Some revolutions are going to be televised, and some will not.

The people are taking it to the streets in Kiev, and there are parts of that city that looks like a war zone. It should, because a war zone is what it has become. Over seventy people have lost their lives so far in this "uprising" and I am not sure that a peaceful resolution to the entire mess is coming anytime soon.


Of course, as is to be expected, the right wing and their minions are calling the president things such as "naive,"  "weak", and "feckless". (I swear John Bolton looks like he has little children buried away in his basement.) They want more action in places like Kiev and Syria, and they are tired of America just standing on the sidelines while the people in the Ukraine and Syria fight each other to the bitter end.


But let's not lose sight of the fact that this is what most of the American people want. They are sick and tired of wars, and unless you can show them that war is a shared sacrifice, it's going to make it hard for those in charge to convince the American people that it (war) is needed to protect them anymore.


Now I would actually take sides with my wingnut friends if they would condemn this administration for not paying enough attention to the upheaval in Nigeria or the crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo. I mean the Nigerian military is killing civilians as well. But this revolution, unlike others, will not be televised.

Right now in Nigeria there is a serious religious conflict taking place over land between Muslims and Christians, and no one in America is paying attention to it. Not the government. Not the press. Not the people.


Is it only regional conflicts and revolutions in Europe and the Middle East that should warrant our attention? Why isn't John McCain on Sunday talk shows talking about strife in Third World countries involving black people? Why isn't Peggy Noonan writing about the administration's failure to speak out about the atrocities taking place in Central Africa? Why, instead, is she telling us to choose sides between a repressive government and ultra right wing groups in Ukraine? These are rhetorical questions; I know why.


Anyway, Ben Affleck might not be the greatest actor in the world, but bless his heart for using his star power to try and turn America's limited attention span to places like the Congo.


Here is what he wrote back in November:


 "Last week, a heavily armed rebel militia, M23, took control of the eastern Congolese city of Goma, the economic center and capital of the country’s North Kivu province. Unfortunately, to those of us who work in eastern Congo, the only surprise in this turn of events was how little attention it received.


Two years ago, almost to the day, I wrote in The Post about the bloodiest war since World War II and its continued toll on the Congolese people. From 1998 to 2003, eight African nations fought on Congolese soil, killing millions, forcing tens of thousands of children to become soldiers and, in some areas of Congo, subjecting as many as two of every three women to rape and other forms of sexual violence. Violence continued long after combatants agreed on a cease-fire. With regional war looming once again, it is time for the United States to act."


Not going to happen, Ben. You would have a better chance of landing an Academy Award for your role in Gigli.