Can't look her in the face and give a straight answer...

I've been avoiding posting anything about Cindy Sheehan until now, because, you know, what to say? I can't know how it would feel to lose a child in war, especially a war you don't believe was necessary. If anything, I just give her mad props for the sheer courage it takes to stand in front of President Middle Finger's treehouse as a prickly reminder of the savage reality of his Pretty Little War.

But earlier in the week, the neighbors took it upon themselves to try to put the 'little lady' back into her place. It wasn't particularly surprising when one tried to disrupt a prayer by discharging a shotgun. Twice. He claims it was into the air, but really, sir, wasn't that gun tilted just a wee little bit toward the protesters? (and he claimed to be testing the weapon as a test for dove hunting. Now, I'm not a dove hunter, but WTF?!!?? a SHOTGUN?!?!? to hunt DOVES??!!!!!???? what do you have left when you hit one?) But when Larry Northern, Certified Patridiot, ran over the rows of crosses alongside the road with his pickup truck , I started a lengthy post about how reprehensible, disgusting, and yes, hypocritical, the Right and their apologists have gotten, trying to demonize and discredit anybody who has the temerity to disagree with the Official Party Line. Apparently Gold Star Moms are OK as long as they don't disagree with The Preznit.

But I rebooted without saving that post (and I'll testify that while Macs can help to avoid some of the most annoying problems of computers, user stupidity isn't eliminated), and since then, many others have written so much worthwhile that it seems redundant. Like A letter at Kos, pandagon, tbogg, Mac at pesky apostrophe, driftglass, and Cindy Sheehan herself.

[Edit}Oh, and of course The Rude Pundit

{further edit} And Will Durst


But here, I'd like to make two points.

First, regardless of the Republican lip service to improving the level of discourse, these events make apparent just how far the demonization of opposition has come. For these men to feel that actions of intimidation which fall just short of threats and assault, are somehow reasonable and appropriate responses to a small crowd exercising their rights of Free Assembly and Petition For Redress of Grievances. I know, those aren't part of the Second Amendment so Texans probably aren't real familiar with 'em, but they're still in the Bill of Rights.

This is a predictable, and predicted, result of the progressively more vicious and furious rhetoric being used to label and denigrate the Right's political opponents; and being used at ever higher levels, implying increasing acceptance. These attitudes started spreading from the rightist blogs, made their way through the radio talk shows to TV and Fox News, and are now used in political speeches.

This is a process that has been repeated many times before; first, demonize your opponents, establish them as “Other”. Then, crank up the rhetoric, and wait until someone takes it upon themselves to 'take action'. That action will become increasingly violent, unless checked. Then, blame it upon your opponents. Eventually, Official Action becomes necessary, and you are able to start throwing them in jail, and even killing them. (Side not to the 'Help, Help, I'm Being Repressed!' loudmouths both from the Right and the Religious factions: That is how repression is done. If you control most sections of the government, and practice your religion on TV, you aren't repressed. Deluded, maybe).

Second, The furious, brutal bleating response from the pundits shows just how much this event has gotten under their skin; and subsequently, how lame and transparent their ad hominem, ad hominem tu guo que, false analogies, straw man, and non sequitur attacks have become. Since Bush was installed, any opponent has been vilified and discredited through these constant arguments. But now, through a combination of the subject (I can't see where most Americans are going to feel that verbally abusing a woman who lost a son in war is appropriate or, well, American) and the revealing nature of repetition, the Standard Operating Procedure is not taking hold.

Finally, an observation and a question. I saw a clip of Bush at a press conference talking about Ms. Sheehan. During the discussion, he kept reverting to a smirk momentarily, during pauses; I've noticed that he does this either as a verbal tic, or as a delaying tactic while trying to form whole word and sentences. It seems to appear more often when discussing serious subjects, especially the war (another tell, perhaps?). Now, I know that Preznit Blowhard is a pampered, privileged smug bastard and has no empathy or even fellow-feeling for other Americans, but for FUCK'S SAKE, YOU PREENING TWIT, CAN YOU AT LEAST TALK ABOUT A WOMAN WHOSE SON DIED FOR YOUR BLOODY LITTLE WAR WITHOUT LAUGHING?