Go to The Fine Art Of Subjective Fence Building
- Add a comment
- Go to The Continuing Influence Of Cindy Sheehan
Discredit and dishonor and disrespect her as well, SlyCy. Their
hypocritical lip service to free speech and family values is revealed for what it truly is when they attack this woman's right to speak freely, to assemble, to protest, to mourn her child. It doesn't matter if we agree or disagree with her -- it is her right. And those who yell about aid and comfort to the enemy, sending a bad message to our troops -- what crass idiotic nonsense. How is fighting to get them brought home alive and out of harm's way a bad message? And the terrorists, insurgents, rebels -- whatever the name of the day is -- aren't worried about the political opinion of Cindy Sheehan and how it might -- questionably -- bolster their morale when they are daily faced with the 7th Cavalry and the Big Red One.
posted by
saul_relative
on December 10, 2005 at 9:11 AM
| link to this | reply
Sheehan has a powerful pulpit from which to speak: the loss of a
son. How many conservatives in Congress have children in harm's way? And they are apt to take away this woman's right to express her dismay?
posted by
SlyCy
on December 10, 2005 at 6:06 AM
| link to this | reply
Excellent synopsis, Mystic.
posted by
saul_relative
on December 6, 2005 at 9:01 AM
| link to this | reply
Thanks, Hemlocker. Opinions may vary, but one thing unAmerican
about this entire debate is the categorizing or labeling of someone's right to free speech as just that -- unAmerican. We are a people of ideas and ideals. The restriction of any of it is criminal, not just to the person but to the people.
posted by
saul_relative
on December 6, 2005 at 9:00 AM
| link to this | reply
Good analysis, writersjourney. And I beleive it is that personal note that
that also raises the ire of those opposed, because on a parental level they in some degree some agree with Sheehan, but on a political level they do not. Whether they agree or disagree, the anger can also arise from the idea that by agreeing to the war effort, they may be also presumed as callous and uncaring parents. Not a good mental picture of oneself. No parent wants to see their child in harm's way, nor do they wish to be seen as someone who does. Sheehan brings a guilt factor to this debate, and guilt, conscious or unconscious, real or even the possibility of being perceived, more often as not gives rise to anger.
posted by
saul_relative
on December 6, 2005 at 8:56 AM
| link to this | reply
Quite a few, Talion. Most people in the American military come from strong
conservative stock, very nationalistic, very patriotic, some even militaristic and elitist. For the most part, very good people, just conservative. The difference lies in their opinion on what is appropriate free speech. Many conservatives believe it akin to blasphemy to publicly belittle or call the president or the military to task (privately is another matter). They keep the holy trinity: god, country, family. They believe in a united front against the world, while taking care of embarrassing incidents privately. Nothing wrong with any of that, but the fact that freedom of speech reaches the public forum, no matter who or what the target may be, and to restrict that target, regardless of personal opinion on said target, denies free speech. Cindy Sheehan's right to free speech is protected as is the guy on the right who disagrees with her. As it should be. That is one of the tenets that this country's constitution and subsequent laws were built upon. It is What the military and elected officials have and are sworn to protect. Also, as it should be.
posted by
saul_relative
on December 6, 2005 at 8:47 AM
| link to this | reply
Maybe, Bud-Oracle, but there is no love lost between myself and the Bush
administration. And I, too, would salute those responsible for bringing Bush and the Bobbleheads to justice, although I do not put Dubya and his ass-kissers in the same category as Saddam and the Baathists. Both may be megalomaniacs, but I don't see Bush murdering Oklahomans or fellow Texans over traditional or political jealousies. (On the corporate front, however, we might agree.)
posted by
saul_relative
on December 6, 2005 at 8:35 AM
| link to this | reply
Thanks, kingmi. Somehow I knew you'd be the first to be supportive.
posted by
saul_relative
on December 6, 2005 at 8:30 AM
| link to this | reply
Saul
good post. school yard bullies call names and beat you up if you don't agree with them.....thats childish and un-american. People assymbling peacefully and stating their view is democratic and civilized.
posted by
MysticGmekeepr
on December 4, 2005 at 4:29 PM
| link to this | reply
saul--
The right to petition peacefully for redress of grievances is basic to our democracy. What is more un-patriotic than working relentlessly to silence unpopular opinions, using false and derogatory labels such as "known America-hater", "cut-and-run liberal" and the like. You are exactly right.
posted by
Hemlocker
on December 4, 2005 at 7:36 AM
| link to this | reply
The Personal Politics of Cindy Sheehan
Saul, of course the attacks on Cindy Sheehan are design to send a message to all dissenting voices in the US to simply "shut up." The difference between a republic and dictatorship is that in a dictatorship the public is not allowed to open discuss subjects that matter. There are clearly those in the United States today who believe that Americans should not discuss anything more controversial than the scores of this afternoon's football games.
I think that Cindy Sheehan strikes a cord because of her personal approach to an impersonal public policy. Many people can identify with a mother who lost her son under any circumstances -- we instinctively grasp the tragic circumstances of the situation of a child dying before the parent does.
Sheehan's struggle also appeals to us on a personal level because she is holding G.W. Bush personally responsible for the loss of her son. While the objective of most public protests is to change public policy, Sheehan has made her objective to have a face-to-face encounter with President Bush.
While Sheehan's activities may not lead to a direct or immediate discussion of the current US policy of perpetual warfare (first Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Syria, then Iran, then North Korea, etc.) it has nonetheless been effective in capturing the attention of the average American because her story and objectives are so personal.
Everybody loves a good story; that may well be the key to the success of Sheehan's politics.
posted by
writersjourney
on December 4, 2005 at 2:55 AM
| link to this | reply
saul_relative
I don't agree, but I see the logic of the whole "comforting the enemy" argument. As more soldiers die, the louder the protests become. This insurgency, or whatever we're supposed to currently call them, takes this as evidence their tactics are working and will continue. Nevermind the flip side of this coin. If they continue their tactics, they suffer casualties as well, which feeds the "if we weren't fighting them over there, we'd be fighting them over here" line of thinking, which results in the troops staying.
Another thing I've wondered is, how many of those who demonize this woman have lost loved ones in Irag too?
posted by
Talion
on December 3, 2005 at 10:43 PM
| link to this | reply
Your post way too......
easy on those who call a hero of sanity and free speech a traitor. The actions of "Pretzel chokin' Georgie" (God there was a tragedy, eh! Think of the lives that would have been saved had that one pretzel done its job.) are going to ensure that a vast reservoir of passionately hating, Arab terrorists, replenishes itself through many generations. Saddam, Georgie and their henchmen, as I've said before, should swing from the same yardarm and would do so, if justice prevailed.
posted by
Bud-Oracle
on December 3, 2005 at 10:37 PM
| link to this | reply
Saul, here here.
posted by
kingmi
on December 3, 2005 at 10:34 PM
| link to this | reply