Has Sheehan Started Something?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Foreign Policy, General Politics, WarSometimes it only takes one voice to kickstart a movement. The Moderate Voice’s Joe Gandelman, captures some interesting sentiments about Sheehan and how the tide could be turning her way.
First, Joe gives us an online conversation conducted by the Washington Post with reporter Dana Milbank:
Reading, Mass.: Is Cindy Sheehan just a passing August media enriched phenomenon or the catalyst of a crisis for the Bush Presidency?Dana Milbank: That’s why I posed the question: Rosa Parks or Lyndon LaRouche?
Certainly Sheehan has caught a wave, and the ranch stakeout was very clever. But she has been seeking publicity for more than a year (she even held a protest outside the Post a few weeks ago because she didn’t like something I’d written) and for the most part, the media ignored her.
My sense is something of a perfect storm has developed: low polling numbers for Iraq, and Bush on Iraq, a surge in the violence, struggles over the constitution, and the Bush vacation providing a vacuum.
Sheehan’s story will fade after the Roberts hearings start. But it’s possible she has ignited a movement that will continue. Until now, there’s been virtually no mass antiwar movement that puts people in the streets. There’s a big antiwar protest here in DC I think on Sept. 24. That may be a gauge of where the antiwar movement is.
Second, Joe talks about Senator Chuck Hagel and how he has suggested that Bush invite Sheehan to the ranch, echoing similar sentiments expressed by our own Michael Totten yesterday.
Personally, I still think that she has every right to protest, but some of the questions I’ve heard that she wants to ask Bush don’t really seem like any he can reasonably answer. I’m speaking of questions like “Why did you kill my son?” and contradictory statements like “You can’t tell me that [he cares for the soldiers] because I’ve met with him and I know that he doesn’t care.”
In short, does she really want to meet the President? It certainly seems that’s an open question..
Of course, one poll last month showed that many in this country now think that the administration “misled” us into the war, so it only makes sense that we’re starting to see people like Sheehan asking unanswerable questions.
And if the growing sentiment in this country is one of frustration, Bush may start being asked a lot of questions from that aren’t easily answered.
This entry was posted on Friday, August 19th, 2005 and is filed under Foreign Policy, General Politics, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 19th, 2005 at 8:07 pm
She’s an anti-war mom whose son willingly and bravely served in the U.S. military and was killed in a war she hates. There’s a lot of that in this war. It’s cruel. War is cruel. I am sure there were mothers who felt as she feels in South Carolina in 1862 and Boston in 1777. Anything she becomes beyond that is what we, all of us, make of her.
I wonder what the soldiers in active service make of this all. I suppose I’ll head on over to the milblogs to find out. But I suspect I know what I’ll find. We fight one war among ourselves at home. They fight a real one over there. And as time goes on, the gulf between them and us grows incomprehensible.
As they grow closer to each other, in the mad world of war, they grow more remote from everything else. The march of Xenophon’s 10,000 is the ultimate army story. They stick together. They evolve their own morality, and they hold to it. A few get killed. But they know that if they don’t work together they all get killed. It doesn’t matter how they got into this war — it’s really not their war, anyhow.
No one at home understands what they are going through. Robert Graves, a young Welsh officer shot up in the trenches in World War I and sent home to heal, wrote, “England looked strange to us returned soldiers. We could not understand the war madness that ran about everywhere, looking for a pseudo-military outlet. The civilians talked a foreign language, and it was newspaper language. I found serious conversation with my parents all but impossible.” He could have stayed safe at home, but he begged the army to send him back to the front, not so he could kill Germans, but so he could be back with the men he felt needed him.
August 19th, 2005 at 8:29 pm
That bit about Robert Graves is fascinating. Not that I have any numbers to back this up, but I’d guess that the majority of soldiers coming back are still very much in favor of the war, but about a year ago I was in a bar talking to a soldier who had just come back from the war. He had some sort of weird temporary paralysis, so they shipped him to Germany and then back to the States. He talked to me about how Saddam had WMDs and how we had to stop him. I didn’t really share my opinions with him at that time, but I can tell you my heart sank when he said that. I really felt bad for him.
At the end of the day, people want answers and they don’t feel like they’re getting them for this administration. I just wish Cindy Sheehan would ask honest questions, instead of the loaded ones she’s been throwing out there.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:37 am
I personally don’t think she needs an explanation as to why her son died. He signed up for the military, and he knew what he was getting into when he enlisted.
Perhaps he did it for the money. Perhaps he did it for school. Perhaps he did it to get away from his crazy mother.
In any case, he knew the risks and accepted them. I feel very sorry that he died, and I do have sympathy for his family.
But his mother is no one special.
August 20th, 2005 at 2:13 am
To say she’s crazy is to defeat the purpose of this site. While, i think she’s being unreasonable, that’s hardly crazy. Don’t throw around ad hominems here.
August 20th, 2005 at 3:20 am
Not sure that matters here. Did Mrs. S. feel differently about Bush and the war before a few months ago? Before the Butler report or the WMD intelligence investigation? Before the Duelfer report? Was she on board for the war until certain revelations?
Was she in favor of toppling Saddam when the intelligence was saying he had, or was bent on getting, the most destructive weapons known to man?
Does she think America is worth a hill of beans in the world in any case, based on our history from long before Dubya was born?
Seems to me she’s answered this for us already.
August 20th, 2005 at 10:09 am
- While, i think she’s being unreasonable, that’s hardly crazy.
No. She’s been far more than just unreasonable. She’s been completely irrational.
Her irrational views and public statements are recorded fact.
Her irrational behavior has alienated her from a significant portion of her family.
Her irrational behavior is demonstrated in her position that her “moral authority” and her views on the war are so absolute and so significant as to justify her demands.
Her irrational behavior is clearly demonstrated by her inability to accept the reason for her son’s death as well as her inability to see that the reason was provided by her son himself.
Her irrational behavior is undoubtedly a factor in her failed marriage. (By contrast, I don’t recall the monumental stressors aimed at Bob and Mary Schindler resulting in their divorce. And they are a much closer analog to Cindy and Patrick Sheehan).
Her irrational behavior is abundantly evident in her expectation to be taken seriously by the President after arriving at his home in a bus marked “Impeachment Tour” and after making statements like “The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush”.
Her irrational behavior is made most clear by her very own words:
http://tinyurl.com/avwer
http://tinyurl.com/dtqu8
http://tinyurl.com/d8s7q
Finally, her irrational behavior is clinically evident in the projection of her own guilt onto the person she has convinced herself is responsible for what, ultimately, she sees as her own failing (”Please – … teach your babies better than I taught my babies.” “George Bush and his band of neo-cons … killed my son.”).
At some point, ‘irrational’ become crazy, and Sheehan is way, WAY beyond that point on multiple levels.
So, which aspect of pointing that out could possibly defeat the purpose of this site? Is the purpose of this site to deal rationally with the hard, sad, cruel facts of reality? Or is its purpose to pander to the ravings and wishful thinking of fringe lunatics driven insane with grief, by wrist-slapping those who call a spade a spade? How is it “ad hominem” to *accurately* characterize someone’s behavior?
The ultimate point here is that Sheehan’s irrational – *crazy* – behavior has provided fodder for an exempt media which continues to amaze even a casual observer with the level of misleading, partisan “reporting” they consistently and relentlessly pursue. She wouldn’t get a second look by any network camera – and certainly no one would be posting anything about her here – if she weren’t spouting the “Bush lied/Israel is Satan/Terrorists are Justified” meme, and lending her face to the absolutely fallacious Appeal to Emotion those networks are using to manipulate public opinion on Iraq.
In the final analysis, this entire affair points up the sad, deceitful desperation of the Bush-bashing exempt media, the BDS-stricken, moonbat left and the unhinged, peace-at-any-cost anti-war zealots (and their collective apologists) who have stooped to the level of exploiting a woman who has arguably been driven demonstrably insane by grief, all in the pursuit of their destructive, anti-American, anti-democratic political agenda.
August 20th, 2005 at 10:49 am
I hope this does not start an major anti-war movement because I think it is very very insincere. This movement is nothing more than a benign attempt to oust Bush, since they could not do it back in November. If Kerry was elected and this stuff continued, I can guarantee no one (except conservatives – maybe) would complain. Also, it is ver selfish and shortsighted. these people only care about themselves and not those we have affected. I want my soldiers home, but can we deal with another killing fields?
August 20th, 2005 at 12:59 pm
I’m speaking more about a trend, with Sheehan (whether she’s part of it or not) as its defacto poster child. She could be in the right place at the right time, where those who bought into the war because of the WMD argument, are now demanding more answers and questioning why the administration seems to be planning to pull out too quickly now. A perfect political storm perhaps? Not sure yet, but it seems to be brewing.
The anti-war movement already started. It started back with Dean, Kerry picked up the meme and now the Sheehan’s of the world are running with it.
I too think her questions are insincere, but I know many who feel they were lied to about Iraq. These are people who FULLY supported our overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan. However, I do know that Sheehan has said she doesn’t agree with us going over to Afghanistan either because she thinks we should be going after “terrorists” instead of countires, which I think is pretty naive.
In short, the anti-war movement needs a better spokesperson, but it may not matter because the media has picked up this story and seems to be running it, especially since Bush is on vacation right now.
And personally, I think the fact that Bush is taking more vacation right now is borderline offensive. He was hardly into his first term when 9/11 happened, but has still taken more vacation time than the last two Democrat presidents combined. I mean, come on…
And with gas prices nailing the working poor and the middle class, I think a president, who on average has taken two monts of vacation every year for the past five years, sends a message to many that he simply doesn’t care. I wish he would reverse this trend in the next three years and show us a leader who is more focused on the priorities of the nation, instead of clearing brush at his ranch.
August 20th, 2005 at 10:47 pm
Goy, we can debate all day whether somebody or not is “crazy”, but unless you can look into somebody’s soul, you can’t tell me either. Numerous politicians, pundits and talk radio hosts have said much worse things than her. Does this make them crazy? Of course not. It makes them partisan.
But again, the comment was guessing Casey Sheehan’s reasons for joining the Armed Forces and how he might have wanted to get away from his “crazy mother”, meaning BEFORE anybody knew who Cindy was.
If you want to defend a statement like that, be my guest.
August 21st, 2005 at 2:25 pm
- Numerous politicians, pundits and talk radio hosts have said much worse things than her. Does this make them crazy?
The answer I’d give you on that should be obvious: it depends upon whether or not their actions and the things they say are as irrational as Sheehan’s, collectively, have been.
As for the ‘crazy mom’ comment, it’s fairly common knowledge that Sheehan herself claimed she’d run over her son with the car to keep him out of the war – long before anyone knew who she was. *THAT* qualifies as crazy.
August 21st, 2005 at 4:14 pm
Again, if you want to keep defending stuff like this, I can’t stop you, but it certainly seems like an exercise in futility.
Goy, please, let’s focus on the broader issues and trends (which this post was about) instead of debating whether or not somebody is sane.
August 21st, 2005 at 8:16 pm
- let’s focus on the broader issues
Perhaps it wasn’t obvious, but that’s exactly what I was doing when I wrote: “In the final analysis, this entire affair points up the sad, deceitful desperation of the Bush-bashing exempt media, the BDS-stricken, moonbat left and the unhinged, peace-at-any-cost anti-war zealots (and their collective apologists) who have stooped to the level of exploiting a woman who has arguably been driven demonstrably insane by grief, all in the pursuit of their destructive, anti-American, anti-democratic political agenda.”
August 21st, 2005 at 8:34 pm
I read that summary, but again, you’re still trying to validate claims that she is insane. And considering that some who are close to me suffer from various mental illnesses, I don’t use the term lightly. I would urge you to not either.
August 22nd, 2005 at 8:37 am
I empathize. I don’t use the term lightly, for the same reasons – and to those reasons you can add several years of direct and indirect involvement with my wife’s pursuit of a doctorate in Psych.
It’s either very naïve or intellectually dishonest to defend Sheehan’s behavior while at the same time labeling as “ad hominem” an observation that accurately describes her utterly irrational behavior. And this is especially true in the context of pretending she’s started some sort of movement.
The only “movement” here is the effort to perpetuate the “Bush lied/Israel is Satan/Terrorists are Justified” myth by playing the utterly fallacious Appeal to Emotion card.
August 22nd, 2005 at 1:04 pm
“I too think her questions are insincere, but I know many who feel they were lied to about Iraq.”
Justin,
Is there any evidence that Bush had intelligence that said that Saddam didn’t have WMD??? Did some big piece of evidence come in between the time that Clinton claimed WMD’s and when Bush claimed the same thing???? If so, I haven’t seen it mentioned anywhere, is there a link to it???? If not, then once again I have to wonder at Democrats thinking that we want to vote them into power when they obviously identifiy with being a Democrat first and an American second….
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:46 pm
goy, you keep going down this road of increasingly polarizing talk. It’s not helping. And please don’t guess MY state of mind to defend your point. Make valid arguments without attacking people or don’t make them.
And debsay, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that Saddam didn’t have the capabilities to produce the weapons, and that his program had been pretty much inactive since weapons inspectors were last there. However, there was also evidence to the contrary, so Bush and company decided to pay attention to that instead and build a case for war. I understand WHY they did it, but when the administration seeds a reporter like Judith Milller with a story about saddam’s nukes, makes sure to have themselves be an “anonymous” source, and then has Cheney go on national tv and point to that NY Times article as more proof that Saddam has WMDs? Well, that doesn’t pass my smell test, debsay.
Is it any wonder, then, that a growing number of people felt that they were misled? Obviously you don’t, but the trend is there. You can either continue to ignore it and accuse Dems of being Unamerican or you can address it and try to understand why it’s happening. Because it certainly isn’t because of Cindy Sheehan.
August 22nd, 2005 at 8:05 pm
- you keep going down this road of increasingly polarizing talk.
How have I done that exactly? How is it “polarizing” to make rational, supportable observations?
- please don’t guess MY state of mind to defend your point.
Well, since you’re not specific here it’s tough to divine your reference, but I’ll try. You wrote that you don’t use the term “insane” lightly, and for specific reasons. I also don’t use the term lightly, and for the same reasons: i.e., I empathize. That’s not a guess. It was based on your own statement.
- Make valid arguments without attacking people or don’t make them.
I’ve already done that, and I haven’t attacked anyone. It’s possible you believe observing and assessing someone’s behavior is an “attack”. And there is certainly a context in which that might be true. This, however, isn’t it, as I’m happy to explain.
If I were arguing with Sheehan’s *position* on an issue, it would be incumbent upon me to make that argument based on facts and not on some ad hominem mischaracterization of her, personally. But the fact is that I am *not* arguing against anything she’s asserted (and BTW, neither was RevDubya). I’m addressing the issue on which you originally posted.
Sheehan’s utterly irrational behavior, and the manner in which that behavior has been mischaracterized, glorified and exploited by the media, are the heart of the point at issue here. They are vitally significant when considering the question of whether or not *she* has started a movement. She hasn’t. She and her son’s death have simply been used to give non-stop voice to the shrill, anti-war rhetoric that couldn’t get any real news coverage without a grieving, Bush-hating mother to parade in front of the American public. I think I’ve made that point pretty clear, supported it with numerous facts and, so far, have yet to see any cogent refutation.
If you honestly believe that’s “polarizing”, I’m just not sure how to respond unless you can describe, specifically, what you mean by that label.
August 22nd, 2005 at 9:46 pm
My point is that you CAN’T prove her state of mind and therefore there is no way to cogentially refute your assertion. And to be frank, I went back and read those posts again just to make sure, and there’s a lot of idiocy there, but nowhere in there is anything which you could use to demonstrate that a person is insane. It’s like Bill Frist looking at the videotape of Terri Schiavo and saying that she could come out of it. Your methodology is inherently flawed starting right out of the gate.
Also, by saying that she’s insane for saying such things, you’re also saying that everybody cheering her is essential insane. Misguided? Yes. Wrong? Yes. Insane? Neither you or I can say, so again, quit trying to diagnose psychological conditions on this blog. It is WRONG.
August 22nd, 2005 at 11:51 pm
- there is no way to cogentially refute your assertion
Sure there is Justin. It’s simple. Just present some evidence to the contrary. But don’t just try to change the subject. We’re not talking about Frist here. In Sheehan’s case we’re talking about a clear, consistent *pattern* of wildly irrational behavior that the list above only samples, and which runs as far back as her threat to RUN HER SON OVER WITH A CAR to keep him from going to Iraq!! If Frist displayed the same clear *pattern* of irrational behavior, exacerbated by a traumatic experience like losing a child, then he would qualify for the same assessment. But given the facts as they currently stand, your comparison is apples to nuts and has no relevance to this discussion.
- by saying that she’s insane for saying such things, you’re also saying that everybody cheering her is essential insane.
No. Not at all. And I’m shocked you would jump to such an unfounded conclusion after lecturing me about guessing your state of mind to defend a point. What I am saying is that those who are cheering her are either (a) doing so based on a perception that reflects the media’s gross mischaracterization of her behavior as rational, which a clear analysis of all the facts shows that she is decidedly not, or (b) simply exploiting her and her son’s death for partisan purposes. It is my opinion that the latter far outweigh the former, and that this is what any “movement” is really all about.
Here’s the point: if you can label Morgan Reynolds “crazy” for questioning the official engineering assessment of the WTC collapse, then Cindy Sheehan MORE than qualifies for that same classification.
And on a side note, did you think this guy was “crazy” also: http://tinyurl.com/cm7fz ?
August 23rd, 2005 at 12:13 am
You not a medical doctor who has sat down with Cindy and taken an assesment of her mental health. There, that’s my evidence. You aren’t qualified to make such judgements, so you’re immediately disqualified from throwing such salvos around. That’s the point.
I’m sorry goy, but she basically said that Bush was the biggest terrorist of them all. In your world, you can determine somebody’s sanity by what anti-war rhetoric they say or seem to agree with. I’m using your methodology, not mine. One can imagine that the same people who would cheer that on are the same who would agree with other statements of hers. This is the slippery slope you’ve created. I’m just sliding down it with you.
August 23rd, 2005 at 7:54 am
“I understand WHY they did it, but when the administration seeds a reporter like Judith Milller with a story about saddam’s nukes, makes sure to have themselves be an “anonymousâ€Â? source, and then has Cheney go on national tv and point to that NY Times article as more proof that Saddam has WMDs?”
Link??? Link to investigative articles covering this would be appreciated… How much evidence did we have that Saddam didn’t have any weapons (before the war) of mass destruction??? When did we obtain it? How reliable was it and where did it come from?
Decisions aren’t made in a vacuum, the information builds on itself, you sift it and see which pile was bigger, which is more credible, etc. EVERYTHING I had heard prior to the war was that Saddam didn’t provide proof of destroying his WMDs, constantly played games with the inspectors, etc. which would lead a reasonable person to believe that he still had them. (We are finding more of his old stock) All I ask is that people deal in reality.
August 23rd, 2005 at 9:16 am
debsay,
Frist off, there was Joseph Wilson’s trip to Niger concerning the yellow cake, which numerous other reports put out after the fact essentially agree with, but now that the story has been tarred and feathered by the right-wing, I don’t think this will hold any water with you.
However, let me point to some commissioned reports that do deal with pre-war intelligence, and how numerious people were openly questioning it. This is a report from the president’s commission on intelligence.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/21/AR2005052100474.html
And then reports like the following seem point the finger at the intelligence community as the responsible party. Still, there was open debate within the community, and that’s important.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39864-2004Jul9.html
Then there’s also the Downing Street Memo, which I personally don’t think is a big deal, but I can certainly see that given it was written in July of 2002 some can see passages like the following and surmise that Bush wasn’t even interested in backing up the WMD claim.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_2,00.html
Will we ever know if Bush truly misled us or not? No, and I’ve advocated we move on. Personally, I don’t think he did. I think he was blinded by his ideology and his duty to protect the American people. However, there is enough circumstancial evidence surrounding this issue that the public has surmised that Bush wasn’t being truthful with them. In fact, in a Gallup poll conducted last month, 51% of the American public feels that they were “deliberately” misled into war, not just misled.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-26-poll-us-not-winning-iraq_x.htm
That’s strinking, and frankly it surprised me. But my above post spoke of a TREND. Whether or not these feelings are valid is up for debate, but the public has more than a few reasons to feel this way, and I think I’ve pointed to enough sources now for you to understand why this could be happening.
August 23rd, 2005 at 12:50 pm
- You aren’t qualified to make such judgements
You just defined “ad hominem”.
And yes, I’m qualified. Or are you saying that no one is allowed to observe someone else’s behavior and characterize it based on what they see? If that’s what you’re asserting, well then I guess we’re back to the question of Morgan Reynolds, aren’t we. ;-)
- In your world, you can determine somebody’s sanity by what anti-war rhetoric they say or seem to agree with.
Absolutely not. Read that again please: Absolutely not. You missed the point entirely, aside from the fact that you seem to be zeroing in on only one of the elements I listed (which sounds vaguely familiar).
If you review what I wrote, you will find that I did *not* take issue with Sheehan’s anti-war *rhetoric*–flawed, incendiary, wholly irrational, polarizing and fallacious though it may be.
What I observed, among numerous other examples, was that AFTER she publicly spewed this endless stream of unhinged, paranoid vitriol aimed directly at the President, and then arrived at his home in a bus marked “Impeachment Tour”, she publicly demanded a second meeting with him, ostensibly to ask him why he killed her son. Come on! That behavior is almost as wildly irrational as threatening to run one’s own son over with a car to keep him from being hurt, and Sheehan has exhibited BOTH!
Ultimately, that aberrant behavior is exactly what’s been mischaracterized as “normative” and “justifiable” by those who are trying to transform her from the sad, traumatized, babbling, grief-stricken soul she is into the anti-war crusader they desperately need.
August 23rd, 2005 at 6:23 pm
Goy, respectfully, this is another one where we’re just going to have to agree to disagree.
If you truly think you can prove somebody is insane by reading some transcripts and watching some media clips, I can’t refute that. I obviously strongly, strongly disagree.
I’ll just leave it up to the court of public opinion now, who has probably left this conversation long ago for more interesting and important matters.
August 24th, 2005 at 8:45 am
Can’t agree to disagree on the definition of “ad hominem”. It’s a pretty well-established concept.
You’re jumping the gun here on the “prove somebody is insane” item. Maybe it’s just that you don’t have the time to read things thoroughly, but at most I have asserted that Sheehan’s behavior is *demonstrably* insane, and cited numerous, documented instances–not opinion–upon which that assertion is based. That’s a far cry from the clinical diagnosis strawman you’re arguing against here. You claim I am not qualified to make an observation. That is a perfect ad hominem, and not worthy of your efforts here.
You keep avoiding this, but you had far less to go on when you labeled Morgan Reynolds “crazy”, my friend, yet the appellation of “crazy” is precisely what you labeled “ad hominem” in *this* scenario. That is a perfect Double Standard, and not worthy of your efforts here.
As for Sheehan’s behavior, I have yet to see anyone present any information indicating that she’s conducted herself rationally or presented a cogent case that merits any serious following whatsoever. In fact, what we’ve seen is the extreme opposite. We just haven’t seen it reflected in the media fanfare designed to turn her into a martyr.
August 24th, 2005 at 10:20 am
I think you’ll note that the tone on the Reynolds piece was decidedly tongue in cheek. And I wasn’t using it to try to actually demonstrate and defend that Reynolds was insane. But fair enough, I was wrong and I’m more than willing to admit that. I never should have attacked the person, just the idea.
However, that doesn’t make your assertions true. It just make my assertions false. But I still think Morgan shows a clear lack of common sense and is out of touch with reality if he thinks that the Twin Towers were an inside job.
As far as me throwing ad hominems at you, well, I’m giving you my opinion about your ability to determine whether or not you can reasonably say that somebody is actually insane. I think certain credentials come along with that ability, and to my knowledge, you don’t have them. If you think that’s an ad hominem, then we’ll again have to agree to disagree.
And by the way, I have addressed some of your points about Sheehan, and I think they show a woman who is terribly conflicted and not being consistent. But insane? Hardly. I’ve heard and seen worse from people who were simply angry with Bush.
I completely agree, and if you go back and read my post, you’ll see that I said something similar to what you’re saying now.
But again, that doesn’t make her insane. It just makes her ignornant. The two things can oftentimes be confused, but while one is simply caused by bad decisions and misinformation, the other is due to a chemical imbalance. I’m saying that you can not tell that she has that chemical imbalance without being her medical doctor. Is this an unreasonable assertion? Is that really an ad hominem?
Please, have your say after this, but I’m not going to answer it because I feel we’ve tried to make our points to the best of our abilities. Let’s move on to another topic.
August 24th, 2005 at 12:39 pm
JUSTIN,
you’re playing typical sollipsists nonsense, and I stopped reading anything you wrote here because I’ve run into this sort of deconstructionist avoidance of anything distasteful from some very intelligent acquaintences. (And Joe Wilson was not slimed by the R/W; he was skewered by his own inconsistent and misleading comments by the Senate Select Committee, see: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_rpt/ssci_iraq.pdf, see page 45)
I’ve found GOY’s posts to be fantastically logical, cogent, pertinent, and far more patient that I could be.
DEBSAY, not that Justin accurately said people “feel misled.” That doesn’t mean they actually were, which in fact they weren’t. But as Swift noted: “it’s pointless to reason someone out of something they were never reasoned into in the first place.”
As far a Sheehan goes, I’ll echo here what Hitch said (since he does it more eloquently that I ever could): she’s a flake and a fraud. While we can sypathize with her loss, she’s not consequential.
But that never stopped the media from making hay before…
August 24th, 2005 at 1:46 pm
- I think you’ll note that the tone on the Reynolds piece was decidedly tongue in cheek.
No, I do not note that at all. Sophomoric, perhaps. But then I’ve seen people accuse Ben Partin of being “crazy” simply because he used facts, chemistry and basic common sense to thoroughly debunk the wildly popular (and official) notion that a low-brissive ANFO explosion could take down 1/3 of a building in Oklahoma City in direct violation of the laws of physics. So I admit I may respond to that sort of differently than most.
The point is that I can entertain the notion that Reynolds is probably wrong while avoiding the urge to label him “crazy” since, to my knowledge, he hasn’t exhibited any *pattern* in this regard. Sheehan is a completely different story.
Either way, “tongue-in-cheeck” or not, labeling Reynolds “crazy” doesn’t square with your reaction to an *identical* comment by RevDubya, which you labeled “ad hominem” and which started this exchange. I’m glad you acknowledge that much.
I submit–again, in the interest of improved communication–that as long as you keep insisting that I’m making a medical diagnosis of Sheehan herself, as opposed to what I’ve actually done, which is to observe and note her wildly irrational *behavior* and the manner in which it’s been exploited by the media, you will succeed in evading my point. That’s not an agreement to disagree, that’s just you arguing against a strawman in place of dealing with the real issue.
I observe that Sheehan *acts* insane. You claim I’m not qualified to make a diagnosis. Impasse. Why? You’re arguing something unrelated to my observation by “attacking” me. How? By noting my lack of formal qualifications to diagnose. But you ignore the fact that I am not making a medical *diagnosis*. I am making layman’s observations and characterizing in the same way you observed and characterized Reynolds–except I’m using Sheehan’s *pattern* of behavior, facts, logic and a fairly extensive layman’s background in psychology, whereas you zeroed in on one single statement.
In closing on this I’ll just mention that there are myriad forms and even varying degrees of insanity, and not all of those are necessarily the result of a “chemical imbalance” (and no, I’m not a Scientologist). Psychiatrists and Psychologists even disagree on this notion. Psychiatrists–medical doctors–see everything in terms of the chemical/physiological; psychologists not so much. And even psychiatrists are rarely honest in this regard. On numerous occasions I have seen, first-hand, a psychiatrist prescribe benzodiazepines and SSRIs like Xanax, Paxil and Effexor with nothing to go on other than second-hand information and a 15 minute superficial consultation with the patient. Exactly zero blood tests were performed in any of these cases–ever–to verify a “chemical imbalance” or to verify that the prescribed drug had any effect on same. This is the rule, not the exception.
There is a range of afflictions that can be caused by serotonin, hormonal and other chemical imbalances. However, other aberrant behavior that is triggered by violent trauma (e.g., the grief at the loss of a parent or a child) and brought on by shock that results in an irrational retreat from reality, is rooted in psychological, not chemical, causes–even though it may be accompanied by chemical changes and “treated” (though not cured) with Xanax and the like. An example of this is Sheehan’s demonstrably insane *behavior* which I have observed and noted here.
Thanks for the discussion.
February 27th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
Do you have an rss feed I can subscribe to?
August 7th, 2006 at 2:19 am
Good job.