The Nail that Sticks Up...

Okay, so at the risk of sounding like one of those academic jerks that doesn't watch television, I'll admit that... I don't watch television. I'm sorry. I know. If it helps, I surf the web and listen to pop music...

So, I think I'm missing something about Cindy Sheehan. Okay, so her son was killed in Iraq and she is protesting the Iraq war in Crawford Texas, right? Seems like she's got the right to. You know, after all, it's still America. Freedom of speech, etc. etc. Also, since her son apparently died quite heroically in battle, you would think the apparatchik attack machine wouldn't go after her.

And that's what I don't get. The administration decided to flip the bird at the UN, most of Europe and a good portion of the country. There have already been massive protests against the war, most of which the administration has sort of glanced at, shrugged their shoulders and said, "Whatever." So, why does everyone suddenly care about Cindy Sheehan? Isn't the whole deal that conservatives (and no, I hate the word "neo-con") are sick to death of the whole "listening to other people" bullshit and just really ready to "let 'er rip"? So, why don't they just ignore her? What difference could she possibly make now?

I mean, listening to their complaints makes your head spin. Matt Drudge thinks that she can't legitimately oppose the war because she's a flip-flopper- she used to support the war and then she let a little thing like her son's death change her mind. Where exactly are we in our history when the most serious insult in our culture is that someone has changed their mind? Am I seriously supposed to think this woman is Satan incarnate because she has (dum-da-dum!) changed her mind? What kind of totalitarian mindset comes up with something like that?

Michelle Malkin claims that she's wrong to oppose the war because her dead son wouldn't have wanted her to. No, really. You might think she'd know her own son better than some pedant who writes for newspapers. But, alas...

Frontpage Magazine apparently thinks she's a bitch because she didn't really change her mind. No, they claim she's always been opposed to the war. And how exactly does that forbid her from opposing it now? I mean, who could honestly oppose the war and not be called a "Commie-pinko-devil-worshipping faggot" by these people? You can't oppose it if you once supported it, but it's totally illegitimate to oppose it if you also opposed it before your son died?

Let's be honest, is there anyone in the world who could possibly say that they're unhappy with or opposed to the Iraq war and have Republicans respond, "Well, Sir, I can accept that"? Is there anyway that that could ever be an acceptable opinion for right-wingers?

I mean, I think she's dead wrong that we could leave Iraq if we really wanted to, and I have real issues with her claiming that we're really fighting for Israel, which is a classic idiocy. And, let me say that the President himself has handled the matter as best he could. But, as for the bloggers and columnists radio hosts and attackers... have these people no dignity? Her son died!

You know what these attack-dogs remind me of, in a really eerie way? They remind me of those Soviets who use to attack their own most vehemently for deviating from the party line. There's a real sense that these people are fighting what they see as "thought-crimes" and I'm not totally surprised to see so many "reformed ex-reds" going down these familiar roads. The nail that sticks up gets hammered down, eh comrades?