they are taking a stand, but they are not really doing anything with that stand. They are merely grandstanding for political gain, but I have trouble seeing said gain. The whole thing is merely just window dressing.

What really irks me is through all of their campaigns to gain control of the House and Senate, Democrats kept trumpeting that changes needed to be made, and they were going to make them. They kept saying that no one was looking at the real problems or working on them, but they were ready to dive into the breach, roll up their sleeves and start working. They pointed out the massive, and costly, errors in both the wars abroad and the disasters close to home the previous leadership had made, and took a stand saying this had to stop and they would be the ones to stop it. But once they were in, what have they done? Both of these resolutions are nothing but symbolic acts that have changed absolutely nothing but the smoking habits of a few congressional employees.

Now, how about ending your grandstanding, stop wasting time and money, put your massive egos in check and start working together and get to work in finding real solutions to the real problems this country and our citizens have. When the Democrats took office, they vowed to make their first 100 days a whirlwind of legislation and changes that would benefit the country, our citizens and our troops. But so far all I have seen is nothing but personal agendas put on display for the media that do very little to make any significant changes or fix any real problems. Worse, what they have accomplished is to further damage the working relationships between Democrats and Republicans, created an even greater partisan divide between the parties that leads to nothing more than a political quagmire where nothing gets done, problems become worse and distrust of public officials climbs to all time highs. I am appalled that after crying and clamoring for so long to be in charge, these are the types of things they are focusing on, symbolic acts that do nothing to benefit anyone except their own egos and attitudes of self righteousness.

Moving on, I would like to take a look at the democratic presidential aspirations. Democrats have not had control of the presidency for over 6 years now, and with candidates beginning to come forth, their best bets so far are Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Seriously, do you think either of these two will win? I do not, and would be surprised if either one won the election. Not because either one would not be an effective leader, but because both of these candidates miss the boat with many people in our country. But this is why Democrats lose so often, they sorely underestimate, misread or ignore the mindset and thinking of Middle America, which is where most constituents reside and are economically grouped. Most people fear change or things that are far different from their norm. And when massive changes come, they tend to rally against them. Most people can handle some change, but large scale drastic changes invoke fear, especially of the unknown. This feeling is intensified when many parts of their own worlds are in chaos and beyond their control, especially when they feel it may directly affect their livelihood. Change is hard to come by when people are already afraid of the state of affairs in their neighborhood, city, state, country and the world. People generally take longer to accept different things and moving away from long time standards and norms. This is especially true in a world where constant change seems to be accelerating at speeds where no one can keep up. Real change takes time, in slow increments, and usually fails if it is a significant amount over a short period of time. It becomes more than most can handle.

If people are already scared of the bad things that can happen with half the world ready to kill us, that they may be out of a job and unable to support their family, that they could be left out in the cold after a devastating disaster, then they will not be ready to hand the reigns over to someone they may not be comfortable with or unsure of their leadership skills. Republicans understand this mentality and have been playing off of this fear, quite successfully, for years. Democrats, however, miss this boat and the mentality of Middle America and continue to push candidates that most people outside of the East and West Coasts would find unattractive. They underestimate how many people look upon Clinton, who will have to battle the baggage left to her by her husband, but also the unfounded fear of being a woman candidate. Right or wrong, there are quite a few people out there who think that a woman might not be strong enough to lead a nation at war. Never mind that Margaret Thatcher, the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, was one of the toughest customers ever to lead a nation and a very successful female leader. We can be a forward thinking country at times and very backward the next. Is it a correct feeling? Is there any real basis for this line of reasoning? No, it is one bred from fear and ignorance. Until we can overcome these feelings as a society, they will remain for a very long time. Also, Democrats underestimate the residual ill feelings toward her husband’s perceived moral character. These feelings toward the Clintons run much deeper, and have hung around much longer, than most Democrats realize. This baggage could potentially hamstring Hillary as she heads down the campaign trail.

It is typically par for the course that men in power will have dalliances with women. With power comes opportunity, and many have chosen to take advantage of said opportunities. History is littered with stories of men in power and the mistresses or concubines they have kept. However, our society’s views on sexual behavior and moral fiber tend to lend to views and opinions that those who hold high offices of power and influence should be above such actions. Never mind the fact that those offices are held by human beings with the same base instincts that are a part of every person. And also never mind the fact that most people will sit in condemnation of those involved in unseemly behavior while mired in it themselves. The ideology that stands is most people do not want to think of, or have, their leaders involved in such shenanigans, and look down upon them if they become embroiled in such situations. Because of these obviously conflicting thought processes, the whole Clinton affair situation polarized many people. And still to this day there are those out there in our great nation who still feel strongly against Clinton for his actions. This feeling is now transferred, fairly or unfairly, to Hillary, who is perceived by some as nothing more than a political opportunist after nothing but power and personal glory. Whether this assessment is correct or fair is not the issue. The issue is that she has the potential to be a polarizing candidate who people will go out to the polls to vote against, regardless of the candidate she faces. Democratic leadership, though, seems unwilling or unable to grasp these feelings from the general populous, and continues on with their plans unabated. If they recognize or accept it, and have plans to be able to combat these perceptions and fears, it has yet to be revealed.

As for Obama, I hate to say this, but he looks to me to become this election’s Howard Dean. A perceived outsider, who comes out of nowhere, sweeps everyone in early, peaks early in the process and then falters down the stretch. I do not know enough about Obama to really get a feel of where he stands on issues, but with the talk going on, I just see a repeat of Dean. But at the moment, that is one of the reasons he is a sexy pick, mainly because no one really knows where he stands. He is an outsider to politics on the national stage, and with people fed up with most long standing politicians, they want someone who does not seem to be affected by business as usual. But that is the problem with an outsider; you do not know where they stand on anything. And thus far, his handlers have been very careful to keep his message devoid of any real content besides your typical political platitudes of changes that need to be made to avoid any potential pitfalls before the primary season kicks into high gear. People tend to tire of this, and will become bored. And sure, it is easy now to say, yeah, I like him as a candidate and would back him, but when push comes to shove, will they really? Ask Howard Dean how that works out.

If the Democrats really want to keep control of Congress and grab the White House, they need to do two things. First, find a candidate that is universally appealing that will not polarize the voting public and has a strong, clear message with a real plan to not only work on fixing the ills of our nation and how to address the war, but also how to work with those on the other side of the political fence. Show that you can and will work well with others so real change and progress will be made. And second, start paying attention, and I mean real attention and not just lip service, to those in Middle America and in the South. In case you have not noticed, this is where elections in recent years have been decided, not in the North, East nor on the West Coast. Just to emphasize this point, since 1976, every president we have had, with the exception of one, has been from the South. In a time span of 30 years, we have had presidents from the South leading our country for 22 of those years. All have come from a region that those in large, media savvy parts of the country seem to dismiss as nothing more than a backward part of the country filled with uneducated rednecks too stupid to know what is good for them. Perhaps the Democrats need to pay attention to how the selections of these “uneducated rednecks” have been shaping our world and realize they have more strength and clout than many realize.

Now, as for the Republicans, thus far they have been keeping their head down, licking their wounds from losing Congress and biding their time. Their two lead candidates that have thrown their hats in the ring, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, both have appeal, not only to republican voters but across party lines. McCain, a decorated war veteran, is known for working with Democrats to get bipartisan legislation passed and working well with those on either side of the political fence. McCain’s biggest issue may be with the fact that he is a long time senator, and could be perceived as nothing more than another political insider that is more part of the problem than the solution. And Giuliani, while many found to be a hard nosed mayor of one of the largest cities on earth, gained much appeal and showed how he can handle crises for his leadership, compassion and resolve after the tragedy of 9/11. Giuliani has the benefit of demonstrating his leadership on a large scale while still remaining a perceived outsider to Washington. These are candidates that many people will not be too afraid to support. Not too much change from the status quo, but their track records can be touted as those who can get the job done yet not in a business as usual sort of way. Without much effort on their part, already I see the Republicans ahead of the Democrats in the race to the White House.

But the Achilles heel of the Republicans may be their defiance and arrogance. The party itself feels as though they are on the right mission, the mission to be leaders of the world and to eradicate terrorism and evil all over the planet. And theoretically, they could be correct. The debate over who can properly judge what is right or wrong or whether or not we should be self proclaimed world police, however, is for another day. As for the
Republicans’ current mission, they have done poorly thus far on execution. Their strategies and plans have been flawed, shown a poor lack of planning and execution and an overall misjudgment of what it would really take to successfully perform such a Herculean task. Plus, their stubbornness and steadfastness to the mission has caused them to be close minded upon changes and recommendations toward improving the situation. More and more we hear from retired military personnel about how the invasions and occupations were ill planned and poorly executed. And we continue to hear about how recommendations to correct the situations in both the war and on national security are falling on deaf ears. Republicans continue to play the fear card, that if they give up now, if they pull out, the entire Middle East situation could tumble like a house of cards and create a cascading effect that could lead to a far larger, and more dangerous, world conflict. That assessment could very well be true, especially considering how many abroad currently feels about our country and how unstable, historically, that region of the world tends to be. But instead of using the knowledge gained and recommendations toward correcting bad planning, they continue to keep the status quo. As people become more exhausted by the news that comes from the war zones we are currently engaged in throughout the world, this appearance of arrogant inaction tends to push people to want to dump those in charge in favor of something else, even if they have no better plans to trumpet. Merely the hope and promise of change is enough for some people tired of hearing about the deaths of young men and women, depressed about the lack of progress in capturing terrorists, angry about the current course of action and still trapped in an emotional whirlwind regarding what brought us as a nation to this point in history. If they do not make serious strides toward conflict resolution and course corrections, their current stance could backfire for the republican candidate come November 2008.

And finally, can we all just finally accept and realize that Ann Coulter is out for nothing more than media attention, higher ratings and book sales? Her latest comments were aimed at another democratic presidential candidate, former VP candidate John Edwards. Basically, she called John Edwards a faggot, but without coming right out and saying it. Here is her actual quote.

“I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word "faggot."

I actually agree about the rehab part. It seems ridiculous to me that if you spout some ignorant, hate filled speech that you can just to go to rehab and then can be cured of your close mindedness. But how do you rehabilitate hate and ignorance? Is it even possible? Can you really send someone away for 30 days and have them come back open minded and ready to show the world what they learned and how accepting they now are of all different kinds of people? Something like that sounds less like rehabilitation and more like a reeducation camp. The only real way to combat such ignorant thinking is with time, patience, education and a willing recipient. If the person spewing such things does not feel they are wrong, then they really cannot be helped. You cannot lead lemmings away from the cliff. But I digress.

Personally, I think if people want to show how they really feel, let them. Let them sit there at whatever soapbox they can find and spout all the hate and nonsense their tiny little hearts desire until they go hoarse from their ranting and raving. I will do what I always do, shake my head in sadness at those who find it necessary to denigrate others different from themselves, and then laugh at them for their own stupidity. Plus, as an added bonus, we will then know where these narrow minded bigots are and will be able to successfully ignore them in the future. That is the key to dealing with those of her ilk. She is trying to raise controversy; she is trying to provoke anger and response because it helps her bottom line. It aids in keeping her in the news, in the public eye, and thereby keeping her employed and making money. But if we just ignore her verbal diarrhea, eventually if people stop listening and buying into her nonsense, she and others like her will just go away.

Now, her defense of her statements is nothing short of priceless. She is maintaining that it was nothing more than a joke, but that the “liberals” are blowing it out of proportion. I love that catch all, it is nothing more than a misunderstanding and it is everyone else’s fault they did not understand. Yes, it is ALWAYS someone else’s fault. No need to take personal responsibility for your own actions anymore in our society, simply find your own personal antagonist and blame them for all the bad things you say and do. This is beautiful reasoning that is becoming, frighteningly, much more commonplace in our society. She also stated that the term is not derogatory slang toward gay people, but merely a school yard taunt that means wuss. Well, unless she is a gay woman, I find it rather difficult for her to determine what is or is not a derogatory comment toward the gay community. Unless she has walked in their shoes, she really has no idea how a word or ideology can be hurtful. Putting aside for a moment the ridiculousness of her explanation and the fact that she is completely ignoring the fact that it is a derogatory term against gay people, for a moment let’s just take her statement at its face value, and take it as nothing more than school yard taunting. Fine, for argument's sake, what she said was nothing more than calling Edwards a wuss, but using much more inflammatory language. But if we do accept that this was her intention, then that brings up a few more important questions. Is this really what we have finally devolved to in politics, nothing more than childish name calling? Have we really fallen so far from civility and delved so deep into political mudslinging that we have reached a depth where now if you disagree with someone and what they say that any semblance of debate and discussion are now eliminated in favor of behavior we would admonish our children for partaking in? Is this the political low we are now willing to accept? If so, then it really must be the beginning of the presidential election season.