I can't say I remember much of the first PersianGulf War. Those being the days before I knew what "tone deaf" meant, I joined my fourth grade chorus in singing "Voices that Care." And, like now, we wore yellow ribbons to show support for the troops. Yet, I don't think any of us knew why the United States was in the Gulf. I, for one, didn't need a "why": We were there because President George H. W. Bush said we should be. My dad said Bush was right, and I thought my father knew everything. The first Gulf War, for me, had been about my own comfort - because at 9 years-old that was what I understood best. I wanted it over and forgotten.

It is only in retrospect that I recognize how much the years before the the first Persian Gulf War served as a foundation for a culture that nurtures foreign conflicts. Whereas once we valued subversion, a backlash to liberalism has spurned a new conservatism reflected in popular culture.

Think about the era we grew up in. Predecessor to the concerns of the early 1990s, the 1980s were about excess - excessive hairdos, excessive slouch socks and painfully excessive Chevy Chase. The 1980s, as we remember them, were about material things: the myriad of toys our generation grew to covet, loves to reminisce about and that is currently being revived at your local Toys 'R Us. But valuing objects necessitates preserving wealth and even going to extremes to preserve self-comfort: The first Gulf War was about that and so is this one.

So, not much has changed: Insecure after 9/11, Americans once again demand a looming enemy and still want a quick war, a forgettable war. But we're not kids anymore. More pressing than the knowledge that people like us are fighting in Iraq is the responsibility that our adulthood has afforded us: People not like us are dying in greater numbers. Moreover, it is irresponsible to let war be forgettable - whether you support this one or not.

We are the products of an age that spurned a backlash against values for which our parents' generation had taken to the streets only decades earlier. Overwhelming, even mocking, the idealism of the 1960s and the politicism of the 1970s, it has become "uncool" to dissent. Social movements have become outmoded - and still are. Absurdly, it is difficult to be a liberal activist and be cool in the 21st Century - a social construction that insidiously moves our society further to the right.

Celebrities preaching against the war in Iraq are ridiculed while supporters receive accolades. Think about it: Michael Moore was booed at the Oscar's for voicing his dissent, yet Arnold Schwarzenegger made us feel warm and fuzzy for his support of the war.

Sure, there are more qualified people to dissent the war than Susan Sarandon and the Dixie Chicks - but the dissent of outspoken, sometimes self-righteous, celebrities does not function only to tell our government that war is unjust; rather, it reminds Americans that it is reasonable to disagree with this war and that a viable movement against it exists. When it comes down to efficacy, so-called experts can give us the information, but it may take a celebrity for people, especially young people, to hear it.

Once, you could count on MTV to be a sounding board for celebrity's outcries against the establishment. But now the proof of our culture's underlying conservatism lies in MTV, this former bastion of subversion. This network, arguably the best media by which to reach teenagers, has refused anti-war advertisements, yet runs spots recruiting for the U.S. Armed Forces. Last week, the New York Times reported that anti-war organizations, such as Not in Our Name, were not allowed to purchase spots for anti-war messages, including a discussion between Sarandon and "experts." An MTV spokesperson, apparently oblivious to the message of the "Army of One" campaign, told the Times that the network does run not partisan advertisements.

These recruitment spots may not mention the current conflict in Iraq, but their political message is overt: War is glorious and by more than implication, war in Iraq is just. Those advertisements, like the G.I. Joe dolls of our childhood, are more insidious and powerful than Sarandon's commercial probably could have been. The latter, set-up as an obviously partisan commercial allows the viewer to fully process arguments, while the former supports an ideology under a storybook guise of heroism for its own sake, completely divorced from the true consequences of war.

Perhaps the most powerful statement to how far our culture has come since the 1960s and 1970s is the once-subversive Madonna, who could always because to push the envelope without fear of public outcry. Her "Like a Prayer Video," for example, offended Catholics with images of burning crosses and sexually suggestive movements on a church alter. Yet the 40-something songstress pulled her "American Life" video from U.S. markets out of respect for troops and for fear that it would be upset viewers who misinterpreted it. Gone are the days when Madonna's irreverence could be counted and when it could be cool to disagree.

- Michaela May '03 submits a column to the Justice.