Sunday, March 19, 2006

It's San Francisco. Who Would Have Guessed?

You have to read this piece from the SF Gate. They just couldn't gush enough over Cindy Sheehan. They did everything short of calling her the Messiah. It also mentions a movie being made about her staring none other than Susan Sarandon. How perfect is that? Two books and a movie. I wonder how much money she's making on her son's name?
Filed under Daft Liberals

11 comments:

Za said...

She'd be making less if people didn't react against her.

Similarly, it's a rather large distortion to say she's making money "on her son's name". She's doing it on her own, motivated by her son's death.

I imagine that if your mother was killed, and you protested against the person who caused it, you wouldn't appreciate people saying that you were just attempting to get some spotlight on your mother's name.

Indian Chris said...

That's because I wouldn't be writing books, lunching with Hollywood morons, having a movie made about me or generally making an ass out of myself like Ms. Sheehan.

Indian Chris said...

Now, if Bush himself had shot him I would understand, but he didn't. Nobody made Casey Sheehan join the military. He knew full well what could happen when he sighed up. Bush isn't to be blamed. Casey isn't to be blamed. Cindy isn't to be blamed. The terrorist who who pulled the trigger is.

Za said...

He knew full well what could have happened - but he thought the war was worthwhile when he signed up, a view he later rescinded.

Similarly, no "terrorist" would have pulled the trigger if Bush hadn't started the war in the first place.

Indian Chris said...

Well, if you want to get technical it was people like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry who got Casey Sheehan killed. The president can't send American troops to war without the consent of Congress. They voted to send him there.

Za said...

Actually, not true - he already had a bombing campaign going before Congress had signed off on the war. He can pretty much move troops wherever, it's just that to officially "be at war", he needs Congress to say so.

Opinionnation said...

Za, do you agree with her statement in which she labels those who killed her son and those who blow up innocent people as freedom fighters? Do you agree with the fact that she embraced a dictator by the name of Hugo Chavez? And if you don't agree why is it you seem to be defending a movie being made about a person who claims terrorists are "freedom fighters"?

Maybe, I can finally see you take a coherent position by answering these very simple questions. Then again, maybe not...

Za said...

Firstly, I don't give a crap whether they make that movie or not - nor have I mentioned it a single time so far (until you brought it up). But I can understand that you might have trouble disconnecting "arguments about the way people talk about Sheenan" with "supporting a movie about her".

Secondly, I see both sides of the Iraq war as "freedom fighters" of sorts. But each is fighting for different freedoms. The Coalition side is fighting for "freedom of opinion", by which they mean freedom to stick a western tradition onto a country that's possibly no longer ready for it, while the Iraqis on the other side (since the other side isn't solely comprised of non-Iraqis as the title "insurgent" would you have believe) is fighting for "get the heck out of our country". Then you have the insurgents (the non-Iraqis) who are fighting for their own personal "freedom to fill up a political vacuum". Freedoms are what you make of them. Basically, I see all sides in the conflict as being only their for their own self-interests.

And I have nothing against Chavez. He amuses me sometimes. As for the title "dictator", he was elected and is pro-democracy - but as I understand it, many Americans have a hard time understanding that having a socialist bent does not automatically exclude one's predilection for the democratic process. He's only been in government for four years anyway.

Opinionnation said...

LOL

Za said...

Anything particularly or just a general "lol"?

I mean, much of the first paragraph was a joke at your expense, much of the second paragraph was a joke based on the word freedom and just how pointless it is... and the third paragraph you do maintain that odd delusion about anything related to socialists, so you have reason to be laughing there too.

Za said...

And if you're laughing about my statements on "Double Bush's Popularity Rating" Chavez's "dictatorship", perhaps you need to look deeper.