Saturday, September 09, 2006


my sister and i went to the state park for a little r&r (rowdiness and romping). we surreptiously snuck down to the lake where my sis could swim off-leash and I could wander around on my 15 foot leash. nice. i rolled in an unidentified gross and smelly substance and watched a teeny tiny frog in his burrow. we left as a big crowd of people showed up for some sort of 9/11 commemoration event. lots of pickups, suvs, flag stickers and t-shirts with angry looking eagles. whatever makes you feel better. but i spotted a bumper sticker that read the following:

and our troops

yes, PRESIDENT was considerably larger than the troops. i've never quite understood the fetish for the support our troops bumper stickers anyway since, you know, they're out of the country and can't see them and it seems like there are more concrete ways to support 'em rather than publicly saying "I SUPPORT YOU" on your bumper. it's nice if you want to get "Support Wally" bumperstickers but frankly, i'd eather have a nice fried egg for dinner, or a bowl of frosty paws. and if you're going to send me to iraq, please give me lots and lots of body armor.

but this seemed really bizarre. it seems bush needs a different kind of support than our troops, a fact somewhat obscured by putting them on the SAME bumper sticker. is HE in need of better helmets and armored vehicles? is he in constant physical danger? conversely, do the troops need the same kind of support? are their poll numbers low? have they become a liability to their political party? the connection seems tenuous at best.

there's the obvious offensiveness to imply that support for one necessarily implies support for the other. obviously you could support the troops without supporting el presidente. and you could support el presidente without supporting the troops (like the people who were happy to let the handful of privates at abu ghraib out to dry without any punishment or serious investigation of their superiors, or the people who are willing to publicly support torture at the exact same time their own military leaders are making the case that these policies actually put our own troops at risk).

but my main question is why put PRESIDENT BUSH not only listed first but in larger font and all caps? that seems to prioritize him, meaning that you value a political figure who is need of political support above the actual lives of folks who are in significant physical danger. that's quite an interesting message, particularly at an event that is remembering 9/11. in a democracy that has survived a significant attack you are implying we must, if we are good americans, support a single political figure without question? and to not support that figure implies dislike for the troops. in other words, good americans support, they don't think and they certainly don't question and heaven forbid we do the very democratic thing of withdrawing support for a person we feel no longer represents our interests. what a sad message to send to commemorate a profoundly sad event. and quite depressing that your commemoration shuts out an awful lot of americans (most, in fact!) by tying commemoration of 9/11 to support for bush.

i guess it nicely captures the real intent of some who made a fetish of "support the troops" stickers. support for bush comes first. it has nothing to do with actual troops. at least you're honest about your priorities.

sigh. naked apes. i'd rather spend all day watching a frog in a hole than trying to figure out your beastly ways. sometimes i think even the goddamn cats make more sense than you. scratch that. it's not just sometimes.


Post a Comment

<< Home