War, in a historical context

by: Eric B.

Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 18:54:32 PM EDT

A few years ago, I was perusing some history books that all conflicts are essentially social struggles, and as such you can't necessarily judge the winner of a war by who seized the most land and who had to capitulate. The side that lost all the battles and had its army destroyed may, in the end, win because it wound up achieving its means anyway. The ultimate loser might have been the military winner, because the social values and customs of the defeated wound up dominant. The example used was the American Civil War, in which one historian theorized was still an unsettled conflict because the social issues hadn't yet been settled. Eventually, the conclusion was, the South might rise again.

I skipped last nights debate, which I intended to because they really are just horrible, dreary affairs. This morning when I logged onto the Internet, I was informed that the current president lost last night's debate because he lacked the sense of vision he had the first time around. Plus, Willard is some slick salesmen. By early afternoon, this is what people were talking about.

You might have heard by now that Mitt Romney's not so keen on Big Bird. Rather, he likes Big Bird, but not so much that he'd continue spending tax money to help fund "Sesame Street."

Okay, I lied but just a little bit. I was on the Internet last night, just in time to see wailing and gnashing of teeth bracketed around realization that Willard had declared war on Big Bird. Less than 24 hours later, there was a handful of people talking about the number of untruths Willard spun last night, but there was a good deal of mockery and derision about Willard balancing the federal budget by firing Big Bird. By the late afternoon, the race wasn't between Willard and Barack Obama, but between Willard and Big Bird, a universally beloved icon of everyone's childhood (except maybe the Reagan Democrats, but those people are all in assisted care facilities by now and probably are more worried about Paul Ryan stealing their heart meds in the middle of the night). I run in a fairly leftwing crowd, so maybe the nation's golden children -- the undecided voter -- are today talking about how listless the incumbent appeared and are making plans to vote accordingly. On the other hand, if the night has turned out to be the night Willard announced his intention to fire Big Bird, how can anyone score last night's debate as a victory for him?

Update! ... Ahem.

Eight-year-old Alabama resident Cecelia Crawford wasn't happy during the debate on Wednesday night when Mitt Romney said he would stop government funding for PBS.

On Thursday morning, she was still angry, so she wrote Romney a letter, sent along to The Huffington Post by her mother. Crawford wrote that she is a fan of "Sesame Street" and that it was her "favorite show on earth" when she was younger.

"When I grow up I'm going to get married and I want my kids to watch it so do not cut it off," Crawford wrote. "You find something else to cut off!"

Nice going, Willard. You've made children cry.