Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Good questions
Non-violent protest can effectively raise awareness and sometimes even affect change. But protest can be intoxicating and supplant fixing the underlying issues/problem as the purpose. And some protesters become violent in their non-violence, if you know what I mean. Anyway, hearing that Schmindy is planning to chain herself to a fence in front of the White House, my head buzzed in that way that usually means something seems offbase, akilter, odd, puzzling, maybe even wrong. And then I happened upon one of Random Jottings' entries yesterday and my questions crystalized. Why do many war protesters rant and rave only against our government? Why don't they chain themselves to Iraqi or UN fences? Why didn't they yell and scream at Hussein about his murdering and torturing? Why don't they interrupt Syrian assemblies and demand a cessation of permitting insurgents across their borders into Iraq? Why don't they demand that peace-loving Muslims speak out? I have lots more questions along this vein but why list them all. Unfortunately I think Schmindy and her gang prefer to disrupt and attack their own government than actually work toward peace. Their goal pretty clearly is to make the U.S. look bad and to arouse hostile emotions, rather than to suggest ways of fixing the problems about which they say they are so angry. Would returning Saddam to power make them happy? My guess is that the only thing that could ameliorate their fury is Bush's resignation. If that's their real gripe, then they should say so. If they're just getting a kick out of all the attention from their protesting, we can ignore them as if they're acting out. If they really feel strongly about world peace and human kindness, they should criticize and attack more than those they see as the hometown bullies and put all their passion, zeal and energy to possibly good and effective use.
Labels: reflections, writing
Post a Comment