Yeah, sorry I have to call bullshit on Esperanto as well, and a little bullshit on Nick. Now I don’t know exactly why Esperanto was protesting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but my best reason for doing so is exactly Cindy Sheehan’s plight. So to read that Esperanto believes that Sheehan’s son was expected to die for unworthy as a "fact of life," it is immediately apparent that this is the very reason Sheehan is legitimated. Yes her son did volunteer for the armed forces, to defend the country, not to act as a mercenary force to defend the country’s multinational corporate interests. The armed forces should exist only to keep the citizens safe from outside aggressors. And that the link between what happened on 9-11 and Al-Qaeda, and what is happening in Iraq and with Saddam is so tenuous (still no evidence of WMDs), only galvanizes this as more than a shitty fact of life, it is a premeditated unjust attack on a horrible foreign regime that intended us no discernable outward harm, at least no more than 15 years ago when all of this happened the first time.
Esperanto doesn’t want to field the racist/classist argument:
And spare me the argument that some, even most, people enlist because they’re poor, the army pays for college, etc etc. I agree that it’s true, but it has nothing to do with this.
Fine, how about this one: So Sheehan’s son was a hero for volunteering to dies for his country, but he was also a sucker (as are for trusting that country to not recklessly endanger his life for an unworthy cause. Bush as the Commander-in-Chief of that military is a criminal for wasting Sheehan’s sacrifice on economic interests masked by thinly-veiled and poorly-supported political ends.
Word.
People die for their country to prevent another Rape of Nan King or another Holocaust, not to keep their SUV’s running. We are serving the paradigm of economics, a tool invented to help us survive, instead of it serving us. Now people are dead because of it. That is injustice.
Esperanto’s argument for Cindy’s position as a protestor is bullshit. Unlike Esperanto who got an empowered feeling, all warm and fuzzy marching on Washington, Cindy is compelled by grief, caused by the injustice of her nation to drop her life and camp out on Texas lawns. She dies every time she has to explain her protest - just look at her face - her humanity is bleeding all over it. She’s not the jury, she’s the judge, as is every citizen of this damn country from whom the government derives it’s power. Maybe Cindy has theatrics going on, but only to combat Bush’s. So for Esperanto to say that he "wouldn’t deny Cindy Sheehan an ounce of her grief," to chastise her for not keeping silent her grief is to do just that.
This is where I call bullshit on Nick: Cindy was invited by a Californian Congresswoman to attend the SOTU, she had a legitimate right to be there. Just has did all the other people present. So here’s where Nick and all those who use this argument fall short:
People were assembled to listen to the speech of the President. It was a closed, invitation-only assembly with rules to restrict anything that the organizers considered a disruption. They could have limited the event to government employees if they so chose.
But the government employees made more fuss than Cindy ever could. The entire Democratic side applauded their own efforts against "saving social security" during the speech. They interrupted, for a political demonstration. And somehow they had the right to do so. The president even became noticeably flustered and defensive. How about the shot of Hillary shaking her head when Bush brings up the wiretaps? That was a protest. Certainly the organizers saw that as a disruption? Hillary had the right to that camera time, not just as a congresswoman, but as a citizen. If Bush can make a Lenny Scutnik out of Daniel Clay and his family, why can’t Cindy Sheehan be a Lenny Scutnik too?
She can. The Constitution says that from time to time the president will address Congress on the State of the Union, and from Thomas Jefferson to Woodrow Wilson - note, most of presidential history - the SOTU was delivered in the form of a letter, not a speech. When addressing Congress directly, not only does the president not have a Constitutional right to have all the attention (I think his position in the room and the many microphones gives him enough advantage), but he also has to factor in the presence of the congress, part of which may not like him. Hell, you want to get down to it, all 58 standing ovations were disruptions, but Bush wasn’t complaining. And those standing ovations a whole side of the room didn’t take part in were disruptions of the disruptions as well, protests even by our duly-elected congress people.
If our Congress had any real life in it, they would do as British Parliament do and constantly vocalize their protests and their support, at all times. Just watch the BBC soemtime when Parliament is in session - Tony Blair has to dodge more shit than I thought a room full of people could produce.
Most of the metaphors Nick and Esperanto use are ridiculous. This isn’t a damn movie theater, if it were, everyone would have been ejected after the second standing ovation. This wasn’t a private business, this was the Capitol building. Permit to protest be damned Cindy had a right to wear whatever shirt she wanted, As the Constitution says as much about the extents of the freedom of expression on Govt. property as it does about the SOTU having to be delivered in the form of a speech.
Besides, contrary to what Nick says you actually can shout anything in a theater. You do stand to be ejected from the theater, but if Fire or Bomb is what you shout then you stand to be arrested. So there is a distinction. The Police acted as though Cindy shouted "fire" or "bomb" and I’m convinced it’s not because of the shirt at all, it’s because she is a fire, she is a bomb, and her cause is more righteous than anything I’ve ever seen. I would have liked to see her go off.
She had the right.
This has been Andy D
whereIstand Tags