I came across a lot of people who thought President Obama's speech last week in Norway was pretty nifty. And by "a lot of people," I mean my mom. And by "nifty" I mean "not stinky."
To me, the speech was little different from whatever President Bush would have given: A capable defense of American interests based on an acknowledgement of evil in the world.
Which raises the question: Where are the protests against this new wartime president?
Viewer Chad wrote to remind me of the infamous Rock Against Bush campaign, started by some low-level punk rockers. Its goal was to create an anti-war movement with Bush as the primary target of relentless scorn.
But hey, it was called Rock Against Bush, not Rock against War. And that tells you something. Rock Against Bush wasn't a campaign to force the president to rethink war, it was a campaign to use war to crap all over Bush, the "real" enemy. So, it wasn't about pacifism, it was about politics. Which is why, after crapping on Bush, they remain mysteriously silent over Obama, now.
I say "mysteriously" because I'm stupid.
Look, a drone still kills people, whether it's commanded to do so by a Republican or a Democrat. So, it comes down to consistency. If you're critical of war under Bush, you have to be critical of the same war under Obama.
I've been critical of our president over a ton of things, but I support him in this troop build-up, the same way I supported the surge under Bush. So one must wonder, if there was a Rock Against Bush, why not a Rock Against Obama?
I'd go, but only if Springsteen plays. God I love "Piano Man."
And if you disagree with me, then you're probably a racist.