Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Cindy Sheehan: Media Whore
- Thread starter 75th
- Start date
WODIN said:
Yes you would.
Look, I've got no problem with people protesting the war. I'm basically anti-war myself. However, I do have a problem with ignorance. Cindy Sheehan is spouting conspiracy theories (Bush went to war to enrich his oil buddies) that have no basis in fact. She is also saying that Bush killed her kid. Sorry, but your kid freely signed up for the military and an Iraqi killed him. It's sad, but by the very nature of their job soldiers are agreeing to risk their lives for the mission. He could have avoided being killed by simply not signing up for the military. Not only that, but he re-enlisted in 2004 after he had already been to Iraq.
There are plenty of reasons to oppose President Bush. Sheehan needs to quit dealing in conspiracy theories and blaming Bush for her son's death. Neither assertions do much for her credibility.
Merely losing a son in a war doesn't give one absolute moral authority to proclaim what is true and not true about this conflict. There are plenty of family members of slain veterans who support President Bush politically, and agree with the need to go to war. Their opinions aren't invalidated by the existence of Cindy Sheehan.
Nor should their opinions be given more weight than anybody else's simply because they lost family members too.
So with that, what we have here is one woman with an opinion, and some views that I frankly find to be not only wrong, but dangerous to our country should they be implemented. I certainly have the right to say so if I feel that way.
G
Gambino
Guest
Cindy claims that bush should be brought before an international court and tried for war crimes 
harsh as it sounds, to bad she didn't catch one instead of her son
harsh as it sounds, to bad she didn't catch one instead of her son
Gambino said:Cindy claims that bush should be brought before an international court and tried for war crimes
harsh as it sounds, to bad she didn't catch one instead of her son
I wonder if she said that during the time she actually met with Bush in July of 2004, about 3 months after her son died?
Oh, nope, wait...she only had good things to say to Bush and about Bush during that meeting.
G
Gambino
Guest
75th said:
dems like Clinton won't touch sheehan with a ten foot pole.
Clinton actually went to Alaska this week, rumor has it because she wanted to avoid Sheehan's request to come to crawford
GoldenDelicious
New member
i find it funny that you have a problem with someone being ignorant about the war while she is on the doorstep of the commander in chief, asking, no, begging to be informed, and he refuses to come out and answer her questions75th said:
your view is a bit...bent, 75th
they dont do much for his, either75th said:
any twit can see that her proclamations are bait for Bush to come and answer her, 75th. dont be so naive.
at least she lost a son. bush has been making proclamations all the way through, most of which have been proven fallicious. at least sheehans credibility is unknown. bush's, on the other hand, is non existent.75th said:
they havnt been given any more weight. just a bit more attention. make the distinciton, would you.75th said:
you absolutely do. and so does she. now shush. the bushies have had 2 years of people shutting up and having 'faith'. its time for some questions to be answered. THAT is why so much attention is being thrown her way - lots of people are waiting for the presidents respone...though, i feel, we have already seen it in his silence.75th said:
G
Gambino
Guest
only point I have time to reply to, but should anyone be allowed to meet the pres because they demand to?GoldenDelicious said:
I want to meet the pres, should I be able to??
GoldenDelicious said:i find it funny that you have a problem with someone being ignorant about the war while she is on the doorstep of the commander in chief, asking, no, begging to be informed, and he refuses to come out and answer her questions
your view is a bit...bent, 75th
they dont do much for his, either
any twit can see that her proclamations are bait for Bush to come and answer her, 75th. dont be so naive.
at least she lost a son. bush has been making proclamations all the way through, most of which have been proven fallicious. at least sheehans credibility is unknown. bush's, on the other hand, is non existent.
they havnt been given any more weight. just a bit more attention. make the distinciton, would you.
you absolutely do. and so does she. now shush. the bushies have had 2 years of people shutting up and having 'faith'. its time for some questions to be answered. THAT is why so much attention is being thrown her way - lots of people are waiting for the presidents respone...though, i feel, we have already seen it in his silence.
In your blatant attempt to simply argue with me because you are bored you have completely missed each and every point.
I will say this, though: Cindy Sheehan is a political grandstander. I feel for her loss, and she certainly has a right to her opinion, but the idea that Bush has any obligation to come to her just to be shouted at by a crowd of anti-war protesters is absurd. She's not looking for a dialogue, she's looking for an opportunity to heckle him. Anyway, she already DID have a dialogue with him.
GD said:
In this day and age, media attention = weight. That again is my point, Sheehan is a product of a slow news cycle, and it is being milked for all it is worth by both her and the far left.
Dont act surprised if about a month from now she scores a 6 figure book deal.
GoldenDelicious
New member
when your name is splashed on every newspaper in the world as well as all over the internet because youre the figurehead of the antiwar movement (as well as political ape of a bunch of others) then yes, you get toGambino said:only point I have time to reply to, but should anyone be allowed to meet the pres because they demand to?
I want to meet the pres, should I be able to??
aandd said:
I wonder where a good amount of these "donations" are originating from.
From the USAToday:
As soon as you start using your dead son as a political prop, you lose some points with me. She is exploiting his death for her own political purposes (it seems to me that her son didn't share these views, either, if he re-enlisted to fight in the war). I don't have much sympathy for that.
Razorguns
Well-known member
Losing a loved one gives someone the power to dictate foreign policy and influence the masses through pure emotion rather than facts and logic?
Why even have Presidents then? Just have grieving windows and irate moms in congress.
Her son knew the risk, so did she -- where was she when her son signed on the dotted line? Playing bingo at the local indian casino??
Why even have Presidents then? Just have grieving windows and irate moms in congress.
Her son knew the risk, so did she -- where was she when her son signed on the dotted line? Playing bingo at the local indian casino??
GoldenDelicious said:
They already met. What's changed since then?
they dont do much for his, either
any twit can see that her proclamations are bait for Bush to come and answer her, 75th. dont be so naive.
Sure, and using her son's memory for this is really low-class. The very liberal establishment's embrace of this woman demonstrates that they will embrace anything anti-Bush, even without rational thought.
Her son re-enlisted after serving, so clearly he supported the war. It's sad for a mother to lose a child, but it doesn't change the reality that she is pissing on her son's memory and discrediting herself wholly.
Bush's credibility was re-affirmed when he won his last election.
In the US, attention = weight. For better or worse.
Sheehan is a clown, a caricature of a grieving mother who has been dressed up for a parade by the very liberal wing of US politics.
As for the founder of Ben and Jerry's...these are the guys who said they would never pay themselves (or any employee) more than 5 times what the lowest level employee made. As their biz grew they promptly disregarded this. That dude can shove an entire gallon of ice cream up his ass.
Fast Twitch Fiber
New member
75th said:
Yeah, because George Bush and the GOP would neeeever exploit a human death for political purposes. (Schiavo)
Razorguns said:
Indeed. Also, like I said above, her son enlisted not once, but TWICE, after he had been to Iraq. Actions speak louder than words. Her whole shinedigan is disrespectful in itself, but its apparent that she has sold out for a fight that her son obiously wouldnt have agreed with.
No wonder her family has written her numerous letters begging her to give it a rest.
Razorguns
Well-known member
75th said:
Of course, and with the numbnuts around her egging her on, giving her a plethora of lovely media opportunities, parading her everywhere ... she's just eating it up.
They're just as useless and pathetic as anything she speaks. Using her to further their cause, when obviously fact, logic and the vote of the american people has failed them, is despicable.
bluepeter
New member
Fast Twitch Fiber said:
Nice.
On another point, before we get all the usual suspects grandstanding in here about all the 'liberals' embracing this woman (shit, we had one already), there are lots of 'liberals' that do not including me. While I certainly embrace the underlying current of this which is that this war is a travesty, I'm not a fan of this woman and her 'cause'.
Fast Twitch Fiber said:
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Many people, even those in politics and especially in the media, seek to "justify" one idiotic action (nonsense surrounding Sheehan) with another idotic action. (nonsense relating to Schiavo).
Ignorant, stupid people seem to think that if Group A has done it, so can Group B. Reality is: two idiotic actions have occurred - and worse - rather than being criticized, are justified by each other
How stupid are people that they think MORE idiocy is better than less? This kind of bullshit justification is why American politics is a race to the bottom, and why nothing gets done in government.
Talented leaders won't TOUCH politics.
superdave said:
Chandra Levy
slat1
New member
WODIN said:
Everyone feels bad about her son. Her trashing our country and exposing herself with the statements she has made lately is just gross!
She is done now. She is no longer the post child for the anti war movement. They are horrified by the statements she is making. Saying things like our country is horrible and always has been is not the way to win friends. It also has nothing to do with her son. Her political adgenda has been exposed. Even the most liberal democrats want nothing to do with her!
Fast Twitch Fiber
New member
slat1 said:
I haven't actually read any of the news stories, just the headlines. Can you copy some of her exact quotes where she says these things?
Fast Twitch Fiber
New member
75th said:
I'm just pointing out hypocrisy of right winger bashing left wingers when they will both prostitute any person or issue for political gain. How many right wingers were bitching about how Bush and the GOP whored out Schiavo?
Good call. I alctually had her in mind also but couldnt remember if she qualified as "slow news cycle phenomenom" only since that Condit congressman guy was involved. Talk about a huge break he got. That shit happened with her just before 9/11 annihilated every story from the news universe permanently.MattTheSkywalker said:
rsnoble-im-back
Banned
75th said:
Going to war for terrorists and wmd's has no more basis of proof than the conspiracy theories.
If this war had nothing to do with Oil we'd just bomb them to submission instead of getting 1000's killed. This country is ran by a bunch of evil motherfukers and theres laws prohibiting what id really like to say.
redguru
New member
GoldenDelicious, Cindy and her soon to be ex-husband met President Bush. Here is the republished article from her hometown newspaper dateline June 24, 2004. She has been glammed on by the ultra-left and in her grief has been twisted into a liberal hack by those that would use her.
Bush, Sheehans share moments
By David Henson/Staff Writer
Bush, Sheehans share moments
By David Henson/Staff Writer
Since learning in April that their son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, had been killed in Iraq, life has been everything but normal for the Sheehan family of Vacaville.
Casey's parents, Cindy and Patrick, as well as their three children, have attended event after event honoring the soldier both locally and abroad, received countless letters of support and fielded questions from reporters across the country.
"That's the way our whole lives have been since April 4," Patrick said. "It's been surreal."
But none of that prepared the family for the message left on their answering machine last week, inviting them to have a face-to-face meeting with President George W. Bush at Fort Lewis near Seattle.
Surreal soon seemed like an understatement, as the Sheehans - one of 17 families who met Thursday with Bush - were whisked in a matter of days to the Army post and given the VIP treatment from the military. But as their meeting with the president approached, the family was faced with a dilemma as to what to say when faced with Casey's commander-in-chief.
"We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled," Cindy said. "The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached."
The 10 minutes of face time with the president could have given the family a chance to vent their frustrations or ask Bush some of the difficult questions they have been asking themselves, such as whether Casey's sacrifice would make the world a safer place.
But in the end, the family decided against such talk, deferring to how they believed Casey would have wanted them to act. In addition, Pat noted that Bush wasn't stumping for votes or trying to gain a political edge for the upcoming election.
"We have a lot of respect for the office of the president, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn't have to take the time to meet with us," Pat said.
Sincerity was something Cindy had hoped to find in the meeting. Shortly after Casey died, Bush sent the family a form letter expressing his condolences, and Cindy said she felt it was an impersonal gesture.
"I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," Cindy said after their meeting. "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."
The meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.
While meeting with Bush, as well as Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, was an honor, it was almost a tangent benefit of the trip. The Sheehans said they enjoyed meeting the other families of fallen soldiers, sharing stories, contact information, grief and support.
For some, grief was still visceral and raw, while for others it had melted into the background of their lives, the pain as common as breathing. Cindy said she saw her reflection in the troubled eyes of each.
"It's hard to lose a son," she said. "But we (all) lost a son in the Iraqi war."
The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected.
For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle.
For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again.
"That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together," Cindy said.
David Henson can be reached at [email protected]
Casey's parents, Cindy and Patrick, as well as their three children, have attended event after event honoring the soldier both locally and abroad, received countless letters of support and fielded questions from reporters across the country.
"That's the way our whole lives have been since April 4," Patrick said. "It's been surreal."
But none of that prepared the family for the message left on their answering machine last week, inviting them to have a face-to-face meeting with President George W. Bush at Fort Lewis near Seattle.
Surreal soon seemed like an understatement, as the Sheehans - one of 17 families who met Thursday with Bush - were whisked in a matter of days to the Army post and given the VIP treatment from the military. But as their meeting with the president approached, the family was faced with a dilemma as to what to say when faced with Casey's commander-in-chief.
"We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled," Cindy said. "The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached."
The 10 minutes of face time with the president could have given the family a chance to vent their frustrations or ask Bush some of the difficult questions they have been asking themselves, such as whether Casey's sacrifice would make the world a safer place.
But in the end, the family decided against such talk, deferring to how they believed Casey would have wanted them to act. In addition, Pat noted that Bush wasn't stumping for votes or trying to gain a political edge for the upcoming election.
"We have a lot of respect for the office of the president, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn't have to take the time to meet with us," Pat said.
Sincerity was something Cindy had hoped to find in the meeting. Shortly after Casey died, Bush sent the family a form letter expressing his condolences, and Cindy said she felt it was an impersonal gesture.
"I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," Cindy said after their meeting. "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."
The meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.
While meeting with Bush, as well as Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, was an honor, it was almost a tangent benefit of the trip. The Sheehans said they enjoyed meeting the other families of fallen soldiers, sharing stories, contact information, grief and support.
For some, grief was still visceral and raw, while for others it had melted into the background of their lives, the pain as common as breathing. Cindy said she saw her reflection in the troubled eyes of each.
"It's hard to lose a son," she said. "But we (all) lost a son in the Iraqi war."
The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected.
For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle.
For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again.
"That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together," Cindy said.
David Henson can be reached at [email protected]
redguru
New member
There is a father, Gary Qualls, of a slain soldier, who has had to remove the marker bearing his son's name from Camp Crawford on three seperate occasions and has now asked the Sheriff to step in. There are also other families enroute to Crawford to ask that thier sons and daughters names be removed from an obvious political protest.
ALL of you have fallen in to this trap.......................
The Swift Boating of Cindy Sheehan
http://www.iht.com/protected/articles/2005/08/21/news/edrich.php
Once Sheehan could no longer be ignored, the Swift Boating began. Character assassination is the Karl Rove tactic of choice, eagerly mimicked by his media surrogates, whenever the White House is confronted by a critic who challenges it on matters of war. The Swift Boating is especially vicious if the critic has more battle scars than a president who connived to serve stateside and a vice president who had "other priorities" during Vietnam...... .............
The Swift Boating of Cindy Sheehan
http://www.iht.com/protected/articles/2005/08/21/news/edrich.php
Once Sheehan could no longer be ignored, the Swift Boating began. Character assassination is the Karl Rove tactic of choice, eagerly mimicked by his media surrogates, whenever the White House is confronted by a critic who challenges it on matters of war. The Swift Boating is especially vicious if the critic has more battle scars than a president who connived to serve stateside and a vice president who had "other priorities" during Vietnam...... .............
Because this debate on whether or not Cindy Sheehan is a media whore, whacko or what ever plays exactly into the Bush and Co plan. They create diversions to distract people from the real issues at hand.
The issue is not "Cindy is a left wing nut job" but the underlying LIES the Bush Administration used to propell her son and thousands (dead and wounded) like him into a situation they should never have been in in the first place.
The issue is not "Cindy is a left wing nut job" but the underlying LIES the Bush Administration used to propell her son and thousands (dead and wounded) like him into a situation they should never have been in in the first place.
redguru
New member
What I find distasteful is the fact that she parades her son around as a victim to the President. George Bush didn't send her son anywhere. Her son volunteered for the military. Whether he did it for college tuition or to escape jail, it doesn't matter. As you take the oath, you have to realize there is the chance you'll go in harms way, and a chance that you'll lose your life because of it.
The Veterans for Peace group would've been fine if they kept thier memorial back in California on the pier as an awareness campaign for the fallen. But as soon as they began using the good soldiers' names in a political farce like Camp Crawford, it debases the memory of those who have fallen. Whether you agree with the war or not, using the Fallen as props to justify your cause, you are craven in my book.
The Veterans for Peace group would've been fine if they kept thier memorial back in California on the pier as an awareness campaign for the fallen. But as soon as they began using the good soldiers' names in a political farce like Camp Crawford, it debases the memory of those who have fallen. Whether you agree with the war or not, using the Fallen as props to justify your cause, you are craven in my book.
bluepeter said:
The attempt of many liberals to explain or justify things through reductionist arguments is distasteful.
It's also anti-human.
bluepeter said:
It's not bullshit.
It's reductionism, the race to the lowest common denominator. It's the hallmark of liberal thinking, because one can always go down.
It's completely harmful to any thought process and is the #1 reason US politics is the realm of so many second rate individuals. Look at the last two Democratic presidential candidates: Gore was a Senator's son with few accomplishments outside of politics, and Kerry, depsite a long tenure in the Senate, didn't do shit since Viet Nam.
The only way to emerge a candidate is to do nothing. Hillary wants to run in 08, and to date has done NOTHING in the Senate.
This is plain as day.
You don't ever hear a liberal or a democratic commentator with any OTHER ideas in Iraq. They say "bring the troops home". Great, let's do that. THEN WHAT? No one answers that question.
The Sheehan fiasco is more proof of the reductionism at hand. The far liberal groups that support her are gravitating toward this irrationality just because it's anti-Bush. Again, no suggestions as to what would happen if we brought the troops home, just mor e hand holding and generally feeling good about ourselves.
The outcome of this reductionist way of thinking is apathy. Any idea where that leads?
bluepeter
New member
MattTheSkywalker said:It's not bullshit.
It's reductionism, the race to the lowest common denominator. It's the hallmark of liberal thinking, because one can always go down.
It's completely harmful to any thought process and is the #1 reason US politics is the realm of so many second rate individuals. Look at the last two Democratic presidential candidates: Gore was a Senator's son with few accomplishments outside of politics, and Kerry, depsite a long tenure in the Senate, didn't do shit since Viet Nam.
The only way to emerge a candidate is to do nothing. Hillary wants to run in 08, and to date has done NOTHING in the Senate.
This is plain as day.
You don't ever hear a liberal or a democratic commentator with any OTHER ideas in Iraq. They say "bring the troops home". Great, let's do that. THEN WHAT? No one answers that question.
The outcome of this reductionist way of thinking is apathy. Any idea where that leads?
Great.
Now returning to the point. I said nothing about justification and in fact, have stated several times in the thread that I don't care for the manner in which this lady is operating. What I cannot abide by is the constant attacks from one side of the political spectrum on issues such as these by the same people who say nothing when their heroes are doing the exact same thing or worse. In other words, my statement has absolutely nothing to do with bringing the two sides down to the lowest common denominator and everything to do with pointing out hypocrisy.
How many people on this thread arguing that Cindy Sheehan is a 'media whore' called out George Bush on any occasion when he cites the 1800 plus dead American soldiers in Iraq as justification for his megalomania in regards to 'finishing a job' badly botched from the beginning?
It's hard work.
bluepeter said:
I feel your pain. I hate politicians on all sides. I especially hate the ones who want to raise my taxes, though.
In other news, I've outlined the reasons for my support of the Iraq action. I continue to think it is well thought out strategy, whose tactical shortcomings are irrelevant in a larger view.
I guess we'll see how mid term elections play out.
bluepeter
New member
MattTheSkywalker said:I feel your pain. I hate politicians on all sides. I especially hate the ones who want to raise my taxes, though.
In other news, I've outlined the reasons for my support of the Iraq action. I continue to think it is well thought out strategy, whose tactical shortcomings are irrelevant in a larger view.
I guess we'll see how mid term elections play out.
That will be interesting. While I despise this administration and just about everything it does, I applaud their innate ability to convince voters that their 'grandiose plan' was valid. I'm still shocked that they won the last election, says a lot about JerseyArt's favorite word
Seems to be wearing thin finally, I'm still not convinced it will have a significant effect in 2006.
S
Spartacus
Guest
Natalee HollowayMattTheSkywalker said:
and recently the token missing pregnant black
and i noticed the other day they're profiling a missing hog
S
Spartacus
Guest
except the swift boat veteran's were on the markHengst said:
John "gigilo" Kerry is a dispicable human being
The liberal media is delighted with Cindy Sheehan. This is the woman who lost a son in Iraq and has camped outside President Bush's Crawford Ranch, intending to stay until the President speaks with her or returns to Washington. For the reporters waiting around in the dusty heat of West Texas, Ms. Sheehan is a godsend, a dramatic, heart-wrenching story that gives the media both a telegenic drama and another opportunity for indulging their dislike of Bush and the war in Iraq.
No one should trivialize Ms. Sheehan's grief, nor fail to understand why she is angry and wants to hold someone accountable. The worst thing a parent can experience is to lose a child, and those of us blessed enough not to have had that experience cannot judge the reaction of those who have. Yet the media's eagerness to publicize and exploit a grieving mother's anger and sorrow can be criticized, for it points to a larger pathology in our culture — the privileging of the suffering victim as someone who possesses superior insight and so must be heeded and catered to.
This elevation of the victim into a combination sage and secular martyr reflects conditions peculiar to the modern world. Most important is the simple fact that compared to the vast majority of humans who've ever lived, we in the West today have been freed from the everyday suffering and misery that earlier generations accepted as part of human existence. For them, as the Greek playwright Euripides put it, “Suffering is necessity for mortals.” Daily physical pain, early death, famine, malnutrition, chronic disease, violence from fellow humans and nature –– all were simply non-negotiable realities of life that had to be endured. Suffering didn't make you special; it just made you human, like everybody else.
We moderns, of course, have eliminated many of those evils, while magnifying and dramatizing what suffering remains. And this success has created a monumental change in how we view life and its possibilities: rather than accepting that suffering is a necessity, we view it as an anomaly, a glitch in the system that should be corrected and that, given how litigious we are, someone is responsible for. The result is our outrageous expectations about human life and its risks and costs. We still want to achieve our various noble aims and good intentions –– peace, freedom, security, and prosperity for all –– but only if we can do so without making anybody suffer or even feel bad, including our enemies. We want utopia, a world in which everyone is well fed, secure, and happy, but we want it on the cheap.
So yes, a brutal dictator who has murdered hundreds of thousands and is eager to achieve weapons to kill millions more should be eliminated, the suffering that he inflicts and that ruins our dinner stopped — but once the butcher's bill arrives, we change our minds. The same people who castigate us for allowing the slaughter in Rwanda and Sudan and a dozen other venues now chide us for insuring that such brutality stops in Iraq. They chafe at the unforeseen consequences, mistakes, and inadvertent death that always and everywhere has accompanied the use of force. How many tens of thousands died unnecessarily in World War II, the “good war,” because of such contingencies? The tragic truth of action is that we have to accept those risks and accept that to achieve a future good we often have to risk a present evil. The only alternative is never to use force, and pacifism is a juvenile ideal refuted on every page of history.
This unreal view of life and suffering and risk is abetted by the mass media, one of whose most important commodities is human misery and emotional drama. Discussions of principle and evidence and long-term goals and their costs and risks are dry and tedious, filled with complexity and uncertainty; they simply don't play as well as do the simple stories of individual victims and their suffering, personal dramas we all can identify with and respond to on a visceral level. And along with our enjoyment, we can display our culture's most important virtue: sensitivity to suffering, the sure sign of moral superiority. To talk, as Lincoln did, of the “terrible arithmetic,” the tragic truth that some must die today so that more don't die tomorrow, is insensitive and callous in the world of Oprah and Dr. Phil.
This obsession with the emotional drama of suffering is particularly dangerous in a democracy that depends on its citizens to make decisions based on the best information and the most coherent understanding of principle that they can muster, a process that the fog of emotion and sentiment compromises. The fact is, as hard as it may sound, the sufferer or the victim isn't necessarily smarter or even more moral than anybody else. On the contrary, the overwhelming emotion of loss and grief are likely to blind one to the facts and principles upon which public policy and action should be based.
This is precisely the assumption that governs the selection of juries. If a drunk driver is on trial, only incompetence allows on the jury someone who has lost a loved one to a drunk driver. Everyone assumes that such a person will be prejudiced by his personal experience and blinded by emotion, and thus less capable of rationally evaluating the facts and coming to a just decision based on evidence and argument.
Yet when it comes to war, we think just the opposite. Combat veterans are treated as oracles even though a knowledge of the horrors of combat doesn't necessarily make one an expert on the larger purposes and goals of war. Indeed, the trauma of those experiences can just as likely blind one to those larger issues. Surely the memory of the Great War's horrors contributed to Europe’s appeasement of Hitler, with the result that it took 50 million dead to stop Nazism rather than one or two million.
As much as we respect and sympathize with Ms. Sheehan's grief, then, we are under no obligation to respect her opinion about the necessity or justice of this war, or give it any more of a hearing than anybody else's. In fact, we should suspect that it reflects her understandable grief rather than any superior insight into the reasons for going to war. Those reasons should be debated and discussed through the political process, and they should reflect as much as possible fact and rational argument. Presenting those facts and arguments is the job of a responsible media. Unfortunately, exploiting suffering and indulging their political prejudices are often more important to the media than providing their fellow citizens with the resources needed to make the best decision.
www.victorhanson.com
No one should trivialize Ms. Sheehan's grief, nor fail to understand why she is angry and wants to hold someone accountable. The worst thing a parent can experience is to lose a child, and those of us blessed enough not to have had that experience cannot judge the reaction of those who have. Yet the media's eagerness to publicize and exploit a grieving mother's anger and sorrow can be criticized, for it points to a larger pathology in our culture — the privileging of the suffering victim as someone who possesses superior insight and so must be heeded and catered to.
This elevation of the victim into a combination sage and secular martyr reflects conditions peculiar to the modern world. Most important is the simple fact that compared to the vast majority of humans who've ever lived, we in the West today have been freed from the everyday suffering and misery that earlier generations accepted as part of human existence. For them, as the Greek playwright Euripides put it, “Suffering is necessity for mortals.” Daily physical pain, early death, famine, malnutrition, chronic disease, violence from fellow humans and nature –– all were simply non-negotiable realities of life that had to be endured. Suffering didn't make you special; it just made you human, like everybody else.
We moderns, of course, have eliminated many of those evils, while magnifying and dramatizing what suffering remains. And this success has created a monumental change in how we view life and its possibilities: rather than accepting that suffering is a necessity, we view it as an anomaly, a glitch in the system that should be corrected and that, given how litigious we are, someone is responsible for. The result is our outrageous expectations about human life and its risks and costs. We still want to achieve our various noble aims and good intentions –– peace, freedom, security, and prosperity for all –– but only if we can do so without making anybody suffer or even feel bad, including our enemies. We want utopia, a world in which everyone is well fed, secure, and happy, but we want it on the cheap.
So yes, a brutal dictator who has murdered hundreds of thousands and is eager to achieve weapons to kill millions more should be eliminated, the suffering that he inflicts and that ruins our dinner stopped — but once the butcher's bill arrives, we change our minds. The same people who castigate us for allowing the slaughter in Rwanda and Sudan and a dozen other venues now chide us for insuring that such brutality stops in Iraq. They chafe at the unforeseen consequences, mistakes, and inadvertent death that always and everywhere has accompanied the use of force. How many tens of thousands died unnecessarily in World War II, the “good war,” because of such contingencies? The tragic truth of action is that we have to accept those risks and accept that to achieve a future good we often have to risk a present evil. The only alternative is never to use force, and pacifism is a juvenile ideal refuted on every page of history.
This unreal view of life and suffering and risk is abetted by the mass media, one of whose most important commodities is human misery and emotional drama. Discussions of principle and evidence and long-term goals and their costs and risks are dry and tedious, filled with complexity and uncertainty; they simply don't play as well as do the simple stories of individual victims and their suffering, personal dramas we all can identify with and respond to on a visceral level. And along with our enjoyment, we can display our culture's most important virtue: sensitivity to suffering, the sure sign of moral superiority. To talk, as Lincoln did, of the “terrible arithmetic,” the tragic truth that some must die today so that more don't die tomorrow, is insensitive and callous in the world of Oprah and Dr. Phil.
This obsession with the emotional drama of suffering is particularly dangerous in a democracy that depends on its citizens to make decisions based on the best information and the most coherent understanding of principle that they can muster, a process that the fog of emotion and sentiment compromises. The fact is, as hard as it may sound, the sufferer or the victim isn't necessarily smarter or even more moral than anybody else. On the contrary, the overwhelming emotion of loss and grief are likely to blind one to the facts and principles upon which public policy and action should be based.
This is precisely the assumption that governs the selection of juries. If a drunk driver is on trial, only incompetence allows on the jury someone who has lost a loved one to a drunk driver. Everyone assumes that such a person will be prejudiced by his personal experience and blinded by emotion, and thus less capable of rationally evaluating the facts and coming to a just decision based on evidence and argument.
Yet when it comes to war, we think just the opposite. Combat veterans are treated as oracles even though a knowledge of the horrors of combat doesn't necessarily make one an expert on the larger purposes and goals of war. Indeed, the trauma of those experiences can just as likely blind one to those larger issues. Surely the memory of the Great War's horrors contributed to Europe’s appeasement of Hitler, with the result that it took 50 million dead to stop Nazism rather than one or two million.
As much as we respect and sympathize with Ms. Sheehan's grief, then, we are under no obligation to respect her opinion about the necessity or justice of this war, or give it any more of a hearing than anybody else's. In fact, we should suspect that it reflects her understandable grief rather than any superior insight into the reasons for going to war. Those reasons should be debated and discussed through the political process, and they should reflect as much as possible fact and rational argument. Presenting those facts and arguments is the job of a responsible media. Unfortunately, exploiting suffering and indulging their political prejudices are often more important to the media than providing their fellow citizens with the resources needed to make the best decision.
www.victorhanson.com
S
Spartacus
Guest
My argument is that if we are not going to hold people accountable and flee all the time (Beruit, Iran and then throw up on top of that Iraq) how does THAT make us any safer?MattTheSkywalker said:I feel your pain. I hate politicians on all sides. I especially hate the ones who want to raise my taxes, though.
In other news, I've outlined the reasons for my support of the Iraq action. I continue to think it is well thought out strategy, whose tactical shortcomings are irrelevant in a larger view.
I guess we'll see how mid term elections play out.
I think it does make us safer in the long run because not only do people know we do have a kick-ass military but that we will use it if we feel the need...right or wrong...we will use it.
I do not think ignoring Saddam made the US any safer, I think it made the US less safe because people thought we were bitches, that you could bend us over the table, ass rape us and we would not do anything about it.
Similar threads
