Revisiting Some Poetry Against the Iraq War; A Contradiction That Catches at Me

Last night I was looking over a print anthology
of some of the over 21,000 poets who have contributed to Poets Against the War since 2003, as the Iraq War storm was gathering. (I'm one of those poets, though I'm not in the book.) Incredulous now, five years later, the utter obliviousness of the powers that be to all these prescient cries, and all the other eloquent voices of protest from around the world.

In her contribution to this book, the veteran feminist Marge Piercy excoriates the hypocrisy of an administration that proclaims a culture of life yet is so hellbent on destroying precious lives in Iraq:

Oh, we love fetuses now, we even/
dote on embryos the size of needle/
tips; but people, who needs them?/
Collateral damage. Babies, kids,/
goat and tabby cats, old women sewing/
old men praying, they'll become smoke/
and blow away like sandstorms/
of the precious desert covering treasure.

I share her outrage at this contradiction. Especially this week, when the ultraconservative antiabortionist Joe Scheidler claims that increasing social programs will not reduce abortion, and that prolifers who work with prochoicers on these abortion-reducing efforts are murderous betrayers of the unborn. I'd laugh if it were not for my weeping and "for shame!"ing.

But I wish I could ask Marge Piercy if the deepest and best and most shaking-up-for-the-good answer to this contradiction is to exclude embryos from the definition of "people"? What about (gulp!) defining them *in*?

Do unborn lives need to be treated as the "collateral damage" of the systematic violence against women that is the widespread denial of our right to make fully supported *nonviolent* sexual and reproductive choices--that makes disposable, "collateral damage" out of us, too?

The Right to Life Means Alleviating Climate Change

Global warming is one of the largest threats facing life on Earth today. Although the wealthier nations are responsible for most greenhouse gas emissions, human, animal and plant lives in the Two-Thirds World will--and already have--borne the brunt of climate change. Small islands are already feeling the rise of the oceans, and there is evidence that an event as long ago as the 1984 Ethiopian famine resulted from global warming.

Individual behavior changes, especially by heavy resource consumers like people in the US, are vital. That is one reason why the Nonviolent Choice Directory lists resources on Eco-Friendly Living (http://www.nonviolentchoice.info/ecolife.html if the link doesn't work), to help visitors learn about the issues and identify and carry out positive actions they can take in their own lives.

(The global warming crisis makes me remember philosophy classes in college, learning about Immanuel Kant. He thought that the test for what makes an ethical action is asking the question, "Would this be a good thing for everyone to do?" And then, in his view, one needs to take that step, regardless of whether others will take it, even as one hopes they will take it up, too.)

At the same time, we urge government and business to rise to their even greater responsibilty to ameliorate climate change. This is a systemic problem as well as a matter of individual lifestyle.

Fortunately representatives from almost all the 190 or so UN member states are meeting right now on the island of Bali, Indonesia to negotiate a successor global warming treaty to the Kyoto Protocol before it expires. Breaking Down Bali is a good overview of the Bali conference and the issues at stake.

As a US citizen, I feel deep shame and outrage at the boorish, spoilsport behavior of my nation's government when it comes to this issue (not to mention others)..all the while professing its devotion to (of all things!) a "culture of life." I can only hope that the US delegates will not overstep their bounds, that they will have some glimmering of what that phrase actually means!