So I'm coming out of my advanced state of finalphobia to weigh in against those Failures of the Female Folk Franchise, the Dixie Pigs. I suppose I'm a bit late, since their appallingly tasteless comments about President Bush preceded the Iraq invasion, but since I had never listened to their music I didn't feel ready to fully blast them.
Now I have heard one of their songs. From what I hear, it is one of their many on the subject of killing abusive husbands. This dubious subject matter led me to think about certain aspects of their pro-Saddam stance (note: for those of you argumentative types out there, let me say this: if you come out against the president of your nation when it is standing on the brink of war, you are fully with the other side, no matter how you color your statements):
"Earl," abusive husband in the song: beat wife, put her in hospital
My stance: bad man. Deserved jail time. Death is debatable.
D.C.'s: KILL 'IM!!
Saddam, former dictator (hee hee isnt that GREAT?) of Iraq: killed lotsandlotsandLOTS of his own people, gassed the Kurds, evaded a hella bunch of UN resolutions, and supported terrorism.
My stance: How does one say "torn apart by wild horses" in Iraqi?
D.C.: Well....Bush is worse!
Now, I know this has been overdone, but I find it frankly chilling that a lot of leftists are still unsure as to whether or not they approve of an Iraq that is no longer under Saddam's reign of blood, murder, terror, and oppression. They dabble in moral equivalencies and fail to see that, even if Bush was wrong about the WMD's--and if he was, Clinton was too; they both believed that Saddam had them--we should still be ecstatic for the Iraqis. They're getting a taste of things most of them never dreamed of having, and some American lefties are upset, from what I can tell, that it wasn't some Clinton or Howard Dean that liberated them. (As though either of those two would have the brass to stand up to even a two-bit despot like Saddam.)
My personal opinion is that the peace movement or rather, the anti-war movement (let's face it, the Left today is defined more by who it ISN'T than who it is--which doesn't surprise, since it ISN'T a lot of things) has become less about principle and more about fashion. And no, I'm not talking through my hat here. I spent three years at a Friends school and talked to some of the Quaker staff there. I've read books on peace movements throughout the years and if I disagree with the overall ideology I can at least respect the principle behind it. The men and women who make up the Quaker faith are 1) religiously motivated and 2) serve their fellow man in other ways. As far as I know, their beliefs do not prohibit them from serving in positions such as rear-line medics and doctors. Basically, they operate in the same fashion as the U.S. did after its defeat of Germany of 1945: throw down the sword and pick up the hammer and the plowshare. In other words, they seek to widen the possibility of peace; military powers like the U.S. give them the ability to do that by kicking out scum like Saddam.
One Quaker song even goes as follows:
"When tyrants tremble, sick with fear,
And hear their death-knell ringing,
When friends rejoice both far and near,
How can I keep from singing?"
When was the last time you heard your typical anti-war protestor taking a stance against tyrants? (And no, spewing hate and vitriol at Bush doesn't count--if he were a tyrant, there would be no such thing as the "2004 elections.") They'd rather a country remain under the iron heel of a cruel monster than see America win.
So next time you hear some anti-war airhead raging about America's "lack of moral authority," ask yourself this: how horrible is it to be endowed with a sense of ethics--and be willing to stand by while evil is done?
I realize I digressed quite a bit here, but such is my thought process. Now you understand why I have focus problems.
Now I have heard one of their songs. From what I hear, it is one of their many on the subject of killing abusive husbands. This dubious subject matter led me to think about certain aspects of their pro-Saddam stance (note: for those of you argumentative types out there, let me say this: if you come out against the president of your nation when it is standing on the brink of war, you are fully with the other side, no matter how you color your statements):
"Earl," abusive husband in the song: beat wife, put her in hospital
My stance: bad man. Deserved jail time. Death is debatable.
D.C.'s: KILL 'IM!!
Saddam, former dictator (hee hee isnt that GREAT?) of Iraq: killed lotsandlotsandLOTS of his own people, gassed the Kurds, evaded a hella bunch of UN resolutions, and supported terrorism.
My stance: How does one say "torn apart by wild horses" in Iraqi?
D.C.: Well....Bush is worse!
Now, I know this has been overdone, but I find it frankly chilling that a lot of leftists are still unsure as to whether or not they approve of an Iraq that is no longer under Saddam's reign of blood, murder, terror, and oppression. They dabble in moral equivalencies and fail to see that, even if Bush was wrong about the WMD's--and if he was, Clinton was too; they both believed that Saddam had them--we should still be ecstatic for the Iraqis. They're getting a taste of things most of them never dreamed of having, and some American lefties are upset, from what I can tell, that it wasn't some Clinton or Howard Dean that liberated them. (As though either of those two would have the brass to stand up to even a two-bit despot like Saddam.)
My personal opinion is that the peace movement or rather, the anti-war movement (let's face it, the Left today is defined more by who it ISN'T than who it is--which doesn't surprise, since it ISN'T a lot of things) has become less about principle and more about fashion. And no, I'm not talking through my hat here. I spent three years at a Friends school and talked to some of the Quaker staff there. I've read books on peace movements throughout the years and if I disagree with the overall ideology I can at least respect the principle behind it. The men and women who make up the Quaker faith are 1) religiously motivated and 2) serve their fellow man in other ways. As far as I know, their beliefs do not prohibit them from serving in positions such as rear-line medics and doctors. Basically, they operate in the same fashion as the U.S. did after its defeat of Germany of 1945: throw down the sword and pick up the hammer and the plowshare. In other words, they seek to widen the possibility of peace; military powers like the U.S. give them the ability to do that by kicking out scum like Saddam.
One Quaker song even goes as follows:
"When tyrants tremble, sick with fear,
And hear their death-knell ringing,
When friends rejoice both far and near,
How can I keep from singing?"
When was the last time you heard your typical anti-war protestor taking a stance against tyrants? (And no, spewing hate and vitriol at Bush doesn't count--if he were a tyrant, there would be no such thing as the "2004 elections.") They'd rather a country remain under the iron heel of a cruel monster than see America win.
So next time you hear some anti-war airhead raging about America's "lack of moral authority," ask yourself this: how horrible is it to be endowed with a sense of ethics--and be willing to stand by while evil is done?
I realize I digressed quite a bit here, but such is my thought process. Now you understand why I have focus problems.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home