Taboo's Junk Trunk: A Storage Dump for Taboo's Random Literary and Cultural Blatherments
from the Blimesophistry Blog Group
Published on October 26, 2004 By TaBooTenente In International
Our train car stumbled through an awkward bend, jerking me from my feverish, travel-bowel dreamings. While I drowsed, John scribbled gadget sketches into a soggy journal and munched old roasted chestnuts from a paper cone. Now the Spanish morning poured through the window curtains, so we checked our watches, both of us, and made ourselves ready for Bilbao.

For four weeks we had hitchhiked and trained north through Portugal, enjoying brilliant hospitality and cheap lodgings wherever we went. There was an unchecked friendliness, a moral peace that flowed fluently from everyone. We were shamed by the Portuguese. As Joao led us through the Barrio Alto at 3 O'Clock AM, from basement bodegas to Azulejo (the national blue, handcrafted tile) lined bars with pretty, smiling women drinking cherry-flavored liquor underneath clothes-lines, I recalled the apathetic, cold-hearted moments of my life.

Joao did not know us. He introduced himself to us in a cybercafe in Evora, about an hour's bumpy bus ride east from Lisbon, and welcomed us to stay with him in his home. As a 11PM ritual, he would invariably say, "Now it is time for us to walk." The walk consisted of an unrehearsed amble through the old Roman town, drinking beer and wine, kissing more of his pretty, smiling women and generously permitting his American friends to receive their blessings as well. We spoke nothing but english. They spoke english for our benefit. Therefor, I felt honored, and embarrassed.

But when John and I stepped from the train into the city of Bilbao, we were greeted by pamphlets proliferating as we watched, growing randomly, sprouting suddenly and shockingly over cobblestones, yards of grass, store front walls, trees, and car windshields. John stooped to pluck one that had drifted in on a breeze, landing like a feather on his boot. He gave it a glance and handed it over while scooping up another. It read as follows: "USA = ISRAEL = NAZIS" with the respective emblems tied to the appropriate equivalent. As a Jewish American, I found the association between Israel and Hitler's fascist regime ridiculous, and the connection to good old USA absurd; at the very least, offensively hyperbolic.

Nevertheless, as our journey led us deeper into Europe, we found that the sentiment was not only common, but a consensus. On rare occasion, small groups of men and women allowed us to engage them in conversation, and increasingly we found that we were endlessly apologizing, assuring that the policies issuing forth from the leaders of our country were not universally supported. Not all Americans support the invasion of Iraq; not all Americans believe that our country has been bestowed with the Divine Authority to pursue selfish, economic goals under the name of unsubstantiated accusations. More importantly, time and time again, we had to assure people of Spanish and Italian cities, of Paris, of Geneva, of Stockholm--everyone, really, that not all Americans believed that the United Nations itself was a threat to our national security.

I am sure that many Americans view international opinions filtering through our media as jealous, vengeful perspectives directed toward the supreme world power. But, I assure you, that our life here resembles life in other countries. It is only our belligerence, our single-minded faith in our own supremacy that they lack. Who else in the world claims to know what is better for the world than the world itself?

"The world is a safer place without Saddam Hussein" is a comment I hear regularly, now that I have returned to the States. Yet I wonder: would the world be more safe if the entire Middle East vanished tomorrow morning without a trace, or if the United States was the missing entity?

Don't respond immediately. Think about it. Also, think about whether or not the answer (your honest, G-d fearing, heartfelt answer) was different four years ago. Trust me: I am no lover of John Kerry. I find him politically snobbish, unmotivating, and, yes, I believe he is a wiffle-waffler. He is a political animal. Still, he is a human being, and conscientious one, in his own, limited way. George Bush is not. Or, if he is, then he is a vessel for greedy, economically-invested fat cats, who have no idea why the worlds should hate us as passionately as they do. And make no mistake: they do hate us. Spend ten minutes on any street, anywhere, that carries cars to non-American destinations. Open your mouth; see what happens. And before you snarl, "Who cares what they think? We've got a country to protect!", before you make yourself angry thinking that way, please, think again about whether or not "the world is more safe". Do you feel safe?

Copyright ©2004, ©2005, ©2006 Joshua Suchman. All rights reserved.
Taboo's Ezine Navigator: Article Index
Taboo Tenente: A Thinker's MFA Journey - Home
The Phallic Suggestion
Stone Soup Blog Forum

Comments
on Oct 26, 2004
Too true.

I was in Lucerne, Switzerland last May for my second time. You've never met a more gentle, helpful people. This time in Lucerne, though, people went out of their way to tell me what they thought of our president instead of to help me find the correct train.

I must say, tohugh, I got a little pissed after sometime. On the one hand, I agree with you, and W drives me mad. On the other hand, though, the swiss weren't in new york when the planes crashed. it's one thing to think about it; it's another to deal with it.

Still, W must go. I just hate being in the situation of wanting to defend someone i hate.
on Oct 26, 2004
What is more important, security or popularity?

No one wants to go to war. If you were a citizen of another country, and your government asked you if you wanted to fight someone else's war, you'd say, "HELL NO!"...if you were smart. Of course they treat us like that. Study some history. Wars are usually unpopular.
on Oct 26, 2004
Actually, wars usually begin as being widely popular. Most wartime presidents enjoy huge approval ratings...as long as the war ends in a timely fashion. The political problem with a war like Vietnam, or the war in Iraq, is that a war like these do not ever really end. That also tends to be the economic problem, as well. But come on. The equation just doesn't work: War in Iraq = War on Terror. They have very little to do with each other. If you were truly waging a war on terror (and I'm assuming the Bush Administration means terrorists, when it means terror), the war would be on Hizbullah, some of the other extremist groups, and on Osama. But it isn't. And if the war was a war against wweapons of mass destruction, the war might move from Iraq to N. Korea, to Pakistan, China (why does everyone forget about China?).

And in an Utopian world, "war" would mean negotiations, it would mean financial assistance to these disgusting slums where the Palestinians are forced to live. It would mean the elimination of internment and refugee camps. It would mean helping to feed, educate (not Westernize), and connect these underprivileged peoples of the world who, yes, Mr. Bush, are actually real people.
on Oct 26, 2004
You're crazy(:sniff!! The war on Iraq isn't a war on Iraq in the first place. It is a war on Saddam. And what about those guys sawing off people's heads, or kidnapping people and selling them to guys known to be sawing off people's heads? Great. I don't know about you, but I'm getting sick of watching that crap everywhere. Why not elect Kerry, so we can send off $10 million everytime someone gets kidnapped? Great plan for the future of Iraq. We could probably fund their whole economy that way.
on Oct 26, 2004
I do not understand why everytime there is a talk about the "war on terror", a Bush supporter has to refer to Kerry as some weak, bleeding heart? Democrats around the country are mortified that we have to vote for Kerry, because he happens to be relatively conservative. He talks continuously about finding and killing terrorists, and he seems reluctant to back the rights of homosexuals to marry. Some liberal.

I just do not understand. If anyone out there has a cognizent argument that claims Kerry would be any softer on terrorism than the Bush, let's hear it. None of that "Bush has a proven track record against terror" $#%^ either. I happened to be alive these last four years, too. I've never felt more afraid in my life. If you want to vote for Bush for religious reasons, I understand. If you happen to have one of those neat 50th floor offices, one of those jobs that pay obscene amounts of money, and you're afraid Kerry will ask you toreturn some so poorer people can see a doctor once in a while, then I understand...though I don't really like you very much, either. But to vote for Bush because you feel safer with him as president, or you think he would be more competent against terror....Well, that's when I need to hear your argument. From where I stand, Bush has done nothing but kill healthcare, kill future social security hopes, kill the surplus, kill education (how many children did he want to leave behind, again?), kill all self-respect that Americans used to feel because we were citizens of an admirable country...and he did it all, as far as I can tell, to further his own financial goals in the name of a war on terror. Which, by the way, he has LOST. There is more terror, not less. There are the same amount of Osamas, not less. There are more American deaths in Iraq, not less. In the name of simple decency, Mr. President, why not re-evaluate your, er, "strategery"?