Thursday, June 08, 2006
Once upon a time there was this house in Iraq. This house sat there not bothering anybody, just supporting its roof with its walls and doing its best to regulate its internal temperature despite being located in a climate most fit to support things like reptiles and brimstone. You know, things that generally do not need houses.
Then, one day, some guys come to the house to have a meeting. The house didn't invite them, they just came. Somebody let them in probably, but as in most cases, the house was more or less indifferent. Houses generally have little interest in politics as the time has not yet been right to launch the latent Domicile Enfranchisement Movement. In the meanwhile, they try not to get in the way (so as not to alienate potential political allies when they will be needed) and they wait. Houses are nothing if not patient.
Unfortunately for the house, the people in it are positively drenched with politics. They're soaking in it. They are so deeply immersed in the political that they reek of it. The stench of it all is so strong that it is enough to attract the attention of overflying planes which drop a pair of quarter-ton bombs on them.
Sadly for our poor innocent house, they are inside when the bombs find them.
Some Republicans might tell you (mostly the physically fit 22 year olds who use words and phrases like "vital" and "necessary" and "essential for the survival of our country" when they blog about Iraq from the safety of their parents' pool house) that this house was a collaborator and all collaborators should expect the same kind of treatment in the future. But I'm just a lily-livered America hatin' liberal, so I mourn the death of innocent houses even if it is in the pursuit of justice and/or security.
With the death of this Zarqawi guy, as a liberal, I'm supposed to be conflicted. I'm supposed to be all tormented by the loss of any human life, even those who wish us harm. I'm supposed to be suffering at the idea that young American men and women are being asked to kill at all. Mostly I'm supposed to be deeply ambivalent about any "good news" coming from Iraq because it might mean a temporary rise in presidential approval ratings, which could affect the mid-term elections, derailing our plans to retake the Congress and begin our program of impeachment and mandatory homosexuality.
Also I'm supposed to use quotation marks when I put the terms Iraq and "good news" together to denote smug self-satisfaction and arrogance. I hope you caught that.
As for how I actually feel about the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, well... I won't have to hear about him on the news anymore, so that's good. And we won't have to watch any more of his instructional videos at the College Democrats club I serve at as Senior Indoctrination Officer.
But nobody--not even George Bush, judging from his statement--is going "Phew! Now finally the violence will end and we'll get some of those flowers and sweets we were supposed to get when we arrived."
Seriously, stop bogarting the sweets, Iraqis. We have tanks.
I guess if I had to sum up my mood I'd say: cautiously optimistic. Not about the outcome of the occupation, mind you. I am still a liberal, remember. No, I'm cautiously optimistic that Zarqawi is actually dead. I know we've seen pictures, but I'm reserving a tiny little bit of skepticism. It's not that I think all the military all liars, it's just a personal policy. I committed too early with Elvis and Jesus and they both came back to burn me later.
Since I'm talking about liberal and non-liberal and whatnot, I should spend some time talking about the other internet story of the day, this Ann Coulter business regarding her criticism of 9/11 widows. I feel like I should say something, but I think I'm going to take a pass here. I mean, what does it help to add to the chorus of condemnation where liberals (and some conservatives now) call her hateful and mean-spirited and a shallow controversialist and a skinny, ugly skank with a mannish Adam's apple.
It always goes right to the Adam's apple with Ann's critics, which I find fascinating. It's the same way anti-gay-marriage people go right to the goat-sex, like an unconscious reflex word association.
My point is that it doesn't do any good to lavish attention (good or bad) on someone seeking it. It's also somewhat hypocritical that liberals--supposedly the "enlightened" ones when it comes to feminism and women's rights--immediately go to looks and sexuality when criticizing a female opponent. It disappoints me, frankly.
I mean, just because she's a skank doesn't mean we need to spend a lot of time pointing it out. High road, people. High road.
You will also notice I didn't make the easy association between stories where I suggest what a shame it is we can't also bomb Ann Coulter's house. Two objections there: 1) too easy a joke to be actually funny and 2) what has Ann Coulter's house ever done to you?
This post on the Narcissus Scale: 8.0