|
|
I find that I'm doing a little bit of all of the above to maintain sanity...
I've attended some of the peace rallies here in San Francisco, have been avoiding the televised coverage (can't call it news, but it's not ALL propaganda), and am trying to get most of my news from non-USUK sources. It helps, but I'm kind of at a loss as well.
There's a concept called "bearing witness" that I'm trying to wrap my head around. I don't quite get it, but it still seems to be one appropriate response to the madness. Another response is to look at things as they are, accept that (sort of, anyway), and look at the next thing.
Case in point. "We" - the US - should not have invaded Iraq. Yes, Saddam has done evil things, probably had all sorts of evil plots for the future; but I think the UN inspectors should have been allowed to finish their job...
OK, "we" invaded Iraq. What is the "best" outcome? Saddam's regime crumbles with minimal loss of life on all sides... then what? Should the US be allowed to profit from the occupation fo Iraq? No, but I don't know how to protest this either....
I guess that my point is that, "Well, yeah, we are all going to die sooner or later. It's what we do in the interim that counts." But I'm at a loss to explain why it counts and who's keeping score... |
|
|