"OK, Cindy, we need something that suggests Incestual Necrophilia..."

[rikzilla]

But you had no problems with the other women in Vanity Fair prostituting their looks and bodies to get a beauty shot in Vanity Fair? Tell, me Skeptic what are the Fall colors in vogue for makeup this year?

Most women who allow themselves to be fashionably objectified do so based on their beauty and youth. They don't usually need to stand on a coffin in order to become relevant. Cindy Sheehan is a demonstrably vile poseur.

-z

 

[Snide]

If Skeptic had suggested that the picture should not be viewed then I would think that you have a point. I kinda think Skeptic wants it to be see. I know I do.

I don't know. I can see how you and SKeptic would want it to be seen. As a non-Bush fan and a non-Sheehan fan, perhaps my viewpoint is a little different. But when I first saw the photo I thought it was tacky, inappropriate and perhaps even disgusting. But after reading all of the anti-Sheehan stuff in this thread, I'm leaning a little less "anti-Sheehan" now. So maybe Skeptic et al would be better served to let the picture do more of the talking.

 

[Mephisto]

I don't know. I can see how you and SKeptic would want it to be seen. As a non-Bush fan and a non-Sheehan fan, perhaps my viewpoint is a little different. But when I first saw the photo I thought it was tacky, inappropriate and perhaps even disgusting. But after reading all of the anti-Sheehan stuff in this thread, I'm leaning a little less "anti-Sheehan" now. So maybe Skeptic et al would be better served to let the picture do more of the talking.

Agreed.

And if I ever write a best-selling novel, I can only hope all the people who find it offensive tell all their friends about it. If I'm lucky Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts, Rush Limbaugh AND Bill O'Reilly will protest my prostitution loud and clear! It can only help me.

How many things of this sort (and I agree, it was a contrived and posed photo) would go unnoticed if not for those who are so easily baited?

 

[ZirconBlue]

Too bad they forgot to photoshop out some of that gargantuan a$$ of hers. But then I guess even digitial magic has its limits.

BTW, welcome to the forum, Zircon!

Thanks for the welcome. To the topic at hand, I think it's quite easy to slip across that fine line between "symbolic" and "tacky." I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time.

 

[Mephisto]

Most women who allow themselves to be fashionably objectified do so based on their beauty and youth. They don't usually need to stand on a coffin in order to become relevant. Cindy Sheehan is a demonstrably vile poseur.

-z

But Rik,

Certainly you can understand that she's only supporting a position she feels entitled to support - even if the media (and this photographer in particular) or any past comments have made her sincerity appear dubious, I believe she is just as much a pawn in this entire debate as anyone else.

I've already conceded that I don't know Sheehan's entire story and that the photo appeared totally staged. Everyone's post in this thread seems centered against sensationalism, but what I objected to most was the sensationalist insinuation that Cindy Sheehan was having sex with the corpse of her dead son.

I'll always try to see someone else's point of view, and I can agree with many of you that Sheehan is mislead, but who here can't make that claim? Many of you first based your agreement with the invasion of Iraq on the "fact" Saddam had WMD and would use it, weren't you mislead by the Right? Many on the Left are mislead to the extreme that they don't want Democracy to work in Iraq. Neither extreme is correct.

My point is, there is a median where most of us could peacefully exist together - we are all against extremism. Whether or not you believe Cindy Sheehan is a self-generating media circus or not, DOESN'T allow you to proclaim her either incestuous or necrophilic!

 

[RandFan]

I don't know. I can see how you and SKeptic would want it to be seen. As a non-Bush fan and a non-Sheehan fan, perhaps my viewpoint is a little different. But when I first saw the photo I thought it was tacky, inappropriate and perhaps even disgusting. But after reading all of the anti-Sheehan stuff in this thread, I'm leaning a little less "anti-Sheehan" now. So maybe Skeptic et al would be better served to let the picture do more of the talking.

If I found out that the picture and this discussion produced net postive results for Sheehan then I would have no problem with that. I'm not so presumptious or arrogant to think my views of this world must be shared by anyone else. I care far more about the process than my own personal view of how things ought to be.

Sure, there are reasons why I hope people view the world my way more often than not but I'm realistic to know that isn't going to happen so I do my best to get my message accross while respecting those who offer a different message.

Go Cindy!

 

[rikzilla]

But Rik,

Certainly you can understand that she's only supporting a position she feels entitled to support - even if the media (and this photographer in particular) or any past comments have made her sincerity appear dubious, I believe she is just as much a pawn in this entire debate as anyone else.

Not really...she's set herself up as leader of the Gold Star moms against the war. The fact that she appears not to have much common sense does lend support to your theory though. Perhaps she is simply addled. It seems to be about the kindest way one can interpret her actions. You've already seen the more unkind ways...

I've already conceded that I don't know Sheehan's entire story and that the photo appeared totally staged. Everyone's post in this thread seems centered against sensationalism, but what I objected to most was the sensationalist insinuation that Cindy Sheehan was having sex with the corpse of her dead son.

Well that was indeed a bit harsh. Cindy does inspire passion in her batty followers...is it really that strange that she inspires the equal and opposite passion in her detractors? I will agree that the OP was over the top. For the record; I don't believe Cindy wishes to have coitus with the remains of her son. I do believe she wishes to exploit him in other ways though. Rather unsavoury any way you slice it.

I'll always try to see someone else's point of view, and I can agree with many of you that Sheehan is mislead, but who here can't make that claim? Many of you first based your agreement with the invasion of Iraq on the "fact" Saddam had WMD and would use it, weren't you mislead by the Right? Many on the Left are mislead to the extreme that they don't want Democracy to work in Iraq. Neither extreme is correct.

It's hard to equate a rather large systematic intelligence breakdown with the deliberate co-opting of a grieving not-too-bright mom by the organs of the Marxist-led anti-war movement. It's simply not the same thing.

My point is, there is a median where most of us could peacefully exist together - we are all against extremism. Whether or not you believe Cindy Sheehan is a self-generating media circus or not, DOESN'T allow you to proclaim her either incestuous or necrophilic!

This is true. I haven't done so,...but I do believe that those who have are merely having a cynical joke at her expense. She very nearly deserves it you know...she did the pose on Casey's grave...and I've heard that a large number of US troops in Iraq have written their parents frank letters telling them that they'd rather not have them protest thusly in their names.

-z

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Well that was indeed a bit harsh. Cindy does inspire passion in her batty followers...is it really that strange that she inspires the equal and opposite passion in her detractors? I will agree that the OP was over the top. For the record; I don't believe Cindy wishes to have coitus with the remains of her son. I do believe she wishes to exploit him in other ways though. Rather unsavoury any way you slice it.

Alright rikzillia, it's easy to get overheated about such touchy subjects. However, I don't see how making a political statement out of her son's death is any *less* unsavory than our President having expolited her dead son. The later is simply less unpopular currently.

It's hard to equate a rather large systematic intelligence breakdown with the deliberate co-opting of a grieving not-too-bright mom by the organs of the Marxist-led anti-war movement. It's simply not the same thing.

Maxist lead? Now you're asserting that war critics are lead by international communism, Senator McCarthy?

This is true. I haven't done so,...but I do believe that those who have are merely having a cynical joke at her expense. She very nearly deserves it you know...she did the pose on Casey's grave...and I've heard that a large number of US troops in Iraq have written their parents frank letters telling them that they'd rather not have them protest thusly in their names.

If I were the father of a child in Iraq, I would respect their wishes in that regard. Cindy Sheehan's son apearantly did not express that wish to her.

 

[Mephisto]

Sure, there are reasons why I hope people view the world my way more often than not but I'm realistic to know that isn't going to happen so I do my best to get my message accross while respecting those who offer a different message.

Go Cindy!

You're just human, who could ask for more? There was at least one inhuman assertion here though - it was not only sensationalist, it was cruel and inconsiderate to even suggest (even figuratively) that a woman can't mourn (or honor, or use) the death of her own son (who happened to make the utmost sacrifice to ensure our free speech - support our troops) to support her cause.

. . . as the old adage goes, open your mouth and remove all doubt.

 

[Snide]

If I found out that the picture and this discussion produced net postive results for Sheehan then I would have no problem with that. I'm not so presumptious or arrogant to think my views of this world must be shared by anyone else. I care far more about the process than my own personal view of how things ought to be.

Sure, there are reasons why I hope people view the world my way more often than not but I'm realistic to know that isn't going to happen so I do my best to get my message accross while respecting those who offer a different message.

Go Cindy!

If everyone who opposes/criticizes Cindy did so in the way you do, the net effect probably would be the results you were hoping for (more "conversion").

The opposite is atheists who try to convert believers by kicking them in the nut$ (how is De_Bunk, by the way? ). It just isn't going to work.

 

[RandFan]

You're just human, who could ask for more? There was at least one inhuman assertion here though - it was not only sensationalist, it was cruel and inconsiderate to even suggest (even figuratively) that a woman can't mourn (or honor, or use) the death of her own son (who happened to make the utmost sacrifice to ensure our free speech - support our troops) to support her cause.

. . . as the old adage goes, open your mouth and remove all doubt.

I think it neither cruel nor inconsiderate. I don't agree with what Cindy is doing. I think she enjoys the attention and fame. She is a cause celebre, something that many spend millions to obtain. Would she trade her fame for her son. I have no question that she would. That fact doesn't obviate that she works hard to keep herself in the publics eye. Perhaps it is only for her cause. It certainly doesn't look that way to me. She certainly does not display much dignity in all of this which leads me to believe that the cause is now the means rather than the ends.

 

[Ziggurat]

I've already conceded that I don't know Sheehan's entire story and that the photo appeared totally staged. Everyone's post in this thread seems centered against sensationalism, but what I objected to most was the sensationalist insinuation that Cindy Sheehan was having sex with the corpse of her dead son.

Maybe it's just me, but the way I read that original post was that whoever the hell TOOK the photo and decided to feature it prominently in Vanity Fair doesn't have very good taste, and managed to stage a "portrait" of Cindy that's rather awkward. And the joke quote in the thread title about incestuous necrophilia would have to be spoken by the photographer, not by Cindy. And the text of Skeptic's OP where he says "But did Vanity Fair TOTALLY lose their minds? Just wondering." suggests to me that Vanity Fair, rather than Cindy, was the main target of his mockery. Silly? Yes, but I enjoyed it. Objectionable? I'm not really sure why. They can take a little derision now and then.

 

[FreeChile]

I think we need to ask Skeptic about that one.

Skeptic, was your original intent to criticize Vanity Fair or Cindy Sheehan? From your opening post it appears that you meant to know what's up with Vanity Fair. It seems that this thread has been derailed many times already.

 

[Piscivore]

I don't see "sleeping" in that picture.

 

[FreeChile]

I don't see "sleeping" in that picture.

Putting aside the other critical notions, I also don't get "sleeping" from the picture. I get an effort by the photographer to portray some kind of introspection on the part of Sheehan concerning the dead. You can't get "sleeping" with such a stiff body and facial expression. She is more pretending to be dead herself or communing with the dead--in which case she should have been face up. It's like if the artist was trying to make a spiritual and not a political statement about this. Yet this is also very poorly done. The shooters at Flickr would've done a better job. They would have gotten better shots by just interviewing her on the site and gotten her really emotional while conspicuously taking shots.

 

[Mephisto]

. . . . ummm, sorry. I don't mean to derail the thread, but I saw Free Chile and thought I'd get in line. Sorry.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't see "sleeping" in that picture.

Hard to say. I mean, I just don't know the context I should put a mother lying face down on the grave of her son with her eyes closed. Maybe she's meditating, maybe she's sleeping, maybe she closed her eyes 'cause the sun's too bright, maybe she's passed out drunk. I've just never seen someone do that before, so I really can't tell what the "norm" would be.

Which is part of why it's such an odd choice for a photo. There's no obvious "of course that's what she's doing, that's what people do" kind of response you get from it, so people fill in the blank themselves.

 

[Piscivore]

Hard to say. I mean, I just don't know the context I should put a mother lying face down on the grave of her son with her eyes closed.

Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but maybe the context you're looking for here is "grief?"

I don't give a flying [rule 8] about all the "controversy" and political mudslinging that's gone on around her, and I refuse to take sides now. But I've lost a kid, and that's a photo I understand pretty well.

Maybe you should thank the FSM you all don't.

 

[Ziggurat]

But I've lost a kid, and that's a photo I understand pretty well.

Maybe you should thank the FSM you all don't.

You are correct: I do not understand what it's like to loose a kid. Indeed, most people thankfully don't, and I certainly hope never to.

But it still leaves the question: if this is the sort of expression of grief that only people who have lost children are really going to empathize with, why did Vanity Fair choose it instead of something more people would understand? Again, for me it's not really a question of why Cindy posed for the photo, but why Vanity Fair chose to publish that one.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

You are correct: I do not understand what it's like to loose a kid. Indeed, most people thankfully don't, and I certainly hope never to.

But it still leaves the question: if this is the sort of expression of grief that only people who have lost children are really going to empathize with, why did Vanity Fair choose it instead of something more people would understand? Again, for me it's not really a question of why Cindy posed for the photo, but why Vanity Fair chose to publish that one.

I'm sorry, "most people" don't know what it's like to lose a child? Demographically, within the U.S., infants (people under 1 year of age) have the same mortality rates as people in their 50's. Lots of people's children die of disease, accident, or other causes. We're fortunate that it's not as common as child mortality rates in some other countries, but honestly Ziggurat, it happens. If we (I include myself) don't know what it's like to lose a child, and can't understand what it's like to lose a child, what it's like to mourn for a child, maybe the problem is with us?