How p.o.'d are the peaceniks?
Even Gandhi would make exceptions to his nonviolence rules for these outrages against liberty
In a recent conversation that may or may not have occurred amongst local peaceniks who may or may not exist (since this article may or may not be perused by Homeland Insecurity), the topic was revolution. As in, might there be a second American one?
None voted “Aye,” but with the oppression strangling today’s America fresh in mind, discussion ensued about how subjecting deposed leaders of an overthrown government to post-rebellion guillotining, machine-gunning or even—shudder—unending media coverage of yet another O.J. Simpson trial does have a certain appeal.
This wasn’t the first time I’d heard such a brutal sentiment expressed (if, that is, I did). Having it uttered by folks long dedicated to nonviolence, however, reveals an immense well of rage and hopelessness born from wearying struggle against unrelenting tyranny.
For what else but tyranny, by theft, can one call $2.4 trillion (per the Congressional Budget Office) to fund the profiteers’ wet-dream wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? That’s $1 billion times 2,400. In other words, about the same number of grammatical gaffes one can expect from a George W. Bush press conference. (OK, so $2.4 trillion’s not quite that high, but it’s still misincomprehensible.)
And to think a tax on tea helped foment rebellion against our first King George. Perhaps what’s needed to fire us up is a levy on venti nonfat mochaccinos.
What else but tyranny, by terror, is it when our government gleefully authorizes torture while Congress, bizarrely, debates its definition? The topic is torture, for cryin’ out loud. What, exactly, is there to discuss? I sincerely doubt Patrick Henry went to his grave thinking, “Damn! ‘Give me stress positions or give me death’ would have been so much pithier.”
Occasionally, as I wax nostalgic about the good old days when we had a Constitution, I wonder how the Founding Fathers would view today’s treatment of their blood-birthed document that once came in pretty handy before the Bush administration decided it was overly bothersome because it was just, like, so legal and stuff.
The odds, though, of a second American revolution, followed by a good old-fashioned bloody purge, are practically nil, at least for the foreseeable future.
Why? Thanks for asking.
Because there would be a second (un)civil war first, that’s why. Lest we forget, while many lefties have long—and ill-advisedly—rejected the right-to-bear-arms clause of the Second Amendment, other types, not a few of whom can be found in the hills in camouflage munching on tasty muskrat, have for years been a-stockpilin’ and a-shootin’ and generally a-preparin’ for that wonderfully glorious day the bullets start flyin’ for keeps.
But it wouldn’t be our current non-representational guv’mint they’d go after first; no way, Billy Ray. A long-fantasized target of another kind would have manifested at long last, for it would finally be open season on all them Jesus-spurning, latte-sipping, tree-hugging, abortion-loving, sex-having America haters.
It’s not as if mad-as-hell liberals would be taking to the streets anyway, ill-shod for the task at hand in their Birkenstocks, wildly waving firearms with which they were completely unfamiliar. If lefties didn’t fill themselves full of holes first, they’d be instant sitting ducks for those who actually know where a trigger is located, thereby providing an even easier score than a hummer in the men’s room at a GOP convention.
So, while it’s jarring to hear devoted but fed-up peace lovers suggesting mass violence may have its place (if, um, you know, such a suggestion has actually been made), the reality is that Americans’ modern-day oppressors are probably safe from being ripped limb from limb by Grandmothers for Pieces, at least for now.
And maybe, for our own humanity’s sake, that’s a good thing.