The Daily Grasshopper

(I wrote this Friday, but was having problems sending it out last night for some reason)

You know who George F. Will is, don’t you? He’s the conservative commentator who always wears a bow tie, really likes baseball, and reminds everyone of that kid in their math class who would raise his hand just before the bell rang and tell the teacher he hadn’t assigned any homework. He’s on one of the Sunday morning talk shows, and he has a column that runs in papers and magazines everywhere.

Anyway, he has a column in today’s Boston Globe that tries to make the case that the protests in Washington, D.C. last weekend were nothing but a trip down memory lane for ‘60s-era Baby Boomers. You can read it here (this is from the Washington Post website – I can’t get to his column on the Globe site):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30699-2003Jan22.html

The title for the column in the Globe is “Boomer Nostalgia.” In the Post, it’s “Holdovers from the 60’s.” Of course, last weekend when I urged people to turn on C-Span and watch the coverage of the demonstrations, it was because I’m well aware of how people like George Will distort the facts to suit their opinions. If you tuned in, you saw that there were people from every generation, and all walks of life at the protests in D.C., a fact that most media commentators found hard to overlook. I guess that’s why George Will gets paid the big bucks.

Here’s the basic argument he puts forward:

“In a process without precedent, the United States has been, for more than a year, walking slowly – never mind nonsensical headlines about the ‘rush to war’ – toward an optional war… Yet the left cannot mount a critique that rises above rock lyrics and name-calling.”

All this proves is that Will is as ignorant of what actual critics of the war say as most of his mainstream media colleagues. There are literally hundreds of articulate, even eloquent, critiques of the Bush administration’s plan to go to war. You just have to know where to look for them (hint: it’s not the U.S. corporate media). George Will, who doesn’t look too hard for arguments that would contradict his view of the way the world works, prefers to ignore them. I’ve provided a link to some of them, at the bottom of this e-mail, if you’re interested in becoming better-informed than the dork columnist with the bow tie.

But the critiques didn’t end at last weekend’s protests. In fact, some pretty harsh critiques were aired yesterday at a venue that will be harder for Will, and other conservatives in the U.S., to ignore (but they’re pros, so I don’t put it past them). The following are quotes and news items from the World Economic Forum, in Davos, Switzerland:

US criticized at World Economic Forum
The United States was in the hot seat at a gathering of the world’s business and political leaders, criticized for a go-it-alone foreign policy that many fear will lead to war with Iraq and for a sluggish economy hampering a global revival. The issue of growing US threats against Iraq dominated early sessions and corridor conversations at the World Economic Forum, whose theme this year is “Building Trust.” Swiss President Pascal Couchepin was cheered during his opening speech, when he called for all peaceful means to be pursued to disarm Iraq and warned that “force must not be used before the matter has been brought before the UN Security Council.” The forum returned to its home in this Davos, Switzerland after last year’s meeting was moved to New York in tribute to victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. (Boston Globe, pg. C2)

U.S. Role in the World Dominates Economic Talks
…Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia was loudly applauded after he noted that public sentiment around the world had turned sharply against the United States over its handling of Iraq.

"You cannot trust someone who says, 'You will go along with other people, but if they don't want to follow, you will go on your own,'" said Dr. Mahathir, who was once one of the staunchest supporters among Muslim leaders of the Bush administration's campaign against terrorism.

"The level of trust has diminished somewhat," he said. "And lately, I think it has reached a very low level indeed."

In a later interview, Dr. Mahathir contended that "the whole world" rejects a possible war in Iraq. He said the Bush administration's apparent determination to "go it alone" if the United Nations did not mandate military action had eroded most of the good will built up by the United States overseas…

Representative Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio, gamely argued the White House's position. But even he conceded that the United States had not done a good job of explaining its goals to the world.

The former archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. George Carey, seemed to speak for many here, saying, "I would be profoundly concerned if my country was so disdained in some parts of the world." (New York Times, pg. A6)

You can read the whole New York Times piece here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/24/international/europe/24DAVO.html

Now, what is the World Economic Forum, you ask? Well, you can visit their website, and see for yourself. Or I can tell you: it’s the annual gathering of some of the world’s most powerful politicians, businesspeople, and media celebrities. It’s very unusual for the press to cover the event, despite the fact that you have some of the planet’s most influential people mingling over hors d’oeuvres for almost a week in a ritzy European retreat. Sounds like a conspiracy theory, right? Here’s the website:

http://www.weforum.org/

Now why should George W. Bush or George F. Will be concerned about what a bunch of the world's business and political leaders think about the wisdom of Bush’s plan to go to war? I’ll tell you why. Because Bush’s insistence on violating the U.N. charter (you see, Bush will have to break international law to punish Saddam for – get ready – breaking international law), as well as other stark examples of U.S. unilateralism, are making potential trading partners (and competitors) wonder if we can be depended on to hold up our end of the various trade agreements that are in the works. You know, the World Trade Organization, the Free Trade Area of the Americas, things like that. If the U.S. is so dismissive of the rule of international law when it comes to waging a “pre-emptive” war on Iraq (not legal under the U.N. Charter), then why should anyone believe we’ll respect the rules of international trade law? Who’s going to enforce them? The U.N.?

These are important questions. And, I confess, I didn’t exactly come up with them myself. I read them in an article full of “rock lyrics and name-calling” that some Baby Boomer must have posted on the Internet.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=13&ItemID=2782

And here's a bunch of good articles, short on rock lyrics and name-calling, but long on articulate critiques of the Bush administrations plans for war in Iraq:

http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/IraqCrisis.htm