Cindy Sheehan realizes irrelevance two years later than world

[Snrrub]

Originally posted by Dalaena

I can't ever imagine doing what she's doing because I DO feel that she's disrespecting her son's choices

So if your child died of a drug overdose, you wouldn't become an anti-drug activist because that would disrespect his/her choices, am I right?

[Dalaena]

Originally posted by Snrrub
It's absurd to the point of hilarity to say that she's a whack-job lunatic while simultaneously being a cunning activist businesswoman.

I scrolled up and re-read. I don't really see anyone saying that she's a cunning activist businesswoman or even trying to imply that. One person asked that someone cite the fact that she was profiting off her son's death. That was done. The end. You're welcome to argue that strawman, though.

Originally posted by Snrrub

If one thinks that she's using her son's death as a political tool, I can agree with that. I'll also note that there's nothing wrong with that, either. There are plenty of activists that are motivated by a personal loss, and use that loss to illustrate a point or to appeal to the emotions of others.

It's a valid and viable point of view to think it's okay to profit and gain fame over someone else's death, even if that person is your own child. It's also completely a valid and viable point of view to be utterly disgusted that she would do that in the face of her own son and family's beliefs. It's really not a matter of right and wrong, but it is a matter of judgement.

[Dalaena]

Originally posted by Snrrub
So if your child died of a drug overdose, you wouldn't become an anti-drug activist because that would disrespect his/her choices, am I right?

Depends. Did she die of an overdose because a doctor prescribed an incorrect amount of drugs? Did she die of a drug overdose because I left medicine out that I shouldn't have? Did she die of an overdose because someone at school left a bottle out and she thought it was candy?

Did she die of an overdose because she was taking recreational drugs and I knew about it and tried to stop it? Did she die because she was at a party and a bunch of other kids with lax parents had a bunch of drugs there?

Also, this is kind of a moot and silly question. Drugs have a physical addictiveness that cannot even begin to be compared to an active choice of a grown human being who CHOSE go on a mission he was NOT even required to go on. To try to compare the two is quite irrational.

[Malacasta]

On Profiting and Profiteering:
Cindy Sheehan is raising money from her speaking tours and the sales of her book. That money is then put back into the peace movement or is given to her children. I wouldn’t call this personally profiting, but the point is arguable. Profiting is different to profiteering. Profiteering has a different meaning and a different history, it’s really not applicable to Sheehan at all. I objected above to the word profiteering.

On Sheehans diary:
I don’t know what this quote is supposed to show. She wants a perpetual peace movement, so what? I know a ton of people who want a perpetual peace movement. I want a perpetual peace movement. Wanting a perpetual peace movement doesn’t mean you want perpetual profits.

On Chavez and America – not just Bush:
I said bush and co. I should have been more clear here and said the current administration. Chavez hates the current administration. Chavez doesn’t hate the American people.

Torres is an ex-minister in the previous government, and is extremely hostile to Chavez’s reforms. To quote his personal opinion that he THINKS Chavez BELIEVES that the United States is the devil isn’t really very convincing.

On Using Casey’s name contrary to his own beliefs:
Casey signed up to go to Iraq and volunteered for a mission to help rescue fellow Americans and was killed on this mission. These are the facts we know, we also know he wanted to be a chaplain but didn’t get that post. Cindy believes that her son would have supported her. Cindy had communications with her son that none of us are privy to. I just don’t think anyone has enough information here to make this call.

On Judging Cindy:
I have all sorts of judgements about Cindy which aren’t that favourable to her. I have all sorts of judgments about Bush and O’Reilly, as you say, that aren’t favourable to them. But I think it should be no more acceptable to trash talk Sheehan on these forums than it would be to trash talk Bush.

You say “Cindy Sheehan's ACTIONS and WORDS are what should be continually judged, not whatever may be in her mind.” I agree with you, and this is why I object to this comment:
“She does what she does for the pure, selfish, personal joy of the attention and personal financial profit”.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Snrrub
Sheehan making any money as a result of her activism is clearly an incidental side effect rather than an underlying motivation.

Bwahahahaha. Then why does she charge such outrageous fees to speak. $11,000 is not "incidental."

Originally posted by Snrrub

It's absurd to the point of hilarity to say that she's a whack-job lunatic while simultaneously being a cunning activist businesswoman.

Good thing we never called her "cunning" or a "businesswoman" then, eh? Her money grubbing is no more cunning than people who hire personal injury lawyers to show them the money.

Originally posted by Snrrub
So if your child died of a drug overdose, you wouldn't become an anti-drug activist because that would disrespect his/her choices, am I right?

Yeah. Abusing drugs and joining the military are the same thing!

Great point!

How incredibly insulting to every single member of the military (of which we have many on Threshold) to equate their patriotic choice to drug abuse.

Seriously. Your whole argument died right there... hideously.

[Dalaena]

You know, I just spent some time looking up quotes from Hugo Chavez that pretty much shows his disdain is not just for Bush but for all of America. I found plenty, but ultimately, it doesn't really matter. We could go back and forth over this all day, especially with us misquoting each other and deliberately misunderstanding each other.

Ultimately, you think that Cindy Sheehan is a respectable person who should be admired (I think). Others think that she's a disrespectful person who is profiting off her son's death and using it to climb into the spotlight. We'll both keep pointing out various things that support our beliefs, and snipping each other's posts.

Ultimately, Sheehan is a small bump in the grand scheme of things. I don't respect her. I don't admire her, but perhaps others need to do so.

[Gaviani]

Originally posted by Malacasta
On Profiting and Profiteering:

[text excised]

Profiting is different to profiteering. Profiteering has a different meaning and a different history, it’s really not applicable to Sheehan at all. [more text excised]

I wonder if you maintain this distinction when you offhandedly hear about Exxon-Mobil making record quarterly profits - or if the central dichotomy is that profiting is engaged in by individuals you sympathize with, whereas "profiteering" only occurs at your expense (or the expense of sympathetic groups, or at the hands of individuals you disdain). In any case, wouldn't a person advocating a collectivist philosophy (forgive me if that's misstating your economic position, but I'm fairly certain it's a fair one?) disdain ANY pursuit of a profit motive beyond incidental expenses and reasonable necessities?

On Sheehans diary:
I don’t know what this quote is supposed to show. She wants a perpetual peace movement, so what? I know a ton of people who want a perpetual peace movement. I want a perpetual peace movement. Wanting a perpetual peace movement doesn’t mean you want perpetual profits.

Wait a god damned minute.

She's demonstrated to have a clear FINANCIAL BENEFIT by the continuation of her "movement" - as you've conceded implicitly above, Sheehan is PROFITING from such DIRECTLY [even if we could argue that she's suffering a psychological loss of some sort by the knowledge the war continues - that's rather irrelevant, as I'm stating she's making a fiscal gain, which is empirically observable], and she has stated she wishes the movement on which SHE DERIVES PROFIT to become PERMANENT, and we cannot reasonably infer that she would attempt to continue profiting pemanently? What, will she mysteriously forego $11,000 speaking fees once "the war" ends and the "peace movement" transitions to...whatever it is you do when you're pro-peace and there's no war to protest [profitably]?

No, seriously, I want an answer to this. Do you really think she'd speak and NOT pursue a profit if such a movement existed in a post-Iraq War world?

If so, how do you explain her accepting speaking fees now? Does it somehow benefit the peace movement for her to accept money now that no longer takes place after "the war" ends?

If not, why would you make such a disingenuous statement as that "wanting a perpetual movement" [that you profit from the existence of] "doesn't mean you want perpetual profits?"

On Chavez and America – not just Bush:
I said bush and co. I should have been more clear here and said the current administration. Chavez hates the current administration. Chavez doesn’t hate the American people.

Here's a specific quote that I found more generalized than just "the Bush administration."

(From CNN): "Chavez held up a book by Noam Chomsky on imperialism and said it encapsulated his arguments: "The American empire is doing all it can to consolidate its hegemonistic system of domination, and we cannot allow him to do that. We cannot allow world dictatorship to be consolidated."

Ignore, for a moment, the validity of citing Noam Chomsky as a source, and let's merely stipulate a few things:

1) Noam Chomsky has been a long-time critic of American government, society, and institutions.

2) This criticism predates George W. Bush taking office in 2000.

3) CNN is accurately reporting that Hugo Chavez feels that Noam Chomsky's arguments, to whatever extent he understands them, represent his thoughts.

If this is the case, wouldn't it seem to imply that Hugo Chavez's objections to America go FAR deeper than George W. Bush? Indeed, Noam Chomsky's hatred of America is not something so petty so as to relate to a single man or his administration - is a deep rejection of the entire structure of America on a socio-economic scale, as I would presume you'd agree [being far more of a Chomsky advocate than I]. If this is the case, how can you possibly assert with a straight face that Chavez's objections, hatreds for, or problems with America are only rooted in the "American government," and that he "loves the American people?"

Who do you think makes up all those corporations, institutions, and bureaucracies that Chomsky rejects? Robots? Ninjas? Robot ninjas?

If this is not the case, why is Hugo Chavez citing Chomsky? Intellectual laziness? An inauthentic attempt to seem well-read? Or is he attempting to pander favor from highly affluent, guilty, Western collectivist allies whose loathing of the very prosperity they were born to makes them inherently predisposed to accept uncritically the blithe ravings of a despot?

(P.S. -- if you don't like that quote, here's a couple more; disregard them on your own time.

1] (Fox News) "The United States empire is on its way down and it will be finished in the near future, inshallah," Chavez told reporters, ending the statement with the Arabic phrase for "God willing."

2] (CNN) "The U.S. Government which will be fully aware of the needs of Africa, the needs of the poor. Let's assume that we have a government here in the United States that overnight decides to cut in half the military expenses and withdraw the troops from around the world and declare it is the champion of peace of the world and declare itself an enemy of imperialism and then devote billions of dollars to the poor. Last year the defense budget was $400 billion in military defense. Just for one single year. One single year. For those $400 billion we can go to Africa, in the poor countries of Asia, in the Caribbean and Latin America, we can help them." Ignoring the fact he does not even explain what possible justification such international confiscation of a sum greater than the majority of the world's national GDPs, keep in mind that the American military budget has been at such levels for decades, under Republican and Democrat alike, before GWB was even born: this cannot be reasonably dismissed as a criticism of "this administration.")

Torres is an ex-minister in the previous government, and is extremely hostile to Chavez’s reforms. To quote his personal opinion that he THINKS Chavez BELIEVES that the United States is the devil isn’t really very convincing.

Chavez has actually made diabolical references (see also: the U.N.) to the President of the United States on multiple references. Granted, you might argue this means he merely thinks GWB is the devil, not America. If you wish to construe this as such, I believe you are incorrect; however, Torres shares a culture with Chavez and was in a high-ranking position with the Venezuelan government - two links to the man that you and I do not possess. You offer up speculation with precisely NO source that Chavez's anti-American rhetoric is actually anti-American administration rhetoric. Why is speculation to the contrary that is at least based on an individual's observations several rungs closer to the man in question inherently "not very convincing?" Is it because it disagrees with you?

If so, why are we bothering to argue with you?

If not, why not?

On Using Casey’s name contrary to his own beliefs:
Casey signed up to go to Iraq and volunteered for a mission to help rescue fellow Americans and was killed on this mission. These are the facts we know, we also know he wanted to be a chaplain but didn’t get that post. Cindy believes that her son would have supported her. Cindy had communications with her son that none of us are privy to. I just don’t think anyone has enough information here to make this call.

No. None of us know what Casey would have wanted, now, because he's dead. This leaves us with two important secondary sources - one, as you note, are his actions. Another, however, are the interpretations of Casey Sheehan's ENTIRE family, not merely her mother, who has MASSIVE POLITICAL AND FINANCIAL LOSS TO WITHSTAND IF SHE WERE TO ADMIT SHE WERE GOING AGAINST HER SON'S WISHES. Again, let me repeat that Cindy Sheehan has DIRECT FINANCIAL AND POLITICAL MOTIVE TO LIE ABOUT HER SON'S DESIRES.

So, on the one hand, you have a woman who benefits fiscally and politically from stating Casey would have supported her.

On the other, you have the fact that the REMAINDER of the Sheehan family has DISOWNED Cindy Sheehan for capitalizing on Casey's death and DISTORTING his position on the war. You have his IMMEDIATE FAMILY stating that he would have SUPPORTED the war - we're not talking remote cousins or mere acquaintances, but siblings - as well as his role in it, and we have his record of behavior as an honorable soldier, boy scout, and contemporary patriot that indicates that even had he some qualm with his particular mission, he would have supported "the war" on the principle of honoring his commitment to the United States Military and the chain of command he swore to adhere to, and that, thereby, he would "support the war."

Essentially, Cindy Sheehan claims one thing which she has direct motive to lie about, and every other available piece of secondary evidence points in the exact opposite direction.

I normally find that you're a person willing to make explicit calls on issues that most people would find too labyrinthine or complicated to venture into stating in absolute terms a proper position. Is there a chance you have decided this simply "can't be called" because the preponderance of the evidence would cause a person without your particular collectivist agenda to conclude that Cindy Sheehan is at best consciously disregarding her son's personal beliefs to continue her activism (and personal profits), and, at worst, intentionally lying about them to those exact ends?

On Judging Cindy:
I have all sorts of judgements about Cindy which aren’t that favourable to her. I have all sorts of judgments about Bush and O’Reilly, as you say, that aren’t favourable to them. But I think it should be no more acceptable to trash talk Sheehan on these forums than it would be to trash talk Bush.

In principle, this is the only part of your post to which I do not object. I think that baseless "trash talking" - essentially positionally empty statements designed only to express personal disdain for an individual - is more or less worthless in terms of political discourse. This thread (as it has evolved) is not simply about an individual's like or dislike for Cindy Sheehan. The statements that she is "selfish" or "seeking personal profit" are being expressed specifically to explain why there is a significant differentiation between an individual being repugnant due to their ideology and an individual being repugnant due to their personal behavior (as has come up earlier in this thread) Such a distinction is not only important, but clearly must be delineated. You have asked we not declare Cindy Sheehan to be a repugnant woman, as there are others who share her ideology. We respond to you here not to "trash talk," but to more explicitly address why we find her a vile human being - as I, and others, do.

You say “Cindy Sheehan's ACTIONS and WORDS are what should be continually judged, not whatever may be in her mind.” I agree with you, and this is why I object to this comment:
“She does what she does for the pure, selfish, personal joy of the attention and personal financial profit”.

I also agree with this sentiment in relation to public figures. That is why it is critical one goes to great lengths to scrutinize the minutae of what, precisely, public figures are doing. I believe a preponderance of the evidence indicates that Cynthia Sheehan is:

- profiting off spreading a message inspired by her son's death;
- doing so in direct contravention of what most likely would have been his wishes;
- desiring to perpetuate those profits for the indefinite future;
- seeking to leverage herself into political office or a permanent position on the national stage;
- quite possibly mentally imbalanced.

Hence, the original post of the thread; hence, our responses to your somewhat logically flimsy claims; hence why we disdain, deplore, even despise her without that hatred enjoying any transitivity towards your person or those like you whatsoever.

[Malacasta]

Hey, just got back from the grocery store and I have guests coming over now. I say this because lots of interesting and valid points have been raised that I would like to address, but I probably wont be able to sit at the computer for a good 24 hours from now (if anyone was waiting for my reply). Just a heads up.

[Snrrub]

Originally posted by Aristotle

Yeah. Abusing drugs and joining the military are the same thing!

Great point!

How incredibly insulting to every single member of the military (of which we have many on Threshold) to equate their patriotic choice to drug abuse.

Nice attempt at trying to paint what I said as an insult. I didn't say that using drugs and joining the military are the same thing. I didn't compare them on the basis of morality, and I didn't compare them to make a point about strength of character of an individual or anything similar. I said that they have one thing in common - they're both choices, and that's the only comparison I made. The point of my saying it is to illustrate that just because someone chooses to do something, that in itself does not mean that their parents shouldn't subsequently advocate against activities relating to it.

[Snrrub]

Originally posted by Dalaena
I scrolled up and re-read. I don't really see anyone saying that she's a cunning activist businesswoman or even trying to imply that. One person asked that someone cite the fact that she was profiting off her son's death.

One person said that she was motivated purely by "attention and profit". Motivated by profit? Sounds like a businesswoman to me. Also, she'd be a cunning one in order to craft an image for herself as an activist and be successful enough at it to eventually earn large speaking fees. I say "craft an image for herlself" because she clearly wouldn't genuinely be an activist at all if profit and selfish attention were her only ambitions.