Media & BushCo & Human Rights & Strategizing Posted by Oaktown Girl, 30 May 2007 06:22 am

Cindy Sheehan, Camp Casey, and Protest Strategy

Q: What’s worse than the death of your child?

  • A: Your child dying in an unjust faux-patriotic charade of a “war” founded on fear-mongering lies and calculated deception.

Q: What can make your grief over this unbearable loss even worse?

  • A: Having the perpetrators of the tragedy use your child’s death as an excuse and justification for the deaths of countless more people’s children.
  • A: Being told that by demanding accountability from the people who caused your child’s death, you are dishonoring his life and everything for which he stood.
  • A: Having your fitness as a parent and spouse questioned, flayed, dissected, and ultimately dismissed before a national television audience.

There are of course a lot more answers to that second question, and Cindy Sheehan endured all of them with strength and dignity and an unshakable courage. She did not start the anti-Iraq War movement, but she certainly lit a fire under it by forcing it into the pages of newspapers across the country and onto prime-time TV network news. Her stance in Crawford, Texas heightened the visibility (and therefore increased the support) of groups such as Military Families Speak Out, Gold Star Families for Peace (of which Sheehan is a founding member), and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (formerly Operation Truth).What happened there in Crawford gave people across the country a nucleus around which to rally. It finally forced the beginning of a real national discussion (if not a debate, exactly) about the US invasion of Iraq: Why did we go there in the first place, and why the hell are we still there now? Prior to Sheehan being in Crawford, the pundits, the corporate media, and with a few notable exceptions, the politicians, had been successful in seeing to it that this discussion never took place on a national scale.

For all the good that came out of the protest in Crawford, I feel that strategically a golden opportunity was lost.

When Cindy Sheehan went to Crawford, she had just one question for the President: what was the “noble cause” for which her son died. When I first heard about this, I was elated. As badly as I felt for Ms. Sheehan that she’d lost her son to this travesty of a “war”, I was rejoicing in what she was doing: forcing America to recognize at least some of the impact and consequences of our actions in Iraq in a way that could not be ignored. It put a tangible, undeniable face to the deaths and casualties of U.S. soldiers, something that had been painstakingly and meticulously hidden from the American view lest we get our delicate sensibilities upset…and start asking questions.
The tragic beauty of the “What noble cause?” question is that the politicians could not escape it, could not triangulate it, and could not re-frame it without their doing so being glaringly exposed as a cowardly dodge. In August 2005, the talking points for why we went into Iraq were shifting faster than the drivers at the Indy 500, but this “what noble cause?” question was something Bush and Company could not shift away from.

I began to worry about the reports I was hearing when more and more people joined Cindy in Crawford. As the protest morphed into a “Bring the troops home now” movement, it appeared to be moving away from its greatest strength: demanding an answer to the question “what noble cause?”

In August 2005, America wasn’t ready to embrace a “Bring the Troops Home Now” movement. Too many people still believed we had to stay in Iraq to prevent “all hell breaking loose” (as if it hadn’t already), prevent a civil war (barn door, horse gone), because we “owed it” to the Iraqis to try to clean up the mess we created (fire, add gasoline), or so the soldiers who died would not have died in vain (because death can only be validated by more death). But what America was ready for was an answer to Cindy Sheehan’s original question: what was the “noble cause” for which her son died? And as that question gave way to cries of “bring the troops home”, the relief of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and all the other hawks and neocons was palpable. The Post- Sept. 11th era had cemented the final conflating of the words “peace” and “anti-war” with the concepts of “surrender” and “weak” in the corporate media and in the minds of mainstream America. It was an easy feat to marginalize the protesters in Crawford as extremist lefty America-hating wackos. Having been freed from the noose of the “noble cause” question, Bush and Company resumed their familiar positions firmly back on the offensive.

Or, (to put it in truly apt baseball terminology), just like when a starting pitcher having an incredibly bad game escapes being tagged with a loss, they “spit the hook”.

Even after it was clear we’d lost our best chance to stay on the offensive due to the deemphasizing of the “noble cause” question , there was still hope in Cindy Sheehan’s meeting with Arizona Senator John McCain. Strategically speaking, it was essential that no matter what else was said in that meeting regarding bringing the troops home, Cindy had to ask that question, right to his face, and not back down until she got an answer.

But alas, apparently it did not happen. After the meeting, McCain was quoted as saying, “We just have fundamental disagreements.” USA Today reported the following:

Sheehan’s conference with McCain was one of several scheduled this week as part of her campaign to persuade members of Congress to explain the reasons for the war.

Explain the reasons for the war? Ha! That’s easy, there’s a million of them. It’s a neocon’s wet dream to get asked that question. It’s flabby and nebulous and you can take it wherever the hell you want to take it. “What’s the noble cause my son died for?” – now that’s pinpoint. It’s the tip of a dagger. It’s inescapable. Any possible answer is easily exposed for the bullshit it is:

  • The noble cause was protecting our freedom.
    Really? How so?
  • The noble cause was freeing the Iraqis.
    Really? Because that’s not what you told us going in.

Don’t get me wrong. I was all for bringing the troops home in August 2005. But it’s important to see and understand the bigger picture of any given situation, know what the strongest card you’re holding is, and then play the holy hell out it. And I’m not talking about Cindy Sheehan specifically here, but the strategy of the larger protest that sprung up around her. It would have been sweet had there been more people down there thinking, “We’ve got these fuckers up against the wall, now let’s keep them there”. But that means getting into strategy and message discipline, and protests like that don’t really lend themselves to a focused strategy or message discipline. To be fair, focused strategy and message discipline aren’t exactly liberal strong points in any situation (*sigh*). So I guess what this all comes down to is me observing a very good thing (Camp Casey) and concluding it could have been just a little bit better.

Yesterday Cindy Sheehan announced she was retiring from the Peace Movement. Good for you, Cindy. Go home, rest, regenerate, enjoy being with your family. And then come back, we need you. Or don’t. If you stay “retired”, we’ll certainly understand. Lord knows you’ve given and sacrificed more than you ever should have had to. But before you go, let me add my voice to those sincerely thanking you for all you’ve done, and for inspiring others to take action as well.

Trackbacks

Responses to “Cindy Sheehan, Camp Casey, and Protest Strategy”

  1. on 30 May 2007 at 8:35 am 1. Kiera PSI said …

    Amen and halleluiah. Why do we (collectively) spit on those who are brave enough to demand accountability? What is our basic flaw, as a nation, that we seem to think it’s okay to be less than competent, less than honest, less than compassionate? Where did we go wrong?

    As Cindy put it, this “America” that we live in today is “not the country that I love”.

  2. on 30 May 2007 at 10:13 am 2. christian h. said …

    Thanks for this post, Oaktown Girl. And thanks to Cindy Sheehan for giving her all for the cause of justice!
    Even though I actually am an extreme leftist, I agree with your tactical analysis. I wouldn’t necessarily rely on the USA Today account of Sheehan’s meeting with McCain (I would not at all be surprised if a newspaper editor softened the question), but I agree that the original question Sheehan asked had the power to undermine the pro-war position, change mass consciousness, one might say; and this opportunity was lost by hasty broadening of the demands. Or maybe not “lost”, but rather “not grasped to the full extent possible” - after all, the public consciousness has changed, not least thanks to the questions asked by Sheehan, and a growing number of veterans and family members of veterans.

  3. on 30 May 2007 at 10:51 am 3. James Killus said …

    My wife Amy sometimes does transcription work, and some of it comes from documentary film makers who also need time stamping on the transcripts. I’ve sometimes helped her out, though that was easier when my typing speed was faster.

    A couple of months before the Crawford publicity, before Sheehan had gained any prominance whatsoever, Amy did a transcript for what was to become (I think) a documentary on the movement to ban military recruiters from high schools. There were many interviews, several of them emotionally compelling, but among them was one of Sheehan.

    That the anti-war movement is tactically thumbfingered pretty much goes without saying. For as long as I’ve been paying attention (over 40 years now), it’s looked a lot like many of the players are in love with the sounds of their own voices, and in more than a few cases, just as addicted to an authoritarian worldview as those they criticize (which is one of the sources of the “neocons”–authoritarian 60s lefitsts who became authoritarian 90s rightists).

    Nevertheless, the present anti-war movement does apparently provide some aid and comfort, not to the enemy, but to the brutally bereaved, and I think it may have saved Sheehan’s life. Because in that interview, she looked like someone barely clinging to life, who was wondering why she should keep up the effort.

    She deserves better than she has gotten. From everyone. But those who have villified her deserve to rot in hell.

  4. on 30 May 2007 at 10:59 am 4. Oaktown Girl said …

    Thanks, christian.

    wouldn’t necessarily rely on the USA Today

    Agreed. But that particular accounting of events reflects exactly what all the other news reports on TV and radio were saying as well. Sheehan got marginalized pretty good, I remember quite clearly. The most used McCain quote after their meeting was his soft, gentle, conciliatory line, “We just have fundamental disagreements”, and the most used quote from Sheehan was the “warmonger” one.

    …and this opportunity was lost by hasty broadening of the demands. Or maybe not “lost”, but rather “not grasped to the full extent possible”

    Absolutely. That’s why I tried to emphasize all the good that came out of Camp Casey, even if we didn’t nail those BushCo fuckers as much as perhaps was possible.

  5. on 30 May 2007 at 11:44 am 5. Oaktown Girl said …

    James - Bravo to everything you said.

    I don’t know anything about a documentary, but I do know that a movement and support groups around banning military recruiting from high schools kicked up into high gear a few years ago with the new law that says military recruiters have full access to all student information unless a parent “opts out”. The problem with “opt out” instead of “opt in” is patently obvious. I know the “Democracy for America” groups were quite instrumental in helping to organize and get the word out around this particular issue.

    I’ve never heard/seen the word “thumbfingered”, but yeah, that’s one way to put it for sure!

  6. on 30 May 2007 at 3:26 pm 6. JP Stormcrow said …

    I must admit that with Cindy Sheehan I have not done my homework, so I think my perceptions are colored mightily by “Media Cindy Sheehan” and various shades of “Blogosphere Cindy Sheehan”. However, you know when someone is that polarizing, that they have clearly hit a nerve.

  7. on 30 May 2007 at 3:47 pm 7. Kiera PSI said …

    I almost commented that she’d pricked their consciences, but then realized that most of the “they” I’d be referring to had none.

  8. on 30 May 2007 at 4:14 pm 8. Oaktown Girl said …

    JP – you hit the nail on the head when you said “polarizing figure”, and that’s exactly the point of my frustration. When Cindy Sheehan asked the “what noble cause?” question, she did absolutely nothing to make anyone see her as a polarizing figure. She was told that her son died for a “noble cause”, and she had every right to inquire what that “noble cause” was. Of course the wingnuts had conniption fits the minute she sat down in front of the Bush compound in Crawford, and they immediately when into demonization overdrive. But in those early days when the “what noble cause?” question was still forefront in the reporting of why she was in Crawford, there was a general consensus, even in the corporate media, not only that she had every right to know the answer to that question, but that the rest of us had a right to know the answer as well.

    As soon as the reason for being in Crawford began to shift from “what noble cause” to “bring the troops home now”, that’s when the media began portraying her as a “polarizing figure”, often using those exact words. And as I’ve tried to make clear, in August 2005, “bring the troops home now” was indeed a very polarizing idea. Right wing (chicken) hawks wanted to stay to “finish the job” (anything short of that would be “surrender”), and many liberals as well as the few Republicans who were ready to admit they’d been duped were still clinging to the idea that somehow by staying we could yet make things right.

    Indeed, not only did the corporate media put their spin on Cindy Sheehan for their own purposes, but as you note, the blogosphere did as well. And I’ve never seen or heard anyone anywhere discuss the “noble cause” vs. “bring the troops home” issue - not only how it helped BushCo “spit the hook”, but how we helped them do it. That’s why I’m discussing it here. And of course, as James had noted, it relates to similar issues of personal agendas and grandstanding that have plagued activists on the “left” for as long as anyone can remember. That’s one thing the wingnuts have over us – their natural tendency to shut up and follow the leader indeed has its strategic advantages.

    [Kiera in #7 - for a second there, I thought you were going to call them “pricks”, which would have worked too, I suppose.]

  9. on 30 May 2007 at 6:05 pm 9. Zeus said …

    Oaktown Girl,

    I think Cindy’s treatment was a symptom, as others have noted, of a mindset that still reacts rather than proacts. Whether it is a movement that cannot focus on a single compelling question (”What noble cause did my son die for”)and follow it like a bloodhound to the criminal hiding in the bushes (pardon the pun), or an unacknowledged attachment to authoritarianism, or whatever, the anti-war movement has not diagnosed its own weaknesses, nor capitalized effectively on its strengths. It is always much easier to simply organize another protest than to do the hard work of building peace infrastructure which is affirmative and supportive not just of ideas but of actual people (like Sheehan) and organized, active, compelling moral alternatives. But this requires conviction, courage, a challenge of one’s ego-centrism, in reality and not drama.

    Unfortunately, Sheehan was “chosen” but not supported, and I’m not sure she was necessarily the best candidate, but she did deserve better. She deserved not adulation or desire for her to be the face of movement, but support for her very real situation that was emblematic of the struggles and sorrows of a larger nation. The anit-war left did not make that leap, allowing itself to settle on the individual level and not on the collective struggle. Ms. Sheehan allowed herself to serve as the face, however, as well, agreeing to the celebrity associated with being a vanguard figure. I’m not sure she always chose wisely herself, choosing often symbolic actions over the hard persistent efforts at investigation and advocacy that one saw in the 9-11 families and the Patrick Tillman’s family members.

    However, the left, does appear to have a disempowering desire still for an “authority” vested in a person (where is the next MLK? anyone? anyone?), rather than understanding that this movement will be guided by mutual organizing persistently, doggedly pursued has made it ignorable, a Kabuki theater. Okay, says Bush, “You’ve had your political show, now give me what I want” (and the Democrats did, scrupulously avoiding any moral confrontation). “No we don’t want to offend, we don’t want to fight. We just want to be liked and make sure everyone gets along (more than doing what is right).”

    There is not likely to be so much traction, especially with the handicap of a corporate media, in a reactive position. Grief may be inevitable in senseless deaths that serve immoral ends, but it is the redemption of steely courage and conviction which wins that day, and we are looking outside ourselves for someone else to do the work, to lead the charge. In so doing we set up Cindy Sheehan and ourselves for failure, for we betray a lack of self-respect, a lack of faith in our convictions, and a lack of indefatigability in our efforts. If they know that we will never back down and that we will keep coming at them time and time again until justice is done, the Bushies will back down, but they’ve never been giving the chance. Victory is not the point. Unflagging conviction and action are. It is not accident that they end in victory and if left unattended, result in retirements from the cause and burn-out. A cause in and of itself is insufficient without the fire, and one shouldn’t expect one person to shoulder that fire nor keep it burning.

    Citizen Zeus

  10. on 30 May 2007 at 7:37 pm 10. Kiera PSI said …

    [to the criminal hiding in the bushes]

    Don’t you mean to the Bushes hiding in the criminals? Sorry, couldn’t resist being handed the straight line.

  11. on 30 May 2007 at 8:28 pm 11. Oaktown Girl said …

    Zeus - I’m quite sure we are on the same page.

    I wanted to use this particular example of what happened down in Crawford exactly because it is so emblematic of the mistakes that are made time, and time, and time again. And it’s an odd paradox, isn’t it, that while so many protesters and activists insist on following their own personal agendas no matter what the cost, there’s also a steady whining about the lack of any “true” leaders.

    Well, to be a little more fair, I find that the most dedicated and effective activists do indeed understand that the “great leader” figure is a relic of times past, and looking for/waiting for a new one to arrive wastes time and only discourages people from claiming and embracing their own leadership skills. It’s usually the least effective and non-engaged people that I hear whining loudest about the absence of a “True Leader”. It gives them an excuse to remain non-engaged while they wait for some Great Leader to arrive, inspire them, and tell them what to do.

    We needed Cindy Sheehan to put a face on the Iraq invasion because the corporate media sure as hell wasn’t going to do it without being forced. But I agree with you that we absolutely did not need her to be the “face of the movement”. When that happened, it was both the beginning and the end, with predictable results.

    And when I say to Cindy, “come back, we need you”, it’s because we need every thinking, conscious, caring person we can get who’s willing to get off their ass and do something. We don’t need her to comeback as the “face of the movement”. That’s no good for anybody, certainly not for her. And as you’ve pointed out, Cindy Sheehan’s choices of what actions to pursue do not, I believe, do a very good job of forwarding the cause. In fact, sometimes they leave me curled up in a ball on the ground sobbing and weeping in a dark corner. And in all honesty, that’s really not me at my best.

  12. on 30 May 2007 at 11:20 pm 12. Zeus said …

    Kiera, Touche. Glad to drop the straight line. That’s what friends or for, rousting the Bushes in the criminals with well-deserved ridicule (what is it with these people Cheney holing up in his hidey-hole, Rove holing up in his God-knows-where contemplating his escape plans and his ambiguous sexuality, not to mention the entire Bush family and their weird secrecy about family matters (giving “expunged” a very broad meaning from DWI records to erased emails).

    Oaktown Girl. You got my gist dead on, and said it better besides. I couldn’t agree more, except for that curling up in a ball part. I don’t want my sister-in-arms in the fetal position if’n I can help crack a few cynicism-busting wry jokes. To the rescue…. (of course, but not in that singular, heroic way that has past its time, unless, of course it can be taken as kitschy irony and get you off the kitchen floor after hearing another whiny tirade from the King of Smirk.) Hasta la vista (that’d be God not Ahhhnold) and good humor, sallying forward.

    Citizen Zeus

  13. on 31 May 2007 at 5:33 am 13. christian h. said …

    I am going to be somewhat disagreeable and say that there is no peace movement; there are different movements that happen to agree on their opposition to the war in Iraq. And this lack of unity is not merely an outflow of overblown egos - there are very real ideological differences. There are actual peace activists, meaning people who oppose war; liberals who oppose this war, but in general are down with the US using military force “for good”; people like me who oppose Western military action as invariably imperialist, but are certainly not pacifists. We may all act together to stop the occupation of Iraq. The inability to do that is lamentable and has to do with the aforementioned ego problems, the attempt of some organizations in the radical spectrum to hijack the effort as a means to get our message out, as well as the desire on the part of many liberals to distance themselves from what they regard as the “fringe” in order to win credibility.
    We should definitely do a better job at forging a tactical alliance!
    However, longterm unity is neither desirable nor possible. I am not being cynical here, or sectarian, just realistic. I believe all of us have some positive vision for the future, they just happen to be incompatible.

  14. on 31 May 2007 at 6:37 am 14. Kiera PSI said …

    I believe that war can be necessary. I also believe that war waged strictly for profit is a terrible affront to morality. But my biggest protest on the US waging war in the Middle East, is that after all this time, the idiots in the Pentagon and White House STILL do not understand their mindset. They just don’t get that we aren’t heroes to anyone there, and wouldn’t be even if our motives were pure. We are infidels and invaders…mucking about in their business, defaming their god…killing their faithful. The only people who truly, in their hearts, want us there are those that will profit from it. And even they will be entirely two-faced about it and will revile us as soon as they are in a strong enough position to do so.

    This isn’t just an immoral, unethical military action; it is an abysmally STUPID one. Not even the objectives of the greedy US corporations can truly be achieved there…though they’ll enjoy bleeding our tax dollars while they discover this. It’s just not possible and after all these years they fail to understand that, when I, a civilian, have seen it with perfect clarity from day one. Stupidity, thy name is .

  15. on 31 May 2007 at 10:10 am 15. Oaktown Girl said …

    Ha! Listen to Zeus bringing teh funny. Love it!

    Message to Christian –
    I refuse to be led over the bloggy cliffs by being sucked into a discussion on the existence/non-existence of a “Peace Movement”, which is just semantics anyway.

    I consider your actions in this matter to be hostile, aggressive, and inflammatory. Further attempts to bait me will be met by a relentless barrage of Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, and Lindsay Lohan updates.

    You have been warned.

  16. on 31 May 2007 at 1:31 pm 16. James Killus said …

    But what if I want the endless barrage of Paris Hiltong, Britney Spears, and Lindsay Lohan updates? I mean, what about us grils?

    Also, last day at old job, next two weeks, vacation, family stuff plus college reunion, then new job. Unsure of both connections and mental state during travel. Will attempt to Keep In Touch, but no promises, see aforementioned mental state.

  17. on 31 May 2007 at 2:20 pm 17. christian h. said …

    Yeah right, bring out the big guns, won’t you… and I wasn’t trying to bait anyone anyway. Plus, what does “will be me by a relentless barrage” even mean?

  18. on 31 May 2007 at 2:53 pm 18. Oaktown Girl said …

    Plus, what does “will be me by a relentless barrage” even mean?

    OK, and so to add to the list of offenses, you don’t even have the courtesy to go in and fix my typo and change “me” to “met”. Dammit man, at our Worldwide WAAGNFNP gathering (I’m thinking Summer 2008, Russian River Valley area, by the way), I’m tempted to have the new Ministry of Justice Sheriff, Kiera, just throw you in the trunk and keep you there. Forever. Well, perhaps well crack the lid open just a little so you can hear the keynote address which will be about all the good news of nuclear proliferation, loose nukes, and “suitcase” nukes speeding us to the Glorious Giant Nuclear Fireball. Huzzah!

    ***ALERT ALERT ALERT!!!
    PARIS HILTON STRESSED ABOUT GOING TO JAIL - EVEN SHOPPING NOT HELPING!!!

    Source: Paris Hilton Is Dreading Jail Time
    WEDNESDAY MAY 30, 2007 09:00 AM EDT
    By Sara Hammel

    Paris Hilton may be putting on a brave face - she’s spent the past week
    shopping and partying with friends - but a source tells PEOPLE the heiress
    is hugely distressed about her impending jail time.

    “Paris hasn’t been eating at all and her parents and friends are beyond worried about her,” the source says. “She breaks down crying a lot because
    she just can’t deal with the reality and the pressure of everything that is happening.”
    (snip)

    But the fact is, “She’s been having such a tough time with it all despite her going out with friends and going shopping,” the source says. “She just does that to keep her mind of things and to try and stay as normal as possible right now.”

    Until then, she’s counting on her family to help get her through. “Her biggest support has been her family - her parents without a doubt,” says the
    source. “She talks to them a million times a day and they are doing everything they can to make sure that she comes out of this okay.”

    Some others, however, have not been as helpful. “As for her friends, that’s
    been another spot of stress for Paris,” the source says. “She really can’t
    take how most people around her have scattered and distanced themselves.”

  19. on 31 May 2007 at 2:54 pm 19. Kiera PSI said …

    You had to tell her about the boo-boo, didn’t you, christian h - now she’s gone and fixed it and you’ll look silly. She doesn’t need to mention that Lindsay Lohan’s father claims she’s addicted to oxycontin, that Nichole Ritchie is now afraid that she will go to jail for her DUI charges, and that Britney Smears…ah, Spears, has apologized on her web site and claims that she’s not suffering from depression, that the end of her marriage was just too much (how the heck does she define depression?).

    Obviously, I don’t have enough to do at work.

  20. on 31 May 2007 at 3:00 pm 20. Kiera PSI said …

    MOJ Sheriff? When did that happen? I swear, I get drafted for so many things. Yesterday I learned I’d been drafted to sit on a board in support of holistic practices education. Honestly. I thought I was volunteering to help set up a database and business forms and suddenly I’m on a board of directors? Not a paid position, of course…they never are. Where’s that fireball when you need it?

    BTW, Putin has stated that the US is gearing up the arms race again…so that fireball may not be all that far away. Shall I practice hiding under my desk a la gradeschool drills?

  21. on 31 May 2007 at 3:15 pm 21. Oaktown Girl said …

    MOJ Sheriff? When did that happen? I swear, I get drafted for so many things.

    You got drafted when you so generously provided THE TRUNK with it’s nifty Central California “freeze-or-fry” feature, which is in effect 80-90% of the time. Perfect for the administration of Justice.

    But it’s a good gig. You get a cool badge n’ everything! And don’t worry, you don’t have to enforce the laws, you just have to enforce the punishment. Like I said, it’s a sweet gig. And don’t forget to put obnoxious “ALERT” signs in front of your Hollywood starlet updates for christian.

    Shall I practice hiding under my desk a la gradeschool drills?

    You give me a great idea for the kids’ workshop at the Worldwide WAAGNFNP gathering: at the sound of alarm, instead of hiding under desks, we teach the kids to run outside to greet the GNF with open arms. [ok, back to work before I get into too much trouble!]

  22. on 31 May 2007 at 4:24 pm 22. christian h. said …

    I knew it! In true Orwellian fashion, the MOJ has edited her egregious typographical violation to hide the crime. Next she will claim to not recall any of it.

    And just so you know, maybe I’ll actually visit Kazan sometime - maybe even next summer - and it is in a Russian river valley. Trunk that, Sheriff!

  23. on 31 May 2007 at 4:29 pm 23. Oaktown Girl said …

    Recall what?

  24. on 31 May 2007 at 4:29 pm 24. christian h. said …

    I want to add that, if the MOJ hadn’t fired all her prosecutors for political reasons, she might add to the charges that earlier today a medication-related spam comment snuck through MOOAD defenses for up to two hours before an alert staff member caught and deleted re-trunked it.
    In related news, sorry James, we are under a spam attack the last couple days, so it took me some time to find your comment and de-spam it.

  25. on 31 May 2007 at 4:57 pm 25. Kiera PSI said …

    Wait a minute…abuse of the Sheriff wasn’t part of the job description. I just get a way-cool badge and the pleasure…ah, I mean…DUTY of re-trunking egregious offenders! Sniff.

    And the MOJ is slightly misinformed. The freezing or frying actually takes place 90-95% of the time…you have to take into account the magnification feature of the metal enclosed space to intensify the effects of the open-air temperature.

  26. on 31 May 2007 at 5:08 pm 26. Oaktown Girl said …

    James - thanks for the update. We’ll miss you. Maybe you can send us a dispatch or two.

    Have a wonderful trip, and congrats on the new gig.

  27. on 31 May 2007 at 5:10 pm 27. Oaktown Girl said …

    Wait a minute…abuse of the Sheriff wasn’t part of the job description

    Oh, it’s there, alright. Falls under “other duties as assigned”. And of course, initiative always rewarded!

  28. on 31 May 2007 at 7:06 pm 28. christian h. said …

    James, I wish a relaxing vacation, and a good start to the new job!

  29. on 02 Jun 2007 at 6:39 pm 29. Hattie said …

    I saw Cindy Sheehan talk a while ago; what struck me was how approachable she was. People would go up to her, call her by her first name, touch her, ask questions that she would try to answer, and she never turned anyone off, even some who seemed like crocks. That really impressed me.
    Her strength is that she refuses to get hard. It’s easy to react to trauma and grief by turning off your emotions and just deciding you won’t care any more, but she has never done that. That is her form of genius.
    She is a saint in the real sense of that word, “a person of great virtue and benevolence.”

  30. on 02 Jun 2007 at 7:08 pm 30. Oaktown Girl said …

    Thanks for sharing that, Hattie. I couldn’t agree more.

    I’ve never met Cindy Sheehan nor heard her speak live. I’ve only heard her on the radio (on numerous occasions on Air America and Democracy Now), and my impression is exactly the same as yours.

    And though we’ve have numerous cantankerous discussions about “faith” on this blog, I think it takes faith as well as strength to do what she has done - faith that there’s something in humanity still worth fighting for.