Crawford Updates
Take a look and Cindy Sheehan's latest blog post (page down until you get to the headline 'Hypocrites and Liars') http://crawfordupdate.blogspot.com
Who ever would have thought a mom's outrage and sorrow would be the catalyst?
Who ever would have thought a mom's outrage and sorrow would be the catalyst?
posted by EThunk at 4:07 PM
16 Comments:
I'm not a fan of Cindy Sheehan. I'm all for protesting, but the rest of the Sheehan family is mortified and outraged that their mourning (a very private thing for some people) is now smack in the middle of the public eye.
Some have also come out to say they believe Cindy is using her deceased son for her own personal gain/attention, which is kind of the argument she's making against the President.
Anyway...that's what I think. If one of my brothers had died over in Iraq, and my mother did this, I wouldn't be too happy with her either. I think Cindy should be more sensitive to the wishes of her other family members.
And that's all I have to say about that.
A mother has every right to mourn the death of her son any way she pleases.
If I were she, and my kids, or my brother, or my sister or my mom gave me any crap about what I was doing, I'd disown 'em.
Her family should either get on her side, or shut the hell up. Lead, follow or get out of the way.
That's what I think.
If Cindy's son had died of cancer and she were crusading for more cancer research would her family
or the Republicans be accusing her of exploiting his death?
She's trying to give his death meaning any way she can, and it's her call to make, not ours.
The fact that her family members are willing to speak out against her publicly is what's shameful.
They should be either at her side, or be silent. Telling people publicly they don't agree with her is not being silent.
They are being assholes.
But her choice to do this is also forcing the family members and their way of mourning into the public eye, which is the issue I have a problem with.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue.
I don't agree with people that say she's exploiting her son...because I don't think she is...however, I think her family members alive have a right to be upset with how Cindy is choosing to protest, and they shouldn't have to stay silent or agree with her. They have a right to protest her protest.
She has a total right to her opinion...but that doesn't mean others lose their right to respond. Freedom of speech can't be all-encompassing to one and not another.
Most mom's I know will stand behind their children, right or wrong.
Unconditionally.
They won't always agree with them, but they'll be there.
I don't think that's how societies should operate, but that's how strong families do it.
Let's face it, I'm tribal that way.
BTW, you don't have to agree with me on this Skogg. Nobody does. That's my whole point.
It's a bottom line kinda deal
Looking beyond the great Cindy debate the part of this story that seems of substance to me is that she has given the antiwar protest the gas it needed to get going. Not the democrats who can’t seem to put together a coherent strategy on any issue, not the liberals or college students (probably because there isn’t a draft). Perhaps this happened because many finally have a face, a story and a cause to raise a collective voice and question, ‘Yes, why in the heck are we fighting a winless war in Iraq?’
..words of Todd Gitlin at thee Washington Post, ‘Should she and other supporters start haunting more than the president, haunting politicians of all stripes, demanding at the least open debate about our next steps in Iraq, they are likely to build momentum and galvanize still more opposition to staying the course. And a movement will have coalesced, not around gaudy displays, speeches, news conferences or traditional demonstrations, but around an individual's passion to turn her personal loss into a reason for dialogue -- a democratic movement.’
Ethunk. Your point is extremely important. There has never been a time, in my opinion when the women and the moms had a bigger role to play in the future of our country. All the key issues revolve around their liberty, their privacy and the wellbeing of their children. The curious part is that statistically, females have always outnumbered males in our country. Why then are womens issues always the last to be addressed, and their wishes the least heard?
Because even though women account for more than half of the population, they account for only around 10% of politicians on the national level in the United States. Although true representative democracy would mean that the representatives would push the women's issues...the fact is that the politicians don't really care about the issues (at least more than national security, the deficit, etc...) because the issues do not affect them.
Now, compare that to places like Sweden or Norway...more progressive countries where men understand that women's issues DO affect them, and the place of women in politics is closer to the 50% mark...the issues are major o'er there.
At least that's one way to look at it.
Yeah, Skogg, I agree.
It's probably THE way to look at it.
I always liked the Greek's story of Lysistrata. Maybe it's time to use that little bit of significant natural leverage again.
Can you imagine if the only women the Repubs had to sleep with were Ann Coulter and Katherine Harris?
Ann Coulter...now there's a woman who needs a swift kick in the ass.
Not with my foot!
I would gladly offer the use of my foot.
Wear your spike heels.
If you want to see sparks, wait till Saturday.
...on the issue of women's rights, take a look Islam is a source of law...page down to paragraph 10...welcome to the American way to treat women Iraq.
Lone Ranger, what do you know about Saturday? You LR's are always so mysterious.
Polyman...Right On Brother.
...oh so sorry Spinfly. The above post was mine.
Post a Comment
<< Home