Armistice Day

Today, on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, World War I came to an end. I always marveled at the poetic license used by the various diplomats of the warring nations in bring to an end this colossal waste of life--forcing the combatants to continue the slaughter that much longer so historians could write about the curious timing. I wonder what it must have been like in the trenches, what the reaction of the soldiers must have been like. After having to had endured hell on earth for so long--the mounds of mutilated, rotting flesh, the very earth itself torn and upturned beyond recognition, I can't imagine it was met with any sort of enthusiasm.

"They want us to fight until 11 A.M. on the Eleventh? Well, why the hell not? Makes as much bloody sense as everything else in this war. Why not let the meat grinder eat up a few more hundred or thousand bodies, especially after the millions already offered up in the great patriotic struggle!"

I wonder how many more deaths occurred between the time it was agreed to end the war and when the final shot rang out. It would be interesting to get some sort of figure on that. Can you imagine being that last poor son of a bitch cut down; the final corpse laid down upon that stinking mountain of death? And to die with the knowledge that your death meant fuck all? That while your life's blood came pouring out upon the diseased-ridden ground, off somewhere in some great official hall corks were being popped off bottles of champagne? But that is war for you. The soldier eats it while the politicians that started the bloody war so easily celebrate its ending. And how many politicians that start wars know their horrors close up? TR did, Eisenhower did (who warned us to "beware the military-industrial complex"), JFK did (who was going to pull us out of Vietnam before he was assassinated). George W. Bush does not, and neither does Cheney. There should be an international law passed that only those that have seen war close up should be able to start them. Bush's father flew and was shot down in WW II, and he wasn't about to march into Baghdad and destabilize the region (besides, that may have brought very uncomfortable questions to light about who exactly was supporting Saddam while he was massacring his people during the 1980s).

Make no mistake about it--too many soldiers are still waiting for the coming of the eleventh hour while politicians and diplomats are still off playing their chess games far away from the stench of war.

What has changed?

Face the Strange

I'm sitting here this morning with the words of Diamond Joe, sung by Ramblin' Jack by way of a Vanguard collection, which seems as fitting a soundtrack to this moment in American history as any, for Populism appears to be alive and well, to judge by the election returns.

After six years of wondering what paper this country was reading, I have regained some small measure of faith in my fellow country men and women. After all the lies, fabrications, back room dealings and bad cash changing hands, the American people finally stood up and said their will be no "full steam ahead" over our wishes--we will not be discounted from our own county's political processes.

But I caution the Democrats--this was far more a vote against the prevailing dynasty than a vote for you--do not let it delude you into thinking we will role over for you. And you had damn well do something constructive with the power with which you have been entrusted. It is a far easier thing to be the opposition than to lead (just ask Big Ian Paisley), and 2008 is not that far off. If you show that you are unworthy of the trust given to you, you can just as easily be voted out.

It seems one of the big treads of the conservative movement of the last decade or so is the rise of the so-called "Religious Right" within its big tent theatrics. I was brought up Lutheran (though no longer cling to any creed but my own). One good thing I can say about the Lutherans is that religion is a personal matter, not to be drugded up and dragged through the streets and gutters of the world. You profess your beliefs amongst a body of believers, and quietly live your beliefs within the greater world--professing through your actions, as it were. No soap boxes, no shrill screams of holy fire, and above all, no going off and mucking about in people's personal affairs.

Here in Wisconsin, we had one of the referendums on the definition of marriage. Many on the Right played it up as preserving the sanctity of marriage, as a repudiation of homosexual unions. But in reality, it went much further than that, actually chipping away at rights already in existence regarding civil unions.

I grew up in a fairly conservative household as well. And one of the things I grew up believing was that one of the foundations of conservatism was to keep government intervention out of the lives of the people (remember Barry Goldwater, anyone?)

I'm skiddish about labels. They have a way of painting you into uncomfortable corners. As things stand in this country today, I could not, in good conscious, call myself conservative or liberal.

Let's see where I stand though (as everyone has to stand somewhere). I believe that we humans (to use the Christian terminology) are stewards of the Earth, and have a responsibility to make sure we leave it at least in the same condition that we originally found it in. I believe in worker's rights (a living wage, health care, etc.). I believe responsible people have a right to gun ownership (and let me say that it is a Republican myth that most on the Left are for gun control--I have heard moderates to far Leftists who realize the value of gun ownership in a free society). I also believe that the government (whether Left or Right) has no right whatsoever in dictating to us how to live our personal lives. Which also means that I think cannabis users should have the same rights as alcohol and/or tobacco users. (Don't cops have better things to do anyway?) That simply is not part of their job. I also have no trust in large corporations and am very leery of capitalism. So I guess that leaves me somewhere to the right of Emma Goldman, but left of Harpo Marx. Which, I suppose, makes me a libertarian with a social conscious, meaning an anarchist. And that is all fine and good if I'd like to drink red wine with Noam Chomsky and discuss theoretic, but I am interested in what is progressive and works. And there is wherein the difficulty lies.

What I put to you who term yourselves conservatives is this--are you against government interference in the lives of individuals or are you for legislating morality? Or is it that you are against "big government" only when it's the other team in charge? Please tell me which, because I am a bit confused on this matter.

Anyway, it is November 8, 2006, and we're still knee deep in big muddy.