The journey from there to here
Published on February 2, 2006 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

Cindy Sheehan's indignance got validity today; validity it DID NOT deserve, when the Capitol police apologized for her removal from Tuesday evening's State of the Union Speech. Ms. Sheehan has spent the intervening time insisting that her first amendment rights were violated and that she would sue the US government (meaning, you and I). She ignores the rather obvious fact that, had the government had a compelling interest in usurping her free speech rights, she would long ago have been shipped off to some American gulag, with little access to the media (a tactic employed, ironically enough, by the Communist Party, which Ms. Sheehan has begun to embrace).

I believe what the authorities did Tuesday night was wholly appropriate, if not a little politically incorrect. I am sick of the pervading mindset that Ms. Sheehan's grief over the loss of her son is a license to act irrationally. More than 2,000 other American families share Ms. Sheehan's plight, and THEIR grief is equally valid. Ms. Sheehan, while having the right to speak her mind (a right that has NEVER been undermined by the US government, as evidenced by the sickening mountain of media attention she has gotten while other, more worthy stories linger), does NOT have unlimited authority to do whatever she pleases. It is important to note that she was INVITED to the state of the union speech by a US Congresswoman, and that her actions reflected quite negatively on the Congresswoman (while I tend to believe that the Congresswoman in question knew of Ms. Sheehan's plans, she insists she did not, and the benefit of the doubt is, I feel, owed to her at this time).

Do we REALLY want to bring this element into the House gallery for the State of the Union speech? Would we REALLY have this speech take a backseat to the various political causes individuals would advertise in their attendance if they had the opportunity, or should a certain amount of decorum remain within our government? Is it really in the best interests of democracy to have this event degenerate into little more than a Rolling Stones concerts, with banners hung from the balcony railings, beach balls shuttles throughout the audience and the occasional crowd surfer? If we're going to go that far, we might as well invite the beer vendors in. Heck, just splitting the revenue with them might help balance the budget.

Ms. Sheehan's actions Tuesday night were shameful. While I have sympathy for her as a grieving mother, my support for her eroded long ago. And my sympathy is confined to believing we should give her access to the inpatient mental health treatment this self destructive individual appears to need.


Comments
on Feb 02, 2006
I think she is more upset that she was ousted before she could make a scene than with any rights infringement.
on Feb 02, 2006
To some immature oafs, "freedom of speech" seems to mean they should be able to do or say anything they want, any time they want, when where they want, simply because they want to. The hypocritical thing about her is, she expects everyone to bow down and listen to her rantings, but doesn't think anyone else should have the right to speak out against her.

to paraphrase a line from the film "Flightplan" comes to mind. Now I can see why Casey would rather face the bacteria's RPGs than stay home with his mom.
on Feb 02, 2006

To some immature oafs, "freedom of speech" seems to mean they should be able to do or say anything they want, any time they want, when where they want, simply because they want to. The hypocritical thing about her is, she expects everyone to bow down and listen to her rantings, but doesn't think anyone else should have the right to speak out against her.


Does this mean that I would be denying her right to freedom of speech if I stopped her from speaking inside my own house, according to how she acts?
on Feb 02, 2006
She got what she wanted. More press, and free advertising for her book.