'Goodbye Attention Whore'

[clownboy]

Originally Posted by contracycle

Actually I have been TREATED in military hospitals but never you mind; I was drafted to the Grahamstown Infantry School in 1987. I refused to go and emigrated instead, and I know for certain that your claim that "veterans", as such, are supporters of war and military adventurism, is false.

So, it was okay for you to be treated, to receive the care, but when the call came to serve, you abscounded to safety. Oh yeah, I'm going to believe anything you say about the opinion of those who serve.

If you'd have bothered to read, you'd have known I actually said:

Originally Posted by clownboy

I know for a fact that all of us do not agree on this war. I also know that we do all agree on this issue of Cindy, as well as every wounded vet I've spoken with.

So, not all supporters for the war, but all agree that Cindy betrayed her son.

Originally Posted by contracycle

Anecdote is not the plural of data, I am hardly surprised that four members of one family exhibit a common opinion.

I see the modern weakness in reading and comprehension skills have reached your shores as well. I said four generations, not four people. My current family is over 200+ strong, and about half are active duty, retired or veteran.

Originally Posted by contracycle

I live in a bigger world than you do. It doesn't stop at America's borders.

I admit, my perspective is purely American. How you folks honour or dishonour your dead is up to you. But here? What she did is a betrayal.

[Larkin]

I see the modern weakness in reading and comprehension skills have reached your shores as well. I said four generations, not four people. My current family is over 200+ strong, and about half are active duty, retired or veteran.

Goddamn rabbits you people are.

Now I know you two are clambering all over to portray the other one as more unpatriotic, more dishonouring the troops, more disloyal, all that bullshit. But how about you stop all the ad hominem bullshit and concentrate on something that actually matters. Cindy Sheehan did what she thought was right. She thought her son died for nothing, and felt it was her responsibility to fight against that. While you may disagree with her, she is not betraying anyone. On the other side, merely because her son died does not give her any special wisdom into the best course of action for the war.

[clownboy]

Originally Posted by Larkin

Now I know you two are clambering all over to portray the other one as more unpatriotic, more dishonouring the troops, more disloyal, all that bullshit.

Once I saw "honour" spelled like this, why would I call him "unpatriotic"? I wouldn't expect contracycle to be patriotic towards America.

But you have a good point Larkin. He can call me all the names he wishes, and I can reciprocate.; At the end of the day, we'd still disagree on this issue.

And yes, I have six aunts just on my mother's side. Each has had at least six children. Grand and greatgrandchildren are everywhere.

[Larkin]

Once I saw "honour" spelled like this, why would I call him "unpatriotic"? I wouldn't expect contracycle to be patriotic towards America.

Eh, I am an American who spells it like that . I picked it up while I was working in Oz. I actually switch back and forth when I am writing for something that is informal (here).

But you have a good point Larkin. He can call me all the names he wishes, and I can reciprocate.; At the end of the day, we'd still disagree on this issue.

Err thats not really my point. You disagree on the issue, do it by arguing politics. This whole ad hominem shit about trying to portray the other side as dishonoring the troops and calling them a traitor and bulshit like that is the kind of idiocy that got us into this Iraq clusterfuck in the first place without seriously questioning our policies.

And yes, I have six aunts just on my mother's side. Each has had at least six children. Grand and greatgrandchildren are everywhere.

As I said. Goddamn rabbits ;p

[BobbieDog]

Originally Posted by Cindy Sheehan

The most devastating conclusion that I reached this morning, however, was that Casey did indeed die for nothing. His precious lifeblood drained out in a country far away from his family who loves him, killed by his own country which is beholden to and run by a war machine that even controls what we think. I have tried ever since he died to make his sacrifice meaningful. 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. It is so painful to me to know that I bought into this system for so many years and Casey paid the price for that allegiance. I failed my boy and that hurts the most.

That seems like rationality to me, as does the rest of what she says in her statement.
I reckon she has given a meaning to her son's pointless death. A meaning which the article communicates. We do indeed live in a collective world where our power does all the things she points to, and by virtue of what she describes. When individuals do what she attempted, and seek to change all that, then the despair she reached is pretty much par for the course. She's run the full cycle in this, and to arrive at such despair is no defeat.

When Sheehan says: "It is so painful to me to know that I bought into this system for so many years and Casey paid the price for that allegiance. I failed my boy and that hurts the most"; then she gets to the nub of her pain and loss.
What she then had to do was to get to where she wasn't buying into this system, because that is the ground on which she now feels she ought to have brought up her son. That proves very difficult to win through to. Maybe there's another stage in this that she now has to work through in her privacy.

Certainly there's little if anything that she says here, that seems other than enlightened.

[01]

"Sheehan was brave and made as good effort. She showed more support for the troops than any republican, certainly more than those who accuse of "betrayal" for failing to toe the government line." __ contracycle

True.

"I admit, my perspective is purely American. How you folks honour or dishonour your dead is up to you. But here? What she did is a betrayal." __ clownboy

Dumb.

[spindok]

Originally Posted by BobbieDog

Certainly there's little if anything that she says here, that seems other than enlightened.

I agree with the first half of that statement BD.

This is a less gracefull exit than I thought she would take. I did not believe in what she said or did but I do agree with Contra that she gets points for guts.

Spindok

[BobbieDog]

Originally Posted by spindok

This is a less gracefull exit than I thought she would take. I did not believe in what she said or did but I do agree with Contra that she gets points for guts.

I think she has to be seen in terms of 'honesty' and 'investment'.
If you expend/spend yourself in pursuing some principle, or even more so in pursuing some truth in things, and that in spades when this truth is nominally collective: then you take on the impossible task, that nonetheless you cannot not take up; and there, when eventually you're down to your husk and all spent, graceful exits don't figure.
The best you can then do is sustain, and one last time voice the honesty that took you that far; and I reckon that is what she here did.

The thing then is, human beings being what they are, and like a rhysome after the harshest of Winters, you can pop up again, into the collective light, refreshed and strengthened by the despair passed through.

[Francois Cellier]

From Dissident Voice

The Appropriate Disillusionment of Andrew Bacevich and Cindy Sheehan

“It’s the Way Our System Works”

by Gary Leupp
May 31st, 2007


I have in front of me two documents of despair, of disillusionment with the American political system that allows this criminal war to continue. Andrew J. Bacevich in his Washington Post op-ed column and Cindy Sheehan in her statement on her blog express despair over the failure of the Democrats placed in power by an antiwar electorate to take firm measures to end the war in Iraq. Sheehan declares, as she announces her departure from the spotlight that “hundreds of thousands of people are dying for a war based on lies that is supported by Democrats and Republican alike,” adding, “It is so painful to me to know that I bought into this system for so many years…”

Professor Bacevich, now sharing Sheehan’s personal grief, calls his earlier hopes that he and others might force the country to change course “an illusion,” noting that “responsibility for the war’s continuation now rests no less with the Democrats who control Congress than with the president and his party.” “Money,” he notes bitterly, “maintains the Republican/Democratic duopoly of trivialized politics. It confines the debate over U.S. policy to well-hewn channels… It negates democracy, rendering free speech little more than a means of recording dissent. This is not some great conspiracy. It’s the way our system works.”

If there is a positive aspect to this despair, it is this very realization: the system is the problem. It has not so much “failed” us as we have failed to understand what Sheehan and Bacevich are concluding: it isn’t designed to work for us but for them.

For those who can’t bring themselves to say that the war is not a “mistake” but a crime. For those who can’t call for immediate withdrawal in accordance with the wishes of the American and Iraqi people but talk about “benchmarks” for a gradual withdrawal. For those who want to shift the onus of the U.S. failure in Iraq to Iraqi politicians for their delays and bickering, and the Iraqi people for their bewildering Islamic sectarianism.

It serves those who vote in bipartisan fashion to further vilify and isolate Syria and Iran—the fools who do not know the first thing about Islamic history and the divisions between Shiites and Sunnis, secularists and Islamists. It serves those lining up to embrace the fear-mongering Islamophobic neocon agenda for more confrontation with the Muslim world. It serves those who fear AIPAC more than the consequences of a strike on Iran. It serves the Democrats who want to keep an attack on Iran on the table, but assure President Bush that his impeachment is off the table because it’s just too radical a prospect for them to consider.
This is indeed the way the system works.

“I am deemed a radical,” writes Sheehan, “because I believe that partisan politics should be left to the wayside…” Having seen Sheehan speak on several occasions, I think rather she’s been deemed radical because her understanding of the war is too honest for the system’s hacks and political opportunists (including some who affect a liberal antiwar posture) to endorse. They cannot.

Nancy Pelosi cannot say, “This is an imperialist war to reconfigure the Middle East, allow the U.S. to control the flow of oil from the region, dot it with huge permanent U.S. military bases, advance Israeli aims in the region, and intimidate all potential rivals for decades. It is wrong, a clear violation of international law.” Harry Reid can’t say, “The lies of these war planners are so obvious. We need hearings now about the Office of Special Plans. We need to find out who forged the Niger uranium documents and who undercut our intelligence professionals in pushing that completely false case presented by Colin Powell to the U.N. We need to move on impeachment of both Bush and Cheney.”

That sort of honest talk is not normally allowed by the system to the “loyal opposition.” Only under circumstances of extraordinary duress, when it feels its very existence threatened, does the system make some concessions to the people it doesn’t work for. In the early ‘70s our outrage over the war in Vietnam, compounded by disgust about the evolving Watergate Affair, forced Congress to cut off war funding (through the Case-Church Amendment passed on June 19, 1973), produced a wave of investigations that exposed the vicious Cointelpro Program, and produced the Freedom of Information Act. We’re not yet back to that level of outrage, but the number of people questioning the system itself—the money-driven “Republican/Democratic duopoly of trivialized politics”—is growing. As the Democrats drag their feet, ignore their mandate to end the war, and collude with moves against Iran and Syria bound to produce disastrous repercussions, disillusionment will no doubt mount, as it should. Then maybe we’ll see (create, force) some change.

“To be radical,” wrote Marx, “is to grasp the root of the matter. But for man, the root is man himself.” In other words, radicalism means thinking clearly about how and why people in general are oppressed by the “money” to which Bacevich alludes. By those who use their unconscionable wealth (= political power) to pursue their boundless “interests”—sacrificing other people’s children to do so. But Marx in the same work notes how people oppress themselves with delusional thinking. He refers to religion but might as well be speaking of delusions about contemporary American “democracy” when he writes, “The demand to give up illusions about the existing state of affairs is the demand to give up a state of affairs which needs illusions.”

Sheehan’s disillusionment need not lead to a dead end. It could be the premise for appropriately deeper radicalization.

--------------

Gary Leupp is a Professor of History, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion at Tufts University, and author of numerous works on Japanese history. He can be reached at: gleupp@granite.tufts.edu. Read other articles by Gary.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by clownboy

Funny boy, there aren't any pictures of me lying on Casey's grave. IF I should ever try to "exploit" Casey, I'd do so using his own views.

Of course not Clownboy. You're just like your boy Bush who hasn't gone to a single funeral and won't allow any press at Dover AFB. You want to hide the graves.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Larkin

On the other side, merely because her son died does not give her any special wisdom into the best course of action for the war.

Actually Larkin it does. She was paying attention to what was going on, instead of like the majority of cow like Americans that are too busy concerning themselves with what's happening on "American Idol".

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by clownboy

Here ya go Tom. Mama was one of the only folks in the family who believes as she does (I think one other aunt has joined her). Papa Sheehan and the rest are not fans of what she's done.

What's your point Clown? You've posted a link that says Casey was a good soldier. You right wingers always like to imply that being a good soldier means you're a right winger. That's Bullshit.

[contracycle]

Originally Posted by clownboy

So, it was okay for you to be treated, to receive the care, but when the call came to serve, you abscounded to safety.

You don't understand the situation; I was treated for traffic accident injuries in amilitary hospital because it was the nearest one.

And you give away for government worshipping submissiveness here - no, there is no reason that I should engage in an immmoral war merely becuase the state says so.

You are a puppet, clownboy, a puppet who has surrendered rationality for obedience and national narcissism. And in your bitterness, all you can do is wish your misery on others.

Oh yeah, I'm going to believe anything you say about the opinion of those who serve.

Quite. Becuase the opinions of veterans as such were never of interest to you - you were just seeking a convenient excuse to justify more killing and more death, and appealing to your like-minded acquintances.

So, not all supporters for the war, but all agree that Cindy betrayed her son.

Then all of them can go to hell. They are the bottom of the human barrel, as *I* said before.

I see the modern weakness in reading and comprehension skills have reached your shores as well. I said four generations, not four people. My current family is over 200+ strong, and about half are active duty, retired or veteran.

Sigh, I'm not going to compare military family pedigrees with you, I will win. And I'm afraid for all your bombast I grew up in a far more militarised society than you did. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

You know what America's problem is? It hasn't been invaded for a long time. Americans have not seen enough of their own citizens fleeing burning homes, dying, screaming. This is always something that happens to funny looking foreign people on TV. And as a result you exhibit a romantic and unrealistic view of war and its consequences.

To be a consciencious objector definately went against the family tradition, but that was not a concern in itself. But the position you hold, that forsome reason I am opbligated to serve in an immoral conflict "just becuase" is vapid and authoritarian. I hope,cclownboy, that you will not exhibit any pretensions to advocating "small government" or Libertarianism after claiming that service in an unjust war is obligatory.

I admit, my perspective is purely American. How you folks honour or dishonour your dead is up to you. But here? What she did is a betrayal.

Well your perpesctive is NOT purely American, and your vile opinions are just as offensive to American veterans as any others. Your opinion is YOURS, and perhaps those of your presumably equally vile family.

[Suraklin]

What struck me was the arrogance of her post. "I cant change America ..." . Who does she think she is, Thomas Jefferson?

I'll accept you might not want to actively muzzle her but this statement of yours seems to place you as the arrogant one not her - what makes her less worthy than other 'ordinary' people who started small and ended up changing a nation? Or do you subscribe to the idea that only the 'elite' can or should ever be allowed to effect real change.

She has every right to try and start a groundswell that would lead to change - it is every single citizen's right in a democracy. And it is also every citizen's duty to try and create a better country.

In a democracy they won't always succeed but without people trying to change things for the better by mobilising their fellow citizens what on earth is the point of having a democracy to begin with?

You might not like her views but you can't argue with her genuine intent to improve the nation according to her beliefs. If every US citizen cared as much and worked as hard you might actually have the country in reality you believe you have now.

If we approached change on the basis that 'small people' shoud be ignored then we'd all still be living in caves and ruled by petty chiefs.

Still Ill: I found it ironic that on one thread people were calling out against any type of censorship at all by anyone ever and then on another the same poeple were suggestiong that she'd have been far better off shutting her uppity peace loving gob and letting the important folk get on about their business unmolested. As Spin pointed out they did not call for censorship per se but I could see the irnoy in the contrary positions being taken and said so.

Spin: Nice picture, if I repost the pictures of prominent republicans with murderous dictators will that invalidate your arguements?

Overall - I admire any citizen who stands up for what they believe, especially in the face of such mean spirited attitudes from so called US patriots. I feel sorry for her because she believed in a better, freer, more noble USA which died years ago and has been buried deep by the neo-cons.

[Larkin]

Actually Larkin it does. She was paying attention to what was going on, instead of like the majority of cow like Americans that are too busy concerning themselves with what's happening on "American Idol".

Actually it does, you claim. And then go on to make a statement that does not back up your assertion at all.

Please explain to me why someone who has their son die for a cause has some sudden insight into that cause. Where does that insight come from, and why should we listen to it ?

[Suraklin]

If you have a relative who dies in any unusual situation then it is inevitably going to make you think longer and harder about that situation than someone who is untouched by it.

Megan's law in the US came from just such an event when parents drove the action after experiencing the loss of a child - they weren't 'experts' except that they had experienced something that most of the 'experts' had not.

I would say it way similar to the way you can comment with unique perspective on gay family life - a perspective that you have gained from experiencing the reality rather than readin about it in a textbook.

[Larkin]

If you have a relative who dies in any unusual situation then it is inevitably going to make you think longer and harder about that situation than someone who is untouched by it.

Megan's law in the US came from just such an event when parents drove the action after experiencing the loss of a child - they weren't 'experts' except that they had experienced something that most of the 'experts' had not.

I would say it way similar to the way you can comment with unique perspective on gay family life - a perspective that you have gained from experiencing the reality rather than readin about it in a textbook.

But grief makes one think less clearly. You think more emotionally about the issue and less reasonably. I don't agree with Megan's law for a lot of reasons, and I think that is part of the problem with it, is that those who supported it saw it only from one side.

I think the difference between that and my parents is that one is a traumatic situation, and one was not. If you just know a lot about a particular situation, yes, you can better judge it. But knowing a lot about a particular situation is different from being traumatized by a particular situation.

[Suraklin]

You might be right on that, emotional trauma is never the best mind clearer, but... my theory was that in a democracy that should not matter - Cindy, or Megan's folks, only get to make changes if enough people who aren't directly experiencing trauma can be persuaded that the trauma is justifcation for a law change. If what they call for is absurd then it shouldn't happen (unless they are rich enough of curse when politicians tend to roll over to have their tummies tickled regardless fo how absurd the suggestion might be).

As Cindy has shown they can shout as loud as they can and if not enough people are listening nothing changes. That is the idea of democracy.

Of course in the case of Iraq the people have spoken both through opinion polls and the polling booth and the politicians ignore them anyway.

[Larkin]