Poor Cat Stevens. That song was written well before he converted to Islam and became all devout and stuff, and I'm sure every time he hears it he has a little stab of irritation in his colon. I know, because I feel that same stab any time I see an old picture of myself in stirrup pants.
Anyway, I was in the peace march Saturday! I've alternately heard it called the march against the war, the demonstration against the war, the rally against the war, etc. but I prefer peace march. It has a nice groovy feel to it, I think. There were supposed to be about 100,000 people there but then later I heard it was more like half a million; I've been trying to find some aerial photos of it but not having any luck so far. It sure was a lot of people from where I stood, which was somewhere right in the middle. With Paul, and his parents, Cynthia and Richard, who were the ones who invited us to go in the first place. They came all the way from New Jersey to participate; in fact, most of the people I met there were not from DC but had travelled some distance to be a part of it.(I'll try to put some of the photos online so I can link to them, if you're interested. I know I'm always saying things like that but it could happen. Stop laughing.)
It was really pretty inspiring to see so many people show up to try and make a difference. Obviously the majority of Americans are against our involvement there but unfortunately for us (and them) the administration is going full-speed ahead with this troop surge and the Congress is essentially laying down for it - so much for "by the people, for the people". Personally I feel like Bush should have at least been required to watch some of the news coverage; if I were president and thousands of people were gathering in fervent protest outside my workplace I would probably be inclined to listen and, you know, respond.
But I'm forgetting, he's an idiot. Never mind.
You know what I've actually been thinking, though: there is a way that Bush could redeem himself in my eyes. What if he just got on t.v. and said, "America - I fucked up. I fucked up big. I had no idea what I was doing and some of you tried to stop me and I wouldn't pay attention and therefore, I fucked up. But give me the chance to try and correct my fuck-up so that the Iraqi people don't pay the price for me....being a fuck-up. Thank you - and God Bless America."
I think I would have respect for that kind of a concession! You know?! Just a little honesty, just a little humility in the face of all that he's put us through. But I know it's never going to happen. Paul says that politically speaking, it's always considered hugely risky to ever admit to making a mistake and also, politicians don't use the F word so much in public. Except Dick Cheney who, my sources tell me, is a potty-mouth.
A LIST OF FIVE PEOPLE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE LESS (OF)
1. Jared. He lost weight, he stood in one leg of his old huge pants, I'm happy for him. His fifteen minutes are up.
2. Tara Reid. The magazines keep referring to her as an actress. She's not an actress, she's a professional party-goer and she needs to keep her boob in her dress.
3. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Why is he so angry? He really harshes my mellow, you know?
4. Ryan Seacrest. I resent that I even have to know who Ryan Seacrest is. And why does he get to take over for Dick Clark on New Year's Rockin' Eve? I never voted on that initiative! I would've picked Lou Dobbs, it would be fun to watch him trying to pick out illegal immigrants from such a huge crowd. And if he's not available - the Geico lizard.
5. Clint Eastwood. He knows why.
Comments (7)
LOL. Lou DOBBS!
Posted by Kate | January 31, 2007 4:15 PM
Posted on January 31, 2007 16:15
Yo, I was into peace back before anyone else was into peace. I marched way back in Feb 2003. But now that peace is getting major airplay, and even my grandma likes the idea of peace, I HATE it! Peace used to be cool, but now it's like peace is all over MTV or whatever. Fookin' sellout!
Posted by Matthew Davidson | January 31, 2007 5:28 PM
Posted on January 31, 2007 17:28
you forgot paris hilton, lindsay lohan, and britney spears...they should've gone away a very very very long time ago!
Posted by kimber | January 31, 2007 5:33 PM
Posted on January 31, 2007 17:33
i think your uncle mark sat in once(while at boston university) against the vietnam war, but they sent him anyway. maybe it was a sit-in against dow chemical...who knows? but i know he was involved in some kind of large protest back in the day...of course i was still playing with barbies at that time:) auntie p
Posted by Patricia Peterson | January 31, 2007 8:18 PM
Posted on January 31, 2007 20:18
Thank God we live in a country where we can say and write that our president is an idiot without him ordering us to be tortured and beheaded for it! That's my comment and I'm sticking to it. As for peace demonstrations... in the sixties I think I was at a lunch counter sit-in once at Percy's pharmacy, but I was too busy smoking my ciggie-butts, chowing down on buttery grilled English muffins, and guzzling cherry Cokes to realize what was going on around me. I am just now learning from Oprah how to be more present in my life. I think I prefer being oblivious, actually.
Posted by Auntie Janice | February 1, 2007 7:34 AM
Posted on February 1, 2007 07:34
I'm not looking to provoke anyone, but may I make an observation? The peace movement is not about looking cool, or as I can't believe was said "groovy."
And you folks who are so quick to criticize president Bush, do you have a better plan for how things should be handled. See, people are very quick to armchair quarterbacks these days, without either any special expertise in the area of foreign relations that qualifies them to offer their opinions, nor the sufficient knowledge of history, which is vital to formulating a plan to get out of the war.
You see, for those of you who think that we shouldn't be involved in the Middle East, my contention is, how can we not be? Lest we forget, 9-11 came to US, it didn't happen to us on foreign soil. Official US policy in the area of foreign relations used to be "No foreign entaglements." Meaning, we didn't get involved in the affairs of rest of the world. Oh, that sounds really nice to us today, but the last time America tried to survive off of this policy was Pearl Harbor. Both Pearl Harbor and 9-11 should serve to show us that staying at home and not becombing involved will not work any more. They will come to us!
Next history lesson is for those who think we need to just pull out of Iraq as soon as possible. Well, let me ask this: What will happen to the troops that remain there as we cut off funding and support for them? And you think the casualties are high now for the Iraqi people? Wait til we leave. If you remember, this is how they tried to "solve" things in Vietnam, and turned out to be a colossal mistake.
I could go on and on, but my point is, that the whole peace movement thing is not a fashion statement. And you should think first about what it is you stand for. To say that the president's only motives for going into Iraq were for either oil or payback is so totally naive as to be almost totally without merit. And only the trueist of Pollyannas could actually believe that the problem is as simple as just pulling out.
Posted by Roger | February 1, 2007 7:51 PM
Posted on February 1, 2007 19:51
Roger, thank heavens for you. I've always been afraid to ask this question for fear of being considered so naive as to be almost totally without merit, but I can tell that you're just the kind of person who'll give me a straight answer, sans judgment, and put my mind at ease, unlike my bleeding-heart liberal friends, who just laugh and laugh. So. Here goes: what did Iraq have to do with 9-11? I understand our presence in the Middle East when "Middle East" meant Afghanistan. Is it the whole geographical region who attacked us, or just all dark-skinned Muslim people? Since most of the 9-11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, why aren't we present there? If Spain had attacked us, would we be within our rights to attack any European country? We know bin Laden was the ultimate power behind the attack. With all of our power and resources, how is he still a free man? Shouldn't the resources we've poured into Iraq thus far have been enough to find one guy and bring him to justice?
Oops - that's more than one question. And to be honest, I don't know what a better solution for the mess in Iraq would be. Luckily, thinking of one isn't my job. A plumber came to my house the other day and grossly misdiagnosed the cause of a leaky pipe. He didn't say to me, "Well, do you have a better idea?" He admitted his mistake and figured it out on his own. Because he's a plumber and I'm not. But just because I'm not a plumber doesn't mean I don't know when there's water filling up my basement.
Wait - I'm sorry. That was a really heavy-handed metaphor, wasn't it? There I go, and all I really wanted was an answer to my question. Questions, that is. You must think I'm so arrogant! I'm so embarrassed. But anyway, I can just tell by the didactic, be-patient-because-we're-dealing-with-silly-children tone of your comment that you're the one who can give me the answer I've been searching for for several years. I've always thought they were simple ones, but I must be wrong, because here I still sit with no answers! Oh, woe. Help me, Roger!
Posted by Maggie | February 2, 2007 11:24 AM
Posted on February 2, 2007 11:24