"Would you like to wear this scarf today?" Cosette
asked me, just as we were preparing to leave.
She held up a hand knitted muffler in the same
colors as the Palestinian flag.
"Not today," I answered her. "This is a
day for taking sides on only one issue. Today we ask all
leaders of the world to find a path to peace
by by-passing any inclination toward war." And so I
believe that is the sentiment shared by most
of the millions who protested around the world last
month, and last weekend.
We followed the same route, and joined the same
people as we did with the San Francisco peace
rally a month ago. While the numbers were
down from that earlier protest, it seemed like more
locals were taking part this time. But
the over-all numbers were definitely down. Maybe down
by as much as twenty-five percent. Of course
that is to be expected. There was no real conflict
with local events last time around. There
were no real competing rallies in other California cities
that would cause out-of-towners to stay closer
to home.
This time there were rallies in San Jose, Oakland,
and Berkeley in the bay area, and several more
in Southern California. Virtually every
major city in the Golden State was visited by protesters
seeking to divert a war against Iraq, joining
in one voice with other major cities worldwide.
It was also the weekend of the Chinese New Year,
which creates one of the largest tourist
attractions around the Golden Gate, filling hotels
that might be used for other events.
An accurate count is unimportant. Aerial
photographs of the world-wide events spoke far less
words than the numbers refusing to be sheep on
this first day of the year of the ram. Of note is
that the official press line a month ago was
that about 65,000 attended the first San Francisco
peace rally. This time, even with a clearly
smaller showing, and because corporate owners
allowed their newsrooms to recognize the events,
the official press estimates ranged from
250,000 to 300,000. That is likely a fair
count. My estimate of the rally last month was
from 250,000 to as many as 400,000. Not
bad for a city of about a million people.
In spite of the fewer numbers, I would say there
was more diversity. In an international city
such as San Francisco, every race, and every
ethnic group was represented, in addition to
every age, every occupation, and every income
group. Yet, to many in the mainstream media,
the marching on the 2003 weekend of February
15 and 16 was the parade of the naive.
"Forgive them, oh Mars, for they know not what
they do!" This is a "Christian Nation" after all,
and all good 'mericans who believe in the Prince
of Peace occasionally need to pay homage
to the Gods of War. On such occasions,
Jesus is ordered to get in line.
To prove their point, talking heads from California
to Maine pointed out that some of these
folks who were marching even march against the
wars with far better poll numbers than the
one currently proposed. Some of these folks
don't believe in violence at all! How un-American
is that? It is quite clear to the weak
witted, overly paid, media millionaires that many average
Americans are being led down the garden path
by people who may not even watch television.
And one can see their frustration. As loudly
as the mainstream media has been banging the
drum of war, a majority of Americans still refuse
to dance. The media is nearly as frustrated
as when they were attempting to persuade the
citizenry to oust Bill Clinton, while the voters
were giving him 70+% approval ratings.
Why won't the public simply believe what they are
told to believe?
The morning after the march, on Presidents Day
(a holiday, incidentally, that does not, in fact,
honor the simian currently in the White House,
for such a holiday would be called Presidents* Day),
I listened to a California talk radio host named
Ron Owens. Owens is likely the most liberal talk
radio host in this most liberal of communities.
To be the voice of liberalism on San Francisco radio,
one's politics need to be somewhere close, but
only slightly to the right of - oh, say, Chris Mathews.
In fact Owens is a big fan of Mathews.
The day after the largest world wide protest against war
that I've seen in my lifetime, Ron Owens was
busily trying to sell the public that we have to trust
this war, that we have to accept whatever the
Bush regime tells us because, after all, George Bush
has never lied to us before. Where, oh
where, can we get information we can trust if it doesn't
come from George W. Bush? If we fail to
head him, we allow ourselves to be led astray by
evildoers who seek to destroy us.
In answer to Mr. Owens, I'd like to point out
that almost any source of information is a better
source than the White House, circa 2003.
While Owens believes, and says, that Bush has
never lied about anything other than the political
- what all White House residents lie about -
I cannot think of a time when Bush hasn't lied
straight through that ridiculous looking smirk
that crosses his face whenever he thinks suckers
are buying. I can assure Mr. Owens that
the vast majority of marchers over the weekend
relied on more accurate information than
anything coming from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,
FOX News, MSNBC, CNN, or the
three broadcast networks. I met no one
at the rally who believed that Bush or long-winded
gasbags on talk radio were most concerned about
"the safety and well being of Americans."
Owens insists that the marchers simply can't
comprehend the "extreme leftist views" of some
of the rally's participants. It's time
for Ron Owens to get out of the station every once in awhile.
But then, Ron Owens is only a lap poodle for
this administration. He'll never get any bigger
than he already is. He tries to be too
fatherly while this administration desires an iron hand.
At least the lap pit bulls in the larger venues
paid the marchers more respect by accusing them
of being "pro-Saddam." To them, the marchers
are not the poor, uninformed hapless pacifists
who need the protection of a "real man" with
a big red dubya under his shirt. They are,
instead, the advocates of terror, and they are
blatantly anti-American. Where Owens sees the
marchers as innocent losers being led by their
nose, Rush and his odious "ilk" recognize that
Dubya has admonished that "You're either with
us, or you're with the terrorists." They believe
that the marchers have made the conscious choice
to be advocates of terror. Well, actually -
the propagandists don't believe that (unless,
of course, they are very stupid), but it is what they
have to tell their uninformed listeners who need
simple answers as to why there are people in
the world who don't agree with the self appointed
prophets of patriotism. To these gulag whores,
issues do not require debate, they require call
screeners. You either think about them rightly
or wrongly, and you are among the superior breed
if you think the way you are told by the
approved sources.
Another famous analysis from the wind passers
of the far right is that these marchers don't
believe in peace. Their proof is that not
one sign in these rallies admonished Saddam to disarm.
Well, that's true. Not one sign said, "Saddam,
get rid of your weapons of mass destruction or
we'll glass your country." But that wouldn't
really be calling for peace, would it. The most
popular sign I witnessed at he entire march was,
"Give the Inspections a Chance!" This simply
proves to me that the "Dogs of War" are incapable
of abstract thought, if they can't draw the
relatively simple connection of inspections to
disarmament. What are the inspections for,
if not to disarm Saddam?
Dubya, on the other hand, says he sees something
else. Isn't democracy grand, that folks
are "allowed" to dissent (seems I remember something
in this nations past where Jefferson
mentioned "inalienable rights"). Nothing
about the dissent changes his mind, however.
If he were to listen to the majority of Americans
- indeed, a majority of the world's
population - that would be like running foreign
policy with "focus groups." It is George
W. Bush, after all, who has the responsibility
to hug.
With over 200,000 American troops, joined by an
ever growing British force, this war is
going to happen. It has been planned since
the early nineties, and we are going to have that
war and Iraq's oil now, before that oil is made
less relevant by technology. Bush has already
pushed back development of a replacement for
the internal combustion engine more than
twenty years, but we can only keep that Middle
Eastern crude at premium value for so long.
And who knows what technology those treasonous
French and German scientists might
be studying? The war has added value in
that it distracts the nation from the economy
(which Bush hopes to reignite with Iraqi oil),
from the environment, and from the USA
PATRIOT ACT II (the last nail in the civil rights
coffin), which will give Bush supreme
dictatorial powers in a time of war (which is
now a permanent condition).
The next time people march for peace, the war
will have already begun. I have seen
nothing in Dubya's character that remotely suggests
that he would even have regrets
about spreading his war to American citizens.
He will venture beyond using intimidation
to silence dissent, and engage in physical force.
The next time dissenters march, they will
be confronted with water hoses, rubber bullets,
tear gass (yes, that's right, Bush will order
his own citizens gassed), and nightsticks.
If nothing else, that will reduce the number of
protesters. People will be forced to leave
their children and grandparents at home.
In the very near future, in America, actively
seeking peace will not be for the faint of heart.