Alas Poor First Amendment, I Knew You
Well at least I thought I did. The menace might be the terrorists, or perhaps the economic might of the Chinese. Or maybe it’s a middle aged woman grieving and protesting the case of her fallen son. Cindy Sheehan was arrested at the State of the Union for wearing a tee shirt that protested the policies of those in charge. Letterman said it best, “for the love of Christ, how can you not have any sympathy for this woman”. Let’s forget about how we each feel about the issue of Iraq. This country was built on being able to question the status quo. It might not be popular, but that’s how we do it. We piss and moan and try to change things, because, well, that’s the way we are. It’s our nature. Riddle me the irony in this Batman. Dude, self proclaimed leader of the free world says that we are spreading the cause of freedom, liberating the oppressed and spreading democracy to formerly totalitarian dictatorships. But then, we bust a mother of a fallen soldier for “unlawful conduct” ’cause she wore a shirt to a speech of a guy that she didn’t agree with. Well you say, it’s against the law to demonstrate in the House of Congress. Exfuckingcuse me? The same place where millionare blowhards that claim to represent the citizenry spout bullshit on a regular basis and some mom who’s kid got killed in a war she didn’t agree with can’t wear a shirt expressing her opinion. That ain’t right. Dude starts the speech by fetting the late Mrs King for civil disobidience but they bust a mom for wearing a shirt. What the hell is up with that? To add insult to injury, Dude goes on for the better part of an hour expousing the benefits of “freedom” and “democracy”. I guess democracy and freedom are cool. If you agree with the powers that be. The terrorists are dangerous and need to be killed. The Chinese economic machine needs to be handled in a way that is beneficial to both parties. The real danger to our freedom and liberty doesn’t live offshore.
It lives on Pennsylvania Avenue.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:15 pm
First let’s deal with the T-shirt thing. If nothing else It wouldn’t be up to dress code for an event like this, but let’s deal with the real issue here. The state of the union speech is just that a speech. It is a chance for the President to report on the “State of the Union” not to entertain debate. Cindy Shehan doesn’t care a bit about her sons opinions or the rest of her family all she seems to care about is keeping the limelight on herself and trying to disgrace the president for herself and her benefactor george saurous and his good buddy Hillary. Some may argue that she is not in cahoots with them but ask who’s paying the bills for her to not work and travel the country?
Certainly her family who are ashamed of her and her disrespect to her son are not paying the bills.It is a well established fact that her son believed in the war and was happy to be of service and we should respect him for that. As for protesting in general it does serve a purpose and therefore should have a place. But do you honestly think that if someone had shown up at a Clinton State of the union with an anti abortion T-shirt or a “I know what the meaning of it is” T-shirt that the secret service people would have just let them walk in? Anti war protesters have the right to protest.But you and I also have the right to hear the Presidents speech. If every protester were allowed to enter the building the speech would never be made besides the obvious terrorist threat. Its sad to think that after everything that was addressed last night that many will only focus on a sad woman who is ashamed of her son the war hero. Many people have lost loved ones to war and it may never be over completly. But this woman has taken a path that I wouldn’t want to. You may look at her as akin to Martin Luther King Jr. but I look at her as a sad American Idol wannabe who can’t sing.
February 1st, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Tough topic -something like a hornet’s nest here….BUT…
Randy do you really believe for one second that Cindy is ashamed of her son?
I understand her to be grieving for him and the way he died.
Concerning your comments referring to how she might be financed, following the trail of money to the current residents of Pennsylvania Avenue sure leaves alot less to the imagination.
February 1st, 2006 at 10:45 pm
Randy your’re free to beleive what you wish, but there was nothing illegal about what she did. In fact, a woman with a shirt wasn’t arrested, but asked to leave. Turns out, neither one of them did anything illegal. This isn’t the first time this administration (though in this case it was the Capitol Police) has barred someone from an event for having an opposing opinion. There was the case of three students in CO who arrived in a car with a bumper sticker counter to the Aministration’s views. A staffer allowed them to believe he as an Secret Service agent and told them to leave or they would be arrested.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153720,00.html
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:23 am
I remember a fellow being thrown out of the Gallery for wearing a (paraphrased) “Clinton sucks” shirt a few years ago. Interesting to note that not much is being said about the Congressman’s wife being thrown out for wearing a T-shirt supporting the troops, although she wasn’t charged with a crime. Now the Capitol Police are dropping charges and issuing apologies. A little too transparent, guys.
I also rember doing an event with Clinton towards the end of his second term and being explicitly told to keep our views and opinions, favorable or otherwise, to ourselves by the Secret Service or expect to be removed from the premises. With the events for this administration, we were ASKED to follow the same rules, but it was hinted at that we could expect the same treatment for not doing so.
Our complacency about whom we elect and what we’ve allowed the political system to become may be our undoing with no way in sight to change it. Any discussion about what to do about it deteriorates into an argument between 7-years in a matter of a few words because this day and age, folks can’t have logical and reasonable debate without letting their emotions run their thinking. And we see this in every facet of our lives, from the weding planner who’s going to have the band where he/she wants them, come hell or highwater and no matter who it may inconvenience all the way to the congressman who can’t decide between towing his party line for fear of losing some precious power or doing what is logical and proper knowing it’s going to upset a few folks.
And yes, I lean conservative, I’m not ashamed of it. I’m just pointing out that this sort of attitude toward us peasants has been the norm in all Washington politics for many years now.
I’m just keeping my head down.
Geri O
February 2nd, 2006 at 7:41 am
The following sentence of mine should have read in the following manner…
“Any discussion about what to do about it deteriorates into an argument between 7-year-olds in a matter of a few words because this day and age”
Sorry for the confusion, there’s enough of that already…:o))
Geri O
February 2nd, 2006 at 6:07 pm
I’ve enjoyed reading your thoughts here on ABD, Dave. Thank you.
There’s been mention of opposing political persuasions and differences of opinion here. I agree with Geri that the problems surrounding these are largely, if not exclusively, due either to peoples’ inability or unwillingness to discuss topics, events, and opinions without immediately freebasing down to rash generalizations and personal attacks, spending all their time belittling a person they perceive as an opponent instead of spending their time communicating with a partner in conversation.
Having said that, I don’t believe the issues that should be on the tongues of willing citizen participants in our democratic republic are about Left v. Right, Liberal v. Conservative, Us v. Them. These issues are about elected officials viewing their office as a ticket to ride the gravy train instead of an opportunity to serve; elected officials deferring to the interests of campaign contributors at the expense of their constituents; elected officials intentionally labeling legislation with phraseology aimed at hiding its true intent (see “Clear Skies Act” that legalized an increase in air pollution, and “Defict Reduction Act” that actually ended up helping to increase the deficit); elected officials who, through active intervention or through inaction, impede investigations in to troubling situations or - worse - prevent investigations or hearings from taking place at all thus removing the opportunity for the citizenry of this country to be informed on the actions of what used to be their government.
Some of these most important issues don’t even center around government or those in it - we have a press in this country who question celebrities more critically and with more vigor than public servants or leaders in business, and who will gladly dump real news in favor of fluff pieces on somebody’s dog or some gossip about someone’s love life if it means better ratings; we have parents who insist that they should not have to toil under the burden of monitoring what their child watches or listens to; we have people who claim to be pro-life who, in the very next breath, talk passionately about killing homosexuals and people from other countries who practice different religions and who can’t be bothered to help feed or clothe children who are hungry and cold; we have people who protest vigorously about pollution and the need to practice good stewardship of Earth and then drive home in ‘78 Volvos that seem to pollute more than the nearby coal-burning power plant.
Too many citizens are acting as enablers because they’re not willing to put honesty, common sense, decency, and truth over their own devotion to a political party or creed.
To address Cindy Sheehan specifically, I think its hard to separate the wheat from the chaff in all the tidbits that float around about her background, her intentions, and the opinions of her deceased son. I also think that she’s a perfect example of what’s wrong right now; she could have been a steely, imposing silent presence at the SOTU, speaking volumes in that silence. Instead, she chose a path that predictably made a scene and in doing so chose to serve up sizzle instead of steak. Instead of news reports recalling her lengthy protest at Crawford and its galvanizing effect on anti-Bush-policy sentiment acting as a reminder of and a booster shot for her impact, we hear news reports that largely center on the scene she made. Whether the fallout was intentional, its hard to imagine she didn’t consider the possiblity of it ending up like this.
Maybe its just me.
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:09 pm
I have hung mics on two the 2 Bush’s and Clinton and at no time was I told to maintain a pro administration attitude. I totally agree with Dave. This guy has done more to squash debate than any pres in my time. I was in New York during the RNC and they had a lot of area around the Garden closeod to the opposition. Wake up people. The Dude is in it for his friends, not America. He is disabling the middle class to stuff the pockets of the CEO’s. The middle class is the backbone of this country, without it we got nothin.
February 3rd, 2006 at 5:50 pm
Do you have kids? How would you react if you lost him or her?
I can’t imagine losing my son due to any cause, and whatever that cause might be, I would do whatever I could to try and do what I thought was right after he was gone, regardless of what my family or anyone else thought. In addition, maybe she does have an agenda, as if Bush doesn’t?! “Second guessing is not a policy”, so anyone that questions the Prez is wrong?!
I am very disappointed in this Presidency for many reasons, both foreign and domestically, speaking.
Protesting, heck, here in the Midwest, we have a fellow, ultra-conservative freak Fred Phelps protesting military funerals and everything else, with signs that say “God hates fags” held by kids, for ANYONE that doesn’t believe in everything that he does. He never gets arrested. http://www.godhatesfags.com/