Advertise here: Contact FM.

May 29, 2007
9:10 AM Subscribe

"Good Riddance Attention Whore"Cindy Sheehan is done protesting. CNN Story [via]
posted by muckster (172 comments total) 4 users marked this as a favorite

eponysterical?
Not really.

Flagging and moving on.
posted by isopraxis at 9:15 AM on May 29, 2007

I think she actually did help change people's minds about the war. She made a difference.
posted by caddis at 9:15 AM on May 29, 2007

Her message is an important one; it's sad she burned out. Hopefully she can take some rest and get back to work.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:17 AM on May 29, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

She's been at it for a long time now, despite her grief...or probably because of it. I have the utmost respect for her.
posted by sluglicker at 9:23 AM on May 29, 2007

I haven't paid much attention to her, but this I'm taking my marbles and going home¹ lends credence to the namecalling in its title.

1. Perhaps it’s I'm taking my “marbles” and going “home”.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:25 AM on May 29, 2007

Its tempting to go grab a bunch of links to the nuttier things she's said and respectfully post them, but I suppose it won't change anyone's opinion. I sympathize with her, like I sympathize with every parent that's lost a child. But that doesn't give her expertise on any subject but grief.
posted by gsteff at 9:33 AM on May 29, 2007

A lot of anti-war protesters have burned out at this point. Between the fact that all pretenses for initiating the Iraq war have fallen down, the terribly low approval ratings, and the Democrats doing a lot of nothing, this whole affair has done nothing but destroy what hope people had in a democratic process.

And we get graves and crippled vets to live with every day as a reminder.
posted by yeloson at 9:36 AM on May 29, 2007

Can you blame her?

Spineless Democrat representatives can't even represent the majority of Americans when they are the Majority Party.

Couch-potato Idle Americans can't be bothered with protests and activism any more.

Wake the Fuck Up American.

DO SOMETHING, or STFU and hang your head in shame.
posted by HyperBlue at 9:37 AM on May 29, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

In case people didn't RTFA, she titled her announcement "Good Riddance Attention Whore", that's not muckster's doing. This is sad, she sounds so completely defeated, but I also wonder if at least some of her work over the last two years has been an effort to insulate herself from her son's death, and if now she just finally has to try and deal with it. Either way, I have a lot of respect for her.
posted by biscotti at 9:41 AM on May 29, 2007 [4 favorites has favorites]

I sympathize with her cause; unfortunately she went a little over the edge at times and alienated lots of people who were once supportive.
posted by mrbill at 9:41 AM on May 29, 2007

I honestly don't know that much about Cindy Sheehan, except the mud which has been flung at her, but this was a moving and (I think) deeply honest piece.
posted by jokeefe at 9:42 AM on May 29, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Who can blame her? Only a mouth-breathing idiot would spend that much time in a place like Crawford, Texas.
posted by Dave Faris at 9:46 AM on May 29, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Couch-potato Idle Americans can't be bothered with protests and activism any more.

Wake the Fuck Up American.

DO SOMETHING, or STFU and hang your head in shame.
posted by HyperBlue at 11:37 AM on May 29

This places me in a difficult position. As American, I can't do something because I am too overweight to get off the butter and crumb crusted couch [its glandular I think]. So the "do something" option is off the table. And yet I can't hang my head in shame either because the massive meatbeard and fat deposits in my upper chest prevent my chin from going below a 90 degree angle. So what am I to do as American?
posted by dios at 9:46 AM on May 29, 2007 [27 favorites has favorites]

DO SOMETHING, or STFU and hang your head in shame.

Or simply accept that we're generally fucked no matter what we do an go have a beer.
posted by jonmc at 9:49 AM on May 29, 2007

Goodbye, Cruel World!
posted by empath at 9:50 AM on May 29, 2007

I hold Cindy Sheehan in the highest regard. She kept her grief and loss in plain view, and refused to retreat from it, regardless of the pain from personal attacks she endured. She kept the injustice of this war at the forefront of our hearts and minds, if not that, at least she kept it in the media.

By her acts, she did a lot for our troops in the field, and showed the families at home that it is alright to question the entire premise, and to demand proper care for the combat troops and vets of this war. Bless this woman and may she find a personal peace that will sustain her in every moment.
posted by Oyéah at 9:50 AM on May 29, 2007 [4 favorites has favorites]

So what am I to do as American?

I believe that the tried and true third-way involves eating barbecue.
posted by felix betachat at 9:52 AM on May 29, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Complacency is lame. Yet, beer is delicious...
posted by fusinski at 9:53 AM on May 29, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

I have also tried to work within a peace movement that often puts personal egos above peace and human life. This group won’t work with that group; he won’t attend an event if she is going to be there; and why does Cindy Sheehan get all the attention anyway? It is hard to work for peace when the very movement that is named after it has so many divisions.

Depressingly familiar.
posted by hackly_fracture at 9:53 AM on May 29, 2007

!ě-pon-ysterical. I'm a bad person. k5.
posted by acro at 9:54 AM on May 29, 2007

acro's link is probably not safe for work.

Read the article earlier today. It is quite depressing. She seems completely broken by all this.
posted by chunking express at 9:57 AM on May 29, 2007

Complacency is lame. Yet, beer is delicious...

It's not complacency, it's withdrawal in disgust. From the beginning of time, from the top of society to the bottom, people will find ways and reasons to hurt, kill, steal from and screw over eachother. And they'll do it with or without me and what any of us does matters not a whit, so why bother?
posted by jonmc at 9:57 AM on May 29, 2007

So what am I to do as American?
posted by dios at 12:46 PM on May 29 [+]
[!]

DUH!! Outsource it, dude! Christ, you call yourself an American? Call up India and get some guy to hang his head for you at half the price.
posted by spicynuts at 9:58 AM on May 29, 2007 [9 favorites has favorites]

I heard her a few months ago on Democracy Now talking about her new awakening that the so-called peace movement is filled with people who are really quite violent inside. She also said she was trying new methods of coping like meditation. I hope she finds some real peace and balance.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:58 AM on May 29, 2007 [5 favorites has favorites]

jonmc, what you describe is pretty much the definition of complacency.
posted by chunking express at 10:00 AM on May 29, 2007 [5 favorites has favorites]

The Democrats didn't abandon her...she abandoned them. She was an effective face of the anti-war movement, and had just the right emotional appeal; but when she started hanging with Chavez and becoming more "anti-America" than "anti-war", she made it impossible for any politician of any stripe to be seen supporting her.
posted by rocket88 at 10:02 AM on May 29, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

Thank you, Cindy.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 10:03 AM on May 29, 2007

So what am I to do as American?

I say you cherry-pick a poorly worded response and make a toothless joke out of it while ignoring the original post. Oh, wait, you did that.

Or simply accept that we're generally fucked no matter what we do an go have a beer.

Christ, what a depressing thread. This is excellent advice for anyone who thinks that Everclear's "Santa Monica" represents a valid approach to life.
posted by Skot at 10:04 AM on May 29, 2007 [6 favorites has favorites]

Jeez Dios....since you asked and since I know you're being a devastatingly witty and acute socio-political observer, I'll answer in kind, by suggesting you keep on chewin' on the slave labor produced salted and corn syruped fecal burgers till you croak.

I too think that for Cindy Sheehan, all of this was a way to deal with crushing grief, but that doesn't make her words any less valid, although perhaps shrill and desperate sounding and therefore an easy target to demonize, but that doesn't make them any less untrue, and if there's any indicator that she was on the right path, it's the huge sighs of relief heard from certain quarters inside the White House and certain misguided blogs, both right (mostly) and left.
posted by Skygazer at 10:07 AM on May 29, 2007

It wasn't that long ago that Sheehan was all rah-rah for Hugo Chavez. Today, I read that Chavez is shutting down television stations that are critical for his regime.

The day after Memorial Day, I'm still very thankful for Casey Sheehan's sacrifice to preserve my freedom to say that Cindy Sheehan could've chosen any number of more effective ways to get her message across.
posted by frogan at 10:09 AM on May 29, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

I met her once, she was nice, I admire that she tried as hard as she did.

I will say that the hardest thing about being a leftist (after the whole inevitable top down oppression of the have nots by the haves) is hanging out with other leftists, bluuuuurrrgggh. It's enough to drive one into Jonmc's always appealing political philosophy of fatalism combined with intense support for America's breweries.
posted by Divine_Wino at 10:10 AM on May 29, 2007 [3 favorites has favorites]

rocket88, what's the point of sticking with the Democrats when they aren't particularly good at doing much of anything, least of all putting an end to the war?
posted by chunking express at 10:10 AM on May 29, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

critical for his regime

Err, critical of his regime.
posted by frogan at 10:10 AM on May 29, 2007

I sympathize with her, like I sympathize with every parent that's lost a child. But that doesn't give her expertise on any subject but grief.

It doesn't take a Ph.D. in military history to know that the essence of her critique--we were lied into a war that is serving no good purpose--is right on track. If it's experts you want, though, there are plenty of them who are saying that. But the retired generals and the Ph.D.s who were against this war weren't usually mobilizing protests and insisting on meetings with the President. Cindy Sheehan did. Yes, she got a little nutty from time to time, but I can't imagine what it would be like to go from losing a son to being a national lightning rod for the hate and vitriol of the wingnuts like she did. I think I'd make some missteps too.

She tried to something to change the biggest mistake this country has made in generations, and poured her soul into it until she hit the wall. It's hard for me not to think of her in terms of a Greek epic hero. Her grief propelled her into a stuggle bigger than herself, and she railed against the modern day gods of the land. Her strengths and her weaknesses were on public display for all to see. Most mortals can't do that for long. And now she's going home. She couldn't stop our national war, but I hope that the war inside her is over, and she finds the peace and rest that she deserves.

I could write an essay on things I wish she had done differently, but I could write a book on how impressed I am that she did it at all.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 10:12 AM on May 29, 2007 [39 favorites has favorites]

1) .

2) The Democrats didn't abandon her...she abandoned them. She was an effective face of the anti-war movement, and had just the right emotional appeal; but when she started hanging with Chavez and becoming more "anti-America" than "anti-war", she made it impossible for any politician of any stripe to be seen supporting her.

... and still get contributions to stay in power. Which is the point. Power corrupts, even amongst the 'peacemakers'.

The only legitimate reason to gather power is to give it away, the exact opposite of what goes on just about everywhere. We as individuals, groups, movements, parties, countries, have to make the conscious effort together that we will resist the base impulse to power and instead reach out with our hands open to give and receive, not force and take.

The bastards got her down. She's going to take care of herself now.

3) .
posted by lysdexic at 10:12 AM on May 29, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

I'm no fan of Ms Sheehan, but where is it acceptable to refer to her as an attention "whore"?

The whole world seemed to be up in arms about Don Imus calling some broads "nappy headed hos", but the Drudgereport and the OP can put up a link calling Ms Sheehan an "attention whore" and no one seems too concerned.

She provided the right with a convenient focus for the intellectual vacuum that is the anti-war left, but as a woman and a mother she deserves more respect than being called a whore.
posted by three blind mice at 10:13 AM on May 29, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

I'd have only just heard of her without dios bringing her to my attention in charming frothing way. Thanks mate.

Another tear shed for this monumental clusterfuck of a war that will be collected and sold in some manner no doubt.
posted by juiceCake at 10:14 AM on May 29, 2007

I love my dead gay son! That's why “today” I've become a gay activist. I've “also” been working with the Not In My Backyard movement.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:14 AM on May 29, 2007

That was kind of heartbreaking. It's a shame.

We have to remember that the media anointed her she didn't pick up the crown her self. She was thrust out in the spot light because it seemed she met all th criteria for a good sympathetic anti-war poster girl.

But she really wasn't. She was not very articulate and had little "TV" charisma. It was easy for the Bushies to paint her as shrill and kooky.

Sadly I don't think Sheehan did much good for the anti-war movement besides giving cold comfort to the already converted.

Actually I don't think the anti-war movement did much good for the anti-war movement.
posted by tkchrist at 10:16 AM on May 29, 2007

I absolutely respect Cindy Sheehan.

Sometimes she came across as a tad nutty, but the fact that she was willing to put herself out there like that despite all the crap that was flung her way from both sides is definitely saying something in her favor. She didn't make this all about herself, either. She used her situation to call attention to everyone's situation, and it cost her a great deal.

Her announcement that she's quitting may seem like she's "taking all of her marbles and going home," but when you've become as public a figure as she has, it's kind of necessary to say something when you decide to make your exit. Whether or not her words were the best is something I couldn't know - I haven't been through what she's been through all these years - nor have most of us.
posted by katillathehun at 10:16 AM on May 29, 2007

“...but the Drudgereport and the OP can put up a link calling Ms Sheehan an ‘attention whore’ and no one seems too concerned. ”

Maybe because THAT'S HOW SHE TITLED THE ARTICLE? RTFP. Christ.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:16 AM on May 29, 2007

3BM: I had the same reaction initially when this showed up on Google News, but as far as I can tell that was the title of her original piece on DailyKos.

I can't decide if it's gallows humor or a tin ear to her audience, or if DK is reprinting it from someplace else.
posted by abulafa at 10:17 AM on May 29, 2007

I thank her.
posted by pointilist at 10:18 AM on May 29, 2007

It doesn't take a Ph.D. in military history to know that the essence of her critique--we were lied into a war that is serving no good purpose--is right on track...

I know, and I agree. I'm glad that she fought as hard as she did, and wish it had been more fruitful. But her comments on Israel, Chavez, etc. made it impossible for me personally to take anything she says seriously.
posted by gsteff at 10:19 AM on May 29, 2007

“I can't decide if it's gallows humor or a tin ear to her audience, or if DK is reprinting it from someplace else.”

This is the final sentence of her first paragraph:

“Being called an ‘attention whore’ and being told ‘good riddance’ are some of the more milder rebukes.”
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:21 AM on May 29, 2007

I'm no fan of Ms Sheehan, but where is it acceptable to refer to her as an attention "whore"?

1. "Attention whore" is applied to people regardless of gender.
2. "Good Riddance Attention Whore" is the title of TFA, selected by Cindy Sheehan.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:21 AM on May 29, 2007

It's telling that supporters of the war and the Bush administration could and still can only respond to Sheehan's points by attacking her personally — in every foul, misogynistic way imaginable and unimaginable.

EVERY way? Imaginable or un?

They really air-dropped fetid blubber on top of her and called her "a squamous, rugose horror from beyond the Gates of Rlyeh, spawned from the rotten womb of Shub-Niggurath"?

Goodness, they must have been busy.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:21 AM on May 29, 2007 [4 favorites has favorites]

I've admired Cindy since her original stakeout in Crawford; as acts of protest go, that was brilliant for its audacity and simplicity. And Bush handled it with his usual grace and aplomb, letting a situation that could probably have been defused with a few mealy-mouthed words blow up into a whole movement.

But I've never thought Cindy's activities were especially healthy for her. I've had the impression that for her this was a kind of ritual suicide, only instead of flinging herself into a volcano she threw herself at the source of her grief. She threw away her remaining family and everything else she had, with the apparent attitude that nothing, including tomorrow, is so important.

Only now it's tomorrow, and she's not dead. Life not only goes on, it's gone on. And I suspect she's finally just decided that maybe she does have a tomorrow worth worrying about for herself.
posted by localroger at 10:21 AM on May 29, 2007 [3 favorites has favorites]

EB if you read the article you'd note she used those phrases because that's what she's been called online and in the press.
posted by chunking express at 10:22 AM on May 29, 2007

It's telling that supporters of the war and the Bush administration could and still can only respond to Sheehan's points by attacking her personally — in every foul, misogynistic way imaginable and unimaginable.

Sort of like opponents of the war and so-called liberal pundits respond to Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter?
posted by Krrrlson at 10:23 AM on May 29, 2007

From the beginning of time, from the top of society to the bottom, people will find ways and reasons to hurt, kill, steal from and screw over eachother. And they'll do it with or without me and what any of us does matters not a whit, so why bother?

Given the relationship between this war (or how it was prosecuted, anyhow) and the 2000 election, where a few hundred people doing something different could have led to the election of a different president, this is surely the worst possible context to make this kind of argument. I'm not blaming Republican or Nader voters for being unable to predict the future, but their actions could absolutely have made all the difference here.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 10:23 AM on May 29, 2007 [4 favorites has favorites]

the 2000 election, where a few hundred people doing something different could have led to the election of a different president ... their actions could absolutely have made all the difference here.

Quite possibly the wisest thing you'll ever read on MeFi.
posted by frogan at 10:26 AM on May 29, 2007

frogan, I was willing to believe that the 2000 election was a sham and that Americans, on the whole, were good people who actually cared about who governed them. Then, the 2004 elections proved me wrong.

I have lost faith in the basic 'goodness' of the American public. Apathy and greed have trumped pride, responsibility, and valour. The show's over.

How are those Mandarin lessons coming along, folks?
posted by chuckdarwin at 10:32 AM on May 29, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Yep jonmc, that was an incredibly lame comment. The worst part is that I imagine there's millions of people in the USA that feel the same way.

Is it illegal to burn your voter card? I honestly don't know.
posted by stinkycheese at 10:34 AM on May 29, 2007

I've become a gay activist. I've “also” been working with the Not In My Backyard movement.

Would you like to join my gay activism group too? The idea is to deny sex to Republicans. We call it 'Not In My Backpassage'.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 10:34 AM on May 29, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Sort of like opponents of the war and so-called liberal pundits respond to Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter?

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that Michelle and Ann have lost children to this war.

Now I feel bad.
posted by dhartung at 10:36 AM on May 29, 2007 [3 favorites has favorites]

I too cringed at some of her misteps . . . but I believe her to be an American patriot in a time when to few are willing to put themselves out there.

Her story, for those who followed it closely, did shine some light on the Falluja fiasco . . . unsupervised employees of an unprincipled contractor yield animosity, Bremer feels compelled to stand tough and shuts down the local newspaper, Casey is sent in to subdue Falluja and is killed . . . and the question continues to reverberate: FOR WHAT NOBLE CAUSE?

Must our citizen leaders be flawless? Thank you Cindy.
posted by ahimsakid at 10:37 AM on May 29, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Sort of like opponents of the war and so-called liberal pundits respond to Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter?

Please cite one liberal commentator with mass media distribution who has made misogynistic comments about Malkin or Coulter. For example, some counterexample to Beck, Hitchens or Limbaugh.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:37 AM on May 29, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

There was a time when activism in America meant something, and that things sometimes would change due to it.

That time is over.

Seriously, when was the last time activism in America made any difference at all? Has there been anything meaningful since the Vietnam era?

I'm beginning to feel like jonmc, nothing matters anyway so why worry about it, just try to grin and enjoy the misery we are handed on a daily basis. Alcohol helps.
posted by Ynoxas at 10:39 AM on May 29, 2007

Divine_Wino: It's enough to drive one into Jonmc's always appealing political philosophy of fatalism combined with intense support for America's breweries.

Yeah, after 6 years of brain curdling cognitive dissonance and impotent rage, it is the only real viable alternative. I have seen the best minds of my generation choose the pickled brain option...
posted by Skygazer at 10:39 AM on May 29, 2007

Use of "Attention Whore" was Sheehan's final facetious stab back at her critics, and I think it was an excellent choice. My interpretation is, "so you critics call me a whore for attention? DUH. How else was I to bring attention to my son dying needlessly in an unethtical bloodbath unless I whored myself? You would have perhaps stooped even lower than I have if it were your son, so can your righteous attitude. Get off my back. I know what I am." YMMV.

I commend her efforts and am disappointed that her efforts bore no fruit, but it's yet another example I can use for my own pessimistic and defeatist viewpoint that nothing we do matters. The only way to win in politics is not to play, and not to lend support to those who do, because that just encourages their behavior.

I was hoping Ms. Sheehan would prove me wrong. A defeatist doesn't win when he's proven right.
posted by ZachsMind at 10:41 AM on May 29, 2007

So the tin ear then.

Showing up next to Chavez made it impossible to take her seriously anymore, which is tragic since she did manage to make some inspired moves. Or, what robot88 said.
posted by abulafa at 10:42 AM on May 29, 2007

Today, I read that Chavez is shutting down television stations that are critical for his regime.

Heyheyhey, get it straight; Chavez didn't shut down Venezuela's oldest private TV station whose morning news programming and prominent announcer was a popular and vocal critic of the regime's many failings.

He's just democratizing the airwaves by refusing their license renewal. Why do you hate democratizing?

Seconding the sentiment that Sheehan was at best a sincere example of the legitimate pain and betrayal felt by the American families touched by this stupid and illegal war, and at worst either completely ineffective or actually detrimental to the anti-war movement.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:44 AM on May 29, 2007

“EB if you read the article you'd note she used those phrases because that's what she's been called online and in the press.”

No, really? I must have missed that incredibly obvious thing that was so obvious I couldn't have missed it in its obviousness.

“Please cite one liberal commentator with mass media distribution who has made misogynistic comments about Malkin or Coulter. ”

Are you really sure there isn't one? Because there should be.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:46 AM on May 29, 2007

Ugh. It's a powerful article, and I'm so sorry for her loss, but she's playing this off like a bizarre mixture of the endings to The Man Who Would Be King and the Waco siege. Camp Casey went from a powerful, strong message to a catch-all protest site, to a commune of single-issue fanatics treating Sheehan like their messiah.

I feel for her, and I supported ending the war with as much fervor as she did, but when I grew up and realized marching in a protest isn't a catch-all method of ending the war, no matter how many people show up, and when I saw how a lot of the people there were crazy, or for that matter just annoying, I stopped going. I didn't write massive tracts on DailyKos or hang out with South American dictators. She very quickly went from a noble, humble protester to every one of the annoying, costume-wearing, puppet-dangling, movement-embarrassing fringe jobs that made protesting so unpalatable to the majority of the anti-war left.

Sheehan deserves nothing but respect for her strength and empathy for her loss, but none of that ignores how massively disingenuous this is. I'm anti-war and I know I didn't demand she become my mascot, and I think most people against the war are confused about how that happened too. Sheehan's far more responsible for making herself "the face of the anti-war left" than her supporters were, and that had a lot more to do with jumping in front of cameras in pink T-shirts than talking seriously about the loss of her son.

It hurts me- hurts me- to say all that because I want to feel her pain here. But I also want to take her seriously and she worked tirelessly to make that increasingly impossible, and this final message is a culmination of her belief that nothing will satisfy her. That's not necessarily unfair given nothing can and nothing will give her son back to her, but her revelation that the entire country would not fall to her side and agree with her in tandem is about as ludicrous as the revelation that withdrawing all your life savings and putting it on Daddy's Magic Hat in the fourth race at Belmont might not actually be a sure-fire way to become a millionaire. I don't agree with "good riddance-" she had a powerful message and it should have continued to be delivered- but I do agree with "attention whore-" that's a conscious decision she made herself, and to blame me or you or anyone else for that is insulting.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:46 AM on May 29, 2007 [5 favorites has favorites]

Cindy mattered. I think we forget what the mainstream media was like before she came on the scene, but for whatever reason hers was the first anti-war story the major news networks came across that they felt they could tell sincerely and in easily digested soundbite format. Before her, it was rah rah rah war war war 24 7. Now, as she departs, the majority of Americans are firmly against the war and the news is catering to the marketplace.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 10:50 AM on May 29, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

on the other hand, i don't suppose it's occurred to anyone that all the protest and complaining about this war may have stopped the one bush wanted with iran in its tracks ... maybe

the truth is, the political leadership is sitting on its hands until election year so they can either

a) jump up and be the ones to "save" the country from this war and have the pro-war people be on record as against it, never mind that it could have been done now

b) come up with more excuses as how the president is doing it wrong, but they know the right way to do it

this all depends on how the war goes, of course

both sides in washington are playing a cynical political game with this war ...

by november 08, though, i have the very odd feeling that this war will no longer be our biggest problem and this election will be decided for other reasons
posted by pyramid termite at 10:51 AM on May 29, 2007

Jesus Christ, Skot's right: this is a depressing thread. To encapsulate what she's written here as attention whoring might be valid if all she'd ever done is be a keyboard warrior for her beliefs. Instead, she tried something almost no one in public life has the guts to do anymore: to live by her own conscience. That is, to be a public figure free of PR firms to vet her every utterance, of political advisers to decide what her next move should be. Her flaws and errors were laid out in the harshest light for people to revile because unlike most public figures, and certainly our leaders, she made them without any thought toward obfuscation or self-preservation.

Instead, did what her heart told her to do. She did it after the death of her child. She did it after the death of her once happy marriage. She did it in illness. She did it broke. She did it despite the vilest recriminations and threats. Under the combined weight of all that horror, she fought to save some other mothers' children, American and Iraqi both.

So if she wants to lay it out on the line as she has, to say she's finally broken and done -- well, those are her words. No one bought them, spun them, or put them in her mouth, and she's paid one hell of a price for every last one of them.
posted by melissa may at 10:58 AM on May 29, 2007 [8 favorites has favorites]

i don't suppose it's occurred to anyone that all the protest and complaining about this war may have stopped the one bush wanted with iran in its tracks ... maybe

Not a chance. Things that nobody cares about and don't impact anything don't stop wars.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:58 AM on May 29, 2007

It wasn't that long ago that Sheehan was all rah-rah for Hugo Chavez. Today, I read that Chavez is shutting down television stations that are critical for his regime.

"Critical"? They supported his overthrow, despite being democratically elected. Do you think that if an American TV station were actively involved in a failed coup here they'd keep their FCC license?

Cindy Sheehan wasn't very media savvy, and she ended up getting associated with some unpopular people. But the basic problem, for her and for a lot of people, is that the democrats got elected, and then didn't stop the war. I never expected that they actually would, but I had no idea they would actually look so pathetic actually "trying." The only way to stop this war would be to impeach Bush and Cheney.
posted by delmoi at 10:59 AM on May 29, 2007

So, I don't understand this. She lost her son, and she's been publicly speaking out for three or four years. She decides she's tired and demoralized by the lack of success her speaking has had in getting the Ds in congress to move to end the war. But somehow, her tireless speaking out, or maybe her getting burned out by the constant demands of speaking out, mean she's somehow odious.

What should she have done? She thought the war was a bad idea, and she told everybody she could find, in every way she could think of, that it was a bad idea. Finally, after an unbelievable amount of whining and kvetching by people who think any war is a good idea, and that having soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan is great, as long as the thinkers profit by it, she decided to retire from the speaking out business. Should she have just kept her mouth shut to begin with? Should she have continued until her health wore out?

Personally, I think she is a heroine. I'm sad that she is worn out by the calumny of the feces-throwing monkeys of the right wing press and the truly scary conservative nutcases on the web. I'm sorry for her loss, and I wish her nothing but the best.
posted by vilcxjo_BLANKA at 11:01 AM on May 29, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

The only way to stop this war would be to impeach Bush and Cheney.

or shut the government down by refusing to pass a budget for it until bush withdraws

the democrats don't have the guts to do that, though ... and therefore, the war will continue
posted by pyramid termite at 11:05 AM on May 29, 2007

Heyheyhey, get it straight; Chavez didn't shut down Venezuela's oldest private TV station whose morning news programming and prominent announcer was a popular and vocal critic of the regime's many failings.

He's just democratizing the airwaves by refusing their license renewal. Why do you hate democratizing?

Well, if "democratizing" means "not supporting the overthrow of elected governments, and replacing them with unelected dictators who belong to Opus Dei" then I don't exactly see it as a bad thing.
posted by delmoi at 11:06 AM on May 29, 2007

The only way to stop this war would be to impeach Bush and Cheney.
or shut the government down by refusing to pass a budget for it until bush withdraws

Yes, or that. But the idea that that's somehow more reasonable then impeaching the president is what I find bizarre. And also they don't need to shutdown the whole government, but rather simply not pass the supplemental (which they just did).
posted by delmoi at 11:09 AM on May 29, 2007

Please cite one liberal commentator with mass media distribution who has made misogynistic comments about Malkin or Coulter.

Your original comment didn't mention anything about mass media distribution, but good call on changing the goalposts -- since you know full well what a vile stream of racist and sexist trash is routinely expelled from the mouths and keyboards of your political peers at both Malkin and Coulter.
posted by Krrrlson at 11:15 AM on May 29, 2007

Your original comment didn't mention anything about mass media distribution, but good call on changing the goalposts

Your sophistry is amusing.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:17 AM on May 29, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

since you know full well what a vile stream of racist and sexist trash is routinely expelled from the mouths and keyboards of your political peers at both Malkin and Coulter.

Malkin and Coulter are comparable to Sheehan? It amazes me that someone who advocates peace could somehow be on the same "level" as people who advocate genocide and concentration camps. I'm sure people spewed all kinds of "impolite" things about Hitler too.
posted by delmoi at 11:19 AM on May 29, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

"Impolite", sure. But not sexist. Hitler was a dude, after all. /coulterjoke_setup
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 11:22 AM on May 29, 2007

I could never support her simply because she insisted from the beginning to speak for her son, and say that he died for no good reason. She certainly had every right as a grieving Gold star Mother to state how she felt, and that in her opinion it was an unjust war, but to sully her brave son's sacrifice was for me a non-starter.
posted by Gungho at 11:22 AM on May 29, 2007

When I see people posting about her going a little over the edge, or did nutty things, or complaining that she used her status for questionable things, I just want to say:

WAKE UP YOU IDIOTS. Of course she made mistakes, she is not a professional pundit! She is a human being. She has not rehearsed every moment of her life towards being electable, or marketable, or believable, like some people have. Her son was killed in war and she decided to do what she could about it.

Those people you see on C-Span, on CNN, on Fox News, those you hear on talk radio? THOSE PEOPLE DO NOT EXIST. They are constructions, conjured up out of makeup and charisma, and they do the bidding of those who called them into existence. The only ones that are remotely interesting are those who, like John Stewart, are created for purposes unrelated to politics and thus don't have a agenda that qualifies their access to the screen.

I find that I am becoming deeply suspicious of charisma and showmanship in the media, and more interested in whatever outsider voices I can find. Of course it's perfectly possible for them to be co-opted too, but at least they haven't yet, what few of them can be found.
posted by JHarris at 11:36 AM on May 29, 2007 [4 favorites has favorites]

This is what happens when an "attention whore" falls out of the spotlight, biting of the hands that fed her.
posted by acetonic at 11:39 AM on May 29, 2007

Since when do we get to give up?

Shit, nobody told me that we get to give up. Iraq is a chaos, Palestine is falling apart, and we get to give up our modest efforts and go home to quiet leafy gardens without any bombs falling? Wow.

Six months from now, you'll have nothing. You won't have any skills that are useful outside of politics, and you'll have burned your supporters. Those are the people who worked to build you up - your courage, your slim blonde beauty, your persistence would be nothing without them. When you need a vacation, you take one, quietly - and your supporters will take care of you, probably in their own homes. They'll give you the shirt off their back, for years if necessary.

You don't write a post like that. That's a guilt trip post - as if we let YOU down. It was not a well-advised post, although it was well-written and heartfelt.

Your post is full of 'I' and very little 'us'. Reading your post I see the same old whines. You want unity on the left? I do too. It's a holy grail. It takes years and humility to build, and it also takes strong personalities. Four years and the war's not over? I know, it sucks. 10 years on the left and I am still learning, every day. You want a real left Democratic party? I do too. It takes a strong personality to deal with the mud-slinging that you'll get from all sides. It takes drugs, alcohol and other vices for a lot of people to persevere through that shit. And it takes the ability to deal with the grinding down of your own soul. If you can't hack it, fine. I probably couldn't, either. You want us to stop watching American Idol? How about getting an anti-war singer on the show? Maybe stop insulting the people who CANT do what you do - the people who work their asses off, with far fewer resources and privilege that you have had - for wanting a little bit of escape from the horror of war and the grind of every day life.

But, Cindy, you've just given a great moral weapon to the war-mongers. There are beers being hoisted across America as people read your post. Thanks, Cindy. I appreciate your post - it's an object lesson in elitist snobbery.

Thanks for reminding me how grateful I am to be a part of this movement - that I am not in jail or anything near it, that I have survived some pretty crap things that have happened to me, and I can walk out, clean and dry and with a full belly, and tell Gordon Brown he's a war-mongering coward this Saturday.

- Stop The War Coalition member, Scotland
posted by By The Grace of God at 11:41 AM on May 29, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Despite her mistakes, I would be willing to wager she did more than anybody else here in opposition to this war. What she did took courage. More courage than probably most of us here could muster.
posted by chillmost at 11:45 AM on May 29, 2007

or shut the government down by refusing to pass a budget for it until bush withdraws

the democrats don't have the guts to do that, though ... and therefore, the war will continue

I wouldn't say it's a lack of guts but a misunderstanding as to when those guts should be used, and confusion about what guts should be used exactly. The last time someone shut down the government, it was Gingrich making the attempt and Clinton doing the blocking. Gingrich lost everything -- his job, his reputation, everything. I'm sure the Dems learned from that mistake and won't fire that particular bullet. But then they still can't make up their minds as to what to do at all.

The telling satire of the Dems can be encapsulated with this clip. Everybody wonders if Pelosi and the Dems are out to lunch, as this sketch illustrates with perfect hyperbole. But then Pelosi and Co. go out and prove it by doing nothing coherent.
posted by frogan at 11:46 AM on May 29, 2007

And, yes, Cindy, thank you for what you've done already - and yes, it's probably more than I'll ever do.
posted by By The Grace of God at 11:46 AM on May 29, 2007

I told people not to expect too much from the corporate-whore "Democrartic" Party -- they're only politicians. Now the 2008 elections will show how deeply sunk America is, whether the American people will be paying for and suffering from this shit for 30 years or 50.

Germany wasn't half-recovered from WW1 before WW2 started; "West" Germany didn't really recover from those wars till the 1970s, and that was because of Turkish "guest workers" in its rebuilt industrial sector. (The U.S. has no industrial sector left to speak of.)

A "helpful" suggestion for the U.S. as it stands: let foreigners from Central and South America have automatic Green Cards for themselves and five members of their family (women, children and old folks) when they line up at the border stations and enlist in the U.S. Armed Forces. Load the militarily-fit men into buses, take 'em to big camps for training, and ship 'em off to Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran or wherever they're needed. They'll thank you, the "wetback" problem will become an asset, and the U.S. Empire will conquer for another 200 years.
posted by davy at 11:59 AM on May 29, 2007

but to sully her brave son's sacrifice was for me a non-starter.

Think of it this way - if the war (and her son's death) were truly unjust, wouldn't it be more disparaging to his memory to pretend otherwise?

She's in the very difficult position of interpreting the meaning of her son's death. Should it be a message of warning against an unjust cause that claimed his life, or a call to honor his spirit of duty, loyalty, and blind trust which were so fatally abused?
posted by kid ichorous at 12:01 PM on May 29, 2007

it was Gingrich making the attempt and Clinton doing the blocking. Gingrich lost everything -- his job, his reputation, everything. I'm sure the Dems learned from that mistake and won't fire that particular bullet

Actually, Gingrich challenged one of the most popular presidents in history. That's why he lost. By contrast, the Democrats shut down the government in the fall of 1991(or was it 1990?) when Bush/41 was in office, and they ended up winning the presidency in 1992. Anyone who thinks that the lesson of fall 1995 was that "a showdown with the president" means "failure" really lacks any strategic thinking.

On Sheehan: in the summer of 2005, it was quite telling to watch a middle aged woman show to the public that the president was 100% completely out of touch. Anyone who had any doubts about that would see hurricane Katrina a month later prove it.
posted by deanc at 12:05 PM on May 29, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

delmoi, I do not think the word impeachment means what you think it means. (I think America needs more drastic and radical measures.)
posted by davy at 12:09 PM on May 29, 2007

Okay everybody, let's all join hands and sing!

Someone's crying Lord, kumbaya!
Someone's crying Lord, kumbaya!
Someone's crying Lord, kumbaya!
Oh Lord, kumbaya!"

Let the New Kumbaya Movement HEAL America!
posted by davy at 12:12 PM on May 29, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives.

Holy shit, that seems so true and so depressing.
posted by malaprohibita at 12:23 PM on May 29, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

"...play politics with human lives."

But that's how politics is played! Don't just diss the players, diss the game too.
posted by davy at 12:27 PM on May 29, 2007

She posted a flameout worthy of Metatalk.
Related: See #31.
posted by brownpau at 12:29 PM on May 29, 2007

Yes, she got a little nutty from time to time, but I can't imagine what it would be like to go from losing a son to being a national lightning rod for the hate and vitriol of the wingnuts like she did. I think I'd make some missteps too.

Damn, wouldn't anyone? And if you say "no," then you either work for FOX and don't give a flying fuck what anyone thinks of you, or you're insanely overconfident about your non-misstepability.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 12:39 PM on May 29, 2007 [3 favorites has favorites]

It's sad that this country is so apathetic that we let this war go on, hold no one accountable, forgive the democrats capitulation, and let people like Cindy Sheehan fall under scorn because she dares stand up and say WTF.
posted by JWright at 12:41 PM on May 29, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

(Am I hallucinating again, or did Jessamyn delete this thread as "GYOFB" a little while ago, and it's un-deleted just now?)

Compared with how Andrew Bacevich has written about his son's loss, she came across as fairly unfocused, and although she's quitting, it was instructive to me to see how she realized she'd been distracted by others' causes that were at times only tangentially sympathetic to her own. I wonder if this makes it easier or harder for the next Cindy Sheehan(s).
posted by pax digita at 1:35 PM on May 29, 2007

Glad to see this is back up. It's front page on Google News so how it merits a GYOFB and a deletion after almost 100 replies is beyond me.
posted by stinkycheese at 1:41 PM on May 29, 2007

Glad to see this is back up. It's front page on Google News so how it merits a GYOFB and a deletion after almost 100 replies is beyond me.
posted by stinkycheese at 3:41 PM on May 29

What do either of those facts have to do with whether it would merit a GYOFB deletion?
posted by dios at 1:46 PM on May 29, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

I don't know whether the thread merits GYOB deletion or not, but I'm scratching my head over the "via" link. I don't know whether Muckster knows the blog's author or what, but it seems kinda sketchy that I can score an FPP for my blog just by dropping a quick link to a major news story that was the lede on CNN's front page this morning.
posted by cribcage at 1:56 PM on May 29, 2007

Oooh, dios picked a fight with me!

Wellll...it's obviously newsworthy, unless you want to have a go at Google News. It's obviously of great interest to Metafilter's users. And the fact that it's back up, after being deleted, suggests to me that Jessamyn agrees.

GYOFB should be applied to posts that resemble, er, blog postings. There's no slant in the presentation, no axe to grind.

Yes, it is a one-link post, but the subject is an important one: USA's #1 protester of the war has thrown in the towel. This is worthy of discussion, and the discussion, while depressing, has borne that out.
posted by stinkycheese at 1:56 PM on May 29, 2007

Apparently, the "attention whore" bit stumped a lot of people--jessamyn tells me there were 15 flags on the post, so she yanked it because of editorializing ("GYOFB"). I assumed the quotes would tip people off that that wasn't the case. For the record, I have nothing but respect and gratitude for Cindy Sheehan and consider her a true America hero.

On preview: the via is just that--I first saw this linked at House Next Door, so I assumed it was good manners to tip the hat.
posted by muckster at 2:00 PM on May 29, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

stinkycheese: I am not suggesting that GYOBF should apply to this post. What I was trying to convey to you is that "being on the front page of Google News" and "having 100 comments" (or ridiculously subjective things like "important" or "worthy of discussion") are not relevant factors at all in judging the merit of a post. The post stands or falls on its own merits. Your belief that it is important or worthy of discussion because it is on the front page of google news is not the metric for what makes a good post. That is my point. It didn't have to do with this post; I was just disabusing you of the notion that those things you listed matter. A post can be those things and still warrant a "GYOBF" deletion.
posted by dios at 2:13 PM on May 29, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

DO SOMETHING, or STFU and hang your head in shame.

And what have you done? You obviously haven't STFU and I can't tell from here if your head is hanging in shame. I just had this discussion with my neighbor yesterday, were both veterans, we both feel this war has to end but between us we couldn't think of a single thing we could do, as individuals, that would actually make an impact. Talking is easy, actually getting something done is hard.
posted by MikeMc at 2:14 PM on May 29, 2007

It would be nice if America could defend democracy (i.e. lots of cheap gasoline) without having to liberate other countries from tyranny (i.e. bomb them to hell and then take them over), but in this imperfect world we must choose the lesser evil.
posted by davy at 2:19 PM on May 29, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

A post can be those things and still warrant a "GYOBF" deletion.

True. But that would be because of an editorializing set-up to the post, which, as muckster has explained, was mistakenly the cause of the initial yank. Still, thanks for trying to disabuse me.
posted by stinkycheese at 2:40 PM on May 29, 2007

Your original comment didn't mention anything about mass media distribution, but good call on changing the goalposts -- since you know full well what a vile stream of racist and sexist trash is routinely expelled from the mouths and keyboards of your political peers at both Malkin and Coulter.

What!??!! People use bad language about those two instead of reasoned argument against their screeds? I, for one, am afronted. Well, let me be the first to put forth a reasoned argument to Ms Coulter why John Edwards is not gay. Yes, I'll start there, and then proceed to address her other well reasoned theses. Then I'll move over to Ms Malkin's thoughtful polemics. Yes, then the unicorms will come out and dance with the fairies. Mmmmm, fairies....
posted by Mental Wimp at 2:42 PM on May 29, 2007

I'll ask again BTW: is it illegal in the USA to burn your voter card?
posted by stinkycheese at 2:43 PM on May 29, 2007

Compared with how Andrew Bacevich has written about his son's loss, she came across as fairly unfocused...

Guilt

I am guilty,
But not in the way you think.
I should have earlier recognized my duty;
I should have more sharply called evil evil;
I reined in my judgment too long.

I did warn,
But not enough, and clear;
And today I know what I was guilty of.

====

...it was instructive to me to see how she realized she'd been distracted by others' causes that were at times only tangentially sympathetic to her own

I can't find any reference now, but I seem to recall that she used to be a public relations person, or in that field. I think that's why she was able to stand up to the pundits and the shrill critics at first and then was able to ignore them (not have to appear on their shows to get in the news). That she got caught up and used by people she didn't expect to do that shows she wasn't much of a politician is all.
posted by lysdexic at 2:46 PM on May 29, 2007

I'll ask again BTW: is it illegal in the USA to burn your voter card?
posted by stinkycheese at 2:43 PM on May 29 [+]
[!]

NAFAIK, in TX, anyway. You can show your ID and if they can find you on the voter list, you get to vote.

Not sure what good it would do, but if it makes you feel better, ok. Just don't like, put a flag sticker on it first, because then you'd be in trouble.
posted by lysdexic at 2:53 PM on May 29, 2007

That makes it even more surprising -- if she was in what I think of as the "professional gladhanding" line of work, you'd think she'd've seen it coming.
posted by pax digita at 2:55 PM on May 29, 2007

By contrast, the Democrats shut down the government in the fall of 1991(or was it 1990?) when Bush/41 was in office, and they ended up winning the presidency in 1992.

And I'd argue that the Dems didn't "win" that presidency at all -- it was a combination of Clinton running away from anything remotely Democratic (e.g. Sister Souljah); Bush 41 being an idiot (e.g. "I don't get it"); and Ross Perot splitting the Republican base (he took like 20 percent of the overall vote). Once in power, Clinton ran even further away from the Democratic left.

Besides Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we've ever had. ;-)
posted by frogan at 3:08 PM on May 29, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

lysdexic: I'm Canadian. Just curious.

Actually I'm asking because some people here are expressing frustration at the lack of options for them to try & effect change in society, USA 2007. Burning ones' voter card would be one (potentially) dramatic way people could (theoretically)* express dissatisfaction with the very means through which their country is governed - the system Sheenan is critical of in the posted piece when she says:

"People of the world look on us Americans as jokes because we allow our political leaders so much murderous latitude and if we don’t find alternatives to this corrupt "two" party system our Representative Republic will die and be replaced with what we are rapidly descending into with nary a check or balance: a fascist corporate wasteland."

If you agree that partisan politics have ceased to serve the US, that the system as is is dysfunctional, this could be a way of non-violently demonstrating that belief*. In essence, it would be saying 'this voter card, this vote, is worthless'. It would also call attention to the US' recent voter turnout, which is shameful by any standard. If it is illegal to do so however, I would not expect many people do it*. So I was curious, remembering the burning draft cards (not to mention bras) of the USA late-1960s.

Of course there are other non-violent possibilities (some of which could get you arrested or beaten) - but this thread is a laundry-list of reasons why people don't go for those sorts of rather obvious measures en masse in the face of the current Administration. You know what though? Forget about the burning voter cards - if that 70% of Americans opposed to the war mentioned above just called in sick & didn't go to work tomorrow, you could get to be lazy and cripple the system. It's win-win, right?

*stinkycheese in no way encourages the burning of anything that'll get you into trouble
posted by stinkycheese at 3:45 PM on May 29, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Why not vote for a third party? Or vote in the primaries for someone like Kucinich who has voted against the war and the administration's worst excesses from the start? I don't think not voting is an effective protest. How would anybody know? Even if they found out, how would they realize it was principled opposition instead of laziness or apathy? Burning your voter card would only make any difference if you got lots of publicity. It seems a bit unlikely. Nobody's forcing you to vote for a Republican or a Democrat.
posted by SBMike at 3:59 PM on May 29, 2007

I was imagining a lot of people doing this, in a group like. With a very simple statement going out to press, perhaps. It's not like you'd do it in your bathroom over the sink with the shades drawn.

But I don't want to derail this thread into whether to burn your voter card or not, specifically. I'm all for proper channels, and writing your congressperson. I'm all for voting for a third party. I just wonder if it isn't too late for that now. I wonder if some sort of public display wouldn't perhaps start the dominos falling.

It's something anyways. If you live long enough to have grandchildren on your knee, and they ask you what you did during the 2000s when The Bad Stuff Happened, an awful lot of people are going to have to 'fess up like jonmc that they basically just grumbled about it and had another beer. Talk about going quietly! It's not how I thought TLOTFATHOTB would end.
posted by stinkycheese at 4:20 PM on May 29, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

I'm glad that she took a stand and stood up for what she believed in. We need more people like her in this world.
posted by cell divide at 4:40 PM on May 29, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Minor point: Americans know that this war is lost, and that every soldier dying now is dying for a mistake. The emergent meme is now gee, if only the anti-war left had had better spokesmodels rather than Sheehan and Michael Moore. As if the mainstream media itself isn't complicit in allowing this war to happen.

For the Dems to so completely surrender last week and give Bush the bill he wanted? I don't fucking blame her. Not one bit. Look at what she's fighting against -- the combined forces of American complacency and a presumed sense that we can do no wrong, ever, right or left.

Another minor point: Sheehan is thought of by a few as an "opportunistic bitch" around here. Read the memos, people.
posted by bardic at 4:42 PM on May 29, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

She's not giving up: ... Sheehan's tone then becomes stronger and more positive as she looks to the future, making it clear that she is not giving up activism. She says, "We're gonna see what other direction we can come at it, because obviously the direction that we're going has stopped being effective. ... We're gonna close up the factory, we're gonna retool, and we're gonna see how we can come at this problem from a different angle."
...
posted by amberglow at 4:46 PM on May 29, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

stinkycheese - are you sure that burning one's voter card would be the best message to send? To me, it sends a message of apathy - "things aren't going my way, so I'm not even going to try to vote and change things anymore"
posted by fermezporte at 4:56 PM on May 29, 2007

Another minor point: Sheehan is thought of by a few as an "opportunistic bitch" around here. Read the memos, people.

Oh, no!
posted by Snyder at 5:07 PM on May 29, 2007

fermezporte: No, it's definitely not the best message to send. The best message to send would've been to vote out George W. Bush in 2004. As for now, I see the Democrats as being little better than the Republicans; to me, they're two sides of the same ugly coin. If I were voting in US elections, personally I'd have voted for Nader. I no longer believe he'd be elected even if the majority of people voted for him however.

My point really is that there are still things that can be done. I wish I had picked a better example, I was really just wanting to know whether it was even legal to do that in the US or not.

Personally, I think everybody should shut off their TVs and stop shopping in malls. That'd change things really quickly. But consumers have been well-taught to equate consumption with freedom - so, you know, they wanna be free to watch TV and shop at the mall.
posted by stinkycheese at 5:13 PM on May 29, 2007

I should preface that I was brought up in a very civil-service oriented politics is part of every day life family, so not voting was the equivalent of draft-dodging = cowardice growing up, and that attitude is still with me.

There have been a lot of individuals and movements that advocate just what you're talking about, stinkycheese. They write letters to the editor, trying to say that not voting is not giving up, it's just trying to find a different way. They volunteer, they band together, form groups and small movements, that sort of thing.

That's nice for them and the individuals they touch, and for those encouraged by such activities. These movements rarely work (have visibility) outside of a few hundred people, so you're not really going to see anything on a national level.

IMHO, the two really big party shifts happened over race and economics: 1) the Whig/Democrat split and the formation of the Republican Party, and 2) the "Regan Democrats" switching their votes because of "staglfation". LBJ said "We [Democrats have] lost the South for a generation" when he signed the Civil Rights laws in the 60's.

I understand in the parliamentary system, the representatives are elected, and then you form the government. Here, that kind of happens during the primaries, the caucuses, etc. That's where the bulk of the dickering and dealing occurs, and a lot of really good stuff is watered down by the time the convention comes around.

It used to be that there was still bickering and dickering going on during the conventions, which is why it used to take more than one ballot to select a nominee. Now that they're televised, and exposed to the bright lights of television, the wheelers and dealers, like roaches, have scurried to the dark corners and have found other ways to get what they want.

Sometimes it's under the radar radio ads, or smear campaigns that work just long enough to change or disgust just enough people that they either vote the "right" way or stay home. Sometimes it's plain old double crossing during negotiations.

There are ways to remedy this. One is to yes, goddamit, VOTE. Enough people actively participating can overwhelm any (but never all) attempts at voter intimidation, voter disqualification, and other "dirty tricks". It happened in 2006, it can happen again.

Another is to PAY ATTENTION, even to the MSM, because it's all usually right there. The part to pay attention to is the news bit, not the pundits or their "thoughts" on the "matters of import', because you're just buying into what they think is important, not what you care about. I think if the ratings went down for the pundit-tainment shows, and up for hard news, we might actually get some (yeah, pipe-dream, but why not)

Then of course there's ACTING - my congresscritters have a file an inch thick on me, and I get some creative letters back, because I specifically ask their staffers not to give me specific platitutes when I ask them about specific issues. Before our last phone blew out, we had our senators and representatives in the phone list.

Obviously it takes more than that from me now, and from others. But you figure if 10 people who've never done it before start doing the little I'm doing now, it might have an effect.

But it would be a small one, because the elephant in the room is the canard that MONEY = SPEECH. That and the concept that corporations are 'persons' with rights but no responsibilties are the biggest, most odious things to have happened to the country. Those was handed down by the SCOTUS, and it's almost harder to change rulings than G.W.'s mind about..well, anything.

To really get everything going and a real majority going in the same direction on real public campaign financing, on real 'sunshine' laws, real transparent politics, you'll need a huge catalyst, and I'm terribly sorry to say, right now Iraq/Afghanistan isn't enough. Iran might not be enough, because the money that controls those decisions also controls the media and message, and not enough people are paying attention. It may take another Depression, another attack (the "Strategic Class" may try to use this as another opportunity to stay in power, but I personally don't think it will work). Or a crazy lady camping out in the hot August sun and trying to starve herself in her grief.

*stinkycheese in no way encourages the burning of anything that'll get you into trouble

:D. Sometimes you need to get into trouble to get the attention you need to get your message across.

Martyrs are heroes to themselves, a menace to the faithful, and fools to the unbeliever. Witness the range of responses here to Sheehan's beginning, middle, and end.
posted by lysdexic at 6:03 PM on May 29, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

but to sully her brave son's sacrifice was for me a non-starter

this is infantile thinking, IMV. Not all deaths in the line of duty are a noble sacrifice; it depends on the manner of death, the conflict in question, and the stage of national engagement in that conflict.

The present conflict, launched upon with the willful deceit of a deeply-divided polity, is a sad case of this. Sheehan was killed in April 2004, in the opening stages of a guerilla insurgency that should not have materialized had our cause been right, and had been prosecuted right.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 7:11 PM on May 29, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Agreed, but her son thought he was doing a noble thing. And so do thousands of others who have volunteered even after 2004.
posted by Gungho at 7:29 PM on May 29, 2007

And so do thousands of others who have volunteered even after 2004.

One person cannot "sully" anything in this respect.

Either a particular death in this conflict is a noble sacrifice, or it is not.

I don't pretend to be in the moral position to judge this, for it is indeed one's own opinion. I respect people who think deaths in this conflict have been wasted, and I respect people who think otherwise, given they have rational, factually-grounded reasons for still believing in our cause there.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 7:41 PM on May 29, 2007

Why not vote for a third party?

You mean, why not throw your vote away. Maybe you can even vote for Mr. Unsafe at Any Speed and give the presidency to a dim witted alcoholic puppet who does Darth Cheney's evil bidding.
posted by caddis at 8:15 PM on May 29, 2007

Just watch these two videos to see the trashing she took in the media, and the calm dignity with which she responded. My God, if only the media would start holding the people in this administration's feet to the fire with the same vigor and tenacity with which they bullied a grieving peace-seeking Mom.

I'm unhappy with the dems recent performance but let's be real - they don't have the votes to do very much. The media is doing a good job writing the narrative that the dems haven't ended the war the way they said they would, demonizing Pelosi (don't they love trashing her) and Reid - and once again, letting the responsible criminals off the hook.

I heard a talking head saying that the American people are now left with serious reservations about whether Democrats can be trusted to govern. True, I have serious reservations. But I have no reservations whatsoever about the fact that the Republican party has repeatedly proven their inability to be trusted to govern - so I will go with doubtful ability over certain ineptitude, thank you very much.
posted by madamjujujive at 8:51 PM on May 29, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that Michelle and Ann have lost children to this war.

Now I feel bad.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that Michelle or Ann had reproduced.

Now I feel bad.

If I were voting in US elections, personally I'd have voted for Nader.

Considering that your profile says you live in the 905, this would have gotten you about as far as voting for the Green Party (and, depending on your riding, the NDP)—that is, nowhere.
posted by oaf at 10:24 PM on May 29, 2007

Casey died for a noble cause. The cause wasn't the one that Bush wanted, however. He died in the cause of a military which functions at the command of the (supposedly) elected civilian leadership.

That he should not have died in this manner, and shouting this fact, in no way detracts from his sacrifice, or the sacrifice of those thousands other soldiers who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, or for that matter, Viet Nam.

A soldier agrees to give up a lot personal liberty and risk their life, in any way and for any cause for which it is required. For this, we owe them our deepest gratitude. When that cause is unjust, we owe them our deepest shame.

I have nothing to say against Cindy Sheehan. She suffers a horrible loss from which she is unlikely to ever fully recover. She took that loss and used it to make some political hay for which the nation was desperate. It is not for me to judge her actions, nor do I feel so inclined.

However, I do have my heaps of scorn to pour forth upon the heads so deserving. And those heads are 'ainly Democratic heads, shame though that be. Of what value is such scorn heaped upon the damned that have brought us here in the first place?

The good guys were supposed to do something, and they failed. I never expected anything good to come of this administration, coming to office as it did, based on lies. But I expected a lot more of the Democratic Party, and it has failed utterly.
posted by Goofyy at 3:21 AM on May 30, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

I don't recall Sheehan ever saying anything bad about the armed forces of America. Her bile was reserved solely for GWB from the beginning. He was her target. That's why she went to Crawford. That's why she went to DC. If her goal had ever been to diss her son's military, she woulda stood in front of the Pentagon, not the White House.

This argument is tired. One can stand against how this country is being run without peeing on the military that powers it. It's a fine line however. I am admittedly amazed that so many American men and women would follow orders and execute this war, facilitating the power that makes Bush think he can cleanse the Middle East of whatever he doesn't like. Of course, military men and women are conditioned not to question authority. To do so inside the military is treason. People who fight for our country don't have the inalienable rights that they protect for the rest of us.

Am I the only one who finds that entirely absurd? The alternative of course would be to have no organized defense. So essentially America is living a lie. If we can't do this without taking the rights away from some people, then rights aren't inalienable. Rights become a matter of luck, geography, superiority to others, wealth, and a host of other factors.

So Sheehan's son died for a lie. He died protecting rights he himself wasn't experiencing. That's not a statement against the military. It's just an obvious observation that everyone seems to overlook.

Casey died for freedom, but didn't have freedom himself. All military personel are fighting for something that, while in the military, they don't have. What's wrong with this picture?
posted by ZachsMind at 6:45 AM on May 30, 2007

Am I the only one who finds that entirely absurd? The alternative of course would be to have no organized defense. So essentially America is living a lie. If we can't do this without taking the rights away from some people, then rights aren't inalienable. Rights become a matter of luck, geography, superiority to others, wealth, and a host of other factors.

I find it absurd, but also necessary. It's our job to protect them from crazy, stupid, useless wars.

So Sheehan's son died for a lie. He died protecting rights he himself wasn't experiencing. That's not a statement against the military. It's just an obvious observation that everyone seems to overlook.

True, it doesn't get mentioned much - it's one of those things that are understood but not really thought about. Those in the service have the right to speak their minds to an extent, even be against the wars they're fighting. Depending on where they are, and as long as they get the job done, the repercussions are not usually severe. Then there's the option of directly petitioning Congress for redress.

Casey died for freedom, but didn't have freedom himself. All military personel are fighting for something that, while in the military, they don't have. What's wrong with this picture?

Whatever lies he died for, it wasn't a lie that he died for our freedom and for his. Everyone who volunteers knows that the military owns you body and brain for the duration. That is why the sacrifice they make is noble, no matter the particulars of how and why. The wrong part of the picture is why he was there, and why we weren't able to stop it.
posted by lysdexic at 7:41 AM on May 30, 2007

it wasn't a lie that he died for our freedom and for his.

lysdexic, how did he die for your freedom? Are Iraqis trying to take it from you?
posted by chunking express at 8:37 AM on May 30, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

I'm not blaming Republican or Nader voters for being unable to predict the future, but their actions could absolutely have made all the difference here.
posted by game warden to the events rhino

Yep. There's a new Congress in town now and just look at the difference they have made in our occupation of Iraq--standing up to GW the way they did. They absolutely have made all the difference here!
posted by leftcoastbob at 8:52 AM on May 30, 2007

it wasn't a lie that he died for our freedom and for his.

lysdexic, how did he die for your freedom? Are Iraqis trying to take it from you?

This may be hard to grasp, so I'll use small words.

+ He volunteered to serve his country. That the country was doing wrong is irrelevant and a whole other topic.

+ He did what he was asked to do even if it went against what he believed, because that's what he'd volunteered to do.

+ He died doing it.

AGAIN, it's our responsibility to make sure that the people who give up so much for us are not misused.

On preview: leftcoastbob, 'twas a set-up, they fell for it, and now it's up to us.
posted by lysdexic at 9:34 AM on May 30, 2007

lysdexic, how did he die for your freedom? Are Iraqis trying to take it from you?

This may be hard to grasp, so I'll use small words.

That was rather disingenuous and didn't at all address the question. I take it you mean that he died because we didn't use our freedoms to subvert the process of going to war?
posted by Burhanistan at 9:42 AM on May 30, 2007

+ He volunteered to serve his country. That the country was doing wrong is irrelevant and a whole other topic.

+ He did what he was asked to do even if it went against what he believed, because that's what he'd volunteered to do.

+ He died doing it.

How do you get "for our freedom" out of that? "For our foreign policy interests," maybe. Or "for our president," but "our freedom" hasn't been at stake for centuries.
posted by breezeway at 9:50 AM on May 30, 2007

This may be hard to grasp, so I'll use small words.
posted by lysdexic

I'm still not grasping it--maybe the words are still too large??
posted by leftcoastbob at 10:07 AM on May 30, 2007

This may be hard to grasp, so I'll use small words.

Dude, I think you should have used smaller words.
posted by chunking express at 10:10 AM on May 30, 2007

I take it you mean that he died because we didn't use our freedoms to subvert the process of going to war?

I suppose so, yes. Actually I'm saying not enough of us did.

How do you get "for our freedom" out of that? "For our foreign policy interests," maybe. Or "for our president," but "our freedom" hasn't been at stake for centuries.

Too many mixed presumptions for my brain. I'll see if I can tease them out.

To me, anyone who volunteers for the service is already sacrificing life and limb for the good of the country. Whether it's to "give something back", "get training for the real world", or "get out of this hick town", they do it, and should be commended, period*. Dying while in that service is honorable, to me.

"for our president", "for oil", etc., are legitimate questions/arguments/discussions. I'm just tired of talking about them and want to do something.

"our freedom", if you really want to argue about it, is at stake now, and its enemy is not in Iraq, it's here.

========
*ok, fine, we have those who just want to kill 'sand-niggers'. or they really belive the schlock coming out of Washington. That's true of any war, anytime, anywhere.
posted by lysdexic at 10:21 AM on May 30, 2007

"our freedom", if you really want to argue about it, is at stake now, and its enemy is not in Iraq, it's here.

So he didn't die for your freedom. I'm glad we're all clear.
posted by chunking express at 10:40 AM on May 30, 2007

My first pile-on. I'm so touched. *sniff*

In any case, I still believe that when someone signs up for the military, they are doing so in the belief that they are protecting our country from harm, and by definition, to me, our freedom.

That they are contractually obligated to not protect us from our own government is what (so far) is keeping the US from turning into even more of a Banana Republic than it is.
posted by lysdexic at 11:12 AM on May 30, 2007

I still believe that when someone signs up for the military, they are doing so in the belief that they are protecting our country from harm, and by definition, to me, our freedom.

And I believe that everyone who becomes a lawyer does so in order to pursue truth and justice. Every politician enters public "service" as a defender of our constitution. CEO's of pharmaceutical companies come to their post because they care about the health of individuals.

Need I mention the mission statements of the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy to make my point or just use smaller words?
posted by leftcoastbob at 11:30 AM on May 30, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

On reflection, I can't help but notice that my last comment was rude and way too pissy. Sorry.
posted by leftcoastbob at 11:38 AM on May 30, 2007

Meh, I laughed. Everyone has something they need to believe in, and they should expect to be called on it.
posted by lysdexic at 11:56 AM on May 30, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Everyone has something they need to believe in

Having blind faith that the US running around in Iraq blowing shit up is some how making you more free isn't a good thing. The war isn't even making Iraqis more free. There are better things to believe in.

Why is it so bad to say that people dying while fighting in Iraq are in fact dying for nothing?
posted by chunking express at 12:06 PM on May 30, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Are we even arguing? I am not getting this at all.

From a domestic and international political perspective, yes, the soldiers are dying and being mutilated for the true purpose of oil/world domination. For that, we bear the responsibility of getting our representatives to bring them home. You want to say so? Go right ahead. I think so, too.

What I don't think, and what I won't do, is tell a soldier what s/he should be doing/thinking, because s/he doesn't agree with me.

Getting back to the original topic, Mrs. Sheehan believes her son died for nothing. I don't think so, because 1) see my definitions above, and 2) she herself was a spark that ignited a movement and got the debate shifted to the mainstream.
posted by lysdexic at 12:20 PM on May 30, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Lysdexic,

looking back from a domestic or political perspective most wars are for something 'I' want that 'you' have. whether it is spice, gold, silver, land, oil, minerals, slaves, lebensraum, Heck, I'd even throw Religion into the mix. So in her view they were all wrong? Or only the ones the US started?
posted by Gungho at 1:25 PM on May 30, 2007

The spice must flow! sorry, couldn't help it

most wars are for something 'I' want that 'you' have

Yeah. One could argue 'all', but most works.

So in her view they were all wrong? Or only the ones the US started?

I really don't know. I guess you'd have to ask her. I believe there are 'just wars', in that it is right and proper to send your children off to kill or be killed or to do it yourself. I don't believe that this one is.
posted by lysdexic at 2:02 PM on May 30, 2007

Having blind faith that the US running around in Iraq blowing shit up is some how making you more free isn't a good thing. The war isn't even making Iraqis more free. There are better things to believe in.

I'm pretty sure lysdexic isn't saying that. (Not to put words in your mouth.) I know that when I say things similar to what he is saying, is that Sheenan died for our freedom not by getting going to Iraq and being killed there, but by following his lawful orders and not deciding, (en masse with others,) that because the war is wrong, and hasn't been stopped by the civilian leadership, he shouldn't go, and especially that, because the war hasn't been stopped by the civilian leadership, that he should replace the civilian leadership. That's our freedom, (as I see it,) and our responsibility.
posted by Snyder at 2:24 PM on May 30, 2007

I like Sheehan. I’ll miss her.

“What I don't think, and what I won't do, is tell a soldier what s/he should be doing/thinking, because s/he doesn't agree with me.”

Well said. Last thing we want is our military running our country for our own good.

I don’t know that the ‘died for nothing’ and ‘died for something’ are mutually exclusive.
I think she’s right in the sense that, in this particular war, the objectives were/are unnecessary to any realistic or necessary national goals or ideals. Her son was in a very real sense, used by elitists. But by the same token that doesn’t invalidate his very real commitment to serve the country. His death can have a very real meaning in that sense. But in my estimation that makes the misuse of his sacrifice all the more dispicable. It is very much that his death does have meaning and that he was willing to lay down his life for us, and his willingness was beguiled and the cause was distorted and he was used for something he would likely have opposed with his life - that makes it such a crime and a shame.
But indeed, it motivated his mother (and others) to great efforts on behalf of peace. I don’t think such a death could be in vain.

I suspect though it’s just a short tagline to stir the emotions of people who already oppose the war and piss off those who support it. And indeed, it’s often pointless to engage fanatics of whatever stripe in rational thought so why waste the time with a deeper comment requiring more introspection.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:30 PM on May 30, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

But in my estimation that makes the misuse of his sacrifice all the more dispicable.

Totally. That's the real point--there are people who are willing to kill or die for this country, and that's really important, so it's all the more reason you shouldn't be sending them to play cop or to guard oil or to install a new puppet--you should only use them when it's necessary for this country and for all of us.
posted by amberglow at 3:29 PM on May 30, 2007

and--only as a last resort. (way too often overlooked, even by me just now)
posted by amberglow at 3:30 PM on May 30, 2007

As Michael Moore put it in Fahrenheit 9/11:

I've always been amazed that the very people forced to live in the worst parts of town, go to the worst schools, and who have it the hardest are always the first to step up, to defend us. They serve so that we don't have to. They offer to give up their lives so that we can be free. It is remarkably their gift to us. And all they ask for in return is that we never send them into harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary. Will they ever trust us again?

posted by kirkaracha at 4:43 PM on May 30, 2007

Amy Goodman interviewed Cindy Sheehan today
posted by muckster at 6:32 PM on May 30, 2007

The First Carnival for Radical Action
-- tons of great tips and links for organizing, getting media, running groups, raising attention, educating...

Let everyone pick up where she left off.
posted by amberglow at 7:19 PM on May 30, 2007

Will they ever trust us again?
They don't trust now, with good and valid reason. They need the things the services offer--college money, training, etc--It's a purely practical bargain and they are at risk of getting the short end of the stick always.

Wanna kill the military (or bring back the draft)? Eliminate all benefits to vets and stop the college money.
posted by amberglow at 7:22 PM on May 30, 2007

This is excellent advice for anyone who thinks that Everclear's "Santa Monica" represents a valid approach to life.

You hurt my feelings, Skot. I want you to apologize right now.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:08 PM on May 31, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

I'm late to the thread, but I want to say that I met Cindy Sheehan too, and she emanated authenticity and gentle grace. I admire her greatly, and I am ashamed to hear that she has been pilloried by Democrats for calling the party out on its hypocrisy on ending the war.

Cindy, you're a hero to me. You've done more than your share, far more, to stop this crime against humanity and the criminal gang in the white house. I hope the world leaves you in peace.

A lot of us love you. And always will. In the darkest days when it seemed nothing could ever be done, you stood up against the evil machine and inspired millions of us with your simple courage, like a Rosa Parks of our time. Don't let the haters get you down. You're the real patriotic deal. And don't give up on this country yet. We must keep fighting the death-dealers and fear-mongers because there is no other choice.

Godspeed. We'll take it from here. Pax vobiscum.
posted by spitbull at 8:41 PM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Cindy, you're a hero to me. You've done more than your share, far more, to stop this crime against humanity and the criminal gang in the white house. I hope the world leaves you in peace.

A hero to many of us, and she's not done fighting--we'll see her again.
posted by amberglow at 8:57 PM on June 1, 2007

Marine Corps Wants America's Favorite Marine To Shut Up!
posted by homunculus at 12:35 PM on June 2, 2007

Adam Kokesh is the real deal, and the evildoers are going to have a hard time trashing a real-deal Marine Iraq war vet with tattoos up and down his arms. Thanks for the reminder homunculus.
posted by spitbull at 2:36 PM on June 2, 2007

Kokesh--rrowwrrrr!!! ; >
posted by amberglow at 2:56 PM on June 2, 2007

I'd never heard of Kokesh before. What a load of shit the marines are putting him through!
posted by leftcoastbob at 5:13 PM on June 2, 2007

Gary Kurpius, the national commander of the VFW (not an organization noted for left-leaning, anti-war sentiments) said, "Trying to hush up and punish fellow Americans for exercising the same democratic right we’re trying to instill in Iraq is not what we’re all about,” he said. “Someone in the Marine Corps needs to exercise a little common sense and put an end to this matter before it turns into a circus.”
posted by leftcoastbob at 6:54 PM on June 2, 2007

John Nichols on Cindy Sheehan's farewell: "this is the truest measure of the darkness in which we now find ourselves."
posted by muckster at 7:12 AM on June 3, 2007

thanks muckster. that was powerful stuff.
posted by spitbull at 7:21 AM on June 3, 2007

very good.

...But we should recognize the troubling turn politics have taken when one of democracy's true believers ends her intense activism by saying, "I am deemed a radical because I believe that partisan politics should be left to the wayside when hundreds of thousands of people are dying for a war based on lies that is supported by Democrats and Republicans alike. It amazes me that people who are sharp on the issues and can zero in like a laser beam on lies, misrepresentations, and political expediency when it comes to one party refuse to recognize it in their own party. ...

And then we come back to what to do--whether to keep prodding the party we have or to allow the GOP to run rampant and to rampage until other parties can be grown.
posted by amberglow at 8:25 AM on June 3, 2007

Breezeway said: "but "our freedom" hasn't been at stake for centuries."

I hazard to differ on that point, BreezeWay. Fact is, our rights are at stake but in a 'lobster in slowly boiling water' kinda way. It's little incremental indicators that weaken individual rights over time, in ways that may bring discomfort, but not to a point where something is done about it. We acclimate. We get used to changes in policy. So it's a little harder to get on the plane. We give up convenience or privacy in return for security and we think this improves our lives, but it's worse than robbing from Peter to pay Paul.
posted by ZachsMind at 9:07 AM on June 3, 2007

AmberGlow said: "A hero to many of us, and she's not done fighting--we'll see her again."

Goodness gracious I hope not. She's sacrificed enough. Let someone else carry the torch for awhile. I nominate you, Amber. =)
posted by ZachsMind at 9:14 AM on June 3, 2007

We ALL need to be carrying the torch and ALL need to be fighting--always.
posted by amberglow at 12:30 PM on June 3, 2007

Is I on still words get out?
posted by nola at 5:38 PM on June 6, 2007

« Older Fontfilter... | Justin.tv,... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

May 29, 2007 9:10 AM Subscribe

May 29, 2007
9:10 AM Subscribe