Sheehan @ MindSay

Nomad already had a note about this.  Cindy Sheehan wrote a goodbye letter that you ought to read, and here are some excerpts:

I have invested everything I have into trying to bring peace with justice to a country that wants neither. If an individual wants both, then normally he/she is not willing to do more than walk in a protest march or sit behind his/her computer criticizing others. I have spent every available cent I got from the money a “grateful” country gave me when they killed my son and every penny that I have received in speaking or book fees since then. I have sacrificed a 29 year marriage and have traveled for extended periods of time away from Casey’s brother and sisters and my health has suffered and my hospital bills from last summer (when I almost died) are in collection because I have used all my energy trying to stop this country from slaughtering innocent human beings. I have been called every despicable name that small minds can think of and have had my life threatened many times.

I wish I had something wise to add... all I feel is that this is a woman who tried to make something good, something that made sense out of her son's death.  It was wrong in so many ways to villify her.

The Washington Business Journal reports that anti-war activists, led by Cindy Sheehan, protested a press conference being held by Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahn Emanuel. Rep. Emanuel (D-IL), the fourth highest ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, was holding the press conference to discuss the Democratic proposals on lobbying reform.

Emanuel finally gave up trying to be heard over the chants, and retreated to a caucus room where Democrats were meeting.

Sheehan says she has nothing against lobbying reform, but she and her fellow anti-war activists want Democrats to know they will keep pressuring Congress to end the war in Iraq.

A few comments on this should suffice. First, one only need to mention the names of Jack Abramoff and Duke Cunningham to demonstrate how important the issue of lobbying reform is. The Republican-run House of Representatives showed how desperately meaningful reform is needed. For Sheehan to attempt to attract attention away from serious reform proposals is shameful.

Secondly, Sheehan's tactics of pressuring the Congress to end the war are misplaced. The Legislative Branch of the Federal government has almost no role in the crafting and implimentation of foreign policy. Since no credible individual is advocating that the Congress cut the funding for the War in Iraq, there's not much that can be done by the Democratic Congress.

Finally, Sheehan demonstrates that she is cut from the same cloth as the Administration cheerleaders who shout down anyone who would question the President and his handling of the war. By preventing Rahm Emanuel from conducting his press conference, Sheehan and her crowd embrace the bullying and anti-free speech tactics of their political opponents.

I just had to write because at the moment I'm extremely proud of my obviously 8th cousin, Cindy Sheehan, and what's she started. 100,000 people will march on Washington against the Iraq War.

I only wish I could join my brethren. I just have this to say. We Sheehans are fiery. Don't mess with the S.

Oh, George messed. And he will get his shit fucked up.

As a student, I have been involved in studying the mass media for some time now, and the bulk of what I read and hear is the issue of content. Sex, drug references and violence on television, video games and the internet. Many activists, such as Hilary Clinton, and many in the new FCC administration have started major campaigns to try and fight this. Many citizens are also concerned, as they are hearing scathing, favishly- introduced stories about bloody, sexy video games and provocative teenage novels. The funny thing is, if the issue is content in general, such content is not only limited to books, video games, movies, or websites. We see it on television everyday, but the blame is placed upon animated programs such as South Park, The Simpsons, or other popular series' such as Sex and the City or Buffy the Vampire Slayer. What Im here to say is that there is another more obtrusive vehicle through which such content is sent into our homes: advertising.
    I know what you're thinking. Advertising? Stupid little commercials?
    Well...yeah. Stupid little commercials.
    As the sex and violence in commercials may not be as graphic or the jokes and innuendoes as blunt as those in movies or books, it still exists.  For example, the new Hardees campaign. You know, the one with the promiscuously dressed model riding on a toy horse while eating a burger. Upon opening a copy of Sports Illustrated magazine I am always bombarded with huge, full-page ads filled with sexual inuendoes and half-dressed women. The only difference between the ads and the shows are that the ads are using sexual situations as a draw to a product (ie- if you buy this, you will get "fill in the blank")  Why do we glaze our eyes over that, saying nothing, and, at the same time, scream about the same kind of promiscuity or double-entendres in the soaps or some late-night comedy show? It seems to me that such programming as South Park (or any animated series without Disney or WB stamped on it), or Sex and the City has been stigmatized in the debate of innapropriate content on television- because that's all we hear!
    ** I am not saying that such commericials are innapropriate. I am not a Kansas preacher on a crusade to promote morality in the media. My point is that, since both commercials and tv shows use the same kind of general content and themes to target a demographic, why is it that I never hear advertising in the dabate?
    On the topic of demographics, I would like to discuss some other things that are on my mind.
    You still with me?
    Good, because Im about to get even more provocative.
    We all know the whole left/right, liberal/conservative divide. It's not only a divide but a fucking canyon in modern politics. Ive also heard the arguments of the media being liberal and, on the other side, the media being conservative. Well...I think both are true to some extent. It just depends on where you turn. Some like Fox, some like CBS, some like The Daily Show. Some love to hear the uncanny spin from Bill O'Reilly and Fox News, and some like to hear Jon Stewart's daily irreverent take on the news. As far as how the news is handled and what views are heard or emphasized varies between the two, BUT, they both work the same way commercially-speaking. In reality, there is no difference between a gun-bearing, flag-waving, patriot who honors every word metioned on Fox, and a cynical protestor who loves Jon Stewart. Both of them, while there is no particular difference in general intelligence or age,  are the desired audience for the show they watch. What I mean by desired is that every little view, behavior and style has been marketed. Remember all the Mountain Dew ads, the face-paced cinamatography on MTV (denoting a younger generation). It seems that there is no existence of a true deviant or "rebel". Everything is pre-packaged. Green Day may have written some damn good songs on the "American Idiot" album, but, guess what, it has been marketed in the same package as Jon Stewart and most of the rap artists. No one is being there self anymore. They choose who to be according to the media, and everything that kind of person is supposed to like (for the most part) they like, and they are told what to hate.
    I may not like many things about this country, but, at the same time, I shouldn't feel obligated to like a lot of other things.
    Come on people! Step out of the mold!

*Note: I am not saying Jon Stewart or Green Day or Fox suck. No. What Im saying is to simply choose your own lifestyle. Also, those were just arbitrary examples I thought up to the top of my head. MTV is another, which tends to be a magnet for the left ever since Bill Clinton made a huge show in the early nineties on Rock the Vote. (who also ended up winning the 18-25 vote in 1992) ---On that note, I rest my case.