A Predictable Response to the Op-Ed
We have a letter to the editor in response to my op-ed on the L.A. Times‘s coverage of Cindy Sheehan. It is so predictable I could have written it myself. I’ll bold the parts that jumped out at me:
Patrick Frey’s misguided efforts to vilify Cindy Sheehan (“Peacenik paper fawns over antiwar mom,” Current, Aug. 21) are about as far off the mark as Michael Ramirez’s grotesque aberration (editorial cartoon, Opinion, Aug. 20) depicting Sheehan as a political dupe. Neither quite understands that though Casey Sheehan marched off to battle voluntarily, and volunteered willingly for a dangerous mission, and although Cindy Sheehan may have attempted to accept this administration’s initial justification for this war, she — like millions of Americans — has seen through the deception. She no longer accepts the ever-changing excuses for remaining in a deceptively justified and mismanaged war that costs innocent lives. Frey and Ramirez should forget about impugning her integrity and ask the hard questions of President Bush.
MICHAEL CHILDERS
Westminster
Two things, Michael Childers from Westminster:
1) My piece was not an effort to “vilify Cindy Sheehan” or “impugn[] her integrity” but to criticize the L.A. Times‘s coverage of her. To back up my charge that The Times has left out significant information about Sheehan, I had to specify what that information was. To claim that I tried to “vilify” her is to misread my piece, and effectively set up Ms. Sheehan as a figure immune from any negative press. This is exactly the attitude I was arguing against.
2) Rather than accusing others of not quite understanding the Sheehan story, Mr. Childers, perhaps you should read up on it a little more, since you obviously don’t quite understand it yourself. There is no reason to believe that Sheehan ever “attempted to accept” any justification for this war. She has been against it from day one. Didn’t you know that? (And if you did, then why are you pretending otherwise?)
I see no convincing evidence that the president has deliberately tried to deceive me, Mr. Childers — but I see plenty of evidence that our media tries to deceive the citizenry. Do you not care about that?
I suggest reading a news outlet other than the L.A. Times. It might clear up your thinking and leave you better informed.
P.S. You didn’t even give me a new quote for my upcoming testimonials feature.
Ouch.
That one is going to leave a mark…
Glenn (3b59fc) — 8/23/2005 @ 10:07 amIndeed. It is hard to have reasonable discussion when people argue about what they claim you said, instead of listening to what you do say.
To quote the old professor from “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe”, “What do they teach in school these days?”
MD in Philly (b3202e) — 8/23/2005 @ 10:14 amPatterico,
May I suggest keeping track of all of the responses to your op-ed and count them according to the following (suggested) categories:
1. No evidence of having read the editorial. (The above qualifies).
2. Evidence of having read the article,
a. but responds in tangential way
b. and responds but with inaccurate claims
c. responds with reasonable claims, even though disagrees
d. responds with rational agreement
3. Too hateful to read through.
It would be interesting information to refer to.
MD in Philly (b3202e) — 8/23/2005 @ 10:31 amIve just discovered your blog, and it looks like it’s the five-billionth right wing bullshit blog this week.
Another example of wasted 1 and zeros!
James Reitano
[Glad you enjoyed it. Sounds like you spend too much time visiting blogs you don’t like, and not enough even trying to make a single valid point. Thanks for stopping by, and especially for the pointless comment. — P]
James Reitano (5f4cdf) — 8/23/2005 @ 1:41 pmLooks like James has a bit too much time on his hands.
MOG (491072) — 8/23/2005 @ 3:02 pmNews Flash for Michael Childers:
The War is over. We won!
The Sunnis who lost power are using terror, violence, and barbarism to try to regain their former dominance. In the process, they are killing many thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children.
Sunnis and their allies, are also killing our brave troops, the Peace Keepers and rebuilders of Iraq. It is shameful our media refuses to stand with our soldiers against the murdering thugs opposed to representative government. Instead, the MSM sides with the anyone and everyone opposed to human rights and self determination, to their everlasting shame.
I will never buy another “newspaper” again as long as I live, and once I was a paperboy and proudly delivered my papers, but never again. Let dead tree journalism die the death it has earned and so richly deserves. I’ll not look back.
Black Jack (ee3eb6) — 8/23/2005 @ 3:02 pmPatrick,
The thing that caught my eye was the word, “misguided”. You see, if you were just programmed properly, this would all be clear. Ask Charlie.
I learned from that you go awry when you start doing that “thinking thing” for yourself. I feel that’s your problem or maybe you are reading too much of that government propaganda, you know, like the Kay report. (and BTW, Kay spelled backwards is Yak which is a furry animal that lives in Asia which is part of Vietnam which has rubber plantations which is used for trucks which use OIL). I don’t know how to explain this to you any clearer. Why can’t you just see the root causes of the government coverup?
Oh yeah, congratulations on being accepted as part of the capitalist establishment.
Paul Deignan (664c74) — 8/23/2005 @ 3:32 pmAnother blogger hits the Big Time.
[what? The *L.A.* Times?!? oh.]
Never mind. Well written article, anyway.
Claire (222d9a) — 8/23/2005 @ 6:52 pmThank you Paul for the enlightenment. How does the song “Yakety-Yak” fit in????
MD in Philly (b3202e) — 8/23/2005 @ 8:13 pmMD,
I’m only 1/2 way through the complete Chomsky guide so far and haven’t found it, but I’m sure its in one of the footnotes–probably something to do with the House of Saud and Uzbekistan.
Paul Deignan (664c74) — 8/23/2005 @ 8:30 pmHere is a suggestion for the next Iraq related topic:
Now that it is clear that Iraq is not on the road to establishing a democracy as we understand the term (equal rights, religious freedom, etc.), the President is exceeding his authority under the Iraq War resolution in continuing to maintain troops in an area where hostilities are expected.
It seems clear that the other conditions of the resolution are already satisfied.
Paul Deignan (664c74) — 8/24/2005 @ 4:52 amAnd how about coverage of the 2002 Congressional authorization of force? See the New Sisyphus for a review of the details and the included declarations of 1998!
jeff (d14bb1) — 8/24/2005 @ 6:12 amHey, Patterico:
Maybe I’m an idiot (okay, I probably am an idiot) but I can’t see your email address anywhere on your page. I was gonna just email this to you, but I guess now I have to put it in public for all to see.
As a blogger who’s following the Sheehan kerfuffle, you may be interested in her latest diatribe on MichaelMoore.com, and my lengthy response to it. If you approve of the latter, a link would be much appreciated 🙂
Voice of Reason (a8b058) — 8/24/2005 @ 10:26 amPaul,
After you gave me a well-appreciated belly laugh yesterday you bummed me out with the Iraqi Constitution update. At the moment I’m hoping that those who say it is very like the Afghanistan Constitution are correct, and that the implimentation rings true.
As i understand it:
You can’t make laws that oppose clear consensus beliefs of Islam.
You can’t make laws that violate human rights.
I’m not sure how that all works out, but i have not heard too much screamimg about how terrible the Afghani Constitution is.
The Chomsky guide…..hmmmm. I’ve heard if you look at certain pages in a specific order you drop into the Afghani gas pipeline (just like one of those Mario brothers) and pop out in either Crawford, Michael Moore’s backyard, or…. I dare not even write it. Be careful, be verryyy careful.
MD in Philly (b3202e) — 8/24/2005 @ 12:27 pmWell, it is like the Afghani constitution, but not at all like the Turkish constitution.
I’m afraid that this is a very serious problem. Note that there are strong interests involved that wish that Iraq be an Islamic state.
The “clear consensus” or “undisputed” qualifier is absent on some translations of the draft. Of course, the meaning of democracy and human rights is also interpretable. Certainly the Iraqi conception of human rights is not the same as ours. Note also that this is a very fuzzy and unenforceable term. Consider it equivalent to propaganda (like the right to full employment).
Where there is propaganda of this sort, there is usually something to wash over. It is Sharia being codified.
Remember, we did not go to Afghanistan to institute a democracy. We went there to get Al Qaeda and kick out the Taliban. On the other hand, one of the explict reasons for Iraq was to promote democracy (it is in the war resolution). It is perhaps the only reason authorized for us to be there still.
On Chomsky, if you read the footnotes by the Fibbonnachi series (an Italian who was a member of the secret society of pizza eaters), it clearly spells out the global plan of the Catholic fish oil cabal to poison the US water supply with flourine (the symbol of which is FL which as you know is where Bush stole the election). Got this one from Charlie too. Since I’m too lazy to read small type, I’m just taking his word for it.
Paul Deignan (664c74) — 8/24/2005 @ 1:19 pmPaul,
Thank you for your thoughts. I hope I made it clear I was not so much disagreeing with you as tossing an optimistic hat into the ring.
I must really be out of the loop. I didn’t even know there were any Catholic fish, let alone that they had an oil cabal.
I do have a really puzzled look on my face, reminiscent of Satchel Dog having been befuddled by Bucky Cat, as I also missed when somebody changed the symbol of flourine from F to FL. I bet some “L”iberal did it.
MD in Philly (b3202e) — 8/24/2005 @ 5:03 pmDetails, details.
Never let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
While the Iraqis are absolutely free to make whatever mistakes they like in forming their government, I don’t think we could maintain (or should) popular support for the reconstruction under the current language of the constitution. The administration defense seems to be that those clerics don’t mean what they clearly say.
I hate to be played the fool. I’m guessing others do as well. Trust but verify.
Paul Deignan (664c74) — 8/24/2005 @ 6:58 pm