Cindy Sheehan, Nobel Prize finalist

[Atticus]

for the posters who have commented on the "big deal"-ness of Sheehan being nominated, I just thought it was interesting that SHE was the one who announced that she's a "finalist." In other words, in addition to her other fine qualities, add humility.

[MrRain422]

She's a grieving mother who happens to also be a little crazy. I really don't understand why people get so worked up about her. She's very well-intentioned, but without the abilities, resources or focus to make any sort of real impact. There are a million people just like her all over the place, it just so happens that her futile efforts followed a path that the press ate up.

[phonophore]

Worst president in the last 50 years, hands down!

 

You are absolutely correct on this man. I mean, he is no Dick Nixon that is for sure. Jimmy Carter didn't have the initiative to try and subvert the entire democratic process by working to rig the 1972 election. Nor, did he have the ambition and drive to send our country in to an unjust war in Iraq and no matter how shitty is was all working out he just kept insisting that it would all be okay if we kept doing the same thing. Obviously, W has him beat on that one. What, are you really more upset at the oil embargos of the late 70's more than electioneering and improper and dishonest miltary action?

 

As far as your idiotic remarks about his Habitat For Humanity involvement, anyone who takes issue with his passion for this cause is purely insensitive. Do you object to him working for a charity of any kind, or is it that he's helping poor people that upsets you? He's also helped to ensure fair elections in third world countries and has been very involved in charitable work through his church. Do you find those ideals and efforts stupid as well? God forbid the man should be involved in making the world a slightly better place.

[owl]

for the posters who have commented on the "big deal"-ness of Sheehan being nominated, I just thought it was interesting that SHE was the one who announced that she's a "finalist." In other words, in addition to her other fine qualities, add humility.

 

If you were famous and found out that you're a finalist for the prize (whether or not her claim is accurate, etc.), you wouldn't tell anyone?

 

She's a grieving mother who happens to also be a little crazy. I really don't understand why people get so worked up about her. She's very well-intentioned, but without the abilities, resources or focus to make any sort of real impact. There are a million people just like her all over the place, it just so happens that her futile efforts followed a path that the press ate up.

 

Nobel Peace Prize winnings could be considered "resources."

[Guest Jules]

Where was she before her son died.

[owl]

People can't change their minds?

[Guest Jules]

No.

[Atticus]

Nobel Peace Prize winnings could be considered "resources."

 

So are her son's death benefits.

[Guest Jules]

No.

 

Actually, I changed my mind. Yes, people can change their minds. Just not in this case.

[owl]

Actually, I changed my mind. Yes, people can change their minds. Just not in this case.

 

Fair enough.

 

So are her son's death benefits.

 

Should she not use the benefits? The military certainly isn't beyond using that as selling point to joining (i.e. take care of your family in the unfortunate event that you die).

 

I'm sorry, ma'am, your son died on our watch. Please take this money, but you may not use it to protest his untimely and unfortunate death.

[Atticus]

People can't change their minds?

 

you mean like stating in June of 2004 "I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis..."; "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith"; and "That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together," in regard to her meeting with Bush in June of '04, and then stating on July 5, 2005, that the same meeting was "one of the most disgusting experiences I ever had and it took me almost a year to even talk about it"?

[Derek Phillips]

Campaigning for peace and doing something to achieve it are two different things. Protesting the Iraq War does nothing to make the world more peaceful (not like the prewar situation was peaceful anyway). And regardless of whether she is on the side of peace, can you honestly say that any of her actions have had any effect on making the world more peaceful?

 

Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of protesters who ended the Vietnam war.

 

But I'm not an apologist for Cindy Sheehan. I'm neither a fan nor a detractor. I think she's genuine but sometimes taken advantage of by others who have less than genuine motives. The point is she's dedicated her life to making a statement. Statements do count.

[darkstar]

Nobel peace prize eh?

 

Kind of ironic that the peace prize (and all other prizes, economics, etc) are named after the inventor of TNT

 

I love that

[Guest Jules]

you mean like stating in June of 2004 "I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis..."; "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith"; and "That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together," in regard to her meeting with Bush in June of '04, and then stating on July 5, 2005, that the same meeting was "one of the most disgusting experiences I ever had and it took me almost a year to even talk about it"?

 

[c53x12]

Campaigning for peace and doing something to achieve it are two different things.

 

Are they?

[owl]

you mean like stating in June of 2004 "I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis..."; "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith"; and "That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together," in regard to her meeting with Bush in June of '04, and then stating on July 5, 2005, that the same meeting was "one of the most disgusting experiences I ever had and it took me almost a year to even talk about it"?

 

Not a huge deal, in my opinion. You've never changed your mind to contradict what you previously believed? I don't think that anyone would try to assert that.

 

Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of protesters who ended the Vietnam war.

 

But I'm not an apologist for Cindy Sheehan. I'm neither a fan nor a detractor. I think she's genuine but sometimes taken advantage of by others who have less than genuine motives. The point is she's dedicated her life to making a statement. Statements do count.

 

Amen.

[Guest Jules]

Not a huge deal, in my opinion. You've never changed your mind to contradict what you previously believed? I don't think that anyone would try to assert that.

Amen.

 

True, just seems a little opportunistic.

[LouieB]

Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of protesters who ended the Vietnam war.

Whoa..am I in line for a Nobel Prize?? I could really use the money....

 

LouieB

[owl]

True, just seems a little opportunistic.

 

I can certainly see where you and whatdisay are coming from.

 

In my view, though (and I've felt this way since before the steadfast Bush admin.), it's better to change one's mind and learn from a mistake than insist on sameness.

 

After all, if you can argue with someone and convince them to change their mind, they should be lauded, not criticized for weakness, right?

 

[watch me fall]

She went through a devestating, life-changing event. Surely that could change anyone's perspective.

[Atticus]

If you were famous and found out that you're a finalist for the prize (whether or not her claim is accurate, etc.), you wouldn't tell anyone?

 

If I were famous, I doubt I'd need to. Perhaps Ms. Sheehan isn't satisfied with her current "famous" standing, and felt she could use a bounce, as they say...

 

People can't change their minds?

 

It is one thing to change one's mind about a belief or stance. It is an entirely other thing to recharacterize a meeting a year later because one's voice has been given the media's loudspeaker.

 

Should she not use the benefits? The military certainly isn't beyond using that as selling point to joining (i.e. take care of your family in the unfortunate event that you die).

 

I'm sorry, ma'am, your son died on our watch. Please take this money, but you may not use it to protest his untimely and unfortunate death.

 

I've not read anywhere where the government has instructed or suggested what Ms. Sheehan do with the benefits. I thought the point we were discussing was whether she had any resources.

 

You've never changed your mind to contradict what you previously believed?

 

I've changed my mind about music, books, art, people. And while my perspective has certainly changed about events in my past, I don't think that I've changed my account of what actually happened.

[jimmyjimmy]

it is one thing to change one's mind about a belief or stance. It is an entirely other thing to recharacterize a meeting a year later because one's voice has been given the media's loudspeaker.

Ok, Lets attack this from another angle. My soap-box, my unsolicited two cents.

 

Put yourself in her position at the time of the initial meeting. Because you've just lost your son you are presented before the President of the United States. Personally, I've never met a sitting President; ( I have been lucky enough to speak with two men who have held the office) but I would assume that's it's a rather intimidating proposition. As such one, might be inclined to respond to this situation with some grace and reverence for the occasion especially if your in a fragile state of mind and you are perhaps out of your element. If asked to comment on an event like this you might even use a certain sense of decorum when describing the event.

 

Now, lets allow for some time to pass and various other variables to be introduced in to the situation where your able to reflect upon what has passed between you and this administration, this man. You've been given time to evaluate our country's position in this conflict and how that correlates with the loss of your child. It's possible, and mind you this is totally subjective, that you may re-evaluate the event in an entirely un-fulfilling light.

 

If it were me, and I was in her position...probably still in shock to some degree initially and then given the time to reflect on what's passed I would probably bitter as hell and more than a little disenfranchised with the man and our current situation in regards to this war.

 

 

I can't really comment on her current motives or on her efforts to raise awareness to her position against the war or if they're "right or wrong", shallow or genuine. Perhaps she sees touting this nomination as a means to bring attention to her cause. I only know I applaud her desire to be heard. It takes balls and I respect that.

[John Smith]

Campaigning for peace and doing something to achieve it are two different things. Protesting the Iraq War does nothing to make the world more peaceful (not like the prewar situation was peaceful anyway). And regardless of whether she is on the side of peace, can you honestly say that any of her actions have had any effect on making the world more peaceful?

 

This implies that doing nothing is the way to go. Similar to the global warming stance of the right, we don't believe it so do nothing. It totally disregareds any posibility that global warming is real or in this case totally disregards any efforts to achieve the unaceivable.

 

 

The largest anti-war protests happened well before her involvement, and most of the protests from 2005-present had nothing to do with her

 

Do you really think the way and the movement against it here somehow below the American radar before she got involved?

 

I happend to be in DC when one of the largest protests occured, last year and Ms SHeehan was there.

 

Cindy Sheehan deserves her say. Her son was killed in Iraq and shortly after his death we were loosely allied with those who killed him, simply because the Shiites appeared to have the power at the time. Think that might set you off?

[Atticus]

Ok, Lets attack this from another angle. My soap-box, my unsolicited two cents.

 

Put yourself in her position at the time of the initial meeting. Because you've just lost your son you are presented before the President of the United States. Personally, I've never met a sitting President; ( I have been lucky enough to speak with two men who have held the office) but I would assume that's it's a rather intimidating proposition. As such one, might be inclined to respond to this situation with some grace and reverence for the occasion especially if your in a fragile state of mind and you are perhaps out of your element. If asked to comment on an event like this you might even use a certain sense of decorum when describing the event.

 

Now, lets allow for some time to pass and various other variables to be introduced in to the situation where your able to reflect upon what has passed between you and this administration, this man. You've been given time to evaluate our country's position in this conflict and how that correlates with the loss of your child. It's possible, and mind you this is totally subjective, that you may re-evaluate the event in an entirely un-fulfilling light.

 

If it were me, and I was in her position...probably still in shock to some degree initially and then given the time to reflect on what's passed I would probably bitter as hell and more than a little disenfranchised with the man and our current situation in regards to this war.

I can't really comment on her current motives or on her efforts to raise awareness to her position against the war or if they're "right or wrong", shallow or genuine. Perhaps she sees touting this nomination as a means to bring attention to her cause. I only know I applaud her desire to be heard. It takes balls and I respect that.

 

Her son died April 4, 2004, the meeting was June 24, 2004 if I'm not mistaken. I'm not saying she wouldn't still be in shock, but let's not paint this as though she was thrust in front of the President immediately after her son's death. You make a good argument, but I guess I just have trouble believing that back in June of 2004 she was some softspoken grieving mother who wanted to be polite and was concerned about decorum, and then a year later, once foreign leaders and giant media were paying massive attention to her, she grew a set and decided to call Bush the greatest terrorist in the world. But you may be right in your assessment, who knows.

 

 

Cindy Sheehan deserves her say.

 

I would never argue that she doesn't have the same right to free speech that we all enjoy. I just think that given the volume her voice gathered, she could have used it more effectively if her goal was to foster opposition to the war. hanging with the likes of chavez and making some of the incendiary remarks she has made isn't the most effective use of that voice, in my opinion.

[plasticeyeball]

Her son died April 4, 2004, the meeting was June 24, 2004 if I'm not mistaken. I'm not saying she wouldn't still be in shock, but let's not paint this as though she was thrust in front of the President immediately after her son's death.

 

i'm not taken a pro or con sheehan stance but i can tell you that to someone who has suddenly lost an immediate family member, that is such a short time period that it could/would feel like it was yesterday that you first heard the news.

 

you'll know what i mean when it happens.