If Earl Had To Die, Why Not Saddam?

Frederick Meekins 
04/15/2003

Moral relativism contends that principles change depending upon the situation. It also becomes a convenient tool by which to justify political correct causes while condemning others for pursuing courses of action one does not agree with.

This cognitive discontinuity has come into particular focus in regards to the sentiments expressed by celebrities in reference to the selective application of force or violence. These pampered dolts make careers of glamorizing it when it arises in inappropriate though fictionalized contexts but get more sanctimonious than Dana Carvey's "Saturday Night Live's" Church Lady upon catching wind that a robust but unfortunate physical response is necessary to protect the innocent, uphold justice, and preserve liberty here in the real world. Fortunately for us, most of these dilettantes aren't known for being profound thinkers, but they must be countered before what they pass off as reason infects too many minds.

In the Dixie Chicks ditty "Goodbye Earl" an abused wife and her friend conspire to kill her wretch of a husband and ultimately carry through with the plan. In the real world, the group's lead singer told a London audience that the trio was ashamed President Bush was from Texas.

These shrill banshees compounded their verbal outrage by justifying the earlier comments in light of "the anti-American sentiment that has unfolded here [in Europe which] is astounding." These profound geopolitical strategists continued, "...the president is ignoring the opinion of many in the U.S. and alienating the rest of the world."

So to these discordant floozies, popularity is the sole criteria by which deadly force is determined to be right or wrong. But in the final analysis, Saddam deserves to die a whole lot more than Earl ever did.

In "Goodbye Earl", the distraught wife decides on her particular course of action because of the law's failure to prevent Earl from inflicting considerable bodily harm upon her. Likewise, President Bush has been forced to take action in Iraq because of the failure and incapability of the international system to coax cooperation through collegial persuasion. But unlike the protagonists (for lack of a better term) in the song, at least President Bush is justified in his actions.

This homicide on the part of Mary Anne and Wanda boils down to mere revenge. Horrible as Earl was in the song, he was not whacked off in self-defense during one of his frequent rampages. He was the victim of tainted black eye peas, meaning aforethought was involved.

"So what?" you may ask, "He got what he deserved." Perhaps, but would feminists, social workers, and all-around-man-haters feel the same way if the politically incorrect shoe was on the other foot and an abused husband --- yes, there are husbands physically abused by their wives a "20/20" report admitted --- premeditatedly do away with his spouse?

Apparently the proto-Marxian distinctions of contemporary victimology are all that matter to the Dixie Chicks, so much so they would deny the right to protect oneself to those falling outside the parameters of their progressivist paradigms. For unlike the glorified scoundrels in this ballad, the actions taken by President Bush and the armed forces of the United States are most appropriate.

Some might counter that, like the characters in the song, President Bush is merely seeking revenge. That is an incorrect analogy.

The current operation in Iraq has more in common with an act of self-defense. The threat of weapons of mass destruction and other assorted forms of terrorism are the metaphysical equivalent of a cocked gun being pointed at the head of the United States.

Would the Dixie Chicks and the spineless peaceniks suggest nothing be done to ameliorate this danger? Will they feel the same way should members of their families become victims of the next attack, or even fall victims themselves, ironically, during their own self-absorbed rallies or concerts? One might easily muse that a protestor is simply someone who has not been nuked yet.

In other less-subversive, but equally uninformed circles Americans are hearing the typically misapplied axioms about the need to turn the other cheek and such. But where these kinds of weapons are concerned, should the enemies of Christendom be allowed to land the first blow there won't be much of a cheek left to turn as both of them will have been blown away by the searing energy of the split atom or festered over with oozing soars from the stench-ridden pus of some nightmarish pestilence.

Distinction must also be made between the status of those in the song and U.S. armed forces. Projecting Mary Anne and Wanda onto the world stage would mean a bunch of self-appointed yahoos address the Iraqi menace by getting in their pickups and driving to Baghdad to beat the stuffings out of Hussein.

Sending in the military is more akin to calling the police, meaning there are certain spheres of authority designed to address these kinds of misfortunes in specific contexts. Faced with imminent harm at a given instant, it is proper for the individual to do whatever is necessary to neutralize the threat ; removed from the danger by the passage of time it becomes the duty of other constituted authorities to oversee and possibly administer any necessary redress of grievances.

Ironically though, both Earl and Saddam have quite a bit in common --- with Saddam and his cronies outranking this petty wife beater along the continuum of evil. Saddam's son Uday tortured and executed members of the Iraqi soccer team, tossed dissidents into recycling shredders, and raped at leisure any woman happening to catch his fiendish eye.

One would think these pinko feminists would rally to the cause to oust these unmannered monsters. After all, these are the same kinds of agitators that rose up in umbrage against Clarence Thomas whose only mistake was not marrying Anita Hill after daring to flirt with that old bat.

But perhaps worse than the inconsistent positions espoused by the Dixie Chicks is the attitude in which they are expressed. In the video, the Chicks cavort gingerly before the camera with the actor portraying Earl'scorpse joyously joining in. The Administration, on the other hand, has approached the war with the utmost sobriety. Who do I ask you, dear friends, lacks respect for human life: three hussies who celebrate blatant murder with ecstatic glee or a President who looks like he has the weight of the world bearing-down on his shoulders each and every time he informs the American people of what must be done to defend this great land?

Frederick B. Meekins

American WorldView Dispatch

Copyright 2003 by Frederick Meekins

Join Junto Society Adults

fm_nwo020903.html