Of protests and chickens

I had a wonderful law school flashback when I visited Michelle Malkin’s blog just now.  She has a picture of an anti-War protestor.  Can you spot what’s wrong with this picture?

As Malkin rightly points out, this protestor got just a little confused with the Mercedes symbol:

When I was in my first year at law school, we had a big costume party.  I, true to my Bay Area roots, decided to go as a hippie, and did exactly what that silly protestor did:  I painted a Mercedes sign on my face, instead of a peace symbol.  One of my friends instantly set me right, by teaching me a simple way of remember how to draw the darn thing:  The peace sign is the footprint of the great American chicken.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • http://OgBlog.net Earl

    That’s VERY funny!

    I suspect that in the real lives and aspirations of most of these “protesters”, a nice Mercedes plays a much larger part than does “peace” — but they do make a handy pool of easily led children with skulls full of mush for the “true believers”…….

    A bit of genuine education would make them much more difficult to use in this way, which may provide a bit of explanation for some of the things that are otherwise so hard to figure out.

  • T.S.

    A genuine education? Would that include a genuine rendering of history ? And a genuine understanding of the dynamics that led to this point?

    A quote from a genuine conservative:

    “Instead of patriotism, which is a love of the land and the people, the war state substitutes jingoism, which is a love of the government and support of war. In America today, both liberals and neoconservatives have been corrupted by the imperialist war state. The liberals are too cowardly to oppose unjustified wars, and the neoconservatives instigate and applaud them.” — Charley Reese

  • http://liberty-resource-center.blogspot.com Doug1943

    Neither patriotism, as defined above, nor jingoism, as defined above, can tell us what to do in the Hobbsean world in which we live.

    The Iraq invasion was not motivated by jingoism, but was a calculated attempt to fundamentally alter the facts on the ground in what is the cockpit of the world.

    Now, it may turn out to have been fundamentally flawed. I certainly believe it was deeply flawed in execution.

    But notice that the other side — our pacifists and liberals — have really no alternative policy. Their approach is just to try to muddle through. Maybe that’s the only approach possible … keep supporting our corrupt and dictatorial “friends”, and hope that Islamism proves to be a passing fad.

    But I have deep doubts that it will be just a passing fad. And I would be very interested to hear what the liberals propose doing about it.

    Doug

  • T.S.

    I’m not sure what liberals thought. But many Republicans thought that the policy of containment was working well.

    Colin Powell, Feb. 2001:

    “He [Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq…”

    Powell, May 2001

    The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn’t have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction — chemical, biological and nuclear — I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful

    Condi Rice, July, 2001:

    We are able to keep arms from him. [Saddam] His military forces have not been rebuilt.

    And the best warnings/questions concerning military action came from those who had been ther/done that:

    Former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, Aug. 2002:

    “But the central point is that any campaign against Iraq, whatever the strategy, cost and risks, is certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism. Worse, there is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time. So long as that sentiment persists, it would require the U.S. to pursue a virtual go-it-alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive. ”

    Norman Schwarzkoph, Jan. 2003:

    “[B]efore I can just stand up and say, ‘Beyond a shadow of a doubt, we need to invade Iraq. “I guess I would like to have better information.”

  • DRaftervoi

    Yet the policy of containment, by almost all assessments that I’ve read, was collapsing and would not have been sustainable indefinitely. It is clear that in the absence of consistent embargo and military pressure that Saddam would have rearmed. And continuation of current policy would have had a human cost: the (claimed) 5,000 dead Iraqi children per month. Uday/Qusay would have taken over somewhere circa the mid-teens and would have ruled – barring civil war on the death of Hussein – until the mid-2030s. Would the United Nations have maintained sanctions (at a rate of 5,000 (claimed) dead Iraqi children per month…and for how long?

  • http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/ Ymarsakar

    Containment is both morally unethical and ineffective. It has nothing going for it, therefore saying we have “succeded at containment” means about the same as saying “we have succeded in burning a man to save his soul”.

  • http://www.teamsportportal.info bobby

    are you sure about that?