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

[Mephisto]

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.

Just look at the subject line - it doesn't say ANYTHING about Vanity Fair. I think most of us understood Skeptic's point, it was as clear as an unmuddied lake, sir. You can rely on him.

 

[kimiko]

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.

It's obvious she thinks protesting and activism will accomplish something. If the problem is the organizations that are supporting her, eveyone might want to keep in mind that if they are supporting what's she's working towards, I doubt she'd turn down their help unless they were hate groups or something, which they aren't. Maybe she wants them to be involved.

I still don't see a difference between people who know they're being photographed at the Vietnam memorial and what she's doing. I've seen plenty of pics of old men crying there- should they stop when someone is taking their picture? My dad's never been to the memorial, never will, but he doesn't judge the people who do go.

And that picture of her being arrested- what, is she never supposed to smile ever again because her son died? Is she supposed to be somber every moment she's doing anything related to working against the war? What an unrealistic expectation. That would be very unhealthy to not recover from deep grief.

 

[RandFan]

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?

When a person chooses to take a public persona and stridently attack a political position then that person and that persons supporters shouldn't complain when they are criticized for seeking the public eye. I'm sorry Mephisto but Cindy doesn't get a break because her son is deceased. If she simply spoke out against the war in a dignified manner while avoiding the appearance of exploiting her son's death then I would gladly respect her. The bottom line is that you can't have your cake and eat it to. You don't get to keep your respect from your opponents while stridently attacking their positions, associating with the lunatic fringe and engaging in maudlin PR stunts.

I'm sorry if you find that harsh but it is what it is.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

When a person chooses to take a public persona and stridently attack a political position then that person and that persons supporters shouldn't complain when they are criticized for seeking the public eye. I'm sorry Mephisto but Cindy doesn't get a break because her son is deceased. If she simply spoke out against the war in a dignified manner while avoiding the appearance of exploiting her son's death then I would gladly respect her. The bottom line is that you can't have your cake and eat it to. You don't get to keep your respect from your opponents while stridently attacking their positions, associating with the lunatic fringe and engaging in maudlin PR stunts.

I'm sorry if you find that harsh but it is what it is.

Randfan, you have a point, but unfortunately, protesters can't get attention any other way. Ever since the days of Vietnam war protests, protesters have had to face the fact that unless cars get turned over, garbage cans get set alight, or windows get smashed, a peaceful rally of 10,000 people won't make front page news. Reporters on the scene aren't interested in showing thousands of people singing "We Shall Overcome" off key. This is the Media we're talking about. It if bleeds, it leads. The most sensational, controversial and bizzare protesters get their interveiws and signs put on TV. The ability of a message to get into the Media is inversely proportional to how much sense it makes, and how tasteful it is.

Cindy Sheehan loocks silly, so she gets air time. The Women in Black http://www.womeninblack.net/ stand in silence, protesting the war, and they get far less attention.

The Media pays scant attention to reasonable, dignified protest.

 

[RandFan]

It's obvious she thinks protesting and activism will accomplish something. If the problem is the organizations that are supporting her, eveyone might want to keep in mind that if they are supporting what's she's working towards, I doubt she'd turn down their help unless they were hate groups or something, which they aren't. Maybe she wants them to be involved.

And maybe associating with people who are for the overthrow of America and support a man who caused the suffering and death of millions is not a great idea. It's odd how these folks go to such lengths to call Bush a terrorist while at the same time embracing a man stripped freedom from millions and caused millions more to die. It's hard to take someone seriously who attacks George Bush but smiles and waves at folks who warmly embrace Mao Ze Dong. Bear in mind that Mao is responsible for the mass starvation of 30 million people. Oh but Mao had good intentions. Yeah? He caused the deliberate death of about 10 million. That's 10 thousand thousand. These folks are fruit cakes and dangerous

I still don't see a difference between people who know they're being photographed at the Vietnam memorial and what she's doing. I've seen plenty of pics of old men crying there- should they stop when someone is taking their picture? My dad's never been to the memorial, never will, but he doesn't judge the people who do go.

If someone went to the memorial and cried on cue as a PR stunt I would find it disgusting. So in that instance I would say there is no difference. It comes down to what the purpose of the photo was.

And that picture of her being arrested- what, is she never supposed to smile ever again because her son died? Is she supposed to be somber every moment she's doing anything related to working against the war? What an unrealistic expectation. That would be very unhealthy to not recover from deep grief.

Being arrested is a serious matter and the cause is serious. It makes me wonder how serious she takes it. She is famous and she appears to be thoroughly enjoying it. It's not as if there is a single photo. There are lot's of them.

 

[RandFan]

Randfan, you have a point, but unfortunately, protesters can't get attention any other way. Ever since the days of Vietnam war protests, protesters have had to face the fact that unless cars get turned over, garbage cans get set alight, or windows get smashed, a peaceful rally of 10,000 people won't make front page news. Reporters on the scene aren't interested in showing thousands of people singing "We Shall Overcome" off key. This is the Media we're talking about. It if bleeds, it leads. The most sensational, controversial and bizzare protesters get their interveiws and signs put on TV. The ability of a message to get into the Media is inversely proportional to how much sense it makes, and how tasteful it is.

Cindy Sheehan loocks silly, so she gets air time. The Women in Black http://www.womeninblack.net/ stand in silence, protesting the war, and they get far less attention.

The Media pays scant attention to reasonable, dignified protest.

I will grant the point. Yes.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

And maybe associating with people who are for the overthrow of America and support a man who caused the suffering and death of millions is not a great idea. It's odd how these folks go to such lengths to call Bush a terrorist while at the same time embracing a man stripped freedom from millions and caused millions more to die. It's hard to take someone seriously who attacks George Bush but smiles and waves at folks who warmly embrace Mao Ze Dong. Bear in mind that Mao is responsible for the mass starvation of 30 million people. Oh but Mao had good intentions. Yeah? He caused the deliberate death of about 10 million. That's 10 thousand thousand. These folks are fruit cakes and dangerous

Randfan, protesting against the War, and W does not make one a supporter of Mao anymore than supporting Bush makes one a baby-killer. That accusation is going too far, and has no basis in fact.

 

[RandFan]

Randfan, protesting against the War, and W does not make one a supporter of Mao anymore than supporting Bush makes one a baby-killer. That accusation is going too far, and has no basis in fact.

I never said protesting against the War and the President made one a supporter of Mao. I said hanging out with people who are Mao supporters and are selling Mao paraphernalia is a bad choice. When right leaning politicians stop by Bob Jones university or go to a Klan rally it calls their associations into question.

 

[Cleon]

Yay for redbaiting.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I never said protesting against the War and the President made one a supporter of Mao. I said hanging out with people who are Mao supporters and are selling Mao paraphernalia is a bad choice. When right leaning politicians stop by Bob Jones university or go to a Klan rally it calls their associations into question.

Randfan, you cannot organize a protest *and* exclude people who agree with you on the issue. If protesters waitied until they had a group of thousands who were exactly the same, and thought exactly the same way on every issue, they would be waiting a long time. There's a diversity of people on both sides of any issue.

To dismiss war protesters as a whole because they include some loonies is as insulting and incorrect as dismissing war supporters because the include Pat Robertson. It's an ad hominem attack. It's more reasonable to attack their arguement.

 

[RandFan]

Randfan, you cannot organize a protest *and* exclude people who agree with you on the issue. If protesters waitied until they had a group of thousands who were exactly the same, and thought exactly the same way on every issue, they would be waiting a long time. There's a diversity of people on both sides of any issue.

To dismiss war protesters as a whole because they include some loonies is as insulting and incorrect as dismissing war supporters because the include Pat Robertson. It's an ad hominem attack. It's more reasonable to attack their arguement.

I'm not buying it. Sorry. I think ones associations are worthy of scrutiny. I think you can make a point in your speech and in your dialog with reporters that you don't support the goals of the lunatic fringe that are in abundance at your event. Further it is possible for the organizers to try and dissuade those individuals from being there. If it were a right leaning politician hanging out at events with hate groups I would expect that individual to denounce those individuals. That is a reasonable expectation and not simply ad hominem. But thanks.

 

[RandFan]

Yay for redbaiting.

Everyone loves a cliché.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I'm not buying it. Sorry. I think ones associations are worthy of scrutiny. I think you can make a point in your speech and in your dialog with reporters that you don't support the goals of the lunatic fringe that are in abundance at your event. Further it is possible for the organizers to try and dissuade those individuals from being there. If it were a right leaning politician hanging out at events with hate groups I would expect that individual to denounce those individuals. That is a reasonable expectation and not simply ad hominem. But thanks.

Firstly, a great many protester organization go to great lengths to express their views on a laundry list of issues in order to do as you suggest, distance themselved from objectionable people. However, protesters cannot congregate to protest and issue and protest against other protesters at the same time. That wouldn't merely be fighting a war on two fronts, but fighting a war on a thousand fronts. It's lazy reporters who would rather broadcast the lettucte bikini wearing PETA commie hippie holding a sign saying "I masterbate to the Communist Manifesto for Peace" which gives you the false impression you have. Most protests are peaceful and civilized. Those don't get attention.

 

[RandFan]

Firstly, a great many protester organization go to great lengths to express their views on a laundry list of issues in order to do as you suggest, distance themselved from objectionable people. However, protesters cannot congregate to protest and issue and protest against other protesters at the same time. That wouldn't merely be fighting a war on two fronts, but fighting a war on a thousand fronts. It's lazy reporters who would rather broadcast the lettucte bikini wearing PETA commie hippie holding a sign saying "I masterbate to the Communist Manifesto for Peace" which gives you the false impression you have. Most protests are peaceful and civilized. Those don't get attention.

Thanks for the response. I will concede that it is possible that Cindy doesn't share the agenda that many of those she associates with does. It would be helpful if she were unambiguous in her speech. As it is I do not know. I do know that some of the things she has said causes me to think she isn't all that removed from the fringe. Further I very much would like to see these groups marginalized and I think this is a great opportunity. When right leaning politicians associate with hate groups their motivations are questioned and the credibility of the hate groups goes down. I'm sorry but I think some groups should absolutely be non gratis. Simply dismissing them as the fringe does no one any favors. It's rightly not allowed on the right and it shouldn't be allowed on the left.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Thanks for the response. I will concede that it is possible that Cindy doesn't share the agenda that many of those she associates with does. It would be helpful if she were unambiguous in her speech. As it is I do not know. I do know that some of the things she has said causes me to think she isn't all that removed from the fringe. Further I very much would like to see these groups marginalized and I think this is a great opportunity. When right leaning politicians associate with hate groups their motivations are questioned and the credibility of the hate groups goes down. I'm sorry but I think some groups should absolutely be non gratis. Simply dismissing them as the fringe does no one any favors. It's rightly not allowed on the right and it shouldn't be allowed on the left.

You are confusing two things. One group or person, Cindy Sheenhan for example, expresses her cause, and support for other people/causes. Some of those express support for eachother. Those are who you have to examine.

If the KKK expressed support for me, and I express displeasure with that, it does not follow that I am associated with the KKK.

Instead of listening only to what critics and supporters of Cindy Sheehan are saying about her, get your information straight from the horse's mouth. Here's her blog. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cindy-sheehan/

See if you find any communist rhetoric.

 

[Mephisto]

The bottom line is that you can't have your cake and eat it to. You don't get to keep your respect from your opponents while stridently attacking their positions, associating with the lunatic fringe and engaging in maudlin PR stunts.

I'm sorry if you find that harsh but it is what it is.

Oh, I agree completely, RF! BUT, that is a two-way street and Skeptic has proven that he is; A. stridently reaching for anything to attack Sheehan about, B. easily identifying himself with the "lunatic fringe," C. engaging in an extremely cheap shot at anti-war supporters in general, and D. doing his best to lose all respect from his opponents.

Sheehan, in my estimation here, has become a non-issue. Had Skeptic NOT suggested that Sheehan engages in sexual acts with her dead son, this whole affair would have slipped quietly into oblivion - as I said before, Skeptic is an even greater supporter of Sheehan and the anti-war effort than most of the leftest here!

I'm sorry if HE finds that harsh, but that's what it is.

 

[Mephisto]

It would be helpful if she were unambiguous in her speech.

But RF, you're expecting more out of a housewife whose son was killed and is trying to do what she feels is right, than you expect out of the President himself.

 

[RandFan]

But RF, you're expecting more out of a housewife whose son was killed and is trying to do what she feels is right, than you expect out of the President himself.

HEY! Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. --The Great and Mighty Oz.

Good response Mephisto.

 

[RandFan]

You are confusing two things. One group or person, Cindy Sheenhan for example, expresses her cause, and support for other people/causes. Some of those express support for eachother. Those are who you have to examine.

If the KKK expressed support for me, and I express displeasure with that, it does not follow that I am associated with the KKK.

That's my point. She hasn't expressed displeasure AFAIK. Please to correct me if I'm wrong.

Instead of listening only to what critics and supporters of Cindy Sheehan are saying about her, get your information straight from the horse's mouth. Here's her blog. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cindy-sheehan/

See if you find any communist rhetoric.

Not overly impressed but that's fine. She has made silly conspiratorial comments about Israel though that doesn't make her a communist. I certainly think it appropriate for considering her associations and lack of response regarding the fringe hanging on her coat tails. I judge her in part by her actions and I think that is appropriate. You certainly disagree with me and that is your right. I don't expect you to agree with me. I just want you to understand my POV. She seems to me to be enjoying her time in the limelight and is associated with folks that get a pass in the media and I wish were denounced by those on the left including Cindy or simply for here to choose not go to such events or risk having her message marginalized.

I have been critical of those on the right who have associated with the lunatic Right. I'm being consistent here. Are you?

But most importantly I don't get how Cindy get's to lash out with harsh rhetoric but she is supposed to be treated with kid gloves.

Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a U.S. soldier who was killed in Sadr City, Iraq, on April 4, 2004, expressed her distress and frustration... "Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by George [W.] Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11."

Somebody's gotta stop those lying bastards. Then we have this lying bastard, George Bush, taking a 5-week vacation in a time of war.

So anyway that filth-spewer and warmonger, George Bush was speaking after the tragedy of the marines in Ohio, he said a couple things that outraged me.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Are you saying that those on the right don't enjoy their limelight? So what if she smiles as she's arrested. She was being cheered on by all those people who were with her, lending her their support.

Secondly, Cindy Sheenhan doesn't have to denounce the supporters who are especially objectionable anymore than Bush has to denounce Pat Robertson everytime he's embarassing. She doesn't deserve to be treated with kid gloves, but let's be consistent in our treatment of the right and the left on the issues.