Concerning Health: Saving People from Themselves

Recently, the anti-smoking community, what I have dubbed the Army of the Health Elitists, scored a decisive victory in the war on choice. They have banned smoking in cars, when a child under the age of 18 years is present. This legislation only exists in select cities, but with such secure footing, the march will continue.

I’ll lose any argument over this issue with anyone who elects the scientific debate – touting the proof tobacco is bad for you as if such science were a blueprint for governmental philosophy. It would seem that because Big Tobacco lied for so many years about the health affects of smoking, the only logical conclusion is to adopt an absolutely contrary legal stance. Thus, the public has shifted the support all the way to the other side, to those who insist: “If it ain’t good for your health, it must be criminal.” What arguments can I, an anarcho-smoker, make at this point? That cigarettes are good for you? Since this is the debate--the health risks--then we advocates of choice and autonomy are getting lost in between. This is carved into the stone tablets. Fascism ordained by the people. Obviously in the conquered minority, I thought I’d forgo the diatribe, and simply list some headlines I see coming in our totalitarian, albeit healthy and safe, years ahead:

Children banned from riding in cars due to surge in road accidents.

Compulsory Abstinence Bill in House. Health Organizations say sex just too risky.

Abortion shown to be potentially hazardous to future reproductive health. Choice repealed for women.

Study: 0.000000176% of all children at risk from collapsing trees. Earth is sued for gross negligence.

Concerning Escalatation: Defining Victory

On Tuesday, George W. Bush will speak again to that small sector of people who concern themselves, in his State of the Union address. Less than half the country will watch, with the rest exercising that which is the most handsome of democratic rights: the right not to care.

He’ll likely use the opportunity to continue the selling of the new plan for Iraq. The troop surge that will help bring “Victory” to the decimated region. “Victory,” he’ll pledge, is absolutely paramount. “Victory” is necessary for the safety of the American people, the stability of the region.

It reminds me of Lt. Colonel Bill Kilgore, Robert Duvall’s character in Apocalypse Now, when he proclaims that, the most famous of lines from the film, “I love the smell of napalm in the morning…the smell, you know that gasoline smell…smells like…victory. Someday this war’s gonna end.”

Plenty of scholars, analysts, experts, pundits and the ill-informed public have sounded off. We have, on the left, a critique of the plan. Further left, there is skepticism of the possibility of success. The right fires back with its insistence on the necessity of success. You can see how infuriating sorting through this disorganized shouting match is. Parties with different agendas. Agendas with varying approaches. Approaches with numerous flaws.

But what I’ve heard so few people, maybe no one, speak about is this choice of words: Victory and success. When Bush addresses the nation to urge for troops needed to ensure victory, he’ll draw opposition for his tactics. Those being, escalation, for starters. But he’ll escape without laying down a clear explanation of victory. What picture does success in Iraq form?

We cannot ask our politicians to represent our views 100%. I’ve long abandoned the angst of feeling unrepresented. But I have not come to peace with the authority who rules over me lacking the courage to look me in the eye. We absolutely can expect our politicians to at least state their ideology – what vision for the future they will seek with their elected power. Those who govern in today’s America do so with incredible freedom from oversight. And yet, they remain cowardly enough to misrepresent their own political agenda, despite having been granted free reign to enact it. They do this without always lying, and rather, through vague political propaganda. Political doubletalk. I say nothing new by criticizing Bush’s war, and will not do it here. I ask not for troop withdrawal, troop surge, or the status quo. I ask only for a clear definition of a Bush victory in Iraq. If he is right, what then will visitors to Iraq see in the next decade? If he asks troops to die in battle, a congress to endorse legislation, and a nation to rally behind his cause, then he must provide a clearly defined ends, so that he can at least justify the means.

A Disneyland in Baghdad is not going to happen. If this is indeed his vision—an economic Mecca, a free-trading, pro-Israel, pro-Western, secular nation, then he must state that fact. Then, perhaps, the critics and proponents can debate the reality of the plan. As it stands, the debate surrounding this war sounds like two contracting companies arguing over the method for building a house, for which there is no design. And I’m not talking about an exit strategy. I’m talking about the new Iraq, Iraq 2.0—Bush’s Iraq. How will traveling guide books, years ahead, in Bush’s projected future, write of this tumultuous place?

PS: This is my debut blog, and it was a tough choice between discussing this subject, and Angelina and Brad’s recent home purchase in New Orleans. Maybe I made the wrong choice.