Comments on: Grappling With Cindy http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/20/grappling-with-cindy/ America's favorite blog Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:37:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.11 by: David http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/20/grappling-with-cindy/#comment-10162 Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:41:14 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/20/grappling-with-cindy/#comment-10162 Pete IVDL, Good point. Biggest problem at this point, aside from spinelessness on the part of a lot of people who should be speaking up, might be a fourth estate more interested, as Murray said, in Cindy as a prop for whatever story they want to tell than in the larger story that needs to emerge. I was amused by MSNBC's adoption of the phrase "anti-war extremists" to describe the folks at Camp Casey. And the interviewer who used this phrase fancies herself a journalist. Critical mass is the only thing they can't spin out of existence, so I am really with you on that point. Pete IVDL,

Good point. Biggest problem at this point, aside from spinelessness on the part of a lot of people who should be speaking up, might be a fourth estate more interested, as Murray said, in Cindy as a prop for whatever story they want to tell than in the larger story that needs to emerge.

I was amused by MSNBC’s adoption of the phrase “anti-war extremists” to describe the folks at Camp Casey. And the interviewer who used this phrase fancies herself a journalist.

Critical mass is the only thing they can’t spin out of existence, so I am really with you on that point.

]]> by: william leatherwood http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/20/grappling-with-cindy/#comment-10142 Wed, 24 Aug 2005 05:26:44 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/20/grappling-with-cindy/#comment-10142 Cindy Sheehan has responded to President Bush's comments concerning meeting her and has posted her response in The huffington Post. The first statement Cindy Sheehan makes that comes off as anti-democratic is this one and I quote Cindy Sheehan- " Does anyone else know what "democratic" means? It simply means majority rule. Not some high-minded, free-floating, pie in the sky ideal. It means 50 percent plus one." Cindy Sheehen in that particular statement actually attacks 51 % majority rule as a bad form of government and if you can read anything else into that, defending that statement, please make your comment at the end of this post. I would like to say to Cindy Sheehan that 50 plus one is much better then Saddam's 1 % plus brutal totalitarian rule in which the 1% Saddam, rules 99 % of the entire population. Maybe Sheehan has met with some socialist organizations that oppose democratic forms of government. I did notice that a socialist website called 'Socialist Worker Online' is running a rather large article advocating Sheehans position. Cindy Sheehan actually gave an interview to the Socialist Worker Online, she spoke to Socialist Worker’s ERIC RUDER which is mentioned at the beginning of the article. In her interview with the Socialist Worker Online she says and I quote " Some people may think that we’re fighting terrorism over there. But when is that job ever going to be complete? Terrorism is just a new “ism.” It was “communism” when I was growing up." Here Cindy Sheehan is discounting the validity of the threat of communism in the past as just a made up " ism." I believe history taught us that communism brutally oppressed and killed millions of innocent people and is still somewhat of a threat today in places like North Korea where millions have died from starvation due to KimYong II, brutal rule. Cindy Sheehan later went on to say and I quote " I DEFINITELY think that we should support war resisters in the military". I will leave that statement up to the readers interpretation, but it sounds to me to border on subversion and treason. Here is Cindy Sheehan's interview with the Socialist Workers Online in its entirety http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-2/549/549_06_CindySheehan.shtml . The next statement Cindy Sheehan makes is both inaccurate and untruthful and I quote "This is the biggest smokescreen from him yet. I didn't ask him to withdraw the troops, I asked him what Noble Cause did Casey die for." Actually Cindy Sheehen didn't ask Bush, she demanded that he "bring the troops home now", here is a quote from her statement made on August 18 2005 and carried by ABC News ""If George Bush comes out here today or if we leave here at the end of August, this is only the beginning, and we're not going to stop until our troops are brought home", I would suggest that means a withdrawal what would you think it means? Also in this ABC article written by Eric Noe it is stated " In addition to requesting a meeting with Bush, Sheehan is now calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. She promised to send a similar message if the president agrees to meet with her." Here is the complete article you be the judge http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1045556&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312 . Is ABC lying, did they just make that up? I have myself watched Cindy Sheehan on national television say time and time again "bring our troops home now" but she has stated that she has never intended to ask Bush that question. I smell another lie. Whats really strange is in Cindys own article she just released today she says this and I quote " Then bring our troops home. The status quo in Iraq is awful", if you ask me she cant even get through one article without contradicting herself. She goes on to imply that America is spreading "imperialism " by what she says is 14 permanent bases being set up in Iraq the size of Sacramento, California. I dont know if there is any United States military bases on the entire planet Earth the size of a large U.S. city,if there is please let me know ok. By the way the interview Cindy Sheehan gave to the Socialist Worker is the same Socialist worker who ran this article entitled " The Meaning of Marxism" in which they praise Marxism to no end. Here is the link to that garbage http://www.socialistworker.org/Featured/MeaningOfMarxism.shtml Cindy Sheehan has responded to President Bush’s comments concerning meeting her and has posted her response in The huffington Post. The first statement Cindy Sheehan makes that comes off as anti-democratic is this one and I quote Cindy Sheehan- ” Does anyone else know what “democratic” means? It simply means majority rule. Not some high-minded, free-floating, pie in the sky ideal. It means 50 percent plus one.” Cindy Sheehen in that particular statement actually attacks 51 % majority rule as a bad form of government and if you can read anything else into that, defending that statement, please make your comment at the end of this post. I would like to say to Cindy Sheehan that 50 plus one is much better then Saddam’s 1 % plus brutal totalitarian rule in which the 1% Saddam, rules 99 % of the entire population. Maybe Sheehan has met with some socialist organizations that oppose democratic forms of government. I did notice that a socialist website called ‘Socialist Worker Online’ is running a rather large article advocating Sheehans position. Cindy Sheehan actually gave an interview to the Socialist Worker Online, she spoke to Socialist Worker’s ERIC RUDER which is mentioned at the beginning of the article. In her interview with the Socialist Worker Online she says and I quote ” Some people may think that we’re fighting terrorism over there. But when is that job ever going to be complete? Terrorism is just a new “ism.” It was “communism” when I was growing up.” Here Cindy Sheehan is discounting the validity of the threat of communism in the past as just a made up ” ism.” I believe history taught us that communism brutally oppressed and killed millions of innocent people and is still somewhat of a threat today in places like North Korea where millions have died from starvation due to KimYong II, brutal rule. Cindy Sheehan later went on to say and I quote ” I DEFINITELY think that we should support war resisters in the military”. I will leave that statement up to the readers interpretation, but it sounds to me to border on subversion and treason. Here is Cindy Sheehan’s interview with the Socialist Workers Online in its entirety http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-2/549/549_06_CindySheehan.shtml .
The next statement Cindy Sheehan makes is both inaccurate and untruthful and I quote
“This is the biggest smokescreen from him yet. I didn’t ask him to withdraw the troops, I asked him what Noble Cause did Casey die for.” Actually Cindy Sheehen didn’t ask Bush, she demanded that he “bring the troops home now”, here is a quote from her statement made on August 18 2005 and carried by ABC News “”If George Bush comes out here today or if we leave here at the end of August, this is only the beginning, and we’re not going to stop until our troops are brought home”, I would suggest that means a withdrawal what would you think it means? Also in this ABC article written by Eric Noe it is stated ” In addition to requesting a meeting with Bush, Sheehan is now calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. She promised to send a similar message if the president agrees to meet with her.” Here is the complete article you be the judge http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1045556&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312 . Is ABC lying, did they just make that up? I have myself watched Cindy Sheehan on national television say time and time again “bring our troops home now” but she has stated that she has never intended to ask Bush that question. I smell another lie. Whats really strange is in Cindys own article she just released today she says this and I quote ” Then bring our troops home. The status quo in Iraq is awful”, if you ask me she cant even get through one article without contradicting herself. She goes on to imply that America is spreading “imperialism ” by what she says is 14 permanent bases being set up in Iraq the size of Sacramento, California. I dont know if there is any United States military bases on the entire planet Earth the size of a large U.S. city,if there is please let me know ok. By the way the interview Cindy Sheehan gave to the Socialist Worker is the same Socialist worker who ran this article entitled ” The Meaning of Marxism” in which they praise Marxism to no end. Here is the link to that garbage http://www.socialistworker.org/Featured/MeaningOfMarxism.shtml

]]> by: Pete IVDL http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/20/grappling-with-cindy/#comment-10140 Wed, 24 Aug 2005 00:47:42 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/20/grappling-with-cindy/#comment-10140 David, you're on the right track. Unfortunately, to be more than a lost voice in the cacophony of lost voices, these catalysts needed (and still need) to bring other voices in, other voices to work with - and so the cycle may repeat itself. Cindy's "core message" will reach "critical mass" and someone will start taking real physical potshots at her (maybe from the scrubby verge) to prove that it <i>is</i> worth dying for America. (I wonder what the neocons did to the farmer who shot his mouth, then his gun off - probably took him behind the barn and showed him pictures of Howard Dean...) Mary, I double-dare Shrub to actually listen to anyone outside his circle of handlers (and of course his Spoken Word tape collection). David, you’re on the right track. Unfortunately, to be more than a lost voice in the cacophony of lost voices, these catalysts needed (and still need) to bring other voices in, other voices to work with - and so the cycle may repeat itself. Cindy’s “core message” will reach “critical mass” and someone will start taking real physical potshots at her (maybe from the scrubby verge) to prove that it is worth dying for America. (I wonder what the neocons did to the farmer who shot his mouth, then his gun off - probably took him behind the barn and showed him pictures of Howard Dean…)

Mary, I double-dare Shrub to actually listen to anyone outside his circle of handlers (and of course his Spoken Word tape collection).

]]> by: David http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/20/grappling-with-cindy/#comment-10136 Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:28:35 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/20/grappling-with-cindy/#comment-10136 I'm not so sure we need a leader. We aren't followers. I would rather see repeated acts of individual courage, such as provided by the mayor of Salt Lake City. We either achieve a shift in consciousness through unrelenting pursuit of truth, or else we stumble along in subservience to whatever machine and its leader holds sway. MLK,Jr., wasn't looking for followers. He was looking for a shift in American consciousness. It happened in relation to civil rights, but the big prize he sought, a shift in consciousness regarding American foreign (and domestic) policy, never occurred, and the assassinations of JFK, MLK,Jr., and RFK collectively guaranteed it would not happen in the 20th century. We started the 21st century with the most retrograde administration imaginable, and now we find ourselves deep in the worst aspects of pre-JFK, MLK,Jr., RFK America (it is worth remembering that RFK had to experience a profound shift in consciousness to get to where he was in the last years of his life). Cindy Sheehan represents a single act of personal courage, nothing more, nothing less. And anyone looking for an audience has to go where the cameras are. I do think the list of people willing to go to Crawford and speak their minds, including the state senator from Minnesota and the mothers from Georgia who were accompanied by Rev. Lowery, as well as the others who have gone there to speak their minds, are actually a pretty impressive group of individuals. I think it is wiser to think of Cindy Sheehan as a catalyst than as a leader of a movement. The right can villify individuals and it can villify movements, but it cannot successfully villify shifts in consciousness. When it attempts that, it villifies itself in ways the left could never do. I’m not so sure we need a leader. We aren’t followers. I would rather see repeated acts of individual courage, such as provided by the mayor of Salt Lake City. We either achieve a shift in consciousness through unrelenting pursuit of truth, or else we stumble along in subservience to whatever machine and its leader holds sway.

MLK,Jr., wasn’t looking for followers. He was looking for a shift in American consciousness. It happened in relation to civil rights, but the big prize he sought, a shift in consciousness regarding American foreign (and domestic) policy, never occurred, and the assassinations of JFK, MLK,Jr., and RFK collectively guaranteed it would not happen in the 20th century.

We started the 21st century with the most retrograde administration imaginable, and now we find ourselves deep in the worst aspects of pre-JFK, MLK,Jr., RFK America (it is worth remembering that RFK had to experience a profound shift in consciousness to get to where he was in the last years of his life).

Cindy Sheehan represents a single act of personal courage, nothing more, nothing less. And anyone looking for an audience has to go where the cameras are. I do think the list of people willing to go to Crawford and speak their minds, including the state senator from Minnesota and the mothers from Georgia who were accompanied by Rev. Lowery, as well as the others who have gone there to speak their minds, are actually a pretty impressive group of individuals.

I think it is wiser to think of Cindy Sheehan as a catalyst than as a leader of a movement.

The right can villify individuals and it can villify movements, but it cannot successfully villify shifts in consciousness. When it attempts that, it villifies itself in ways the left could never do.

]]> by: Emily http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/20/grappling-with-cindy/#comment-10135 Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:54:21 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/20/grappling-with-cindy/#comment-10135 Ms. Sheehan touches another sensitive spot with me. Frankly, she's doing a fine job breaking the ice of the frigid anti-war movement, and I'm happy to sail my protest ship behind her. But another issue that's been on my mind lately is the Beatification of the American Mother. The Right has spent a lot of time lately ballyhooing the sanctity of motherhood - to the point where I, who will never be a mother, feel like a second-class citizen among second-class citizens. So, while I understand using rhetoric the enemy identifies with, it makes me nervous to see my own side playing up the motherhood angle. Ms. Sheehan touches another sensitive spot with me. Frankly, she’s doing a fine job breaking the ice of the frigid anti-war movement, and I’m happy to sail my protest ship behind her. But another issue that’s been on my mind lately is the Beatification of the American Mother. The Right has spent a lot of time lately ballyhooing the sanctity of motherhood - to the point where I, who will never be a mother, feel like a second-class citizen among second-class citizens. So, while I understand using rhetoric the enemy identifies with, it makes me nervous to see my own side playing up the motherhood angle.

]]> by: ice weasel http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/20/grappling-with-cindy/#comment-10134 Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:03:18 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/20/grappling-with-cindy/#comment-10134 "excuse me mr. mccellan, did you say 'jeff ganon'?" “excuse me mr. mccellan, did you say ‘jeff ganon’?”

]]> by: Scott McClellan http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/20/grappling-with-cindy/#comment-10132 Tue, 23 Aug 2005 18:05:06 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/20/grappling-with-cindy/#comment-10132 Mmmmm. Beefaroni. Mmmmm. Beefaroni.

]]> by: Mary http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/20/grappling-with-cindy/#comment-10128 Tue, 23 Aug 2005 15:05:02 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/20/grappling-with-cindy/#comment-10128 I agree with Adam that what we need is a focused movement. One that demands accountability. Why is it hat this administration believes that personal responsibility must be applied to everyone but them? Shrub, I double dog dare you to meet with Cindy and actually listen to someone who diesagrees with you!!!!!! What a wuss. I agree with Adam that what we need is a focused movement. One that demands accountability. Why is it hat this administration believes that personal responsibility must be applied to everyone but them?

Shrub, I double dog dare you to meet with Cindy and actually listen to someone who diesagrees with you!!!!!! What a wuss.

]]> by: Tiger http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/20/grappling-with-cindy/#comment-10127 Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:20:36 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/20/grappling-with-cindy/#comment-10127 The real virtue of Sheehan's campaign, it seems to me, is her expectation that the president might actually have to talk with someone who disagrees with him. One of my biggest frustrations with this administration--along with all the others--is that the president is never confronted in public with opposing viewpoints. All public events are scripted to focus on supporting pre-conceived policies--viz., the Social Security "town meetings", much of the campaign, etc. Any protest is patronizingly met with "it's nice they have the right to protest" rather than an honest attempt to respond to the protest's content. Once the election happens, it seems, your opportunity to change policy is over--unless you're a donor. Otherwise, shut up and hold on. So, whatever we might think of Sheehan's statements, at least she is demanding some--gasp--accountability. The real virtue of Sheehan’s campaign, it seems to me, is her expectation that the president might actually have to talk with someone who disagrees with him. One of my biggest frustrations with this administration–along with all the others–is that the president is never confronted in public with opposing viewpoints. All public events are scripted to focus on supporting pre-conceived policies–viz., the Social Security “town meetings”, much of the campaign, etc. Any protest is patronizingly met with “it’s nice they have the right to protest” rather than an honest attempt to respond to the protest’s content. Once the election happens, it seems, your opportunity to change policy is over–unless you’re a donor. Otherwise, shut up and hold on.

So, whatever we might think of Sheehan’s statements, at least she is demanding some–gasp–accountability.

]]> by: hedera http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/20/grappling-with-cindy/#comment-10126 Tue, 23 Aug 2005 03:27:57 +0000 http://fanaticalapathy.com/2005/08/20/grappling-with-cindy/#comment-10126 Adam - "Grief, revenge, and victimhood." Wow! How exactly what we have turned into. How unlike what my parents taught me as I grew up. How do we get back to where we take responsibility for what we do, accept the bad breaks, and go on? This isn't really related to Cindy Sheehan except that she got the worst possible bad break and is having major trouble accepting it, and wants someone to blame it on - I guess that's the "grief and revenge" part. I had missed the "America isn't worth dying for". I'm with you there, too, Adam - I don't buy that. I'm reminded of Churchill's remark about democracy, that it was the worst form of government one could imagine - except for all the others. Adam - “Grief, revenge, and victimhood.” Wow! How exactly what we have turned into. How unlike what my parents taught me as I grew up. How do we get back to where we take responsibility for what we do, accept the bad breaks, and go on?

This isn’t really related to Cindy Sheehan except that she got the worst possible bad break and is having major trouble accepting it, and wants someone to blame it on - I guess that’s the “grief and revenge” part.

I had missed the “America isn’t worth dying for”. I’m with you there, too, Adam - I don’t buy that. I’m reminded of Churchill’s remark about democracy, that it was the worst form of government one could imagine - except for all the others.

]]>