Friday, August 21, 2009

Hide The Kids!!!!

She's back. After a sweet, but altogether brief period, Cindy Sheehan has returned. If anyone wanted to make the case that free speech is a bad idea, they need look no farther than this woman for the perfect example. Though there are several people on the left that make my skin crawl, this woman actually makes it separate from the rest of me.

We can start with her sanctimonious posturing. Sheehan is one of those goofy people who oppose the war because, "all killing is wrong". The stupidity and naivete of this statement is self-evident and no one puts it out there with all the idiocy inherent within it as does Sheehan. To her, the suffering of the natives in Middle Eastern war zones is laid at the feet of the dread "US MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX!!!" without ever acknowledging the suffering of the people before we got there. (Hmmm. I guess that was the equally nefarious "US IMPERIALISM!!!") And of course, the mere statement "all killing is wrong" never includes abortion and apparently means that one's own death is preferable to the death of the guy trying to murder the one, when such a self-defense killing is the only way to prevent it. She must be one of those lunatics that believes everything can be solved diplomatically, no matter how despotic and wickedly ambitious a radical dictator can be. Such people are the greatest threat to their own security.

Then, of course, is her stance on the wars now being fought. There has been a lot of debate over whether or not we should have gone into Iraq. I believe it was the right move, and something like it should have been done earlier, probably during the first Gulf War of Bush 41 or during Clinton's years. The list of reasons for doing so was far greater than simply "oil" (and no, I will not list all the reasons yet again) and Hussein was inflicting all sorts of suffering upon his own people for which the Sheehans of the world have little pity and concern. And few had a problem with going into Afghanistan, figuring it to be the real source of our troubles on and around 9/11. Even Barry considered it the true target of our focus (and he's an idiot).

Sheehan, based on the quotes in the linked piece, seems to be concerned about her own popularity. This is evidenced by her insistance that she is unconcerned if people like her or not. This I doubt highly due to the mere mention of it. If she was truly unconcerned, why bring it up? She digs the attention. So much that she'll go get it from Hugo Chavez, of all people. Her support of this guy tells you all you need to know about her intelligence and love of country. Why she didn't stay with her dancing partner, I'll never know.

Finally, because I've already wasted too many keystrokes on the lunatic, is her voice. My goodness! what an assault on the eardrums! It doesn't just make me want to cover my ears, it makes me want to rip them off and plunge sharp objects into the bloody holes that would be left. When I hear her talk, especially when she is speaking to a crowd and thus raising her voice, I convulse. I flop around uncontrollably slamming my person onto the pavement. It's like the sound of the Nazgul in Lord of the Rings.

Anyway, what does it say about a person from whom her own family distances themselves? Her return is our suffering. I hope she doesn't draw much coverage. Please.

11 comments:

Neil said...

I had forgotten about her.

Hey, but if she insists that all killing is wrong then she must be a strong pro-lifer (after all, it is a scientific fact that the unborn are human beings and that every "successful" abortion kills one). We can at least count on her to oppose the Left on this issue, right? Right?!

Doubtful.

Jim said...

Please raise your hand if you give a crap about Cindy Sheehan.

I know I don't. Years ago I thought her attempts to embarrass Bush were amusing but ineffective.

And now? Snore.

Andrew Clarke said...

Cindy Sheehan strikes me as a poser, too. It must be a shocking thing to lose her son but her son and many more like him could have been lost even in the U.S. had politely stayed away from Iraq. There were attacks on U.S. territory long before the now famous 9/11, because some people are determined to make war on the West or anyone who will not fall into line with them. Study a bit of history and see what happened to Czeckoslovakia in 1938, despite their attempts to avoid a war. Sometimes the only choice, individually or collectively, is either defend yourself or lie down and be murdered - and not only you, but others. The leaders of some European countries compromised scruple to appease Hitler, and he only got worse. One more point: as you say, anyone who thinks 'all killing is wrong' has to be anti-abortion, haven't they? Hear them trying to talk their way out of that.

Kirk said...

Hi Art,

What's with all the anger, man? I can't engage with people who are constantly snarling and shaking their fists. I came in and peeked around your site, and that's largely what I see. What is the philosophical basis for the whole "lefty", "lib" thing? Can you not allow others their opinions? That sort of labeling always sounds denigrating and sanctimonious, and can hardly foster discussion.
So let's talk about your Sheehan piece. Who does want to make the case that free speech is a bad idea? What an odd thing for a strict constitutionalist to say. You suggest that she is sanctimonious and posturing. Based on what, exactly? You say she is goofy, and that her statements are stupid, naive, and idiotic. So what, the Sixth Commandment is now optional?
Yes, the actions of the dread "US MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX" have caused the deaths of a million Iraqi souls. (They do have souls, don't they?) And you know, yes?, that the quote comes from Eisenhower, who warned us against the power of them. He was a conservative, wasn't he? Are you suggesting that by killing a million or more Iraqis and making refugees out of more than that, that we have somehow assuaged the suffering of the people before we got there? Given that "US IMPERIALISM!!!" installed and maintained Saddam in Iraq, I suppose that makes your conclusion accurate.
You think we should have gone into Iraq during the first Gulf War. Surely you know that Bush I AND his Sec. of Defense, Darth Cheney, both could see that it would not be a wise move. You say "the Sheehans of the world" (?) have little pity for the suffering inflicted by Saddam. Who are these people, and on what do you base this statement?
You call Obama an idiot. You can call him a "lib" or a "lefty" if you want or need to, but calling him an idiot does not reflect well on your own intelligence. Of all the things the guy may be, he's no idiot.
You say that Sheehan seems to be concerned about her own popularity. The evidence, you say, is her insistence that she is unconcerned if people like her or not. Wow. Wow! What?! I am in complete agreement with her. The Great Milk-Chocolate Hope is elected, and all the war protesters fold up their banners and go home. Obama has not rescinded any of the draconian policies that Cheneybush claimed for themselves while occupying the White house.
And what does her support of Chavez have to do with her intelligence or her love of country?
I'm not even going to comment on the voice thing, except to say "da Bears."
Finally, you ask, "what does it say about a person from whom her own family distances themselves?"
Mark 6:1-6, Matthew 13:54-58, Luke 4:16-30, John 4:44.

Why all the anger? Is that what conservative principles are, petty name calling and mean-spirited anger? I just don't get it.
But I still love ya, man.

Kirk

Marty said...

"Why all the anger? Is that what conservative principles are, petty name calling and mean-spirited anger? I just don't get it."

Yes you do.

"Darth Cheney".

Looks like you're pretty good with name calling yourself.

I don't know Cindy Sheehan. I've had several opportunities to meet her, but did not avail myself of any of them. Quite frankly, I've never been much impressed by her. But I do understand her feeling of being betrayed.

A very close friend of mine knows Sheehan quite well. She says that Sheehan is neither sanctimoniously posturing nor digs the attention. Rather, she is a mother who lost her only son in a war she strongly opposes and believes to be illegal, predicated upon ill-gotten gain. My guess would be her son Casey had reservations as well. Otherwise she would not be driven by such desperation and obsession to stop this war and loudly proclaim "Before one more mother's child is lost".

Marshall Art said...

Marty,

I'm gonna let your comments just pass. But it's good to see you're still checking in once in awhile.

Marshall Art said...

Kirk,

What anger? Must be something in my prose, but as I re-read this and the last several posts, I'm not seeing as how I can be accused of being angry. This ain't the first time, so it must be how my words read to some. Rest assured, anger is not what drives my posts. More accurately, it is amazement, sometimes shock, most generally incredulity. But anger? Not hardly. Even responding to comments I find unbearably stupid or inane, and even those that are meant to provoke, I don't get angry. Just don't see the need. Must be my prose.

As to your many questions, I'll try to answer without running too long, though some likely require several hours over pints of Guinness. Here goes:

"What is the philosophical basis for the whole "lefty", "lib" thing?"

I dunno. Not even sure I understand the question. What I do know is that when I hear of someone who proudly proclaiming to be leftist, liberal, progressive, Democrat, etc., I generally disagree with their positions.

"Can you not allow others their opinions?"

I don't recall that I've ever attempted to stifle or encouraged the stifling of the opinions of others. As to the labeling, if the shoe fits...

"Who does want to make the case that free speech is a bad idea?"

No one I know. Well, except for the new FCC director of diversity, or whatever the hell Barry calls him. But I'd wager he just wants to stifle rightwing speech. But my point was that I find Sheehan to be so "nails-on-the-chalkboard" grating, both in tonality and the insipid quality of her arguments, that such might be used by one who DID want to make the case. But really, dude, it's a rhetorical thing over which no real concern should be spent. I'm well aware that even the Sheehans of the world have a right to speak out. However, I'm not required to enjoy it.

continued---

Marshall Art said...

continuing---

"You suggest that she is sanctimonious and posturing. Based on what, exactly? You say she is goofy, and that her statements are stupid, naive, and idiotic. So what, the Sixth Commandment is now optional?"

I base her posturing on, well, her posturing as a mother outraged at the loss of her son, and the sanctimony of her position that the war was unjust, yada yada yada and that thus, he was murdered by Bush, a statement that is stupid, naive, and idiotic. The loss of Casey's life, freely given by virtue of his, as I understand it, second enlistment in the military, an action which by it's very nature means he is willing to SOME degree to die, even if he'd prefer not to, has nothing to do with the Sixth Commandment. I say it is posturing because of her statements in an interview given after her first meeting with Bush wherein she claims to have been comforted by the man. She then changed her story later.

"Yes, the actions of the dread "US MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX" have caused the deaths of a million Iraqi souls. (They do have souls, don't they?)"

Of course they do. So do you, my friend. What I dispute is the wacked out numbers of dead Iraqis and the blame for them put at the feet of our president and military. This is stupid, naive and idiotic. Even using more accurate totals, the dead are the result of the actions of the scumbags we fought there. They will continue killing Iraqis after we're gone, as we can see by the bombings that have taken place in Baghdad AFTER we began the recent pullout.

Yes, I'm aware of where the term came from. Ike was a Republican for sure. Whether he was a conservative I cannot say, not having studied his presidency at all. But I don't think he was referring to having a strong military that can handle whatever we need to handle. I wouldn't call our current military anything like the entity to which he referred.

"Are you suggesting that by killing a million or more Iraqis and making refugees out of more than that, that we have somehow assuaged the suffering of the people before we got there?"

No, because I firstly don't believe we killed "a million or more" Iraqis or made refugees out of more than that. As to the gratitude of the people, that would depend on which interviews you've seen and which you choose to believe. On that score, I'm sure that there are tons of Shiites who aren't as concerned about waking up to find members of their family missing or dead or raped. Kurds as well. Are their still problems there? Duh! I ain't the one blowin' smoke up anyone's skirt.

continued---

Marshall Art said...

continuing---

"Given that "US IMPERIALISM!!!" installed and maintained Saddam in Iraq, I suppose that makes your conclusion accurate."

Yeah, you're right. We should just have gone over there and apologized and then all would have been well. I won't speak to what was done before this particular war. Far too weighty and issue for this space and frought with far to many questionable "facts" to bother at this time.

"You think we should have gone into Iraq during the first Gulf War. Surely you know that Bush I AND his Sec. of Defense, Darth Cheney, both could see that it would not be a wise move."

Don't call me Shirley. I believe that what they knew was that they their task was to boot his sorry ass out of Kuwait, and to bury him was not part of the plan if he scurried back home. Few would say now that it wouldn't have been better at the time, but that's 20-20 hindsight.

"You say "the Sheehans of the world" (?) have little pity for the suffering inflicted by Saddam. Who are these people, and on what do you base this statement?"

Mostly all those who called for regime change in Iraq until Bush actually did something about it. Do you recall much outcry about Sadam's treatment of his people? So even if it is true about our part in Hussein's elevation to power, wouldn't it make sense that we do something to fix it? Apparently not. We supposedly f'd it up, but now that we have, the Iraqis must fend for themselves. OK.

"You call Obama an idiot."

Yes I do.

"Of all the things the guy may be, he's no idiot."

Yes he is. Convincing 52% of the voting public that he is worthy of the presidency only shows he's smart enough to con people. At best, and because of that, he's a one trick pony. Unfortunately, the majority of that 52% hadn't clue one about who this guy was or what he ever did, which was nothing much. I'll need more than campaign talk mixed with enough Bush hatred to convince me he's the brilliant guy I'm told he is. So far...idiot.

"You say that Sheehan seems to be concerned about her own popularity."

She tried to run for public office. She continues to attempt to be heard publicly. She's freakin' Jesse Jackson.

"And what does her support of Chavez have to do with her intelligence or her love of country?"

You mean Hugo, the Castro wanna-be? You're right. What was I thinking?

"I'm not even going to comment on the voice thing, except to say "da Bears.""

If only SHE was a Saturday Night Live bit.

"Finally, you ask, "what does it say about a person from whom her own family distances themselves?"
Mark 6:1-6, Matthew 13:54-58, Luke 4:16-30, John 4:44."


Christ caught grief from his own over what He claimed about Himself. Sheehan over what she claimed about our president, military and country. Sheehan is no prophet. She doesn't even get the past correctly.

"Why all the anger? Is that what conservative principles are, petty name calling and mean-spirited anger?"

Again. No anger here. Great disappointment with many of my fellow Americans, that's true. But anger? I reserve that for the truly evil of whom I don't necessarily count my political opponents. Further, I don't think it's "petty" to call those left of center "libs" or to refer to their positions as "goofy", "stupid", and/or "destructive to the nation" if I so consider them. I'm willing and ready to defend my positions. I've not been so lucky as to have the opposing positions so readily defended or explained to me. Still waiting to hear why Bush/Cheney & Co are evil or Hitler-like. And I don't recall any handwringing over depictions of Bush as stupid or an idiot.

However, the anger's coming the more Barry gets his way. He's bad for the country.

Kirk said...

OK Art. I don't understand the reasoning behind much of what you say, but then I don't understand the whole blog thing, either. I guess it gives people a forum to express their opinions. I'm not sure how conducive it is to back-and-forth discussion, though. Perhaps it would have been more accurate of me to describe your comments re Sheehan in particular, and "lefty libs" in general, as nasty rather than angry. When I see an abundance of nastiness, I sense an undercurrent of anger. Your comments about Sheehan tell me more about you than they do about Sheehan. But maybe that's the point of blogs. I don't know. Like I said, I don't quite get them. I suppose I could re-respond to your response to my response. Is that the idea? Or should I start my own blog? Ugh. I will say this, I give you high marks for consistency. That said, one of the things that disturbs me most about vocal conservatives is their sense of certitude regarding their positions. I'm not certain of much, other than the well-known fact that Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot. But given that true discussion is becoming an endangered social behavior, it's always refreshing to find someone will to firmly state what they believe. Even if they are wrong. (Oops) I will also say this. I find conversations with you considerably more stimulating than those I have with people you would refer to as liberals. They're generally too nice, i.e. going out of their way not to offend, and too naive. I don't think of myself as liberal or conservative. I strive to develop and maintain a realistic worldview, and if that means I must occasionally entertain some cockamamy idea, well then, bring it on, brother. Not that your ideas are cockamamy, or that there's anything wrong with that. I'm just sayin...

Marshall Art said...

Kirk,

One of the drawbacks of this media is the inability to perfectly present one's complete feeling along with the words one types. I try to use italics, bold type, quotation marks and other techniques to mimic the vocalization of my thoughts, to make what is read come off as if I was verbalizing the words. One fella has abandoned this form of communication to do most of his stuff on YouTube. He can make his case "face to face" to some extent, but then, responses are typed in this same manner, so it too is limited. I think that as one follows specific blogs, one can get a sense of what to make of what one reads there and respond more accurately. Ideally, requests for clarification, or attempts to make one's self more clear, are made, though it can slow things down.

Nastiness can be unintended or purposeful depending on the situation. To clarify my own self, I am rarely experiencing anger when I blog, either in my posts or in the comments that follow. At least not toward the person with whom I debate/argue. I admit, however, that certain opinions can raise some hackles and actions can make me angry. Thus, it might appear that I'm angry with a person, when I'm angry with an action the person took. A slim distinction to be sure, but something from which we all suffer I would wager.

This form of communication and debate can indeed be clumsy, but I find it does provide the opportunity to see how thoughts and opinions are viewed by others, and every once in awhile, one can actually learn something, sometimes even about one's self.

As to labeling, I believe I'm conservative because most of what I favor are those positions favored by conservatives. So be it. Take away the label and I'd feel the same way and still have the same debates on particular issues. From my perspective, I'm confident I'm seeing things objectively and realistically. As I say semi-regularly, I do this blogging thing to persuade and be persuaded. I don't agree that all opinions have merit, that all are valid, and it's definitely NOT reality to assume that could ever be the case.

That's all for now. Breakfast awaits.