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

[RandFan]

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?

Maybe.

And perhaps she enjoys the spotlight and that serves to mitigate her grief.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Maybe.

And perhaps she enjoys the spotlight and that serves to mitigate her grief.

She's being arrested. For a non-violent protester, being arrested is like losing your virginity. Being arrested on camera is like losing your virginity to a cheerleading squad.

 

[Freakshow]

For a non-violent protester, being arrested is like losing your virginity.

Never have understood that. I don't get the whole "losing" thing. Losing is for losers. Why would somebody be in such a pathetic condition as to think they are winning by GETTING ARRESTED?

Reminds me of that famous quote by Patton: "No b****rd ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other b****rd die for HIS country."

Cindy whats-her-name sure does appear to enjoy the spotlight.

 

[Piscivore]

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 have no idea. All I know is that what I've read here is that a bunch of people are so wet to discredit someone who's just a blip on the political scene that the obvious answer eludes them.

If you all just ignored this woman she'd have gone away by now.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Never have understood that. I don't get the whole "losing" thing. Losing is for losers. Why would somebody be in such a pathetic condition as to think they are winning by GETTING ARRESTED?

Reminds me of that famous quote by Patton: "No b****rd ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other b****rd die for HIS country."

Cindy whats-her-name sure does appear to enjoy the spotlight.

It's the principal of non-violent resistance which encourages and to a degree, requires that. By demonstrating dissaproval or disobedience, and then being publically arrested for it, you're shaming the powers that be publically for punishing your perfectly ethical behavior.

See, it's as if I'm at the Prom with Suzie, and Kronk the football captain hits me for "being a dork. For being a gay dork, dorkweed." I may have just got punched, but now Kronk looks like an idiot in front of Suzie.

Unfortunately, this only works when there's at least a large minorty that agrees with you. That usually requires a simple and popular message about an issue that effects a great many people. Sadly, anti-war protesters usually use the media spotlight to deliver complicated manifestos, which often espose unpopular beliefs, and are addressing an issue that most Americas feel somewhat remote from. End result: Protesters get arrested, and the American people think they're rather silly.

In order to use Ghandi's techniques effectively, one must do more than get arrested.

Edit: Corrected spelling, including putting a capital "G" in Ghandi.

 

[Freakshow]

You and I have VERY different views of the world.

It's the principal of non-violent resistance which encourages and to a degree, requires that. By demonstration dissaproval or disobedience, and then being publically arrested for it, you're shaming the powers that be publically for punishing your perfectly ethical behavior.

I view the losers getting arrested ("Hey, look at me! I can be overwhelmed by force! And like it!") with more shame for them than the people arresting them.

See, it's as if I'm at the Prom with Suzie, and Kronk the football captain hits me for "being a dork. For being a gay dork, dorkweed." I may have just got punched, but now Kronk looks like an idiot in front of Suzie.

It isn't him punching you that made him look like an idiot. It is what was said beforehand. All other things being equal, the person getting KTFO looks like the idiot. In the event of left-wing protesters, they look like idiots to start with. So now, getting arrested, they look doubly idiotic.

In order to use ghandi's techniques effectively, one must do more than get arrested.

Ghandi is the most overrated world leader ever. He is just a guy who got extraordinarily lucky to be in an extremely rare situation where his techniques worked. You think Ghandi is the only person in history to try to change things by pacifism? It doesn't work out so well for most. It isn't Ghandi that was special. It was his situation. His "techniques" for the Jews in Nazi Germany was mass suicide. Doesn't sound like anyone I would follow.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

It isn't him punching you that made him look like an idiot. It is what was said beforehand. All other things being equal, the person getting KTFO looks like the idiot. In the event of left-wing protesters, they look like idiots to start with. So now, getting arrested, they look doubly idiotic.

Ghandi is the most overrated world leader ever. He is just a guy who got extraordinarily lucky to be in an extremely rare situation where his techniques worked.

It workes for Dr. Martin Luther King jr., just afterwards. Non-violent protest and resistance has lead to many peaceful revolutions in Europe in recent years.

The point isn't that it always works, it doesn't, the point is that it works without causing anyone any harm.

Incidentally, I never said that this was how I view the world, I just meant to explain things a little.

 

[Freakshow]

The point isn't that it always works, it doesn't, the point is that it works without causing anyone any harm.

Then you and I can agree on that. There certainly are times that it works, and your example of Martin Luther King was a great one.

But there are also certainly some times that it doesn't work. You and I know that. I am amazed that I meet anyone who doesn't. How otherwise intelligent and rational people can seriously believe that, given the chance, pacifism will ALWAYS work, EVERY time, is beyond me.

Yes, I know people that believe that.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Then you and I can agree on that. There certainly are times that it works, and your example of Martin Luther King was a great one.

But there are also certainly some times that it doesn't work. You and I know that. I am amazed that I meet anyone who doesn't. How otherwise intelligent and rational people can seriously believe that, given the chance, pacifism will ALWAYS work, EVERY time, is beyond me.

Yes, I know people that believe that.

Many non-violent protesters take comfort in reincarnation, an afterlife, or other religious justifications. The only time non-violent resistance is obviously the most ineffective choice is when faced with a completely closed system, and a totaltiarian state. Otherwise, it can accomplish *something*, and only the willing protesters get killed by it.

It doesn't always work, but it's always worth a try.

 

[slingblade]

You and I have VERY different views of the world.

I view the losers getting arrested ("Hey, look at me! I can be overwhelmed by force! And like it!") with more shame for them than the people arresting them.
It isn't him punching you that made him look like an idiot. It is what was said beforehand. All other things being equal, the person getting KTFO looks like the idiot. In the event of left-wing protesters, they look like idiots to start with. So now, getting arrested, they look doubly idiotic.

What's left, then?
1. Saying nothing ("How's that workin' for ya?");
2. violent protest;
3. or "speaking with your vote," like that actually works?

 

[7th sextile]

Anyone know what the text on on the photo says?

BTW:Vanity Fair,odd name notwithstanding,isn't primarily a women's
fashion magazine.

 

[RandFan]

She's being arrested. For a non-violent protester, being arrested is like losing your virginity. Being arrested on camera is like losing your virginity to a cheerleading squad.

Well it's nice to know she finds pleasure in protesting on behalf of her dead son.

 

[celter]

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.

I've also lost a child and, unlike you, that is a photo that I do not "understand pretty well " ... it disgusts me. That woman is an attention whore. That photo is in terrible taste. I cannot imagine what others who are grieving for that young man must think of her theatrical exploitation of his death.

 

[Skeptic]

What's left, then?
1. Saying nothing ("How's that workin' for ya?");
2. violent protest;
3. or "speaking with your vote," like that actually works?

It works if enough people agree with you.

Of course, most of the "nonviolent protestors" are actually totalitarian at heart: they deeply believe that because of their pure heart and correct views, they somehow have the "right", by illegal means, to frustrate the will of the voters.

 

[WildCat]

I've also lost a child and, unlike you, that is a photo that I do not "understand pretty well " ... it disgusts me. That woman is an attention whore. That photo is in terrible taste. I cannot imagine what others who are grieving for that young man must think of her theatrical exploitation of his death.

People also judge you by the company you keep.

 

[RandFan]

People also judge you by the company you keep.

Great link thanks. It's odd that Mao after all of the abject misery and death he has caused to so many millions is idolized. Some quotes from the link.

But if you go showing picutes of Chairman Mao, you ain't going to make it with me anyhow.

Lennon's lines are somehow lost on the WCW.

The strange thing about her (well, one of the many strange things about her) is that she never seems to stop smiling. --The Author regarding Cindy

 

[Mercutio]

The people here who complain about Cindy's actions...how do you feel about John Walsh? Certainly, there is a man who has made a career out of his "15 minutes of fame" due to his child's death. A made-for-TV movie, a TV show...testifying before Congress. What an attention whore! I mean, sure, they only found his son's severed head, but that was back in 1981!

Sorry to be so crude, but it bothers me that some are so quick to see self-serving attention-whore motives, usually when their own political beliefs are the ones Cindy is protesting against. Fine, disagree, but the ad homs are frankly disgusting.

 

[WildCat]

The people here who complain about Cindy's actions...how do you feel about John Walsh? Certainly, there is a man who has made a career out of his "15 minutes of fame" due to his child's death. A made-for-TV movie, a TV show...testifying before Congress. What an attention whore! I mean, sure, they only found his son's severed head, but that was back in 1981!

Sorry to be so crude, but it bothers me that some are so quick to see self-serving attention-whore motives, usually when their own political beliefs are the ones Cindy is protesting against. Fine, disagree, but the ad homs are frankly disgusting.

John Walsh is actually doing constructive things. He leads the fight for victims rights, he didn't become a pawn to promote the agendas of others who simply saw him as a tool for their own ends.

Tell me, who is actually trying to help Cindy deal w/ her grief? Her Socialist Worker "friends"? Her ANSWER "friends"? Her various politico "friends"? Cindy Sheehan is being used for the purposes of others who care nothing of her, and many others tolerate it because it helps their cause. As soon as her propaganda value diminishes, she will be discarded like yesterdays trash. Then who will she have?

At least that's how I see it.

 

[RandFan]

The people here who complain about Cindy's actions...how do you feel about John Walsh? Certainly, there is a man who has made a career out of his "15 minutes of fame" due to his child's death. A made-for-TV movie, a TV show...testifying before Congress. What an attention whore! I mean, sure, they only found his son's severed head, but that was back in 1981!

Sorry to be so crude, but it bothers me that some are so quick to see self-serving attention-whore motives, usually when their own political beliefs are the ones Cindy is protesting against. Fine, disagree, but the ad homs are frankly disgusting.

I really have no way to know what goes on in the mind of anyone including Sheehan and Walsh. However Walsh always struck me as a man of dignity, propriety and stoicism. His cause always seemed to me to be the main motivation of his actions. It's been a long time but I honestly don't remember anything schmaltzy or unbecoming from this man.

Cindy on the other hand seems to bask in the limelight and her cause often overshadowed by her fame. Lying prostrate on the grave of her son is schmaltzy. Enjoying the moment of being arrested for what should be a serious cuse makes me wonder at the motivations of this women.

Could I be unfairly judging these two? Am I using two different standards? Perhaps and I'm willing to consider arguments that there isn't much difference between the two. I will concede that John Walsh's cause resonates with me more than Cindy's so I have reason and bias for wanting to judge them differently which is obviously why you chose John Walsh in the first place.

Thanks Mercutio.

 

[Mephisto]

BTW:Vanity Fair,odd name notwithstanding,isn't primarily a women's
fashion magazine.

Exactly my point! I could just as easily (and with as much credence) announce in a subject line that Skeptic is a closet transvestite. After all, he reads Vanity Fair. That is as least as fair as what drew guffaws from the compassion-challenged here.

Skeptic's perversions aside, it would seem relevant to consider the audience of the magazine itself - and since Vanity Fair is primarily for women (or transvestites), I would assume that the intended audience would be somewhat more empathic toward a woman who has lost her son in a war based on lies, than to someone interested in torturing terrorist suspects and the new Fall colors in lipstick.

Of course, they likely didn't take into consideration that a red state neo-con MAN would be flipping through their pages instead of the latest issue of American Rifleman or Sports Illustrated.

Everyone who has complained about Sheehan's 15 minutes of fame says that they object mostly to her apparently enjoying being a celebrity of sorts - she's obviously NOT a polished speaker, NOT an expert on the war, and doesn't speak for everyone, so I would imagine that you all would rather have Sean Penn speak on her behalf?

Right? If you don't like normal-everyday-Americans exploiting a family tragedy for a cause they feel strongly about perhaps you'd like any number of the Bozo celebrities who feel their fame deserves them to speak. Which is worse in your estimation, or do you just categorically deride anyone who doesn't share your viewpoints?